Westminster Hall Sitting of 12 November 2003

Preamble
[MR. JOHN McWILLIAM in the Chair]

Child Support Agency
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
9.30 am
Mr. Robert Syms: I was pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see you arrive in the nick of time for such an important debate. The Child Support Agency is 10 years old. I have been a Member of Parliament for only six of those years, but my predecessor has told me of his massive work load, and says that things have now tailed off. However, in recent months more people have been coming to my surgery and wanting to get on to the agency's new system. I have the feeling that the issue is moving up the political agenda for many of our constituents.
It would be wrong to pretend that everything is going well for the agency. We heard that it had arrears of £2.8 billion. The National Audit Office calculated that 76 per cent. of the agency's calculations were wrong—that is three out of every four cases, a substantial figure. Nevertheless, I shall speak first about the computer problems that seem to be preventing people from getting on to the new system.
Originally, we were promised that the new system would be in use by October 2001. We were then told that it would be by April 2002, but the date was put back again. The system eventually went live for new cases on 3 March 2003. Although the figures may have changed a little in recent weeks, in the region of 132,000 cases have gone on to the new system since March, of which about 23,000 have been assessed. However, 1 million people remain on the old system, and many people are coming to my surgery—most are old cases, but some are new—because they cannot go on to the new system until the migration of cases has taken place.
I read the evidence given to the Work and Pensions Committee a few weeks ago, and it is clear that the process is at least 11 months behind schedule. Despite the efforts of EDS, the computer company, to make the system work properly, the software necessary to ensure the migration of old cases is delayed. The Committee was originally told that it would happen in the summer of 2003, and then that it would happen at the end of the year, with the migration taking place in the spring of 2004. Will the Minister update us on the installation of the new software, and does he have a more accurate date than spring next year?
The computer project is large. The original contract was for £427 million, and the latest estimates are that it will cost £456 million, but it was supposed to reduce the cost of processing cases by 20 per cent. Because of the problems, the agency has suffered a fall in productivity of between 20 and 30 per cent., and evidence suggests that the cost of processing cases is now 20 per cent. higher. I hope that that change is not permanent. We know that the agency plans to reduce the number of
72WH
employees from 12,000 to 8,000 in order to make savings, but delays in moving to the new system because it does not operate correctly will have major financial implications for the agency's viability.
The chief executive of the CSA stated clearly to the Work and Pensions Committee that the computer system has not failed. I accept that glitches and difficulties will always occur when introducing new computer systems, particularly with projects that cost more than £400 million. However, many of our constituents, particularly the 1 million who were told that they would move to the new system, may feel that they are not getting the deal that they expected when they expected it.
The question of whether compensation should be paid has been raised, because some are paying more under the old system than they would under the new. I understand that the agency has discussed whether some of those 1 million cases should be given priority. I understand also that the CSA intends to recalculate the payments of those 1 million people, to have a vesting day and to try to deal with them together. I am not sure whether that would be a good or a bad thing, but given the problems, I wonder whether the agency ought to do it in bite-sized chunks, to get on with it and to prioritise.
In the last Work and Pensions questions the Minister was asked about dates. He took the line that the agency wants to get it right, and will not rush things. However, people are looking for dates and, now that things have slipped so much, for some reassurance about when they will move on to the new system, and when they will be able to enjoy the simpler, more transparent and more understandable formula for which they have been waiting quite a long time.
I hope that others will be able to make their points, and I am glad to see so many hon. Members present to debate an agency that has an impact on all our surgeries. People want more definite answers from the Minister and the CSA about where matters are going and what dates will need to be met. One million people need to be migrated, and although some would be worse off, many would be better off. That means 1,200, 1,300 or 1,400 people per constituency—not an insubstantial number of people. It is not unreasonable for them to want to be reassured about when the new system will be delivered.
I want to consider some of the people who regularly come to my surgeries. They are principally non-resident parents, predominately men, who still feel that the system does not treat them well. Dr. Nick Paré, of Oakdale in my constituency, comes in fairly regularly. His main complaint is that he feels like a second-class citizen and that, although we all understand that the interests of children are paramount, many people are bruised by the experience of being dealt with by the Child Support Agency. He has discussed the matter with other non-resident parents in my constituency. Many feel that they are not given the same amount of information or the same degree of support as the parent with care, and that the system does not listen to their concerns. I have a long list of examples, but I will not go into them all.
Even when such parents take up complaints with the agency, they feel like they are dealing with jelly. That is because, I have been told, officers mysteriously disappear, names seem never to have existed, and the

73WH
parents feel that they are not given a fair deal by the CSA. One perennial complaint crops up when the parent with care is wealthier and in a relationship. They sometimes use the CSA and the system to put the nonresident parent into a situation of financial disadvantage, so that they cannot visit the children. That is particularly a problem when they have moved away, and such situations have caused difficulties.
When the non-resident parent is poor, disabled, blind and so on, legislation does them no favours. The new system may provide a better outcome, certainly in those categories, but many people are still bruised. The principal complaint that I receive is that the system makes people become single parents by making reconciliation difficult, and that injecting the CSA into people's lives makes their relationship with their former partners, and sometimes their children, very difficult.
There are still many bruised people out there, and many who feel that they are not treated well. We should take into account the fact that there are two sides to the coin. Children need to be looked after and the parent with care needs a decent service in terms of money from the CSA, but many people still feel that they are persecuted—that may be too strong a word, but a lot of people would use it to describe their position.
Several hon. Members wish to speak, so I will not go on much longer. My principal purpose today is to get some answers about the migration of the computer system. One million people want answers about when that will occur, so that they can plan their lives. We need to understand that, having been promised a new formula and looked forward to it, they do not want to hear more excuses. They want action and delivery.
9.39 am
Mr. Mark Todd: I shall touch briefly on three points, as many Members want to speak.
First, as those who have assiduously followed debates on the administrative process of introducing the new system will know, I asked a series of parliamentary questions about the robustness of the computer system throughout its development, but the Government declined several times to provide information, as they regard it as commercially sensitive. If one rings up the Child Support Agency, as I do on behalf of constituents, and talks to those who handle cases, it is quite evident that the computer system has not functioned adequately for some time. I have been told numerous times, "Well, I'm afraid the system is down, so I can't obtain the information that you're after. Please give me your phone number and I'll call you back."
One of the reasons I take up cases is that it is useful to learn at first hand about the administrative problems that our constituents face. I have a background in IT and took considerable interest in, and was extremely sceptical about, the system. To say that I have been disappointed by its implementation and performance is an understatement.
Secondly, there was particular confusion about handling cases, which tells me that there is a massive administrative overload with which the CSA is not competent to deal. I cite as an example the case of Mrs. W. I am sure she would not mind if I gave all the details,
74WH
but I will not do so as the other party is also a constituent, and I am sure that he would not want their affairs to be discussed openly in Parliament. Mrs. W first applied in December 2002. In May 2003, she was told that there was no trace of her application. In June, she applied again by phone, which a new system allows our constituents to do, and was told a few weeks later that there was no trace of that application, either. At the end of June, she applied for the third time by post.
Apparently, the case was first taken up at Dudley. Dudley is one of the centres that deal with cases from my constituency, although they are sometimes dealt with in Belfast. In July, the case was, apparently, passed to Stockport. The staff there thought it had been sent to Long Benton, although I cannot imagine why they thought that. It transpires that the case was actually sent to Plymouth. Despite several phone calls made by my staff and me, no one checked where it had got to until I persistently rang a number at Long Benton. The person who answered was clearly surprised to hear from me. They told me that they did not have the case, but promised to track it down. To give them their due, they set about the task with determination and located it in Plymouth. I believe that it is now being processed. It is hard to understand why these cases are shuttled around the country without a proper log of where they have gone.
Thirdly, there is the question of how cases closed under the old system are handled. A case can be closed for several reasons. Sometimes, the two parties agree not to proceed with the CSA, and there are no benefit implications. That is the happy part, although it can be temporary because people may, and sometimes do, change their minds. A case can be closed because someone's assessment is zeroed, as I understand it, by the fact that their costs are too high to merit a payment. Again, the person involved has sometimes chosen not to pursue the sums involved.
My constituent, Mr. H, was paying arrears under the old system at about £5 a week, but the case was formally treated by the CSA as having been closed in 1999. His ex-partner, having carefully examined the rules of new system, decided that it was an opportune moment to reactivate the case. Much to his surprise, my constituent was contacted by the CSA and told that he was now likely to pay not £5 a week in arrears, but £41 a week, which was the correct assessment for two children, with a factoring in of one child from his second relationship.
Strangely, if the case had been open and my constituent had continued to pay £5 a week under a normal assessment, not only would it have been impossible to pass him to the new system, but he would have received phasing-in assistance for the transition between the payment that he was making and the payment for which he was now being asked. Instead, he faces a huge change in his personal circumstances that I am sure will prompt a review of his position.
A conversation with a third constituent demonstrated that the rules on closed cases are becoming known in the CSA community, and we all recognise that there is a network in the community that passes on information that may be advantageous to others. It is also clear that a perverse incentive is being built in—I see a nod from the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—for people to cease work, for example, since one needs to be out of work only for a while to get the case closed for a

75WH
time and then reopened as a new case, which cannot be advantageous in any circumstances. I have asked the Government before to consider how closed cases will he handled in the transition to the new system, and I hope that they will take the opportunity to do so today.
9.46 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall concentrate my remarks on the case of a constituent, of which I have given the Minister notice. It shows a number of the CSA's failings. It is perhaps not a useful case, but I hope that hon. Members will find it interesting.
The case goes back almost exactly four years to 10 November 1999, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on his good timing in almost hitting the anniversary. It concerns Mrs. Carolyn Gowman, who lives in Aberporth. On 10 November 1999 she won an appeal against her ex-husband Mr. Bruce and was granted maintenance of £147.38 a week. However, the CSA made no liability order against Mr. Bruce until February 2002, more than two years later, when the arrears stood at more than £40,000. That was the CSA's first failing.
There is no doubt that Mr. Bruce was playing the system—those in the CSA community know how to do so, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said. For instance, Mr. Bruce was claiming a benefit during some of that period, yet Mrs. Gowman was awarded a departure on 3 April 2000 on the grounds that his lifestyle was not compatible with his claimed income. I am sure that that example will strike a chord with other hon. Members. The icing on the cake was that Mr. Bruce was a solicitor, so not only should he have been able to afford the payments, but he knew how to screw the system.
When the CSA made the initial liability order, it compounded the two-year hiatus by failing to locate Mr. Bruce and pay Mrs. Gowman the money that she was and still is owed. In fact, the only money that she has received from the CSA in four years is £170 in compensation for delays, inaction and poor service, although I regret to say that it took my intervention even to get that. I have other constituency cases that relate to the CSA, but Mrs. Gowman's is the worst, because it shows such a history of inaction, desk-bound lethargy and failure. She and I have both been fobbed off, which does not make me feel very happy towards the CSA as an agency.
I shall give an example of the CSA's lethargy and its unsympathetic approach. Using her contact, Mrs. Gowman found a likely address for Mr. Bruce in August 2002 and she immediately gave it to the CSA. By then I was also involved in her case. On 8 April 2003 I received a letter from the chief executive of the CSA, Doug Smith, stating that
"to date, written and telephone contact has proved unsuccessful. We have arranged for a visit to be made to the address she gave."
An address was given to the CSA in August 2002, and I received a letter in April 2003 saying that a visit to that address had been arranged. Mr. Bruce has a history of working the system and avoiding his responsibilities, yet all the CSA had done by then was send letters to the address and make telephone calls. That is utterly pathetic and incompetent. I do not even know that anything has been done now, because, after promising
76WH
to keep me informed, the CSA promptly ignored both Mrs. Gowman and me. That is why I am pleased to able to raise the matter in the House today.
It took more effort to get another letter on 15 July 2003. The CSA completely ignored questions about whether it had ever properly investigated the address—I suspect that Mr. Bruce has long since flown the nest—and lamely said that it would deal with enforcement when it had a confirmed address. It missed every opportunity to confirm the address and to make certain, through the Inland Revenue checks, that it had the right person. This has had a profound effect on Mrs. Gowman and her family. One can imagine what impact losing £150 a week has had on her income stream. She became disabled in 2002, and retired from work on the grounds of ill health. On Monday, the current outstanding arrears stood at £60,274.25, accruing at £187.53 per week, or £1.75 per hour and a half of debate in Westminster Hall. I made that calculation while listening to the hon. Member for Poole.
I have contacted my constituent throughout the week. Every time she or I contact the CSA we are told that a trace action will be instigated that very day. Mrs. Gowman was told that on 20 October. On 10 November, she was informed that there was a different trace action from the previous one. I do not know how many trace actions can be put in train. I understand that a trace action goes through the Inland Revenue, and that it is only possible to have one of them. Is it the same trace action that I was promised on 15 July? Three trace actions have been mentioned, but the problem is the CSA's inactivity and the fact that it has been fobbing us off, to use the technical term.
I have written to the Minister's colleague in the House of Lords about this case. I hope that the Minister will say something today or write to me about it. More importantly, I hope that he will address the wider issue. How can so many people be left sick, unable to work and owed £60,000 and more, with the CSA doing nothing to get that income to them? It does not matter whether it is the woman or the man who has been left behind; it is the principle. The CSA was established because so many people—particularly men it has to be said—were leaving marriages and not providing for their children. The CSA is perpetuating that problem. Indeed, it is exacerbating it in the case of Mrs. Gowman. I hope that the debate will enable the Minister to reply to the concerns of hon. Members, and to give a considerable push into a certain part of the CSA's anatomy.
9.53 pm
Mr. Bill Tynan: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a couple of cases that I have been involved with in the past few years.
When discussing the weaknesses of the CSA, we should consider also some of the changes that have taken place. Whenever a marriage or partnership breaks up, it is important that the children are protected as much as possible. I should like to share with hon. Members my knowledge of how cases are processed and how calculations are made. Delays are caused because of the time taken by the agency caused by the apparent failure of the computer system. We are still awaiting the migration of old cases to the new system. That should be done as quickly as possible.

77WH
The agency often relies on clerical calculations. I have discussed cases with the parent with care, and they are often told that the computer system has broken down. Only after my intervention as a Member of Parliament has the agency been prepared to make a manual calculation. Some people are seriously in need of the finances that the system should produce for them, yet many suffer in silence—they feel unfairly disadvantaged—because the revision of a manual calculation is not available.
I shall concentrate on three cases. The first is an individual in a neighbouring village to my constituency. Her partner is a chief engineer working for Shell who earns £4,000 a month tax-free. According to the CSA, he does not have residency in this country. Every three months, he comes to Scotland and has the children for the weekend. We know that he has an address in the local village and that he stays with his partner, but the CSA was reluctant to become involved.
When the case was raised in 2002, we had to get as much information as possible. We spoke to Shell, and were told that the man was based on the Isle of Man but works out of Singapore. The company said that it could do nothing. The CSA originally rejected jurisdiction, because the man had no habitual residence in the UK. Only when the parent with care went to an appeal tribunal was the agency's decision overturned. She pursued the case herself, and the appeal decision was made on 24 June this year.
An interim assessment of £214 per week was made, and it was carried out in October 2002. Investigations subsequent to the appeal decision have taken a long time. Constituency workers in my office did all the ground work. The investigation team was proactive; it provided full bank details, the registration number and the make and model of his car, and details of the collection and dropping off of the children. We argued that the CSA had the opportunity to serve papers, but the agency dismissed our case.
The agency is now putting together an investigation team, but because all the ideas that were put to the CSA investigation team came from my office and the parent with care, I feel extremely frustrated that it will not give us feedback on the case, and will not tell us whether it is likely to bring it to a successful conclusion. It is important that the CSA works to its maximum to ensure that a parent who is not living up to his responsibilities and not paying money is brought into the system and made to pay.
Maladministration was a major problem in a case that involved the loss of an application form submitted in February 2001. My constituent was getting no response, and only after my intervention was a clerical calculation made. For gross inconvenience over a three-month period, £85 was awarded. The financial loss has yet to be calculated; that will be done at some time in the future. The CSA has accepted responsibility for the loss of the paperwork, but £85 was a derisory payment. It is important that we move forward when dealing with such cases.
There are weaknesses in the phone line for MPs. It fails to integrate with the public phone lines, so the two are not tying up. After an MP has intervened in a case
78WH
and it has been passed on, the constituent can get progress updates only through the MP's office. That aspect of the system is bad and must be rectified. It must either be resolved or constituents must be updated by the CSA, because the situation is causing frustration.
I know of other cases in which there is apparent insufficient recognition of hardship. People can suffer dramatically while waiting for payments. When lost cases and correspondence delay payment of maintenance, that should be properly reflected in the payment made. There is concern that a non-resident parent may be sent several letters requesting details of income and not respond. In that case, fewer letters would suffice and the threat of further action could be more swiftly invoked leading to earlier payment and a shorter delay in the resident parent receiving the money.
We must recognise that the CSA is a service provided for those who need it. All too often, absent parents in my constituency complain that they have become an easy target. They complain that the CSA concentrates not on difficult cases but on cases that are easily resolved. We have to change the culture of the CSA.
I apologise that I must leave at 10.30, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on giving us the opportunity to debate the CSA. I hope that we can resolve the weaknesses in the system and, if we do so, we are doing our job.
10.1 am
Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on initiating the debate. So far, nobody has spoken in support of the Child Support Agency, and I suspect that that will continue. I do not envy the Minister, who must try to defend the indefensible.
I am sure the Minister has been advised that I have asked numerous questions, both written and oral, about the Child Support Agency. From what we have heard today, it is clear that I am not alone in feeling grave disquiet, and I could echo the cases mentioned by every hon. Member so far. I am in such regular correspondence with the chief executive that I can recite his name and address, including the postcode. The CSA dominates my advice bureau and postbag, and from what I have heard today, that is matched across the country.
I shall not cite individual cases by name, but I endorse the comment that the CSA picks cases that are sitting ducks and easy targets. Those are usually fathers, but sometimes mothers, who have no way of escaping from the system. It may be going too far to say that they are harassed and pilloried, but that is how many feel.
I shall concentrate on the other end of the spectrum, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), and on people who know how to abuse the system to avoid paying what they should. Generally, those people can afford to pay substantial sums for their offspring. How any man—it is mostly men, but sometimes women—can choose not to provide for his flesh and blood mystifies me. There are evil people out there who will do everything they can to avoid payment, whereas the person on the factory floor, in a controlled working environment, is driven for every penny that can be sucked from him.

79WH
The Child Support Agency knows of the three cases that I shall cite. I shall not mention the cases by name as that would be inappropriate. One is the case of a prominent member of the community who overlooked disclosing the £40,000 that he had received from a public source. Clearly, there is a breakdown in communications when a sum of that magnitude paid to a member of the community from one public purse is not declared on his statement to the CSA. However, even when evidence of that is produced for the CSA, action does not follow. I congratulate the former wife on her immense detective work. She did all the work that the CSA did not, and the evidence was given to the CSA on a plate, but still nothing happened.
The other two cases also involved ex-wives going to extraordinary lengths to do detective work to obtain evidence of where the errant father/husband had gone and of their lifestyles. That evidence was given to the CSA on a plate, but again there were failures in the system all the way along the line. In both cases, I begged the CSA to look at the houses and lifestyles of the rich fathers who, according to the system, were penniless. One of the hard-up fathers employed an accountant to prove how poor he was. One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that something somewhere is not right. A four-year-old could see that the lifestyle was such that those fathers could afford to pay for their children.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: My hon. Friend has touched on something that, in the cases I have seen, concerns me greatly. Because of the Child Support Agency's deficiencies, the aggrieved parent of whichever sex has to concentrate on, and becomes possessed and obsessed with, chasing their ex-partner. That is to the detriment of the children in the family. It worries me terribly that children who are trying to cope with their parents' broken marriage and not having both their parents are neglected because the CSA does not do its job.
Bob Russell: I endorse those comments. It is fair to say that the CSA is not part of the healing process. Indeed, it adds considerably to the trauma of many thousands of families. If the CSA cannot get its act together, perhaps it should go.
10.7 am
Mr. Wayne David: Like other hon. Members, I have come across numerous examples in my constituency office and surgery of cases that clearly demonstrate the failure of the CSA. At the risk of boring hon. Members, I, too, shall give an example of a case that caused a great deal of grief for the parties involved and on which my office expended a great deal of time and effort.
I shall call the individual Ms A, of Nelson, near Caerphilly. She waited nine months for the CSA to calculate her ex-partner's liability, and the calculation was achieved after many letters and telephone calls from her. However, she contacted my office because there seemed to be a logjam in the system at that point. My office staff made numerous telephone calls to Birkenhead, but were passed from pillar to post, and little progress was made. In frustration, they referred the case to me and I intervened through the hotline for MPs.
80WH
Initially, some progress seemed to be made. The evaluation took place and the father truthfully informed me and his ex-partner that a standing order had been set up. Although the CSA accepted that a standing order had been set up and payments were being made, it could not find the money that had been transferred to it. Eventually, after some weeks, the CSA accepted that the money was somewhere in the system and it promised to ensure that the money was passed on to the gentleman's ex-partner. I was then informed that there were difficulties with—guess what?—the computer system.
As Baroness Hollis wrote to me:
"Regrettably problems with the Agency's new computer system made it impossible to set up the accounts necessary in Ms A's case, and initially prevented the payments from being sent to her."
That is a frank admission of the situation. I intervened and tried to persuade the CSA to circumvent the computer system and issue manual cheques. That was problematic because certain procedures had to be followed, but eventually money was transferred to my constituent and she received everything that was due to her. To the credit of the CSA, a not inconsiderable compensation payment, £1,219.50, was made to Ms A for
"redress for loss of child maintenance, a contribution towards her costs in contacting the Agency and a consolatory payment for inconvenience caused to her."
I welcome that. I urge those who have encountered similar situations to press hard for compensation for their constituents. That situation ended satisfactorily, but I cite it because it is by no means unique; such cases occur frequently. That is why I tabled early-day motion 1786. It is straightforward and I urge all hon. Members to sign it to reflect the difficulties that constituents have brought to them.
What concerns me above all else is the position of children. As has been said, such situations cause a great deal of stress in an already-collapsed relationship. When money is not available, children suffer materially. Ms A from Nelson had no other significant support for her child, and 10 months passed before she received a penny. That is unacceptable. I know that the Government are aware of the situation. They have taken it seriously and reforms are being introduced. However, I urge the Minister not to back off, but to ensure that the reforms are pushed through so that we can have a system of which we are proud. The good intention is there but, sadly, delivery is not.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I call Sir Robert Smith.
10.12 am
Mr. Michael Moore: I am flattered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at being confused with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).
I echo the final comments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David)—the children are the ones who lose out. Although I do not blame the CSA for the fact that the system has a unique talent for further dividing families that are already in serious difficulties, I should like to focus on the impact that that has on second families, particularly the pressures and divisions that it

81WH
forces on them. For that and other reasons, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for having secured this timely debate.
Almost all my casework to do with the CSA relates to non-resident parents. Most of the cases that we deal with concern exceptions to the rule, or serious inconsistencies. My caseworker, Margaret Gray, who has become something of an expert—I suspect that the caseworkers of all hon. Members do—continues to be baffled by the range of new inconsistencies that pile upon the old inconsistencies that we have not yet sorted out. If we can pray for anything in the new system, it should be clarity, transparency and a better understanding of what is going on.
Mr. David Drew: I apologise for not having been present at the start of the debate—I was stuck on an underground train. It has been an interesting morning. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must address the issue of confidentiality? That is a great bone of contention. Often, when the parent without care remarries or goes into a new relationship, they are subject to an open search by the Child Support Agency, unlike the parent with care. There is a lack of clarity in that respect and it is an issue that causes more aggravation than most.
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. It encapsulates all the frustration that my constituents express with this one-sided system, and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate set out the problems involved. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort and address that one-sidedness.
I shall put some of the inconsistencies on the record. The first relates to second family's child benefit. On 21 June, I received a letter from the chief executive of the CSA, which stated that in calculating my constituent's liability,
"We have only used his net pay and his partner's child benefit."
When I tried to clarify why on earth child benefit came into the calculation, the Secretary of State wrote to me:
"Many forms of income are taken into account in working out assessable income, but basic child benefit is ignored."
The CSA "Guide to Child Maintenance" states:
"If the non-resident parent lives with a new partner and they have a child of their own living with them, an allowance for this child is included in exempt income."
Does that mean that for those purposes child benefit is exempt, or is it included? I can get no nearer the truth despite having consulted three different sources of wisdom on the subject.
Many families do not know where they stand because of the guide book issued by the CSA, which states that the agency "may" do this, it "can" do that, or a rule "may" apply. In examples from some of my correspondence, the CSA said:
"We will probably take action against you."
How are constituents expected to get on with their lives if they do not know where they stand?
82WH
It is especially worrying when people receive a letter that states,
"We will probably give your employer a Deduction-from-Earnings order."
I think the deduction-from-earnings order system is a scandal. I had a constituent who was given such an order for the total sum of 1p. How that got through the system will never know, and we still await an apology for it.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke about confidentiality, which is an important issue. I should be intrigued to know how the Data Protection Act 1998 might apply, especially to non-resident parents. One of my constituents informed me that staff at the Falkirk CSA office approached his mortgage lender for information, without reference to him. Is the CSA allowed to do that? Is the Minister comfortable with it? It appears very wrong to me.
The same constituent informed me that his new wife, who is now in receipt of working tax credit, was aware that the CSA must have access to personal details about her on the tax credit system, because it had details of her salary, which she had never supplied to the CSA. The Inland Revenue says that that could not possibly have happened, but it did. How did the CSA obtain details of her salary? What confidence can we have in the system as a result?
Debts that are incurred during the first marriage and are subsequently paid off by the non-resident parent are, as far as I am aware, not added to the assessment for maintenance. That can be crippling for many nonresident parents. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me that that has been addressed under the new system.
I appeal for clarity and efficiency in the CSA system. There have been too many examples of constituents who have received as many as four letters in one week from the CSA quoting different amounts of assessment. Telephone numbers of the CSA staff are hard to come by, and the same person never deals with a case on two consecutive occasions. The Minister has a great deal to tackle, and he will say that the new system is wonderful. However, it has a lot of catching up to do.
Mr. John MacDougall: rose—
Mr. John Lyons: rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can fit both hon. Members in if they take only five minutes each; otherwise, only one of them will be able to speak.
10.20 am
Mr. John MacDougall: As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall follow your good advice. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing this debate. It is a welcome opportunity to debate the CSA. Many hon. Members have offered the hon. Gentleman our congratulations, but have also offered sympathy to the Minister, who inherited a major problem, albeit not one of the Government's making.
After the parents split up, they move on in their lives, and the child is left behind. Every child has the right to a decent start in life, whether or not the parents live together. Children are entitled to care and support and to their parents taking sensible responsibility for them.

83WH
The initial legislation, although well intended, has resulted in the major problems that have been highlighted today.
The situation is not all doom and gloom—the Government have made many improvements to the initial legislation. The number of non-resident parents paying all that they owe has almost doubled, while the overall case load has also nearly doubled, to 1 million. The number of no-payers has been almost halved, ensuring that more children are getting the money that they deserve. It used to be the case that poor families—nearly 40 per cent. of the CSA case load—had 100 per cent. of any maintenance collected knocked off their benefit. Once the reforms take hold, such families will be able to keep up to £10 per week.
Another great benefit is that the time taken to get the money to the child has been reduced. The research that I carried out has shown that processing times have been cut by around two thirds, from an average of 20 weeks to six to eight weeks. However, it has been made clear today that the CSA still has its problems and that those must be tackled. In the summer, I had worthwhile and serious discussions with Baroness Hollis, and I appreciate the moves that the Government have made to try to correct many of those problems.
In my constituency, Central Fife, the CSA has had major failures in dealing with certain problems, of which I shall highlight one or two, while keeping within my five-minute limit. One case concerned a grandmother who was the carer of three children and was receiving no financial support from her daughter or son-in-law. Another concerned a lady with learning difficulties whose father deals with her correspondence. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the child's father was not earning. Several of my constituents have ex-partners who have moved from job to job faster than the CSA could catch up with them, both north and south of the border. The CSA has particular difficulty in dealing with that issue. Although I would not defend any form of incompetence, I appreciate the difficulties that CSA staff face in trying to achieve the standards that many of them would wish to accomplish.
Another case was that of a lady whose ex-partner kept giving false information to the CSA. I suggest that not everyone tells the truth when they are pursued by the CSA. A few hon. Members have highlighted individual cases concerning regular payments. My main concern is the time taken to complete some cases. Hon. Members have also made the point that the agency concentrates on cases that are easy to resolve and leaves more difficult cases behind. That creates serious problems for those cases, and affects children. The main union for CSA staff admits that the CSA has fallen behind in making payments. The National Audit Office says that there remains a
"continuing high level of errors in maintenance assessments".
There have been cases recently where the court ruled that women and their children had not been offered the level of financial support that they deserved because of self-assessment for the self-employed. Problems have arisen from a system that was well intended when it was introduced, but unless we continue to make improvements to it, children will suffer from that lack of attention. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to
84WH
what has been said in the debate. I appreciate the Government's efforts, but hope that we can make improvements.
10.26 am
Mr. John Lyons: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing this important and timely debate. We need better management of case loads. Hardware and software systems are crucial to concluding cases, and we need proper systems to assist staff and to ensure that the problems that have been raised today do not continue. I shall not raise individual cases; I shall refer them to the Minister and hope for a proper response.
When I visited Falkirk, I was struck by the staff's commitment to their work. The problem is that there has been a huge turnover of staff, so there is little continuity or experience in dealing with case loads. We need to do something to retain staff, and to ensure that they can conclude our constituents' cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) mentioned the helpline. I welcome it and use it often, but it should not be an excuse for the CSA failing to keep people updated or informed once an MP has intervened. Our intervention should be complementary and supplementary to a constituent's case, and should not be an excuse not to inform people.
The issues of deliberate unemployment and self-employment have been raised. Those issues need special consideration, and I appeal to the Minister to speak to the agency about a new approach to them. The situation is not good enough, and we need to keep up the pressure.
It has been suggested that our constituents could train staff at the CSA in how to track people down. That might provide additional work for our constituents, who are far better at it and get results quicker. We should listen to their criticisms, as they have first-hand experience of how to do that successfully.
We cannot allow the transfer of old cases to the new system to drag on much longer. People have suffered quietly, but it is never-ending. I appeal to the Minister to make that a priority. People should feel confident that they will be treated as a priority in the new system.
I am happy with interim assessments, but they should not excuse a lack of vigilance thereafter. They should not mean that people are no longer treated as a priority, nor should they ever be an excuse for not maintaining pressure to settle cases properly. We need a vigilant approach to conclude matters.
In the cases that I have dealt with, I have found that people criticised, rightly, a lack of reporting back about progress or lack of progress. People need to be updated regularly. There should be a recall system in which cases are systematically brought up, for example after four, five or six weeks, when it is clearly time to respond.
If we can tackle the issues that have been mentioned and the failings that have rightly been criticised today, we can collectively make a major improvement in the CSA and thereafter in the lives of our constituents who deal with the agency.
10.30 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing the debate and on his well researched contribution. More than 10 Members have spoken or intervened in the debate, and I am sure that they would want to thank him for being so unselfish and concise at the start. That has enabled so many of us to reflect our concerns about the system, and the Chamber is grateful to him.
At the outset, the hon. Member for Poole raised the issue that particularly concerned him—the delay in implementation of the new computer. As was mentioned briefly by the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall), that has an important practical consequence, which is that lone parents on income support on the old system are still having pounds of maintenance taken off them and cannot keep the £10. Lone parents on the new system are allowed to keep that £10, so why can that not be changed immediately? Why should a lone parent on the new system get 10 quid, while the woman living next door, whom the CSA has not managed to deal with yet, does not?
That is a gross injustice, and every week that the computer system is delayed is another week that another woman misses out on £10 for her children. That cannot be right. The Government will say that the change is part of a package, but it is not. It is entirely separate and could be implemented tomorrow if they wanted to, but they simply want to save the money. The Government should stop holding on to that money, which should be for the welfare of children.
A wide range of issues has been raised. The MPs' hotline was mentioned, and I want to put on record my appreciation of its staff, especially in Plymouth. I deal with them most frequently and am now on first-name terms. Many of them are old friends who do a good job, but, in the nicest possible way, I want to see them made redundant. I want the public to receive a service that means that they do not need to approach any of us to resolve problems. Perhaps one day that will happen.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) raised the important issue of people whose cases are closed and who then come back on to the new system, with no phasing and a big hike in maintenance. I have raised that point more than once with the Secretary of State during oral questions, and only last week I raised it with the Minister during a Statutory Instrument Committee on the Child Support Agency. I was given a patronising brush-off, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire no doubt had, as he said that he had raised the point with the Department but been fobbed off. I hope that we are not fobbed off today.
The fact that several hon. Members are raising the matter should make the Department reconsider whether that is happening, how much it is happening and whether people are fixing the system. We have heard that many people know how to get round the system, so I hope that the Minister will open his eyes to what is really happening, not just what is written in his brief.
We have heard about some terrible cases. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned £60,000 arrears, and it is breathtaking that the situation could get to that stage and that the agency took nine months to visit someone when the parent with care had already provided information. There were several
86WH
themes in today's contributions, and one was that the CSA is turning many mothers into private detectives, which cannot be right. It is not in the interests or welfare of children or mothers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said, the CSA is certainly not part of the healing process.
When it is given information, the CSA should be proactive, rather than telling people to do the work for it and, after six or nine months, perhaps acting on it. It is simply not good enough. The idea of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) of a routine prodding of cases that have gone quiet is an interesting one. I hope the Minister will consider how it could be applied in practice.
The hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), who had to leave, mentioned forms that are lost and letters that are simply ignored. I am struck by the fact that the CSA sends a letter and, if nothing happens, it sends another one. How long does that go on for? The CSA must be more proactive, rather than sitting and waiting for someone to push. When we intervene, cases go to the top of the pile, but it should not have to be like that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, to his credit, has been a persistent critic of the CSA and its failure to recognise that many people are working the system and not providing accurate information. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said that money went into the CSA, but the CSA could not find it. That is not rocket science, and it should be straightforward to put proper procedures in place.
Is the company that provided the computer system paying substantial penalty sums to the Government for its abject failure? The theory behind the private finance initiative and the reason for contracting out all these computer systems was that the lean, mean private sector would deliver, on time and to budget, a quality service that the stale old public sector could not. Well, it ain't happening. We want to know whether these companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride. I understand that the Treasury has decided not to outsource any more Government IT projects because they have all been such abject failures. Will the Minister think again when the contract comes up for renewal, and tell us whether EDS has done a good enough job to deserve a new contract involving a great deal of taxpayers' money?
My hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) rightly pointed out how the CSA can divide families, and how people can receive confusing and inconsistent information. All of us know of cases in which people received four letters a day, let alone a week, with different maintenance assessments, yet we are told, "It's the computer." All I can say is that that computer has a lot to answer for.
We often ring the MPs' hotline, and are told that the computer is down. Does the Minister know why the computer is always down? If so, will he tell us? What is going on? On one occasion when we rang the MPs' hotline, we said that one of our constituents wanted a face-to-face encounter with someone who would talk through the situation with them, and we received a letter from the CSA saying that staff were so busy trying to sort out the computer that they were cutting back on seeing real people face to face. This is not a triumphant new system that has been introduced effectively, but a shambles.

87WH
I am not sure what the parliamentary equivalent is of the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion at the end of his speech, but are the Government putting real pressure on the CSA and on the computer company to get them to perform? They have let down parents as well as the taxpayer.
It is important that the Minister has plenty of time to respond to the wide range of criticisms that we have heard today, so I shall conclude my remarks. We have heard some important statements about how the CSA needs to be proactive and needs not to divide families, but to do the work that enables new families to get started and to have a secure source of income so that the children in particular benefit, not just the parents. I hope the Minister is throwing his weight around, especially with the computer company, so that the situation is sorted out. It is about time that it was.
10.37 am
Mr. Paul Goodman: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on his introductory remarks, which were brief but covered a wide range of issues. The debate has been extremely useful. With the exception of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who made a broader speech reflecting his long-held interest in the workings of the Child Support Agency, hon. Members understandably tended to concentrate on human stories of difficulty, grief and heartache, to which the Minister will doubtless want to respond.
I echo the remarks made by the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) by paying tribute to the CSA staff, who are working very hard in difficult circumstances. I believe they have the highest rates of sickness of any staff group working under the general umbrella of the Department for Work and Pensions.
Like other hon. Members, I could cite specific constituency cases—naturally, I brought a file with me. However, I want to stand back from all the grief, heartache and difficulties that hon. Members have rightly described, and probe the Minister about the current state of affairs at the CSA. I hope to leave him with a little time to reply. I also want to ask him some questions, and would be grateful if he could confirm that he will respond in writing to any questions that he does not have time to answer in debate. I see the Minister nodding.
We all acknowledge that the CSA has a long history of difficulties, not all of which can be blamed on the present Government and the Minister. However, a general theme has arisen from the debate. Many of our constituents, and certainly many hon. Members, are asking whether the CSA runs the computers that deliver the service, or whether we have reached the point where the computers are running the CSA, which is not delivering the service that all of us, including the Minister, would like. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), put it to Doug Smith, the chief executive of the CSA, when he gave evidence last July:
"What frustrates us a lot … is how we try to understand what is really going on. Huge sums of public money are involved. Ministers blame computer engineers; engineers blame Ministers
88WH
and civil servants; project directors come and go and the problems continue… The departmental evidence that we received in advance of this session tells a completely different story from that which comes from the trade union."
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole took us through the history of the implementation of the new system, so I shall not go over that again. We know that 1.1 million cases are awaiting transfer from the old rules to the new scheme, so I shall first ask the Minister about uncollected maintenance owed to resident parents—some £2.7 billion in total. Of that, £398 million is described as collectable, so by what date does the Minister believe that the money will be collected and parents will be paid? The sum of £384 million is described as possibly uncollectable. I have never been sure what possible means in this context, but how much of that debt does the Minister believe will be collected, and by when? The bulk of the £2.7 billion—£1.9 billion—is described as probably uncollectable. Again, I am unsure of the difference between probable and possible in this context, but how much of that debt will be collected, by when, and when will parents be paid?
On 2 July, Mr. Smith told the Select Committee:
"The software required for bulk migration of cases from the old system to the new system was intended to be delivered … by EDS during the summer of this year. It is now clear that that will not be delivered … until the end of this year. The software … needed to do bulk conversions of existing assessments … was intended to be available …and the autumn of this year. It is now clear that that will not be available until the spring of next year."
Is the software for bulk migration on target for the revised delivery timetable, and if not, when will it be delivered? Is delivery of the software for bulk conversions on target for next spring, and if not, when will it be delivered?
In short, when will old cases be transferred to the new scheme? That has been a common theme of the debate. Can the Minister explain—there is some confusion—on what basis the 1.1 million old cases will be prioritised? In what order will they be dealt with?
The Minister is aware that the Public and Commercial Services Union paints a grim picture of the computer problems to which hon. Members referred. It says that the electronic management system is not reliable. Members of staff processing cases sometimes see them disappear from the screen and do not know when they will be back. There are difficulties with the telephone system and so on.
When Doug Smith gave evidence to the Select Committee, the Chairman asked him whether it was the case that in the previous month—June—the CSA had carried out maintenance calculations on only 20 per cent. of its case load. Mr. Smith confirmed that that was correct. What is the figure for the months since July? The Minister knows that many hon. Members have claimed that it now costs the CSA 20 per cent. more to process each claim. Is that correct? If not, what is the figure and how long does it take to process each case?
Let us assume that the CSA carries out maintenance calculations on only 20 per cent. of its case load each month, and that it costs the CSA roughly 20 per cent. more to process each claim. As I understand it, the

89WH
CSA plans a 20 per cent. reduction in costs as a consequence of moving to the new system, partly by reducing its head count by 1,600. I further note that Doug Smith told the Select Committee:
"I do not pretend that we do not have an increasing workload in hand."
He used a double negative, but what he meant is pretty clear. How does the CSA reconcile reducing a 20 per cent. or so loss of productivity—indeed, it is trying to make productivity gains—at a time when the work load is increasing, with simultaneously reducing the number of staff? What will the productivity gains be, and by when will they be made?
Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no reduction in the number of staff working on enforcement? If there is an increase in the number of such staff, how large will it be, and by when will it be delivered? On enforcement, can the Minister confirm that only two driving licences have been removed from non-paying parents as a result of action by the CSA? If not two, what is the new figure? If, as I believe, this form of enforcement is so effective that in nine out of 11 cases that went to court, non-paying parents actually paid, why have not more people been prosecuted? To allow the Minister time to answer all these points, I conclude by quoting Doug Smith, who said on 2 July that
"there is a big difference between a failed computer system and a computer system that has more teething problems than we expected. I accept that this may be seen as a piece of sophistry."
Those who feel that they are victims of the continuing problems at the CSA will, doubtless, want the Minister to reply to all these points in the time that he has, or in writing.
10.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and others for their contributions to the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing it as the subject is important to the lives of so many parents and children. The interest of the hon. Member for Poole in this subject is newly found as, only two weeks ago, he had an opportunity to discuss the matter but rushed in and told the relevant Committee:
"Conservative Members have other things on our minds today, which is why the Front-Bench spokesman is absent."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 29 October 2003; c. 6.]
He then left the Committee—we were discussing improvements to the child support system—and dashed out of the room. What was so important that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had to discuss? On that Wednesday two weeks ago, their concerns were not with PWCs, NRPs or the CSA, but with another three letters: IDS.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment and on raising the issue. We will take every opportunity to discuss how to ensure that children get the support that they deserve and need. That is why we are trying to ensure that the child support system works properly. We have had a good and worthwhile debate, with contributions from many hon. Members, some of
90WH
whom introduced constituency cases. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, and have also had to argue cases on behalf of my constituents.
However, I should like to remind the Committee how far we have come in changing the child support system. When we took office in 1997, we inherited a system that most people agreed was failing and inadequate. At that time, the taxpayer was supporting 1.8 million children, 70 per cent. of lone parents on income support were seeking to avoid a child maintenance application, and a third of all child support assessments took more than six months to make. The following year, we issued the Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" and, after extensive consultation, we concluded that the only way to deliver child support effectively was a totally radical change in the system. We decided that we needed not just legislative change but change to IT support in the CSA and to the agency's culture.
I am not going to pretend that I am satisfied with the progress made so far—neither are ministerial colleagues. We shall continue to press for improvements in the delivery of child support, especially in the way that the computer system operates. That is such an integral part of the system. Its failures frustrate not only our constituents and hon. Members but the people who work hard within the CSA. There have been improvements in the delivery of child support, even under the old system. From 3 March 2003, we have started to migrate new and linked cases on to the new and much simpler system of assessment. Since then, owing to problems with the computer system, the service that we have given to some agency clients has still fallen well short of what they are entitled to receive, and for that I should like to offer my unreserved apologies.
It is perhaps difficult, however, for hon. Members to recognise the speed with which the improvements are being made. It is a fact of life that constituents rarely come to us to tell us when things are going well, but there is good news. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and others claimed that the system is irreparable and suggested that we should perhaps return to the old court system, but many hon. Members will remember how much of a lottery that system of providing maintenance was. I ask the hon. Gentleman and others to recognise that the system is now clearing thousands of cases each week. Just over 45,500 new scheme maintenance calculations have already been made, around 10,500 non-resident parents have started to pay maintenance and around 6,000 parents with care have started to get the child maintenance premium income disregard in their benefit.
I should like to answer the allegation that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made and say that the decision not to move all parents with care on to the child maintenance premium immediately is nothing to do with an intention to save money. It is impossible for us administratively to make that change in isolation from the overall changes in the system. For the first time, parents with care are seeing improvements in both the level of maintenance and how it is paid. The CSA is already beginning to make a significant contribution to our important target, which is central to everything that the Government are doing, first to reduce and then to eliminate child poverty in this country.

91WH
If I do not have an opportunity in the few minutes available to me to answer each of the points that hon. Members have raised, I shall be happy to write to them. Similarly, it is difficult in a debate such as this to respond to constituency cases that have been raised, but if hon. Members write to me, I shall ensure that they get a reply to their concerns.
The hon. Member for Colchester suggested that dissatisfaction with the system is such that we should perhaps return to another system altogether—not use the new child support system and not go back to the old child support, but sweep it all away and go back to the courts. As I said, that would create such hardship, anxiety and heartache for parents with care and nonresident parents that what we have heard in this morning's debate would seem as nothing in comparison.
The hon. Member for Poole raised his concerns about the computer system, as did other hon. Members. However, we must recognise that the system is new and has a considerable job to do, which is to translate the old cases into the new system. It also has to deal with 2 million cases overall—non-resident parents and parents with care. Inevitably, making the system work effectively is a massive task, but it is not doing so to our satisfaction now. To ensure that the system improves, we are working closely with EDS, which has introduced new management structures and made new investment. The hon. Member for Northavon asked whether penalties were built into the system. The answer is yes, penalties are built in: we have the power in the contracts to withhold payments and we are doing so to ensure that the system operates in a way we would all like.
The hon. Member for Poole and others asked about the timing for transferring people to the new system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State previously made it clear that we cannot and will not transfer the old cases on to the new system until we are certain that the computer system and the IT are working effectively, and I reiterate that now. If we were to do that, we would be letting down both the parents with care of their children and the non-resident parents. We must be certain that the system is working properly before we make that change.
As hon. Members will know, there is a set of transitional arrangements to ensure that as we migrate people from the old system to the new one both parents have the opportunity to plan their arrangements, and to take account of the changes in their responsibilities.
The hon. Member for Poole also referred to an assumption that the CSA treats non-resident parents as "second-class citizens". The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) also suggested that the agency operated in a one-sided way. I reassure hon. Members that the agency works in an even-handed way. In everything that it does, it recognises that it has a responsibility both to the nonresident parent and to the parent with care. If there are circumstances in which hon. Members feel that that is
92WH
not the case, I hope that they will write to me about them, so that I can investigate any allegations of anything less than even-handedness.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) expressed disappointment about how the system has operated so far. Ministers share that disappointment. He raised issues about particular cases in his constituency, and I hope that we can meet, in the not-too-distant future, to discuss some of them. He also made the point, as did other hon. Members, that there have been teething problems with the telephony and computer systems. We recognise that those problems exist, and in trying to iron them out have ensured that they are dealt with at the highest levels in BT Syntegra and EDS.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) raised a case to which he kindly drew my attention in advance of the debate. In such cases as that, in which non-resident parents attempt to evade their financial responsibility by moving employment or address frequently, it is difficult for the agency to trace them. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will stress to the agency the necessity of continuing the tracing process, not only in that case but in other cases raised by hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) raised the issue of a person who was residing outside the UK. If a person is genuinely resident outside the UK, the CSA has no jurisdiction. However, there will be cases—I think he was suggesting that that was one—in which there is uncertainty about whether the person resides in the UK. We will follow up that particular case.
Several hon. Members raised the general issue of self-employed non-resident parents. We recognise, as do hon. Members, that it is difficult for the agency to enforce responsibilities on individuals who are self-employed. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) highlighted that issue. To put it in context, the latest estimates show that around 6 per cent. of all child support non-resident parents are self-employed, and that compliance by self-employed nonresident parents is 67 per cent. However, we keep that issue under review.
In the time available, it is not possible for me to respond to every point raised by hon. Members in this good and worthwhile debate. I know that we all raise the issues because of concern for our constituents, but also to make sure that children receive the support they deserve and need. We are doing everything we can to improve the way in which the CSA operates. I pay tribute to the staff of the CSA, as other hon. Members have, for the way in which they show commitment and professionalism to make the system work. Our main focus, and that of hon. Members who have spoken today, is the children, who deserve the highest priority.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next debate, I congratulate all hon. Members on being so succinct and to the point during the debate, which enabled everybody to contribute.

Cancer Centre (Kent and Canterbury Hospital)
11 am
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the future of the cancer centre at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, and I am delighted to see the Minister in her place. I furnished her with an advance copy of my speech, because I do not want to be adversarial and hope that the debate will be constructive.
The recent review by the independent review panel, on which the Secretary of State ruled in July, was based on proposals in which cancer was confined to an appendix. Those proposals were put forward by the East Kent hospitals trust, which is responsible for all other acute services in east Kent. However, the responsibility for cancer lies with the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust, which was not even a signatory to the proposals.
The rest of the conclusions arrived at by the independent review panel and the Government seem to form the basis of a sensible consultation exercise. Although I oppose all cuts, they have the makings of a working compromise. Unfortunately, no such consultation process has been launched by the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust over the future of the cancer centre. Certain issues connected with cancer were dealt with in the East Kent hospitals trust consultation—breast surgery and haemophilia, for example. At the same time, the Kent and Medway health authority has launched a separate review into interventional radiology.
However, nobody is consulting on the overall issue of cancer treatment in east Kent. In its report, the independent review panel was deeply critical of the poor relationship between management in the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust and the consultants at Canterbury who deliver the service. Those consultants do so in an exemplary fashion, well ahead of the national average.
The cancer consultants have made it clear to me, to Professor James and now to the public that the trust's proposals for cancer services are inconsistent and unsafe. They are also largely unpublished. They follow a model that is untested in the UK, which will worsen access for many of the sickest patients and will throw up a whole mass of anomalies. For example, haematology is to be centralised at the Kent and Canterbury hospital for in-patients, yet all in-patient work for solid cancers is to move to Maidstone. Haematology is at least as complicated when it comes to the treatment and supporting services that it requires as solid cancer treatments.
The partial and incomplete proposals on cancer, provided in the annexe to the original proposals for the future of acute hospitals in east Kent, were sketched on the basis of a large-scale run-down of the Kent and Canterbury hospital. Fortunately, that has now been abandoned for a much better model. The proposals had to take account of the fact that the necessary supporting facilities were likely to disappear. We now know that they will still be in place.
As most of the crucial ancillary facilities are to remain at Canterbury, under the Secretary of State's ruling, there is no reason why the East Kent hospitals trust
94WH
should not retain its cancer centre. Following the recent review, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust is planning to close in-patient beds for cancer patients at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. It is alleged that those beds will be transferred to Maidstone hospital, so that patients receiving complex cancer treatment will be treated there. That means the loss of the cancer centre at Canterbury. For the first time in more than two generations, east Kent patients will no longer have a cancer centre.
The definition of a cancer centre is very clear. It is a general hospital with medical, surgical, diagnostic and intensive care support, radiotherapy and in and outpatient chemotherapy across the range of complex chemotherapies. Canterbury has been a cancer centre on that definition for more than 50 years.
The loss of the in-patient beds will mean that east Kent will have an out-patient radiotherapy facility operated on an ambulatory model. That model has not been tested anywhere in the United Kingdom, and exists only in America in private medical facilities. Time prevents me from going into detail, but I am happy to discuss that with the Minister afterwards. As it happens, Dr. Coltart has studied the American model and is very familiar with it. It is completely different from the way in which cancer is handled in this country, and trying to impose it on one small area of Britain in this way is outrageous.
No mention is made of who will look after the cancer in-patients in east Kent, but it will not be a cancer specialist. More than 1,000 patients were treated in the Mountbatten five-day in-patient unit and almost 600 inpatients were admitted for a longer duration, amounting to 5,500 bed nights last year. In future, patients are likely to be under general physicians and surgeons with no specialist cancer knowledge, if they have not been sent to Maidstone. It is not always possible to do so. They may come under the care of a physician with an interest in stroke medicine.
Thanet, Dover, and Deal are between 45 and 50 miles from Maidstone hospital. Patients from those areas will therefore be further away from a cancer centre than patients in any other part of England and in most parts of Wales. That loss of access represents a serious deterioration of the service that all east Kent patients have hitherto enjoyed at Canterbury. It seems perverse and distinctly unfair that new centres have been opened or expanded in other parts of the country, such as Truro in Cornwall, Preston in north Lancashire and Bangor in north Wales, yet we are to lose ours.
Professor James has repeatedly said off the record that the east Kent cancer department is too small. A comparison of new patient referrals with other centres is revealing: Canterbury had 2,200, whereas Colchester had 2,100, Ipswich had 1,500 and Dundee 1,200. No one suggests closing any of those and centring them elsewhere. I should like to give two genuine case histories to illustrate how patient care will be damaged by these changes.
Mrs A comes from Folkestone. She has had breast cancer, which has spread to the bones. For two years, this has been controlled by tablet treatment. In the past two weeks she has had increasing pain and has been feeling very unwell. She was seen urgently by the cancer specialist in the Kent and Canterbury hospital. Her

95WH
cancer had progressed causing high calcium levels in the blood, which was making her feel very ill. She was admitted immediately from the clinic, started on appropriate specialist treatment and within 48 hours began chemotherapy to control her cancer. Throughout her admission, she was under the care of a consultant oncologist and his specialist team.
If there had been no cancer centre at Canterbury—if the proposals outlined in the letters that I have received from the Minister's colleagues in the Department had been implemented—she could have been seen in the clinic by the consultant cancer specialist, but would have been admitted to Maidstone hospital for specialist treatment. The cancer specialist would visit the Kent and Canterbury for one or two days a week, so there would have been a delay in her seeing him and receiving chemotherapy. One alternative would have been for her to be admitted to the Kent and Canterbury hospital's on-call medical team, but they are not skilled in dealing with oncological emergencies.
The second case involves Mr. B, who is 58 and lives in Ramsgate. His wife is unwell with diabetes and he has been her main carer. Recently he was found to have cancer of the throat, which requires six or seven weeks of daily radiotherapy and chemotherapy. That treatment makes his throat extremely sore, making him feel unwell. Are we really asking him to make the 110-mile round trip every day? Of course not. He will have to stay in Maidstone hospital for seven weeks as an inpatient in order to complete the treatment. It is short of beds. His wife has to rely on friends to take her to visit her husband in hospital, which she can manage only once a week.
It would normally be possible to have that treatment as an out-patient of the Kent and Canterbury hospital on a daily basis—it is close enough for the round trip, being one third of the distance. With the closure of inpatient facilities for cancer patients at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, the Government are closing a cancer centre. Let us be clear about that. That is unprecedented, unjust and will worsen access for the poorest residents of east Kent, which, unlike the rest of south-east England, is home to large poor communities. The decision is perverse, particularly as cancer centres have been expanded in other parts of the country.
With the reconfiguration of Kent and Canterbury hospital, there is no reason for beds to transfer to Maidstone other than to fulfil the empire-building desires of Professor James, whose relationship with the consultants at Canterbury is so bad that even the independent review panel knows of it. Having dealt with him during the consultation, I understand that. It would be perfectly possible to have a centralised haematology and oncology in-patient cancer unit at Canterbury with the supporting services that are to be kept under the otherwise sensible settlement for the rest of the hospital.
Professor James recently said that he wished cancer treatment to be localised as close to patients' homes as possible. The plans to move in-patients and complex treatment would seem to have the opposite effect. One of the great successes of the national health service—of which the Government claim to be so much in favour and into which they pour more and more money to precious little effect—is bringing good quality care as close to the patient as possible. This plan reverses that principle.
96WH
I suspect that NHS planners wish to uncouple cancer services from the Kent and Canterbury hospital. We have a new linear accelerator, but when that and the other one come to the end of their lives, I imagine that the cancer service will slowly fade over the next five years as staff retire. I doubt that the radiotherapy machines will be replaced again. It will then be easier to close the remaining cancer services at the Kent and Canterbury hospital.
I have just heard that there is a plan to move the little centre of excellence for treating gynaecological cancer at Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital from Margate to Maidstone—my source is a leak from the minutes of the trust, which I believe to be true. Gradually, all specialist cancer work is moving to Maidstone, which is deeply inaccessible to people in much of east Kent. The political objectives for tomorrow's health care will be achieved, but at the cost of the patients of east Kent. I urge the minister to do what has already been done by the Secretary of State for the rest of the east Kent hospital trust's services—apart from cancer.
The Department should do a proper review of cancer services and talk to the consultants. They have played no role in the angry campaigning about the rest of the hospital. They are deeply professional, as are the rest of the consultants at the hospital, but they have kept their heads down and worked hard at their subject, assuming that all would come right. They have had enough. They have made it absolutely clear that this is a line in the sand; they will not go along with a manifestly half-baked attempt to impose on east Kent what is not the American model but a copy of something that Professor James claims is the American model. It is completely untested in England. I am most grateful to Dr Stewart Coltart for providing most of the briefing for this speech. I know one of his two colleagues extremely well and his views are the same, and I have a letter from the other colleague, from which it is clear that they all take the same view.
The Government gripped the rest of the situation in east Kent and, although I am not happy with all aspects of the conclusions—I am against any cuts in east Kent—at least a workable compromise has been established and the rest of the hospital service is working towards it. I urge the Minister to have the cancer proposals properly considered by an outside body, and to try to work towards a similar compromise in that area.
11.14 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on what is the third debate that he has secured on the subject, the previous one being in April. Cancer services are obviously and understandably of great concern to east Kent residents, and the Kent cancer network provides cancer services for 1.8 million people. The two main sites are at the Kent and Canterbury hospital and Maidstone hospital, which see about 6,000 new patients a year. In the Kent cancer network, waiting times and performance have improved, and we want that to continue. Therefore, I want to make it clear that there is no doubt about the important role that the Kent and

97WH
Canterbury hospital plays as a base for providing cancer services, and there are no plans to close it. That commitment has been made time and again, but I would like to reiterate it in light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The vision and the long-term strategy for cancer services were developed in 1998 during the original consultation on the future of health services in east Kent. Following that consultation, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), confirmed:
"Specialist cancer services at Canterbury have a firm future".
That remains the case.
In 2001, a consultation contained a clear statement on the role of the hospital in the Kent cancer network, and the provision of cancer services was given careful consideration by the independent reconfiguration panel in its investigation. Its recommendation was that the Kent cancer plan is in the interests of local people and patients, and should continue to be implemented through the Kent cancer network.
I shall now address the hon. Gentleman's points on the independent review panel's report and the consultation. Having been thoroughly examined in court, both points he raised were rejected during a judicial review process last year, and it would be difficult for me to disagree with the court.
Mr. Brazier: The court did not produce a medical ruling; all it said was that the hospital trust had not broken the law. I am sure that the Minister has read the original document and the incredibly sketchy, conditional and vaguely written appendix on cancer. She must realise that it is not a proper representation. The independent review panel says that the relationship between Professor James and the consultants at Canterbury is so bad that it is damaging to patients' interests. Unless we get a grip of the situation at Canterbury—it cannot be gripped only from one end—the rosy picture that she described will not continue.
Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman made a point about the nature of the consultation, and I will discuss the model in more detail in a moment. However, the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust was fully involved in contributing to the consultation document, and the process behind the document has been tested by judicial review.
The original public consultation set out the long-term strategy, and in 2001 there was consultation on modernising hospital services, which I have already mentioned. Since then, there has been no change in the proposals for the provision of cancer services in Kent. The independent reconfiguration panel considered the cancer centre, and recommended that the Kent cancer plan is in the interests of local people and patients, and should continue to be implemented through the Kent cancer network. Primary care trusts in Kent are consulting on interventional radiology, along with renal and vascular services, but that is because all other aspects of cancer services have already been the subject of consultation and have been agreed.
98WH
The model supports and fits in with the national cancer plan. The plans for the location of specific services are necessitated by the need to improve the five-year survival rates for people with cancer. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that the health service in Kent was doing well on those fronts, but I am sure he would like improved survival rates, as we all would. The national cancer plan makes it clear that specialist work must be delivered from fewer places. Patients with more common cancers will still receive care at a local hospital. The proposed ambulatory model has already been tested, and is the model by which the majority of patients starting primary treatment for common cancers receive care. The 10 oncologists at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells supported that model, and the national cancer director also gave his support to the model at a meeting in May 2002, which I think the hon. Member for Canterbury attended.
A review of other cancer centres across the country points to less than 5 per cent. of patients requiring admission as an in-patient. New cancer treatments mean that, increasingly, radiotherapy and chemotherapy are given on an out-patient basis. The model of care reflects that trend, while recognising that from time to time unwell patients need in-patient treatment. Consistent support needs to be available throughout east Kent from non-cancer services, as well as from specialist cancer nurses.
Mr. Brazier: The Minister made two statements. First, she said that the ambulatory model has been tested elsewhere. Leaving aside the general points, where has that model been tested in the United Kingdom? At every meeting, including that with the national cancer director, the only example given, apart from the experiment that was abandoned in Cornwall, was of the private sector in the United States of America. Can the Minister tell us the location of the health authority involved?
Secondly, the Minister said that the consultants at the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust supported the model, which Roger James claimed in a letter. However, three of the consultants—a third of the total—work in Canterbury and they are vehemently opposed to it, as they made clear after Roger James wrote the letter. Will the Minister put the record straight?
Miss Johnson: My advice is that 10 oncologists supported the model. If the hon. Gentleman has a different view, it is obviously difficult for us to square the matter during this debate.
Many cancer services are provided on a similar, if not exactly the same, model. The hon. Gentleman asked what other places were involved, and I shall be happy to write to him after the debate. As he knows, if patients require in-patient care, it will be provided in Maidstone.
On the closure of the cancer centre and the hon. Gentleman's allegation that east Kent patients will no longer have a cancer centre, as I said, there is no doubt about the important role of the Kent and Canterbury hospital as a base for providing cancer services and there are no plans to close it. The Kent and Canterbury hospital has a firm future. Under the newly developed hospitals reconfiguration plan, the hospital gains a

99WH
number of acute services and will remain viable as an acute site, able to support a successful local emergency centre. There will also be other developments, including a new child health ambulatory centre, a paediatric assessment unit and a centralised aseptic unit. All those service improvements have been backed by £7 million of extra investment at the hospital.
It has been stated that the east Kent cancer department is small. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing that information with me, but I do not recognise the figures that he used. However, if he tells me his source, I will ask my officials to look into the matter.
The hon. Gentleman said that the centre of excellence for treating gynaecological cancer was being moved from the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Margate to Maidstone. Such statements worry families and communities. There are no plans to move the service from Margate. Indeed, external reviewers have praised the service at Margate for its high standards. Although the hon. Gentleman located the source for his comments, I am advised that there is no reason for such a statement.
The Department is not in a position to commission a proper co-ordinated review because the IRP looked into the issue fully and its recommendation is clear: the Kent cancer plan is in the interests of local people and patients and should continue to be implemented through the Kent cancer network. Although the Department will continue to work with the strategic health authority rigorously to manage the performance of the local delivery plan, the responsibility for taking the work forward now rests with the local national health service.
There is a clear model for cancer services in east Kent. There is a substantial work programme, which will deliver real benefits to patients and mean that the majority of cancer patients receive their cancer care as close to their homes as possible. There has been thorough consultation, much debate and an independent review of the proposals, and it is now time to deliver the changes so that local people can benefit from a high-quality and modernised service.
I also want to comment on the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the controversy among staff. When people disagree locally it is unconstructive for the future of local services. It is important that people come together to support the service developments that are taking place. I do not want to get involved in the local controversy or comment on the rightness either way, but it is important that people come together to support local communities. I am sure that he would want that, too.
100WH
Under the plans for east Kent, there will be much greater use of all local hospitals for routine cancer treatment. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy will continue to be provided at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. The hon. Gentleman mentioned in-patient issues. Increasingly, few patients receiving radiotherapy or chemotherapy will be in-patients, and only a few will require in-patient stays. The model that is being used recognises that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to rarer forms of cancer and patients having to be referred to specialist centres in London and Maidstone, and I want to touch on what the IRP said about that in its report. Everyone to whom the panel talked agreed it was right for the rarer forms of cancer to be treated in specialist centres in London and Maidstone, in accordance with national guidance. We obviously want people to get better treatment and live longer, and it is often important that patients with some of the rarer cancers receive treatment in specialist centres, which see more of those cases and are better geared to give the best possible treatment.
Cancer services have been kick-started after decades of neglect and under-investment, and are now moving forward. There are still problems, but progress is well under way.
Mr. Brazier: The fact remains that in a country that has a massive shortage of oncologists—my sister-in-law is an oncologist—plans cannot work if those who are supposed to implement them have no confidence in them. All three of the consultants based in Canterbury have made it clear that that is how they feel.
Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman and I are left trading oncologists—his three for my 10, as it were—and I can only reiterate my previous point.
Three years after the start of the national cancer plan, it is delivering faster treatment, higher standards and a better patient experience. In east Kent, there is a clear model for cancer services and a substantial work programme that will deliver real benefits to patients and mean that the majority of cancer patients receive their cancer care as close to their homes as possible and, in many cases, in their local hospital. There has already been thorough consultation, and it is now time to deliver the changes so that local people can benefit from a high-quality, modernised service.
11.28 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Regional Government (North-east)
2.5 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): We have had to start late because of the Division in the House and I understand that there may be another shortly. If so, I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. That, however, is injury time—it will not eat into the debate, but will be added on at the end.
Joyce Quin: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you are my constituency neighbour. I welcome the opportunity to introduce the debate, which is timely given last week's launch by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Government's information campaign on regional government. Given that referendums on the question of establishing elected regional government are to be held next year in the three northern regions of England—the great north vote, as it is aptly described—it is important that the issue is widely debated in Parliament and outside. By the time people vote, they should feel that they have been provided with the information and detailed arguments to help them make their judgment.
Referendums such as these are about giving people a choice on the proposed changes to our government and constitution. Those changes could have political and economic effects. When such policies are proposed, it is right that people have their say, and one of the disappointments of Conservatives' reaction in opposing the referendums is that they seek to deny people that choice.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Lady comment on the issue of choice? If all the people who live in the unitary authorities voted, they would be able to outvote those who live in the two county council areas. Those county councils might then be abolished against the wishes of those who live in those areas. Is that choice?
Joyce Quin: I welcome the fact that the Government gave people in the existing two-tier areas a choice about which form of unitary local government they would prefer. That means they will not be overridden by those living in the already unitary areas, as they would have been before the amendment of the Regional Assemblies (Preparation) Act 2003. However, I believe that regional government is different from local government and, although I strongly support a move to unitary local government, I wish that the two issues had not been confused with each other.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The problem is that there will be a huge debate over the restructuring of local government and little debate about the plans for the regional assembly. Questions about what resources and structure the regional assembly will have will be overshadowed by the reorganisation of local government—the real debate will not take place.
Joyce Quin: I do not accept that. In areas such as the north-east, where 70 per cent. of people already live in unitary government areas, the issue of whether people
102WH
want regional government is already clear. Many in the north-east are strongly attached to their regional identity and are well aware of regional issues. I do not believe that they will be unable to see those regional issues clearly when the referendum is held.
Matthew Green: The hon. Lady is making a strong and cogent case. Perhaps she will confirm that a Liberal Democrat amendment led to the second question being on the ballot paper.
Joyce Quin: I am happy to confirm that, but the hon. Gentleman will find that I proposed tabling such an amendment on Second Reading—before it was mentioned by any Liberal Democrat Member. I am grateful to him for allowing me to place that on the record.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that my constituency neighbour is a right hon. Lady.
Joyce Quin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I stress that the debate is about elected regional government, because there is already a form of regional government in the English regions, but it does not involve the people—the electorate, who are our constituents—and few people are very much aware of it. I am referring to the Government offices for the regions and the many regional bodies and quangos, which, although they do important work, operate largely behind closed doors and away from the public gaze and public scrutiny.
Far from being about creating more bureaucracy, as opponents of regional government frequently claim, the proposal is to democratise an existing bureaucracy and give the north-east as well as other regions a public and democratically accountable voice and therefore a public focus on the economic, political, environmental and cultural challenges that confront us.
I was interested to see the media reaction to the Government's information campaign, which was launched last week. In many cases, it was disappointing if not surprising. Many national newspapers seemed to fail to understand that there is a sense of regional identity in an area such as the north-east, and simply decried the proposed regions as artificial. That charge is impossible to substantiate for the north-east. Indeed, many people who might oppose the proposal for a regional assembly in the north-east would none the less concede that there is a strong sense of identity in the region. There is a strong shared cultural heritage, which goes back many centuries to the days of the kingdom of Northumbria. That region was a centre of learning and civilisation, and it was epitomised in the dazzling Lindisfarne gospels, which, unhappily, are not housed permanently in our region, although many of us would like to see them housed there.
There is also a strong shared industrial heritage, which goes from Tweedside in the north to Teesside in the south and which was built around the industrial revolution and the important industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding and heavy engineering. Today, that heritage brings together economic actors throughout the north-east, which are all concerned about the future of the region's economy.

103WH
It is good that the past inspires important cultural and economic initiatives today. I was interested to see a report in the press today on the drive to make St. Bede's, and the sites associated with the Venerable Bede, the third of the north-east's world heritage sites. It is significant that Tyneside and Wearside, which are not always allies, have joined together in a determined bid to promote that site, which is based around Jarrow and the Bede church in Monkwearmouth in Sunderland.
There are strong feelings of regional identity in England, particularly in the north-east, so it is depressing that the national media sometimes fail to recognise that. However, I also argue, perhaps more controversially, that regional identity is not always necessary for effective regional government. Let us consider the history of Germany after the second world war. Whereas some regions had strong historical identities, others did not, yet some that did not have been economically successful at devising regional strategies and making the various parts of their regions work together on, for example, technology transfer in Baden-Wurttemberg or on adapting and moving away from older industries, as in North Rhine-Westphalia.
Another press claim was that we would not be talking about regional government, even in the north-east, were it not for the existence of the Scottish Parliament. Again, I beg to differ. Forms of regional government were being suggested as long as 100 years ago, and perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesman will confirm that Gladstone was also committed to the idea. I know from reading historical records of the Labour party in the north-east that there has been interest in the idea of regional government for many years—long before the Scottish Parliament came into effect. In the past, it was not easy to obtain central Government support for regional government, which is the key difference between then and now. Happily, we now have a Government who are committed to devolution and decentralisation, which can make all the difference.
Another red herring in the regional government debate, which surfaced many times in the press during the Deputy Prime Minister's information campaign launch last week, is that what we really want is effective local government. Of course we do, but we are not talking about a choice between effective local government and effective regional government. There are many cases in which one should have both. I certainly want that for our country.
It has also been said that what we really want is for central Government to have an effective regional policy at national level. This is a false choice because, in reality, we need both. Happily, we have a Government who are strongly committed to the regions and to regional policy, but it is also true that regional government works successfully in countries where it is backed up by an effective policy at national level. In no way does the establishment of a regional assembly absolve national Government from also pursuing policies to help the regions.
I welcome the report published in July by the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which contained many useful recommendations on how the Government might reduce regional inequalities. It is important for Government policies to mainstream
104WH
regional issues so that the Government can examine the need to reduce regional inequalities and consider what the effect of their policies will be on those inequalities.
The ODPM Committee's report also referred to the funding formula—the Barnett formula—and called for a review of total funding allocations as well as a review of the formula itself. The debate is not primarily about the Barnett formula, but I strongly believe that it is indefensible to voters in the north-east of England in its current form. I also believe that we need a formula that can be reviewed regularly and that takes into account the changing nature of the economic performances of the nation and the regions of the UK. It should also include elements such as the sparsity criterion, which is particularly important in Scotland. I urge the Government to consider this formula, because it is much easier to produce such a formula when economic times are good but much harder to do so when they are difficult.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The right hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way and is making a cogent case, although I do not agree with it. If she agrees that the Barnett formula needs revising, does she therefore agree that the people of Scotland, the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire should all receive the same amount per head?
Joyce Quin: Certainly not. The Government need to consider the different economic situations of different regions, as Germany does in its regular funding reviews. Germany has an equalisation mechanism to help regions that are in the greatest difficulty. The matter is quite complicated and needs a great deal of thought. The approach suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not work at all, as the question is much more profound that his proposal seems to indicate.
The ODPM Committee report also referred to other regional disparities. An area that worries me, which also worries the CBI in the north-east of England, is the public sector spending on research and development. As the ODPM Committee report stated:
"If public sector investment in research and development in the UK as a whole is low, then the North East's share is pitiful".
The statistics bear that out.
The devolution process introduced by the Government has so far benefited Scotland and Wales and led to policies being adopted in those countries that their people feel suit their needs. I welcome that. However, when I asked Scottish and Welsh colleagues about the benefits of devolution, I was struck by the fact that, rather than talk about policies or powers, often the first thing that they mentioned was the way that it had allowed a public and democratic focus on the needs and opportunities of those territories and the challenges facing them. That argument applies just as much to the Government's proposed regional assemblies in England as it does to Scotland and Wales.
I know that the Government propose to introduce a draft powers Bill on regional government in England. I urge them to consider strengthening the powers in certain areas, particularly learning and skills, and transport, both of which are crucial to a region's economic development. We know that devolution is a process, and the Government recognise that in their

105WH
White Paper. Indeed, in Wales, the Assembly's powers are already being reviewed. This is a process, but the Government's proposals are an important step along an important road for the regions of England.
I am glad that economic development is at the heart of the proposals and I believe that the single pot of money will help the region to prioritise and spend on what it believes is most important. The north-east of England has a distinct economy. We are more heavily reliant on the manufacturing sector and exports to the European Union market than anywhere else in the UK. In schools, we have a lower staying-on rate, which needs to be addressed, and a lower start-up rate for small businesses. We also have particular skills needs. All those areas of distinction cry out for a regional focus, regional strategies and regional solutions.
I am glad that the press in different parts of the north-east have recognised that. This Monday's Northern Echo editorial states that
"only by working for a future together can the region start to redress the balance between bad news and good news on the jobs front."
The press have recognised that regional strategies are about jobs, industry and the health and future of the economy. The influence that the regional assemblies will have on regional appointments and the ability to focus on matters publicly will be important in getting public support and creating an awareness, which the present system is unable to do.
Will the Minister respond positively to concerns that have been raised by business in the north-east? He was present at the launch in Durham a week ago, so he knows that there was a positive response to the proposals from the business men who were present. However, they had concerns, many of which have been produced in 10-point programme, that are worthy of serious consideration and can provide the basis for a constructive dialogue with industry.
Aspects of devolution in Scotland and Wales have not received the warmest publicity, and although we can learn from the positive aspects of what has happened elsewhere, we do not need to do everything in the same way. For example, I do not see any justification for new, expensive buildings in the north-east, particularly given the modest size of the proposed assembly. We must also be sensitive over the location of any assembly—I am glad that the Yes campaign for the north-east has established its headquarters in Durham and that the Deputy Prime Minister held the launch there last week.
There are worries that need to be addressed, and although other hon. Members here can better comment on those in the south of the region than I can, I believe that there is a great sense of unity in the north-east. The fact that the Teesside and Tyneside chambers of commerce joined to form the North East chamber of commerce is a good example of how people feel the need to operate regionally in the north-east. Those areas in the region that look south as well as north know that if a regional government is established in Yorkshire and the Humber, the two regions will be able to co-operate on many issues. The idea is to co-operate, rather than imprison people in geographical confines in which they feel uncomfortable, and to introduce an enabling, empowering structure that will stand the regions in good stead.
106WH
There are also worries in the rural areas, so I welcome many of Lord Haskins' proposals, which are very much along the lines of devolution and will effectively integrate the rural and urban areas in a common cause for the well-being of the region. I am particularly exercised on this point, as I was a Minister in the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I also have a lot of contacts with the rural world and I know of the concerns there about marginalisation if the structures are not right.
I shall bring my comments to a close, because a number of hon. Members wish to contribute. Regional government can mean huge gains for the north-east, but it would be foolish to say that it will solve all problems. In the modern world, the economy of a region can be greatly affected by economic events thousands of miles away and we must recognise the national, European and international contexts in which we work. However, regional government is the missing link in our democracy and in our system of economic management—in that sense, it can add real value. I am convinced that if anywhere in England can make a success of devolution, it is the north-east. We are being given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give regions a powerful voice in our nation's affairs, to address regional needs and priorities, and to allow regions such as the north-east, with its pioneering industrial past, to pioneer a new form of democracy for England.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call Mr. Atkinson, I tell the Chamber that because of the disorganisation caused by the timing of the vote in the House, on this occasion I shall not take lateness into account as a factor in deciding whether to call an hon. Member.
2.27 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I missed the start of the speech by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), because I was voting in support of a ten-minute Bill that would give the British people the power to have a referendum on such an important issue as the European constitution. I suspect that quite a lot of Labour Members who intend to call for a referendum on regional government were trooped through the No Lobby to vote against the Bill. However, I shall not intrude on the Labour party's private grief.
The right hon. Lady and I agree on many things. For instance, I entirely share her view on the importance of a regional focus and regional identity, and I fully support what she said about getting the Lindisfarne gospels back to the north-east. However, I disagree fundamentally that we need an expensive and costly elected bureaucracy to do that, and that is where the difference lies. We are sceptical about whether a regional assembly will do what is claimed of it, and whether it will be a minimalist organisation. As it turns out, we think that a regional assembly will be extremely costly.
I refer those who argue that an assembly will solve all the problems of the north-east to what Lord Rooker said in the House of Lords: "No more power, no more

107WH
resources." People who actually believe that setting up a regional assembly will produce more money and power for the north-east of England are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The North East chamber of commerce reflected such a view in its recent session on the subject. It said that among its members, who are from the business community in the north-east, views on regional government range from scepticism to hostility. If the right hon. Lady and her supporters of regional government are to convince those people, they will have to answer some tough questions. So far, those questions have not been answered.
By promoting the idea of a Geordie parliament, its supporters are appealing to people through their sense of regional identity. It is an emotional appeal. However, we do not have the answers to the hard questions that need to be asked and answered so that the people of the north-east can make a proper decision when they come to vote.
Ms Dari Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take back the unfortunate statement that he just made to the House, claiming that it will be some kind of Geordie parliament. There are Teessiders here, and we do not want to be deprecated or left out.
Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Lady makes my point about one of the problems with the regional assembly. We talk about the Geordie parliament, because where we come from, on Tyneside, people refer to it as that. That is where the problem lies. We will have one part of the region against the other, and the hon. Lady makes my case perfectly.
Vera Baird: I am terrified about the hon. Gentleman's geography, as he clearly thinks that Hexham is on Tyneside.
The appalling history of the Conservative Government was to starve our region, particularly the sub-region of Teesside, of any resources. If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the idea, what alternatives does he advocate to the large resources that are available and their democratic control?
Mr. Atkinson: I get cross when Members from the north-east say, "What has the Conservative party done for the north-east of England?" I will tell the hon. and learned Lady what it has done. She should visit the quayside at Newcastle and the developments at Teesside that Mrs. Thatcher and Michael Heseltine started. Over the years, the Conservative Government committed millions of pounds to the region when they hardly had a single north-east MP—only four MPs. Now we have a fistful of Cabinet Ministers from the north-east, and the region has less investment than during those days.
I shall not take any lectures from north-east Members about the Conservative record. I am proud of the Conservative party's record, and when I walk along the quayside at Newcastle, I say, "This is what a Conservative Government have done for the region."
Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman should remember what the Conservative Government did to my constituency, North Durham. They decimated the coal industry and closed down the shipbuilding industry on Teesside, Sunderland, Wearside and Tyneside. I must also correct the hon. Gentleman—the Tyne and Wear development corporation squandered millions of pounds on schemes that did not come through. Today's regeneration of the quayside is actually down to the tenacity of Gateshead and Newcastle city councils.
Mr. Atkinson: I do not think that we would agree with that. As for the history of the Durham coalfields, I suspect that a gentleman named Wedgwood Benn closed most of the pits. The hon. Gentleman is probably too young to remember that.
However, I do not want to go on about the past—this is becoming a bit like Prime Minister's Question Time. We should look towards the future, and deal with the concerns that we and the people of the north-east have about the regional assembly. We do not have the detailed answers that we need to our questions.
People in the north-east should look to the example of the London Assembly. That is the nearest equivalent that we have to a regional assembly. We were told that the regional assembly for London would do wonders, and would be an economic organisation that would stamp a true London identity on the city. The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West will know that the cost of the Greater London Authority on the London boroughs has risen by 29 per cent. this year, and that Ken Livingstone—who I believe may be the Labour mayoral candidate, or not—moved into brand new headquarters on the Thames, in a building of fine architectural quality. Within a few months, it seems that there is not enough room for the staff, which has expanded to a greater extent than anticipated. That is a warning to the people of the north-east.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the Scottish Parliament, the cost of which is up from £40 million to £400 million. If the people of Scotland were asked to vote again on whether they wanted devolution I doubt that there would be overwhelming support. That certainly would not apply in Wales.
The people of the north-east deserve some honest answers. The Deputy Prime Minister came to Durham last week to launch the referendum road show. It seemed merely a propaganda vehicle for the Yes campaign. I asked the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the cost of the campaign. The people of the north-east should know that that launch last week cost £25,000. It could have been done for £200. The budget for this information campaign until the end of this financial year is £500 million. I warn the people of the north-east that this is where the regional assembly is going. If you want an assembly, you should watch your pockets and count your silver spoons.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) says "you" he is referring to me. As I am in the Chair I have no view on the matter.
2.36 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing the debate. This is a good moment to hold it because, as she said, last week the Deputy Prime Minister launched the campaign to raise awareness and generate debate about Labour's plans for elected regional assemblies in the north-east, the north-west, and Yorkshire and Humberside.
I want to say a few words about what regional devolution will mean for Teesside and how the new assembly can make a difference to the people of the north-east. I intend to show that we have a different perspective from the picture of doom and gloom painted by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). The north-east is the furthest English region from the centres of power in Westminster, the ministerial offices in Whitehall and the large institutions that shape our lives such as the City of London, the finance industry, the national media and the permanent secretaries of the civil service. The north-east is all too often ruled by quangos and career civil servants. That is not a wilful criticism of those who run public affairs in the north-east.
Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Hexham mentioned the Tyne and Wear development corporation. Does my hon. Friend agree that two institutions that needed public accountability and exposure were the Teesside and the Tyneside development corporations set up by the last Tory Government?
Dr. Kumar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As hon. Members are aware, the Teesside development corporation finished up before the Public Accounts Committee because some £8 million was missing. The hon. Member for Hexham and his Government failed to provide the necessary accountability.
Those who run public affairs in the north-east have the interest of the region at heart, and believe strongly that we need to modernise our regional institutions and to iron out regional inequalities. However, they are all directly appointed by Whitehall, and their final accountability has to be to the people who appointed them. That is wrong. I am proud to say that our Government recognised this from day one.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West mentioned devolution in Scotland and Wales and the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I agree with her that they are now part and parcel of our everyday institutions. I recall that the Conservative party opposed both those institutions until they were set up. They were wrong then, and they are wrong to oppose them now.
Institutions need dreams. Labour Members have a dream for an assembly in the north-east. A regional assembly would give the people of the north-east the power to set their own priorities, and the ability to take decisions to solve the problems that they want solving. I have been amazed at how strongly the people of the north-east identify with their region. My right hon. Friend mentioned the solidarity and support that have existed for a long time.
110WH
I want to turn to the role of Teesside in a new regional assembly. Teesside is still the industrial powerhouse of the region. It is one of the UK's—indeed Europe's—biggest producers of chemicals, including products that are a staple part of our everyday life in our homes, our clothes, our cars, our food and our medicines. Many of the greatest chemical companies in the world, such as BASF, Amoco, Huntsman, Du Pont and BP, are found in Teesside. Their managers are experienced in working in a global environment that has Teesside at its heart.
Teesside also has a great steel-making tradition going back 160 years. It has Britain's second biggest port by volume of cargo handled, with all the transport and infrastructure needed to support it in place along the river. Those key industries are supported by many small, local firms with strong sectoral strengths. Teesside is home to one of the UK's biggest concentrations of process industry technology, and marine and offshore engineering. Such strengths mean that Teesside must be central to the economic development policies of a regional assembly.
A good regional economic strategy will bring great benefits to Teesside. It will help Teesside airport to become the international airport that we need to cater for business people from all over the world who have made Teesside their manufacturing home. It will help us to work with the port authority to develop Teesport into one of the UK's great maritime centres for the new markets and trade patterns that will follow the accession of countries such as Poland and the Baltic states to the European Community. It will allow the new centres of excellence within the chemical sector to flourish, permitting a move from relatively low-value bulk chemicals to higher-value intermediate and finished goods. I strongly believe that it will act to help an iron and steel-making company such as Corus realise its ambition to make the Redcar and Lackenby steel complex Europe's largest and best supplier of bulk steel products.
However, in common with the whole of the northeast, Teesside has needs as well as achievements of which to be proud. It must ensure that people are fully trained to take part in the new skills revolution that is transforming work. It needs to improve further the performance of our schools. It has to build on the existing strengths of our regional universities and colleges, including the university of Teesside and the new Stockton campus of the university of Durham. It must improve its infrastructure; I have mentioned the airport, but road and rail improvements are still needed. We should build a new mass transit system for the Tees valley that is now a lot closer, following the recent announcement of a possible start in Middlesbrough.
In short, Teesside needs a renaissance, and a regional assembly could be the focus for it to achieve that. However, a regional assembly can do more—not just for Teesside, but for the north-east.
Despite the efforts of the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister, we still live in a country that is economically unbalanced. Of all the regions and nations that make up the UK, only the south-east is wealthier than the current European Union regional average. The problems of the south-east are of overdevelopment and overheating, whereas those of the north-east are of

111WH
relative underdevelopment and spare capacity, both physical and human. The economic deficit is but one result of a long history of an over-centralised state.
There is also a democratic deficit. An over-centralised state is prone to fall into the trap of making decisions inappropriate to regions such as the north-east, because it tries to square the circle by making the same rules apply to both the south-east and the north-east. Such a one-size-fits-all approach can make the regional disparities wider. Great disparities still exist, despite the Government's good work over the past six years, of which I am proud.
The Minister may have seen the Institute for Public Policy Research report, which stated that, since 1992, the economic prosperity gap between the south-east and the north-east has widened from around 30 per cent. to nearly 60 per cent. That is alarming, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
We in the north-east still have too many wards in the top 10 per cent. of the index of multiple deprivation. Although only 8.8 per cent. of people of working age in the south-east are claiming state benefit, the equivalent figure for the north-east is 20.3 per cent. In 2002, 31 per cent.—almost a third—of workers in the south-east had a degree, whereas only 19 per cent. of the north-east's work force possessed a similar level of qualification.
We also need to examine the levels of employment in the north-east. We still have a long way to go. The figures from some of our travel-to-work areas show that the numbers in work are low compared with the national average. In my local Middlesbrough and Stockton travel-to-work area, only 66.4 per cent. of people are in work; in Sunderland and Durham it is 67.2 per cent.; and in Newcastle, the figure for Tyneside is 69.3 per cent. Those figures should be seen against the national average of 74.6 per cent., and the European Union Lisbon treaty floor target of 70 per cent.
I said that much has been done since 1 May 1997 to reverse that trend. The work of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in tackling regional issues by setting up the regional development agencies is a credit to him. I hope that the next comprehensive spending review will carry on building on that programme of work. I also hope that the Government will examine the possibility of setting targets to reduce economic and social disparities and inequalities, and will seek to put flesh on the bones of the idea of dispersing Whitehall departments and agencies to the regions of England.
As well as looking to the structured programmes to replace European regional development funding which, as a result of the accession of the new nations to the Community, will taper off from 2006, we want to go one step further. Good deeds in Whitehall are one thing, but we want the ability to make our own future. We want autonomy and the ability to manage our own affairs. We need management by the people of the north-east for the people of the north-east. A regional assembly will give us that power.
That is why I, with all my regional colleagues, will be campaigning next year for a resounding yes vote in the north-east. I want the people of the region—from Berwick to Boulby—to show that we are proud, talented and ambitious. A regional chamber will give voice to our people and expression to that pride, talent and ambition.
112WH
In conclusion, I shall quote the Deputy Prime Minister because the project is his baby, he has championed it for a long time, and I think that he has got it right. He said:
"People in the north have a great opportunity to establish a new form of government that brings choice, democracy and opportunity to their region."
I concur with him wholeheartedly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little time remaining for speeches from Back-Bench Members, but if hon. Members are brief, I shall do my best to call them all.
2.50 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to her campaigning skills, both for a regional development agency and for regional government. I also pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister. I first worked with him on these issues in 1980, and over the intervening years he has maintained his vision and determination, and has persistently pursued the objective. We would not be having this debate without his work.
I was first persuaded that we needed a regional development agency and regional government in 1974, when I was the chairman of the North of England Development Council, which was the job-hunting agency, and we were competing against the Scots and the Welsh. That was 1974 and they already had a powerful RDA, a Secretary of State in the Cabinet and their own Question Time. They already had a Grand Committee and were later to have a Select Committee. Those were all superb vehicles for focusing the minds of busy Ministers and officials on the problems of Scotland and Wales. As a young MP, the first thing that I noticed was that we had no research or body of authoritative opinion at our disposal to pursue Ministers and officials as the Scots and the Welsh could.
My political life, regionally and nationally, stretches over 30 years. Most of my experience has confirmed my view that the man or woman in Whitehall does not know best. Despite some of their superb qualities, they need to create a learning organisation, which should be a partnership with regions such as our own, to draw from our experience, abilities, commitment and knowledge of regional problems. That is where an RDA and regional government can help.
It was kind of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call me. I wanted to say much more, but I will give my other colleagues the opportunity to speak.
2.52 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I will be similarly brief. It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, albeit from the perspective of someone who has moved 150 miles from where he was born. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing the debate, and on the way that she has led it.

113WH
When I leave Parliament at the next general election, "gaan hyem" to Northumberland, I trust, hope and believe that the people of the north-east will have overwhelmingly voted yes to an elected regional assembly. The north-east has an identity and the commitment of its people. The region has a passion, which is often expressed in the rivalries of the football teams. I always want Newcastle to do well, as long as Sunderland beat them in the cup final and they come second to us when we get back into the premier league.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to draw me into that controversy.
Mr. Dawson: I will quickly steer away from that subject, but we need to ensure that that passion is diverted to the interests of the whole region. I believe that the people of the north-east will choose an elected regional assembly, because they know exactly what the north-east needs—democracy. It needs the people of the region to be empowered and involved in the huge decisions that a regional assembly will make on the issues that are fundamental to their lives—such as jobs, major land use issues and transport—and on how the whole region is run and, in particular, regenerated. An elected assembly will provide a tremendous opportunity for the people of the north-east to play a much bigger part in the regeneration of the United Kingdom, and for the north-east to develop its own solutions to its problems, rather than being merely a supplicant to the national Government and a power base located a long way away.
An elected assembly will engage all the people and communities of a diverse and interesting region in the new future of the north-east. It provides an opportunity to throw off the old clichés and persuade young people born in the north-east that they have a future there. I am part of a generation of people who left the north-east because there was not enough for them there. For many people, there was nothing in that region. An assembly will provide an opportunity to convince young people coming to the region—to some of the excellent higher education institutions, for instance—that they have a future and a life there if they will only stay.
An elected assembly will provide an opportunity for the region to build links with the other regions of Europe—across, for instance, a North sea community—and to create a wider community than that of the European Union. I hope that it provides an opportunity for the north-east region to work properly with a devolved assembly in the north-west and in Yorkshire and Humberside on a renaissance of the north. This is the tremendous opportunity that we have.
I am delighted to hear about the prospect of an elected regional assembly being based in Durham. The great historic cities of the north have a remarkable part to play in the future. Durham, York and Lancaster are the right centres for devolved regional assemblies—a modern idea in an ancient and historic setting. This is the future. It is one of enterprise, imagination and a new
114WH
energy that can be brought into the north-east and all the regions of northern England. I hope that many people, seeing the opportunity of a devolved regional assembly and a new future for the north-east, will, like me, decide that it is time to go home.
2.58 pm
Vera Baird: I have about two and a half minutes to speak, so I will cut out all the fancy bits and cut to the chase—not that there was ever anything very fancy in my speech.
People will be well aware that the five boroughs of the Tees valley have a combined population of about 650,000, and our larger and, as we have perceived it, more prosperous neighbour, Tyne and Wear, has a population of about 1 million. Historically, the Tyne has seen stronger economic growth because of its larger population and bigger cities, such as Newcastle, which is an established cultural and arts centre. The Tyne's voice has sometimes been—or been believed to be, from a Teesside vantage point—stronger than our own.
A concern voiced in the Tees valley is whether a regional assembly for the north-east will represent the whole region. Clearly, there will be proper democratic representation, but people remain a little apprehensive. I shall briefly say why I think that that argument is completely wrong and why I will be out canvassing for the great north vote, as our great north Deputy Prime Minister calls it, and especially campaigning for a regional assembly for the north-east.
What is key is that there is more in common between the twin riverside conurbations of the Tyne and the Tees than there are differences between them. Those twins, if not identical, have had pretty near identical problems historically, and certainly the same general profile. The current generations on both the Tees and the Tyne have, after all, been brought up in the same environment: economic decline, a reduction in labour-intensive industry, dependence on the manufacturing sector which vacillates, unemployment, inner urban deprivation, and living in the midst of tracts of derelict land. That hard rearing has also brought to those twin riverside conurbations similar cultural outlooks. They are a little shocked at the economic blows of the past; inherited skills and ways of life are less valued, and they are not always confident and enterprising.
However, nurturing from this Government's regional policies in the last six years has made a cataclysmic difference to those attitudes. The regional development agencies have increased budgets and the single-pot concept is removing the earmarking of funds and freeing them to be applied locally and wisely. Under that nurturing, both twins are starting to realise their potential, and as a person who has lived in Tyneside and in Teesside I can sense powerfully what a success our regional policy has been so far. It has been a huge focus for this Government, and I will say again, even though the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is not present, that this Government's focus is in rank contrast to the total neglect, especially of Teesside, by the last Government. This Government have started to bring new investment, to persuade people to take up new skills and to revive this pair of very similar economies.

115WH
I am truncating my speech, as I am aware of the time, but it is very important at this stage to be aware of the sensible decision that has already been taken to have the regional capital in Durham. Otherwise, the worry in Teesside, which is a real one, is that we would lag just that little bit behind, as Newcastle benefits now from being, de facto, the regional capital. It has the RDA, One NorthEast, the Government office for the northeast, the Pension Service headquarters, the Highways Agency and all the other regional trappings of government. The same argument was used to advocate regional devolution, with which I agree, in the first place. London-based power means that significant aspects of national policy function as unacknowledged regional policies for the south-east. The same applies to the impact of a regional capital.
As long as Teessiders can be shown that that is a major reason why Tyneside has appeared to be more dominant than it truly is, and as long as Teessiders can easily understand the prospect of a capital for the new region being elsewhere, they will vote in droves for regional devolution, because they have already seen the huge benefits of locating the RDA, with its large budget, in the region. One NorthEast was the first RDA to devolve much of its funding to sub-regional purses—even closer to the ground—so that people have been able to make judgments and to invest and attract industry that is entirely fitting to the needs of the region. Teessiders are able to understand that, and the more they see, first of the RDA then of the sub-regional partnership, and the closer to the people the investment and decisions become, the more they will understand that making the process democratic will increase the region's power even further. I think that the days when Teesside hesitated about this are long past.
I am grateful to the hon. Members who have yet to speak for allowing me to encroach into their time by a few minutes.
3.4 pm
Matthew Green: Although I suspect that I will shortly be interrupted by the Division Bell, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing this timely debate, which has been good, although perhaps marred a little by the disparaging remarks from the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on the strong case for the north-east having a regional assembly. However, we heard excellent speeches from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). Indeed, I was intrigued that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre was able to put in a bid for Lancaster to host the northwest regional assembly.
I want to make it clear from the outset that the Liberal Democrats have long believed in regional government and that we are fully behind the yes vote for the northeast. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who unfortunately cannot be here today, summed it up when he said that the northeast already has a large proportion of such a tier of government in the shape of various unelected officials
116WH
and government agencies that make decisions that people cannot influence. Those unelected bodies should be replaced by elected representatives. He added that
"key decisions that affect us can be made in the North, by the North for the North."
My right hon. Friend put the case better than I could.
3.5 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.21 pm
On resuming—
Matthew Green: I was saying that the Liberal Democrats are fully behind the Yes campaign in the north-east and that one of the reasons why the regional assembly will prove so popular in the north-east is that the area has a strong sense of regional identity. That was clear from the consultation exercise. The reason why the three northern regions are going ahead is that they have the greatest sense of regional identity. When the Government consider the possibility of referendums in other areas, they may have to change the boundaries of some other regions to achieve the sense of regional identity that exists in the north-east.
I am delighted to say that we were able to get the second question on to the ballot paper, thanks to the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. This matter was raised on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and, I agree, by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West. Unfortunately, the Government were not persuaded in Committee, but our persuasive powers were slightly more successful in the House of Lords. The second question removes the problem, which would have existed, of constituents of the single-tier areas being able to decide local government change in two-tier areas. They now have the choice of at least two forms of unitary authority, which we are very glad about.
I want to talk about the powers of the regional assembly because in many ways, although we are firm believers in regional government and will be fully behind a yes vote, this is not the full loaf. I shall be kind—it is three quarters of a loaf.
Mr. Edward Davey: Half a loaf.
Matthew Green: I was being generous and keeping to the spirit of cross-party co-operation on the yes vote. A major reason for our support is that the proposal becomes a vehicle for adding greater powers. However, the Government have the opportunity to add greater powers at an earlier stage, because they have not yet published the draft powers Bill. When they do so, they will have the opportunity to consider several ways of increasing powers. I want to talk about a few, one of which relates to transport.
The regional assembly will have the power to decide regional priorities, but the Secretary of State will still decide which priorities are funded. In effect, therefore, this is not a real power, as it is one of persuasion rather than of decision. The Government still have the

117WH
opportunity to hand that power down to regional government to allow it to make real choices in the northeast about the transport arrangements affecting, say, the A1 or other major transport infrastructure developments in the region.
Secondly, the Government seriously need to consider the role of the learning and skills councils. If the regional assemblies are to deliver on anything, they should deliver on jobs and the economy. Learning and skills councils are a vehicle for delivering funds for skills, which are key to jobs and the local economy. Decisions about funding should be democratically accountable and should be taken in the north-east. The Government still have the time and the opportunity to make that change and to make the learning and skills councils regional and accountable to the north-east regional assembly.
Thirdly, regional development agencies are still not accountable enough to the regional assembly, which the Government could do more to address. They could give more power to locally elected people who are responsible to their local electorates, rather than still appointing the boards of RDAs. There has been a step forward and we support it, but there is still more to do.
I am baffled by the Conservatives' opposition to the referendums. This is about giving the public a choice. The Conservatives want a referendum on the European constitution, as we do, but they do not want a referendum on whether there should be an elected regional government in the north-east. That is very strange. There will be a referendum and the Conservatives' arguments will be seen to be as weak as they have made them.
Mr. Atkinson: I believe that I made it clear in my opening remarks that I am fully behind the idea of a referendum to give people the choice. I voted against the Bill as I believe that the whole thing is a waste of money, but I have no objection to people in the north-east having a choice.
Matthew Green: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he does not agree with his party's Front-Bench spokesman on the matter. Once again, the show of unity among the Tories has lasted less than a week.
Another concern is taxation. Regional assemblies will have the power to impose a precept on council tax, which we support. We support their ability to raise money, but not, however, through council tax. The Government may decide in their balance of funding review to consider other forms of taxation such as local income tax, which are based on ability to pay. I realise that the Minister will not promise anything that the Prime Minister has already ruled out, which is unfortunate for his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as they are clearly considering such a form of taxation in the balance of funding review. Will he confirm, however, that any changes made to the method of local government will be extended to regional government, and that if a local income tax is imposed it will be extended to the regional level and will replace council tax throughout? We would certainly welcome that as a way forward.
118WH
We will be fully behind the yes campaign. As the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West said, there has been long-standing demand for a regional assembly in the north-east from the Labour party and from the Liberal Democrats. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will be closely involved in the entire campaign.
3.28 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This has been a good-tempered and moderately constructive debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions, because it has become a custom in this Chamber for Ministers to answer the soft questions from their own side and none from the Opposition. That is an especially unfortunate trend. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing the debate and welcome the Minister to his new post. His two predecessors, however, fell into the category that I have just described.
I start on a discordant note, because although I hope that this will remain a good-tempered debate, I must disagree with most of the speeches that we have heard today, with the exception of the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson).
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) always tries deliberately to mislead the Chamber about what Conservative Members say, and I want to clarify one point. It is untrue that the Conservatives are opposed to a referendum on the matter. We are democrats and believe in referendums; it is just that we will campaign strongly for a no vote.
Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman would only cause mischief, so I will not.
Joyce Quin rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I happily give way to the right hon. Lady.
Joyce Quin: Is it true that the Conservatives voted and argued against the legislation to allow regional referendums?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham ably explained, we do not believe in regional assemblies. We believe that they are undemocratic and, as I will demonstrate in a minute, will take power away from local people, rather than empowering them.
The Deputy Prime Minister made a little visit up north on 3 November. He made some extraordinary statements, and I will quote one of the most extraordinary:
"At the moment, people come in a delegation to London and make a case to a minister but what difference does it make?"
He is admitting that his own friends, MPs and councillors can go to see him, but it will not make any difference. If he does not listen to them now, how do Labour Members expect a regional assembly to help them any further?

119WH
I quote The Journal report on 5 November by the excellent Paul Linford and David Higgerson, his colleague who is sadly not here:
"Mr. Prescott is known to privately favour the scrapping of the Barnett Formula"—
I intervened on the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, and she said the same—
"which awards Scotland £537 per head more than the north-east, £938 per head more than the north-west, and £1,166 more than Yorkshire."
If the right hon. Lady is in favour of scrapping the Barnett formula, that automatically means that she is in favour of giving less money to the Scottish people and more to those in the north-east. However, the soon-to-become-Labour Mayor of London is in favour of more money being kept in London and less going to the north. If northern Members think that they are going to get more resources, they are in for a great surprise.
Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: In a minute. The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, and I will give him a little opportunity to decide whether to be mischievous.
A key caveat in the new Labour manifesto was that regional government would happen only if the total cost to the public purse of local and regional government would not increase as a result. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham quoted Lord Rooker, who said exactly the same thing. If people in the north-east think that they are going to get a huge pot of money from this venture, they are in for a sad surprise.
The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said that huge resources had gone into the northeast regional development agency. Of course they have, but who set up the north-east RDA? The last Conservative Government, and a great deal of money is going into the north already.
Vera Baird rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Sorry. I have been corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham. The northeast development corporation was set up by the last Conservative Government. I apologise to Members, as that was a slip of the tongue.
The last Conservative Government secured a great deal of inward investment for the north-east, and that is another key point. Toyota went to Washington, Tyne and Wear, and created a huge number of jobs.
Vera Baird rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It was Nissan. I am glad that I have my tutor beside me. There are problems when one speaks in a debate outside one's area.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is just as well the hon. Gentleman has a tutor, because otherwise I might have to do that job.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At least we are keeping up the humour. Nevertheless, the principle is correct. I suggest that the only way to
120WH
increase prosperity in the north-east is to encourage inward investment. If we break up this country into strong regions, do the people of the north-east honestly think that the south-east, the south-west, the west midlands and the east midlands will not fight as hard, or possibly harder, for the scarce inward investment that is likely to come to the country? Instead of a national Government looking at the whole of the United Kingdom, one region will compete with another and waste a huge amount of resources.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall give way first to the Liberal Democrat spokesman and then to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can give way to only one person at a time, and must say something in between speakers.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am busy trying to say something, but Labour Members are trying hard to silence me. They will not succeed.
A great deal of money will be squandered not only in setting up regional assemblies, but afterwards. Let us consider the Scottish example. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has said that the Scottish Parliament building was originally to cost £40 million; today, it will cost £400 million. I suspect that each region will want an expensive building and staff in Brussels so that they can try to get European funds directly.
Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No. I am in danger of straying out of order.
Matthew Green rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I give way to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman. At the risk of encouraging him to dig his hole a little deeper, can he say whether the Conservatives want to review the Barnett formula? Would they keep it the same or change it? If they changed it, who would gain and who would lose?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I knew that the Liberal spokesman was going to cause difficulties. He knows perfectly well that we have just had a successful reshuffle. We now have a perfectly good spokesman for Scotland who can stand up and ask that question in a Scottish debate. I shall not answer a question on behalf of one of my colleagues, as that lies outside my responsibilities. If the Liberal spokesman thinks that I am that green, he should look again.
Mr. Derek Foster: Are we now clear about the fact that the only regional policy of a possible Tory Government would be to increase inward investment within the regions? How does the hon. Gentleman answer the problem of international inward investment

121WH
reducing for all regions and of the northern region being a good deal less competitive now that Yorkshire and Humberside includes a region with objective 1 status?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Between the mirth, the right hon. Gentleman might have missed what I said. I chose my words carefully, and referred to the minimal amount of inward investment. He is right to say that that inward investment is shrinking in this country, largely because of this Government's policies. Increasing the prosperity of the north-east is not our only policy—one need only look at our major cities to see what the former Member for Henley did for many of our inner cities. The centres of Glasgow and Leeds as well as docklands have seen innovative urban regeneration schemes, which the last Conservative Government came up with.
I have 10 questions for the Minister from the North East chamber of commerce. I would be grateful if he responded to some if not all, but if he cannot perhaps he will write to us. What will the remit of the north-east regional assembly be? Fears exist among voters that they are buying a pig in a poke because they will not have the detailed Bill until after the referendum. Perhaps the Minister could exemplify the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland: how will the regional assembly strengthen economic performance? The regional assembly must demonstrate how it can improve economic performance; we need details.
How will the Minister ensure that a business-led regional development agency prospers in the future? What say will the north-east regional assembly have over the RDA's spending of its money? Will an RDA be required if the referendum goes in favour of an assembly?
Will the Minister say something about the cost of the whole venture? What will it cost to set up an assembly? My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has already said that the campaign has cost £25,000, and we know that £500,000 has been allocated up to April. By the time we get to next autumn, perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us the total cost of the campaign. Is the "Your Say" campaign really an information campaign or is it propaganda? Are the Government or the Labour party paying for it?
Perhaps the Minister could also say something about the effectiveness of expenditure. The running of the new regional assembly will be costly. How will it be paid for? How much will it cost? It is no good the Deputy Prime Minister saying that it will be paid for by the abolition of the county councils, because he is prejudging the vote of the people on whether they want to abolish their county councils.
I wish something to be said about the speed of decision making because Ministers have trumpeted throughout the land the fact that this system will be more locally democratic. It is going to take powers away from local people, however, and before some Member on the Labour Benches intervenes, I will demonstrate how. What if there is no new money coming into this assembly? We already know that considerable powers are being taken away from the unitary councils by the planning and housing Bills. Those are now to be regional functions. What used to be local functions have
122WH
already been taken away. The Government have demonstrated that they are happy to take powers away from the unitary authorities, but are they going to give any real powers back, or is this regional assembly going to be another tier of bureaucracy taking decision making away from local people?
How will business be engaged? What will the partnership approach be? Business is the main agent of wealth creation in the region. Ultimately, the only way that the region will prosper is by generating its own money and wealth. It cannot prosper indefinitely on huge handouts from the national Government.
What will be the support for, and legitimacy of, the regional assembly? The Government have said that they will look carefully at the result if there is a derisory turnout. What do they regard as a derisory turnout? If there is a 25 per cent. turnout and the winning margin is one vote, will that be satisfactory? If there is only a 20 per cent. turnout and the margin of victory is 200 votes, will that also be satisfactory?
The Government might tell us that there is no potential disadvantage. However, there is a danger that the Government could devolve more powers and duties to the regions without providing the necessary budget. We have seen that with a vengeance with this Government and the powers that they have given to local authorities—powers over recycling are not properly paid for, and there are numerous other such powers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman give his questions to the Minister in writing. The Minister now has only nine minutes.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am happy with that as I have asked my last question. I wanted to get it on the record and I have done so. I hope that the Minister does his best to answer my points.
3.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): This has been an inspiring debate. It has been a privilege to be present with so many north-east Members of Parliament standing up proudly to proclaim the attributes of the north-east and to support the "Your Say" campaign. Many of them support a yes vote in the referendums.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on the powerful case that she put. We have had a parade of talent from the north-east this afternoon. As well as my right hon. Friend, we have had, either present in the Chamber or contributing, my right hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), and my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones), for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam)—which is you, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I know that you cannot take part in the debate, I did not want you to feel left out. It has also been good to see Members from other regions joining the debate: my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster

123WH
and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) even got in a crafty bid for the regional assembly for his area—the north-west—to be in his constituency. I congratulate him on that. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) was a brave and lonely voice from the north-east opposing the proposal, and I will say more about that later.
The Government are rightly committed to a far-reaching and radical programme of constitutional change and devolution. We are transforming this country, which was one of the most centralised in the western world in 1997. We have devolved power to Scotland and Wales, we have restored city-wide government to London and now we are offering the chance to devolve power to the English regions—we are meeting our manifesto commitment to allow referendums on establishing regional elected assemblies in the regions that want them.
This is about choice. We are not imposing our views; we are allowing the people in each region to decide. We have listened to their views in selecting the regions that should move to a referendum first—the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber—and the people will decide the result of those referendums.
When we asked the north-east if it wanted a referendum on an elected assembly, the responses reflected the views of thousands of people and the answer was yes. We are now beginning the process of allowing them that referendum. As was remarked earlier, the Conservatives opposed devolution in Scotland, Wales and London, and they even opposed regional development agencies, as hon. Members recalled. They got it wrong, and now they support the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. During an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, I discovered that they now support RDAs. We know what is going to happen. When we have run the campaign, when the votes come in and the regional assemblies are created, we will see another somersault by the Conservatives—this time in support of regional assemblies. We will ensure that the people in the north-east know what an assembly will mean for them.
Last week, I was with the Deputy Prime Minister in Durham. It was good to be with some of my hon. and right hon. Friends at the launch of the "Your Say" publications. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked what would be the powers and responsibilities of the new regional assemblies. Without wishing to ask him to do too much work, perhaps he could just read the leaflet, in which we spell out in detail what regional assemblies will mean for the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside. This is an information campaign to raise awareness about the referendum, all the powers the assembly will have and the future structure of local government in Durham and Northumberland.
The contributions of hon. Members from the northeast and north-west, and from the Liberal Democrats—the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green)—were positive, upbeat and inspirational. However, the contributions of the two Conservatives, including the Front-Bench spokesman, were negative, mealy-mouthed, scaremongering, confused, misunderstood—it was more of the old Tory democratic centralism that we have come to know. The best we got was a contrast based on whether we should have a referendum on the European constitution—they are in favour of one
124WH
taking place. They are not, however, in favour of a referendum for the local people of the north-east to decide on local decision making.
Having voted against our Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—the new boss of the hon. Member for Cotswold—described it as little more than
"mewling, puking, piddling… milk-and-water". —[Official Report, 26 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 219.]
That sums up the Tories' attitude to the people of the north and tells us everything we want to know about their attitudes to giving local people a local choice. Instead of asking questions of detail. which I am prepared to answer—although I must do so later, because I do not have the time now —perhaps Opposition Members could start to realise that regional assemblies are about jobs and prosperity, pride and a voice, and democracy and local decision making for local people in the north-east. Instead, the Conservative party tells us about disinvestment.
I saw wry smiles and heard groans from hon. Members from the north-east when a Conservative Member of Parliament described the benefits for the north-east of a Tory Government in the 1980s. That took my breath away. It is beyond me how anybody could make such points. We know the pain, suffering, misery, despair and hopelessness that the people in the north-east experienced under the Tories. We are bringing back hope and opportunity for the north-east through the new elected regional assemblies.
The Tories do not stand for jobs—they stand for disinvestment; they do not stand for a voice for and pride in the north-east—they stand for running it down at every opportunity. They do not want to give people the chance to have their say. They opposed the referendum and they will vote no to an assembly that will give people a local voice and local democratic decision making over local powers.
Many hon. Members focused on the importance of economic development, jobs and investment.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No point of order is available. The Minister is not giving way—that is his choice.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order available.
Phil Hope: This is about jobs and the economy. We can see from the quality of the debate that rather than focus on the future and what is important to those in the north-east, people end up making procedural points and points of order, which undermine the ability of those in the north-east to capture, hold and take forward their ambitions.
We see a positive future for the north-east. The referendums and the "Your Say" awareness campaign will let people know that our proposal is about jobs and prosperity as well as pride and a voice

125WH
in the north-east—it is about ensuring that investment comes its way. It is also about democracy, with local people having not just control and a say over £350 million of direct Government spend through quangos, but influence over some £1 billion of investment and opportunity. That is a prize worth fighting for and we are giving people that opportunity, so I say to them, "Go out there and campaign for what you believe in—support for the north-east."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make a few remarks to the Chamber? The Standing Order is quite plain on the matter: if Members, whether Ministers or not, are not prepared to give way they do not have to, regardless of whether the other hon. Member does not like it.
May I ask hon. Members who do not wish to stay for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly please?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you please explain the rules on whether it is permissible to make a point of order in Westminster Hall?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The rules are that it is perfectly permissible to make a point of order, except that the Chair has a view as to what the point of order could be about. As the Minister was not giving way, the only possible point of order was that the Minister was not giving way.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You did not hear my point of order. so you did not know what it was going to be.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair does not have to explain its rulings, but on this occasion, as I was listening to the debate, the only thing that could have driven the hon. Gentleman to his feet was the Minister not giving way. Therefore, there was no point of order. However, the matter is now finished.

HIV/AIDS
3.50 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: It is now more than 20 years since AIDS first appeared in this country. In those early days we had a particular problem in Edinburgh, mainly associated with intravenous drug users. It was because of that problem that I first acquired an interest in the subject, and went on to introduce successfully a private Member's Bill in 1986, which became the AIDS (Control) Act 1987.
Much has happened since then, and in the last few years there have been some key developments in policy. In July 2001, after some considerable delay, the Department of Health published the first ever national strategy for sexual health and HIV, which was followed up by tool kits and new recommended standards for HIV services. Those developments have been scrutinised by my colleagues in the Select Committee on Health. In June, the Committee published its report on sexual health, and in September the Government published their response.
My hon. Friend the Minister does not have responsibility for this area of policy in Scotland, but it is worth pointing out that in December 1999 her counterpart in the Scottish Parliament, Susan Deacon, who was then Scottish Health Minister, announced that the Scottish Executive would introduce a sexual health strategy. Earlier today, the draft sexual health strategy for Scotland was published and the Scottish Health Minister, Malcolm Chisholm, has launched a wide-ranging consultation on its recommendations. The Welsh Assembly has published a strategic framework for promoting sexual health in Wales and a post-consultation action plan, while in Northern Ireland work on a comprehensive sexual health strategy was due to start this year.
So much for the history of policy. What has been happening in the real world? Perhaps the most important development of the past 10 years has been the introduction of a cocktail of antiretroviral drugs that has revolutionised the expectations of people with HIV. When HIV first appeared in my constituency, the norm was for people, usually young people, to die within a few years. Although resistance to drugs is an increasing problem, we learned last month that the vast majority of people on highly active antiretroviral therapy were alive more than 10 years after diagnosis.
The causes of the disease have changed greatly. Last year saw a record number of new HIV diagnoses in the UK—some 5,542 people were diagnosed with the virus, which, adjusted for reporting delays, is slightly more than 6,500 new diagnoses. The most common way of acquiring HIV in the UK is via sex between men. The number of such cases is not declining. Indeed, a small but noticeable contribution to the increase in the total number of new HIV cases in Scotland last year was made by an increase in the number of diagnoses among gay men.
The number of people newly diagnosed with HIV in the UK via heterosexual sex has increased dramatically in recent years, from 835 in 1996 to 3,152 last year. As has been the case over the years, the vast majority of those infections were acquired abroad, although the

127WH
Public Health Laboratory Service, which is now the Health Protection Agency, expects that the number of people infected heterosexually in the UK will gradually increase in the years ahead. A huge increase in heterosexually transmitted cases last year resulted in Greater Glasgow overtaking Lothian as the Scottish region with the highest number of new diagnoses for the first time since testing began.
The number of cases transmitted through intravenous drug use has declined, and in Scotland the domestic epidemic has altered unrecognisably. In the years up to and including 1997, 73 per cent. of HIV diagnoses in Scotland were among intravenous drug misusers. Last year, the figure was 4 per cent. That is a real success story. Only 10 infections through drug use were diagnosed in Scotland last year—the lowest since records began. However, we must not let our guard down. The Scottish drug misuse database shows that in 2002–03, 36 per cent. of users asked had shared a needle or syringe in the previous month.
Although effective intervention can prevent babies from contracting HIV from their mothers, there were 99 cases of mother-to-baby transmissions in the UK last year. Routine antenatal testing has been in place in England for a few years now, and has been introduced in the whole of Scotland this year. We must hope that effective implementation of antenatal testing policies will help to prevent more transmission of HIV to infants.
It is not just the unborn and new born who benefit from HIV testing. As a result of huge advances in treatment, the sooner someone knows that they are HIV positive, the better. However, about a quarter of people in the UK who have acquired HIV through sex between men, and nearly half the people who have acquired the virus through heterosexual sex, are thought to remain undiagnosed.
I have spent a little time setting out the challenge. What now must be the response? I shall touch on three key areas. First, I believe that we must reprioritise HIV and sexual health. In the past, they were given key priority status, but in recent years they have lost that designation in England. Of course there has to be a limit to how many priorities the health service has, or the term becomes meaningless. However, HIV is increasing at a rate that outstrips the rate of all other priorities in the health service. HIV is designated by the Health Protection Agency as one of the most important communicable diseases in the UK. The number of cases of other sexually transmitted diseases is soaring. There was a 900 per cent. increase in syphilis diagnoses in England between 1996 and 2002, and about one in 10 sexually active young women have chlamydia. Despite that, the evidence is that, in many areas, genito-urinary medicine services are creaking at the seams. The Terrence Higgins Trust's latest study into the effects of the NHS changes on the sector found that the Government's wish that HIV and sexual health be considered a priority was not filtering through to strategic health authority and primary care trust level.
My hon. Friend the Minister will have studied the report of the Health Committee, and will have seen the consensus among those who gave evidence that HIV and sexual health must be urgently prioritised. Several means of doing that were proposed, including prioritisation through the strategic health authorities'
128WH
planning and priorities framework and through local delivery plans, or through a dedicated national service framework, which the Committee recommends is the best way.
The Government ruled out a national service framework, and felt that it would be too disruptive to reopen local delivery plans or the planning and priorities framework this time around. However, they promised to consider what could be done to raise the priority of sexual health and HIV services.
Last month, the Medical Foundation for AIDS and Sexual Health published the new standards for HIV services in England, which have been widely welcomed. However, the standards do not have the force of a Department of Health guidance note and MEDFASH executive director Ruth Lowbury stated that service standards will require active monitoring to ensure that they are up to the mark. She also observed that no money has yet been allocated to audit the compliance of NHS trusts with the new standards. If the Government are to raise the priority of sexual health and HIV, those standards should be properly supervised. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would outline how the Government intend to enable active monitoring of service standards. The Department of Health has been reviewing the operation of the AIDS (Control) Act 1987. Can the Minister give us any results from that review?
Secondly, we must ensure continued and increased funding to tackle HIV and sexual health matters. The written evidence of the National AIDS Trust to the Health Committee put matters starkly:
"NAT welcomed the publication of the National Strategy but we are disappointed with delays in its implementation and the failure to accord adequate resources to support implementation."
In its written evidence, MEDFASH said that
"the allocated sum of £47.5 million over the first two years to implement the whole strategy is inadequate given the scale of the task in the short-term, and a commitment to continuing resources over the ten years of the strategy is also needed."
There is also a worry that the mainstreaming of HIV services will reduce investment.
The Health Committee estimated that an additional revenue commitment of £22 million to £30 million per annum was required and the Government, to their credit, responded with an extra £ 1 I million. However, Baroness Gould, the chair of the Government's independent advisory group on sexual health, must be right in saying that, while the funds were welcome,
"investment in these services needs to be increased and consistent in future years if it is to improve facilities and services."
My third point of focus is HIV prevention. It is mainly agreed that we in the UK started off well in the 1980s, but in the past few years it seems that our attention has been distracted from the necessity of prevention work, perhaps by the laudable work that is being done to make HIV treatment available to those who need it. We should be driving down to rock bottom the number of infections caught in the UK. We know how HIV is transmitted and we know how to prevent it. It is a tragedy that so many hundreds of people still become infected with HIV in the UK each year. Two years ago, in the debate on sexual health that I initiated in Westminster Hall, I and other hon. Members urged the Government not to abolish the earmarked HIV

129WH
prevention money for England. To the disappointment of many, on that occasion, Ministers did not take advantage of that advice.
However, hon. Members may be aware that the Scottish Executive still have ring-fenced money for the prevention of HIV and other blood-borne viruses. I am pleased that the draft sexual health strategy for Scotland that was launched today recommends that the Scottish Executive keep the ring-fencing of HIV money to health boards and assess the sufficiency of the funding against the need to respond to the increasing HIV trends in Scotland.
In England, the ring fence has been abolished and, given the changes in the NHS, much HIV prevention work is now localised. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the great concern that that will threaten the existence of specialist health promotion that often operates across primary care trust boundaries, and will exacerbate the historic under-investment in HIV prevention. I welcome the Government's reassuring words in their response to the Health Committee on the need to reprioritise sexual health and HIV. Will my hon. Friend say how the Government plan to follow up their words with concrete action?
In the context of prevention, as well as caring for people with HIV, we want to encourage the maximum number of people to come forward for testing. However, like the Health Committee and the all-party groups on AIDS and refugees, I am not persuaded that mandatory testing for HIV of asylum seekers and other visitors to the UK is the way to do that. It is vital to destigmatise HIV, to encourage people in the UK to come forward for testing and to encourage other countries throughout the globe to adopt humane policies towards people with HIV.
It is clear that much more work has to be facilitated in the African communities in the UK. People from those communities are often diagnosed very late in the course of the disease. Sigma Research found that about a third of people were diagnosed when they were an in-patient in hospital after emergency admission. Nick Partridge from the Terrence Higgins Trust outlined in his evidence to the Health Committee the contrast between the consistent and resourced targeted prevention work for gay men and the insufficient work being done for our African communities. Dr. Barry Evans, of the then Public Health Laboratory Service, said to the Health Committee that
"we have grossly under-estimated the investment required in African community-based organisations to bring them up to speed and to give them the capacity to deal effectively with HIV. They face all of the same challenges that existing HIV community organisations face but they are doubly disadvantaged by the fact that they are often completely underfunded."
I have concentrated my remarks on the prevalence of HIV in the UK, but of course a tragic global epidemic concerns us all. In sub-Saharan Africa, more than 30 million people are living with HIV/AIDS. In little more than 10 years, life expectancy has plummeted in some countries in the region from 62 to only 47 years. Fifty years of progress in raising life expectancy has been wiped out.
130WH
We need to build on the momentum generated by the Prime Minister and President Chirac's joint call for the EU to pledge up to $1 billion from EU countries annually for the global fund for AIDS, TB and malaraia. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that non-governmental organisations estimate that a fair contribution from the UK to the fund according to our wealth would be £107 million in 2004.
HIV/AIDS can be tackled here and overseas. I urge my hon. Friend to do all in his power to encourage the Government to rise to the challenge.
4.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): It is a convention to congratulate the hon. Member who has won the Adjournment debate on his great interest in the subject, even if that interest only started when his name came up in the ballot the previous week. In this case, it really is a pleasure to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) on securing this debate and on his continued interest in a subject for which he has been a leading campaigner for more than 20 years. He and his constituents can be justly proud of that record.
As my right hon. Friend stressed, HIV and AIDS present a massive tragedy on a global scale. An estimated 42 million people were living with HIV at the end of 2002. During 2002, an estimated 5 million people were newly infected with HIV, of whom 800,000 were children. In the same year, 3.1 million deaths were attributed to HIV. Sub-Saharan Africa continues to bear the brunt of the global pandemic, but eastern Europe and central Asian republics are experiencing the world's fastest growing epidemics.
The UK is not immune from the global epidemic. Recent rises in new diagnoses among heterosexuals are linked to the tragedy that has been unfolding in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2002, almost 2,500 new diagnoses of HIV were attributed to heterosexual exposure in Africa in people probably infected before coming to live in the UK, and there were over 5,700 new HIV diagnoses, which was more than in any year since the start of the epidemic. That is a cause for concern. However, it also reflects our increased efforts to reduce undiagnosed HIV, as early diagnosis and access to treatment can prolong the lifespan of many.
Two national initiatives in support of prevention efforts will have added to the number of new diagnoses in recent years. First, we are now reaping the benefits of changes made in 1999 to our HIV testing policy for pregnant women. Routinely offering and recommending HIV testing to all pregnant women prevented around 100 babies from becoming infected in 2001. Secondly, offering an HIV test to all genitourinary medicine attendees on first screening for sexually transmitted infections should accrue benefits for the future by reducing onward transmission.
The impact of immigration on the UK HIV epidemic is evident from the statistics. I am aware that there is great concern about this issue. There is concern that the NHS is struggling to deal with the increasing cost of treating and caring for those living with HIV, but there is also concern, expressed by my right hon. Friend, that the Government should not respond to the problem with draconian measures that contravene our international human rights commitments.

131WH
That is one of the reasons why the Cabinet Office is currently co-ordinating work between the relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health, to review immigration and infectious diseases. The review aims to establish the facts about the impact of immigration on public health and NHS expenditure, and to propose solutions should action be required. The review is ongoing and no decisions have yet been reached.
The driving factor behind the Government's work to tackle HIV is the first ever national strategy for sexual health and HIV. Backed by an initial investment of £47.5 million, with a further commitment of £51.4 million over the next two years, four of the strategy's five aims relate to HIV. They include reducing the transmission of HIV and the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV; improving health and social care for people living with HIV and reducing the stigma associated with HIV. Those are all issues identified by my right hon. Friend.
Earlier this year, we announced the membership of the sexual health independent advisory group. Under the able chairmanship of Baroness Gould, the group will advise the Government on the implementation of the strategy and monitor progress. Members include representatives of the key HIV organisations and HIV service users, who will contribute their wealth of experience and detailed knowledge of the real concerns and problems that face those living with HIV and AIDS. Their valuable contribution will help to steer the strategy implementation that will best achieve our objectives.
The implementation of the strategy is taking place against the background of major change in the NHS. Shifting the balance of power has resulted in the creation of new structures, and primary care trusts are now in the forefront of the fight against HIV and AIDS. PCTs now have the flexibility to allocate money to sexual health in order to meet local needs, just as they now do for other health areas such as cancer. HIV funding is now rightly part of the main NHS allocations. However, those are weighted to take account of variations in the distribution of HIV locally. I shall return later to some of my right hon. Friend's concerns about the potential impact of those changes.
The Department of Health no longer dictates how local services should be provided, but supports the local work by providing guidance and by disseminating best practice. As part of that, the Department supports and endorses the new recommended standards for NHS services for HIV and AIDS launched last month. They were produced by the Medical Foundation for AIDS and Sexual Health, in partnership with HIV clinicians, service users and key stakeholders. We believe that those standards will help to drive up the quality of treatment and care throughout the country. The Department of Health has also issued tool kits of practical guidance and good practice for those commissioning local HIV services, and also for those undertaking HIV prevention and health promotion.
That decentralisation of decision making will not mean that action on HIV will go unmonitored. The AIDS (Control) Act 1987 provides a valuable reporting tool for gathering data. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who steered the legislation through in the form of a private Member's Bill. It is just as relevant today as it was then. As part of our implementation of the sexual
132WH
health strategy, the Department of Health, with other stakeholders, has reviewed the information collected under schedule 1 of the 1987 Act. That will be implemented shortly and will take account of the strategy, the new NHS and the Department's commitment to streamlining central returns. Combined with our world-class HIV surveillance system operated by the Health Protection Agency, that will give us a complete picture of the epidemic.
Strategic health authorities are now well placed to monitor HIV prevention and treatment within their areas, and will be able to address problems and facilitate networking and consortium arrangements between primary care trusts. The chief medical officer is now actively engaging with strategic health authorities to ensure that sexual health and HIV are sufficiently prioritised at local level within the current planning and priorities framework.
A sample survey of high and low HIV prevalence areas undertaken in May 2002 showed that PCTs were maintaining their funding levels for HIV prevention, treatment and care, and we will consider repeating that survey if necessary. Despite an increasing rate of HIV diagnosis, a survey in April 2003 under the British HIV Association treatment guidelines showed little evidence that costs were affecting the prescription of optimum antiviral treatments for those with clinical need. I hope that my right hon. Friend is reassured by that.
Inevitably, increasing rates of HIV and sexually transmitted infections are putting pressure on services, particularly genito-urinary medicine clinics. That fact was highlighted in the Health Committee's recent report on sexual health, mentioned by my right hon. Friend. The Government agree that additional resources are needed to tackle the long waiting times and backlogs in some areas of the country. Of the original £47.5 million invested in the strategy, £15 million has been used to improve GUM services. That includes £2 million to fund pilots in certain areas to evaluate new improved models of working. We have prioritised spending on GUM services from the sexual health strategy budget and, in response to the Health Committee's recommendations, have invested an additional £5 million to pump-prime service improvements. An additional £0.4 million will be used to expand national HIV prevention initiatives.
We recognise and share the deep concerns expressed by the Health Committee and others about the poor state of sexual health, and we are committed to improving sexual health through the sexual health and HIV strategy. We have provided an additional £11.4 million this year to access services and tackle sexually transmitted infections. Again, I hope that my right hon. Friend is at least partly reassured by those steps.
There is no cure for HIV, and we are still some years away from an effective vaccine. New drug treatments have improved the quality of life and life expectancy of many, but antiretroviral treatments do not suit everyone. The drugs can have unpleasant side effects, and their effectiveness depends on rigid adherence to often complex treatment regimens. Poor adherence can lead to the development of resistance to the drugs. We are developing surveillance to track the emergence of that important problem. For all those reasons, prevention is still the cornerstone in our fight against HIV.

133WH
The challenge for HIV health promotion is to develop and deliver sophisticated interventions that engage target audiences, whatever their experience of HIV. Interventions must be relevant and based on research into people's behaviour that accurately reflects how they live their lives in relation to HIV.
Rates of HIV diagnoses among gay men have remained relatively stable for a number of years, but we are concerned by the recent increase in HIV diagnoses in gay men. However, that is in the context of a growing pool of infection, due in part to new transmissions but also to the success of treatments in keeping people alive longer.
We are continuing to fund the Terrence Higgins Trust to lead a partnership of organisations throughout England to deliver a community HIV/AIDS prevention strategy. It is an evidence-based programme that provides information in a style that is credible with the gay community. It is gaining an international reputation for its health promotion literature, and its strategic framework has been adopted in parts of the United States and Australia. We are currently considering the most effective way to use the additional £400,000 announced this year for national HIV prevention.
For African communities, the focus is on culturally appropriate information as well as capacity building for the voluntary and community-based sector, which is best placed to undertake HIV health promotion. For 2003—04, the Department is funding the African HIV policy network to manage and develop a programme of national work aimed at increasing awareness of preventing HIV.
For the wider population, our sex lottery campaign—launched last year—is aimed at increasing awareness of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The campaign was extensively pre-tested with its target 18 to 30-year-old audience, and reflects research findings of what works best with that group. It uses radio, adverts in magazines, washroom posters, beer mats, scratch cards and a website to get the message across. It is an ongoing campaign, which will be thoroughly evaluated. We are also developing a specific HIV information resource under the sex lottery brand, to raise awareness among the general population.
134WH
HIV is all too often accompanied by a unique type of stigmatisation, which is rooted in ignorance and often compounded by other forms of discrimination such as homophobia or racism. That can increase the risk of HIV transmission, cause or aggravate health problems and create a barrier to treatment, care and services. There are, therefore, very real reasons for tackling stigma. That is why the sexual health and HIV strategy includes a reduction in stigma as one of its main aims. We are working with stakeholders and people living with HIV to develop a detailed action plan to address stigma and discrimination.
Since the start of the epidemic, the voluntary sector has played a key role in providing patient-focused services. The Government believe that the role of the voluntary sector and community organisations is an important element of service delivery. Such organisations are often the first point of contact for many affected by HIV. The voluntary sector is under pressure from the growing epidemic, and its contribution is changing, but still remains invaluable. We shall continue to support it and work in partnership to achieve our strategy's aims.
With regard to the global fight against HIV, the UK recognises that the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria needs predictable, long-term funding to be effective. Since the fund was set up in 2001, the UK has committed $280 million through to 2008. Additional funding will be subject to the fund reflecting a clear poverty focus, and achieving a better financing system. In addition, its activities must be more effectively integrated into national programmes and it must meet agreed benchmarks for monitoring its effectiveness.
Improving HIV services and changing sexual behaviour are long-term challenges, but I am confident that the strategy will make a difference to all those affected by HIV. However, the Government will not achieve that alone, but will rely on the essential contribution of the voluntary sector, health professionals and service users themselves.
I hope that I have dealt, broadly at least, with my right hon. Friend's points. I repeat my congratulations on his long-term interest in the subject, and promise to ensure that we will study the official record after the debate, and if we have not covered any of the points that he raised, I will make sure that we write to him.

Eurofighter Typhoon
4.20 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the programme for the jet fighter, known as the Typhoon. It is my first in this Chamber, so it is a great honour to present the case in favour of the programme this afternoon.
May I declare a modest interest, in that I have a personal equity plan in British Aerospace? I also have a local constituency interest, as there are two RAF bases in the area, RAF Leeming and RAF Linton-on-Ouse, as well as Allenbrook barracks at Topcliffe and Dishforth airfield. I would like to record once again not only the phenomenal service that the military provide to the country, but the mark that they have made in the Vale of York and their contribution to the conflict with Iraq.
RAF Leeming is one of three bases that expect to receive the Typhoon over the longer term. We have two squadrons of Tornado F3s, 11 squadron and 25 squadron, numbering 16 aircraft in total, with 40 aircrew in each squadron. The Tornado F3 is a variant of the Tornado GR 1 ground attack aircraft, and first flew in 1979. One hundred aircraft have recently been upgraded to incorporate new weapons systems. I am sure that the Minister will confirm—I do not think that it is subject to argument—that it is widely recognised that the Tornado F3s are reaching the end of their service lives. The aircraft is expected to remain in service until 2007. They still have no full use of the AMRAAM long-range missiles, and use of the new ASRAAM short-range missile is hindered by the fact that the aircraft is not fitted with the recommended helmet mounted sights.
The Jaguar aircraft is a ground attack aircraft, 38 of which are based at RAF Coltishall and eight at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland. It first entered service in 1973. My understanding is that it was originally planned that the Typhoon frontline would comprise seven squadrons, of which four would be primarily air defence, two swing role and one offensive support covering a wide range of combat operations. The Minister will be aware of my interest, as I have raised the subject on a number of occasions in the House.
I wish to put on record my enthusiasm for the Eurofighter, which will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that it is an excellent project and its capabilities still have a lot to offer. I am seeking a commitment from the Minister on when the total tranche is expected. I would like to repeat some of the contradictory messages to him. Perhaps, not being very bright, I have misunderstood—through no fault of his—the mixed messages given out by the Government.
On 8 September, I had the opportunity to question the Minister's superior, the Secretary of State for Defence, on the date of entry into service of the Eurofighter. I was mildly surprised when he told us:
"Test flying is now under way to establish the safety parameters for RAF pilot training, and we hope to start operational evaluation activities next month."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 1.]
We learned in October that a number of technical failures regrettably grounded the aircraft. Perhaps the Minister could update the Chamber on where we stand.
136WH
I went on to recognise the contribution that this country had made, and asked the Secretary of State for an assurance that the commitment to purchase a total of 232 Typhoon aircraft would be carried out in full and delivered on time. I then asked him when he expected those aircraft to enter into service at RAF Leeming. He replied:
"I give her the assurance that there will be no changes in the Government's plans for procuring Eurofighter Typhoon. We anticipate changes to the way in which those aircraft are configured, but those matters will be set out more clearly in the forthcoming White Paper."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 2.]
Will the Minister give further clarification on that, and will he give advice on which other partners to the project may seek changes to the configuration of that scheme?
Last Monday, I asked whether the Minister would
"respond to newspaper reports that he is being asked to make a 20 per cent. cut in the budget".
The Minister replied:
"The United Kingdom is party to international arrangements under which we are set to order a total of 232 Typhoons. Of those, 55 aircraft are already on order, and we are working towards an order for the second tranche of 89. The third and final order is not due to be placed before 2007, and we shall keep our requirements under continual review. We are working towards meeting those deadlines."—[Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 530.]
I seek clarification on the expression
"we shall keep our requirements under continual review."
Every time the Government use such an expression, it normally heralds a change.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend mentioned the delphic words of the Secretary of State for Defence in answer to her oral question when he said:
"We anticipate changes to the way in which those aircraft are configured".—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 2.]
In the debate on procurement on 23 October, I specifically asked if the second tranche would be converted to the ground attack role. In the article in The Sunday Telegraph to which my hon. Friend referred, I read that
"the second tranche of 89 will be capable of undertaking a ground attack role."
Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that the Minister will address that when he winds up?
Miss McIntosh: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, and I seek further clarification from the Minister on the point he raised. There are now three points that require clarification: whether the second tranche will have a ground attack capability; whether the Secretary of State was right that there would be no plans for procuring Eurofighter Typhoon; or whether the Minister of State is right that they will keep the matter under review.
It is my understanding that Eurofighter Typhoon is a new generation aircraft that will be the most advanced swing role operational fighter in the world, and that it was always envisaged that there would be three distinct tranches. The first tranche is air defence, the second is the air defence and ground attack swing role, and the third is the full multi-sensor air and ground attack role. especially suppression of enemy air defence.

137WH
Eurofighter is destined to be the RAF's principal fighting system over the next 25 years. Its huge significance to UK jobs and technology, especially the ability to design future military air combat systems, cannot be overstated. There is an obvious correlation between Government support for the programme, and the chances of exporting it. I hope that the Minister will put our minds at rest that the technical difficulties have been overcome and that one particularly important export order in the pipeline will proceed.
Will the Secretary of State for Defence confirm when he anticipates that the Typhoon will come into existence? I understand that two reports are in the public domain. One was a Financial Times report, with which I am sure the Minister is more than familiar. It refers to a 20 per cent. cut in the budget for the Typhoon. Where did that story come from and is there any truth in it? Did it emanate from his Department? How can he hope to complete the programme in full by making a 20 per cent. cut? Will the Minister take this opportunity to put my mind at rest and those of the people in the front line—the jet fighter pilots and navigators who are currently at RAF Leeming working on the Tornado? This is a very important point for me, as I represent a base that is very important to the UK defence strategy. Currently, we have two-seater Tornado planes. Presumably the navigators will have to be retrained and requalify to perform other functions, I hope, in the air force, but they will need a lead time. What lead time does the Minister envisage, and how does he expect those people to be deployed?
Could the Minister also put my mind at rest by saying that there is no prospect that the forthcoming White Paper will confirm the 20 per cent. cut? The RAF is expected to receive not the original 232 Typhoons that we were promised, but only 143, given a 20 per cent. cut. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is being asked to make a cut in its budget, as a result of which a third of the aircraft are not in the pipeline.
Will the Minister be good enough to answer the following questions? Deliveries to the customers of Eurofighter tranche I should have been 50 per cent. completed by now. Can he confirm that deliveries will be completed as planned, and that continuation of production to Eurofighter tranche 2 is assured? Can he confirm that the RAF will receive the Eurofighter tranche 1 weapon system at the end of 2005, as contractually agreed? The Minister will be aware of concerns among other Eurofighter nations about delays to tranche 2, stemming from the UK. When will the Government approve the order for Eurofighter tranche 2, to ensure delivery of the first tranche 2 aircraft in 2006?
The MOD has ordered a study on Eurofighter, which is currently commissioned by a consulting firm. Will the Minister assure me that that does not jeopardise production continuity, and that the retention of the skills base is secure? There was talk on yesterday's excellent BBC 2 documentary on the Eurofighter that the only reason that the Government secured such a large order—232 aircraft originally—was to secure the skills base. That was a rather cynical allegation, which I hope the Minister will say is unfounded.
138WH
Despite the UK's solidarity with the US as an ally, America has not been prepared to grant the UK a specific technology transfer waiver, known as an international traffic in arms regulations waiver, and there is mounting protectionism of defence technology in the US. At such a time, are the Government being careful when making hard choices about programme cuts, so that they do not cut programmes involving UK jobs and technology, while leaving unscathed the programmes that favour US jobs and technology? The Prime Minister may wish to take that up with President Bush.
Following my introductory remarks, can the Minister tell us how long the Tornado F3 will continue to be in service? What cover and capability will there be from the Tornado F3 and Jaguars until the Typhoon comes into operation? Can he assure us that the final Typhoon that comes into service will be as up to date and capable and in the same numbers as originally envisaged? What is the lead time required to retrain navigators from Tornadoes before Typhoons come into service?
Finally, what message would the Minister like to give, through me, to RAF Leeming about the future of the servicemen and women there, particular the jet fighter pilots and the navigators? There is a lack of clarity about when the Tornado will be phased out and when the Typhoon is expected to come into service. I am sure that he shares the immense pride that we feel in our servicemen and women, particularly those front-line fighter pilots. They deserve the best aircraft, and I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to provide them.
4.34 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. I share the views that she expressed about the role played by the RAF—including, obviously, those servicemen and women from the bases in her constituency—in the recent conflict in Iraq. I take great pride in what they have achieved.
The hon. Lady raised some non-Typhoon issues. I think that I had better write to her on those because, although there is an interrelationship, this debate deals specifically with the Typhoon programme.
The hon. Lady raised fundamental questions about the future of that programme. I am genuinely sorry that she did not find the answer that I gave her last week during Defence questions satisfactory. I hope that this short debate will set her mind at rest. I recognise that it is the Opposition's role—I was in Opposition for 10 years myself—to try to find failure, even where none exists, rather than to identify and applaud success. In some of her remarks she recognised success, but she believes too much in what she reads in the newspapers, and bases her case on that. She asked me whether I would comment on the Financial Times article. I will not read the whole article; that would take up all the time available. However, at the end it states:
"The MoD denied both claims. "There is no question of smokescreening. Neither has the UK over-ordered—we remain committed to the programme.'"

139WH
My contribution will deal with the aspects of that programme.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, we share concerns about future orders. Lancashire is the home of the Typhoon, and has a manufacturing base and manufacturing skills. The convincing argument that w ill he put about the 232 aircraft is welcome, but has the Minister considered whether we could order further aircraft by introducing the sea variant, which can operate from carriers? Thus an opportunity to give that unique plane—which will be a world leader—a dual role will not be missed.
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend has raised that issue time and again. I give him credit for continuing to take every opportunity. However, he has already had his answer and I do not want to go down that route. The best answer will be the one already given to him. It may not be one that he likes, but it is the most accurate.
The Typhoon achieved a major landmark in June this year, when all four nations—the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain—agreed to type acceptance of the aircraft, clearing the way for individual aircraft to be accepted into service. The determination and resolve shown by those European nations in working together to bring that about should not be underestimated. The memorandum of understanding between the four nations covers the purchase of 232 aircraft in three planned production tranches. As part of the first tranche, the United Kingdom has a contractual commitment to purchase 55 aircraft. That contract was let by the four nations in 1998. The second tranche, about which we are currently negotiating, covers 89 aircraft. The third tranche covers 88 aircraft, but a contractual commitment for those is not needed or expected before 2007.
However, teething problems arise and there have bee n a number of them during the Typhoon programme. That is not surprising, given the technically complex nature of the Typhoon platform. The most recent, to which the hon. Lady referred, relates to the undercarriage, but I am sure that she would accept the need to ensure that our aircrews are provided with airworthy aircraft because safety is paramount and more important than the production needs of industry.
The temporary suspension of flying due to the landing gear problem is delaying deliveries of individual aircraft to the Royal Air Force. The first aircraft was due to he delivered in October. We now expect that flying will recommence later this month and that the first aircraft will be accepted off contract very shortly afterwards. I say that in the context of the complex nature of the platform.
It is important that we keep these issues in perspective. Typhoon is in full-scale production. It is here to stay. The fact that we are identifying and resolving problems as they arise underlines the measured and prudent approach we adopt for introducing new advanced systems into service. Others clearly recognise the aircraft's merits. Austria has ordered 18, and will join the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain as a member of the Typhoon club. Singapore announced in October that it has included Typhoon on a shortlist of three aircraft to meet
140WH
its demanding requirement for a future fighter. That is all welcome news, and must be good news for BAE Systems.
I am fully conscious that we are approaching a key milestone in the procurement process. As I mentioned earlier, the four nations have ordered 148 aircraft, including 55 for the Royal Air Force. Their construction is well advanced. Under the four-nation agreement, we are due by the end of the year to place the order for the second tranche, which comprises 236 aircraft, 89 of which are destined for the RAF.
This will be a huge contract by any standards, and I make no apology for the fact that we are determined to get it right. To do otherwise would be wrong for the partner nations, the air forces that will operate Typhoon and the industry. To get it right, we need to reflect on the problems and delays that we have experienced, and consider what smart procurement principles can be brought to bear to minimise the risk of similar difficulties with tranche 2.
Tranche 2 is arguably more important to the RAF than the first tranche of aircraft, because we have deliberately adopted an approach of incremental procurement of capability, with enhancements built in as they are developed and demonstrated. The main development of tranche 2 will be to enhance the aircraft's ground attack capability. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked about that, as did the hon. Member for Vale of York. It will provide the true multi-role flexibility that is the key to both operational effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Most of the tranche 1 aircraft will be mainly used for training and evaluation purposes, so it is an evolving capability project based on the overriding aspect of cost effectiveness.
The important thing is to be able to plan reliably—I
stress that word—by knowing when industry will be able to deliver those aircraft and capabilities.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister answer the key question? Was the original order of 232—or 89 for the RAF—made because that was what was required for our military and defence capabilities, or was it to secure the key skills set?
Mr. Ingram: We plan for the future based on the assessment of need. The hon. Lady referred to the answer that I gave her last week, which somehow raised a doubt in her mind.
The point that I was making is that we have to be able to plan as best we can with certainty when industry will be able to deliver those aircraft and capabilities. That embraces a wide range of military planning, including the standing down of existing systems and the significant personnel implications of introducing a new aircraft into service. It also entails the preparation of infrastructure at the RAF stations where Typhoon will be based. The hon. Lady will be aware that, on current planning, RAF Leeming will be the second base to receive Typhoon after RAF Consingsby and before RAF Leuchars. On current plans, the aircraft will arrive there around 2007.
These preparations are complex and they need to be properly orchestrated. From the RAF's perspective, any delay in the delivery schedules or any failure to deliver

141WH
mature capability can cause significant problems. We can accommodate change, and we develop contingency plans to avoid any gap in our operational capability. If we are to avoid placing unreasonable demands on our people, we need a firm baseline from which to work.
For those reasons, before we place the order for the next tranche of aircraft, we must be satisfied, as must our partner nations, that industry's designs and technologies are likely to be ready, that the aircraft is fit for its purpose and that delivery timetables will be met.
As I have said, the purpose of Typhoon is to provide necessary operational capability; it is not to support industry, although we are naturally proud of what British industry has achieved. Typhoon's purpose is not to provide activity for any one or other RAF station; it is to provide defence capability. Achieving that in a cost-effective and operationally effective manner remains the priority of Defence Ministers. It is a priority that matches the needs of the RAF.
Having said that, delays and unforeseen technical difficulties during production are not in the best interests of industry. The Ministry of Defence recognises that they are expensive for the companies involved, and that is why establishing a firm foundation for tranche 2 must be a priority for all of us. I will not try to predict exactly when we will be ready to order tranche 2. However, all necessary resources are being dedicated to the task and to working with our international and industrial partners.
142WH
There will be a gap in production if there are delays before we order tranche 2, and that is clearly not desirable. To mitigate those effects, we have already committed £200 million to early work on the next tranche of aircraft. Our determination to get it right should not be interpreted as any lessening of our commitment to the programme; it is quite the reverse, as we have allocated around 10 per cent. of our procurement expenditure over the next 10 years to Typhoon. That is around £8 billion, which makes it the biggest single procurement in the MOD.
We have learned that it is worth investing time and money now to get the technology, the planning and the contract right. That will be more than repaid in time and money saved later. Careful planning and procurement pay dividends, especially against an order as complex and expensive as the Typhoon.
Contrary to the central charge made by the hon. Lady, it is not the case that delays have been caused by budget constraints. My earlier comments illustrate the complex nature of international relationships and the interrelationship with industry. We are driven by a desire to ensure that we get the project right because, at the end of the day, we are trying to enhance defence capability.
That underscores our commitment to Typhoon and to preserving the battle-winning capability of the RAF. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would have welcomed that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock.