Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Roy.]

I would like to take this opportunity to raise a couple of issues of accountability that have arisen in two recent cases with which I have dealt. When this House discusses accountability it is often aimed at improving the accountability of Government and other public bodies, and rightly so. When it discusses the accountability of the private sector, it is usually in the context of failure, as has been shown in the recent case of Farepak and in many cases relating to pensions.

I want to focus on private sector accountability and the cases of two companies that are not failing—indeed, in many ways they are thriving. Each case raises a different aspect of accountability.

The first case concerns my constituents who live in and around Southwold close in North Swindon. They live near a site being developed by George Wimpey, and their lives are being blighted by the lack of consideration being shown by those developers. For example, the planning conditions state that work should not begin before 8 o'clock in the morning, but lorries arrive from 7.10 and sit just outside the site with their engines running. Families with young childrenare deeply concerned about the drivers' practice of mounting the pavements and driving over roundabouts in their rush to get to the site. Building materials are dumped off-site by residents' homes, raising profound concerns about health and safety. There is constant noise and disruption to the environment.

Some disruption in a development area is inevitable, but what makes this unacceptable is Wimpey's response to complaints. It continually refuses my requests to sit down with me and residents to find a mutually satisfactory way to resolve the issues. Instead, the managing director of George Wimpey South West feels that the issues

"have been blown out of all proportion".

That is not the view, incidentally, of Swindon borough council or the Health and Safety Executive, both of whom are responsibly and thoroughly investigating the complaints.

My constituents in the Oakhurst residents association, who seem to me to be decent, responsible people who quite reasonably want nothing other than to have their lives disturbed as little as possible by intrusive and disruptive development work, feel increasingly harassed and intimidated by Wimpey. Of course it is understandable that developers should want to get their site developed and sold off as quickly as possible. But that is no excuse for the basic lack of consideration shown to those local residents, whose money the developers have already pocketed for their own homes. The process of enforcement of planning conditions and health and safety regulations by both Swindon borough council and the HSE is under way, but the process is inevitably complex and lengthy, and in the meantime my constituents' lives are being blighted.

I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying because I have had a similar experience in my Constituency. Is Wimpey admitting some of these breaches or denying them? If it is denying them, let the argument run. If it is admitting some of them, frankly it is not for the company to say that the matter is being blown out of all proportion; it is for the community and the hon. Gentleman to make a judgment about whether its behaviour is so objectionable that the matter needs to be taken further. These private bullies must be tackled.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his Intervention and I entirely agree with his last sentiment. The company is in fact tacitly conceding the case, because it has made some minor adjustments to its practices. There are health and safety regulations that can be enforced, but the hon. Gentleman is well aware that that takes time, and in the meantime, every hour of the day, my constituents and, I am sure,those of the hon. Gentleman who are in similar circumstances are having their lives disrupted to an unacceptable extent. What is needed is some common sense and basic consideration. The company should sit down with the residents to talk frankly about the needs and obligations on both sides and come to a mutually satisfactory agreement.

We have had similar incidents in the village of Adlington, where a large housing company is showing total disregard for the area's residents. It has yet to fulfil its agreements under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I am worried about what will happen if the council does not take action, perhaps through the environment committee, to put the company under great pressure. What bonds are being held by the local authority in case the company is in breach of conditions? Perhaps some of those could be used. A company such as Wimpey, which belongs to a housing federation, ought to take responsibility. It should be talking about compensating the residents whom it has upset. Perhaps that is a way forward.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful Intervention. I was going to conclude my remarks on this subject by inviting contributions from the House, so I am delighted that they are already being volunteered. This is clearly a widespread problem. I want to alert the House to some of the measures that we are taking locally to deal with the problem, because it is unacceptable.

I am immensely interested in the construction industry, as my hon. Friend may be aware, particularly its performance as regards the communities that it is supposed to be serving. Has Wimpey signed up to a corporate social responsibility charter? If not, it should be encouraged to do so. Is my hon. Friend aware that Wimpey has successfully tendered for a significant number of Government contracts? It should be reminded of that fact in its dealings with normal people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution, and I bow to her great experience and knowledge of such matters. Companies must exhibit basic consideration; that is my point. Many of us have been frustrated in our dealings with private companies. Recently, I had some frustrating correspondence with Euro Disney, which has refused to take appropriate action over the security of taxis operating just outside its gates. It has been rude, and it has been complacent about security, for which, strictly speaking, it has no legal liability. There is little that I can do about that, because until or unless a tragedy occurs outside the gates of Euro Disney, it will show no signs of budging.

In the case of George Wimpey, there is something that might cause developers to change their approach: anyone who buys a home next to a site being developed by Wimpey, or the other developers that hon. Friends and hon. Members have mentioned in the House, should be made aware of the sort of environment that they can expect those developers to create. That would be an example of the power of the market operating through better information. If that is done, it could well affect the marketability of the homes sold by those developers, and that, I hope, might encourage them to be more considerate. Their lack of consideration is driven, above all, by their desire to make as much money as quickly as possible, so if lack of consideration damages that outcome, they might discover the value of showing consideration.

I have set up a section on my website called "Developer Watch" to highlight bad cases of developer behaviour—and good cases, too, to reward those companies that show proper consideration to their neighbours. I am delighted that Swindon borough council, partly as a result of the case that I mentioned, will introduce a developers code of conduct, and will name and shame developers who do not follow it. I commend the council for that, and the scheme could be significant in the Swindon area. We are building about 2,000 new homes a year, and there is to be significant new development in the south of the town. In coming years, 30,000 or more houses, with a total current market value of £7 billion, are likely to be built in the east of the town. Over time, if proper information is made available about the behaviour of developers and the consideration, or lack of it, that they show, it might encourage them to demonstrate more consideration for residents. I welcome contributions from other hon. Members on the subject, and I should like to hear from hon. Members who have had similar problems on how best to encourage such developers to show more consideration for residents.

Secondly, I want to raise the issue of the accountability of utilities. As I intend to return to the subject in the near future, I shall merely outline the issue today. I am conscious that a number of other hon. Members want to make contributions, so I shall be brief. Over the past few years, I have received an increasing number of complaints about foul water flooding in my Constituency, which has happened on repeated occasions in the same location. I have received complaints about the inadequacy of the response from Thames Water Utilities. Its failure to invest in the infrastructure seems to have been responsible for much of the flooding. Its last owner, RWE, extracted more than £825 million in dividends over the past five years, and it made a £500 million profit from its five-year ownership, before it sold Thames Water last month. Thames Water earned a 6.8 per cent. return on capital employed in 2005-06, but it still cannot invest adequately to prevent repeated foul water flooding, often in the same location, in my constituency.

It is only fair to note that there has been a distinct improvement in the tone and content of the response from Thames Water, since its recent takeover by Macquarie. I hope that that will lead to a more rapid resolution of the immediate problems faced by my constituents, such as those in Colebrook road. However, issues clearly remain. The obligations on water companies to deal with the consequences of such flooding are inadequate, and the problem is likely to increase, as a result of climate change and new housing developments.

On that point, I am immensely concerned about the way in which companies, particularly utility companies, normally respond to foul water flooding by saying that it would be far too expensive for them to do anything straight away, or by saying that it would be immensely inconvenient to do something at that time, and that any action would have to be part of a larger strategy. I urge my hon. Friend, in his discussions with Thames Water, to ask them for small, interim solutions. Those are normally much cheaper, and can alleviate the problem for residents while they wait for a much bigger solution. Interim solutions are normally about a tenth of the cost of the final scheme. The fact that companies are waiting to carry out a final scheme is not a good excuse, and the situation is intolerable for the domestic consumer.

Again, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her knowledgeable and wise contribution. I wish the situation were as she describes. Often in my experience of Thames Water, the company has relied on the strict letter of the Ofwat regulations, which it feels drive it to deal with problems in a particular way, which is often the way that is least helpful to my constituents. The problem could largely be allayed by a more rapid response, more comprehensive clean-up facilities and, again, consideration for the plight of those affected.

The issue is complex and I do not want to oversimplify it. In the landmark case of Marcic v. Thames Water recently, the House of Lords removed possible remedies in law under the Human Rights Act and through an action for nuisance. That creates a difficulty for many householders. Although Ofwat tightened its requirements in the 2004 periodic review, the situation faced by my constituents affected by the problem remains unacceptable.

There are difficult judgments to be made about who should fund improvements and compensation, how and when, but it cannot be right that a utility can choose to wait two full days after foul water flooding has subsided before cleaning up. What are families meant to do in the meantime, particularly low income families who have no relatives in the area and nowhere to go, and families with young children? I have constituents in that position, as no doubt do other hon. Members. What about the risks to health and safety?

It cannot be right that so much latitude is allowed to companies to delay investment to prevent such flooding. It cannot be acceptable that the obligation on utilities for compensation is so light—equivalent to a year's sewerage charges—when the potential damage in terms not only of clean-up, replacement of furniture and so on, but to the marketability of homes is so great.

These are all serious concerns, which I hope my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will carry back to Ministers. I hope to return to the subject in the new year with a more detailed case for change. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity to wish you and the House a happy and restful Christmas?

Having been upbraided by the Leader of the House on Thursday for not offering Christmas wishes, may I also take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of extending to you and the Deputy Speakers, the Clerks, the Officers of the House and all right hon. and hon. Friends and colleagues best wishes for Christmas and the new year?

The Christmas Adjournment Debate is always an excellent opportunity to raise all manner of issues, some of which are parochial and of Constituency interest, and others that are of great national and international importance. In my brief contribution I shall deal with two matters that tend towards the latter category. The first is a matter that we have not had the opportunity to discuss in a debate because it arose only on Thursday last week—that is, the al-Yamamah arms sale and the discontinuation of the investigation—and the second is the most important issue facing all hon. Members and the country: the ongoing conflict in Iraq.

I understand the reason for the timing of the Attorney-General's statement last Thursday, in order to avoid market fluctuation. I am less forgiving of its timing in terms of the recess, and the fact that it offered no opportunity for debate will have astonished many people. It will be widely seen as the last nail in the coffin of the so-called ethical foreign policy. It is an extraordinary decision on the part of the Attorney-General to discontinue an investigation at the point that the investigation had reached, before he had had the opportunity to consider the findings of that investigation.

Of course, it is a matter for the Attorney-General alone to make that decision, which makes it all the more alarming that the following day the Prime Minister declared that he took full responsibility for it—a matter to which I shall return. It is also curious that the Attorney-General was able to come to a view that there was unlikely to be a prosecution, when the advice from Mr. Robert Wardle, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, was that the investigation was making good progress, but that it was too early in the process to determine the chances of success.

As we know, the Attorney-General couched his decision in terms of national security—a matter of national security that happened to coincide with the Serious Fraud Office obtaining access to certain Swiss bank accounts held by Saudi nationals. He stressed time and again that the decision was not based on commercial considerations. Indeed, he was required to do that because under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention, article 5 states that investigation and prosecution of the bribery of a foreign public official

"shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest".

That is why the Attorney-General made those points. However, article 5 goes on to state that the investigation and prosecution should not be influenced by

"the potential effect upon the relations with another state or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved".

So, on the face of it, the Attorney-General's decision seems curious and open to challenge.

I shall make three brief points in respect of the decision. First, I am concerned about the role of the Attorney-General. This is the most political of Attorneys-General. He has made a number of decisions that were very near to the fine distinction between legal and political decision making, but surely his first responsibility is the duty to uphold the law. The rule of law in this instance is subject to the statute that we passed so recently, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and SecurityAct 2001. No other consideration should have been at the forefront of his mind. It may be necessary to return at some stage to the role of the Attorney-General and the requirements placed upon him.

Would the hon. Gentleman have been happy to see the loss of 50,000 British jobs if the investigation had continued?

It is transparently the case that I would not have been happy to see the loss of those jobs, but nor am I happy to see the loss of the integrity of the legal system of this country and its international reputation. That is also of importance.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I want to make progress.

The second consideration is the continuation of other prosecutions and investigations. As we know, BAE is being investigated in respect of events in Chile, Romania, South Africa, the Czech Republic and Tanzania. I am particularly concerned about Tanzania and the order for a £28 million air control system that is way beyond anything that Tanzania could reasonably need or want, as a result of a loan from a British bank on terms which are unclear and for purposes which are unclear. I have raised questions about the matter previously.

I want to be assured that sufficient resources will be applied to the Serious Fraud Office investigation to ensure a speedy and complete consideration of all aspects of the evidence associated with those cases. It is also in the interests of BAE that matters be swiftly brought to a head in respect of those countries. There is a great danger that we are seen as a country prepared to prosecute in the case of weak countries without oil or strategic interests, and not prepared to continue a case in the instance of a country which at present we have a strategic interest in protecting, although were the rather fragile Saudi regime to fall, we might find those arms in the hands of a very much more unfriendly regime.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be timely and would help to clear the air if the National Audit Office report, which is the only one that has never been released into the public domain, were so released? Does he further agree that this House has it in its gift to make that happen if it wants to?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has pre-empted my third and last point on this subject, which is that it is unprecedented for the NAO to prepare a report for a Committee of this House and for it not to be published. If the House has any integrity, it will insist on the publication of that report. It is a matter that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I intend to pursue, and one that we hope will be brought to a conclusion.

My hon. Friend knows that we have similar concerns about this matter. Given what the Prime Minister said on Friday, and given that the Shawcross doctrine set out here by Hartley Shawcross in 1951 made it clear that it would be entirely improper for any part of such a decision to be taken by anybody other than the Law Officers, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to consider whether the Law Officers, though nominated by the Government, should be subject to the approval of Parliament and that Parliament should be entitled to withdraw that approval if it does not believe that they are doing their job properly and independently?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The constitutional position of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General needs to be considered with the greatest care. They have a responsibility not only to the Government but to this House and to the country. Too often, the Attorney-General has been brought into political debate on matters where it would be far better if a greater degree of independence were demonstrated.

I want to move on to the biggest issue faced by any of us—Iraq. I make no apologies for doing so. On the last count, I have in the lifetime of this Parliament asked for debates on Iraq 14 times during business questions and six times on other occasions. I cannot understand why the House has been prepared to accept not being given the opportunity to debate Iraq properly.

From the outset, I pay tribute to the forces who are working so hard and under such difficult circumstances both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I have a particular Constituency interest in the air crew associated with RNAS Yeovilton. I also have 3 Commando Royal Marines—40 Commando—stationed very near to my constituency. Last year, I spent some time with the Royal Marines under the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and finer, more professional fighting men I have never met. I have huge admiration for what they have done in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I include in that the men of the Assault Boat Squadron whom I had the privilege of meeting.

We need to accept the scale and the awfulness of the situation in Iraq, where we have lost about 3,000 coalition troops and countless numbers of civilians—literally countless, because no one has authoritative figures—have lost their lives. It is increasingly recognised in the United States, with the publication of the Baker review. Colin Powell, of all people, is today reported as saying that the United States—and by virtue of our association with the United States, ourselves too—is losing the conflict and that it is a "grave and deteriorating situation". Even the new US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, has said that failure in Iraq would be a "calamity" that would haunt the United States for many years. There is a general realisation that the Pandora's box that we have opened in Iraq will be very difficult to close.

There is also mounting criticism in this country, notably from the armed forces themselves, withSir Mike Jackson and Sir Richard Dannatt commenting on the exposed and extended position that the armed forces are now in. As a House, we should have as one of our prime responsibilities the care and support of the young men and women whom we send to war on behalf of this country. We should ensure that they have the equipment and support that they need to do their job not only effectively but safely.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the demand for a dedicated debate and for regular statements on this subject does not come only from the original opponents of the war? I voted for the war and would do so again. Nevertheless, the Government must accept that whatever their view of the current situation, they have a basic responsibility either to defend their record or to explain their errors. The responsibility to debate is an absolute responsibility, irrespective of what Ministers think of our opinions or those of the public.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I respect those who took a different view at the time of the war; they did so for a variety of reasons. As he knows, I was against the war and explained why in the debate that took place on, I think, 18 March. Having recently looked at that speech, I see no reason to resile from any of the comments or opinions that I expressed. I accept that others have taken a contrary view. That does not absolve any Member of this House from their responsibility to scrutinise Government policy in this area properly, nor does it absolve the Government from being fully accountable to the House on the most important foreign and defence policy issue in recent memory. The unwillingness of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to come before the House to answer for that policy should be deplored.

Without wishing to reopen the sores of that debate or our current difficulties in looking back at some of the matters that were put before the House, I cannot allow one issue to go without comment. As we know, the weapons of mass destruction on which so much of the Government's initial case was based were not found. I said in my speech that I did not doubt the Prime Minister's sincerity in saying that he believed that they were there. However, that sincerity has been brought into doubt by the evidence of Carne Ross, former First Secretary at the United Nations, who said in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee:

"During my posting, at no time did"— the Government—

"assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests. On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among officials that any threat had been effectively contained."

That was not the complexion of the evidence laid before the House by the Prime Minister or by other Ministers at the time.

We have also heard from Professor Bulmer-Thomas at Chatham House. Again, it may be a retrospective view, but it is nevertheless an important contribution. He talks of the "disaster" in Iraq and the damage to the United Kingdom's international influence. I cannot indulge myself by taking too much of the House's time, but I have to say that the United Kingdom's authority in foreign affairs has been enormously damaged by Iraq. We are seeing the evidence of that not only in the Prime Minister's lack of influence with the President on Capitol Hill, which has been the subject of blunt assessments, but in the region itself, where the Prime Minister is making belated but well-intentioned attempts to secure some sort of coalition around further progress on middle east talks. The fact is, however, that his association with the war in Iraq means that he is unable to play the pivotal role that we would want for this country.

On the original decision to go to war in Iraq, does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister needs to answer to this House as to why he rejected proposals from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq for a change to the rules of engagement in the southern no-fly zone that would have obviated the need to invade Iraq to remove the Ba'ath regime?

There are a great number of things for which the Prime Minister needs to be accountable. A full inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the onset of the conflict will be necessary in due course; however, there are also matters in the here and now that require our immediate attention. I have already indicated that the safety of UK forces is of paramount importance.

We now need a properly based strategic review of our position, but not one that is identical to that of the United States. We cannot piggyback on the Baker review. We should look at the implications of the current situation for British foreign and defence policy. That cannot happen soon enough. The outcome of that should be a phased withdrawal, which should come sooner rather than later, although I do not make the mistake of assuming that we could immediately withdraw forces. Nobody sensible would say that, but we have to make speedy progress towards that end.

Lastly, there is the issue of the machinery of government. One of the things that was displayed throughout the decision-making process on Iraq was the Prime Minister's presidential style, and the lack of consensual arrangements in Cabinet and the wider Government. It was recently proposed that this country should perhaps have a national security council, as the United States has. There is much to commend in that proposition. A Standing Committee that looked at all sides of our foreign and strategic policies would be of great benefit and if nothing else, might put a brake on the ambitions of a Prime Minister who is influenced too much by forces outwith the United Kingdom and who is tempted along roads that are not in our national interest.

I do not expect the Deputy Leader of the House to be able to answer all the points that I have raised. It is no disrespect to him to say that some of those matters are beyond his terms of reference as Deputy Leader of the House. It is for the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence to answer on those points, to come to the House at regular intervals and to make reports to the House, but it is for the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House to provide the opportunities to debate what is the most important matter before us today.

I join others in wishing everybody—the staff of the House and you, Mr. Speaker—a happy Christmas and a good new year. At Christmas, it is appropriate to reflect on those people who strive day and night in one's Constituency to make their local communities better places. The Government can provide money and capacity, but they cannot substitute for the efforts, enthusiasm, vision and drive of local people, armed with extra resources and determined to make their local communities better.

Nowhere is that more important than in a constituency such as mine, which is traditionally a manufacturing constituency. It was devastated in the '70s, '80s and early '90s, when it lost a large chunk of its manufacturing and the jobs that went with that. It is a constituency with historically low aspirations and low educational achievement, because for generations young people left school at the earliest opportunity and went into work in local factories. Above all, it is a constituency in which it was necessary for the Government in 1997—with their priority of education, education, education—to deliver.

Before I come to some of the local achievements, I should stress that although the major manufacturers have disappeared from my constituency, there are still a large number of enterprising small companies that compete successfully in the highly competitive global market. Unusually, we had the reopening of a foundry last year—the first opening of a foundry for many years—at Hercunite, which is an investment by Hitachi that specialises in a high-quality eco-friendly car exhaust system. That is a clear demonstration that where entrepreneurial expertise and investment are allied to national and global ecological priorities, it is possible to carve out a niche market and be successful. Only last Friday I had the privilege of opening a bed and mattress factory, Dreams. That is another demonstration that an enterprising business, committed to working in this country and to using the pool of dedicated labour that has historically been found in my constituency, can be successful and create jobs.

However, I want to focus on education in particular, because there is an issue concerning investment and delivery. In my constituency, education funding has increased in real terms by some 48.7 per cent. per pupil since 1997. There have been reductions in class sizes, more teachers and more support staff. All too often, people look at the league tables and say that an authority is not delivering, but the statistics demonstrate that our authority is delivering. In 1997, 48 per cent. of pupils in my constituency reached reading level 4 in English at key stage 2. In 2006, the figure was 71 per cent. In maths, the relative figures are 45 per cent. and 69 per cent. Those figures are still lower than the national average but, significantly, they are above what was the national average in 1997. Moreover, the gap between my constituency and the national average has halved. Those figures can be reflected at key stage 3—children's achievement at the age of 14—and in GCSE performance.

I should like to mention two schools in particular that have reached a level of excellence. The first is Round's Green primary school, which serves one of the most underprivileged and multicultural areas in my constituency, and is one of the top 100 performing primary schools in the country. The other is Wood Green sports college in Wednesbury, which serves a multicultural community and where one third of the children are on free school meals. The school has demonstrated that sporting achievement and excellence can go hand in hand with academic achievement. It is the top performing school in the borough. Last year it sent 70 pupils to university and it recently won The Daily Telegraph top sports college award. Wood Green sports college has demonstrated that involving children in sport and raising their self-confidence and self-esteem has a crossover to academic achievement, and that sporting excellence and academic excellence can go hand in hand.

Building on that experience, the local authority is promoting the academy programme. Sandwell academy, in a neighbouring constituency, is already recruiting and will soon be followed by Willingsworth school in my constituency. Willingsworth school is sponsored by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, which is a clear demonstration that there are bodies outside the area that are committed to and confident in investing in schools there. I hope that—the Deputy Leader of the House might make a note of this—Willingsworth school will get a fair wind from the Government as it jumps through the necessary hoops to become an academy.

One problem in my constituency was the number of bright young students who left at 16 to go to either neighbouring selective colleges or colleges outside the area. The purpose of promoting the academy programme and schools such as Wood Green school is to keep those young people within the borough in order to demonstrate its rising educational achievement and to provide an incentive to the younger students as they go through the same process.

To sound a cautionary note, the building schools for the future funding is welcome and has the potential to transform schools in my constituency, but I hope that those schools that are already performing do not lose out in the funding allocation and subsequent tranches. It is important that we continue to invest in those flagship schools that meet the Government's objectives.

Sections of the local community have missed out on the educational investment provided since 1997. Hon. Members who have read the social exclusion action plan will have noted that, although there has been a general improvement in levels of affluence, education, opportunity and achievement, it highlights the problem of a hard core of people who were hitherto caught in a cycle of deprivation and non-achievement.

It is difficult for established Government agencies to change such people's lack of lifestyle opportunities, but a project in my constituency is doing just that. The Murray Hall community trust, funded by the safer stronger communities fund, has targeted the Tibbington estate in Tipton—the Tibby, as it is known locally—which historically has had high unemployment, low educational achievement and a family cycle of low aspiration and low achievement. It uses people from the estate—Jennifer Bryan, Janet Burbridge, Suzanne Cornick, Charlene Cotton and Stephen Walker—to act as mentors in the community to encourage people to go into training programmes and subsequently into jobs. The things for which it has recruited in the space of eight months include child care, construction, carpentry, flower arranging and, above all, family projects, in which families and children work together in schools on healthy eating programmes. So far, 78 adults have been recruited to training courses. I emphasise that those adults had rejected the educational process earlier in their lives, and this is their first taste of participating in formal training. Sixteen have gained qualifications to date, but the trust hopes to do more. By establishing a local community facility and analysing a local community problem, it hopes to build a business with considerable educational spin-offs.

I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments because I have a similar experience in parts of my Constituency. Does he agree that locally based centres for learning, such as the Penhill information and communications technology learning centre in my constituency, often achieve tremendous results with people who have never had learning opportunities before, because they are closest to the local communities?

I agree entirely. This is a matter of people who have never felt comfortable with the delivery of public services being able to relate to local people and go to a familiar locality where they feel at ease and are confident enough to begin to engage with the educational process without feeling threatened by it, which they could never do when they were younger.

In the middle of Tipton, there is a large area of natural land called the Cracker. It is so called because it is where the crack—the effluent—from local foundries and companies was dumped for more than 100 years. It has just been developed as a green space and Tipton people like to tether their horses on it. Contrary to public perception, there is a high horse population in Tipton. It is almost entirely unregulated and often a nuisance, so much so that the local authority employed a horse ranger, which a national newspaper criticised a few years ago because it was inconceivable that such an urban area should need that service. However, it is necessary.

With the aid of business in the community, the Murray Hall community trust hopes to set up a stabling and horse management centre on that area, bringing in local people and, first, using it as a community facility for those who love their horses and want to keep them, and, secondly, developing an educational process on it which will enable people to learn about business practices, horse grooming, maintenance and care and so on, thereby allying a long-standing local cultural tradition with the educational process and opportunities that we need in the future. It is a clear demonstration of money being successfully invested in the community so that work is carried out with people who hitherto have been unable to engage in the educational process.

It is important that the Government recognise that investment in a local community must be followed by adequate monitoring and robust assessment procedures to justify more investment. If they look at what is taking place in one of the most deprived communities in my Constituency, they will see that that is money well spent and that it will have a profound long-term impact. I ask the Minister to note that and take the thought away with him, and I look forward to further investment so that we do greater work in that local community in my constituency.

I wish you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of staff of the House a very happy Christmas. I thought that I would put the festive greetings in at the beginning because last time I had a bit of a rant, and when I said "Happy Christmas" at the end, everybody burst out laughing. I am not sure why.

I want to raise one thing. On 8 November The Daily Telegraph carried a story as a result of information that the Conservatives had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 about proposed closures in small hospitals around the country. When I read the article I was surprised, because it listed the Mid Devon primary care trust in my Constituency as one of the PCTs that was likely to suffer closures, in our hospital at Tiverton.

The Daily Telegraph said that the Secretary of State had drawn up maps with something that she called "hot spots" to ensure that closures did not occur in marginal Labour seats. There is no way my seat is a marginal Labour seat, I am pleased to say, but I kept the cutting. Although I was unaware of any proposed closures, lo and behold, in the past three weeks they have been announced, not only at the Tiverton hospital in what was the old Mid Devon PCT, but at the Honiton hospital, which serves a large catchment area of the east Devon part of my constituency.

It was obvious some time ago that the Government anticipated the closures, and the form that they have taken means that the minor injuries units at both hospitals are closed to the public between 11 pm and8 am. In addition, beds have been closed, albeit on a temporary basis until the end of next March.

Small hospitals, serving sparsely populated rural communities, which is what I have in my Tiverton and Honiton seat, rely very much on local services. In particular, I want to consider the implications of the closure of minor injuries units. It is important to flag up why that has happened. As a result of Government policy, what were six primary care trusts have been brought together as a pan-Devon primary care trust. Collectively, by the end of the current financial year they must claw back some £7.6 million. As we all know, according to the bizarre formula that the Government apply to the NHS, if PCTs overspend they must recoup not just the amount overspent but twice that amount, thus making cuts even deeper than they would otherwise have been.

The two hospitals also serve local general practices, in that GPs often make referrals to them. If my constituents could not have access to the minor injuries units at night, they would be forced to go to the casualty department in Exeter, quite some distance away. Obviously, in some cases they would depend on an ambulance service. Devon PCT tells me that the minor injuries units are little used at night, but a father from Tiverton wrote to me:

"as a worried parent whose 3 year old son has benefited from the immediate treatment he has received"— from the local minor injuries unit—

"three times for serious attacks of croup, all occurring overnight ...the worst attack...was treated by a doctor within15 minutes".

What worried that father was that if the unit closed—as it now has—the delay involved in taking the child to the larger casualty unit a long way away could have a devastating effect.

Even if we accept that minor injuries units have less throughput at night than during the daylight hours, we must ask what the consequences of closure will be for the patients who present there. It worries me that although the closures were flagged up in The Daily Telegraph on 8 November, there has been no proper consultation. There are no contingency plans to deal with the possible knock-on effects on the general hospital, on the ambulance service or on referrals through NHS Direct. It looks as if the decision was made in order to tick some boxes and save some money.

I have some sympathy for those who must administer the health service and balance the books accordingto the formula that they are required to employ. However, the people of whom no account seems to have been taken are patients—and, for that matter, professionals. One might have expected the doctors who service the hospital at least to have been consulted, but that has not happened. I was told by a GP in my constituency this morning that a meeting had been called for tonight, long after the closure of the units.

Apparently, a bizarre process will now operate when people turn up at Honiton hospital after 11 pm thinking that they can receive treatment at the minor injuries unit, as may happen. A nurse—and there is sometimes only one trained nurse—will have to come to the casualty department from one of the wards, fill in a form stating that he or she has received the patient, and then redirect the patient elsewhere with the form. Nurses on night duty, particularly those on medical wards, are kept pretty busy. The proposal to divert them to perform an administrative function and, if a patient has a serious problem, to cope with that as well, shows a lack of forethought and also a lack of knowledge of what goes on in a hospital, especially at night.

Seven beds have been closed at Honiton hospital. Beds in small hospitals, particularly during the winter months, are an important facility for elderly people with respiratory problems. Respiratory problems can develop quickly and turn into something serious very quickly, so getting those people into hospital beds is very important. However, no thought seems to have been given to the fact that we are approaching the months of the year in which demand due to flu, or just among the elderly, is likely to increase rather than decreasing.

When I spoke to someone at the hospital this morning, I was told that yesterday it had discharged two patients, and both beds were filled within half an hour. It is not that there are empty beds sitting about, or that there is a lack of demand even now. The fact is that none of these matters seem to have been discussed or considered from the point of view of patients.

The closure of hospital beds usually means a reduction in staff, especially nursing staff. I am told by the nurses' union representative that there has been no consultation with professional staff about the impact on nurses. I always understood that employers had a statutory obligation to consult union representatives, and to take account of the views of professional staff. On so many counts, the way in which information has come into the public domain suggests that these decisions were made with only one purpose: to reduce the budget by cutting services—we are told—at the end of the financial year, which means the end of March. Meanwhile, none of the procedures that might have been expected to take place have taken place.

Let us consider what has happened to the health service in recent years. I picked up, literally at random, a couple of the documents that have arrived on my desk, most of them from the Government. In 2002 we all received copies of "Delivering the NHS Plan". Paragraph 5.9 states

"For some services, for example emergency care, however, choice will have a more limited role to play. Here most patients will only want fast access to their nearest local hospital."

I do not think any of us would disagree with that, but if it is part of the national health service plan, what has happened to that plan?

I know from raising matters with Ministers that they often pray in aid the idea that "It's the trusts out there that must make the day-to-day decisions. Nothing to do with us, guv; we provide the money, they decide what to spend it on." That is all well and good, but we know that the trusts are not free to make the decisions that they want to make at local level. They must constantly work within a framework in which finances are controlled from the centre, and all the boxes that must be ticked if financial penalties are to be avoided are imposed from the centre. There is no real freedom of choice for trusts, or for the professionals managing local services in our NHS hospitals around the country. Everything is predicated on the priorities of the centre, despite the fine words in the documents that we find on our desks every day.

When the Government decided to abolish those primary care trusts and group them together, South West Peninsula strategic health authority invited consultation, which ended in March this year. The consultation document talks of "working closely with partners" and others to ensure integrated services, and providing "appropriate clinical leadership." When I asked the chief executive of Devon primary care trust what clinical advice he had received or taken in deciding to make changes and cuts, I was assured that there were clinicians on the PCT's board. The clinicians who were out in the field delivering the service were clearly not part of the consultation.

Is not an additional problem a lack of co-ordination and a ready preference for unproductive ping-pong between the different agencies responsible for the delivery of public services? Has my hon.Friend encountered in her Constituency—as I have in mine—parents of children with statements of special educational needs and an entitlement to speech therapy who find that they cannot enforce that entitlementon primary care trusts that are reneging on theirduties?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that he takes a special interest in the subject. The only advice I would give him is that if something has been written into a statement of special educational needs and it has been signed by the parent and the due authority, it is a legal document and there is recourse to ensure that it is enforced. I encourage Members to ensure that when statements of special educational needs are signed they are enforced, and if people are reluctant to act on them, to take matters a step further. I am informed by some local authorities that when people reach the point in the process when they threaten legal action, they more often than not settle out of court. That is not how the process should be, and it is a dire process for parents to have to go through, particularly if they are not supported. However, if that is what it takes, the answer is to cut to the chase, and to get to that point as quickly as possible. That is my philosophy.

My hon. Friend alluded to an issue that I have already identified: joined-up government. I am sick of hearing and reading language to do with partnerships, consultations and working together—documents on such matters cross our desks all the time—when that is not what is happening in practice. My constituents have certainly experienced that in the past two or three weeks.

What is important is the people at the sharp end. The new patient and public involvement—PPI—forums, which the Government themselves set up, have written about the closures that I have described. They were not consulted. They wrote to the primary care trust to say that the cuts had been made too soon—that it has come straight in and made the cuts—but although we would expect them to have been consulted, they were not consulted.

Across the piece, we face a winter with services cut and professional members of staff—nursing staff and doctors—uncertain about what "temporary" means when they are told that the measures will be temporary. It is not said that the service will be re-established at the end of March, but it is stated that the closures are meant to be temporary. However, there is no guarantee of what that actually means.

The Government have had much to say about the NHS and all the people who do such a fantastic job in it and who built it up, but the Government are now knocking it down piece by piece. Patients, and the people who live in my Constituency and in other parts of the country, deserve better.