I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on introducing this important debate. As usual, with his brilliant patriotic fervour, he has given us many of the reasons we want to celebrate our Britishness. As ever, I agree with him, and I am pleased that thousands of people in Romford also agree with him—the Union Jack is certainly to be seen there.

If one thing comes out of this debate, it is that Britishness means different things to different people—that applies to everyone not only in this Chamber, but in the country. Clearly, it is impossible to define how we should celebrate Britain and Britishness. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) illustrated that very well indeed. Being British does not have to be the same for every Briton. Surely, the essence of being British is that we are free, diverse and individuals. We live in a free country and are free to be whatever we want. That is the freedom that we have fought for, and it includes the freedom to decide how we wish to be patriotic.

We could mark our national pride in many ways. As Members have said, there is St. Andrew's day, St David's day, St. Patrick's day and St. George's day. During the Queen's birthday, the jubilee and other celebrations we focus on the royal family—not the people, but the institution that they embody. That is the focus of our national celebrations.

Then, of course, there are the sporting events, when we all become fervently concerned to celebrate our team, whoever they might and at whatever time. Just about the only thing on which I and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will probably ever agree is that the Calcutta cup at Murrayfield on 8 March was a great day—for those who do not understand, we shall leave it at that. At sporting events, we are passionate about who we are and what team we are part of, be it Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Wales, Britain or the Commonwealth. The same applies to party, family, town and village. We feel part of a whole. That is what makes humans such social creatures.

When we try to define how we should celebrate our Britishness, it becomes difficult. The last night of the proms is a brilliant celebration of Britishness in all its forms. The right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) disagreed with me, and it is her right to do so. It is more important that the right hon. Lady and I can fervently disagree on such an issue than that we should be made to agree and to appreciate the same angle on Britishness.

It occurred to me yesterday, as we were observing the two-minute silence, that almost everyone in Britain, and British people throughout the world, were, at that very moment, celebrating the freedom that millions and millions of people have died for over the centuries. Appreciating and celebrating freedom is what brings us together as British people. It is very good that we are having this debate today, because I believe that yesterday at 11 o'clock was the point at which the nation came together. People came together not just to remember the dead but to celebrate freedom, and what generations had fought for.

I want to be brief because I want to give the Minister enough time to reply to this excellent debate. Although he has not made any silly speeches about Britishness, some of his colleagues have. Some have come forward with gimmicks about Britishness and why it matters, which undermines the whole concept of Britishness. I want to ensure that the Minister has time to dispel our fears about his colleagues and give us a lead as to what the Government are thinking in that respect. I am sure that he will not come forward with any more gimmicks.

I agreed with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) when he quoted George Orwell on the definitions of nationalism and patriotism. Orwell was right, and it is patriotism that we are discussing, not nationalism. I remind the Chamber that when the BBC conducted a poll about who is the greatest Briton of all time—many people participated in the poll—the person who won was Winston Churchill. It did not matter whether he was Scottish, English, Irish, Welsh, from New Zealand, or Australia; he was the man who led our country against the greatest threat in recent times to our freedom. That brings us back to the issue of freedom. People voted for Winston Churchill not because he was Conservative, English or an Edwardian gentleman, but because he led us against the common enemy who threatened freedom That is what matters.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has no idea what it is to be British. I respect his position and I know that he means it, but it is a pity that he does not understand it. I have to remind him that although he and his party have a certain view, less than 50 per cent. of the people of Scotland voted for the Scottish National party and against the idea of Britain when they had the chance to do so. Now that they have a Scottish national Government, even more of them will vote for the Union and not for separatism.

I wish you a happy St. George's day, Mr. Gale. I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me this debate on such an appropriate day, as I want to speak up for middle England. I hope to slay a dragon or two, although without St. George's help.

Phase 2 of the west midlands regional spatial strategy revision—a phrase guaranteed to set the pulse racing—is important. It is about a lot more than housing. Indeed, to be fair to the Minister—I am pleased to see him in his place—some elements of it are welcome. For example, the Worcestershire wildlife trust of which I am a proud member welcomes the clear statements on climate change, sustainable communities and community developments, but—and it is a big but—the issues of greatest concern are the level of new housing building that the Government seem determined to impose on the west midlands and the delay in the final revised regional spatial strategy and, crucially, the local core strategies that that unwelcome intervention has led to.

On 7 January, 18 months of hard work by the regional assembly and local authorities was suddenly torn up in one of the most undemocratic and unwarranted interventions in local affairs by a Minister that I can recall. A letter to the regional assembly from Baroness Andrews, one of the Minister's colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government, told us that all our efforts had been wasted and that, under her instructions, we must go back to the drawing board. It is no wonder that people are cynical about politics.

The regional assembly's consultation on the preferred options in phase 2 of the RSS revision was due to end four weeks ago, on 28 March; the Government's first intervention recommended extending that date to 23 May, to enable consultees to consider the extra evidence that the Government would produce. The assembly pointed out that it would need to take account of the purdah for the local elections, so it suggested an extension to 30 June, and the Government agreed.

However, the Government office for the west midlands took months to appoint expensive London-based consultants to find the new "evidence"—and I put that word in inverted commas. It took until early October. The consultation has therefore been extended to 8 December. The examination in public of the final phase 2 document will therefore not take place until the spring of 2009. Incidentally, as a result, the consultation period is four weeks short of Cabinet Office guidelines, and all that comes on top of the fact that unelected academics in the national housing and planning advice unit are providing an undemocratic input to Ministers on demand and price levels.

Meanwhile, poor old locally accountable district councils such as those in my area—Wychavon, Worcester City and Malvern Hills—are trying to progress their own joint plans. However, they can only guess what the RSS housing numbers will be. In due course, Ministers will doubtless attack those councils for failing to deliver the goods on time, but the blame for the delay rests fairly and squarely on those self-same Ministers. Strangely, the delay means that it may not now be possible to complete the RSS revision process before the regional assembly itself is abolished. What a fine mess the Government have got us into.

I wish to make five key points, and I shall have three questions for the Minister at the end. First, we all accept the need for more housing. That is not in dispute. People are living longer; the divorce rate is a sad driver of increased household formation rates; and there is a lack of affordable housing, both rented and owned. However, that does not mean that we should throw houses up without properly considering their long-term impact and, indeed, without establishing whether the current housing shortage is irreversible and permanent.

The Government are relying on new household projections that dramatically increase estimates of housing need over the next 20 years. The big dispute is whether the current rate of immigration will continue. I think that it will not, as we are already seeing net migration back to the countries of eastern Europe. The Government are projecting forward historically unprecedented levels of immigration, and that is a serious error.

The Government also argue that house building levels need to be high to reduce the price of housing so that it is more affordable. They want to reduce house prices. However, people are now seeing house prices fall, and they can tell the Government that that policy objective has been achieved without a single new house being built. High prices were mainly, but not exclusively, the result of the irresponsible lending practices of banks and mortgage companies. Too much money was the main cause, and the Government have put that right, albeit unintentionally. I therefore challenge the Government's figures. They are too high.

Secondly, the West Midlands regional assembly has already proposed a high number of new dwellings—difficult but manageable if we get the rest of the policy environment right. In its submission to the Government in December 2007, it proposed that 365,600 extra dwellings should be provided in the west midlands by 2026. That is 25 per cent. higher than recent building rates, and 50 per cent. higher than the rate planned under the existing strategy.

I am inclined to agree with the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which believes that a figure of about 285,000 would be a more reasonable response to the present situation. The regional assembly's numbers may be higher than many would like, but at least the assembly has gone through a democratic and systematic process to arrive at a preferred option for growth.

Based on advice from the academics at the national housing unit, it seems that the Government are now pressing for between 408,000 and 460,000 new dwellings to be provided in that period. To achieve the assembly's proposed RSS figure for the region, the housing figures for the major urban areas—Stoke, the black country, Birmingham, Solihull and Coventry—have rightly been increased, although there may be practical difficulties in achieving some of those figures without building on green belt land or causing excessive urban intensification.

The five growth points in the existing strategy—Hereford, Rugby, Shrewsbury, Telford and Worcester—have been extended to 10 with the addition of Burton upon Trent, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Redditch, Stafford, and Warwick and Leamington. Between them, those 10 "settlements of significant development" would account for 30 per cent. of the region's housing growth. Potentially, there are also two eco-towns in the west midlands, of which more later. All that will inevitably require a significant release of greenfield land, which will undermine the current "brownfield first" approach.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on securing this important debate. It reinforces his reputation as an excellent campaigning Member of Parliament who consistently raises issues of concern to his constituents.

The future of pubs is of great public interest, nowhere more so than in rural settings where they not only perform the social function that they do anywhere else, but may be the only place in the community where the village can meet, trade, and, in one or two cases, even vote. I know from more than 10 years of living and working in Wiltshire that that county has a great many fantastic rural pubs. The north of the county, in particular, enjoys the beautiful setting of the landscapes that we associate with the Cotswolds.

Some pubs, such as "The Red Lion" in Castle Eaton in my hon. Friend's constituency, offer the chance to have a relaxed drink in a beer garden on the banks of the Thames. I am sure that the wise voters of Swindon not only enjoy the local pub, but take advantage of some of the wonderful countryside around and about for a walk at the weekend. What better way to round off a nice Sunday walk in the Cotswolds than to enjoy a nice lunch and a pint of Wiltshire's fine Wadworth 6X in a rural pub? I enjoy a similar experience in my constituency on a monthly basis when the Red Ramblers get together and enjoy a good walk, political discussion and a fine pint of Dorset Badger beer at the end.

Rural pubs play a crucial role in promoting local food and tourism. I was lucky enough to visit "The Three Fishes" in the Ribble valley this autumn. The owners not only served excellent food and drink in a quality environment, but positively celebrated the local sourcing of that food. The walls of the pub were decorated with photographs of the local farmers who supply the superb produce. That reconnection of consumers with producers is crucial to the future of rural areas as a whole. The work of "The Three Fishes" demonstrated the best practice in that regard.

For all those reasons, I share my hon. Friend's concerns about the economic viability of pubs. If they are to continue as important community centres, vital parts of the tourism industry and, as he described them, the beating heart of rural communities, they need to continue to be a viable part of the rural economy. Evidence of their state of health is not clear. I heard what he said about the number of closures. On the other hand, an analysis of the interdepartmental business register indicates that there were about 12,000 public houses in rural England in 2003, employing about 50,000 people. The same analysis suggests that the number of pubs in rural England increased by 3 per cent. from 2000 to 2003.

I would add the caution that, although the analysis has not been carried out in sufficient detail to be certain, the growth in rural pubs appears to be largely in those areas with higher numbers of visitors, and we know from the same work that the number of independent pubs has fallen by 8 per cent. I have studied the report from the Trade and Industry Committee that my hon. Friend referred to and I am aware of concerns about the functions of the relationship between a limited number of pubcos and their tenants. There may be a relationship between the fall in the number of independent pubs and the state of the sector in rural areas in general.

We live in a world of seemingly ever-increasing change. The changes affect every corner of life and inevitably have an impact on rural areas. Change can be viewed as a threat or an opportunity. The 2004 rural strategy sets out how the Government will support rural communities through the change. Both elements of the priority on social and economic regeneration are relevant to pubs in rural areas. At one level, rural pubs are simply businesses. They are important to the area of the economy that they serve. They operate in a free market and must respond to market forces, given the strengths and weaknesses that my hon. Friend describes. Government intervention should be a last resort and should deliver clearly defined public benefits.

The Government will support such businesses by ensuring that the business advice is tailored to meet local needs, including rural needs. I pay tribute to the work done in that regard by my hon. Friend when he was small business Minister. Officials from my Department work closely with the Small Business Service and representatives of the social enterprise sector to explore the best ways of meeting the objectives of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Yesterday, I talked to the Plunkett Foundation about some of these matters. Where appropriate, co-operatives should be encouraged in the running of pubs. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend to reassure him on that and the other points about which he wanted me to correspond with him.

The Government allow councils to reduce business rates by between 50 and 100 per cent. for pubs that are the last retail outlet in the village. The Government's new licensing rules also provide good business opportunities for pubs. Rural pubs know their customers better than anybody else and we are giving them the freedom to offer the services that their customers want in a single licence. They need only the one licence to cover a range of activities and no longer have to make trips to court to renew licences or apply for new ones. They no longer have to apply for a range of separate permissions if they want to open longer for special events, whether it be for St. George's day celebrations or for late-night viewing of sporting events.

As well as being businesses, rural pubs are often the focal point of village life— especially in those villages without a village hall or other centre. The Government want local communities to be empowered to control their own destiny. That includes keeping services that the communities consider important, including pubs as appropriate.

The Government support that social function. Public houses are explicitly recognised in planning policy statement 7 as one of a number of services and facilities with a role in sustaining village communities. Local authorities can refuse to grant permission for a change of use and thus provide an opportunity to keep a pub. The evidence suggests that this power has been successfully used on a number of occasions.

Beyond that basic protection, I am also interested in what more pubs can provide and are providing. Part of the challenge of running a business or providing a public service in rural areas is achieving a viable economy of scale. It is often achieved by diversifying a business and by co-locating services. Co-location can be good for the pub and good for the community.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Pub is the Hub initiative, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech. Pub is the Hub is an initiative of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, president of Business in the Community, to encourage pub owners, licensees and local communities to support and maintain local services, and increase the viability of rural pubs. It was set up in 2001.

Pub is the Hub is an independent advisory trust, and it is assisted by the rural action team of BITC, together with the professional pub and drinks industries and other Government and statutory bodies interested in using pub or other rural properties for the support and supply of social enterprise services.

Pub is the Hub is a national body. It is able to co-ordinate activity, advice and industry training that requires pub experience, business aptitude and the raising of necessary funds to support adequately those activities, based upon the current six requests for help each week and more than 400 general inquiries each month via its website. I had a look at the website this morning, and it is very helpful.

Pub is the Hub is not a pub preservation group, but it seeks to encourage social enterprise and diversification where pubs can deliver commercial viability in supporting many rural services that are either under threat or may have recently ceased trading. The main aim is to encourage the co-location of other rural services, sharing overheads and costs, and thereby meeting the service needs of rural communities.

One excellent example of a Pub is the Hub pub is "The Beauchamp Arms" in Dymock in the very north of Gloucestershire, the county adjacent to Wiltshire. In that case, an enterprising parish council had the imagination to grasp an opportunity when the last pub in the village was put up for sale. The council took out a public board loan and purchased the pub, which is adjacent to the village hall. The pub is managed by a management company, and a successful lottery bid, with the excellent help of the Gloucestershire rural community council, has led to the extension of the hall, using the land acquired with the pub.

The community now literally owns the pub. Even during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001, the village rallied round and used the pub more to keep takings up. The Pub is the Hub website tells me that a number of community groups, such as the playgroup and the parents and teachers association hold meetings there, and there is a monthly lunch for Dymock's over-60s club. The landlord is keen to support other local businesses, and he sources as many of the bar meal ingredients as possible from local suppliers, including the local cheese maker and the butcher and baker from nearby villages.

Dymock is not alone. Already 200 post offices are located in pubs in rural areas; 80 rural shops, convenience stores or bakeries are located in pubs. Fifteen village communities have purchased their own pub, as Dymock has, either as a co-operative or part of a group. A village, Heskett Newmarket, has even bought a brewery.

Pub is the Hub is an excellent initiative. I am keen to work with it on expanding the concept and services like the co-location of post offices. A few months ago, one of my most senior officials spoke at its launch and has joined its national steering board. Its first meeting was on Monday of this week. I hope that that is a demonstration of DEFRA's support.

I come now to the worries of the Select Committee to which my hon. Friend referred. We will continue to monitor the relationship between pubcos and tenants. I will make sure that my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are aware of my hon. Friend's comments. The issue affects pubs everywhere, not only in rural areas. Over the past few years, I have worked with the British Beer and Pub Association and have found it to be an effective and professional organisation. My hon. Friend said that it has agreed to develop a code of practice and that that will be published soon.

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that if we can urge the industry to resolve matters on a voluntary basis, that is better than the Government imposing a solution. I am equally sure that he, the Select Committee and the DTI will monitor events closely, as will I. I wanted to make that clear because the issue is important. I shall, in particular, be examining the problems of exploitation to which my hon. Friend referred in the working hours of publicans and the transparency of rents—the whole arrangement.

The debate has been worth while. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for introducing it. It has given me a welcome opportunity to respond on something for which I am responsible. Usually in this Chamber, I am responding on behalf of my noble Friend, Lord Bach, on issues for which he responsible. I shall write to my hon. Friend about the issues about which he was particularly concerned during the time frame that he described. I am most grateful to have had the opportunity to focus on such a crucial bedrock of rural communities—the local pub. The Government are committed to working with the industry to ensure that the sector remains healthy and that the opportunities to embed local pubs in the community through social enterprise can be grasped.

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak and especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for securing this debate, which goes to the heart of our future defence policy. I have never been in the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy or the Fleet Air Arm, but I have been carried by and served under the protection of the Fleet Air Arm, and I was hugely grateful in both instances for the professionalism and dedication of that service.

I should like to start with a quote:

"The removal of the air arm from the control of the Navy left the fleet vulnerable to air attack and meant that the endeavour that had cost so much British blood could not be completed effectively."

On St. George's day 1918, there was a combined attack on the German naval base at Zeebrugge. Admiral Sir Roger Keyes felt that, despite the death of nearly 1,000 bluejackets and Royal Marines, the nation's safety was still endangered because he did not have aircraft in his control, as the Royal Naval Air Service had recently been transferred into the nascent Royal Air Force. I suggest that we may be putting ourselves in a similar position today.

The lessons of history were heeded at first. Our understanding of the projection of power from or by ships into the air both for coastal and blue-water defence developed into the Fleet Air Arm. That led to our outstanding naval successes in the second world war, the Korean war and, most recently, in the Falklands. What worries me horribly about the gap of at least six years that will be left is that the lessons of history have been ignored.

A great deal has been said and, for the sake of brevity, I shall not repeat much of the technicalities. I shall talk about the essential difference between the FA2 and the GR7/GR9. We have heard the splendid analogy made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) of the shield and the spear. We should take that further and use it to try to understand the layered element that the use of Sea Harriers gives the Royal Navy.

We know about the medium-range Sea Dart, which has the limitations of its age and radar, and about the closer-range Sea Wolf. There is also the last-ditch defence, the Phalanx gun, which we trust and hope will—as it did in many cases in the Falklands—interdict enemy aircraft attacking the fleet. However, the Sea Harrier is the shield, or more properly the eyes and ears of the Navy. It is capable of seeing beyond not only the physical horizon but the radar horizon provided by the Royal Navy's current radar suite. Without that aircraft not only to interdict but to see and report for maritime reconnaissance, the Navy is effectively blinded.

The GL7 is and the improved GL9 will be an impressive aircraft that will fill much of the capability gap for ground attack. However, the aircraft has no defensive capability, and it has precious little reconnaissance capability without the radar system that the FA2 already has. These systems are still highly vulnerable to a sea-skimming attack by, for example, the Exocet and the much-improved modern versions of that missile, which are too numerous to mention. We are told that PAAMS will fill that gap much better than the Sea Dart can in the interim, before the joint strike fighter comes on stream.

I have personal understanding of two systems of radar and radar-controlled missiles. The first is Sea Owl, which was a naval system that was meant to be extremely well adapted, capable and competent for use at sea. We tried to adapt that system for use in the Victor towers in south Armagh, to oversee the landscape in that difficult countryside. Eventually, we got the system working, but it was not as adaptable as we had hoped, and there were all sorts of glitches. That meant that our operational effectiveness as soldiers on the south Armagh border was severely hampered until the equipment worked.

Secondly, and much more pertinently, I have experience of the Rapier system. As many of my hon. Friends will know, the Rapier was developed for point defence of military instillations against ground-attack aircraft. It worked extremely well, and was designed for the cold war. It was extensively troop-trialled, and was embarked with a naval force to go to the Falklands. It was thought to be highly effective until it was established as point defence in winds of up to 70 or 80 mph, at which point the system failed. Eventually, those involved got the thing working, but in the interim operational effectiveness had been severely curtailed and British Marines and paratroopers had died as a result of ground attack. The system simply did not work and had not been tried in such conditions.

I urge the Minister not to place too much faith in an untried system. Any soldier, sailor or airman will make the point that equipment must be tried. Until such time as it is tried, PAAMS cannot be relied on to plug the gap that will be at least six years in duration. I do not want to iterate points that have already been made, but an aircraft that may be ageing, obsolescent and under severe trial in hot and dusty conditions is none the less battle proven and, most importantly, still commands the faith and trust of its pilots. I speak from personal experience—a Harrier coming in at low level over the top of one is a hugely reassuring sight. Until such time as we have a proper, reliable and sensible replacement, I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision.

We have heard that the Navy has been reduced to coastal protection. I take that a stage further: it is almost a fisheries protection fleet. That is all that we have. Without the aircraft, the Navy is effectively blinded. Someone once said that, if nothing else, war is the province of confusion and uncertainty. Until such time as we can guarantee that we can operate without crucial help from allies, to propose that we should operate only under an American or French air umbrella is simply ridiculous.

One point that I do not believe has been mentioned is that there will be a vital training gap until such time as our two new carriers are on stream. That will be sometime between 2012 and 2015, by which time the Fleet Air Arm, or what remains of it, is likely to have lost any capability that it has for the style of operation involved. It is not an operational style that is quickly acquired or understood, and we do a grave disservice to both our surface fleet and our Fleet Air Arm by not allowing them to maintain that capability.

In conclusion, I simply say this: all the time, the armed forces have a finger pointed at them and are told that they are preparing for the last war—they are blamed for not looking over the horizon and preparing for the next war. However, in this instance we have neglected the lessons of the last war and previous wars. One thing is certain: we can never be certain. To protect against uncertainty, we must keep the Sea Harrier in service.

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to present this petition. There are no fewer than 2,481 signatures on a petition urging the Government to consider making St George's day a public holiday. I am grateful to the company, George's Tradition, which is an award-winning fish and chip chain based in Erewash and surrounding constituencies, which has collated the petition.

England is one of the few countries without a public holiday for its patron saint. Indeed, the House will be aware that in Northern Ireland, St Patrick's day is a public holiday, and in Scotland, St Andrew's day is a voluntary bank holiday. It is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate a country's traditions and heritage. I cannot let the petition pass-

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election and thank you for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is a privilege-an interesting one-to follow a fellow Birmingham MP, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who made the point very well that was brought out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) that there are those who believe in caricatures and myths.

Birmingham, which I am proud to represent, is a remarkable city, the birthplace of local government and municipal enterprise. Under Joseph Chamberlain and the visionary Victorian pioneers, Birmingham city council provided gas, water and electricity. The council built some of the first swimming pools because it understood the link between health and well-being. Some of those pools are still in use, including the great Moseley Road baths. Birmingham city council even established a municipal bank.

In the 20th century, under visionary pioneers such as Dick Knowles, the national exhibition centre, the national convention centre and the national indoor arena were remarkable examples of municipal enterprise and partnership with the private sector, which brought millions to Birmingham.

Birmingham remains the industrial heartland of Britain: 100,000 people work in manufacturing. Birmingham's manufacturing contributes billions to our economy and to the quality of life and the culture of Birmingham itself. That is captured by the legend in the municipal museum,

"By the gains of Industry we promote Art."

Birmingham is indeed a city of culture that deserves to win the accolade of European city of culture.

Birmingham is a city of diversity. As the proud son of Irish parents who left the emerald isle to escape poverty and to build a better life, I feel at home with what is the largest Irish community outside London, the Erin Go Bragh Gaelic games club, the magnificent St Patrick's day parade and enjoying the craic in the New Inns. I feel at home in a city that celebrates its diversity: the Afro-Caribbean community and its churches, Vaisakhi, that great Sikh festival that brought 100,000 people to Birmingham's Central park, and St George's day, celebrated with passion in the working men and working women's clubs, with more flags of St George being flown than I have ever seen before-English people proud of their identity and rightly recapturing the flag from the brain-dead bootboys of the BNP.

Birmingham is characterised by Brummie pride. There is a distinct ethos of hard work and enterprise, of smiling in adversity, of community and solidarity. I have attended excellent events such as that for Help for Heroes. These are proud people in proud communities in Erdington. Castle Vale, which I am privileged to represent-entered through Spitfire island, rebuilt under the remarkable Robin Corbett-is still a remarkable community to this day. It has a great community spirit; 5,000 people turned out recently to celebrate the life of a young girl who died of asthma and to raise money for charity so that no more would follow that terrible fate. Among the great communities of Erdington are Pype Hayes, the Asian community in Slade road, the traditional Green, Perry Common and Kingstanding.

Erdington is a constituency with manufacturing in its blood. Sadly too many workplaces have gone to the wall: Fort Dunlop, Cincinnati and IMI. However, there are still great industrial enterprises such as the Jaguar plant, the jewel in the crown of manufacturing excellence; GKN; Valor Fires, recently the winner of the Queen's award; and small but dynamic companies such as Guhring.

Erdington is a stronger, fairer, better place thanks to 13 years of a Labour Government. The schools were rebuilt and new children's centres were built, including the Gunter school and children's centre, giving kids the best possible start in life. We have world-class health centres such as that in Stockland Green. Thousands of homes have been renovated as a consequence of Labour's decent homes programme, including those on the Lyndhurst estate.

For all those advances over 13 years, Erdington has enduring deep-seated problems, including high unemployment. I have seen the impact of that. An excellent craftsmen from LDV lost his job and five years on was desperate to get back into work. A young builder from Marsh lane was almost in tears with frustration because he could not get a job in the industry for which he had been trained. Often there is still poor housing, long waiting lists and a lack of affordable family housing, which divides families and breaks up communities.

Crime is down thanks to Labour's investment in the police and the excellent police community support officers in Erdington, but there are still too many examples of unacceptable antisocial behaviour. Too many people in Erdington were left behind, including those in Kingstanding. People lost their jobs three or four times in the 1980s and some of them never went back to work again. Two generations have grown up in workless households.

Erdington is a community that believes in the power of community, solidarity and self-help. I mention the excellent Enta project. Recently I was privileged to be with young men and women who had been brought back into the labour market by that excellent organisation, which believes in the legend of that song "You Raise Me Up". But Erdington is a community that knows this: the deep-seated problems of jobs and housing are incapable of resolution without the power of good government.

For 25 years I fought great battles for working people in Birmingham. I am a Labour man proud of my trade union background, but I have worked with those from other political parties: the admirable hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who chaired brilliantly the recent Select Committee inquiry into the scandal of the Kraft takeover of Cadbury's; Baroness Shephard, who stood alongside me and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) in the drive to take the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill into law, ending modern-day slavery; and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), with whom I fought to save Rosyth dockyard from closure in Scotland. Therefore, where the Government get it right, I will work with them, but where government, national or local, gets it wrong, I will stand up for the people of Erdington as their champion, fighting their corner, making a difference for them and with them, and defending that which matters to their lives. There can be no rolling back of those great advances that we have made. Yes, choices have to be made, but I will resist any notion of asking those who are least able to bear the burden to pay the price of the misdeeds of the bankers.

I have seen that at first hand. A young schizophrenic approached me in Erdington high street and said, "Jack, for 10 years I could not get out of my home. Now I can, helped by a local project. They are going to help me to get back into work, but what will I do when they close the project because of city council cuts?" Therefore, my message to the Government is this: if they cut the future jobs fund, they will deprive the unemployed of Erdington of hope; if they cut the child trust fund, they will deprive parents of modest means of the ability to pass on to their children assets for the future; if they cut Labour's expansion of university places, it will not be the stockbroker belt of Surrey and Sussex that suffers, but the young working-class kids of Erdington who will be deprived of the chance to become the first in their family to go to university.

I pay tribute to my predecessors: Robin Corbett and Siôn Simon, who have served the people of Erdington well, and I hope to follow in their footsteps. I have one other message to Government: do not step back from what Labour has done in recent years on industrial activism-that necessary partnership between industry and good Government. Everyone now understands, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, that we must rebalance our economy, no longer be heavily dependent on the financial sector but again rebuild the real economy, including our manufacturing base.

Locally, I have seen this in Castle Vale. The admirable chief executive of the Castle Vale community housing association says that we have rebuilt the housing and built a community, but we have a desperate shortage of jobs. That is why my No. 1 priority will be jobs and manufacturing-and I have to say that the subject of ID cards did not come up once in the 4,000 doorstep discussions I had throughout the general election campaign.

My priority will be jobs and manufacturing. I want us to preserve what is left of our manufacturing base, which is why I will promote a "Cadbury's law" so that we protect vital British industrial assets from hostile takeovers by foreign multinationals. That is why I will stand up for the future of the Jaguar plant in my constituency, and that is why I will work-with Government, I hope-to promote the hi-tech industries of the future. I want green manufacturing in Birmingham and a green investment bank for Birmingham, but as I know from experience of dealing with major manufacturing companies, there is a simple reality: manufacturing will flourish only if there is a partnership between good government and these world-class companies.

Historically, Birmingham was the laboratory of the world and the workshop of the world, combining British genius, enterprise and hard work. Too often now, however, it is British genius, but made in China. For both Birmingham and Britain, the single biggest task is the renaissance of our manufacturing industries, and I say this to the Government: do not walk away from Birmingham's great industries, and do not condemn this generation to the fate suffered by that of the 1980s. In the 21st century, we must not have a generation of young people with no work and no hope. Birmingham, Erdington deserves better.

I will move on, Mr. Speaker, but I was responding to a sedentary intervention. I assure you that I had notified the Secretary of State of what I intended to do, but I hear what you say —it is understood. I would certainly say, however, that he should explain himself at some stage about what has happened and is being seen on television and read about in our press.

May we have a debate on the guarding of Budget secrets? By yesterday morning, we were already aware of several of the Chancellor's headline schemes, including the car scrappage and HomeBuy initiatives. Is there to be an inquiry into these indiscretions? Obviously, it is unthinkable that Ministers would ever have passed those details to journalists themselves, but will the Leader of the House deplore such leaks and urge an investigation?

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister published his proposals for reforming our system of expenses. If I may be a little personal, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Lady feels sufficiently appreciated by the Prime Minister? Does she feel that she can still be the guardian of Parliament's voice in the Cabinet? Is it not clear that she was completely bypassed by No. 10 and then bounced into making a written ministerial statement, as the presentable face of Government, after the Prime Minister's deeply weird statement on YouTube? Is it really true that No. 10 has said that Labour Members who do not vote for the Prime Minister's proposals will be deselected? How can she possibly defend his barmy plan for an automatic daily allowance, for which no receipts will need to be presented, as an improvement on what we have already?

May I take this opportunity to wish the right hon. and learned Lady a happy St. George's day? I hope that I am not too much of a dragon against this maiden in distress. In the spirit of St. George, will she now renew her pledge to fight for the rights of this House, the freedoms of the country, and the power of MPs to scrutinise and hold to account an unsuitable and arrogant Executive?

Given that we spend far too much time in this country celebrating cultures other than our own, is it not time to start redressing the balance by creating a public holiday to celebrate St. George's day?

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) is entitled to come to the House to ask us to recognise the contribution made by Poles in this country. I unreservedly do so. I am not of Polish origin, although my sister-in-law comes from a Polish family. I have many Polish constituents and I have Polish friends. I was at school with Polish youngsters in mid-Wales, where they had settled, as they did in other parts of the country. However, I do not think it a well conceived idea to introduce a Bill to give a bank holiday to recognise one group of people, however eminent, who came and served alongside us in this country. I would like the House to reflect on how we ought really to deal with this matter, but deal with it in a different way.

There is no doubting the bravery of the Poles in wartime. They had a special role in our services, especially the Air Force, and they are rightly commemorated. The Poles were not the only people who came from eastern Europe to help in the war. The Czechs also supplied brave people. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, people of other countries—not eastern Europe, but other parts of Europe—specifically came and helped in our struggles. In particular, the Norwegians and the Dutch came to help us in our time of need during the last war.

There are people whom we could recognise as having served us in those dark days from 1940 to 1945, but there are others who came from different parts of the world and gave fantastic military service, such as people from many of the islands of the Caribbean. Large numbers of people from India and what are now Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka served in our forces. People from most African countries in the empire—not just South Africa, but the poorest countries such as Sierra Leone—served with great distinction. People from other parts of the world also came. If we were to recognise people who were not British born but who came and served with us, there would be a host of nations that we ought to recognise together.

Since the war, people have come here and made a fantastic contribution in peacetime. Many people whose countries are not members of the European Union but who are European citizens have lived here for 20, 30 or 40 years and contributed, but they are not entitled to full EU rights. Norwegians are such an example.

There are people who have served alongside us in other conflicts, some well conceived and others less so. The French and the Israelis were with us in the Suez conflict. Whether that was a good place to be, history will tell. There are probably a dozen other major countries from all over the world that are with us in Afghanistan to this day, and contributing—for example, the Baltic states, Ukraine and Denmark provide troops. Again, there are others who are assisting in the protection of British interests around the world. People have come from all over the world to do the building, the plumbing and all those other things.

If we are to recognise immigrants in Britain, let us do so, but let us remember, too, the breadth of immigration. Immigrants have come from almost every country in the world. I am privileged to represent a constituency that probably contains people from every country. The other day at my surgery, for the first time I spoke to a woman from the Comoros islands, which indicates the range of people who come here.

We need to be careful when we get into the debate on immigration. To my knowledge, no party has ever argued for uncontrolled immigration. No party has ever considered that to be a responsible attitude. There are different ways of dealing with immigration, and certainly it could be dealt with better. We all accept the need for controls. However, it is obviously wrong to have a go at legal immigrants in this country.

I want to pay a tribute. Were it not for immigrants from Poland, eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and the rest of the world, most of our public services would not function and, in truth, much of the private sector would not function either. If there is a case for recognising immigrants, let us do so, but let us do the same for those who served us in wartime and those who serve us in peacetime.

If the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham wants to engage in a debate about bank holidays, there is a debate to be had. I have long argued that there should be a St George's day bank holiday in England, a St David's day public holiday in Wales and a St Andrew's day public holiday in Scotland as well as the St Patrick's day holiday in Northern Ireland. There are four other obvious candidates for celebration: Commonwealth day on the second Monday in March—we could rightfully celebrate that as a holiday—VE day in May, United Nations day in October, and Human Rights day in December. There are plenty of causes for celebration and for another bank holiday, but, however much I understand his personal commitment, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that to single out one nation and its contribution for one specific recognition would not be in the interests of either the Polish community or the other communities in the United Kingdom.

I shall not seek to divide the House on whether the hon. Gentleman should have leave to bring in his Bill, but if he managed to get it as far as a Second Reading debate I would vote against it. I believe that we should be much more inclusive and not so specific in recognising people in this country who come from elsewhere and have contributed so much in peace and in war.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Daniel Kawczynski, Mr. John Battle, Greg Mulholland, Ann Winterton, David Wright, John Bercow, Mr. Denis MacShane, Stephen Pound, Mrs. Nadine Dorries and Dr. Alan Whitehead.

The Minister began his opening remarks by saying that his grandparents were immigrants to this country. I can go one better, as the daughter of an immigrant to this country who has returned to live in Ireland, although he is visiting at the moment. Perhaps I can embarrass him by saying that he joined in the toast to St. George's day in the Strangers' Bar last night, although that may have more to do with his fondness for a pint than any great patriotic fervour for the country he made his home for 40 years. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), I chose to become a lawyer and a politician, rather than follow in my father's footsteps, although the fact that he spent the best part of 30 years working for Pickfords removal firm perhaps explains why I did not go down the same path as he did.

I join my hon. Friends in complimenting the Minister for his work on the new asylum model and on the points-based migration system. He is one of the Ministers I tend to ambush in the Division Lobby more often than any other, and I have always found him to be on top of his brief, very thoughtful and willing to listen to the concerns that I raise on behalf of individual constituents and with regard to general policy.

I have been lobbied by restaurant owners in Bristol from the Chinese community and from the Bangladeshi community in particular. I met 20 representatives of Bangladeshi restaurateurs in Chilli's restaurant in Bristol city centre. As a result of our conversation, after about two hours discussing the impact that the changes might have on them, I ended up in the kitchen, being shown exactly how to prepare a vegetable jalfrezi. The fact that I was treated to a meal afterwards has no bearing at all on my sympathy for the issues put forward. If anyone wants to suggest that I might fill the skills shortage by choosing an alternative career, I would say that my role in the kitchen was limited to stirring the pan while the chef put the spices and vegetables in. But that did demonstrate to me that it is quite a complex operation; it is not the same as working in a fast food joint, or in an Italian restaurant. Most of us would be able to rustle up a pretty decent pasta dish, but I have never been able to produce the sort of dishes I have had in Indian or Chinese restaurants. It is quite a skilled occupation.

The points made to me by the Bangladeshi restaurant owners have, for the most part, been put by my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, but I would just like to quickly skim through some of them. They said that they are already having to close restaurants because of staff shortages, and several people there were former restaurant owners who said that because they could not get the staff they had had to go out of business.

They expressed concern about immigration raids at peak times. Although they accept that the Borders and Immigration Agency has a right to find out whether illegal working going on, they thought that it could be done more sensitively, perhaps at the close or start of business. Concern was also expressed that when illegal workers were detected in the restaurants, there was no follow-up, such as deportation or any action against the restaurant owners. Obviously, they were not advocating that action be taken against them, but what is the purpose of those raids if no action is taken afterwards?

We have to consider the question of whether there are skills shortages in certain sectors of the restaurant trade in the short to medium term, and then in the longer term. The point has been made that people from the Bangladeshi community, in particular, do not want to follow in their parents' footsteps by going into the restaurant trade, but not everyone from those communities can become doctors. Not everyone has the academic ability or skills required to become a doctor, lawyer or engineer. Some people will have to go into non-professional jobs, and there is an issue about raising the status of working in the restaurant sector. We have heard that there are no Chinese catering courses at UK colleges. If such catering was more professionalised and attracted proper qualifications, people might be persuaded to go in for it. We should also consider how well people are paid. However, that is for the longer term.

In the short term, it has been suggested to me that restaurant owners would be happy to pay bonds—perhaps up to £10,000—for someone to come over and work for one or two years, on the understanding that they would forfeit the money if the people did not return at the end of the time. However, they are adamant that that is needed to alleviate the short-term shortages in the industry.

I welcome the fact that the migration advisory committee will consider the matter in some detail. I hope that it takes account of the representations that have been made in the House today. I repeat that I know that the Minister is always open to being influenced by his colleagues' comments, and I hope that he will take some of the concerns on board.

I am raising them because of the Government's incompetence in not allowing questions to be asked in the first place. Those questions are extraordinarily intrusive, and it is widely accepted that such surveys are inaccurate. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government should come to the House and explain this scandalous waste of taxpayers' money.

Yesterday, on St. George's day, we read in the papers that England has been wiped off a map of Europe drawn up by Brussels bureaucrats. The map makes no reference to England, or indeed Britain, and has even renamed the English channel the "Channel Sea". It is all very well the Prime Minister putting up patriotic flags on top of No. 10 Downing street, but he needs to make an urgent statement to tell us what he is doing to protect Britain's interests in Europe and Britain's identity.

So, Mr. Speaker, there you have it. We have a Government who dither, who spend millions on sex surveys while millions of their people worry about the cost of food, and who betray their people by refusing to stand up for them in Europe.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity before I answer the question to wish all hon. Members a happy St. George's day? I know that I am here to answer questions, but may I ask my English colleagues why they do not make more of William Shakespeare's birthday?

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question, although I have had no such discussions, I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues. I look forward to further constructive discussions in the interests of the people of Scotland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and happy St. George's day. Is the Electoral Reform Society right or wrong when it says that it would be an "affront to democracy" if Westminster controlled the Scottish elections?

On behalf of the Scottish National party, I wish our friends and neighbours in England a very happy St. George's day and look forward to England's independence.

The biggest protest against Driving Standards Agency closures took place recently in Moray where more than 700 bikers protested against the DSA's plans to close a testing centre. Does the Minister agree that the safety of bikers, learners and those about to take their test has to be paramount?

Let me deal with the first part of the question first. I think that it is very regrettable that teachers are going on strike tomorrow, and the reason is that even the chairman of the pay review body has said that this is an independent award, independently adjudicated, and one that the teachers should be prepared to accept. I hope that, after reflection, the teachers will reconsider the action that they are going to take in future on this matter.

As far as St. George's day is concerned, it is a matter for public debate on whether this is going to be a holiday.

The hon. Lady and I agree on that. However, we should not forget Bermuda and all the overseas territories of the Crown.

I am delighted to have followed the hon. Lady and to have the opportunity to take part in this important debate. In the House of Commons, we debate so many things to do with international affairs. We spend an enormous amount of time talking about Europe and it is good that we are now spending a bit of time talking about countries with which we have close historical links and ties, and for so many different reasons.

The Commonwealth is born out of what our forebears achieved when they chose to sail around the globe to spread ideas, values, Christian beliefs and the English language, all of which made a huge impact on all the countries that were part of that British empire. I know that it is not politically correct to talk about the British empire, but I think that, of all the empires that have existed throughout history, ours gives us a lot to be proud of. We left good constitutional frameworks in many of those countries. We did a lot of good, as British people, and perhaps left a happier situation than was left by other countries that did not quite succeed in their colonial ambitions in the way that the United Kingdom did.

We have already had a debate about Welsh affairs for St. David's day, and now we are having a debate about the Commonwealth. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will take back the idea that on 23 April we should also have a debate about England for St. George's day. This is an important opportunity to debate matters relating to the Commonwealth and the various parts of the United Kingdom, and I hope that we can do it on an annual basis.

The Commonwealth of nations is a proud organisation—enormously important and hugely diverse. I will not repeat much of what has already been said by colleagues on both sides of the House. I think that it is true to say that every one of us here today is strongly committed to the concept of the Commonwealth bringing everyone together—people of all backgrounds, all colours and all religions, from every continent in the world. The Commonwealth is developing. Most of its countries have very close links to Britain, but one or two other countries are now joining that do not have that same link. Mozambique is an example of a country that has chosen to join.

Last year, I was privileged to go to Madagascar as part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. That country has had some links to Britain, but for most of its colonial past it has been linked to France. The President of Madagascar has made it clear that he wants to move closer to and have much better relations with the United Kingdom and to promote English. The idea of joining the Commonwealth—I must admit that I fuelled that debate while I was there—met with huge support and great interest from everybody. I believe that the President would like that to happen. I hope that the Minister will take on board the appalling mistake that the Government made in closing the British embassy in Madagascar. At a time when that country desperately wants to develop closer relations and links with Britain, our Government shut down the British embassy—yet again, as a Labour Government have done that before. I hope that the Minister will decide to reopen that issue so that we can develop our links with Madagascar.

Systems of democracy, stability and freedom have been created in these countries on the basis of the constitution, Her Majesty the Queen, the monarchy and the Westminster model of democracy, which is slightly adapted and tweaked depending on the country concerned and which we are privileged to have as well. Most of the countries that have had British influence and are part of the Commonwealth—originally places that our forebears went to—have had a far greater chance of retaining, as they still do today, democratic values, stability, a constitution, the rule of law, and good education. There are all kinds of benefits to the people of those countries. As I said, we have a great deal to be proud of in what we have achieved.

Australia, New Zealand and Canada are three countries with which we have particularly close relations, but I also include India. Large numbers of people in this country are of Indian descent. I have many in my constituency; we have them in all our constituencies. What a great country that is, and what a country of the future it is. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it should be a priority in the next few decades that we work closely with India to develop our links in terms of trade and co-operation. Most people from India speak English and have close links to Britain, and we should work with that country as well.

Of course, 14 or 15 nations in the world today retain Her Majesty the Queen as head of state. The Commonwealth is diverse, but the countries that retain Her Majesty as head of state and continue with the British monarchy are the ones that we have the closest links to—a special relationship—and that should continue.

I commend the work in Parliament of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and of its secretariat—Andrew Tuggey and his team, who work in Westminster House. They do a great job and work hard to promote relations between the Parliaments of all the countries of the Commonwealth. I have been privileged to participate in a number of international delegations to Commonwealth countries, and to host Commonwealth parliamentarians in my constituency.

In fact, a group of Commonwealth parliamentarians visited me the Friday before last—I have their programme here. I was delighted to take them around Romford market and thrilled to show them our brand- new hospital and one of the local churches, St. Alban's. We had representatives from Australia—the deputy speaker of the New South Wales Parliament—Jersey, New Zealand, the Turks and Caicos Islands and Montserrat, and an observer from Somaliland. What a great day that was, and how wonderful it was to bring parliamentarians from the Commonwealth to our constituencies. I hope that the next time there is a Commonwealth parliamentary delegation, those of us who have south-east London constituencies will invite them and give them an opportunity to see the work of British MPs on our home turf, as well as the work that we do in Parliament.

I am pleased to be involved in a number of all-party groups that do valuable work. I mentioned Montserrat, and as the Minister will know, I am the secretary of the all-party group on the Falkland Islands, and chairman of the Anglo-Manx all-party group on the Isle of Man. I am involved with the all-party groups on Gibraltar and the Channel Islands. All of those groups do great work in co-operating and fostering closer relations with our friends in those nations and territories. A lot of effort and finance is put into supporting the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—which is wonderful—the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the American group, but we have special links with Australia and New Zealand. It is time that the all-party group on Australia and New Zealand—the Anzac group, of which I am secretary—was elevated. Perhaps there should be direct funding for work with Australia and New Zealand; it is so important that we strengthen our links with those two countries in particular. We spend a lot of time working with the United States, which is very important.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House and from all parts of the United Kingdom will welcome today's debate on Welsh affairs, coinciding with St. David's day. Will the Leader of the House make similar provision for a debate on 23 April, to coincide with St. George's day, so that we can debate affairs relating to England?

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of my constituency and many thousands of people from further afield, who are concerned that England has no public holiday to celebrate Englishness and believe that St. George's day should be a public holiday for all those in England, so that we, along with other countries, can have a national day to celebrate. Other countries, most notably the Republic of Ireland, are proud of their national days, yet in England we have none. The petition has been signed by no fewer than 1,500 people and states:

The Petition of residents of the Borough of Havering

Declares the petitioners' serious concerns over the lack of celebrations on our patron saint's day, and believes that the establishment of St. George's Day as a national public holiday for all in England would help raise community cohesion at both a local, and more importantly, a national level.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Prime Minister to use his powers to establish St. George's Day as a national public holiday for all in England.

And the Petitioners remain.

To lie upon the Table.

I beg leave to present a petition from Mr. Bernard Calvert of Wakefield, member of the Royal Society of St. George, with one signature attached.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the government to implement the following actions in celebration of St George that 23rd April be declared an English National holiday; that the Standard of St George be paraded and included at all events that include the armed forces; and that on St George's Day celebrations are encouraged.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.,

To lie upon the Table.

I give my genuine congratulations to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing the debate, especially because it is being held on St. George's day, our national day. I share his view that it is right to celebrate St. George's day. On Sunday in my constituency, 1,250 of our Brownies, Cubs, Beavers and Scouts celebrated the 100th anniversary of scouting, as did the rest of the country. Such celebrations take place on the nearest Sunday to St. George's day, and Sunday was one of the proudest days that I have had representing my constituency.

I want to give the hon. Gentleman some encouragement. The direction of travel that he is imploring the Government to follow on devolution—or double devolution, as it has been called—is at the heart of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, which is being considered by the House. The Bill builds on the local government White Paper that was published in October 2006.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Sustainable Communities Bill. The Government did not vote against that private Member's Bill. We are discussing with its promoter and sponsors how we can meet the Bill's objectives of helping to sustain communities in a way that is workable and beneficial. Much merit is claimed for the Bill, ranging from the assertion that it will save local pubs to the suggestion that it will save high streets from voracious supermarkets. Having read the Bill, I am puzzled about how that would be translated into reality. However, its core philosophy is one that we support, and we are considering how to improve the Bill. A number of measures are already in place, or are being put in place, that achieve the goals of the Sustainable Communities Bill. Indeed, debate on the Bill gives me the opportunity to explain to the House in greater detail what those measures are.

The hon. Member for Southend, West, paints a bleak picture of Britain, and I understand why, but I have to say that if he travelled with me to most towns and even villages on a Saturday night, the phrase "ghost town" is not what would come to mind. One wag in my constituency said that it was more like the wild west than a ghost town. I share with the hon. Gentleman the concern about the decline of independent shops, and the work of the all-party group on small shops should be commended, but it would be misleading if the Government gave the impression that those problems would be solved simply by passing a private Member's Bill. We have to ensure fair competition, but the supermarkets are successful because they provide consumers with what they want. Some of the supporters of the Sustainable Communities Bill have to marry that support with the idea of a free market economy, but I am certainly not here to bash successful businesses.

The Government have made significant changes to planning policy, and we believe that they help the situation, particularly with out-of-town shopping centres. I know that that is a big issue in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world; I also know how popular such shopping centres can be, but it is right that planning policy should ensure that town centres and retail centres benefit. That oil tanker has been turned around, and the advent of the new, smaller IKEA stores is the best known example of that so far.

Some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave on closures are gross, and not net. I have learned in my time in ministerial office to be wary of figures that move in that way. Indeed, in a previous incarnation, I used to produce regular figures on the loss of manufacturing jobs—it was when the Conservatives were in government—and I confess that they were gross figures, not net figures. The same survey carries on today, much to my discomfort, so I cannot really complain. In any case, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. Two specific issues to do with the census figures were raised by him and by the hon. Member for Rochford.

It is a pleasure to sum up for Her Majesty's Opposition following an interesting and at times lively debate. It is also a pleasure to speak from the Dispatch Box on St. George's day. As it appears that I have some time available, I will do my best to refer in turn to each of the dozen contributions that we have heard.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury began his speech in his usual genial manner, which the House appreciates, although he took some friendly fire from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He did his best to justify the Government's tax breaks for zero-carbon homes. Although he got into a bit of trouble over that on "Newsnight" last year, he told the House today that some zero-carbon homes are being built in his constituency at a place called Gallions Park. Unfortunately, he was not able to tell us exactly how many homes were being built, so, if the House will forgive me, I shall say that under this Chancellor we still do not know how many zero-carbon homes we get to the Gallion. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give us the precise figure in his winding-up speech.

We then heard the feisty speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. She firmly championed the role of small businesses in the economy. In particular, she stressed our reservations about the serious extension to the powers of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs set out in part 6 of the Bill, and I will return to that subject in greater detail later. We next heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). He lists economic policy among his interests in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", and that was borne out by his speech, which lasted 46 minutes. He took interventions from a number of my hon. Friends about levels of inflation throughout history, but I remind him that today inflation in the United Kingdom is above that in France, Germany and Italy, above the EU average and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, and above that in Japan, Canada and the United States. That should be a matter of serious concern to Members of all parties, irrespective of what colour rosette they wear on election day.

We heard next from the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. In fact, she was the only Liberal Democrat to make a speech in this important debate. She was given an award for brass-necked cheek by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), and he does not give those out lightly. I will not pursue that further; I will leave him to discuss that with her outside the Chamber—but she did appear to make up Liberal Democrat policy on the hoof when she said that the Liberal Democrats did not want a Finance Bill each year. I did not know that that was their policy, but we are now informed of it. She also described this year's Finance Bill as a bit of a damp squib. I have to disagree with her, because there are some worrying aspects of the Bill, as I hope to go on to explain.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Last year he spoke for almost an hour in the Finance Bill Second Reading debate, and he repeated that feat today. I owe him a personal apology, as I popped out of the Chamber briefly for a bowl of soup in the middle of his speech. I am sorry about that, but I did so secure in the knowledge that he would still be on his feet when I came back, and as it turned out, I was right. He has become a stalwart of the Finance Bill process, so we look forward to seeing him upstairs in Committee with his well-thumbed copy of the explanatory notes, and we look forward to him joining in our debates as we go through the Bill clause by clause.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), who I notice is the star of this week's edition of The House Magazine. He, too, stressed the potential impact of the Bill on small businesses and on the difficult decision of whether to incorporate. In that context, it should be remembered that the Chancellor, by introducing the zero rate, actively encouraged individuals to incorporate, but when many businesses followed his advice and rushed to incorporate, he effectively decreed that that represented tax abuse, so he abolished the zero rate last year in order to combat that abuse. That seems a curious way to behave if he wants to encourage stability in the tax system.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello), who I am sure is on his way back to the Chamber. He spoke principally about his constituency, but he mentioned some aspects of local taxation, including that in the United States. I should like to remind him when he returns that, in terms of national or federal taxes, the United Kingdom has a much longer tax code than the United States. However, I agree with him on one point: the United Kingdom is undoubtedly better off outside the euro than in it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke briefly—as he put it—for an hour and five minutes, and he spoke, as ever, with considerable experience. He, too, praised the fact that the United Kingdom has remained outside the euro, but the real reason for that is what is sometimes called the sixth economic test: it is about whether the Government believe that they could ever win a referendum on the euro. In poll after poll, the British people have proved determined to retain their currency, the pound sterling. The principal credit for keeping it goes to them, and not at all to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who continues to spend money on euro preparations within the Treasury.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) was the only member of the Treasury Committee to make a speech. I find that a little surprising; nevertheless, I commend him for his contribution. He, too, focused on the effect of the Budget and the Finance Bill on small businesses—a theme that received recurrent attention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) also stressed the likely effect of the Bill on small businesses, including business partnerships. He talked about the need for Ministers to exercise close control—what my old sergeant major would have called "grip"—over the activities of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. He specifically called for a motive test relating to sideways loss relief—a positive suggestion that we may want actively to pursue.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), who speaks on these matters for the Scottish nationalists, supported several of the points in our reasoned amendment. I therefore hope that he and his hon. Friends will support us in the Lobby against the Government.

Finally, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) talked about so-called teething problems with tax credits. With respect, if half the payments in the system being wrong is a teething problem, I hate to think what would happen if it went seriously awry.

As with most Finance Bills, particularly from this Chancellor, there is a great deal of detail to consider, and we look forward to investigating that in Committee. Last year we spent a considerable amount of time debating the introduction of the new real estate investment trusts, or REITs, regime. That has now gone live, and I look forward to debating the Treasury's proposed tweaks to the regime in clause 51 and schedule 17 with the Economic Secretary, whom I welcome back to his place.

We have several more general concerns about what is in the Bill and about the important economic issues that it has plainly failed to address, and I should like to turn to some of those specifically. To start with, the Bill does comparatively little to assist small businesses. Although the Chancellor has followed our suggestion of reducing the headline rate of corporation tax to try to maintain our international competitiveness, in contrast he has begun progressively to increase the small companies rate from 19 per cent. to 22 per cent., forcing entrepreneurs to pay more tax, not less, as they attempt to grow their businesses for the future. Small businesses, which the Department of Trade and Industry defines as enterprises employing 50 people or fewer, are very much the motor of growth in our economy. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, they now employ more than 50 per cent. of the entire private sector work force, and it is apparent that these changes will hit them hard. In fact, as the Federation of Small Businesses said of the Budget in a press release entitled, "Budget speech dismays small business", this is a

"tax hike aimed at small business".

As it puts it, what the Chancellor

"gives with one hand he takes with the other."

Similarly, Nick Goulding, the chairman of the Forum of Private Business, said of the increase in the small companies rate:

"The increase in corporation tax is a kick in the teeth for Britain's small businesses".

My hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary spent some time on this subject, so suffice it to say that we shall return to it in the Committee of the whole House and upstairs in Committee thereafter.

Part 6 contains potentially significant extensions to the powers of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, including extending powers of arrest and surveillance across the combined HMRC organisation—even including an ability, as outlined in clause 96, for HMRC to penalise taxpayers when it "thinks" that they have done something wrong. As Anne Redston of the Chartered Institute of Taxation pointed out in Accountancy Age on 5 April,

"You can't levy a penalty on something HMRC thinks happens".

She goes on to say:

"If you've done something, or failed to do something then you have a fact, but if they think something has happened how can you appeal?"

The powers of arrest partly result from the merger of Customs and Excise with the Inland Revenue. Although the Treasury has apparently told the professional bodies that it intends the powers to be limited in scope and used sparingly, few such safeguards are included in the Bill. It is therefore unsurprising that we have strong reservations about the operation of the proposals in practice, not least given HMRC's increasingly heavy-handed method of dealing with taxpayers in relation to tax credit appeals. We will press the Government for safeguards on the way in which the powers, if the House grants them, operate in the real world, including their effect on the relationship between HMRC and the Serious Organised Crime Agency in combating organised fraud. We will shortly table amendments on the subject for consideration by the Committee of the whole House next week.

Like most of the Chancellor's finance measures, the Bill contains considerable anti-avoidance provisions, which are included in parts 3 and 5. It is part of a trend under the Chancellor to see a tax avoider around every corner and to devise an increasingly complex tax code to try to prevent that. "Tolley's Tax Guide", which is often called the accountant's Bible, has expanded correspondingly to try to keep up with the raft of additional tax legislation. The Chancellor's inherent love of complexity means that it has doubled in length since 1997 and now stretches to four rather than two volumes.

I can confirm to the House that, under the present Chancellor, we have finally become a world beater: thanks to his love of complexity, we have the longest national tax code in the world. In 1996, PricewaterhouseCoopers, in conjunction with the World Bank, published an analysis of national tax codes around the world. It showed that the UK's code stretched to 8,300 pages, surpassed only by India, with a notoriously complex tax code, at 9,000 pages. Japan was third with 7,200 pages, while Switzerland barely got on to the pitch with a mere 300 pages of code. The Economist highlighted all that when its 11 November 2006 edition pointed out:

"Of the world's 20 biggest economies, Britain is second only to India in the number of pages taken up by its primary legislation".

Since then, the Indian Finance Act 2006 and the 2007 Finance Bill have added a little under 300 pages to the Indian national tax code. However, back in good old Blighty, the Chancellor's Finance Act 2006 contained 180 clauses and 26 schedules, which stretched to 517 pages. The tax law rewrite project prepared the Income Tax Act 2007, which helped to clarify some of the Chancellor's complex tax law in simple English and even repealed some 250 pages of it. However, to do that it added a further 1,100 pages of clauses, schedules and tables to the tax code.

The Bill piles on another 113 clauses and 27 schedules, which represent another 305 pages. In comparison with India's nearly 9,300 pages of national tax code, the United Kingdom's stands just short of 10,000 pages. The Chancellor, who always says that he wants to reduce red tape, has burdened the British people with the longest national tax code in the world. When the Financial Secretary responds to the debate, perhaps he will confirm that under his boss we have become a world leader—but as champions of complexity rather than clarity.

The abolition of the 10p starting rate tells a similar story. The Chancellor rushed it through on Budget day in the hope that no one could follow him while he did it. How many of those Labour Members who cheered so loudly on Budget day and waved their Order Papers so enthusiastically realised that they were supporting a tax increase for those on low incomes? How many had worked out what the Institute for Fiscal Studies subsequently told us: that more than 5 million households—predominantly those on lower incomes— would be worse off as a result of the Chancellor's Budget and the Bill? How many are happy to go back to their constituency Labour party executives and champion that?

The net effect of those measures is actually to increase taxation on lower-paid families and that must drive ever more of them into the Chancellor's highly complicated tax credit system, in which we now know that more than half of all the payments are wrong. More than 333,000 people appealed last year against the attempted recovery of an over-payment and fewer than one in 20 are likely, on the latest figures, to succeed. The tax credit system devised by the Chancellor is crying out for reform— [Interruption.] The Economic Secretary shouts out "abolition" from a sedentary position. No, it needs to be reformed, and 90 Labour Back Benchers signed early-day motion 545, calling for reform of the tax credit system, particularly for the reform of the handling of overpayments.

One of the signatories of that early-day motion is the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. In an article entitled, "I won't make life easy for Gordon by defecting", in The Spectator of 24 February, he said:

"Gordon has been wrong on Pensions, we've run our course on Tax Credits, there's no more money and we've enveloped huge sections of the population in means tested benefits; there ain't any future in this. There is a need for a mega rethink, and there is a need for a leadership contest."

Indeed. In the same article, when the right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he had considered defecting, he replied:

"I am not moving. That is not to say that I am happy in the Labour Party. Who is?"

In fairness, he then flatly rejected the idea of leaving Labour entirely, but mainly on the ground that he did not want to give the Chancellor the pleasure.

We then come to the vexed topic of pensions. The Finance Bill contains some measures that relate to pensions—for instance, three clauses in part 4, including those relating to changes in alternatively secured pensions or ASPs, as they are generally known. However, the Bill does little or nothing to address the massive damage done to the UK's pension system by the Chancellor's £5 billion a year smash and grab raid on our country's pensions.

When we debated the topic last week, the extraordinary thing about the Chancellor's performance was his absolute and total refusal to say sorry. Despite the misery that he has caused pensioners up and down this country, there was not a hint of contrition or regret. If he is confident about what he has done on pensions, why has he had to spend two years and a considerable amount of taxpayers' money fighting the release of papers under freedom of information legislation? When challenged and put on the spot, all the Chancellor could manage was to blurt out that Labour had introduced the Freedom of Information Act in the first place.

When the Chancellor's own Treasury civil servants warned him prior to going ahead with the change that the

"actuarial valuation of the pension scheme assets would fall by up to 20 per cent.; this would cause a shortfall of up to £75 Billion",

what part of that statement did the Chancellor—and the Economic Secretary, who was advising him at the time—not understand? The Economic Secretary's hurried defence of the decision was that it had actually been done at the behest of the CBI. Subsequently, that was flatly denied by the CBI's then director general, Adair Turner, who, on "The World at One" on 2 April said:

"Let's be absolutely clear, the CBI never lobbied for an end to tax relief at any time whatsoever in 1996 or 1997".

I remind the House that, whenever we debate pension changes in the Finance Bill or elsewhere, we have to be conscious that the general public are well aware that, as Members of Parliament, we have relatively generous pension arrangements of our own. For instance, as the Economic Secretary will know well, the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen)—or the future Lord Challen of Normanton, as we must probably learn to call him—can now look forward to a comfortable retirement, but what about the millions of pensioners who cannot? It is no wonder that the Prime Minister's previous pensions adviser, Ros Altmann, said tellingly:

"The Chancellor will go down in history as the one who destroyed our pensions system. He just ignores what he doesn't want to hear, then tries to cover up the consequences."

This Finance Bill is brought to us by a Chancellor who is in denial about the misery that some of his measures have caused to ordinary, hard-working families up and down this country. It comes from a man who flatly refuses to apologise for any of this, because he seems to think that humility is a human weakness and not actually a strength. That kind of thinking has led to a poor Finance Bill that does little for pensioners against a background of rising inflation, which has helped to give us the longest tax code in the world but done little for small businesses, and which gives HMRC powers that need to be reined in. In short, it is a Finance Bill from a tired Chancellor, not a future Prime Minister. In view of the Bill's inherent weaknesses, I urge the House to vote for our reasoned amendment tonight.

The Secretary of State said that the CSA was far from perfect; that is an example of perfect English understatement on St. George's day. I cannot remember the last time I held a surgery in which I did not have at least one case involving the CSA before me—I often have more than one—and I suspect that it is the same for the Secretary of State. Will he give some indication of the scale of the problems? How many cases where errors are being made are outstanding?

I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to speak up for man's best friend, and to bring the issue of dog welfare before the House once again. Hon. Members will know of my long-standing interest in dog issues. Since my election as a member of Parliament, I have had the privilege of working with some of the most dedicated groups and organisations in the country, who perform a magnificent job in defending the interests of our four-legged friends.

I pay particular tribute to the Kennel Club, whose work in the dog world goes far beyond the call of duty, extending from welfare issues to dog shows, breeding and, of course, the Westminster dog of the year competition. The Dogs Trust has also campaigned on dog welfare-related issues to ensure a safe and happy future for caninekind, and has made the slogan "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas" a household phrase. The Dogs Trust will

"never put a healthy dog down"—

the popular motto that inspires so many people to sponsor its wonderful re-homing programme. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is another organisation that does miraculous work in looking after dogs that have been cast out by cruel and irresponsible people.

I also pay tribute to a friend of mine, Juliette Glass of the Fury Defence Fund, who has been a personal inspiration to me. She is always there with an open ear and friendly advice for people all over the country with problems in the dog world. Juliette has helped to save many dogs from immediate death following the unwise implementation of the draconian Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 before its amendment.

There is another organisation known as "Vets Get Scanning", whose patrons include Bruce Forsyth and his daughter Debbie Matthews. It seeks to promote the practice of microchipping all puppies as a matter of routine and procedure, and the practice of scanning every dog that enters any veterinary surgery anywhere in the United Kingdom. Why, Members will ask, is such a practice so necessary and important? It will probably come as a surprise to them, as it did to me, to learn that dog theft is one of the fastest-growing criminal activities in the United Kingdom. The crime targets the natural bond that exists between owner and pet—a bond that in many cases is as strong as the bond between family members. These vile criminals will seek to exploit the natural affinity between man and his best friend, either by kidnapping the dog and holding it to ransom—as happened recently to the pop artist and singer Lily Allen—or, as happens in many thefts, by stealing the pet to sell on to unscrupulous breeders or those willing to pay exorbitant amounts for a particularly rare breed of dog. If the ransom is not paid or the dogs cannot be sold on, they will often be killed and discarded.

It is hoped that promoting the simple practice of scanning a dog when it enters a veterinary surgery will cause authenticity of ownership to form an effective barrier and deterrent to those who might enter into the crime of dog theft, whether it be the criminal who steals the dog or the unscrupulous breeder or others who may buy the animal from the criminal. The "Vets Get Scanning" scheme is helping to eradicate that evil activity. I commend its work to the House and hope that the Minister will consider working with it to make the scanning of all dogs whenever they enter a veterinary surgery a routine practice.

As many Members will be aware, for many years I have owned Staffordshire bull terriers. As any owner of a Staffie will confirm, they are magnificent family animals that epitomise the phrase, "Man's best friend". They are caring, loyal and gentle animals, which in recent times have sadly endured a bad press owing to the deplorable treatment of them by a minority of owners. [Interruption.] I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is sitting beside me. He has informed me that Watchman is the name of the dog that is the mascot of the most excellent Staffordshire Regiment. Indeed, the Staffordshire bull terrier has an historic place in terms of that regiment, the county of Staffordshire and the whole of the United Kingdom.

Many Members will know that Spike was my first Staffie. He wore his own made-to-measure Union flag waistcoat and stood by me during every step of my political career, campaigning in my first two parliamentary campaigns: in 1992 during which he tirelessly trudged through the streets of the glorious constituency of Glasgow, Provan, including the Blackhill estate—an area that Mr. Speaker will know well, as it is in his constituency—and then in Thurrock in 1997, before seeing me safely into the House of Commons in 2001 with a thumping majority. Of course, Spike's proudest moment, as the Minister will know, was when he greeted the noble Baroness Thatcher as she arrived at Romford market two days prior to the 2001 general election. Having done his duty, Spike passed away on St. George's day 2002.

My current Staffordshire bull terrier, Buster, has taken over working as Britain's "top campaigning dog", an accolade he was awarded in last October's Westminster dog of the year competition. He also met Baroness Thatcher in Romford just before the 2005 general election, wearing his Cross of St. George waistcoat, and on Saturday Buster will once again be by my side as we campaign in Romford market to make St. George's day a public holiday in England. Spike and Buster have truly represented the British bulldog spirit, which I passionately share.

However, dogs are not just household pets. They are deeply significant in the everyday lives of many human beings, as guide dogs for the blind and hearing dogs for the deaf, as dogs for the disabled and visiting dogs for hospitals, and for therapy, too, bringing relief, joy and happiness to the sick and infirm. What other creatures could provide so much companionship to the elderly and the lonely? Dogs serve the police and the customs service as sniffer dogs, and they also work in mountain rescue, where they perform a vital task. They play an enormously significant role in the lives of all of us.

When I last spoke about dog welfare in the House, I covered the effects of the terrible injustice on certain breeds of dog that followed the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act. I do not intend to dwell on the matter again this evening, but I feel that it should be stated once more that in all matters to do with the actions of dogs it is the deed and not the breed that should be acknowledged. As I have said before, there are no problem breeds, just a handful of problem owners. We should never lose sight of the fact that any dog in the wrong hands can be as dangerous as any weapon. Any dog can be trained to fight, bite and attack on command, and that is something that needs to be addressed. People who use dogs for such violent purposes are obviously sadistic and evil. Although we in the House cannot police their behaviour, we can do our part to make it as difficult as possible to train animals for that purpose.

I hope that we can start by outlawing electric shock collars. The Animals (Electric Shock Collars) Bill ran out of parliamentary time in 2003, but the Kennel Club has worked tirelessly since then to get that product banned. According to a report from the Kennel Club that I received recently, the electric shock collars administer a static shock to a dog that does not do what is asked of it. In that way, they train a dog to respond out of fear of further punishment rather its natural willingness to obey. For a collar to serve efficiently as a training tool, the dog has to perceive the shock as painful. Moreover, if it does not respond, the punishment has to escalate, which creates further potential for abuse and cruelty. An angry or inferior trainer, or even a novice owner, could therefore misuse a shock collar to abuse or punish.

The product is readily available—via mail order, retail outlets and, of course, the internet. Anyone can get an electric shock collar. As there is no training or supervision, people can put one in place and administer so-called "correctional" treatment. Ultimately, however, such devices do not address a dog's underlying behavioural problems, so the cause of its barking or aggression remains suppressed. Indeed, the collars are quite likely to cause further behavioural problems in the future.

The primary purpose of any training programme should be to improve the relationship and communication between a dog and its owner through compassionate, reward-based training. Other, more positive training tools and methods can produce dogs that are trained just as quickly and reliably, if not more so, with absolutely no fear, pain, or potential damage to the relationship between dog and handler. Given that those alternatives are available, I hope that the Minister will agree that there is no need for electric shock collars.

I come now to the issue of dog breeding and, in particular, to the training methods needed to educate people purchasing puppies. Educating puppy buyers and raising their expectations is a powerful tool to help eradicate puppy farming, while rewarding and promoting breeders who follow basic good practice will help to raise standards. The Kennel Club's accredited breeder scheme was launched in 2004 and is working towards both of those ends. The club has joined forces with interested welfare bodies to establish a working group to identify ways to tackle puppy farmers. That is a long-term, ongoing project. There is a widely held view that a Kennel Club registration certificate puts a premium on a puppy. The club's online puppy sales register is a valuable aid to breeders wishing to sell their puppies. In addition, it is raising its profile and that of its major show, Crufts, with the aim of becoming the first port of call for all canine matters.

Finally, I should like to say something about greyhound racing. As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary greyhound group, I declare a keen interest in this matter. I am fortunate enough to have a splendid greyhound stadium in my Romford constituency that plays regular host to many significant events in the greyhound calendar. However, one very significant problem with greyhound racing is that some unscrupulous owners destroy their dogs when they cannot run any more. Personally, I find it incomprehensible that anyone who works with animals could destroy a dog simply because its running days are over.

The rules of the National Greyhound Racing Club seek to ensure that owners are responsible for the future of their greyhounds at the conclusion of their racing careers. Greyhound racing is enormous fun, but those who take part must also consider the welfare of the dog during and after its racing days. I commend the magnificent efforts of the Romford retired greyhound association based in my constituency. It is doing wonderful work rehousing greyhounds at the end of their racing days. Many such organisations exist throughout the country and I pay tribute to them all for their magnificent work.

To conclude, I should like to seek one or two assurances from the Minister. First, will he assure me that the Government will not seek to introduce dog legislation without proper consultation with the main dog organisations and charities? Secondly, will the Government seek to form stronger relationships with dog-related groups, giving support where it is needed? Thirdly, will the Government seriously review laws already on the statute book, some of the limitations of which I highlighted earlier in my speech and previously on the Floor of the House?

All hon. Members have thousands of dog owners in their constituency and still more dog lovers. Let us this day properly acknowledge the special place that dogs have and will always have within our society as man's best friend, and the best friend that man is ever likely to have.

The hon. Lady knows the answer to that question already. The point that I am trying to make, which I suggest she is ignoring, is that the NHS should be to the benefit of patients, not just to the benefit of the staff. There is team work involved. However, the bottom line is, yes, there should have been salary increases, but productivity has fallen in the NHS.

If the hon. Lady wants an example, we need only look at NHS waiting times. Yes, the longer waits have been eliminated, but that has created a bulge in the middle, to the extent that despite the amount being spent on the NHS having more than doubled average waiting times have fallen by only five days over the past 10 years. These are not statistics spun out of central office but hospital episode statistics produced independently, and they confirm that average waiting times have dropped from 78 days to 73 days over the past 10 years.

Perhaps more worryingly, median waiting times have increased from 5.7 weeks in 1997 to 7.3 weeks last year. Clearly, once the layers of Government spin have been peeled away, the extra money has not delivered the improvements that we all hoped to see, and that should have been delivered, given the amount of money that has been put into the NHS.

Let me put to rest the argument that is continually rolled out at the Dispatch Box that because we have seen such a good decline in cancer mortality rates, that is living proof, so to speak, that all that money is having a beneficial impact. That decline has occurred over the past 10 years, but it continues the decline in the preceding 10 years. In other words, it has made no significant improvement to the long-term decline in cancer mortality rates that has been evident for the past 20 to 25 years.

That argument needs to be challenged time and again. The statistics are available for everyone to see. If we look at the mortality rate for cancer among people under 75, we see that the proportion dying from cancer fell by 12.5 per cent. in the seven years after 1997. The comparable fall in the seven years before 1997 was 12.6 per cent., so all the extra money that has been put in has not made a discernible difference to the long-term trend in declining mortality rates.

Let me turn to taxation in general. It is evident that the Government simply do not accept the case for lower taxes. We have had 11 Budgets in which, broadly speaking, the tax take by the Government has gradually increased. Only 10 years ago, the UK's tax burden was close to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of about 39 per cent. of gross domestic product. Since then, while across the rest of the OECD the burden has fallen to an estimated 38 per cent., in Britain it is forecast to rise to 42.5 per cent.—its highest since 1986. The Government seem to take the view that public services should be micro-managed and that they know how best to spend people's money—that is why the tax take has gone up so much.

There is a strong case—indeed, almost a moral case—for lower taxation. Evidence the world over has shown that where Governments reduce the tax burden on their countries, over the medium and longer term that increases the prosperity—the growth rate—more than making up for the short-term shortfall in receipts through the initial tax cut. Hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends, must not be afraid to make the case for lower taxes. Tax cuts create a bigger economic cake from which the Government can take their honest share and help the less fortunate in society. I am sure that we all want to achieve those ends, but it is a question of how we do it. I suggest that the best way of creating increased prosperity—the bigger economic cake—is to lower taxes.

As I said, there is evidence across the world for that, but to find it we need only look across the Irish sea. Throughout the 1990s, liberalisation of the corporation tax laws in Ireland created a huge economic dividend that cannot be ignored. There we have a concrete example of a country making a determined cut in its tax rates and increasing prosperity over the medium to longer term. Real national income per head rose from less than 65 per cent. of the EU average at the beginning of the decade to rough parity by the end of it—a phenomenal achievement. During that period, unemployment tumbled from a high of 17 per cent. to about 4 per cent. The Irish Republic massively increased its share of inward investment from the EU and from US companies, while the UK's share remained about the same. This is not just wishful thinking—there is concrete evidence to suggest that cutting taxes can create that bigger economic cake over the medium to longer term for the benefit of the whole of society, especially its more vulnerable elements.

At the moment, we have a British Government who are going the other way. In the past 10 years, they have marched in the wrong direction against the trend of lower taxation that has been evident across much of Europe as a whole. There is no shortage of statistics in this regard, and I suppose that one can always bend an argument to one's own way of thinking by choosing the right ones. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that if we are to reach a relatively independent assessment of the tax burden on individuals in this country, a good and objective measure is tax freedom day—the day each year on which the average British taxpayer stops working for the Government and starts working for himself. Back in 1964, tax freedom day fell on St. George's day, 23 April. In 1997, it had reached 25 May. Last year, it was 2 June, and our forecast suggests that by next year it could be as late as 3 or 4 June.

Perhaps most worrying of all is the increasing burden of corporation tax. I accept that there has been a 2 per cent. cut in the main headline rate, but I am fearful of the effect that the Budget will have on small businesses. There is little doubt—and there can be little disagreement—that the tax take from small businesses under this Budget has increased. The increase from 19 per cent. to 22 per cent. by 2010 for small businesses gives the lie to the Chancellor's claim that this is a Budget for enterprise and prosperity.

The importance of small businesses to the UK economy should not be underestimated. More than 4 million small businesses make up over 99 per cent. of all enterprises in the UK. The Small Business Service has estimated that small businesses provide 47 per cent.—nearly half—of UK non-government employment, and 38 per cent. of the UK's turnover. Meanwhile, research by the Federation of Small Businesses shows that small firms created a phenomenal number of jobs—550,000 or over half a million—in the second half of the 1990s, compared with just 200,000 jobs created by large companies. These people are not fat cats or multinational businesses. Mostly, they are entrepreneurs who have an idea and are willing to risk their own money to get it off the ground. Small businesses are often the lifeblood of our local communities and high streets in constituencies up and down the country. Over time, many of them grow and contribute even more to the economy.

Were the Chancellor really determined to encourage prosperity and enterprise, he would not target tax increases on small businesses. He has claimed that the £50,000 capital allowance will result in many small businesses paying less tax, but we simply do not know whether that will be true. Many small businesses will not be able to take up that allowance, particularly in the service sector, which has done so much for the economy in the past. Many economists are still crunching the numbers, but the early indications are that netting off the introduction of a capital allowance will still mean that the Treasury takes hundreds of millions of pounds away from small businesses and into the Exchequer.

Nor should we forget the effect of bureaucracy. Allowances and credits might be good for business but they also generate more bureaucracy for firms. It is far simpler to give companies a cut in the tax that they pay, and let them make their own decisions about investments in research and development. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, the average small business already spends about 28 hours a week filling in forms for the Government. The Budget will add to that while increasing the burden of direct taxation. When I am out and about in my constituency, I am told by entrepreneurs that that is a growing problem, and that they have to spend a disproportionate amount of time filling in forms rather than concentrating on running their businesses. That bugbear has just been increased further by the Budget.

All parties might claim to be the party of small business, but the important thing to entrepreneurs is hard cash. It is easy to talk about cutting bureaucracy, but hard to do something about it. Entrepreneurs are fed up of hearing both main parties simply talking about cutting bureaucracy; they want hard evidence that the Government are serious about helping small businesses. Small businesses are fed up to the back teeth of the Government claiming to be the party of small business but failing to deliver and only increasing the tax burden.

I would like to hear a promise of tax cuts for small businesses. My back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest that if a Government promised a 1 per cent. cut in small business corporation tax for each year of a term, by the end of the five-year term a 5p cut in small business corporation tax would cost the Exchequer only about £1.2 billion. In the great scheme of things, that is not a lot of money, but it would create such good will for the Government of the day.

This was a disappointing Budget. Whether or not it is tax-cutting is disputable: only time will tell. What we do know is that too much money is going into unreformed public services, and that small businesses will suffer as a result of the Budget. That will be to the long-term detriment of this country.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick on an important and interesting debate and on his humour. The definition of Britishness has vexed historians, commentators and politicians, not just in recent years but, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, explained, as far back as the 1840s. The debate today has focused on many personal stories, with many noble Lords defining their identity with reference to their stories. In that spirit, I offer some characteristics that define me.

Born and raised in Dewsbury, I am a Yorkshirewoman. My working-class parents came from Pakistan but were of Kashmiri extraction. I am also a lawyer, a single mum and a Conservative, who enjoys her saris as much as her skirts and Yorkshire pudding as much as chicken masala. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, when talking about Muslim women in your Lordships' House, even described me in a generic way as "uppity". More recently I seem to be defined by my religion. I am a Muslim and find it quite disturbing in recent times to be asked the question, "Are you British first or Muslim first?". I am sure many Members of your Lordships' House watch the programme "Stars in their Eyes", where people who want to be a certain superstar come out and say, "Matthew, today I will be...". I question whether I should be having those moments every morning and saying, "Today I shall be one or the other".

When this question is framed, it is about defining loyalty. At a time when there is a sense of unease in some of our communities, it may be a question that we need to ask, but it is one that I find very un-British. Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, my family has served in the British Army. Loyalty was shown by both by my maternal and paternal grandfathers to the British Army long before my parents arrived on these shores, so I am sure your Lordships' House will forgive me if I find this question uncomfortable and very un-British.

I accept that there are concerns. In September 2007 the Commission for Racial Equality's paper A Lot Done, a Lot to Do stated that that segregation—

"residentially, socially and in the workplace"—

was growing and that political and religious extremism was on the rise. The Department for Communities and Local Government's 2007 Citizenship Survey found that perceptions of cohesion were least positive among our young—those aged 25 to 34. Some 77 per cent had a negative perception of cohesion, and more than half, 56 per cent, felt that there was more racial prejudice in Britain now than there was five years ago. In the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the Church has muddled its way through, but I argue that for the past decade this Government too have muddled their way through on creating cohesion in our communities and a comfortable sense of Britishness.

The Government and the Prime Minister have floated a number of initiatives: noble Lords may recall that one was a national motto—six words to encapsulate our nation—or a statement of values, as it was later referred to. To find these it was suggested that we would have citizens' summits or citizens' juries. I would be interested if the Minister could tell your Lordships' House what progress has been made on creating that statement of values and how many citizens' summits have actually taken place.

A national British day was also proposed. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government still intend to have this national holiday and, if so, whether it will continue to be the August bank holiday, as Liam Byrne, the Minister for Immigration, suggested until it was discovered that it was not a holiday in Scotland, which undermined the Britishness of the whole plan? Is that proposal to fail too? There were also issues about St George's Day. The Prime Minister encouraged us to fly the flag, but there was a complete lack of funding for celebrating St George's Day. I would also be interested in the Minister's response regarding the removal of Britannia from British coins.

I could go on, but time does not permit that. However, I make one generic point that has been a feature of the Government's state multiculturalism approach to minority communities. It has been clunking, headline-driven on many occasions, and unsophisticated in its homogenous approach. As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, they have been seen as monolithic blocks.

I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who raised concerns on segregation and said that we must look for a way forward. She said that opportunity and access to creating a better understanding were essential. That is why I commend the announcement by the right honourable David Cameron of a six-week national school-leavers' programme, the national citizen service. That will help to unite our young. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who said that the definition of Britishness must be inclusive and aspirational. We cannot bully people into belonging.

A number of noble Lords mooted the question of what binds us together. Let me suggest a few answers. First, access to the learning of the English language must be essential. In recent times, I have had concerns about the reduction of funding through the Learning and Skills Council for English as a second language, the obsessional focus on targets and qualifications rather than the skills to live in Britain, and the number of women who say, "I do not need an NVQ level 1 or 2; I need to know how to speak to my doctor and my children's teachers. I need skills, not qualifications". I take issue with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who described the concept of education as the "western liberal tradition of education". When as a child I was taught about the value and privilege of a free education in Britain, I was also taught about my duty as a Muslim to seek and acquire knowledge. That is why I am proud to say that this is a universal value. To suggest otherwise does not assist understanding.

I also suggest a return to the equality of opportunity agenda, which is about treating members of British minority-ethnic communities as individuals rather than as monolithic blocs, robustly tackling racism and other barriers to equality, and honestly tackling those issues that leave communities behind. I cite forced marriages as an example, which in the past we have stepped away from dealing with by saying that it is a cultural issue. We must not hide behind the screen or excuse of cultural sensitivity. If a young girl who is brown goes missing from school and we do not inquire about it because she has Bengali roots, but if a white girl goes missing we send social services around, we are not providing the equality of opportunity agenda, because two girls in this country are being treated differently because of their colour. This is not cultural sensitivity; this is wrong.

There should be a proper teaching of our history, rooted in our institutions and how they came about, an understanding of the challenges that we have historically faced on identity and the ways in which we have overcome them. That is because we will truly move forward with depth of understanding only if we have a depth of understanding of where we came from.

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the European Union does not constitute the whole of Europe and that therefore "Europe Day" is a misnomer. As the Government's policy is now to promote Britishness, does she agree that perhaps we should have a British Day, even though it might be called St George's Day?

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will support the celebration of St George's day (23 April) by making it a national day of local food procurement for all public sector bodies.

My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, both on his choice of subject and on the way in which he introduced the debate. He did this with an elegant conviction that is characteristic both of himself and of the intellectual tradition to which, as he told us, he belongs. It is a conviction that brings a cool logic—although in my view not always an irresistible logic—to bear on modern problems. That is the same logic that would convert our counties and cities into regions, this House into a body of wholly elected politicians, and—one day, although not today—our monarchy into a republic. It is the oldest philosophical argument in British politics: it is Hume and Paine against Burke and Disraeli. What I would argue his approach lacks is an understanding of certain loyalties and emotions that help to form us and keep us going in this country.

As regards government, there is no formal, clanking machinery to describe the relationship between the Church of England and the government of this country. There is, rather, a series of distinct and subtle relationships. When I was at the Home Office, and again at the Foreign Office, I used occasionally to cross the river, go to Lambeth and discuss with the Archbishop of Canterbury matters that were on my mind and about which I thought I needed advice that I believed he could give. This was not exclusive; there were others whom I consulted from time to time. However, with the Archbishop of Canterbury it was a natural visit. It needed no explanation on either side. It was useful to me and conceivably to him. I certainly did not feel that I was enmeshing him, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, or that he was enmeshing me. I do not recall an occasion when the Archbishop urged me to follow a foreign policy that would lead us into war for religious purposes, as the noble Lord feared might have happened.

If that is true of the subordinate offices, it must be more true of matters about which I know much less; namely, the private and continuous relationships, as of right and as of office, between the Prime Minister and the Archbishop and between the Queen herself and the Archbishop. The good in these types of relationships is in my view clear and I do not see the harm. There would be harm if the Church became a tool or any ally of any particular government. However, I do not believe that it can seriously be argued that that is a danger now. We have moved a little way from the time of the Great Reform Bill and the Duke of Wellington.

The two most famous actions for which I suppose the previous Archbishop, Archbishop Runcie, will be remembered were his sermon in St Paul's Cathedral on the occasion of the Falklands memorial service and the publication of Faith in the City. Members of the government to whom I belonged were highly critical of both those matters at the time. I believe that both pronouncements stand up well. However, whatever their merits, no one can say that the Archbishop was acting as in some way a tool or ally of government. Archbishop Runcie himself used the phrase "critical solidarity". I do not think that that is at all a bad way of describing the potent relationships between government and the Church. Of course others also speak by virtue of their personalities of spiritual matters when they believe that the nation needs such a voice. But the Archbishop does so by virtue of his office. Much is expected of him, perhaps more now in the time of mass media. Again, the good is clear; I do not see the harm.

I remember going to France on the occasion of the D-day memorial celebrations, in 1994, and attending some of the British service commemorations that took place, as your Lordships will remember, along the beaches that day. The then French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, courteously came with me. Afterwards, I asked him how our services differed from those which would have occurred on a French occasion. He said at once, "You have much more religion in your form of service. You have hymns and a blessing". We are of course familiar with that because of what happens at the Cenotaph each November, when we all recall moments of death, fear, courage and sacrifice. These are moments when people of all faiths are more likely to think of God and need God. I think it is right that we should have that particular dimension in our remembrances. However, that is a product and the result of the relationship that we are discussing today. Again, the good is clear; I do not see the harm.

We come in all shapes and sizes, not only in this House but in this nation. I happen to live in a benefice in Oxfordshire with 10 ancient village churches which are reasonably well attended, although not as well attended as they were. Many people go to other churches and even more stay at home. However, almost everyone, I think, in each of those villages looks on the church—that building, that place—as their church, the church of their community and of their nation. The test of that is a very practical one. I am always amazed at the way in which people are prepared to contribute truly large sums, whatever their own religious views or lack of views, to keep these churches in good repair.

Of course it is different in the cities. We are all familiar with the Victorian spire presiding over a neighbourhood that has totally changed since that church was built. In the talk that the Archbishop of Canterbury gave on St George's Day, to which the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has referred, the Archbishop said of the cities that,

"the draining away of services and resources at periods of economic hardship has meant that the parish priest has been at times a crucial focus for keeping beleaguered neighbourhoods afloat and for breathing into them a vision of new life and worth and purpose. Sometimes, the parish priest is the only professional person still living in the area he or she serves".

We are talking of the biggest voluntary organisation in the country, with 13,000 parishes, and the only organisation of its kind that provides anything like a comprehensive network.

It is not a question of whether this situation changes; of course it changes. It is not a question of resisting or denying change, but of deciding whether that change takes place in harmony or by some abrupt break. The Church of England, like the Church of Scotland, was established, as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said, by rough decisions of kings and queens. In its early days, both Churches used their authority roughly and to the exclusion of others. However, I do not think that that could conceivably be described as the situation today.

I declare an interest at this point as High Steward of Westminster Abbey. The funeral recently of Her Majesty the Queen Mother was conducted by the Archbishops, flanked by the Cardinal, flanked by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, flanked by leaders of other Christian denominations and other faiths. All took part. However, they took part in the natural place, using their own words alongside the traditional language. I do not suppose that the next Coronation will be in the same shape as the Coronation of the Queen in 1953, because much has changed during that time. However, are we to say that the Coronation of the next sovereign is not to be in the Abbey, not to be conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, not to be a symbol of the nation gathered in that way to offer prayers and good wishes to the sovereign? I think that such a conclusion would be harsh and wrong. However, it is in the logic that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has set out.

We learned from those who circled the coffin of the Queen Mother, not far from here, why they came. When asked, they all talked of a link with the past. The past is a different country where they do things differently, as Alan Bennett said. Many of our fellow citizens come from pasts quite different from our own, and we recognise that. However, they are now here in this country with our distinctive past. So let us change where change is needed, but in harmony with that past, keeping the links that help to hold us together. I believe that, of the links, the one we are discussing today is not the least important.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I wish her a happy St. George's Day. Does she accept that it is an appropriate day to focus on the discrepancies in protection for children in England compared to those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Can she confirm that the powers of the Children's Rights Director are not the same as those of the Children's Commissioner for Wales? He is not an advocate for children in the same way and he does not go around actively seeking the views of children and basing his priorities on those views. Is the Minister aware that the children's charities are so convinced of the need for such an advocate that they have used their budgets to establish an office of children's rights in London, which acts as a de facto commissioner although it receives no support from the Government? Can she give a timetable for the establishment of a children's commissioner for England?