Westminster Hall Sitting of 26 March 2003

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Shipbuilding Industry
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Phil Woolas.]
9.30 am
Mr. John Burnett: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair for such an important debate. When I applied for the debate, I did not expect that, only yesterday, 100 employees of Appledore shipbuilders in my constituency would have received 30 days' notice of redundancy. It is a dreadful irony, and I shall return later to the predicament of that important and excellent shipyard.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) in his place. He is a member of the all-party shipbuilding and ship repair group, and I know that he is a great supporter of the industry. I am delighted also that a number of other Members are here and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they catch your eye.
It is often said that the shipbuilding industry goes from feast to famine. We are now in the famine phase; indeed, we have been in that phase for a considerable time. However, even when world market conditions improve, Britain's shipbuilding industry must constantly endeavour to overcome unfair competitive practices. Those practices includes the huge steel subsidies given in certain countries, and other compensation arrangements; for example, two companies in an overseas country that have a mutual agreement to depress prices for services or materials, with the state often surreptitiously picking up the tab. In addition, certain advantageous loan and guarantee arrangements available within the European Union do not seem to be available in this country.
Those anti-competitive arrangements have been referred to in previous debates on shipbuilding. However, that does not mean that they should not get a good airing today. Indeed, the difficult predicament of Appledore shipbuilders, and of other non-Ministry of Defence shipyards, is certainly down to those factors.
I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has joined us. He is secretary of the all-party shipbuilding and ship repair group. I am keen to put on record my gratitude for his work for the group and, more important, for the industry.
As hon. Members will know, an agreement was reached in 1994 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against threats by the United States to penalise subsidised shipping that entered US ports. The object of the agreement was to eliminate all subsidies, including contract aid and anti-dumping procedures. The agreement should have come into force in January 1996, but it has not; ironically, because of delays in ratification by the US, the country that precipitated the negotiations.
72WH
In December 2002, the OECD announced that the world's principal shipbuilding economies had launched negotiations on ways to counter over-capacity and plunging prices in the world shipbuilding industry. A special negotiating group was set up, with the participation, on an equal footing with OECD members, of numerous non-OECD economies; namely Brazil, China, Croatia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Chinese Taipei, and Ukraine, all countries with large shipbuilding capacities. Part of the group's remit was to establish normal competitive conditions in shipbuilding.
We are informed that the special negotiating group hopes to conclude its work by 2005, but many are sceptical about whether that time limit will be met. In the meantime, that world industry—for that is what it is—will be bedevilled in any event by other market-distorting factors, such as various Government support measures and transfer pricing, all of which distort normal competition conditions in the world shipbuilding industry.
It has often been said that Korea operates an unfair pricing system. I suspect that one of the reasons why Korea is singled out is because, by 2000, it had achieved 40 per cent. of the world market compared with only 29 per cent. in 1997. I remind the House that the EU and Norway had a market share of 16 per cent. in 2000, as against 18 per cent. in 1997.
Many hon. Members believe that Korea has won orders by pricing orders below production costs, and is able to do so by recycling funds received in aid and money from the International Monetary Fund. Not surprisingly, the Koreans emphatically deny that allegation. The EU is prosecuting an anti-subsidy case against Korea through the World Trade Organisation. The dispute settlement procedures will take much time to be resolved and, during that time, yet more damage will have been done to our industry.
Unfortunately, Korea is not alone. Early last year, Appledore was competing for a Government contract to build a heavy load barge. The idea, which came from the Department for Transport, is excellent. A large barge would be constructed to carry heavy loads—especially heavy transport vehicles such as cranes—by sea rather than on the roads. That would be in the interests of the environment and road users. Unfortunately, Appledore could not compete against a bid from the Dutch company, Damon. We have now discovered that the entire ship fabrication work for that barge is being done overseas; I believe in Ukraine.
I know from discussions with Appledore and others that certain countries of the former Soviet Union offer huge subsidies in steel. We understand that they are buying steel for shipbuilding for less than a quarter of the world price. When Appledore's management telephoned the appropriate authorities in Ukraine, it was told that it could not buy steel at that price. No shipyard can compete against that level of subsidy.
Many hon. Members may be surprised that a British shipyard should be short of work, given that the Government announced in July 2000 the largest programme of new warship construction since the second world war. Unfortunately, Appledore and a number of smaller shipyards were not included as prime

73WH
contractors in respect of any of those orders. Appledore tendered for the two alternative landing ships logistic—ALSLs—that the Government were minded to order.
On 26 October 2000, the Government announced that the successful bidder was Swan Hunter shipbuilders; good for them. However, we were amazed to find that a further two ALSLs had been ordered without a tender process and that they were to be built at the Govan shipyard, using Swan Hunter's design. To have the opportunity to build only one of those vessels would have been a massive boost for the Appledore yard, and for the local economy of north Devon. Additional jobs would have been created, the yard would have been extended and we would then have been able to compete in the market for medium-sized vessels.
Appledore went on to tender as prime contractor for some offshore patrol vessels. Just before tenders closed, the Ministry of Defence, through its intermediaries, informed us that a condition was to be imposed that Appledore had to be willing to buy back the ships after five years. That was a body blow for the shipyard, imposing an outrageous burden at the last minute. No responsible management in a medium-sized independent shipyard could possibly accede to that condition.
I come now to the future, which, unfortunately, is pretty grim. However, a Plymouth-based company, Sea Wind International, is seeking to place an order with Appledore for an offshore construction vessel, which is needed to construct offshore windmills. That is exactly what the Department of Trade and Industry said it wanted in its recent energy White Paper, and there are significant Government inducements for wind farm operators. Let us hope that the British industry has the opportunity to become involved in those important projects.
Sea Wind International will invest a substantial amount of its own money in the cost of producing the vessel. Obviously, it will have to borrow some, and banks, as usual, are seeking guarantees in respect of their loans for the vessel. I believe that such guarantees are available in other European Union countries, and we look to the Government for a loan guarantee. The offshore construction vessel will provide one-and-a-half years' work for the yard and will, in due course, be employed doing just the sort of work that the Government are exhorting the renewable energy industry to take on. That investment will sustain the shipyard and create a further 140 new jobs in Plymouth.
I should put on record that the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions has seen me and the managing director of Appledore shipbuilders on several occasions. He has also seen Jim Wilson, the excellent managing director of Appledore, and representatives of Sea Wind International. He has informed us that he is anxious to help, and we shall see him again next week. I must impress on the Minister that time is of the essence. At Appledore, we have the last significant commercial shipyard left in England. It has an enviable record that is second to none. It is a company of not only vital local importance but national importance. It has a consistent record of building ships of the highest quality to a fixed price and to a fixed time.
74WH
In that respect, I should also mention that we had a subcontract to build HMS Scott, the arctic survey vessel, which was built in 1995 and has been at sea almost continuously since she was launched. When the current Secretary of State for Defence had an opportunity to scrutinise the contractual arrangements and to see exactly what Appledore had done in the process, he was moved to say that its work was exemplary and that he wished he could say the same about other Ministry of Defence contracts. As I said, that is an outstanding vessel, built on time at a fixed priced. The company has an outstanding work force and an innovative apprenticeship scheme. It and the region deserve the support that we seek.
9.44 am
Mr. Alan Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and, at the outset, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing the debate and very much regret, as he does, the loss of jobs in his area. I also want to associate myself with his comments about unfair practices and subsidies in other countries. Those points will definitely be understood and supported on Tyneside.
I want to limit my contribution today to the state of shipbuilding on Tyneside. We have a proud tradition of shipbuilding, and it will not have gone unnoticed to Tynesiders that the Sir Galahad is awaiting clearance to go into the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr to bring much-needed humanitarian aid to the people of that area. That ship was built at Swan Hunter, and we wish her and her crew a safe return.
Almost exactly three years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate in this Chamber on shipbuilding in Tyneside, against the background of a crisis in the industry. We had marched through Newcastle and London to draw attention to the problems of shipbuilding and offshore construction, but I am pleased to say that, three years on, considerable progress has been made with regard to shipbuilding on Tyneside.
As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon has already said, Swan Hunter was able to secure the contracts for two landing ships, which will soon be completed and launched; the first ships built on the Tyne since 1995. At about the same time, the topside of the Bonga project, a floating production storage and offloading vessel—FPSO—will be completed by AMEC on time and to price, like Shearwater three years ago. In two years' time, we very much hope that, at Swan Hunter and other yards across the region, we shall begin to construct a major part of the two aircraft carriers that were recently ordered.
The transformation of the shipbuilding industry in the region is a tribute to the superb work force and to forward-looking companies such as Swan Hunter and AMEC. It is also a tribute to the decisions taken by the Government to put work into the region in the form of MOD contacts and actively to support AMEC in its attempts to win the Bonga project. It is also due to the difficult decisions taken by the Government after 1997 to create a stable economic framework. Although I acknowledge difficulties with the exchange rate, the manufacturing industry in general benefits from low

75WH
interest rates and low inflation, which allow us to move away from the damaging situation of previous decades when wage rises and wage demands priced us out of the market. That means that United Kingdom companies can now compete for and win work from abroad, although it is still difficult.
The success and revival of shipbuilding on Tyneside is also a tribute to an attitude in the region of not waiting for MOD work, important though it is, but of actively seeking commercial work to ensure that yards are consistently full and not lurching, as the hon. Gentleman said, "from feast to famine." We are seeing a new way of working at Swan Hunter, which is at the centre of a cluster of small and medium-sized companies in the supply chain that, together, are trying to find ways of working efficiently and innovatively. It is no coincidence that the owners and many of the senior managers of Swan Hunter are Dutch, because I understand that cluster working is the norm in certain parts of the continent. We have imported that lesson, which is standing us in good stead.
I understand also that cluster working goes down well with the Ministry of Defence, which wants to ensure that the benefits of contracts do not go just to the prime contractors, but to the supply chain companies.
As I said, the landing ships that will be completed this year will be the first ships built and launched on the River Tyne since 1995, but the aircraft carrier orders announced in January will take us into a new dimension. Two of the vessels are three times the length of the pitch at St. James's park, and one can imagine the number of man hours required to construct even part of such a vessel. About 1,000 jobs will be either created or safeguarded on Tyneside, and a similar number created on Teesside, over a 10-year period in an industry that is used to lurching from one short contract to another. It is an excellent example of public expenditure, because it will provide not only the best kit for our armed forces, but jobs in UK shipyards. I am sure that the work force and companies will look to future Governments of whatever political persuasion to ensure that such contracts continue to be placed and persevered with.
The prospect of carrier work has been a huge psychological as well as economic boost for the region. I must also say that it stands in stark contrast to how Swan Hunter was treated in 1995 by the then Government. It is also important to recognise the important contribution of the north-east maritime and offshore cluster, which is a strategic cluster bringing together companies, agencies and trade unions in the region. I include in that the important work of the One NorthEast regional development agency, and I want to put on record my thanks for the work of Kevin Curran, the GMB regional secretary. He has been instrumental not only in bringing the cluster together, but ensuring that work comes into our region.
The cluster examines strategic issues such as training and the possibility of creating a core work force in an industry that has been plagued by short-termism, and is going out of its way to challenge the culture that existed a decade ago that shipbuilding was dead. We should not underestimate the difficulties that shipbuilding in the region still faces, but it is infinitely better placed now than it was three years ago when I secured my Adjournment debate.
76WH
I have three points for the Minister, the first of which concerns the work force. A work force still exists on Tyneside, although it may be scattered to the four winds with people doing other jobs outside the industry. Despite the apprentices who have been brought in, the average age of the work force on Tyneside is still in the high 40s, and there will be a point, perhaps during the lifetime of the carrier work, when many of those people will leave the industry. I want the assurance that the Government acknowledge the extent of the problem and are committed not only to bringing people back into the industry—former workers want to return from being taxi drivers, for example, to the industry in which they trained—but to investing resources to bring new people into the industry and convince them that they have a future, as I believe they do.
My second point is about procurement issues, which I know are ongoing. Will the Government ensure that a ship that they order that can in any way be described as a military vessel is so described? That will mean that the work is placed in UK shipyards and not abroad, as happened after our mistake with the roll-on/roll-off ferries. In procurement, will the Government also examine the proposition that best value in shipbuilding does not always mean the cheapest? Tyneside credits itself on quality and reliability, and that should be built into the equation.
My third and final point is that when the Government are in a position to place or influence the placing of large contracts, they should consider the lasting benefits to the region. As hon. Members will know, a planning gain factor exists in development matters, and I believe that the Government could consider something similar. For example, they could ensure that when a large contract is awarded, part of the contract finds its way into investment by the company into higher and further education. We will need project managers as well as engineers in the future, and it is clear from the work of the clusters that higher education is the way forward for shipbuilding. We must concentrate on the value-added projects, which is where the real wealth is found. In doing that, we will ensure that the high-scale, value-added projects that are available offer a future for shipbuilding and that shipbuilding is not an industry of the past, but part of the new economy.
9.56 am
Mr. Mark Hoban: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I congratulate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I would be remiss in my duties were I not to remind the House that when it was decided to have parallel sittings in Westminster Hall, it was agreed that the occupant of the Chair should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Hoban: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing this debate. His comments on the feast and famine in the shipbuilding industry were well made, and I will return to that point later. I also echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell). As a native of the north-east, I understand the concerns that he raised about the shipbuilding industry. He also made a valid

77WH
point about the skills that must be developed to meet the needs imposed on shipyards in securing contracts and the new aircraft carrier programme. That is another point to which I want to refer later.
In south-east Hampshire, the shipbuilding industry is an important local employer that spreads far and wide along the south Hampshire urban area. Although the Vosper Thornycroft shipyard is due to move from Southampton to Portsmouth in the near future, many people employed in that yard live in constituencies up and down the M27. Vosper is a major local employer, employing 1,000 people in its shipbuilding operations, and it is investing £50 million in the new yard in Portsmouth. Part of the Type 45 destroyer, the contract for which was announced last year by the Government, will be built there.
The next opportunity for Vosper Thornycroft is the future aircraft carrier programme, and like other shipyards, it hopes to win a decent share of the contract. Everyone was grateful for the Secretary of State's reassurance on 30 January that the work on the carriers would be split between four yards; Swan Hunter on Tyneside, BAE Systems Marine at Govan, Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth and Babcock BES at Rosyth. In that statement, he went on to touch on the crux of the issue affecting all those yards:
"The precise arrangements will be the subject of discussions between the alliance and the yards, to determine the best value for money and work load capacity."—[Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1028.]
That concerns me, and one aspect highlighted by the hon. Member for Tynemouth was the need to develop skills to meet those needs.
Vosper Thornycroft believes that it may have to employ an additional 1,000 people, which will double its shipbuilding work force. Many of those recruits will not have the necessary skills to complete the work on time and to budget, so it is important for all the yards concerned to have some certainty about the work that will be allocated to them as soon as possible. That certainty has been affected by the way in which the Government have decided to involve both Thales and BAE Systems in the deal. Before that arrangement, all the yards had a fairly clear idea of the proportion of the contract that they would obtain if their preferred lead bidder won the contract.
The arrangements set out in the Secretary of State's statement of 30 January have led to a great deal of uncertainty in those yards over what work they will have and what skills they will need to develop in their staff. Vosper Thornycroft has developed a programme called "Skills for Life", which will meet the needs of the work force that it must recruit and the specification laid down by the Ministry of Defence.
The other aspect of the "Skills for Life" programme is to enable employees at the end of the carrier contract to be used elsewhere in the yard, in the neighbouring yard—the Fleet Support Ltd. ship maintenance facility in Portsmouth—or elsewhere in the local economy. Clearly, the optimum solution for many of the yards involved would be to move away from feast or famine. A levelling of the work load would assist not only the employers but the employees, as well as local suppliers.
78WH
As with the maritime cluster in the north-east, the South East England Development Agency, SEEDA, is looking to develop a cluster of suppliers, which will be required to invest in extra capacity and skills in their work forces. A greater degree of certainty in the stream of orders will advantage the prime contractors, the shipbuilders and their suppliers.
It would be useful if the Minister could address today when we will get certainty over the placing of the orders and whether we can sort out the peaks and troughs. If he cannot answer those questions today, will he take them back to the MOD, which is in the lead on those issues?
We have seen in the past few days that our naval capacity is fundamental to the deployment of troops and our armed forces overseas. The orders placed by the Government to strengthen that naval capacity are welcome, but we need a vibrant, viable shipbuilding sector—particularly a naval shipbuilding sector—to service those orders. I hope that the Government take back today the message that we need to ensure that all parts of the shipbuilding sector are there to support our armed forces.
10.2 am
Mr. Ian Davidson: We meet at a time when the future of shipbuilding has never been brighter. As secretary of the all-party group on shipbuilding and ship repair, I start by saying how grateful we are, as has been mentioned, for the co-operation that we have received from this Government, particularly in the placing of naval orders. I do not think that at any time within memory has so much work been given to the yards, and in a fashion that has allowed them to plan. It is clear that the flow of work will allow the yards continued employment and stability for the foreseeable future.
For the first time, the yards can make promises to their work forces about continuity of employment and try to recruit new people with a guarantee of stability of employment. That is extremely welcome in my area and in many other areas of the country. I am talking about not only the major orders for the Type 45s and the aircraft carriers but the orders that came before those. The programme of work has been a model of procurement.
I want to raise at this early stage—while the Ministry of Defence is discussing the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability, or MARS, project—the absolute importance of ensuring that all the vessels involved in that project are built in the United Kingdom. I appreciate that innovative routes of financing are being examined, but because those vessels will be involved in support for fighting vessels, it is essential that they are considered naval vessels and are built in the UK. We have had difficulties with some items of procurement in the past, as my hon. Friend the Minister may be aware. I refer in particular to the two ships of the ALSL order that were given to Tyneside. Some steelwork and some design work—more than had been expected—from that order went off to Holland, resulting in delays for not only Swan Hunter but the work on Clydeside. If we get assurances from Government that work will be done in this country, we do not want then to find that subcontract work, especially steelwork, is handed out abroad. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give

79WH
the same assurances that we have already had on that from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Bach.
On the aircraft carriers, we in the shipbuilding and ship repair group are grateful for the close liaison that there has been with the MOD and Lord Bach. The assurances that many of us sought that all the design, build and intellectual property rights would be retained for this country have been made. We have also had suitable assurances that nothing will be done that will compromise the UK's opportunities to compete for export orders of naval vessels in the future. We will not find that key parts of the skills base or the technology will be retained elsewhere. Given the present creative tension with France, that issue has exercised the minds of many of my colleagues, but I am glad to hear that guarantees have been given that that tension will not interfere with our opportunity to seek export work in the future.
The tripartite structure that the Government have chosen for the aircraft carriers of BAE Systems—formerly British Aerospace—Thales and the MOD, which has an overarching management and risk management role, is novel, innovative and not without dangers. However, given that the MOD seems willing to bear that risk, who are we mere mortals to cast doubts on its ability to cope with the complexities? We want to ensure, however, that none of those complexities will cause delays to the ordering and subcontracting programmes. As other Members have mentioned, this order is a bonanza not only for the yards where the main modules will be created, but for virtually everywhere in the UK that can turn its hand to metal fabrication and the like. It is one of the largest boosts to the entire industry for a considerable period. I hope that the liaison that we have had with the MOD to date continues and that we are able to have similar liaison with the Department of Trade and Industry to explore various issues relating to the future of the industry.
There are still several issues for the future that need to be explored. The first is the need to do what we can to ensure that the order books are smoothed out. The pattern of ordering for the Type 45s and the aircraft carriers might result in some peaks and troughs, and it would be helpful if the Government entered the negotiation process with an understanding that it would be in the interests of all concerned to adjust the times, dates and schedules to allow smoothing out. We want to avoid, as far as possible, the boom and bust that has been the curse of the industry in the past.
Other Members have mentioned skills. Given the nature and age profile of the industry, considerable recruitment is likely to be required in the future. In my constituency and neighbouring areas, 10 years' guaranteed work in the shipyards as a result of the naval orders is longer than many other local employers can offer. The Government have a responsibility to work with Scottish Enterprise and other local organisations to market the industry as something that offers a secure future for youngsters leaving school. There are obvious difficulties surrounding the industry. It still has an image of providing dirty jobs, which is unfortunate in many ways. I have been to the yards and seen the high-tech basis of much employment there, and we need to ensure that the jobs are marketed in a way that sends out a proper, balanced image of the industry.
80WH
It is interesting that we have had so much debate in Parliament on university education. A high proportion of the young people from my constituency will not go to university, but will take apprenticeships. I do not see public schools fighting to ensure that they get a disproportionate share of modern apprenticeships. If the future of industries such as shipbuilding is marketed correctly, perhaps they will move into that area; such competition would be welcome.
The Government have a heavy responsibility to ensure that the jobs are made sufficiently attractive to bring in some of the best and brightest of our youngsters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) said, many who have left the industry and are working as taxi drivers and the like would be enthusiastic about returning if there were to be stability of employment and the opportunity for reskilling that enabled them to move up the salary scale. Many of the wages in the industry leave a bit to be desired; that is not the way to recruit and retain the best and brightest work force for the future.
The Government also have a responsibility to discuss more closely with the Shipbuilders and Ship Repairers Association—the employers—the future of the LINK project. The funding will expire at the end of 2003, and all the money is already committed. Substantial amounts have been spent on business improvement master classes; research and development; projects such as SSA marine; advice on science and technology; marketing services; a variety of special interest groups; and areas that suffer a shortage of skills and education.
Now that the future seems bright for the industry, we need to ensure that the Government contribute to such pump-priming amounts, balanced by income from the industry so that it remains at the cutting edge. Where international competition is concerned, others have already made points about unfair practices by other countries. In particular, the running sore of South Korea has not been adequately tackled by the European Union or by other major shipbuilding powers. The message that such nations take from that is that they can get away with it with virtual impunity. The Government have been relatively feeble in that regard, although I recognise the difficulties that they have faced in persuading the European Union to act. If we were to establish a precedent of taking action against unfair competition, it would have consequences for many of our European friends and neighbours.
Finally, I pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), for securing this important debate. He has been a stalwart as vice-chairman of the all-party group, and I know that the chairman has been grateful for his support.
10.13 am
Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing this debate. It comes at a good time and gives us a chance to pause for breath after some dramatic developments in the shipbuilding industry in the past 18 months or so. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) on his studied and thoughtful analysis of the industry and of what could well happen in the future.

81WH
Some years ago I was fortunate enough to secure a Westminster Hall debate on the shipbuilding industry at the time of the campaign to save south-coast shipbuilding. The industry was in sharp decline, the major shipbuilder in our region, Vosper Thornycroft—whose Woolston shipyard had been in my constituency until the boundary changes—was struggling in the domestic market, although it was a very successful exporter of ships, and 6,000 jobs in the industry were at risk across the region.
The main problem was the lack of royal naval orders, particularly for Vosper Thornycroft, which is known throughout the world for its excellence in warship building. It was having great difficulty in convincing overseas customers, mainly Governments, that they should buy its wares, when it could not demonstrate that it had the seal of approval of building our own Royal Navy's ships, which are reckoned to be the best in the world.
The future of shipbuilding on the south coast hung in the balance. There was great concern, not just for the jobs, but for what it meant to the community. Our tradition of warship building has been unbroken since at least the time of Henry VIII, and it was on the verge of disappearing. When I was a student engineer in Portsmouth, people could not remember when the last ship had been built in the dockyard. I think that it had been in the 1950s, so we have had a 50-year break in the naval dockyard of naval ship construction.
The award of the type 45 destroyer contract was important not just as an order but as a way of helping to win the fight for survival. The key issue was the fact that the order was placed through competition. Hon. Members will remember that there was a great debate at the time; it was feared that the Government would set aside the well-established principle that naval contracts should be awarded on the basis of competition between shipyards. The argument was advanced strongly that there should be a negotiated contract with BAE Systems, through its subsidiary BAE Marine, to take on the whole lot. The other option was that it should be split and that there should be competition between the two yards most able to undertake the work, BAE Systems and Vosper Thornycroft.
The decision was whether to leave the United Kingdom with a sole prime contractor in the naval shipbuilding industry or to have two competing prime contractors able to bring the Government and the country the benefits of competition; not just costs, but innovation and a dramatic and dynamic approach to the task of winning orders. I am glad to say that the principle of competition was upheld and Vosper Thornycroft benefited from the award of part of the Type 45 contract. I understand that that is going particularly well.
That award turned round the prospects for shipbuilding on the south coast. I understand the difficulties of the excellent firm Appledore that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon
82WH
described. The right principle is in place, but the benefits have not been distributed as well as they might have been.
Mr. Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly difficult at present for shipyards that do not have the benefit of MOD orders, but rely on worldwide commercial conditions?
Mr. Chidgey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although I would not wish in any way to diminish the excellent work of Appledore, in most cases it is probably a supply-chain operator rather than a prime contractor. I shall return to the issue of how we give our supply chain industry every opportunity to bid fairly for work.
The benefits of the Type 45 destroyer contract are worth dwelling on for a couple of minutes. It brought with it £50 million of investment in the Portsmouth shipbuilding facility—which we used to call a dockyard—which will be completed later this year. It will be the most advanced facility in western Europe, and its advanced capabilities in design and manufacture will not just benefit competition for projects within the UK, but will enable it to compete effectively throughout the world. As many colleagues know, overseas firms are fighting tooth and nail for the opportunities to win warship contracts. The facility is of terrific benefit to our local economy and it is strengthening competition for royal naval projects.
The Rand Corporation made an assessment of the MOD's procurement options for the Type 45 destroyer, in which it said:
"To summarise the current status of the UK shipbuilding industrial base only two shipbuilders—BAE SYSTEMS Marine and VT—have the combination of physical facilities, management and labour experience, and financial resources necessary"
to provide that service to the MOD. That is a healthy situation, and I should like it to be strengthened and preserved.
Vosper Thornycroft, the prime shipbuilding contractor on the south coast, can now restructure, expand and diversify into a wide range of engineering facilities. The VT Group, as it is now named, has moved its headquarters to my constituency and has developed its work force of 6,000, of whom 1,000 are in shipbuilding, to provide a wide range of skills in engineering, design and construction, and product support. Most importantly, the group has strengthened its training for the future generation of engineers and technicians in the industry.
As hon. Members have mentioned, we are now on the verge of the award of substantial contracts for the future aircraft carrier. I understand that the VT Group is well placed to win a substantial part of that, which could be some 20 per cent. of the production and through-life support. I do not just hold a candle for a local employer in my constituency; I can see beyond that to what the contracts mean for engineering and shipbuilding across the region. Hampshire has the most defence-dependent economy of any shire county in the country. I hope that the speedy award of the future aircraft carrier contracts will not only bring major recruitment in the shipbuilding division of VT—over 1,000 additional personnel—but will be just one aspect of the benefits of orders for the Royal Navy. Those orders are won through competition, and they will benefit a wide sector of the local economy.

83WH
Lack of skills is the major issue in the economy of what is often known as the affluent south-east. Although overall unemployment is low, lack of skills is restraining economic development, which is a huge problem. The future aircraft carrier project gives an opportunity to develop the "Skills for Life" training programme. There are exciting prospects of continual, diverse training, and career development by choice in many different ways; not only in Vosper Thornycroft, but in the local economy. People will have the option of moving in and out of shipbuilding as the peaks and troughs arise, while developing and improving their skills, and making themselves more productive and more employable.
From the discussions that I have had with the Learning and Skills Council, Eastleigh further education college—of which I am a governor—and the VT Group, which is the second biggest supplier of modern apprenticeship schemes in the UK, I can be confident that the programme has the potential to break the mould with regard to the mounting skills shortage in the area and the problems related to peaks and troughs in the shipbuilding industry. In the modern world it is important to give people the skills that enable them to change their roles and their jobs, be flexible and take up opportunities as they arise.
So far the news has been good. Shipbuilding on the south coast has been saved from collapse due to the MOD's retention of the principle of competition. More than £50 million has been invested in the shipbuilding industry, and there is a groundbreaking "Skills for Life" programme. However, there is just one cloud on the horizon; procurement by prime contractors through the supply chain. In a speech to the Northern Defence Industries in October last year, the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement said:
"How prime contractors manage the supply chain is primarily their business but we have an interest in ensuring fair play. This is essential if we are to maximise benefit from your skills and expertise. In that context"
we have
"reached an agreement through the MOD/industry commercial policy group—on a number of practices dealing with supply chain relationships."
He said that the agreement had been established on codes of practice, which is
"an important step towards encouraging a positive equitable and co-operative approach between the MOD and its suppliers".
That is all very well, but do such things happen in practice? "Positive equitable and co-operative" are the key words, and the contracts such as those for the Type 45 destroyers and the future aircraft carrier are a good opportunity to display those qualities, but will they? Those contracts are hugely complex and taking a huge slice of taxpayer's money; I reckon that the figure is about £15 billion, but it might be more than that.
Although the MOD, rightly, does not willingly subsidise the defence industry, it is well known—hon. Members have given examples of case after case this morning—that other countries subsidise their industries, in particular their defence industries. The state advantage to foreign firms in direct competition with UK suppliers to the Government and the taxpayer is, frankly, not acceptable. Although I recognise that he does not speak on behalf of the MOD, I ask the Minister to assure us that he will take the matter up with his
84WH
colleagues and perhaps try to assure us later that MOD contracts in the supply chain—especially those to the Royal Navy, which probably constitute most of the overall cost—will not be awarded to foreign firms that benefit from state subsidies, whatever form those subsidies take. Will the Government take the initiative to set an example, and reject the award of contracts to the MOD in the supply chain when the firms involved undercut UK firms through the benefit of unfair subsidies? Competition must be transparent, open and fair.
10.26 am
Brian Cotter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on initiating the debate, which is important not only for the Appledore company in his constituency and shipbuilding as such, but for manufacturing as a whole. Hon. Members frequently address issues to do with manufacturing and keeping the country going as they relate to those skilled with their hands.
There has not been fairness in the shipbuilding industry for some time. As is so often the case, such matters have been allowed to drift on for far too long. My hon. Friend rightly referred to South Korea and eastern European countries, where steel has been greatly subsidised, which means that manufacturers and users in this country cannot gain from those lower steel prices.
I should like to declare an interest, in that I am the managing director of a small manufacturing company. I do not know whether the company is doing anything in the way of shipbuilding orders at the moment, because although I keep reasonably good track of my company I am there for a few hours a week only, when my brain is ticking over as to what is going on. However, the company has done shipbuilding work in the past and we shall, I hope, no doubt do so again.
I pay tribute to Appledore, having visited the website, read its history and seen a fine picture of what looks like a schooner from the early days—I am not sufficiently into shipping to describe it properly—and one of a tanker from today. The company is long-established. People tend to think that because long-established companies have been around for a long time they may not be meeting competition very well. However, from what I have read about Appledore, I am certain that it is a vibrant company, as many British manufacturers are; otherwise, it would not still be trading, as it hopes that it will continue to do. Although Appledore is rather bigger than my company, I feel a commonality in that both share the desire to carry on the manufacturing tradition of this country.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) spoke with great heart about manufacturing and engineering skills, the need for training, and the need to recognise manufacturing as an attractive industry to enter. I urge all hon. Members to take that on board. We should encourage people not only to go to universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, but to go into manufacturing. Having been in manufacturing for a good part of my life, I would recommend people to go into it and give it the priority that it should have, because it can be an interesting, challenging and exciting industry to work in. My hon. Friend the Member for

85WH
Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who has a great deal of experience in engineering, spoke today, as he has in the past, with great knowledge on the matter. He rightly spoke about the need for skills training to get the right people in place in manufacturing. He made interesting comments about the supply chain measures and spoke, far better than I, on the need to address the situation. I hope that the Government will respond appropriately.
We have seen unfair practices throughout the world. In that connection I would like to refer to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agreement of 1994, which was made against threats from the US to penalise shipping that was seen to be subsidised. On 5 December 2002, the OECD announced that the world's principal shipping economies had launched negotiations on how to counter overcapacity and plunging prices in the world shipbuilding industry. As a result, a special negotiating group, known as the SNG, was set up. Future meetings of the SNG were to discuss mechanisms to deal with subsidies and other support measures, as well as disciplines on pricing and other practices that distort the market and eventually, to produce remedies and dispute settlement procedures.
The SNG was supposed to be concluding its work by 2005, which is all well and good. However, that is an awful long time away. In the meantime, we must ask what effect unfair practices will have on the shipbuilding industry and on Appledore in particular. Korea has been mentioned in that context. Although submissions have been made over many years about the shipbuilding industry in South Korea, there is a strong feeling that that country has indulged, and may be continuing to indulge, in subsidies and benefits not available to our companies. I hope that the Minister will respond to that concern.
The EU supported the abolition of state help, although it initially delayed changing its rules on the seventh directive on aid to shipbuilding to accommodate the OECD agreement until reciprocal measures had been introduced in some of the far east countries. We look to the Government for guidance and a response on what is being done to address the situation. Our very fine companies have to trade from a disadvantageous position.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Minister for Science at the Department of Trade and Industry, said in response to a written question on competition from Korea:
"We have long recognised the adverse impact that Korean unfair competition has had upon the world shipbuilding market. The European Union (EU) is pursuing, with our firm support, a bilateral/trade remedy to this issue ߪ If the Commission's examination does confirm the case against Korea and does recommend action in the WTO, we would be minded to support such action, subject to completing our review".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 May 2001; Vol. 634, c. 387W.]
Many believed that the matter would be resolved without referring to the World Trade Organisation. However, that was not to be, and on 24 October 2002 the permanent delegation of the European Commission to the WTO sent a request for consultation to the permanent mission of Korea and to the chairman of the dispute settlement body at the WTO. I hope that the Minister will tell us how matters are proceeding on that matter.
86WH
I also hope that the Minister will assure us that officials at the DTI are keeping in close touch with the shipbuilding industry. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok and other hon. Members on the all-party shipbuilding and ship repair group will know much more than I on the matter. On a very personal level, I hope that Government officials have been in touch with Appledore and are doing everything that they can to help it to survive and prosper.
In summary, it is my heartfelt wish that we do all that we can to support engineering and shipbuilding manufacture. We must not let matters slide when addressing unfair competition from other parts of the world.
10.35 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing the debate and on presenting his case so eloquently and forcefully. I declare an interest that is in the Register of Members' Interests. The point that the hon. Gentleman made about feast or famine was well made. He also clearly illustrated the real problems faced by yards that do not have MOD work. They are much more exposed to unfair competition from abroad. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) also touched on the OECD agreement and Korea, and I will return to that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon spoke about the various anti-competitive loan guarantee arrangements in the EU. I see the point that he was making about their effect on non-MOD yards, including Appledore. He pointed out—
Mr. Burnett: My understanding is that many companies in the EU get loan guarantees for the cost of manufacturing vessels. We seek the same terms; we seek no favours or support. We merely seek the same terms that are available to others.
Mr. Bellingham: That is a fair point. It is important that the Minister speaks about our own home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme, which was set up under the Industry Act 1972. It is interesting that we were debating the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill in Committee yesterday. Although we did not discuss part 3, we looked at the section 8 scheme. The scheme is far-reaching and has supported 1,200 vessels up to a value of £4.5 billion since its inception. Presumably, it is possible under that scheme to sort out the problems in the shipbuilding industry that have been raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that is the case.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon also mentioned the Dutch firm Damon, which was able to subcontract most of its work to the Ukraine by buying steel in at a quarter of the world price. That is staggering. I agree with him that no one could compete against such subsidy. Perhaps, if he does not have the answer now, the Minister could write to the hon. Gentleman and to me, as it is a cause of substantial concern.

87WH
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon also mentioned the offshore patrol vessel for which Appledore bid. However, a buy-back condition was imposed, presumably by the MOD. If so, that is fairly staggering.
Mr. Burnett: At the last moment.
Mr. Bellingham: At the last moment, indeed. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that or write to me. I know that he is not here to answer for the MOD, but it struck me as unconscionable.
Mr. Hoban: On offshore patrol vessels, does the hon. Member agree that the important issue is to ensure that taxpayers get good value for money? If the buy-back led to taxpayers getting a better deal, it was not a wholly bad decision.
Mr. Bellingham: Indeed. That is exactly one of the points that I hope the Minister will answer. We all need clarification on that.
I agree with the comments about offshore wind turbines. There are currently planning applications for more than 90 offshore turbines along the Wash and off the Norfolk coast. In fact, if there is another proposal put forward by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, it could lead to another 100 turbines going off the Norfolk coast. That would certainly solve the problem of huge controversies about onshore turbines, which are extremely unpopular. Much of the work will indeed be given to UK companies. I should have thought that that would create a huge amount of potential for the future.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) talked about the yard in his constituency, Swan Hunter. I visited Swan Hunter some years ago as part of a project that I was doing at the time. I know only too well the extraordinary sense of affinity between the city, the yard and the people in the region. I was very pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the yard is going through a period of revival and that there is a spirit of optimism in his constituency. The point that he mentioned about the cluster work is obviously extremely important, as is the way in which Swan Hunter has been able to look very proactively for non-military work.
The hon. Gentleman rightly congratulated the Government on the orders that have come from the MOD. However, it was the last Conservative Government who wrote the two large aircraft carriers into the defence programme, and it is only fair that credit is given for that. Apart from that, I thought that what the hon. Gentleman said about trying to attract skills back into the industry was very important. That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) when they talked about ensuring not only that there is re-skilling, but that people who already have those skills are attracted back into what is obviously a very exciting industry to work in, notwithstanding the peaks and troughs.
I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said. Although the split of the work between the four yards is welcome in many ways, there is a need for a framework for the split of work and
88WH
a need for consistency. That will be crucial in ensuring that the right levels of recruitment take place. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, he can talk to his colleagues at the MOD and move forward on that. Since the excitement, and especially the relief, of the announcement that the main contract did not go to Thales's offshore construction service, there is a need to dot some of the i's and cross some of the t's because the yards obviously need to know exactly where they stand so that they can move forward with their long-term planning.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made a very good point about the subcontracting work going abroad, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. It is fine if subcontracting work goes abroad, but it should not go to yards that are unfairly subsidised by particular countries within the EU. The Government must be alive to that important point. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok made the point that there will be a spin-off benefit for small and medium-sized companies not just on Clydeside but throughout the UK. That is obviously important. I hope that a steady flow of vessels will be launched in his constituency. I also hope that even he will put his well-known republican views to one side to welcome members of the royal family to launch those vessels in the years ahead.
The Minister should definitely answer the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh raised regarding skills. Several hon. Members are very concerned about the crucial need to get people who have skills back into the industry as well as attracting those who are in the industry already.
As far as the economy is concerned, there has been a very substantial decline in manufacturing and heavy engineering, and shipbuilding and ship repair are obviously part of that. Since 1997, 600,000 jobs have been lost. In fact, the CBI predicted the other day that another 40,000 could be lost between now and Easter. I am very sorry that probably 100 jobs at Appledore will be included in that figure. That is why it is vital that everything that can be done is done to help key industries such as shipbuilding. The picture as far as MOD orders are concerned is fairly rosy, notwithstanding the need for clarity now and certainty, which I hope that we shall see in the very near future.
I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, but as far as non-naval work is concerned, I agree with him that the OECD agreement and the special negotiating group are most crucial to the way in which we move forward. With those sentiments, I would add that 2005 is still a long way off. Why can there not be any progress before 2005 as far as the special negotiating group is concerned? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to encourage more progress? What meetings have taken place? What role is the shipbuilding forum playing in spearheading discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the special negotiating group? Have any talks taken place and if not, why not? I should have thought that one of the absolutely key roles for the shipbuilding forum would be in those discussions with the OECD and the special negotiating group, which is made up of non-OECD countries.

89WH
As far as home-grown assistance is concerned, the shipbuilding intervention fund, as I understand it, came to an end in December 2000. What, if anything, is being put in its place? I want to push the Minister on the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme. Questions have been asked about why various UK yards cannot get access to the same level of credit guarantee as their EU counterparts. If that is the case, why is more not being done to widen the scheme and make it more attractive? That is vital as far as Korea is concerned because there is not only anecdotal evidence that Korea is winning orders at prices below production costs; I have read article after article that endorses that point. If we are to guarantee any future at all for non-MOD yards in this country, that point must be addressed.
I very much hope that the Minister will answer those questions. If he answers them successfully, we hope very much that there will be a brighter future for the UK yards than there perhaps has been for several years.
10.48 am
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I too congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing the debate. We have had a useful discussion with several well informed contributions, in which Members have drawn on their constituency experience of the shipbuilding industry. I also want to pay tribute to the work of the all-party group, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has been able to contribute to the debate. The debate provides me with a useful opportunity to stress again our continuing support for the UK shipbuilding industry and to draw attention to the actions that we are taking to help it improve its competitive performance to meet the considerable challenges, several of which have been highlighted in the discussion.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) asked me to confirm that the Department was continuing to take a close interest in and be in close contact with the industry, and I am glad to do that. I pay tribute to Appledore Shipbuilders in the constituency of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. As we heard, that company has a long and distinguished tradition of shipbuilding. The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to some challenges that the yard faces. I want to comment on those, but first I will set out the context.
There is, as we heard, a clear distinction between the market prospects for the naval and the merchant shipbuilding markets in the United Kingdom. The MOD's current naval procurement programme is the largest for many years. It includes the construction of three Astute class submarines, six Type 45 destroyers, four landing craft and two aircraft carriers, which will be the largest naval vessels ever built in the UK. That programme provides an excellent opportunity for the industry to re-establish itself, because it will provide substantial opportunities for the commercial as well as the naval yards.
In heartening contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for Eastleigh
90WH
(Mr. Chidgey), we heard about how that opportunity is being successfully grasped throughout the UK. My hon. Friend made important points about cluster working. There are many examples of the success of that approach in other industries and in the shipbuilding industry in other countries. He is right to draw attention to the benefits that it could bring to our industry.
Several hon. Members invited me to comment on the future procurement policy of my MOD colleagues. I shall decline those invitations, but I will say that the MOD consults my Department on procurement decisions in order to take account of the implications for industry. Hon. Members also referred to skills. Next week there will be a meeting between my Department and the MOD's project team in respect of aircraft carriers to discuss skills, so we are keeping a close eye on how those issues and challenges are developing.
I cannot argue that commercial yards are not experiencing great difficulties; they certainly are. UK merchant yards are finding it very difficult to win new orders, but other yards throughout north-western Europe are experiencing similar difficulties for similar reasons. Global demand for new shipbuilding has weakened substantially, reflecting the global economic slowdown. In addition to competition from Korea, about which we heard a good deal, and from Japan, there is increased competition from China and from Turkey, a relative newcomer whose order book has expanded by 30 per cent. in the past three years. There is also new competition from eastern Europe; Ukraine was mentioned.
Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister concerned about Poland's accession to the European Union and possible subsidies that its shipbuilding industry receives?
Mr. Timms: As I said, there are new competitive challenges from eastern Europe, and we are alive to them. If there are questions of illegal subsidy, the fact that such issues are being addressed in the EU will be helpful, but we certainly keep a close eye on those issues. The question of cheap steel from Ukraine was mentioned, but we have not been able to find firm evidence for what was described. If hon. Members have evidence for that, I would be keen to see it.
Mr. Burnett: I do not want to interrupt the Minister for long, but I will see what I can do about that evidence. He will know that I and the managing directors of Appledore and Sea Wind International have been negotiating with the DTI for a loan guarantee for some time. Next week we again see the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions. I hope that this Minister will pass on to his colleague our concerns about the critical difficulties that Appledore faces. I ask him to tell his colleague that about 800 jobs are in jeopardy.
Mr. Timms: I will certainly pass that message on to my hon. Friend. He is following developments with great interest, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We very much regret that the company had to take the decision about redundancies to which he referred. We recognise that redundancies will have a big impact on north Devon, given the lack of real alternative engineering employment in the area. I am pleased, however, that the

91WH
South West of England Development Agency has announced the establishment of the Bideford taskforce and the immediate involvement of Jobcentre Plus's rapid reaction team to assist the workers who are made redundant in finding alternative employment. The hon. Gentleman will find that that is an effective approach.
The first meeting of the taskforce took place yesterday. Its members include Appledore Shipbuilders, the regional development agency, the district council, the local chamber of commerce, Jobcentre Plus and the Government office for the south-west. David Whiteley, who chairs the north-west Devon economic partnership, heads the taskforce.
We continue to work closely with Appledore to help it to win new orders and, we hope, avoid further redundancies. As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) thought, there is an application for a home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme loan guarantee for the wind barge contract that Appledore is pursuing. Yesterday my officials met everyone involved. We anticipate having a final report from the advisory committee of the Ship Mortgage Finance Company before the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions meets the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon and the firm next week.
Let me set out briefly what we have done to help the industry in the last few years. In 1998 we set up the Shipbuilding Forum, which was mentioned. It comprised the industry, unions, training bodies, the national training provider—the Engineering and Marine Training Authority—Departments, including the MOD, and the devolved Administrations. Last year we expanded the forum's membership to the marine equipment and boatbuilding sectors, renaming the forum the Shipbuilding and Marine Industries Forum.
In December 1998 we received the forum's first report, which concluded that the industry's future depended on its ability to improve competitiveness. Since then we have been working closely with it to take forward its key objectives for improved productivity, better marketing and improvements in training and skills. Several hon. Members referred to that.
We established the LINK shipbuilding research project to help the industry to improve productivity. Launched in 2001, that five-year project combines academic studies with "master class", which aims to
92WH
bring about practical, short-term productivity improvements. The concept derives from the automotive and aerospace industries, where industry experts visit and inspect a yard, recommend immediate improvements and, crucially, embed that ability in the yard so that continuous improvement can be achieved. "Master class" has been very successful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok asked about continued funding for that initiative. I cannot make new announcements about that today. We are considering the criteria for Government support for such exercises in future, so I cannot say now how a proposal in respect of that project would stack up against those criteria. It is important to factor in the potential for the Department and the shipbuilders' association to work with RDAs to look for regional initiatives. Of course, yards can access the manufacturing advisory service and the regional centres for manufacturing excellence. We are supporting a newbuilding marketing project, which was launched in 2001. That has highlighted the considerable potential that still exists within UK shipyards to attract new customers.
The Shipbuilding and Marine Industries Forum has identified in particular the need for substantial improvements in the skills base of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth talked about that a good deal, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok and the hon. Members for Fareham and for Eastleigh. To address that issue, my Department has been working closely with EMTA—the former national training organisation—the Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies Alliance, the Learning and Skills Council and the Department for Education and Skills. The focus has been on improving craft skills, such as welding and project management.
Hon. Members' concerns about skills in the shipbuilding industry could also be raised in the context of a number of other industries. Skills are a big challenge for the UK as a whole. The Government will publish a skills strategy later this year to help us to address it jointly. Apprenticeships are an important part of the progress that we need to make on that front. I was interested to see that the Govan yard advertised 100 apprenticeships recently and received more than 1,000 applications. The attractiveness of this industry is becoming well understood. I welcome that.

Hearing Tests (Southampton)
11 am
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the opportunity to put the matters in question before the Minister. This is beginning to feel like a regular event. I have long been aware that audiology could be regarded as a Cinderella service in the NHS, but I have only just realised how far the local service has deteriorated in the three years since my election.
I have a letter from a constituent, highlighting the fact that in June 2000 there was a 12-month waiting list. The waiting time runs from the hospital's receipt of the GP's referral letter to the date of the hearing test. It is important to bear in mind that the wait is for a hearing test only, and that a further wait follows before a suitable hearing aid is provided. The good news for my constituent was that we managed to bring her appointment forward. She was an elderly lady and had to wait only about three months. That is important: at one time local hospitals' policy was to bring forward appointments for very elderly people, but that policy has recently changed.
Since October I have received a significant number of letters from constituents informing me that the waiting list for a hearing test is anything from 27 months to 29 months. Clearly, that situation is unacceptable. The first question that I asked myself was whether the problem was unique to Southampton. It might be instructive to tell the Minister about my first encounter with the Royal South Hants hospital, where hearing tests are performed for the Southampton University Hospitals NHS trust. I was initially put through to a fairly junior member of staff who was very helpful, but who, upon realising that I was an MP, clammed up completely and said, "I really don't know if I should be talking to you." She checked, and told me that the boss wanted to speak to me. The then boss was forthcoming about his department's severe underfunding, and the reasons for it. Quite simply, audiology is not, or was not, a priority.
I suspect that the problem is not unique to Southampton, because the evidence shows that the Department of Health has been aware of such a problem for some time. On 7 June 1998 the Department of Health issued a press release that stated:
"Latest figures show the NHS is continuing to make good progress on cutting long waits for NHS patients."
Clearly audiology is not part of those figures, but I am not sure why. In December 1998 the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), responded to issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) by saying:
"I assure her that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that people who need audiology services from the NHS get a first-class service. Nothing else will do."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 854.]
I do not know the NHS definition of a first-class audiology service, but in my book it is not a wait of 27 or 29 months.
Between December 1998 and August 2001 the number of people throughout the country waiting more than 13 weeks for an initial audiology appointment rose from 491 to 1,529, according to Government figures. Clearly the hype does not match the reality. In 2001 the
94WH
Royal National Institute for Deaf People produced the report "Audiology in Crisis", which highlighted lengthening queues for audiology services. It stated that the funds allocated by trusts for acquisition of hearing aids are in most cases inadequate to meet demand, even using the most basic hearing aid technology. That fact, together with inadequate staffing and infrastructure, is a major threat to the successful roll out of the Government's initiative to modernise hearing aid services.
The important point that arises from what I am outlining is that in many cases the funding available to audiology departments has struggled to keep up with inflation. Bearing in mind the many other calls on NHS resources that may be understandable, but it is set against the scenario of a rapidly ageing population that naturally gives rise to a greater demand for audiology services. What assessment have the Government made of the likely increase in demand for audiology services, and what predictions are made for the future?
I attempted to verify the waiting time figures provided by the RNID, but it was impossible because the Government do not collect the figures in a useable form. That is a signal that the matter is low on the list of priorities, so trusts are all too ready to divert resources elsewhere in order to meet Government targets. The background to the matter is inaction and a scenario in which the only topic of discussion—worthy though it is—has been the provision of digital hearing aids. Digital hearing aids are important, but any excitement at the prospect of receiving one wears off with a wait of about three years from referral by the doctor.
Naturally, when letters about waiting times of 27 or 29 months began to hit my desk, I was concerned and wrote to the agencies involved and to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who has responsibility for public health and for the area that I am concerned with. Her reply, dated 12 November 2002, stated:
"I have been informed by Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust that waiting times for hearing tests at the Trust are indeed 29 months as a result of the number of referrals received. The Direct referral Access service, which was set up in 1994, was based and funded on a maximum of approximately 500 patients a year. The demand for this service has however increased to approximately 1500 patients a year."
The situation is clearly unsustainable, but apparently is being ignored by Ministers, because the reply continued:
"I have been advised by the Trust that it is presently working on ways to get additional funding for this service."
Then followed the words that always make my heart sink:
"A local Audiology Steering Group has been set up to consider ways of reducing the waiting times for patients by working closely with the primary care trusts"—
I shall return to primary care trusts shortly—
"ensuring more resources are made available to improve the service and exploring ways of working within the GP practices for assessments. There will be frequent validation of the lists".
I am not sure what that means, but the cynic in me says that it involves frequent checking so that those who have died or used the private sector can be removed from the list, as a way of cosmetically improving it. I was informed that there would be
"a review of staff skill mix within the department and a support mechanism for patients on the waiting list that require information".

95WH
I hesitate to guess at what sort of support mechanisms will make people feel happy about the fact that they do not have what they want, but I should be interested if the Minister could clarify that; clearly they do not deal with the basic problem. The Under-Secretary acknowledged that the changes would take time.
I wrote to two of the primary care trusts in my area and was interested to receive a letter from the Eastleigh and Test Valley South primary care trust, confirming that the Minister had outlined the situation correctly and describing some of the measures that the trust had taken. It stated:
"An early step was to apply queuing theory and reduce the number of queues to be seen by giving priority only to those in urgent clinical need."
The phrase "queuing theory" worries me slightly, but no one could argue about those with greater clinical need receiving a better service. The letter continued:
"This routine checking of patients on the list, and the introduction of audiology technicians has already reduced the wait to 21 months at the beginning of February".
I shall return to the figure of 21 months later, because it is wrong, but I should also point out that the letter went on:
"The back log of people waiting for hearing assessment is significant and even if limitless funds were available there are recruitment issues in audiology services which have been compounded by changes to the duration of the training for new audiologists".
Clearly, with a primary care trust quoting a figure of 21 months and constituents quoting a figure of 27 or 29 months, I needed to form an accurate, up-to-date picture of the situation in Southampton to convey to the House, so I contacted the audiology department at the Royal South Hants hospital yesterday. The staff were extremely helpful and confirmed the following waiting times: those in the Eastleigh and Test Valley South primary care trust are waiting 27 months for an assessment or a reassessment. My constituents in Bassett, which is part of the Southampton City primary care trust area, are waiting only 17 months for an assessment and 21 months for a reassessment. I asked why that significant difference had arisen, and the answer was quite simple: it is because the city primary care trust is slightly ahead of its neighbours and has invested in the service by funding extra staff. The aim is that by April 2004 the waiting time for audiology services will be 13 weeks, which will bring it into line with the waiting time target for other outpatient services. I thought that that picture was stark and could not get any worse, but I discovered that waiting times in New Forest PCT, which is not part of my constituency, are 31 months for assessment and 29 months for reassessment. I was also told that the Eastleigh Test Valley South PCT was now considering ways to give more money to reduce waiting times.
So what is happening to those people on the long waiting lists? Quite simply, some have no choice. They will have to wait for almost three years for a hearing aid while their hearing slowly deteriorates, which can have a significant isolating effect. People may decide not to attend noisy functions because it is suddenly all too difficult to communicate. Others may decide to try to access the private sector, as a constituent, Mr. Leo King, reluctantly did. He says:
96WH
"I should keep you up to date with my further enquiries on this subject thus: I went for further private hearing tests a week ago. The first was in Winchester at Winchester Hearing where the process took about 2 hours and the decision was that I needed an aid in each ear at a cost of approx £2200. The next appointment was in Verwood at a superbly equipped office ߪ where I was given an extremely professional examination utilising what appeared to me to be the latest equipment but the result was the same and the cost much of a muchness (£2300 but more advanced product). In each case the cost was the total for both ears. Hidden Hearing is still much more expensive than this (I understood ߪ that an up to date comparison would be £5400 for Hidden Hearing) As I am now pretty desperate and cannot wait for the NHS to perform as I believe it should I shall be taking up the offer from the Verwood."
That is from a gentleman who I believe is in his 60s, who has accessed NHS services only through his GP. He has been to hospital only once in his life, and feels aggrieved at not getting a fair service after investing what he considers to be so much in the NHS.
Mr. King continues:
"This is what I think the NHS assumes—ie that if the delay period is long enough it becomes a matter of urgency for the individual so he/she is more or less forced to seek a private alternative. Thus the waiting list becomes 'shorter' for which the NHS will then claim success. Sorry to sound so cynical but I truly believe this to be the case."
I must point out that this gentleman had to e-mail me. I had come across him on Saturday night in a noisy social setting and he had difficulty hearing me, although it was not so noisy that I could not communicate with other people. How much worse would his condition have got in two and a half years' time? His e-mail gave me cause for concern. The prices that he quotes are high, but I know that the cost of hearing aids to the NHS has dropped to a two-figure price. The price that people have to pay in the private sector seems unacceptably high, even accounting for the fact that the NHS has the advantage of its purchasing power and that premises and personnel have to be paid for. Will the Minister say what control the Department of Health has over non-NHS provision of hearing aids, as the costs seem to be high? After all, we are talking about medical devices.
I mentioned that Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT is considering possible funding, and I understand that it may be applying for the next tranche of modernisation money. However, I am unclear about what measures the Government have taken to encourage PCTs to apply for the funding. I understand that the closing date for applications is tomorrow, but will the Minister say how many trusts have applied and how many trusts the Department of Health has actively encouraged?
The problem is clearly exacerbated by the lack of audiologists in the country. When the Labour party came to power, there were only 30 audiology consultants in the country. Waiting lists have tripled, but the number of audiology consultants remains stagnant. Last March, one of the Minister's colleagues admitted to me in a parliamentary answer that there was a drastic need for an increase in the number of audiology consultants above and beyond the 11 proposed by 2010 under the NHS plan.
The Government are clearly well aware of the need, but will the Minister outline what positive measures have been taken to address the problem that one of his

97WH
colleagues has acknowledged? The Audit Commission described audiology as a Cinderella service. The key reason for that is something to which I alluded earlier; namely, that the statistics are not formally collected and published. The lack of statistics leads in turn to audiology being treated as a low priority. Although it is not the only solution, the setting of waiting time limits and the collection of statistics on how they are being met would greatly help to improve the situation.
I call on the Minister to make an assessment of future needs and to agree to fund the training of the necessary numbers of staff. I also ask him to investigate the private sector to see if there is any evidence of undue profiteering and overcharging. Last, but by no means least, it is imperative that audiology services are included in the range of services for which the current target for waiting lists is 13 weeks. Only then will the service receive enough attention and funding from the PCTs, and only then will my constituents be able to receive a humane and timely audiology service.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing today's debate. I believe that this is the third time in the past two weeks that we have had occasion to take part in an Adjournment debate together, and I commend the hon. Lady on the assiduous way in which she has brought the concerns of her constituents to the House.
This is an important issue, which the Government take very seriously. I am grateful that the hon. Lady, at least at the end of her speech, outlined the grave situation that we inherited in 1997—the lack of consultants throughout the system and serious under-capacity for people with hearing difficulties in this country. We have started to improve services from that very low standard, and I reassure her that the Government are attempting to do all that they can to support not only her local PCT and local health economy, but health economies throughout the country.
Major investment and a challenging modernisation programme are spearheading work on improving the way in which audiology services are being delivered locally, and to ensure that patients receive an efficient and high quality service, including the population in Southampton and south-west Hampshire.
I concede that the NHS hearing aid service does not have an impressive record, as some of my colleagues have also said since 1997. That poor record was a result of under-investment that went on for too long. From the 1960s to modern times, people have been given old-fashioned hearing aids. Problems with recruitment and training of audiology staff and access to services have all contributed to a situation in which patients wait far too long for an assessment.
Let me reassure the hon. Lady that steps are being taken at a local level to address the issue. Southampton University hospital trust has a target whereby all priority patients receive a hearing test within three months of referral. Priority patients include those who are registered blind or partially sighted, war pensioners
98WH
whose pensionable conditions include hearing loss, and those in clinical need. I am pleased to report that that target is being met. It is important that we acknowledge those steps.
Discussions are continuing between the trust and local PCTs as part of the current local delivery planning process to identify ways of reducing waiting lists for all patients. Southampton City PCT has invested an additional £100,000 to recruit additional staff, as the hon. Lady said, and to reducing waiting lists for hearing assessments to 13 weeks by April 2004.
The PCT has achieved significant improvements, and waiting times for assessment have halved from 34 to 17 months over a 12-month period. It is right that we commend the Southampton PCT for that achievement, while acknowledging that it still has some way to go.
I am pleased to hear that the Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT and the New Forest PCT are in discussions with the trust about their involvement in the modernisation process. I am sure that the hon. Lady will do all that she can to support the PCTs and the trust to move that process forward.
I acknowledge that although Southampton City PCT has made progress in that area, its neighbouring PCTs have much to do. The hon. Lady put the waiting times on record, and those times are unacceptable. However, the Government are doing all that they can through the Modernisation Agency, and I would encourage the hon. Lady to work with the neighbouring PCTs to meet the challenge. so that they are on course for moving those waiting times downwards.
Modernising the service requires investment, and I am pleased to report that in the recent three-year allocation announcements the average growth for Southampton City PCT, Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT and New Forest PCT was 9.6 per cent., which is above the national average.
Local health economies will say to the Government that they cannot modernise without funds, but in the hon. Lady's area they have those funds. This year they are receiving record allocations from the Government.
Sandra Gidley: I cannot help challenging the Minister on that issue. He said that we have the funds in my area. The Winchester health authority, in particular, regards itself as being one of the worst-funded in the region. If the funding is adequate, why is my local hospital, which is a three-star organisation, running at such a severe deficit at present?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Lady will know that we started from a base of under-capacity in the NHS. The Government have done all that they can to build that capacity. We have been sensible about that—we have a 10-year NHS plan, and therefore have some way to go before the end of that 10-year period.
I put on record today that the hon. Lady's area has not only had an above-inflation rise in the amount of money available to invest in the local economy, but an extra 9.6 per cent. has been announced this year. We are doing all that we can, nationally, to assist her local area.
We are proud, as a Labour Government, that we have been able to say to the public that we will put national insurance up next month to continue the year-on-year

99WH
investment in the NHS, so that we can reach the same level of investment in our health economy as our European partners. I say to the people of Southampton that we are on a journey, but that we are doing all we can.
A number of developments demonstrate the priority that is being given to audiology services in Southampton. I am pleased to say that a joint appointment for a head of audiology will be made between Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS trust and Southampton University Hospitals NHS trust. The post holder will promote best practice procedures across both areas and will help to make the best use of capacity across the system.
The NHS work force development confederation is also funding a new degree in audiology, which has been launched at the university of Southampton for 42 students. This is part of a national programme, pump-primed by the Department of Health, to address the recognised shortage of audiologists.
I acknowledge that such local action needs support at a national level, and I hope that I have outlined some of that support. The modernising hearing aid services programme is a new and exciting programme that is revolutionising the way in which audiology services are delivered. It will make digital hearing aids available for people at all NHS sites that provide hearing aid services. Up to 1.8 million people with hearing impairment, including 18,000 children, will benefit from leading-edge digital hearing aid technology. We are, therefore, moving forward from the old-style hearing aids that people were receiving until recently.
In April 2000, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), announced a breakthrough in NHS hearing aid services, centred around the patient. He said that we would be testing out the benefits of providing leading-edge, high technology digital hearing aids as part of a modernised NHS. The aim of the pilot was to test new-generation hearing aids that could be adjusted to meet individual requirements, and to ensure that they were made available to those who would benefit.
The results from the original pilot, which was tested out in 20 NHS trusts, were positive. Researchers found that people with digital hearing aids were hearing better, and using their hearing aids more. The research also showed that digital hearing aids offered people a 40 per cent. improvement in hearing and quality of life.
The public can often be left with the impression that debates in the House are just words. However, a 40 per cent. improvement in a person's hearing and quality of life is important, and the fact that 1.8 million people will benefit is something of which we should all be proud.
100WH
Since that time, we have extended the new service. The target was that 50 NHS hospitals would be providing digital hearing aids in a modernised service by this month and that a further 17 would be ready to start from April 2003. We have already invested more than £30 million to support that work. To the end of February 2003, more than 72,000 digital hearing aids had been fitted since the start of the programme, benefiting more than 47,000 adults and 600 children.
We recognise that there is still a long way to go to make the new digital service available everywhere, and that that requires significant investment. That is why, last month, the Secretary of State announced an extra £94 million of investment during the next two years to ensure that those hearing aids will be available throughout England by March 2005. The plan to roll that out will mean that a further 80 sites will provide a modernised service in 2003–04, and the remaining 70 will do so in 2004–05—the aim is to achieve full roll out across the country by March 2005. That will mean that the benefits of high quality digital hearing aids will be available, free of charge, on the NHS, to everyone who needs them.
I reassure the hon. Lady that the issue of waiting times has been an important consideration for the project team and the Modernisation Agency team. Those teams are working with the NHS to help it to tackle increased demand and to keep waiting lists as low as possible.
Sandra Gidley: Why does there appear to be opposition to including audiology services in the 13-week target that applies to other outpatient services?
Mr. Lammy: I hear what the hon. Lady says. However, my Department has responsibility for optical services, pharmacy, dentists and emergency care, and groups of stakeholders in all those areas could ask the Department whether they could be included in that particular target. The threshold must be set somewhere, but there will always be those who would have preferred it to be set somewhere else.
In conclusion, I reassure the hon. Lady that the subject that she raised is a key issue for the Department, and that significant steps are being taken to improve audiology services and waiting times in Southampton and across England. We aim to ensure that everyone who has a hearing impairment has access to a top quality service regardless of where they live. The modernised services that are being rolled out will help to ensure that that becomes a reality in her area and in others.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Coalfield Communities (Housing)
2 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: I am pleased to have secured this debate, Mr. Cook, as it is of great importance to many of my constituents and to many hon. Members who represent mining and former mining communities. In my maiden speech in the House on 9 July 2001, I described my constituency as rural, but with urban problems. The two main towns, Chester le Street and Stanley, and their satellite villages, were founded on coal mining and related industries. With the decline of coal mining and the closure of the north Durham coalfield, which began in the 1960s and ended in the 1980s, the economic reasons for many of those communities disappeared, sometimes overnight.
Much of the housing in north Durham villages such as Craghead, Grange Villa and South Moor, was linked to the mining industry. Consisting mainly of terraced housing for miners and their families, it was originally built by coal owners in the late 19th century and early 20th century, then taken over by the National Coal Board. With the closure of the pits, much of the housing was sold to individual tenants, in some cases in the 1970s for just a few hundred pounds. There lies the root of one of the problems that those communities face today. Over the years, the local employment base has diminished and the need for and popularity of terraced housing for families has declined. As a result, such concentrations of terraced housing present serious problems. In addition, the populations of the villages have continued to decline and to age.
Basically, Mr. Cook, the local housing market has collapsed. Properties in some of the villages change hands for only several thousand pounds, and certainly less than £10,000. That has led to an influx of private landlords, many with no local connections, who buy up properties, often at rock-bottom prices, and let them to individuals who have no links with the area—often people who find it hard to get accommodation anywhere else. We now have a further problem. Because the communities are declining, people who own their own houses find it hard to sell them. They are being targeted by private landlords who want to purchase further properties in many of these communities.
Many of the properties that are let, often for short periods, are not maintained or cared for, which leads to general dilapidation of the area. In some places, certainly in Craghead, landlords have simply abandoned properties and boarded them up. Some properties have been empty for several years, which adds to the general air of neglect and dereliction in those villages. Many of the tenants to whom landlords let their properties stay for relatively short periods. Sadly, their behaviour is often antisocial, certainly in relation to drugs. That, Mr. Cook, creates tremendous pressures—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I would be remiss if I were not to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that when the House first took its decision to have sittings in Westminster Hall, it decided that the occupants of the Chair were to be referresd to as
102WH
Deputy Speaker. I was loth to interrupt the flow of the debate, but I have let the matter go three times already and I would be criticised were I to do so again.
Mr. Jones: I am sorry if I have caused offence, Mr. Cook, as you have been a friend and colleague for many years.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, these problems put tremendous pressures on local communities: a resident of South Moor told me that she felt as if she was living under siege. To try to quantify some of these problems in my constituency, last year I commissioned Northumbria university to produce a report based on Grange Villa and Craghead villages; I shall highlight some of the findings. The report stated that 42 per cent. of the residents of Grange Villa are on some form of benefit and 50 per cent. of the households have no one with any educational qualifications. Grange Villa is in the worst 3 per cent. of wards nationally for child poverty.
As part of the report, residents in the villages were interviewed. I shall quote some of their comments to the researchers. One Grange Villa resident said:
"There are drug dealers in nearly every street. It would be a nice place if we could get rid of the heroin addicts and drug dealers."
Another said:
"Drugs are taking over our village."
In Craghead, a resident said:
"A lot of the private rented houses are occupied by drug dealers."
Another resident said it was a pity that what was a very good village was being allowed to die.
The study underlined what I have come to know since I was elected as the local Member of Parliament: once-vibrant communities, with a strong sense of identity, are under pressure. I agree with the report's conclusions, that some of the communities are now close to the edge. The problems of drugs, antisocial behaviour, crime and physical deterioration are crippling these communities. As many hon. Members with rural constituencies containing former mining villages know, because they are rural communities, the true nature of the problems is masked. If the problems were in inner cities, they would be highlighted.
I have already mentioned the community spirit that exists in these communities, despite the pressures that they are under. It would be remiss of me not to mention the sterling work of the Craghead Partnership, which has resulted in a new village hall, and the continuing work of the Grange Villa action group, whose members are deeply committed to their community and want genuine improvement. In addition, proposals made last week by the Government for the registration of private landlords are welcome; sure start in Grange Villa is making a difference; and Derwentside council's use of antisocial behaviour orders in South Moor has had some effect.
The task that faces communities in north Durham and many coalfield areas needs a more strategic Government approach. I sent a copy of the report that I commissioned to the Minister, who reminded me that Derwentside was to receive extra neighbourhood renewal money of £3.3 million over the next few years. Sadly, however, my experience is that much of that

103WH
money is not going to the local community groups that need it; instead, it is being targeted at organisations for tasks that should receive mainstream funding.
Another problem in my constituency is that although it has some of the poorest housing in the region, it also has some of the wealthiest. Communities such as Grange Villa and Pelton Fell do not qualify for neighbourhood renewal funding because some of the most expensive housing in Durham lies within half a mile of them.
At the Minister's suggestion, I met Michael Laing from Wear Valley council, who is co-ordinating a strategic approach to housing in Durham. I understand that research is taking place in the south of the county to pull together a strategy. Finance is an important factor in some of the problems faced by the communities, but a clear strategic approach needs to be implemented to ensure that the Government office, One NorthEast, local authorities, housing associations, private developers and local people can put together a local housing strategy that will make a difference in the villages, covering both private sector and social housing. The issue facing my community is that much housing is in private ownership.
Jeff Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this Adjournment debate so quickly. One of the prime problems facing all former coalfield communities is the preponderance of absentee landlords. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should give local authorities more powers to deal with absentee private landlords? Currently, they have to deal with them primarily through the environmental health service or by serving a repairs notice on them. Does he think that the Government should consider a new initiative—for example, a management notice, whereby if the absentee landlords were not managing their properties properly, the local authority could appoint a housing association to take over the properties from the absentee landlords and provide a service to tenants?
Mr. Jones: I agree that registration will help some of these communities. My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point. In some areas, private landlords who have made their money out of property that was often bought at a very low price abandon it. They are determined to get as much money as possible out of the property in a short time, but when problems arise they put up the boards, or in some cases allow the local authorities to pick up the costs of doing so. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to give local authorities more powers to take over and improve such properties.
Mr. Chris Bryant: On top of that, it is a scandal that many absentee landlords are making their money from the housing benefit system.
Mr. Jones: I refer to them as "housing benefit junkies", because that is what they are. They put little investment into the properties they buy, often at very low prices, and live off the misery of the neighbours who have to put up with it. However, I am not tarring all private landlords with the same brush. There are some, even in north Durham, who are responsible, carry out
104WH
repairs and care about and vet their tenants; however, such landlords lend to be those who live in the community.
Registration of private landlords would be welcomed in north Durham, but that will not in itself solve the fundamental problem, which is that the local housing market has collapsed. We need a regeneration strategy that includes social housing providers, local authorities, and—I have to say—the private sector. In some villages in north Durham there have been some very good schemes where private housing development has given a boost to the communities. We need to come up with similar strategies.
Will the Minister consider setting up a housing taskforce for north Durham—and the county of Durham in general—that can pull together all the agencies and come up with a strategy to deal with the severe pressures that the communities in my constituency, other Durham constituencies and other coalfield areas face? Without such a strategic approach and the establishment of a taskforce, communities will continue to decline and my constituents and I will, sadly, continue to experience a sense of frustration.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have 45 minutes left before the commencement of the first of the wind-up speeches. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind when making their contributions and when making and receiving interventions.
2.15 pm
John Mann: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on having secured the debate and, even more, on the work that he has done since his election to the House. I commend his excellent report about the situation in his constituency.
The debate parallels one that my predecessor initiated in 1997. I shall not repeat what he said about the state of housing in some parts of my constituency because my hon. Friend has very eloquently spelled out the nature of the problem. On that occasion, he referred specifically to Warsop Vale and Warsop. Consultation about some parts of Warsop, specifically the royal estate, which has an even bigger problem than Warsop Vale, has been going on since 1968, when the late George Brown was Deputy Prime Minister. I look forward to raising a toast to Lord George-Brown when the current Deputy Prime Minister visits the area in the near future, as I trust he will, to launch the special purpose vehicle for housing. The Minister can put that down as a request; I am fairly certain that my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be vociferous in endorsing it. I am sure that everybody sends good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover during his stay in hospital.
I shall outline the benefits that will accrue as a result of the special purpose vehicle, which has taken up a lot of my time during the past 18 months. It brings to fruition those 34 years of consultation. The last thing that people in my community want is more consultation.

105WH
They want action on something straightforward they want to live in decent houses. They do not want every drug addict in Lincoln prison to be dumped on their doorstep—advertisements are put up in Lincoln prison suggesting which landlords to apply to, and the prisoners apply in large numbers, with the result that we get more than our share of those with problems, including repeat drug offenders. My constituents want sustainable, viable communities that are occupied not only by old people who were born there, who worked in the pit next door and who still want to live there, but by young people and children. That is the definition of a viable community.
In funding and endorsing the special purpose vehicle now being set up across the Meden vale—10 communities in Bolsover, Bassetlaw and Mansfield—the Government have, rightly, brought hope; moreover, they have set out in detail what will happen. The first principle, which I am delighted to see, is that they are not waiting for the local council to get its act together. We waited for Mansfield council to sort out the housing problems in Warsop Vale and the royal estate, and I would be lynched if I suggested that the solution to the problems is to wait for the council to act. People have been waiting for that for many years, and Mansfield has been waiting for the money to make it happen. The council is a partner, but only a junior one, with the East Midlands Development Agency, English Partnerships, the Leicester and South Yorkshire housing associations, and the private sector and financial institutions.
The principle is that no one in the communities should lose out from the changes. Empty houses will be demolished and private landlords will be removed; they will be bought out, if necessary by compulsory purchase. Those communities will have only one landlord—one of the two housing associations—and residents and tenants will participate in management so that they can get on top of the problems. In addition, the houses that remain will be refurbished to decent standards. The private sector will include the owner occupier.
Some people will have to move house, because we cannot knock down odd houses. They can be knocked down only in blocks, so some people will have to bite the bullet, but I believe that they will be willing to do so. The other element that excites everyone is that development will be based not on what planners or consultants think is relevant, but on what the market thinks is relevant. In other words, houses will be built to fit demand. If there is a demand for five-bedroom luxury houses with two bathrooms and the rest, that is what will be built; likewise if the demand is for small terrace houses or pensioner bungalows.
That is appropriate, because we cannot artificially recreate such communities. Trying to create a viable community, full of young people, in Worksop Vale is a good example. There is only one shop, and there are no other facilities. The only people who would be attracted to the place are those with cars, and they would want a traditional three or four-bedroom house with a garage.
The way forward in creating a viable community is to use a combination of social housing, community involvement and the private sector. We are confident that such a model can be rolled out—I want to see it
106WH
rolled out into other parts of my constituency—but I anticipate that there will be a demand for it in many parts of the country because it is coherent and sensible.
The Government were absolutely right to endorse that model of housing regeneration. The Minister will become a cult figure in my constituency and in the north midlands. In a sense, he is already a cult figure in Bolsover. We would welcome him there, but if he were to bring his boss along we would be even happier, because it was the Deputy Prime Minister who, in 1997, initiated the scheme in response to demand. He ought to get some of the credit for it, and we would give him a warm welcome and endorse the scheme's success.
2.22 pm
Paddy Tipping: I am happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and I am pleased to take part in this valuable debate, instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). I agree with much of what my hon. Friends have said.
A real and pernicious problem in their areas is the private landlord—the absentee landlord who buys up properties and milks the housing benefit system. That bad practice exists also in north Nottinghamshire, where landlords have poor management practices and dubious tenancy agreements. My part of Nottinghamshire is not a former coalmining area but an area that still produces coal, and we are relatively lucky that most of the housing stock was bought by housing associations when British Coal was sold off. A great deal of hard work ensured that that happened. I am delighted that the partnership of Leicester housing association, Nottingham community housing and East Midlands housing association has taken on most of the stock.
We need to take a twin-track approach; and we need to consider carefully what private landlords are doing. I know that housing benefit fraud is high on the Government's agenda, so will the Minister give a commitment to talk to colleagues about taking on private landlord housing benefit junkies, as they have been called? Will he also consider the work and powers of local authorities? They have limited powers to intervene but they could play a greater role in dealing with private landlords if they had more power and were properly resourced? I ask him also to examine the work of housing associations because, as has been said, the communities that we are talking about are, by and large, rural and very isolated. We are not talking about big inner-city problems or problems on the outer estates of conurbations, but the problems are real and severe.
We need to look at what housing associations have been doing. They have achieved a great deal, although, in a sense, with their hands tied behind their backs. Many of my colleagues will remember the great debate about taking on that housing, and will remember that the idea was opposed by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholas Ridley, who put a moratorium on Housing Corporation money going to housing associations to allow them to improve their stock. I am delighted to say that the present Government lifted that moratorium, but the housing stock was left without investment for many years. Housing associations, such as Leicester housing association, wanted to renovate but had to carry out the

107WH
work using their own resources. The Housing Corporation is now beginning to make money available to housing associations, but it is important that they receive a greater share of the profit.
Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend is being very generous in recognising the role of housing associations, but does he accept that they can be part of the problem, as well as part of the solution? They can be part of the problem when they are reluctant to engage in the process of enforcing tenancy agreements on antisocial tenants.
Paddy Tipping: That is right. Many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends are hard-working, decent, honest people. Coalfield communities want an environment that is improving. Coal miners want better for their kids than they ever had. Antisocial neighbours and nuisance cannot be tolerated in coalfield communities, and housing associations, as community-based organisations, should take a more proactive role in dealing with the problem.
Of course, housing associations are trying to move away from the roles of housing renovation and management. I commend to the Minister the work of Leicester housing association, which has moved away from the role of providing housing and is now much more engaged in building communities from the bottom up, setting up village companies and encouraging enterprise. British Coal was, in a sense, paternalistic and patronising to local people. Business start-ups in coalfield communities are among the lowest in the country, but the work that housing associations can do in subcontracting work to local and community businesses can make a real difference.
My third point relates to orphaned land. When British Coal sold the housing stock to housing associations, it was done in a hurry, which meant that housing associations took on lots of land and properties in a short time. Anyone who walks around any coalfield village will find areas of social, recreational land—what I call the jitties, or alleyways, and garage sites—but no one can establish the ownership of that orphaned land, which is decaying. The housing stock is being lifted, but because no one wants to take responsibility for amenity land, it is pulling down neighbourhoods.
I ask three things of the Minister that would make him a hero and a cult figure in Nottinghamshire. First, he should talk to colleagues about tackling private landlord housing benefit fraud. Secondly, he should examine the powers and resources of local authorities to deal with private landlords. The new housing Bill will give us an opportunity to consider that. Thirdly, he should commend the good community and enterprise work that housing associations such as Leicester housing association are undertaking. He should make sure that their work is backed by fairness. That is all that coalfield communities want. I want to see a fair allocation of resources from the Housing Corporation to coalfield housing associations so that the backlog of work can be cleared. Coalfield communities have had a tough time. By investing in them we can invest in a new future.
2.30 pm
Mr. Wayne David: I shall make a few brief points in support of the arguments that have so eloquently been advanced. I shall speak in particular
108WH
about the situation in the former coalfields of south Wales. At one time, the south Wales coalfield was one of the most important coalfields not only in Britain but in the world. On the eve of the first world war, it employed 250,000 miners. Since the 1920s and 1930s and since the second world war, there has been a gradual contraction of the coalfield. Today, there is only one deep mine left in south Wales at Tower colliery in Hirwaun.
During the incredible development of the coalfields in the latter part of the 19th century there was also a fantastic acceleration in house building. It was during that period that the archetypal terraced houses clinging to the sides of the valleys were constructed. They were almost always owned by their occupants. Today, as the coal industry has contracted, we see, especially in the top ends of the valleys of south Wales, communities consisting of elderly people, young people and people without employment. In other words, we no longer have the balanced, vibrant communities that we once had.
Coal mining has, however, other legacies. One of the clearest and most tragic is that of ill health. In some wards in the upper parts of the south Wales valleys as many as one in four of the population of working age is on incapacity benefits. In communities such as Merthyr Tydfil, Blaenau Gwent, Neath, Port Talbot, Rhondda Cynon Taff and Caerphilly, which is part of the constituency that I have the privilege of representing, unprecedented numbers of people are on incapacity benefits. In those areas, one in eight of the population of working age is on such benefits.
Mr. Roger Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I, too, represent a former mining community at the top of the Swansea valley. Like him, I recognise the legacy from which former coalfield communities suffer. However, does he agree that we need a comprehensive approach—investment in health, education and employment as well as in housing—if we are to deal with that legacy?
Mr. David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I must remember not to take any more interventions from him, as that was one of the points that I was leading to. He is absolutely right: we need a rounded, integrated approach to tackle all those problems. We should not consider policy in isolation. Coal mining may be one of the main causes of ill health in the south Wales valleys, but other factors compound the situation and make it much worse, and poor housing is one of those factors.
Shelter Wales, for example, has estimated that there are 200,000 people living in homes that in its words are
"not fit for human habitation".
The greatest concentration of those people is in the south Wales valleys. Shelter Wales has also estimated that about £50 million per year in Wales is spent by the national health service on treating health conditions caused by poor housing. In other words, as well as the individual tragedy that poor housing represents, it is also a huge drain on society as a whole.
Housing in Wales is a partly devolved matter, and the National Assembly for Wales has been putting great emphasis on developing its strategy over the past couple of years. For example, there has been a somewhat different approach towards joint stock transfer of

109WH
council housing, and housing co-operatives have been encouraged. That is an innovative approach and one that will be emulated in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it is important to stress that there are aspects of housing in Wales that must be rightly addressed at UK-level. We have already heard what is happening with housing benefit and private landlords. That is a problem in the south Wales valleys as in other parts of the UK, and the Government need to consider that issue carefully.
I want to stress a point that has already been made. We can no longer look at housing as though it is isolated from other policy areas. We need a holistic approach that links economic development, health policy, social policy and housing policy. We hear much these days about joined-up thinking and joined-up government, but here is a clear example of how rhetoric needs to be made into reality. Above all else, we need at levels of government a new commitment to developing the south Wales valleys as healthy, living communities. Over the years, the population has drained from the valleys down to Cardiff and the M4 corridor. There is evidence that the trend is beginning to reverse. Communities at the mouths of the valleys are starting to revive, but a new spirit must be spread consciously through the valleys, and having a well-defined housing policy can be part of our overall approach.
2.37 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing this important debate. The contributions that have been made so far show the widespread nature of the issue. It affects all mining communities from Scotland, through the north-east, Lancashire, Yorkshire, down through the midlands, into south Wales and into the south of England. I hope that when the Minister replies we can have some reassurance from him about the maintenance of some of the current schemes.
British Coal had a considerable housing stock; in some areas it dealt with the sale of that housing stock rather differently than in others. In my area, most of the housing stock was sold off to the tenants, who have done a marvellous job on some of the estates. There are two contrasting estates in my constituency. In an estate in the former mining village of Dodworth, all the housing stock was sold off to sitting tenants. As I said, those tenants have worked on and individualised those houses and they look like a credit to the community.
In contrast, on the other side of my constituency in Elsecar, which is also a small mining community in a very picturesque part of the world, part of the housing stock was sold off to tenants and the rest was sold on the stock market. That resulted in absentee landlords, and trying to trace those landlords is a nightmare. The estate has become a dumping ground for problem families, which has affected the life chances of decent people who have become trapped there. Three years ago it presented an enormous problem for the local authority, with antisocial behaviour and drug taking. Most of the decent people living on the estate wanted to leave. Unfortunately, because of the way it had been disposed of, they were trapped.
110WH
Since that time, we have dealt with the issue progressively, working with local councillors. I set up an action group of tenants on the estate, which took on a commitment to dealing with the problem, and by and large the issue has been dealt with successfully. The estate is no longer the problem that it was. The Minister will know that the coalfield taskforce set up by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister identified housing in mining communities as a major problem that needed to be tackled. It is fair to say that since my right hon. Friend's taskforce report, a great deal has been done. There has certainly been a great improvement in my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who was in his place a short time ago, told me that the approach taken to a large estate near Grimethorpe in his constituency, which was mentioned in the taskforce report, led, by and large, to decent people remaining there. He says that resources are still needed to make some remaining houses more habitable, but that generally he is satisfied. My hon. Friend referred me particularly to the photographs in the taskforce report. The housing that was once identified with part of Grimethorpe has all gone; it has been demolished. Those streets and their housing have been improved.
Much has been done since the coalfield taskforce report. Will the Minister examine, for example, some of the work that is being done by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which was set up as a result of the taskforce, and which has helped to renew and rebuild communities? It is concerned with rebuilding the structure of communities and has done a great deal of work.
At present, much of the problem that I have been describing is tackled through the housing management allowance, but Barnsley has the lowest housing management allowance of any metropolitan authority, even though we perhaps have more deprivation to deal with. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) referred to the degree of disability—something that was identified in Barnsley—in a survey carried out in 1997. The survey showed that there was a disabled person in every third household. That is another legacy of mining. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether deprivation should be factored into the housing management allowance.
I should like my hon. Friend also to consider improvements to the law so that absentee landlords would have to meet their responsibilities instead of having to be chased, as has happened in Barnsley. If we can pull those elements together, in addition to what the Government have done in the past five years, we shall begin to tackle the problem of some housing estates.
2.44 pm
Matthew Green: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing the debate. It is probably about six years since there was a debate on this subject, and this is a good opportunity to review the aspects of the matter in which progress has been made, and those in which it has not.
We have heard much about the problems, and I do not intend to repeat that. They are often the legacy of the policies of the Conservative Government of the 1980s.

111WH
That should not be forgotten, and I wait with interest to find out from the Conservative spokesman whether his party now regrets the policy of forcing the old National Coal Board to sell those properties off and then preventing the use of the social housing grant to renovate them. The Conservative party left an awful legacy and, to be fair. the Government have taken steps towards dealing with it.
I should like to address a couple of issues to do with housing in former coal mining areas that hon. Members have not mentioned. The problem of searching for a former mineshaft within 20 metres especially affects properties in Staffordshire that were built in areas where there was shallow mining, such as Stoke-on-Trent and Walsall. A report by Heriot-Watt university in 2001 confirmed that the presence of a mineshaft can contribute to a depressed housing market in such areas. In former coal mining areas, house purchasers routinely obtain a coal mining search report, which is generally commissioned from the Coal Authority by a conveyancing solicitor. If the report discloses the existence of a disused coal mineshaft within 20m of a property, a sale can be jeopardised and the property can be devalued. In many cases, however, mineshafts are not as much of a problem as they might appear to be to the potential purchaser, and the house owner would not pay for the restorative work anyway.
That has been a problem for some time, and I understand that about a year or 18 months ago the Government established a working group—I think that it is under the Department of Trade and Industry—that involves the Coal Authority, the Law Society, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Association of British Insurers. I should like the Minister to say what that working group has proposed to overcome that problem, which affects Staffordshire in particular.
I had a conversation with the hon. Member for North Durham just before the debate, in which he looked me in the eye and asked, "What's your area got to do with former coal mining communities?" In fact, Ludlow does have former coal mining communities. The colliery in Highley was closed about 30 years ago, and the community there has a similar history to those that we have heard. The situation is perhaps not as severe as in other areas, but Bridgnorth district council, which owns many of the properties in Highley, has its problems.
The community in Highley is somewhat detached from other communities, public transport is poor and there is not much local employment—people have to travel somewhere else. Thanks to Conservative right-to-buy policies, which led to people buying up all the council houses in attractive little villages, a disproportionate number of council houses remain in Highley. When people go on to the housing list and say that they want to be in Bridgnorth, Much Wenlock, Shifnal or Albrighton because they work there, they get put in Highley. Councils that end up with housing stock in the wrong areas have a problem, although I do not want to overstate it.
The social problems in such areas are not on the same scale as those about which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke, but my constituency has experienced such issues on a smaller scale. Bridgnorth district council is a debt-free authority, but it has not sold off its council housing. The Government will make
112WH
it difficult for the council to deal with that potential imbalance through clause 11 of the Local Government Bill, which will not make the council want to consider radical options to address the imbalance in social housing. The Government need to consider the impact that clause 11 may have before they proceed with it.
I would also like the Minister to consider how much money has gone into the regeneration of these areas. I understand that the Government have committed a total of £354 million over a three-year period for the coalfields. However, that sum is less than the sum accrued to the Treasury through the pensions of former British Coal employees. It appears that the Government could have done more with the funds. I acknowledge that they have done more than the previous Government did, and I do not denigrate the fact that they have taken some action.
Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman is taking up most of his time talking about problems other than the ones that most coal mining communities face. Will he say how much the Liberal Democrats would invest in coalfield communities such as north Durham?
Matthew Green: I do not have a figure to hand, but I am raising relevant issues for the Minister to address, and I hope that he will.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is worried about the criteria used in the allocation of the funding and that the eligibility of former coalfield areas for funding is restricted. Is the Minister aware of that concern, and will he say what might be done to deal with it?
The issue of private landlords has been mentioned. In a debate six years ago, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who was the Minister responsible for housing at the time, said that the Government were considering a licensing system for houses in multiple occupation. One could argue that such a system should extend to other sorts of property. The Government made a point about the development of the HMO licensing proposals in their response to the action points listed by the taskforce. I hope that the Minister will say that those proposals will be considered under the forthcoming housing Bill as a means of dealing with the problem. We would certainly give the Government considerable support if they could address that problem.
We had the report in 1998 and the Government's response in December 1998. I have a straightforward question. The report made 29 recommendations. The Government rejected some of them, but made commitments on others. So that we may have an opportunity to review the progress that has been made, will the Minister run through which of their commitments the Government have met, which commitments they are on the way to meeting, and which ones they may have had to change along the way? We would do well to review the progress that has been made in the past four or five years.
This is a serious topic that covers a wide range of problems. As we heard, former coal mining communities throughout Britain have diverse problems that have not yet been dealt with. Again, I acknowledge

113WH
that the Government have done more than previous Governments have done, but there is still much to do.
2.54 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Cook.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am loth to stop the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I would be criticised were I not to do it.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is confusing when some are Deputy Speakers and some are Chairmen. However, I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing this important debate. We heard sincere speeches from him, and from the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). I am not quite sure what the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) contributed to the debate, but I suppose that the record might show something.
The debate could be usefully summed up by the former right hon. Member for Heseltine—or rather, for Henley—who said, in relation to the problems of Liverpool:
"I accepted that it was possible to prop up these communities by increasing the flow of public money, but that didn't address the fundamental issue of concentrated poverty. We needed to attack the root causes of the problem. The teenagers with the skills, the young would-be homeowners, the aspiring entrepreneurs, the strong, all those with the resources to choose, had to be persuaded to stay—even to come back, live and invest—close to the areas of deprivation. It was necessary to tackle the infrastructure's problems, to improve dramatically the quality of the public services and to create an environment to persuade people that it was in their own interests to live and work there. In other words, one had to enable these communities to compete for their place in the sun."
He put that into practice by completely regenerating the Hulme estate in the middle of Manchester, which was one of the most deprived areas in the UK. With the will and resources it can be done.
Mr. Clapham: It may be that the former right hon. Member for Henley gave some encouragement to changes in Liverpool. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that, particularly following the second lot of pit closures in the early 1980s, few resources were given by the Conservative Government to the former coal mining communities to help them to adjust and regenerate.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), partly because I failed to mention him in my opening remarks, and I apologise for that.
I thought that the issue of the figures would emerge, and so I asked the Library to look them up. When the Labour Government were in power in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, 308 coal mines were closed. In that same period under Conservative Governments, 256 coal
114WH
mines were closed. We should therefore be under no illusion—during that period Labour Governments closed far more pits than Conservative Governments.
I shall quote from an interesting letter from Mr. Euan Hall to the Financial Times on 5 June 2002. It echoes the sensible words spoken today by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. Mr. Hall states:
"Housing is an important part of the regeneration jigsaw but it is by no means the only one. Communities need sustainable development plans that take into consideration the whole lives of the people who live there—homes, schools, employment, transport, leisure, services."
That is exactly what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, and he is right. There is no point in building new houses or renovating houses in areas where no one wants to live, and which have no prospects of economic regeneration. We need to regenerate areas economically at the same time as improving the housing programme. We should increase the whole range of facilities in those areas.
The problem of deprivation in former mining communities occurs in both urban and rural areas. The predecessor of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw rightly said in an earlier debate:
"The pub in Warsop Vale has shut. The post office shut and reopened as part of a grocer's shop. Bus services are poor. Elderly people are trapped in their houses, unable to get to a supermarket. It is like a backwater of Kentucky."—[Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 330.]
We need to provide that whole range of services. It is sad that, in many rural areas, but also in urban areas, such facilities are being lost. There may be the loss of the one and only post office, perhaps due to the changes to the payment of benefits that are being made. We need to maintain such services in rural areas.
John Mann: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to learn that, as part of the regeneration, a new post office and health centre have been set up in Warsop Vale, which previously did not have a proper post office? The health centre is one of three planned centres to be built in my constituency this year for the many people now at work, because Bassetlaw has seen a 26 per cent. reduction in unemployment—the largest in the country by 6 per cent.—in the past 12 months.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am extremely pleased for the people of Bassetlaw and Warsop Vale that their economic regeneration is going so well, because nationally the unemployment figure has gone up by 650,000 in the six years that the Labour Government have been in power. I am delighted that things are going so well in that particular area.
I do not have much time, so I shall address a few of the points made in the debate. Several hon. Members mentioned rogue landlords, and none of us wants to see the activities that were mentioned. However, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said, we must not let the activities of some rogue landlords—no one would condone those activities—blacken the name of all private sector housing in this country. We need private sector investment in our housing, and it is vital that we get mixed communities, as I heard when I visited Liverpool and Manchester recently.
I was amused by a quotation from the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). Referring to the Kiveton Park estate, he said:

115WH
"One of the houses on the estate has a great history, as my case work revealed. The landlord proved to be so bad and difficult to deal with that the London solicitors who were acting as his agents eventually gave up on him. They cancelled their agreement with him and refused to deal with inquiries about the property's state of disrepair. I was told by the firm of solicitors to contact the landlord direct—he lived in Baghdad."—[Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 307, c. 337.]
I do not know the name of that landlord, although one could speculate on different possibilities. However, one clearly does not condone the activities of any such landlords.
There is not much time left, so I shall move on rapidly. I want to ask the Minister one specific question. There appear to be two major current initiatives. One is the national coalfields programme, which has renovated 98 sites. It was set up by the previous Conservative Government in 1996 and has had a budget in its 10 years so far of £385 million. How does that initiative mesh with the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which was set up through the coalfield taskforce by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1999 and has a budget of £45 million in its second round? I put that point gently to the Minister. In previous debates, I have criticised the fact that our urban regeneration has far too many schemes, some of which are underspent because no one knows what they do. I urge the Minister to consider simplifying the schemes available so that everyone knows what pot of money is available for what projects.
Will the Minister comment on the smaller but undoubtedly excellent projects funded by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust? I will give a typical example. The Kiveton Park and Wales community development trust receives—104,000 to cover 100 per cent. of the salary and associated running costs for a development worker to support existing services and develop new facilities. I am sure that that is an excellent service, but I worry about the large number of small projects funded by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and whether they are so diversified that they are not achieving the core objective of regenerating coalfield areas. I also worry about whether the trust's management has the expertise to monitor the continuing evolvement of the small projects to ensure that they are delivering what they were supposed to deliver. Are those small projects properly audited so that no public money is lost and we can ensure value for public money?
This has been a short, but useful, debate, which has followed up on the debate that we had on 16 July 1997. I hope that we have more such debates and that the Minister will assure us that the Government are well on their way to meeting the Prime Minister's objective of everybody in this country having a decent home by 2010. I am sure that if that objective were met, most of the hon. Members who have spoken today would be very happy indeed.
3.5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), not just on securing the debate, but on his lasting interest in housing, both before and after his election to this House. I do not profess, or wish, to be cult figure or hero in Derbyshire or anywhere else; neither do I have responsibility for coal, so I cannot give
116WH
assurances on existing working seams; nor am I a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, so I shall not comment on anything to do with the DTI. However, I congratulate my other hon. Friends on their cogent, well thought-out contributions on a very real and serious subject.
In terms of the Government's response, the subject needs to be seen in the context of the communities plan that was elaborated on on 5 February, which has at its core the survivability and sustainability of communities, and which treats the issue in the very real way that my hon. Friends have suggested. The plan is not just about housing. Many of the assorted regeneration programmes and vehicles associated across the piece with former mining communities are not just there to rehabilitate housing; they are there to do all that can be done for communities, root and branch.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) on his local press release. I have to say that he seemed to witter on about everything except housing in former coal mining communities. Throwing in a little bit at the end about the report and the taskforce did not really add up to a sustained contribution to a serious issue, and that is a matter of some regret. Usually in Adjournment debates there is at least one intelligent contribution from the Opposition and one not so intelligent. Today we have been blessed with two completely unintelligent contributions.
To mention the former Member for Heseltine—or Henley—in a coal mining debate shows that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has more front than Harrods. It really is quite lamentable. In the next breath he suggested that the former Member for Henley regenerated Hulme in Manchester. I have been to Hulme and I was not falling over former mining shafts in downtown Manchester. That point had nothing to do with coal mining communities. It might have been interesting if he had told us how extending the right to buy to social tenants in the registered social landlord and housing association sector would help the vibrancy of our former mining communities, but he did not.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I meant to declare my interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I also have certain property interests, which I do not think are affected by the debate.
To respond to the Minister's request, releasing funds relating to the right to buy and the registered social landlord sector would enable considerably more affordable houses to be built than the Government are building at the moment. The Government are building 21,000 affordable houses a year. When the Conservatives left office, the figure was 35,000; when they came to office in 1980, the figure was 100,000.
Mr. McNulty: We might leave it to those who live in the ex-coal mining communities to reach a judgment on a policy that is rooted in what was once described as voodoo economics. This is not the place to go into any detail about Walt Disney versions of extending the right to buy. This is a serious subject.
I am happy to acknowledge the research that my hon. Friend commissioned into issues affecting the forming mining villages of Craghead and Grange Villa, which

117WH
was published with the university of Northumberland. It was an extremely useful piece of work. One thing that the hon. Member for Ludlow said that was of value was that we talk collectively of the former coal mining communities, but in their previous histories, the working lives of those who live in them and the industry's legacies there is as much disparity as there is similarity, and that is important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) referred to private landlords, absentee landlords, what might be termed benefit farming and the antisocial behaviour that often follows. I shall come on to talk about the housing Bill in a little more detail, but we need to consider the forthcoming housing legislation and the antisocial behaviour Bill. Elements from both will help our communities.
I am more than happy to put on record that many housing associations, landlords and registered social landlords do profoundly good work in that area, and have long since stepped out of the box to work with communities in a regenerative way, by seeing housing as an device for the wider regeneration of communities. I am also happy to register my hon. Friend's other point about the powers of councils. When we examine those two pieces of legislation we will see that in part, at least, what councils can do in that regard will be enhanced. I shall return to that point in a moment if I have time.
I cannot promise my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that the Deputy Prime Minister is about to come riding over the hill and visit him in Bassetlaw and the Meden valley, in relation to some spurious link to the former right hon. Member for Belper, who happened to have the same title. We shall consider that and see what happens.
Many of the themes introduced by my hon. Friends were linked, albeit from the perspective of a range of disparate communities. I take full account of what my hon. Friends the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said about the legacy of the south Wales coalfields. There are elements of housing build that apply across England and Wales, and we have worked closely with the Assembly in drawing up legislation.
Mr. Clapham: As the Minister rightly points out, there are similarities but mining communities are different. However, many of the problems are similar in the sense that the social structure came under enormous strain after the local colliery closed. The one reinforcing factor was the tenacity of that structure, which the Coalfield Regeneration Trust is helping to rebuild.
Mr. McNulty: I am more than happy to recognise and endorse my hon. Friend's point. Suffice it to say that there is much that unites them, not least the fact that a single industry has been ripped away with all the tensions and pressure that puts on the community socially. Equally, I would agree that in all the areas that we are talking about there is a real durability and tenacity in the local communities, and often among the local leadership, which means that they do hold on and bounce back when appropriate. That is partly a result of some of the assistance afforded by the national coalfields programme, the Coalfield Regeneration Trust and the other assorted elements.
118WH
I was going to go into some depth on that, but I want to concentrate on where we go from here in relation to the housing Bill and some aspects of the communities plan. The communities plan marked a step change in how we ensure that people have access to decent housing in thriving communities across the country. My Department will try, through regional housing boards and similar bodies, and by working with the national coalfields programme and the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, to ensure sensitivity and responsiveness to local conditions and the regional dimension far more readily than we have until now.
At its core, as everyone has said, the vision is not simply about housing, but the spaces between in relation to housing and the economy, the creation of attractive living environments and the empowerment of local people. No penalty should be attached to living in areas where the glory of a formerly dominant industry is now in the past. People in those communities have as much right as people in any other part of the country to live in thriving sustainable communities.
Jeff Ennis: I apologise for not being present for the whole of this interesting debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I was serving on a Standing Committee, which I am glad to say has now concluded. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister that the debate is not just about bricks and mortar, but about the surroundings and making coalfield communities attractive to local residents again. Will he join me in congratulating the Groundwork Trust on working closely not only with local councils in coalfield communities, but with local communities in trying to make those areas more attractive? Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that that trust operates effectively in all former coalfield villages?
Mr. McNulty: I am glad, if no one else is, that that Standing Committee is over, so that my hon. Friend can attend this debate and make his point. I have the pleasure, among other duties, of being the sponsor Minister for the Groundwork Trust, and I fully endorse his comments about the works that it carries out. If he looks at the communities plan, he will see, as others have during the past few weeks, that we have secured further funding and resources to enable the trust to do throughout the country precisely what he has described. The work done by the trust and others in terms of remediation, which goes far beyond simply making shafts safe and the scars on the land vaguely green, is very important.
I visited the Ireland colliery, among others, when I was out and about once. The scars on the land there have been flooded, and it has been turned into a community focus centre. It has become a focal point for the surrounding area and for many events, which is a pleasure to see. That is about reclaiming the land from its previous industrial use, so I happily endorse it.
We are trying to deal with the areas where the situation is most acute and there is abandonment, rather than simply low demand or an issue about the private rented sector. We have identified nine areas where there are the worst excesses of low demand and abandonment, including north Staffordshire and south Yorkshire, as two of the key ex-coal mining areas. We shall look to those pathfinder areas to generate

119WH
substantial plans and business propositions to turn round those areas. Again, that is not simply about bulldozing empty homes, as those who should know better have uncharitably characterised us as doing. I am talking about reconfiguring, reconstructing and working with local people so that those communities have a future, and we should work together to ensure that we are successful.
Not all ex-coal mining communities are in the nine pathfinder areas, but we hope that, as those areas roll out, huge lessons can be learned and read across to other areas. That is important, because in one way or another, many if not all of the ex-coalfield communities suffer from low demand, abandonment or a mixture of the two.
We are trying to sort out the landlords issue through selective licensing, and to work through solutions to low demand and abandonment. It is a pleasure to see communities considering their future in the broadest sense to see what direction they can take. In that context, we are affording English Partnerships a far more developed role. The communities plan states:
"We will tackle low demand and abandonment in former coalfield communities through continued funding and support for the work of English Partnerships on the National Coalfield Programme, the Coalfield Regeneration Trust and … the Coalfield Enterprise Fund".
It is important to understand the total extent to which former coalfield community housing suffers from market failure and low demand, before suggesting any priorities for action or possible funding sources.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: I shall, very briefly. I hope that it will be worth while.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Perhaps, without persisting in being rude, as he always is, the Minister will answer my question about what the three bodies that he has mentioned do, and how they mesh together.
Mr. McNulty: With respect, I would rather dwell on answering questions from hon. Members who made serious contributions.
English Partnerships will, with the full co-operation of the coalfields communities campaign, begin to map out the extent of the problem experienced in coalfield communities, to begin fulfilling the commitment that has been made. We are exploring other areas in relation to updating coalfield area research on policy issues.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If questions are raised in this House by an hon. Member and the Minister ignores them, what is the point of debates?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for a Minister's conduct. As I understand it, the Minister is trying to answer questions that were raised earlier.
Mr. McNulty: Some priority is necessary in these matters as they unfold; this is a narrow debate.
The root of much of the problem, as my hon. Friends have said, is the National Coal Board and the dismissive way in which it got rid of much of its housing stock, with
120WH
little thought and, of course, with the complete indulgence of the previous Government. That decision led, as many of my hon. Friends have said, to a flight of owner-occupiers and an influx of antisocial tenants, who had been excluded from other areas and tenures, as has been graphically described. We shall try to resolve that state of affairs, through our Bills on housing and on antisocial behaviour.
The housing Bill will help to tackle bad landlords who have helped to destroy communities. Hon. Members will have to wait a short time for it to be published in all its glory, but it will, as we have already explained, provide discretionary powers for local authorities to license private landlords in areas of low housing demand where problems arise. It will address the bad management problem in relation to privately rented properties—especially houses in multiple occupation. I thought that the hon. Member for Ludlow was going to develop the concept of licensing houses in single occupancy, but perhaps he could elaborate on that after the Committee.
The state of some houses in multiple occupation has a severe impact on already vulnerable areas. They are sometimes attractive for landlords who want to make the most money in areas of low demand and abandonment. We will require that private landlords should be fit and proper persons and that they should meet minimum management standards, as well as playing their part in dealing with antisocial tenants. They should play a part in wider measures to deal with antisocial behaviour, encourage regeneration in low housing demand areas and provide for the setting of maximum licensing fees. I advise hon. Members to read across from the housing Bill to the antisocial behaviour Bill.
John Mann: Will the Minister answer the outrageous slur on the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in the suggestion that its projects were not properly audited? Will he confirm that the trust is properly financially accountable and is an organisation of the highest financial repute?
Mr. McNulty: I am more than happy to deprecate anyone in this Chamber or elsewhere saying otherwise. The remarks in question were, in the light of their ridiculous nature, among those that I was more than happy to leave on one side. I endorse my hon. Friend's view of the matter.
Rather than waiting for the housing Bill—it is undergoing some pre-legislative scrutiny—we are working closely with five or six local authorities in low demand areas, giving them additional funding, as a pilot scheme to enable us to get to grips with how our existing portfolio of powers might enable us to tackle matters more readily now. That pilot will, at least, point towards ways in which we should build on existing arrangements as the Bill goes through Parliament. We thought it important to grab the issue by the scruff of the neck now, rather than to wait for the Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Perhaps I can make my question even simpler, so that the Minister will answer. When does he expect the housing Bill to be published in draft?
Mr. McNulty: I thought that I said it would be very shortly. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was intervening to apologise about the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, but we can carry on hoping.

121WH
Through the special vehicles, the Meden valley is a model of the way forward; it will make a significant difference in north Derbyshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, it is exactly the same as a range of other ex-coalfield areas, with dispersed pockets of housing, typically 50 to 100 properties grouped together in two or three streets. About 900 properties in 11 distinct geographical pockets have been identified for action in the partnership approach involving English Partnerships, two local authorities and the East Midlands Development Agency. I congratulate all, including Government Departments, who have come to the table to get us to the stage where the scheme is about to take off. It will make a difference; as with other things that are happening in low-demand areas, we hope that the lessons learned from the success of Meden valley will be applied to what we want to do elsewhere and to the problems outlined by hon. Members.
This has been an interesting and important debate. These issues will not go away, but if we do nothing there will be no development. A housing Bill and a Bill to tackle antisocial behaviour will help, but we are not waiting for them as work is being done with the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and others. We are shifting the resources to regional level for dispersion, and regional housing boards with significant ex-coalfield communities should work as closely as possible with the agencies suggested by my hon. Friend to get the measure of the problems in each area and how they should be tackled.
122WH
That underpins what my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said. The only certainty is that the communities will not die. They know they have a future although they may not be sure what it is, and that is why they need assistance. We must get to grips with the matter and build on the work that has already been done by a range of bodies to assess the problems. It is possible that the solution is in the Meden valley project, although the problems may be slightly different in North Durham, Mexborough and Penistone or in a south Wales valley. However, if we work together in partnership we can get to the stage where housing is dealt with in the ex-coalfield communities in a way that it leaves lasting, sustainable, durable communities that have a much better future than they had under the ex-right hon. Member for Heseltine!
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As it is not yet time for the next debate to begin, and before the Minister leaves the Chamber, may I say that robust parliamentary debate is one thing, but "Erskine May" states that there are standards of behaviour for one Member towards another. I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether the way that the Minister has behaved today complies with the rules laid down in "Erskine May" in respect of one Member's consideration of another.
Mr Deputy Speaker: It is the duty of the Chair is to see that the Standing Orders are observed and that "Erskine May" is respected. I have seen nothing yet in the conduct in the Chamber to indicate that that is not the case. Had I seen such conduct, I would have drawn to order at the time whoever was responsible.

Anaemia
3.29 pm
Mr. Dai Havard: The subject of the discussion is treating anaemia in cancer patients. I shall speak first about why the matter is important; secondly, about the current effects; thirdly, about the Department's responses; fourthly, about a survey that I have undertaken to gather further evidence; fifthly, about what should be done; and, sixthly, about what I am doing to contribute.
First, the matter is important to me because there is a high incidence of cancer in my constituency. The debate is about the processes of government and the efficient running of the health service, but it is also about people and the real effects that I see every day—it is not an academic exercise. People living in the valleys have to travel and face disruption, but they might receive better treatment in their own homes if we adopted different policies.
In 2000, a study showed that anaemia-induced fatigue is the most socially debilitating aspect of cancer care, greater than the pain and nausea associated with treatment. In its survey, the charity CancerBACUP showed that 84 per cent. of cancer patients were ignorant about the haemoglobin levels associated with fatigue. That exposed a lack of quality in the consultation between them and their clinicians: while most had discussed the fatigue, fewer than half had been told that it was related to anaemia.
A soon-to-be-published review of the literature by Professor Bosenquet of Imperial college, London, an adviser to the Select Committee on Health, will show that cancer is emerging as a chronic, long-term illness. More people will be living longer with anaemia and cancer. The prevalence has increased because survival rates are increasing. Clinicians and others are winning the fight to keep people alive, but patients are suffering the debilitating side effects of their treatment longer.
Evidence is building that treating anaemia before and during cancer care has beneficial medical as well as social effects. Patients require an overall package that includes support for carers, complementary treatments and counselling. Cancer plans across the home counties were important immediate responses to the need for improved care, but it is now clear that they need to be adjusted because cancer is changing from an acute problem to a chronic illness, and needs to be treated as such. I have evidence of that in my constituency, where the useful charity, Cancer Aid Merthyr, supports cancer patients with both complementary medicines and counselling.
Not only does the package of care need to be reformed by the health service, it needs appropriate funding. Anaemia treatment should be central to the package. Unfortunately, it is not. For example, while Birmingham Heartlands hospital recognises the importance of the principle, it has abandoned treating cancer patients for anaemia either by transfusion or by medical alternatives; patients simply do not receive that aspect of their care.
I support the principle of choice for patients. Such choices are a matter for debate between individual clinicians and patients, so I do not have a problem with
124WH
the fact that in certain parts of the country, patients with religious objections to blood transfusions receive alternatives. That is right—but it should not be the only reason for receiving alternative treatment. Professor Bosenquet's forthcoming report shows that while communication between doctors and patients is improving, there are major gaps.
I am not playing a blame game with doctors. Often, patients do not know what is available and clinicians cannot give it to them; or if a patient does know, and asks for something, the clinician is in a cleft stick and cannot provide it. The rhetoric—that is all it is—about choice becomes a sham. We need to work towards a situation in which everybody gets the right treatment, not only the articulate middle classes who can exert pressure, or those with a particular objection to a certain treatment. Will the Minister conduct an evaluation of cancer care networks, to see when and how treatment is given, and how the current policies stand up in practice? I would like a guarantee that patients who, following an educated discussion, request an alternative are able to receive the treatment that they have requested.
I raised this matter more than 12 months ago. Since then, the safety of people receiving blood transfusions could have been improved. We could have helped to protect the supply of blood, an enormous proportion of which—some 30 per cent. or more—is given to cancer patients. We could have gained a series of efficiencies in terms of releasing health service resources. We could have made quicker progress towards European standards. The quality of care of patients could have been improved. We have missed all those opportunities. The current responses are insufficient.
The appropriate use of blood working group has suggested measures that will help. I welcome the fact that precautionary principles have been applied to children under six and to other groups such as haemophiliacs, but why can precautionary principles and the better care principles not be extended to the largest group of people involved? Many clinicians tell me that the alternatives cannot be introduced because of economics, and I have sent information to the Treasury and to the Department of Health on the economics. Catalyst Health Economics carried out a study that showed that the costs of blood have increased from £250 million in 1994–95 to £898 million a year in 2000–01. There has been an enormous increase in costs, and the hospital stay element of that approaches £600 million. Information on spending and on hospital efficiency is available to show that.
Dr. Ian Gibson: I am so pleased that my hon. Friend is making the strong case for improving the quality of life. Has he in his researches come across evidence of other countries carrying out such care and looking after people to improve their quality of life? That happened in the US. I know that the US has a different system, but there were positive measurements there of the effects of investing money and resources in the care of patients suffering from cancer.
Mr. Havard: Yes is the short answer. I do not have time to itemise all the studies that I researched, but I will put a document in the Library so that hon. Members can consult it. My hon. Friend is entirely correct that better standards of care do exist and that there is good

125WH
evidence that not only does such treatment help with palliative measures, but it may help with curative aspects of care as well. There are benefits all round.
The other part of Professor Bosenquet's study that interested me was the fact that there are now additional costs that I had not seen before. A 2000 study by Curt et al shows that 75 per cent. of the people surveyed left employment, so there are considerations involving whether people are well enough to remain in employment. From being net contributors to the economy, they stop being taxpayers and become dependent on state benefits. That adds to the overall costs of treatment. I have been asking for some time for the issue to be looked at in the round rather than in compartments.
There is a suggestion that the issue be referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, but that is an inadequate response. In addition, the terms of reference of the referral are not clear—it is not clear how it has been prioritised or even whether it has been prioritised. My fear is that it is far too narrow a referral because it does not talk about all cancer patients, but only about those who are receiving chemotherapy. It is clear that the progress of the referral will be too slow—it will go into the ninth wave of consideration. I ask the Minister to find out whether it can be accelerated and brought into the eighth wave of consideration. Will the Minister also look at a wider referral that will include anaemia in general? I have carried out my own survey of hospitals, and it seems to me that more important than information is political will. I would like a commitment today that thought will be given to broadening the consideration to include all cancer patients and that it will be accelerated to the eighth wave.
As I said, I conducted my own survey of more than 200 trusts. To date, more than a third of them have replied to my questions about the treatment of anaemia in cancer patients and the associated economics and bed blocking. I am grateful to those that have replied. The results consistently show that funding constraints are a major issue, but in some places it is a matter of luck whether one gets treatment at all—I gave an example of that from Birmingham. Abandoning treatment for cost reasons is not acceptable.
I would like to give hon. Members a pr écis of some of the responses. Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS trust said that cervical cancer patients respond better the higher their haemoglobin levels. The response from Newcastle upon Tyne was that using erythropoietin, which is the drug alternative, as a default could save 150,000 bed days a year. The Brighton and Sussex cancer centre does not have enough beds and patients must wait for blood treatments. The response from Wigan was that EPO improves the quality of life better than transfusions. The response from Newham was that it looks to EPO first and only uses blood as a second resort—EPO is its default treatment. That is the policy that should be adopted.
What should be done? Over the past 12 months, I have been calling for both step change and incremental change to satisfy the pressing needs of cancer patients and their families. Unfortunately, there is a limited and confused response from the Department of Health. Given the growing body of knowledge and experience,
126WH
the Department's activities border on negligence. Doctors are being put in a position where they might find themselves the subject of legal claims, and I believe that that will happen to the Department as well. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know from your past experience of health and safety legislation that the test applied is that if something is in your current knowledge and experience and you do not do something about it, you may well be held accountable for it. That needs to be given serious consideration.
I am interested in achieving change, not in scoring political points. Both step changes and incremental changes need to be made. As I said earlier, I want a guarantee that, when they are requested, alternatives will be given to patients. I want a commitment today to broaden the referral that has already been made to NICE and to accelerate consideration to the eighth wave. The survey clearly shows that we are not matching European standards. There must be a political declaration and a declaration of policy and intent from the Department. We want to match not only European but other international standards. We should help to prevent and pre-empt any form of crisis in blood supply and blood safety. We should develop a patient policy that is driven by quality of care. I also want a blood policy developed for both use and supply that does not constantly respond to what are effectively short-term crises.
Out of all that, what am I doing? I have explained what I have done. I support initiatives in my local trust. Prince Charles hospital in Merthyr now has a cancer care co-ordinator. We have done many things to advance the plans and ideas that my hon. Friend the Minister shares about cancer care policy involving patients, carers and society and understanding it. Cancer Aid Merthyr, the charity that I mentioned, is part of that project. I have sponsored and will continue to help to promote iCan, a special free magazine for cancer patients and their carers, so that they understand what is available to them and how they can help and support themselves. A little agitation is needed, which will take the form of a charity-led campaign to educate people so that they know what their haemoglobin levels are and what to ask for. Hopefully, some pressure will come up from the bottom, to add to the demands for the organisation to change at the top.
I will share the information that I have. As I said earlier, I will place the information in the Library and I am quite happy to contribute in the best way that I can to any discussions that the Department might wish to broker. I will organise a discussion seminar in the House later in the year, to which I will invite all of the relevant parties and all those who express an interest. I hope that the Minister will play a role in that, so that we can work together not only to achieve early step change, but to ensure that we make the right long-term consolidated incremental changes. I will also ensure that we work together to deliver our shared objectives: to improve not only the mechanics of the health service, but patients' quality of care and their lives.
3.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) on securing the debate. I am well aware of

127WH
his special interest in the treatment of anaemia in cancer patients. Indeed, I answered his Adjournment debate on this subject in January last year. We have also corresponded on several occasions, and I know that he has also written to several of my colleagues. I apologise for the length of time it has taken to get those replies to him and I will personally ensure that I respond much more quickly in future.
My hon. Friend's interest in this area has been prompted by the high number of cancer patients in his constituency. I have no doubt that this is not simply a passing interest. His background work and research, and the depth to which he has explored these subjects, are testament to his absolute and overriding commitment to try to ensure that patients get the best services they can. His persistence is paying off. The treatment of anaemia and cancer patients, particularly the use of EPO, is well and truly on my radar. His constant pressing of this matter has made a difference to the way that we look at these matters.
I should first like to say a few things about the blood service, because I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about that too. Clearly it is important to maintain adequate supplies of blood. As he well knows, for some time we have been looking at ways of getting alternative uses in place, rather than simply depending on traditional blood transfusions. At present there is no prospect of any blood shortages and I am delighted that donors are continuing to donate. For the past three years not one single operation has been cancelled or postponed because of shortages of blood, but we must not be complacent. We must plan ahead for contingencies that might arise and there is pressure on us to look at alternatives.
We want to encourage the NHS to use less blood, to consider alternatives to donor blood where that is appropriate and to try to make blood as safe as possible. Blood is never without risks, but the safety of blood is paramount to us as a Department. We have been working for some time on better blood transfusion. It is essential that blood be used only when strictly necessary. In 1998 we started our better blood transfusion initiative. The UK's four chief medical officers got together and that was followed up with a major conference in 2001. New guidance was issued to the NHS last year.
We now have a national network of hospital transfusion committees: people from all the different clinical disciplines are coming together to see how we can reduce the use of blood and improve our blood transfusion practice. Their guidance should have a real impact on avoiding unnecessary blood transfusion and encouraging the use of effective alternatives to donor blood, including the use of patients' own blood, which is being explored at the moment.
Mr. Havard: May I just ask when publication is likely?
Ms Blears: Yes. I am informed by the group that publication is likely to be shortly or soon. It was originally going to be in spring, but my hon. Friend will know that the seasons in the Department of Health tend to run into one another. I have asked for clarification today and the report will be published in the next couple of months. That is about as firm as I have been able to
128WH
get it. He can rest assured that I will press to see that report on my desk within that time. I thought that that was better than saying spring or summer and I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by that.
Mr. Havard indicated assent.
Ms Blears: Indeed. There is a great deal of work going on right across the service in that group to try to ensure that we address these issues. The group has four main tasks. The first is minimising exposure to the risks of transfusion, particularly in relation to vCJD. I know that my hon. Friend has not mentioned that today, but it is a big concern. The second is ensuring the most effective use of an increasingly scarce resource, the available blood supply. Thirdly, and this is of particular concern to my hon. Friend, the group will consider alternatives to blood transfusion, all forms of blood substitute therapies, including correcting anaemia with appropriate vitamin and iron supplements, and the feasibility of bloodless surgical units. Such units are now beginning to develop in hospitals up and down the country. In my local hospital in Salford, two surgeons are able to operate in a virtually bloodless environment. That is a great step forward.
As I said, the report should be published in the next couple of months. I am glad to share that with my hon. Friend, who has a great deal of knowledge about this area. One issue that he emphasised today is the use of erythropoietin—it is probably best if we simply refer to EPO—in the treatment of anaemia and cancer patients. Anaemia is a common problem in people with cancer. It can be caused either by the disease itself or by treatment, especially chemotherapy. Mild anaemia is not usually a significant problem, but once it becomes more serious it can leave patients feeling exhausted, breathless, tired and fatigued. It can have a significant impact on their quality of life.
That would be a problem for any of us, but if those symptoms are considered together with the physical and emotional strains that cancer patients undergo, it is easy to see that it can be a serious problem. That is why treating anaemia can do much to benefit cancer patients and improve their quality of life during treatment. It makes them feel better, less tired and more able to cope with the strains they are facing.
I am concerned about my hon. Friend's statement about Birmingham, where he indicated that treatment for anaemia in cancer patients has been abandoned. I undertake to look into that situation, because although there are a variety of methods of treating anaemia in cancer patients, it is a matter for concern if no treatment is available in that area.
My hon. Friend said that the decision was made on grounds of cost. I am sure that he will be aware that the 10-year cancer plan adopted by the Government is backed up with significant extra resources: £407 million extra this year and £570 million extra next year. I am extremely concerned if those cancer networks are saying that anaemia in cancer patients is not a spending priority, because it is clearly a significant issue.
Mr. Havard: Can I take it therefore, as per my earlier request, that my hon. Friend will survey the cancer networks to establish how the cancer policies are running? The letter to which I referred states:

129WH
"The situation may change as blood becomes less easy to obtain and more expensive".
Ms Blears: I am happy to undertake to look into the issue raised by my hon. Friend. I would also like to see, if he is willing to share that information, the results of the survey he conducted. The comments from the commissions would be extremely useful.
Blood transfusions are currently the main means of treating anaemia, but EPO is another option. It works by stimulating the production of blood in the bone marrow. My hon. Friend has looked closely at the use of EPO and he considered it not only in terms of how it could benefit patients but the knock-on effects for future blood supplies and for the NHS more generally in potential savings in bed days. I have looked at the evidence presented by my hon. Friend in terms of the calculated projected savings that the NHS could make by introducing EPO more widely for cancer patients, compared to using blood transfusions.
At present there are significant variations within the calculations. I am told that cancer patients having transfusions does not necessarily have to be the only use of that bed day and that they can have a transfusion at the same time as chemotherapy or CT scans. If we are to make decisions, we need to obtain the best possible evidence and to drill down into some of the calculations about the number of possible bed days that could be saved to the health service.
Mr. Havard: I accept that my calculations are crude because I had only limited resources with which to compile them. Nevertheless, they show a basic trend. I am happy that more qualitative work should be carried out on the incremental long-term consolidated change. There is more than a little empirical evidence that certain immediate changes could also be supported.
Ms Blears: I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to press on this matter. I will do my utmost to ensure that we obtain the best evidence about the implications of introducing this service.
My hon. Friend referred to the actions by NICE. As he knows, we set up the institute to obtain the best possible advice about how to get the right treatment to patients, working within available resources. As I mentioned in correspondence, I believe that NICE is the most appropriate forum to consider the use of EPO versus blood transfusions. It has the responsibility and, most importantly, the expertise to appraise the clinical issues, the cost-effectiveness of the treatment and whether it should be more widely available.
It is difficult to circumvent the processes that we have established. NICE now has a well-respected place in the NHS, ensuring that what is done is based on proper, rigorous evidence, which gives us security for the future. As my hon. Friend said, EPO is currently being considered for referral as part of NICE's ninth wave work programme. I understand his wanting to press ahead, and although I cannot promise that it will be in the eighth wave, I shall consider whether it could be included early in the ninth wave.
130WH
NICE sometimes has to take difficult decisions. There have been so many developments in cancer treatment in recent years that it must consider drugs that treat and cure cancer as well therapies, and EPO falls into that category. It is hard to differentiate between drugs that can cure and those with therapeutic benefits. Such decisions can be rather like the judgment of Solomon, but doing it properly is important.
Even in the absence of a NICE decision, it is open to the NHS and clinicians to make decisions about the clinical treatment of their patients on the basis of evidence that is already available. Therefore, nothing prevents clinicians from deciding that it would be an appropriate treatment. It is not right for Ministers to tell clinicians, from a distance, what sort of treatment they should be providing for their patients. If it is decided that a treatment is appropriate for those cancer networks, there are no barriers or hurdles to it proceeding.
I know that there are questions about costs, but significant extra investment is now being made in the system. It is for clinicians to decide whether they want to travel along that route; it is not for Ministers to usurp NICE's role or to substitute for the decisions of clinicians.
Mr. Havard: There is, of course, a disparity of practice. In certain parts of the country, clinicians may have a budget for drugs but not for blood. They will see that one commodity is free and that the other is available only at a cost, and they may therefore make different decisions than clinicians for whom both have a cost. The disparity of treatment comes from the mechanics and the process.
Ms Blears: I want to make two points. First, a number of new cancer drugs have been introduced through NICE, and the 31,000 patients who are now benefiting from those drugs would previously have been in the postcode lottery of care. Provision has clearly been made for the drugs service. Secondly, patients are integrally involved in the cancer service collaborative projects. They and their families are working side by side with clinicians. For the first time, patients have a mechanism to participate in that debate.
That brings me to what my hon. Friend said about choice, and it not being treated as rhetoric. The collaboratives give patients a significant influence on the shape and design of cancer services. Their views are not being sought as a sham, but are needed in order to change the design of those services. For the first time, patients have a real chance to influence the process.
My hon. Friend knows that we are only two years into the 10-year cancer plan, and we clearly want to make progress in several areas, but we have always said that it should be a step-by-step process. However, no one could deny that the cancer plan has already made significant improvements. Some 97 per cent. of patients are now seen within two weeks; we have extended breast screening to women over 65; and we have 800 new pieces of equipment. I know that it is not directly linked to the object of my hon. Friend's concern, but that extra investment has resulted in a significant progress in cancer treatment generally. Most cancer patients say that the service has been transformed in the past few years.

131WH
I know that that will not stop my hon. Friend from continuing to press on the matter, because he is passionate about it and committed to it in the very best way that a Member of Parliament can be. I therefore reassure him that he is making constructive suggestions. I am fully engaged in trying to ensure an early review by NICE of the process, to ensure that patients get the best services.
Mr. Havard: I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that there have been massive improvements. As I said earlier and as Professor Bosenquet's study shows, it is because we have been successful in treatment that we now have a problem with associated fatigue.
Ms Blears: The interesting point made by my hon. Friend is that cancer is changing from an acute to a chronic, long-term disease because people are surviving for longer. That means that we need to consider our processes afresh and to feed new thought into our services, which I gladly undertake to do.

Viral Pandemic
4 pm
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in this Chamber. The debate has a somewhat off-putting title, but I hope that its content is a little more accessible. The concept of viral pandemic is well known among scientific and medical communities but less well known among the general public, although they should, perhaps, be more aware of it. One of the problems is trivialisation, because some of the prime suspects for a viral pandemic are bugs with which we think that we are familiar and which we think we understand.
The classic example is influenza. The danger is that everyone who ever has a sniffle nowadays and who does not want to go to work claims to have flu, whereas in fact, as we know, influenza is potentially a killer, especially those strains of it against which we have no protection. Indeed, three times in the past century there has been a genuine pandemic based on influenza: in 1918, 1957 and 1968–69.
It is worth noting just how serious was the disease condition associated with the biggest pandemic yet recorded, which occurred in 1918. That was the so-called Spanish influenza, although it had little to do with Spain and there was at least a suspicion that it was introduced by American servicemen from Kansas during the first world war. It caused acute illness in 25 to 30 per cent. of the world's population. The number of people who died from it is a matter of dispute. I have seen figures ranging from 20 million to 70 million, and I think that a figure of 40 million is probably about right. That is greatly in excess of the number of people who died as a consequence of the conflict in the first world war. Sadly, virologists have been predicting that we are due another pandemic, and they have been saying as much with increasing clamour since 1998.
Some of the issues associated with our defences against pandemic are the same as those that apply to our defences against bioterrorism, so the matter is currently even more salient. One of the problems with the deliberate introduction of infectious diseases, such as smallpox or anthrax, is that our population no longer has natural immunity or defences to them. Therefore, the capacity for contagion is much greater.
The world's attention at the moment is on severe acute respiratory syndrome. Whether it will turn out to be the risk that some people fear is still a contentious matter. The Minister might be able to help by giving us his Department's assessment of the situation. My figures, as of yesterday, from the World Health Organisation show that there are 487 recorded cases in 12 countries. Perhaps the Minister will update us on the precautions that he believes are appropriate. Perhaps he will also inform us of the incidence, or potential incidence, of the illness in this country and say what the implications are for air travel, which it has been suggested might be part of the background to the spread of infection.
That observation highlights one of the problems that we face as a world community. We live in a different world—one with many methods of communication. We live in a world of high mobility in which people use both air and land travel to a much greater extent than in the

133WH
past. That is coupled with food chains that condense supply routes and encourage the maximum infection, if food is the medium for infection, and we can also add bugs' increased resistance to the normal antiviral and antimicrobial agents because of overuse of those agents in health or agriculture. We live in a world in which more members of the population have impaired immune systems, either because they are living longer due to surgical or medical interventions or for other reasons. From recent experience in this country of epizootics such as foot and mouth, we also know how limited our defences can be to the rapid spread of disease.
I do not want to talk about what are rightly described as pandemics. For example, I do not want to talk about AIDS, although it is undoubtedly a huge problem across the world and would repay a great deal more attention. I do not want to talk about iatrogenic or hospital-acquired infections. The Minister knows that they are a serious problem, but that is not my main point. I do not want to talk about the several tropical diseases that have surpassed epidemic and approached pandemic proportions but are not a direct threat in this country. That is not to underestimate their importance; we are talking simply about our domestic situation. I do not want to talk about the diseases that seem to be appearing with renewed vigour, but for which treatments exist, that are a matter of containment and early diagnosis rather than an overwhelming problem, such as tuberculosis.
Science has undoubtedly changed massively since 1918, as have the precautions that we can take and the advice that we are given. The prescribed advice of the News of the World from 3 November 1918 was:
"Wash inside nose with soap and water each night and morning; force yourself to sneeze night and morning, then breathe deeply; do not wear a muffler; take sharp walks regularly and walk home from work; eat plenty of porridge."
Those may all be sound items of advice, but I suspect that we would not recommend them as an answer today to a new strain of influenza.
The problem is that we are dealing with a mutated form of the virus, and as we know, such mutations happen regularly. They usually represent a limited quantum leap from the previous infection, which means that there is scope for developing new vaccines to deal with them. Occasionally, there is a substantial leap in the antigenic qualities of the virus, which gives us a real problem. One problem is that the vaccines that we use to fight infection are normally produced using fertilised eggs. We do not yet have an adequate tissue culture method of production, so there is a serious time lag between identification and production of appropriate remedies.
We have some remedies, such as amantadine and rimantadine, but they are limited in their effectiveness against influenza. They are effective, but resistance is quickly developed. There is a new breed of drugs—neuraminidase inhibitors, including relenza and that family of drugs—which seem to be effective in their selective inhibition of the viral enzyme nuraminidase. They are not diminished by an antigenic shift, but they are sparingly available and still in their infancy.
How do we address effectively a major new epidemic or pandemic? If influenza is the enemy, we need research into new neuraminidase inhibitors that will be effective
134WH
across a wide spectrum of mutation. We need enhanced diagnostic techniques so that we can not only identify a new infection at an early stage, identify the infectivity displayed and track the progress of the disease, but ensure that treatment begins at the earliest opportunity. We should also begin to develop appropriate preventive remedies and remedies for individual patients.
One remedy on which there has been work is intranasal live attenuated vaccine. Can the Minister tell me what progress has been made on that? I have mentioned the antivirals amantadine and rimantadine. I understand why those are not broadly available. It would be absurd to introduce resistance by selling them over the counter, and that is not what I am suggesting. However, given that they have a clear effect in retarding the spread of infection, I wonder whether there is sufficient availability in reserve, as a contingency across the country, to deal with a serious outbreak. We need a step change in what is available for strain identification and in the time that it takes to move from strain identification to vaccine availability.
Therefore we need to take the threat much more seriously than it has, perhaps, been taken historically. I give credit to the Government because I know that they have been examining it seriously. I looked with care at the publication by the chief medical officer last January, "Getting Ahead of the Curve". That sets out for the first time a strategy for dealing with infectious diseases in this country, which is a very important step.
I want to put some questions to the Minister on that document's recommendations. My main query is over the proposal to establish the Health Protection Agency and the absorption of the Public Health Laboratory Service, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, the National Radiological Protection Board and the national focus for chemical incidents. I do not argue that there is no need for a co-ordinated and seamless approach to such issues, but I question whether a time of enhanced risk—I think that we all accept that we are in such a period—is the right time to make massive structural changes to the organisations on which we rely to provide us with protection against such threats. I will produce evidence to support my contention.
Mr. Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is making some very important points. Does he share my concern that in the consultation that the Department of Health undertook on establishing the Health Protection Agency, a theme that ran through the responses was concern over possible fragmentation, particularly with the transfer of the microbiological laboratories from the Public Health Laboratory Service to individual NHS trusts? There might be some loss of ability to put the pieces together and understand when a problem is arising that has more than merely local significance.
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need only look at some of the responses to the consultation exercise to see that. I quote the response from the Carmarthenshire Public Health Laboratory Service:
"Outbreaks of infection are no respecters of political niceties, and can progress with truly terrifying speed, unless vigorous, co-ordinated, and timely action is taken to stop them in their tracks. If I were the bearer of malevolent intent to the UK, I would seek to do harm from April 2003."

135WH
April 2003 is the date for implementation of the changes that the Minister has in mind.
Cornwall health community says:
"We are increasingly concerned that this has not been thought through at all well, and there is a considerable danger of local health protection arrangements deteriorating rather than improving."
Serious doubts have been expressed that whatever the merits of having a comprehensive service, the process of getting from here to there is difficult. There will be uncertainty, threats of redundancy and, I suspect, resignations from the service of people whom we desperately need to do the work. A consequence, at least temporarily, may be to weaken rather than strengthen the service. There may be confusion about accountability at a time when we need the maximum accountability.
The proposals rely heavily on PCTs as the first line of defence. Much as I admire those who work in those trusts, I am not convinced that PCTs throughout the country will be equally prepared to take on that task. There may be holes in the protective services that we expect at a time when we can least afford them. I am not convinced that we have yet developed the necessary routes of public communication, or the internal communication that enables professionals to exchange information with one another. Professional education is a key task in providing a comprehensive and effective system. We need much more emphasis on working with the biopharmaceutical companies in this country on vaccine development, reducing delays and ensuring that vaccines are available where they are needed and in the quantities in which they are needed in those circumstances.
I hope that the Minister will reassure me on those points and that he has taken into account the disruption that the proposals will cause at a critical time. As I said, I do not disagree with what I believe will be the end result, or with the view that a protection organisation of this sort should have the widest possible remit. However, this is not the time to make such a structural reorganisation when the possibility of a viral pandemic is ever present and there is the distinct possibility of biological threat from terrorist activity. I am not criticising the Government when I say that we are still unprepared. That state of unpreparedness has existed for some time, and this country is better prepared than many others. However, we should recognise and deal with it. The paradox is that our defences may be at their weakest when the threat is greatest.
4.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate on a subject that is without doubt very topical. In the short time that I have to reply, it is unlikely that I will be able to address all the questions that he asked, but I shall endeavour to follow up in a letter the points that I cannot answer.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, the recent emergence in east and south-east Asia of what appears to be a new disease—severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS—has raised the concern that this could become a major international public health threat
136WH
similar to an influenza pandemic. There are increasing reports of possibly linked cases in other parts of the world. Those cases are being investigated, but the cause is still unknown.
A pandemic is a description for a situation in which a disease—usually infectious—reaches epidemic proportions in many regions of the world. Pandemics therefore have the potential to cause widespread disruption with regard to not only health but the general conduct of society.
As the hon. Gentleman outlined, pandemics have been few, although they have occurred throughout the centuries. There were three in the last century: the Spanish flu in 1918–19, the Asian flu in 1957–58, and the Hong Kong flu in 1968–69. It is now 35 years since the last pandemic started, but it is generally agreed that the conditions exist for a new pandemic to occur. As the chief medical officer noted in his infectious disease strategy for England, "Getting Ahead of the Curve", which was published in January 2002 and to which the hon. Gentleman referred, influenza viruses are the chameleons of the microbial world. They are constantly changing, which enables them to remain in circulation and cause outbreaks of illness each winter. Influenza viruses can also swap genetic material. Every so often that produces a new strain that has the potential to cause widespread infection in a population that has not met that virus before. Such new viruses are especially likely to emerge where animal and human influenza viruses can mix—for instance, in the far east. There are many unknowns, such as how long the virus will take to spread, how many people will fall ill, how severe the infection might be, which part of the population might be most susceptible to, or affected by, the pandemic, and how long the epidemic will last.
It is fortunate that we can get some indication of what to expect from previous pandemics. Modelling work also helps us get a clearer idea of the likely range of impact, and the critical parameters in planning an effective response.
What we can say is that should a new virus emerge and the right conditions exist for its spread—which can be rapid—the speed and volume of modern travel mean that it would also quickly hop from continent to continent. Previous pandemics have affected up to a quarter of the population. Flu normally causes most serious illness in the very young and the very old, although the ages most severely affected might be different, and the illness might be much more severe than the normal seasonal influenza that we see every winter. The emerging findings concerning the new illness suggest that it is due to a respiratory virus, but not flu. The spread of the new disease—SARS—suggests a highly transmissible infectious agent. Some 90 per cent. of the cases have been in health care workers directly involved in caring for a known case, or in close family members. The disease does not appear to spread through casual contact.
The hon. Gentleman is right that as of yesterday 487 suspected cases had been reported from 12 countries. We shall not know how many of those cases will be confirmed as part of the outbreak until we know the cause, but the situation is a timely reminder of the need to be prepared for such an international infectious disease threat, be it an influenza pandemic or a major epidemic of any other infectious disease—or, indeed, the

137WH
deliberate release of a biological agent. The threat to the UK from SARS appears to be small, but since the cause is as yet unconfirmed the UK has taken a precautionary stance.
The Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service issued information and advice on management and reporting of suspected cases to all general practitioners, trusts and public health professionals through the rapid public health link system on 13 March 2003. We also issued advice about SARS to the public and to travellers to south-east Asia. Full information and advice has been kept up to date on the Public Health Laboratory Service website. The Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service continue to monitor the situation.
The UK was one of the first countries to publish a national pandemic influenza contingency plan in 1997. The basic elements of that plan still apply. However, it is important that plans are kept up to date and the plan is now being updated to take account of new developments in science and medicine, organisational changes and experience gained in planning for other emergencies since the events of 11 September 2001.
The UK has a strong public health infrastructure for the control of infectious diseases. The Public Health Laboratory Service is pivotal, providing expertise, the national communicable disease surveillance centre and laboratory services. The hon. Gentleman indicated that, as of 1 April 2003, those services will become part of the new Health Protection Agency, which has been created further to strengthen our arrangements. There should be no disruption to those services during the transition. At local level, services are provided by health protection teams.
I stress that there will be no transition phase from the Public Health Laboratory Service to the Health Protection Agency. Most of the core Public Health Laboratory Service staff required to respond to such an emergency will transfer into the new Health Protection Agency, along with many of the staff who deliver the local infectious disease control functions, such as the consultants in the communicable disease control centre and their staff.
138WH
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says when he suggests that this is the right direction of travel but raises anxieties about the change taking place at this time. It is, however, an ends and means case, and it is right that we should manage that transition as we are doing. In the current environment it is right that we progress on the journey. We cannot will the means but not the ends.
A pandemic or global epidemic of a serious and easily transmitted respiratory viral infection, (such as the 1919 Spanish flu pandemic), would be both a national and international emergency. For the UK, the Department of Health would lead under the Cobra mechanism with the Health Protection Agency playing an essential supporting role.
A pandemic of a less pathogenic and/or easily transmissible virus could still be a major threat. Under its remit of responding to new or emerging threats, the Health Protection Agency would perform the main co-ordinating role for the national and local response to the threat, with the Department of Health taking the policy lead.
Specifically, the Health Protection Agency would work with the NHS and local authorities to provide a national and local health protection and infection control service. Through its communicable disease surveillance centre it would co-ordinate all relevant systems of surveillance relevant to the prevention and control of infectious diseases in order to provide, with the local and regional services division of the Health Protection Agency, up-to-date national and local situation reports. It would also draw on the best information available to provide up-to-date specialist guidance for professionals and the public, which would appear on the Health Protection Agency website.
There is already a joint generic Department of Health and Health Protection Agency plan for dealing with all national outbreaks, which leads to specific plans like the one for influenza.
The hon. Gentleman read out the plan for 1918. We are taking the issue seriously in the UK, and I am glad that he acknowledges that. We have travelled a long way since the beginning of the last century. The Department of Health takes the matter seriously because of the threats around. I believe that the new arrangements will equip us well to deal with any pandemic, should one emerge.
It being half-past four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.