Good morning, Mr. Caton. I welcome you to the Chair, and this rich galaxy of parliamentary talent to our debate. I begin by declaring an interest as the father of a four-year-old boy, Oliver, who has been diagnosed as exhibiting the characteristics of high-functioning autism. In addition, I thank the National Autistic Society, TreeHouse, Research Autism and Buckinghamshire county council for their invaluable briefings for this debate.

Autism is a complex, lifelong neurological condition that affects a person’s ability to communicate with and relate to other people. It is estimated that approximately one in every 100 school-aged children is on the autism spectrum. The vast majority, approximately 70 per cent., are in mainstream schools. They are, I am sorry to say, three times more likely to experience mental health problems than their non-autistic peers. Equally, it is estimated that only about 12 per cent. of them end up in employment. The cost annually of that sector of the child population is thought to be about £2.8 billion.

I emphasise that we are talking about a spectrum condition, which implies that there are many variants on the theme. The nature and intensity of the difficulty and the resulting need can and do vary substantially, but to encapsulate the concept I would say that all autistic people have one characteristic in common. They all suffer from the triad of impairments: that is to say, they suffer from problems of social communication, social imagination and social interaction.

In the course of this debate and in my opening remarks, I shall focus on three principal issues. In order to learn and be educated, a child or young person must be safely in a setting in which he or she can do so. It should therefore be a legitimate matter of ongoing and serious concern to right hon. and hon. Members that people on the autism spectrum are disproportionately more likely—to be pedantic and precise, approximately nine times more likely—to be excluded from school than their non-autistic peers. That is a salutary and disturbing thought. Typically, 27 per cent. of children on the autistic spectrum are excluded, compared with 3 or 4 per cent. of their non-autistic counterparts.

Significantly, however, there is an additional and more disturbing phenomenon—not merely exclusion of an official kind but unofficial, informal, sometimes internal and frequently if not invariably unrecorded exclusions of children and young people. I refer in this context to the TreeHouse constructive campaigning parent support project survey report following research conducted between January and July 2007, the results of which, in summary or detailed form, have recently winged their way to the Minister of State. That report found, alarmingly, that 43 per cent. of respondent parents said that their child had been excluded from school at least once, and possibly more than once, in the previous 12 months.

Members, wise and savvy as they are, will know that guidance exists on exclusions, of course. I do not know whether the Minister thinks it is necessary to send the guidance—all 80 pages of it—to schools again to remind them of their responsibilities to cater effectively within the school for the needs of the child. If he is reluctant to do so, which I can understand, I hope he will accept at the very least that memories should be stirred and schools should be reminded of page 15 of the latest guidance—I think it is paragraph 27, but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—which underlines that unofficial exclusions, even with the parents’ consent, are illegal. They are not just undesirable, ill-advised and a failure to cater to the needs of the child but illegal.

Let me give an example of unofficial exclusion, culled from the annals of briefings from the National Autistic Society: a teacher says simply to the parent of a child, “It would be better if he went home.” Very often, disability and disobedience are mistakenly and ignorantly conflated. It is incredibly important to get a grip on the distinction between the two.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem is that, as a recent survey by the National Union of Teachers found, 44 per cent. of teachers are not confident teaching children who are on the autistic spectrum? That pressure could lead to some of those exclusions.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is true that work force training—not merely of teachers but of the entire children’s work force—is the elephant in the room in this debate. My loyal friend, with his helpful prompt, will not be surprised to know that I shall return to it in due course.

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying, but before he leaves the subject of exclusions, may I ask whether he is aware that some teachers, knowing it is illegal to exclude in such a way, will say to parents, “It would be better if you withdrew your child from this school and found another school; then we wouldn’t have to exclude”, without telling the parent that it would be illegal for them to exclude?

That is both true and outrageous. In addition, it is not uncommon for it to be decided that an awkward, administratively inconvenient, potentially distracting or expensive pupil should be relegated to the veritable dumping ground of a pupil referral unit—75 per cent. of whose occupants have special educational needs—when many of them are profoundly unsuited to that substandard educational provision, which I know the Government are seeking to improve. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

On bullying, some 40 per cent. of parents of children on the autistic spectrum say that their child has been bullied by other children. Sometimes bullies are excluded from school—temporarily or, in extremis, permanently—but I am sorry to say that sometimes it is not the bully who is excluded but the bullied, again due to the bureaucratic mindset that “it would be better if he didn’t distract”. Often, children are excluded at key and predictable times, such as just before Christmas, to coincide with a school inspection, visit, play or something of that kind. That is intolerable.

Let us be clear what bullying means. It might be physical or verbal, or through discrimination; it might be abuse, theft or neglect. I think of a parent who told TreeHouse, “My son has been bullied to the point of wanting to end his own life, and he has self-harmed.” The Government have published guidance on bullying, as recently as September 2008 and running to 55 pages, on which I congratulate the Minister, but there is a difference between publishing guidance and ensuring compliance with it. We need data to be published. We need regular checks. We need comprehensive area assessments to kick in.

I politely suggest two things to the Minister. First, let us have a theme of anti-bullying, segmented during different parts of the year—bullying of the disabled, bullying of gay, lesbian or bisexual pupils, bullying on grounds of race—that underlines the evil, stresses the strategies available to deal with it, incentivises improved performance and offers arrays of carrots and sticks to deal properly with the matter.

Furthermore, in the course of the 2009 consideration and review of special educational needs provision in this country, to which the Government are already committed, it might be a good idea for Ofsted to look at the phenomena of exclusion and bullying to see how better to address the matter. That would be in the interests of the children concerned and of their families who very often lose work opportunities, have to take time off—sometimes unpaid—to cope with the consequences of having to pick up a child early or have to secure additional help or medical assistance for him or her. We cannot allow such matters to rest.

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentions Ofsted. We will be debating different aspects of children with autism and their learning. Research shows that aggressive measures to target barriers faced by autistic children, such as poor communication and language, can open up the curriculum, which means that they learn far better. The results are astounding. Should Ofsted not look at all the educational experiences of children with autism? In other words, should it not make that a theme for a study across the piece?

It should be the subject of serious, and possibly quite lengthy and well-financed research, as the hon. Lady says. I hope that she will share that wisdom with the wider constituency of Erewash.

I want to move on to the critical subject of the identification of, and support for, children and young people, up to 16-plus, on the autistic spectrum. We should be ashamed that 45 per cent. of parents say that they have to wait a year, or more, from the moment when they flag up their concern about a potentially autistic child to the point at which they receive assistance. What is needed as a matter of urgency is support tailored to the particular needs and circumstances of the individual child. There is no absolute answer to such matters, and of course there is no known cause of autism and indeed no established cure.

Support is of the essence, be it through the use of stress alert cards in the school environment; the use of symbols, pictures or photos; the use of differentiated break times divided up into bite-size chunks, which an autistic child can more successfully manage; the use of designated quiet places where an autistic child can escape the noise, the bustle, the disturbance and anxiety caused to him or her by being surrounded by a large number of other people; the development of social skills programmes; the use of picture exchange communication systems, which have been peer reviewed and judged by the university of Southampton to be one of the most efficacious interventions yet devised; through early intensive behavioural intervention, which has been similarly well reviewed, although it is the subject of some academic and other controversy; or through support in the home. The last of those is critical, because we are seeking a seamless provision of care and effective help for the child. Often a child gets terrific support in the school setting, but then—we are told this by children and parents—when the child comes home, everything falls apart. That interaction and communication between the school and the parent and child is of the essence.

We require a continuum of support, not in any one hon. Member’s constituency but across the country—a continuum of provision, of different types of tailored and specified suitable education. In some cases, that will involve mainstream schools with support; in others, it will involve resourced units or departments for children on the autistic spectrum with greater needs, and in others, particularly in the more acute or severe cases with intense and ongoing need, it will involve a special school.

My part of the country—Buckinghamshire—has six resourced units for autistic children at primary level, and two at secondary level, but it is very much a postcode lottery across the country. We know from the research evidence—and we should be concerned about and challenged by this—that 50 per cent. of parents of autistic children judge that their child is in the wrong setting and that autism cases account for 25 per cent. of all the cases that go to the special educational needs and disability tribunal. If right hon. and hon. Members think that the situation is not great at the primary level and tends to deteriorate further at secondary level, they have seen nothing unless they reflect on the phenomenon of the paucity of provision post-16. The Commission for Social Care Inspection said that transition services from secondary school to post-16 are “a nightmare”.

I do not want—it would not be right—to allow this debate to degenerate merely into a relentless diet of negativity, and nor, in my judgment, is it principally a matter of partisan conflict between Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. We should pay tribute to, champion and celebrate good work. Let me refer, therefore, to the National Autistic Society Barnet branch, working in conjunction with Aimhigher. It provides information, support and guidance to children and young people seeking to enter further or higher education. It has pioneered—it is a trailblazer—fantastic transition schools that assist in this important public policy objective. It runs a disabled students ambassador scheme, and the programme as a whole won the voluntary sector organisation of the year award at the London education partnership awards in 2007. That shows what can be achieved in the interests of the child or young person with application, creativity, vision and persistence.

As an example of working in partnership, the National Autistic Society and Gloucestershire county council have funded an autism spectrum co-ordinator, whose job is to work with the council, the primary care trust and all the other providers of public services, to draw them together, to highlight need and to ensure that they deliver those services more seamlessly to the families and children who need them. Perhaps that good model could be rolled out more widely across the country.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I would go so far as to suggest that the fact that that model was rolled out was due in no small measure to his perseverance and effectiveness. His self-effacement prevents him from claiming the credit for that important work.

I said earlier, in response to an intervention, that the elephant in the room is the training of the work force. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), has rightly highlighted the NUT survey, which found that 44 per cent. of teachers are not confident teaching children on the autistic spectrum. I can add another statistic: 76 per cent. of respondents said that the lack or complete absence of continuing professional development was the principal barrier to effective provision for this category of children. We cannot be satisfied or indifferent about that, and it requires public policy responses.

Again, I welcome some of what is being done. The Government are to be applauded on the online development of the inclusion development programme, and specifically on the segment of it that will cater to the needs of autistic children or young people from 2009. Similarly, it is right that all new special educational needs co-ordinators will have to be qualified teachers. I congratulate the Minister on the Government’s funding of the Autism Education Trust to the tune, initially, of £135,000 and, in the second year, of £320,000, if my memory serves me correctly.

I know the Minister, and he knows me extremely well. I hope that he will not consider me carping or churlish if I say that he and I have different roles in this place. He is a very senior, distinguished, respected and popular member of the Executive, whose responsibility it is to fashion policy and sell it to the nation, aided and abetted by the people behind him, whom it would not be appropriate to name in this Chamber. My role is rather different. I am a humble Back Bencher—more accurately, I am a Back Bencher who ought to be humble, which is not quite the same thing. However, the responsibility of right hon. and hon. Members on the Back Benches—be they on the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Ulster Unionist, Welsh nationalist or Scottish nationalist Benches, supported by the plethora of effective campaigning and advocacy organisations in the sector—is not to rest content with modest though welcome achievements, but constantly to raise the bar and challenge the Government to do more on such important matters.

I say to the Minister that there is a difference between a permissive and a prescriptive approach to training. I know that the Government like things to be done at local level and want a degree of flexibility, and it is all very well to say that there are opportunities for, an availability of or potential access to training, but it is another matter to say that it will be provided. It is another matter to say that staff back-filling will take place, that courses will run and that people will attend them. Autism-specific training is necessary not only for teachers and SENCOs, but for all members of the children’s work force. It should be a prerequisite of obtaining qualified teacher status that one has had the appropriate training. Half a day’s training on special educational needs as part of initial teacher training is not only lamentably inadequate, but a rather wounding insult to that sector of children and young people for whom it is our responsibility to cater. Far more needs to be done, and all SENCOs, be they new or old, should have appropriate training.

I am conscious that other colleagues wish to contribute their pearls of wisdom to the debate, and I strongly appreciate and respect the fact that at this relatively early hour, with a busy parliamentary day ahead of us, so many colleagues have come along. That shows the level of interest in, passion for and commitment to this incredibly important cause.

In some respects, policy is much better. I know that I will get myself into trouble with the usual channels on my own Benches, but, as I think the Minister knows, I long ago gave up any interest in securing a good term card from the Opposition Chief Whip. That is a matter of total indifference to me; I believe in paying tribute where tribute is due. I have every regard for the Secretary of State, who has taken a greater interest in special educational needs than any Secretary of State in recent memory. That is marvellous, and provision is better in some cases. There are plans for more facilities to be rolled out and for greater research, increased investment, peer review and all the rest, but the reality is that too many children and young people have suffered too much, for too long and with too little being done to help them. The time has come when we should say that up with this we will not put. We need to broker a step change in performance and activity.

In common with many right hon. and hon. Members on not only the Conservative Benches but elsewhere, I am an absolutely unstinting admirer of the late and great Sir Winston Churchill, one of the finest figures in the history of our country. He said to the House of Commons, on another subject, but pithily and fittingly for today’s debate:

“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals”—

one can almost hear him saying it—

“is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.”—[Official Report, 20 July 1910; Vol. XIX, c. 1354.]

To that proposition, so eloquently enunciated by the late Winston Churchill, I readily sign up, but I put it to colleagues, and this is the challenge, that if that is true, it surely is true in triplicate of our attitude to and provision for people with disabilities. Let us be explicit, those who have more severe autism often suffer from what might be called a hidden or invisible disability, but they are every bit as disabled as someone who is blind or partially sighted, deaf, mute or deprived of one of their limbs.

We have a responsibility to do more for a number of reasons, first, because it is the right and decent thing for a civilised society to do, and, secondly, because it is in the authentic self-interest of this country that we do so, for otherwise we will waste a vast, untapped, precious resource of talent and potential that could enrich our country. In an age in which a job for life is a relic of the past, and given the premium placed upon knowledge, education and the ability to communicate, it is vital that we do more to assist this category of children. It is not really about changing people’s minds, although in some cases it is a matter of refining and improving their attitudes; it is about, in the competitive marketplace of political ideas and potential policy decisions, catapulting provision for autistic children and young people from the back of the minds of Ministers, decision makers and policy framers, to the front. Having so catapulted the subject, it is about keeping it fairly and squarely there into the future. Our sense of common humanity and our commitment to progress demand nothing less. There is so much to do, and people are waiting. They expect us to perform, and we must not let them down.

Order. Before I call the next speaker, it is only fair to inform Members that I have eight Back Benchers listed who want to speak. I have to call the Front Benchers to speak at 10.30 am, so the shorter the contributions, the more Members who will get in.

I take your point, Mr. Caton, and I will try to be brief.

The fact that right hon. and hon. Members always expect an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) should not be an impediment to our saying that we have just heard an outstanding speech. In the 20 or so minutes in which he introduced this important debate, he has outlined the problems, challenges and achievements in this field. I want to deal with one of the last points that he made when he talked about potential. He told us, in that beautifully comprehensive address, that although we have made progress, although there have been achievements and although there are many dedicated people in this field, not least in teaching, this issue is all about society ensuring that the potential of every child is recognised, encouraged and achieved.

I should like to reflect not only on the excellent reception yesterday that was sponsored by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), at which she focused on other aspects of this important issue, but on a gathering and art exhibition that I attended recently in Glasgow, at which impressive works of art were on display. We assembled there and speeches were made, and as happens at these occasions—the same was true yesterday—there was a little disturbance; we have come to expect such things. I think that we were all transfixed by an outstanding painting that transcended everything else in that first-class exhibition. However, it was not until four or five minutes into the speeches that we realised that the young woman who was making a little noise was the artist of that outstanding work and showed such potential.

The hon. Member for Buckingham pursued some excellent arguments about getting education right and ensuring that teacher training deals with this issue. That is important, and what the National Union of Teachers has said is significant. Beyond that, it is important that we as a society prepare children, in the same classes and schools as children who experience autism, regarding what they can do and how this is a part of society, not least because nobody can predict what their futures will bring and whether autism might enter their lives. They should be encouraged to take a positive approach to this issue.

I want to deal briefly with the important issue of transition, which emerged in a report by the all-party group on disabled children and their families, which I had the honour of chairing a couple of years ago. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that for many children who experience autistic spectrum disorder, that point of transition is absolutely crucial to them and the world in which they live, and it is crucial to their families and their future. I shall not draw the hon. Gentleman into the argument about resources, particularly in Scotland, but I have put it on the record. Apart from planning for the future, in the field of transition especially, more resources must be made available.

The whole debate is about people rejecting the view that out of sight is out of mind. It is about addressing the problems that exist, as the hon. Gentleman did, acknowledging what is being done, being angry about what is not being done and demanding change where it is necessary. Some of us who sponsored the ten-minute Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton received a very interesting e-mail from a gentleman called Jamie Stewart. I have not met him, but he said that what he was about to tell us was not a scientific account of how people react, but an account of the National Audit Office focus group in which he took part. He said that four out of seven parents had experienced divorce, and two had become carers of a partner who had suffered a breakdown. We therefore owe it to parents of children who experience autism, and to the children themselves, to continue to focus on this crucial issue. This morning, the hon. Member for Buckingham has yet again shown how it can and should be done, but I do not expect him to say that this will be his final speech on the issue; he will have to make many more. In doing so, however, he can feel sure that he will have the warmth and support that we offer him today.

Living with autism is a real struggle for many families, and, for the vast majority of people, it is something that happens to somebody else’s family. That is why today’s debate is important, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) on keeping it on the Government’s agenda.

For the people who are directly affected when a diagnosis is made, there is often a lack of information immediately available—where to go, what to do, who to contact, what help is available to families, what they are entitled to and what battles they will have to fight in the years ahead. If one message has come through loud and clear from parents, it is that in most cases they have to fight a constant battle to get even a fraction of the help, support and the education that their child needs.

Yesterday, we heard a very eloquent speech by a 22-year-old with autism who was doing a great job as a trainer of people working with those affected by autism. Unfortunately, her early education consisted of being bullied, spat on, called a freak and leaving her school because it could not cope with her behaviour. Fortunately, she survived and made progress later in life, so we must ensure that what happened to her a decade or so ago is not what children in the education system, either today or in the future, have to experience.

The hon. Gentleman eloquently laid out the challenges before us, and as the findings of the Bercow review have done much to frame the issue and bring it to the attention of Parliament, I put on the record my appreciation of the work that he has done in the past, his speech today and the work that he will no doubt do in the future. I would say he never could be described as humble.

Many parents of autistic children, desperate for help and support, will be encouraged by today’s debate, and we owe it to them to ensure that they are not let down. Although it is vital that we commit more resources to providing better education and more flexible support, that in itself will have a limited impact if parents are not aware of all the help to which they are entitled because, over recent years, much of the talk in education policy has emphasised the need for parental choice. However, owing to the complexity of the system and to a lack of information, it is often very difficult for parents of autistic children to make informed choices, and the Minister’s comments on the best way to overcome that information vacuum would be most welcome. Indeed, just yesterday, I was reading about the amount of unclaimed pension credit: it is one thing to provide the help, it is another thing altogether to ensure that the right people receive it.

The importance of accurate information extends beyond the help that we provide to parents, experts and policy makers. Research by TreeHouse into the huge number of parliamentary questions about autism which never receive any answer rightly illustrates the huge gaps in our knowledge. Similarly, the information deficit extends to the lack of understanding among teachers, as we have heard, social workers and even medical experts.

The other point on which I should appreciate the Minister’s comments is support for the transition from childhood to adulthood. The support that young people receive as they leave school is critical to their future success, and for many young people with autism, it is a particularly stressful time as they leave behind the support that they have had through school and move on to a new life. For youngsters with autism, even small changes to their routine can be very difficult, so professionals and services need to plan ahead effectively and consult young people and their families to ensure that the young person is able to move on successfully to opportunities that are appropriate to them. Far too often, it does not happen. Only 15 per cent. of adults with autism are in full-time employment, while more than 40 per cent. still live at home with their parents. Much good work is done during school years, but it can all too easily be undone if young people with autism are abandoned by the system when they reach adulthood.

In my constituency, there is a young man with autism called Calum Reavley, whom I recently visited. His parents, grandparents, family and friends, and many more people, often work day and night to give Calum the good start in life that he deserves. Life is a constant battle for education, for respite care and for everything else. Surely, we have the resources to provide the education, help and support that people such as Calum deserve. As his family watch billions of pounds being pumped in to save the financial sector today, they will be asking, “Why is it so hard, and why is there so little help available for us?” I look forward to the Minister’s answer.

I, too, shall be brief, because of the number of Members who want to speak. I shall make just four suggestions, but first I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and congratulate him on bringing the issue to us today. I am not sure that he is the man whom I would choose to write a plain English guide, but he is certainly the right man to lead our debate today, and I enjoyed his speech and I agreed with everything that he said.

I became interested in the subject when I first became an MP and three constituents, all with autistic children, came to me. They wanted Lovaas technique to help their children, but their local council said that they could not have it, although it could provide an alternative that was just as good. My constituents decided that one of them would take a test case to a special educational needs tribunal. The council was represented by a barrister and won the case, but it then changed its mind, granted Lovaas technique to the two parents who had not gone to the tribunal and said that it was now ultra vires to provide Lovaas technique to the parent who had gone to the tribunal. That struck me as an entirely inappropriate way to deal with education and parents’ requirements. As a follow up, the father who did not receive Lovaas technique provided it privately—at great expense to himself and his family. It put such pressure on the marriage that it broke up, but the child did so well that they were able to go back into mainstream schooling at the secondary stage. That is what can happen if one secures the right support for a child, but it could have been done without all the pressure that was put on that family. Far too many cases go to tribunal, and when one gets there one finds that the council is represented by a barrister, and that, as a parent, it is against the rules to get legal aid for one’s representation. My first practical suggestion is therefore that every council should provide an independent and professional friend at its expense to help parents to prepare and present their case. They do not need to be a barrister; they just need to be somebody who knows what they are doing and can help to ensure that the parents’ case is properly presented and the playing field levelled up.

Has the hon. Gentleman considered that his suggestion should apply well before the parents ever get to a tribunal? We should give independent advocacy assistance to parents who suspect that they need a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder but do not know where to get it, how to gain access to it or how to argue for it.

I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that intervention feeds very nicely into my next point. When the Government made it a requirement that a parent could insist on a mainstream school place for a disabled child, they did not take away the right to insist on a special school place. One of the problems that we have is that there is the wrong balance in many areas between the number of special places available and the number of parents who want their child to go to those special schools.

My second suggestion is that we should undertake a professional and comprehensive needs survey. Let us work out exactly how many people there are with autism who might benefit from mainstream schooling, so that councils can get their provision right, because far too many councils are basing provision on cost rather than on need. May I make another suggestion? As I have already said and as we all know, the earlier that we intervene, recognise that someone has autism and get them the right support that they need, the better they will do. We have a huge opportunity coming up, because the Prime Minister has announced that we will provide a nursery school place for all two-year-olds whose parents want such a place. Why do we not say that everybody who is responsible for looking after a two or three-year-old in nursery education must have autism training, so that they can recognise the signs of a child who has autism and can ensure that that child is referred elsewhere in the education system to get the right sort of help?

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the call that he has just made, for greater early identification and by implication greater early intervention, is strengthened by the fact that it comes not only from him and other hon. and right hon. Members but from a report that was published only about five days ago by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which exhorted the British Government to provide greater early identification? The Government should take a lead from that report.

Absolutely. I would add that, if we can achieve greater awareness of autism in our nursery schools, we should also teach teachers and doctors to listen to mums, because it is usually mums who spot the signs of autism first but they are usually told, “Go away, you’re just being a worrying mum.” We should therefore improve the system so that we are actually listening to mums when they raise these concerns.

Finally, the Department for Education and Skills, the predecessor of the Department for Children, Schools and Families, published a best practice guide for autism a few years ago. In fact, two guides were produced; one for health and one for education. The one for education is particularly good and it is effectively a checklist to establish whether a local authority is really doing the things it ought to be doing to ensure that the right provision is available and that the right support is provided for parents. A local authority that has followed that best practice guide provides services at an acceptable level, so why do we not make it compulsory for Ofsted to go through that best practice guide at every inspection of a local authority and challenge it to make sure that it is living up to the guide? At the moment, it is effectively left to parents to use that guide to test their local authority, but it should be done by Ofsted, and the local authority should be forced to come up to the mark.

I want to reiterate the thanks that all Members have given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) for securing this debate. I know that many residents in my constituency will be following it with some interest.

As the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said, the pressure on families with children who have autism can be incredibly intense and it is a tragedy that so many of them suffer family breakdown as a result.

I would like to focus my remarks on the importance of specialist training for teaching autistic children. In my constituency of Basingstoke, I am fortunate to have a number of schools that specialise in dealing with autistic children and their particular needs. I would like to refer specifically to Dove House school, which offers secondary education for children in the north Hampshire area. It has been commended by Ofsted for its work in providing outstanding teaching for pupils with autism, thus enabling them to make great progress, by a number of means: the environment it creates for children; the tailored curriculum it creates for them; and the deep understanding that the teachers have of the needs of children with autism. Those factors have enabled the school to secure its high commendation from Ofsted for the outstanding progress that its pupils make. When I visit the school and talk to parents who have children there, I find it is those factors that they understand as really critical in providing an outstanding education for their children.

As hon. Members have already mentioned, 70 per cent. of children on the autistic spectrum are educated in mainstream schools. Some parents of autistic children choose for their children to be educated in mainstream schools; some do not, and the hon. Member for South Thanet is absolutely right to say that we need to understand more about the provision of education at local level for children with autism. For some children, it will be better to be in the mainstream sector. However, just because they are in the mainstream sector, it does not mean that the teaching, the sensitivity of the teaching and the school environment and the need to ensure that all those key factors are addressed is any less important.

As we know, TreeHouse does a great deal to campaign on behalf of children with autism and their parents. The report that it issued last month underlined the importance of tailoring education to the needs of the child. Quite worryingly, the report identified that there are still significant problems in delivering that tailored programme within the mainstream sector of education. The report identified that successful inclusion involves training staff about autism, so that the staff can then cater for a child’s individual needs and ensure that the correct environment exists for that child. Thus we see themes emerging.

However, as hon. Members have said, the National Union of Teachers’ own research shows that less than a third of teachers feel confident about teaching children who are on the autistic disorder spectrum, that two thirds of teachers want training and that three quarters of teachers have identified the lack of professional development as the main barrier to teaching children with autism.

I really welcome the Government’s announcement, made during the recess, that additional resources will be made available; I believe that there will be about £10 million more made available for training teachers. Certainly the focus on training SENCOs is absolutely key. It is encouraging that the Government understand the importance of training teachers before they reach the classroom. However, the focus of the Government’s announcement was those people undertaking undergraduate training. As the hon. Member for South Thanet will know very well, those people form the minority of teachers who are coming forward and going into our classrooms to teach children on a day-to-day basis.

I hope that the Minister will be able to flesh out a little some of the sketchy points that were made in the Government press release issued in the summer and perhaps give more details of the emphasis that will be given at undergraduate level to the training those students receive regarding special educational needs, particularly autism. Furthermore, can he tell us what will be done to ensure that people entering teaching through other routes, such as those taking the postgraduate certificate in education, will be given similar support? I am sure that he shares my concern about the continuing problem of retention in the teaching profession. If we are not ensuring that teachers who come into our classrooms have the tools of the trade to meet the needs of all the children in their classroom, we cannot hope to address the problem of retention.

Does the hon. Lady agree that this issue is not only about the ability to teach young people with particular special needs, whether it be autism or other conditions, but about the ability of teachers to identify those young people in their classrooms, which means giving teachers the tools and skills so that they can identify them? That is important so that we do not reach the situation that, sadly, one of my constituents finds himself in. He has reached the age of 15 and has only just been identified as being on the autistic spectrum.

The hon. Gentleman makes a very pertinent point. However, I hope that we are planning to have far earlier identification. Therefore, although it is important that teachers at primary and secondary level can identify children on the autistic spectrum, more should be done to identify such children earlier. Furthermore, the point that was made about GPs and the importance of ensuring that they listen to parents is probably just as valid.

My hon. Friend drew attention to the need for individual education for children—education tailored to their individual needs. That point highlights the need for the availability of continuing education, because a teacher who has a child in the class with particular needs may well need access to ongoing training, so that they can tailor their teaching specifically to that child. That is particularly important in small schools, where there may not be the other resources that may well be available in a larger school.

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Given the incidence of special educational needs in general, the need to ensure that continuous professional development is available, to meet the needs of a particular child or a particular teacher in a school, is absolutely vital. I know that my own local authority in Hampshire has a very extensive range of programmes available for teachers to dip into, but across the country there is a great concern that schools can often find it difficult to release teachers for such training. We need to make sure that that is addressed.

The outcomes for children are deeply worrying. We hear that exclusions, underachievement and unemployment are the recipe in the current situation. Obviously, some of the moves that the Government have made are to be welcomed, but there is much more to do. All of us are here today because of our interest in and commitment to children and helping every child to reach their potential, and children with autism especially deserve our help.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) not only on securing the debate and his passionate speech but on the work that he has done in raising awareness of the needs of children with speech and language difficulties.

I currently have the honour of chairing the all-party group on autism. I wish to thank the National Autistic Society and the other autism charities not only for their support of the group but for their support of people with autism.

In 2003, the all-party group published a manifesto that set out a 10-year vision for a society in which autism was fully understood and in which people on the autism spectrum and their families were respected and supported, and provided with the same rights and entitlements as other people. Education is central to the fulfilment of that vision. This debate provides a welcome opportunity to reflect on the progress that has been made towards the manifesto’s education objectives and the resulting outcomes for young people with autism. We are now five years into the 10-year period of the manifesto, and the all-party group is taking the opportunity at this halfway stage to review progress against the objectives. It will publish a report on it later this month.

We have come a long way over the past five years, and much progress has been made. For the first time, we have records of the number of pupils who have significant special educational needs as a result of autism. As others have said, there has been welcome progress recently on improving training for teachers, with the development of modules on special educational needs for initial teacher training, the development of the Autism Education Trust, which brings together autism organisations to improve support for pupils with autism, and the inclusion development programme, which will provide basic training in autism for practising teachers from next year. Again, as other Members have said, the appointment of special educational needs co-ordinators means that the members of staff who advise and lead on SEN in each school will now be required to have qualified teacher status and training in SEN.

Nevertheless, the all-party group supports what other Members have said this morning. It believes that the Government should go further and that there should be a mandatory requirement for all teachers to have training in autism to ensure that all children get the support that they need.

Despite the advances, children with autism and their families continue to face many difficulties and challenges as they go through the education system. Rates of exclusion and bullying are still far too high. In one terrible example, a child was excluded 77 times in just two years. Some young people with autism are unable to fulfil their potential in exams because the right support is not put in place. Because parents are blamed for their child’s behaviour by professionals who fail to understand autism, relationships deteriorate and parents feel increasingly isolated.

In some cases, teaching professionals refuse to accept diagnoses given by health professionals. Many children are unable to attend schools that are nearby and have to travel more than 10 miles to get to a school.

On the rejection of diagnoses, does the hon. Lady share my horror at the teacher who said to a parent, “I don’t believe in Asperger’s syndrome”? It is not a matter of belief but of fact and of tailoring educational provision accordingly.

I agree entirely. How we can have such comments in this day and age is difficult to understand.

I know that other Members want to participate. To conclude, there has been much progress on improving educational provision since the all-party group was founded in 2000, and the Government are to be congratulated on that. However, there is still a long way to go before we achieve the group’s vision of a society in which autism is fully understood and in which people on the autism spectrum are respected and supported, and provided with the same rights and entitlements as other people. Services need to be better joined up, and young people need more effective support to achieve their potential at school and to prepare for the next stage of their life.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Caton. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) described himself as a humble Back Bencher. I believe that many of us felt humbled listening to his introduction to the debate. I would like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said about the young lady Robin, who spoke at the National Autistic Society’s reception yesterday. She overcame many of the education hurdles that we have discussed to become a strong advocate for the rights of those who are diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders.

Time is short. Without straying into devolved territory, I was going to talk about the great progress that has been made in Wales, which is pioneering an ASD strategic action plan. I believe that it is the first such plan anywhere in the world, let alone in this country. It takes a cradle-to-grave approach to work on autism. I would like to highlight the pioneering work that Autism Cymru, a charity based in my constituency, has undertaken in its inclusive schools project, which seeks to promote an autism ambassador in every primary, secondary and specialist school in Wales. It has instigated a huge amount of training for education professionals: 5,000 practitioners since 2002, including school and college staff and learning support assistants.

I shall deviate completely from my planned speech because time is short. I spent 12 years in the classroom. I want to share some of the frustrations that I experienced as a teacher—frustrations borne, of course, by parents and young people themselves—with the vagaries and inadequacies of teacher training. I endured a postgraduate certificate in education course at an august institution in the west of England—I shall not say more than that. The entire special needs provision in that college amounted to four hours one Tuesday morning, during which Asperger’s was not even mentioned.

I then faced the challenge in an ordinary school in the west of England at that time and, latterly, in a school in Wales, of being summoned by the head teacher, told that a child with “communication difficulties” would be arriving at the school, and then very much left to fend for myself. That situation is one in which many teachers find themselves. That is why it is important that we acknowledge the evidence that we have heard from the National Union of Teachers, which recognises that there are serious shortfalls in the provision in schools.

Parents who come into my constituency surgeries are frustrated. A son has been provided with one-to-one support, a laptop and a sloping board, but he lacks the quiet room that he needs for him to achieve his education opportunities. Many parents have a perception that the educational statements that they fought long and hard for are not being adhered to, and there are concerns about transition, particularly from key stages 2 to 3, all of which were identified in the NAS’s report “make school make sense”. Above all else, many parents have a perception that professionals still lack a basic understanding of ASD. As we have just heard from the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), there is still no mandatory requirement for trainee or practising teachers to undertake specific training in autism, despite the requirement of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 to differentiate.

When I was writing my speech, I jotted down the word “problem”, but it is completely inappropriate. Yes, there is a challenge but there is also a huge opportunity. We know that those who function with Asperger’s syndrome are high achievers. There is huge untapped potential that we ignore at our peril and seen, and I am alarmed by that. I have been there myself and seen the child who is not paying attention, who has been distracted, who is sent out of the room. All those hidden exclusions that we heard about at the start of the debate are not being dealt with properly.

Education must involve a partnership between local education authorities, between LEAs and parents, and between children and teachers. That is central to this debate. The Government have made good progress. The teacher training modules and the advice that is being given are laudable, but they do not go far enough. Listening to earlier speeches, I felt like saying, “Been there, done that.” The reality of doing the postgraduate certificate course is that I was there but I did not get the training or support that I needed to deliver the curriculum across the board to everybody in my class.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who has been his usual analytical self. It was pleasing that he drew out strands of optimism, showing that we can, all working together, make progress.

Like other hon. Members, I shall focus on the importance of the individual child. We know that the condition of autism has many different manifestations. We really should not talk about “the autistic child” because there is not a typical condition relating to a particular child, although there are certain common characteristics. It never fails to amaze me, on walking into schools sometimes, to find that teachers do not appreciate that many children with autism do not like the hustle and bustle of the playground. That is so obvious, yet still that knowledge is lacking.

I shall make three main points. First, parents are not satisfied. We have heard the statistics this morning: 45 per cent. of parents tell us that it takes more than a year to receive support; 50 per cent. of parents feel that their child is not in the right setting; and one in five children with autism are excluded—67 per cent. of them more than once. These are alarming statistics and we have to translate the talk and guidance into real action.

I am greatly concerned, still, about the information available to parents. In theory, it should be there, but in practice it is not. A recent study by Centre Forum and the Policy Exchange revealed, through a survey of local authority websites, that those authorities were not providing the information that, legally, should be provided. It is very easy to check to ensure that it is there.

I am concerned that parents with children with special educational needs do not have choice. In many cases, their choice is restricted. I have recently come across a situation in which parents of a child without any special educational needs in a mainstream school can opt for a school outside the local authority area and pay the travel expenses, if there is a space available. However, I am told that, if parents of a child with special educational needs want a place in a school outside the local authority area and the authority judges that there is an appropriate space within the local authority area, there will be great resistance to that child going to the other school. There are lots of hidden ways in which choices are restricted.

The breakdown of inclusion and special schools is much more diverse these days. There are some amazing examples of schools that can partition and separate, providing quiet rooms and integrating all on the same site. There are some exciting models and some ways forward.

On exclusions, not only are there alarming stories about the unofficial exclusions on top of the enormously high official exclusion figure, but there is a question about where the children who have been excluded more than once actually end up. Often, pupil referral units have not been staffed or resourced adequately to deal with such a situation. I agree with other hon. Members that early identification, followed by appropriate therapies, is key.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the transition period, which has to be of great concern to us. Parents battle on, yet almost as the end of formal schooling is reached, when they perhaps feel that they are nearly there, even more hurdles and difficulties arise. I appreciate that the Government are putting money into this, but it is a huge challenge for all of us.

I thank the organisations, including TreeHouse and the National Autistic Society, for providing us with many briefings and studies. I also congratulate the all-party group on autism, which has made a big contribution. It is good to look back over a period of time and see real achievement.

Secondly, teachers are clearly not confident. That has come out in many of the speeches made this morning. Some 44 per cent. of teachers are not confident in dealing with autism and 77 per cent. state that a lack of continuous professional development is a real barrier. I am sure that the Minister will tell us about all the progress that is being made in extending teacher training to include more on special educational needs. It is telling that, although we had a mass movement towards inclusion way over 10 years ago, the first teachers concluding their initial teacher training with more modules on special educational needs will not come through until 2011. That is a real gap and a lot of pupils have suffered as a consequence of not matching the teaching with the expectations on teachers.

We have great expectations of teachers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) said. A teacher may have 30 children in the classroom, including one child with special needs, but they do not have the expertise—[Interruption.] Or the support. It is quite a lot to ask of any individual in any work situation. I feel that there should be a teacher entitlement allowing them to be provided with a resource pack, as a minimum, if they have a child with particular needs—and autism would come into that category. We talk a lot about other entitlements, but there is a need to consider teacher entitlement.

I concur that more training across the board is needed, particularly with continuous professional development. It is not enough just to have the courses on offer at local authority level; supply cover has to be available for the teachers to be able to attend. Equally, many other teacher training courses, such as the school-centred initial teacher training, need to include training for autism and general special educational needs.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the cost of early identification and intervention is as nothing by comparison with the massively greater cost to the individual, the family and society in the event of its absence? In other words, let us abandon the short-termism beloved of Her Majesty’s Treasury under successive Governments. It is a question of spending now in order, assuredly, to save later.

I absolutely concur. We cannot ever debate special educational needs without making that point, because it is crucial.

I welcome the fact that SENCOs are now to be fully qualified teachers. Another recommendation by the Education Select Committee, as it was then, was that the SENCO should be a member of the senior management team. If a SENCO is to be able to pass on and encourage good practices, it is vital that they have a certain status in the school and a position in the pecking order.

Thirdly, we talk about one in 100 children having autism, but let us look around and consider who is affected. The parents are affected, as are the grandparents, the wider family and the neighbours, so many people are touched by autism. That brings me to support for the family. The hon. Member for Buckingham made this point well when he asked what happens when a child gets home. That is vital. We talk about the costs of the lack of early intervention, but if we do not put in that support to prevent family breakdown, we have even more tragedies and great costs.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said, we must also be aware of what happens after the school years. My caseload seems to be getting ever bigger in respect of elderly parents with adult offspring with learning disabilities who are finding it so difficult to get enough support. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion mentioned the cradle-to-grave approach, which sounds excellent, and the autism ambassador. It sounds as though we have a lot to learn.

Finally, we should be celebrating the good practice—there are some amazing examples around—but we must have ambitions for every child with autism. The 2009 review, which will be led by Ofsted, will be crucial. I hope that there will be a big input into the terms of reference, because the Government have delayed taking some actions because of that study. We have to get it right. We need the right people carrying it out and they need the right remit.

This has been an excellent debate. It is reassuring to be brought down to earth from the ghastly things that are happening in financial markets throughout the world to talk about such an important subject that affects so many of our constituents, day in, day out, and their families and carers.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who gave another bravura performance. Humility may not come naturally to him, but we were humbled by the expertise and mastery of his speech.

It is good to see such a good turnout, and especially the three former and existing chairmen of the all-party group on autism, of which I have been vice-chairman for some time. The original research commissioned by the all-party group on the experience of early intervention on autism in schools led to further work being done by the Government. The manifesto that we produced a few years ago is as relevant today as it was then, and we look forward to making a lot more progress towards the 2013 target date.

Dealing appropriately with special educational needs and autism is a real challenge and full of problems. The number of children designated with special educational needs in this country is high—more than 19 per cent. or 1.5 million children. That is far higher than the equivalent rate in the United States or France, for example, where it is typically between 5 and 7 per cent. The challenge is particularly great here. Many of those children are designated with autism, and many who are not so designated will have various versions of autism spectrum disorders.

We have heard the figures for the desperately higher incidence of bullying and exclusion, and the figure of 27 per cent. for exclusion is probably an underestimate, because many informal exclusions occur when teachers fail to distinguish between disobedience and disability, which is also problem with the public at large. Good early intervention at school will have lifelong consequence for the child, if we can get it right in the first place.

Given what the hon. Gentleman has said about exclusion, does he believe that it is right to retain appeals for exclusions to protect those vulnerable children?

That is also a big argument, and we have problems with appeals for disobedient children who are allowed back into class, completely undermining the head’s authority. We must work with teachers and heads for children with special educational needs, but the Minister has raised a subject that merits a debate in itself.

The big problem that many hon. Members have identified is the lack of expertise of teachers in mainstream schools in dealing with the children—the elephant in the room. There is also the problem of loss of places in special schools—some 9,000 places have gone since 1997. It is not just a question of inclusion or exclusion, which is an old debate. It is a question of getting the most appropriate participation in education for those children.

We have not talked much about statements today. In many cases, local authorities try to avoid classifying too many children as autistic for special educational needs purposes. The number of new statements has fallen drastically from 36,200 in 1998 to 24,000 in 2008. Concomitantly, the number of appeals has risen by 55 per cent. The problem has not gone away; it is just more difficult for parents to get their children identified, and even more difficult to get through the horrendous minefield that is the tribunal system. We know that about a quarter of the tribunals are for children with autism, who are again disproportionately affected by the system. The whole statementing process is adversarial: it is costly for local authorities to fight; it is more costly for parents to fight if they get to that stage; and it is costly to administer.

And it is time consuming.

And it is time consuming. Part of the problem is that local authorities have three roles: they assess the child’s needs; they are the paymasters for funding what needs to be supplied; and they are often the suppliers of special educational needs provision. The service is made to fit the cash available; it is not tailor-made to fit the child’s needs. Parents must be articulate to navigate their way through the system, and it is often the most deprived who miss out. It can be a very lonely time for parents, which is why my party, through the Sir Robert Balchin commission, has come up with proposals, which we are considering, to replace statements with special needs profiles drawn up by profile assessors—educational psychologists—who are independent of local authorities and who concentrate on early intervention and regular review. We should have special needs profiles that allocate children not only to one designation, but perhaps to one of a dozen support categories, often because they have complex needs that require multiple application. There should be portable funding to mainstream schools, and the assessors should be independent of local authorities and should be peer reviewed. There should also be a special needs mediation service with tribunals as the last resort, which has also been mentioned today. We want some big changes in the way in which we assess special educational needs, so that the assessments are tailor-made to the children.

Many hon. Members have mentioned support groups such as the National Autistic Society and TreeHouse, which do fantastic work. TreeHouse’s constructive campaigning parent support project provides vital help to parents, who often feel alienated and isolated. The experience of school is not just about learning in the classroom; it is about the social interaction of children with their peers, which is why it is so important to concentrate on communication skills from an early stage. It was interesting to hear the hon. the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who is so knowledgeable about the subject, speaking about the importance of listening to mums.

I have a lot of sympathy with the National Autistic Society’s ongoing research and its report, “make school make sense”, which rightly says that we need more research into the nature of exclusions. We need greater availability of expertise in mainstream and specialist schools. That takes up the point in the NUT survey that three quarters of teachers are ill equipped to look after children with autism.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) and for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), who has expertise in education, have mentioned, we must give greater seniority to SENCOs and provide them with more autism training, which must be ongoing, earlier. We must also look at halfway houses, so that we have some specialist units within mainstream schools. It is not a question of going to a specialist school or going to a mainstream school and hopefully receiving some support. There must be as much flexibility in the system as possible.

Many parents complain about delays in starting support and are left waiting, often at a crucial time, even when their child’s special educational needs have been identified and a support package has supposedly been put in place. There is an impact on the classmates of a child with special educational needs. It is not a one-way-street; it is a learning process for other children and adults in society to discover how best to integrate and relate to people who happen to have a special educational need that is autism. That does not make them a different or lesser person. Support for parents and carers is as vital as special educational needs identification for a child, whatever the educational setting.

I was taken by the suggestion from the hon. Member for Ceredigion about the cradle-to-grave pilots in Wales, and the autism ambassadors, which is another way of raising the profile of the issue and its importance in schools. Many hon. Members mentioned the transition points—20 per cent. of children have special educational needs below the age of 16, but that drops to 7.3 per cent. at the age of 16, and worse at the age of 18. They are dropping out of the system, but their disabilities do not go away because they have dropped off the radar. We need better transitions, and we must boost the Government’s transition support programme. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), who has such expertise in this area, mentioned that.

It is complicated, but it is essential to intervene early, and to invest to save so much later. We spend around £2.7 billion on intervention for children with autism, but that rises to £25 billion for adults with autism. It is a no-brainer that we should front-load that investment rather more than we are at the moment to prevent so many more problems in the personal experience of those children as they reach adulthood.

As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has said, we have had an excellent debate this morning. I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) not only on securing the debate, but on showing that he is one of the most able communicators in the House. It is a tribute to him that those abilities inform the passion with which he views those who are lacking in communication skills and enables him to pursue their interests so assiduously in the House.

We have heard speeches from a number of right hon. and hon. Members, and I would love to be able to address all the points that have been made. However, I will try to canter through what I can in the time remaining. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) has said, whatever views have been expressed, I know that we all start with the aim of giving every child the best possible start in life, the best quality of education and the brightest prospects for their future.

A good education should not be the privilege of a fortunate few; it is something that every child should have. However, some children and families need a bit of extra support to make that a reality. It is the state’s responsibility, and one of the priorities of this Government, to create a system that can provide that. Such a system should enable children with autism and other special educational needs to be provided for within mainstream education, if that is what they and their parents want. Those children should be able to have lessons with their peers, make friends, and lead as normal a life as possible. However, such a system should also offer more targeted provision through special schools, if that is what is needed, and be flexible enough to adapt to the needs of children and their families on a case by case basis. A consistent standard across the national picture needs to be maintained, without prescribing a blanket formula from the top.

A growing number of children have been identified with autism over the past few years and local authorities, schools, charities and independent providers have made huge efforts to meet the growing need for specialist provision. More children with autism are receiving extra, tailored provision, and the number of children whose primary difficulty is autism and who have an special educational needs statement has increased by more than 10,000 in the past 4 years. The number of maintained special schools now approved to take children with autism has increased by 140 over the same period. A wealth of new provision has opened up in the non-maintained and independent sectors, and the majority increase in SEN-resourced provision or units in mainstream schools has been specifically for autistic children, or those with social, emotional, or behavioural difficulties. As we know from Ofsted’s findings, that provision has led to better outcomes for children with SEN.

Those achievements are considerable and are indicative of a system that is responding to the challenges of an increasing number of children who have been identified with autism spectrum disorders. However, we need to move to a position in which high-quality, readily available services are the norm rather than the exception. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) has said, there is still some way to go to achieve that.

The first subject to which the hon. Member for Buckingham turned was exclusions, and, as he said, statistics on that show that children with autism are nine times more likely to be excluded from school than other children. That discrepancy is unacceptable. In “The Children’s Plan” we committed to learning from those authorities that are leading the way in reducing exclusions among children with SEN. Our national strategies teams are leading that work and will develop best practice materials, so that we can move towards a more consistent national picture.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the problem of informal exclusion. He is right: the guidance makes it clear that informal or unofficial exclusions are unlawful and reminds schools of their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

When my hon. Friend considers the authorities that are showing best practice in this area, will he also ask his officials to look at whether there is a correlation with the speed at which they produce statements? From my knowledge of my own local authority, I am aware that there can be long delays in getting statements through for a lot of young people.

I am happy to consider what my hon. Friend has said. I take a consistent interest in matters relating to his city, and I will take his comments on board. In respect of exclusion, it would be remiss of me not to underscore the importance that I place on having an appeal system. For children who have been wrongly excluded because of the much mentioned problems with those in the teaching work force having the confidence to understand the disorders, it is crucial that that appeal right is maintained. I urge the Opposition to take note of that.

The hon. Member for Buckingham also discussed bullying. It is a sad and disturbing fact that young people with disabilities can become a target for bullies. Bullying of any kind and of anybody is unacceptable, particularly when it is directed at those who are most vulnerable. Improved communication skills for autistic children will lead to better social interaction with other young people. Of course, that is the case for every child and not just for those who live with a disability. For that reason, an increased emphasis has been put on social issues and skills in the curriculum. The social and emotional aspects of learning programme is helping all pupils relate to one another better, to understand people who are different from us, to manage conflict better and to treat one another with respect. That is becoming much more embedded in primary schools and has been extended to secondary schools. I regret that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) described it as ghastly, because it is a really important programme that runs in our schools, particularly because it tackles such bullying. We are grateful to the National Autistic Society for its help in producing our guidance on bullying involving children with SEN and disabilities. We will be working with the Anti-Bullying Alliance to ensure that its principles are embedded.

The Minister is probably aware that the Robert Ogden school, which is run by the National Autistic Society, is in Thurnscoe in my constituency. It is the biggest autistic school in western Europe and is a beacon of excellence for autistic provision. Does the Minister agree that such schools have a vital role to play in spreading best practice among surrounding local education authorities and local primary care trusts?

I certainly do. There is some excellent expertise in the school system and in schools such as Robert Ogden, and I pay tribute to the work that they do. Across the public sector, we should all be learning from and tapping into that expertise. We should network that expertise into improvements generally and into how we treat and look after these individuals and support their parents.

I shall turn to what the hon. Member for Buckingham described as the elephant in the room—the teacher training and support issue. It is important that we increase understanding of autism and its effects beyond the family setting, so that parents do not feel isolated in dealing with it, or when trying to access the support that they need. Although teachers are not health professionals—indeed, because they are not—it is vital that they have the knowledge and understanding of autism to be able to recognise behavioural patterns, to support those children, and to point their families in the direction of any additional services that they might need.

May I simply draw the Minister’s attention to Prime Performance Solutions Limited? Julie Inglis and a former respected Member of the House, Kerry Pollard, are representatives of that organisation who came to see me on Monday afternoon. They provide courses for professionals, parents and the voluntary sector and already claim that they are not only helping to foster greater independence in adulthood, but saving £50,000 a year recurring to the public and private purse as a result of the excellent training that they provide. Often the best trainers are people who are autistic or Asperger’s—on the spectrum themselves—or who have family members who are. We can learn from that.

I will ensure that my noble Friend Baroness Morgan, who has departmental responsibility for those matters, is referred to the work that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

We have heard about work on the inclusion development programme, which provides training materials for current school and early years staff. This year, our work to raise awareness among teachers through the programme has focused on dyslexia, and speech, language and communication needs. Next year, we will focus specifically on autism, and we will keep a careful eye on the effects of training materials to ensure that they really are making a difference. In June, the Training and Development Agency for Schools launched comprehensive training resources for initial teacher training at primary undergraduate level. That resource includes material on recognising and supporting children with autistic spectrum disorders and a placement scheme in special provision for trainees.

We are also developing a masters in teaching and learning, so in the early years of teaching we can embed more consistent continuous professional development. In particular, we wish to ensure that there is more consistent quality training in dealing with children with special educational needs. Through “The Children’s Plan”, we have been trying to extend early intervention and multi-agency working. We will also deepen the Children’s Trust arrangements, on which we will be legislating in due course, so that we can ensure that the needs of these children are properly assessed and addressed.

There were a number of other points that I would love to have addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) made some important points—as did all the speakers. On transitions and information, there are all sorts of things I could say, but I am running out of time.

To continue challenging our thinking, and moving forward on this issue, we have established an Autism Education Trust, which is being led by the National Autistic Society, TreeHouse, and the Council for Disabled Children. The trust will bring together specialists, spread good practice and be a representative voice of the autism community to central and local government. We will continue to work with professionals and autism specialists to ensure that the provision for some of our most vulnerable young people is world class. No child should be left behind. Those who need extra support to stay ahead are this Government’s priority.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Caton. I thank Mr. Speaker for granting me the debate. He has been very generous in providing a series of debates relating to Northamptonshire to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and to me. Only yesterday, my hon. Friend introduced a debate on policing persistent and youth offenders in Northamptonshire. Yet again, he has spoken up not only for his constituents, but for all the people of north Northamptonshire. I appreciate his attendance and support in today’s debate.

I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), who has spent years supporting the people of Northampton and Northamptonshire in his role as a senior county councillor and as a Member of the House. It is encouraging to have half the Members of Parliament for Northamptonshire present for today’s Westminster Hall debate. I thank the Minister for his attendance. I believe that this is only his second debate as an Under-Secretary at the Home Office; the first was yesterday’s debate. I am grateful to him for the immense amount of time that he has put in and the interest that he is showing in policing in Northamptonshire.

The men and women of Northamptonshire police do a fantastic job and work very hard for the people of the county. They are held in very high regard by my constituents. The only problem is that there are not enough of them. I pay particular tribute to Chief Superintendent Paul Fell, area commander for Northamptonshire North, for all his help and advice. I should also mention the excellent work by our police community support officers, who play a valuable role in the community. However, they have a specific role and function and are not there to replace police officers, although on occasion that seems to be the Government’s policy.

So what is the reason for the debate today? In July 2008, the results of the British crime survey were published, showing that there were 1,199 crimes per 10,000 adults in Northamptonshire—the second worst rate in England and Wales. It is right to say that the No. 1 issue in my constituency has always been crime. I regularly send a “Listening” survey to my constituents. That simple tracking survey is sent out throughout Wellingborough and the surrounding areas to give my constituents the opportunity to tell me what issues concern them. Crime has always come out as the No. 1 issue.

Up to 20 per cent. of the people whom I represent are afraid to go out after dark, because of groups of teenagers loitering, or thugs or vandals—or more often all three—which is commonly referred to as antisocial behaviour. That is what the people of Wellingborough want action on. They want the problem dealt with and its back broken so that they can feel safe in the street and so that they can leave their house at night without always looking over their shoulder and worrying about whom they might come across. That major concern is not, however, reflected in national targets. Antisocial behaviour is not seen as a big issue, perhaps because making people feel safe on the streets will not create attention-grabbing headlines. As it is not recorded as a crime unless there is criminal damage, the police are not rewarded for tackling antisocial behaviour. At the moment, as a target does not focus on it, police performance in tackling antisocial behaviour is irrelevant in any potential league tables. It is the No. 1 issue for my constituents, yet committing time and resources to tackling antisocial behaviour in effect punishes the police in Northamptonshire.

Some excellent initiatives are running in Wellingborough and Northamptonshire, including Farmwatch. On Saturday, I attended the launch of the street pastors initiative, which is led by churches in Rushden and east Northamptonshire. Street pastors work alongside local authorities and the police. The people involved go out at night and talk to troubled youngsters about their problems and their lives to help to stop them turning to crime. One innovative contribution from the police is the gift of hundreds of lollipops. Giving youngsters a lolly when beginning a discussion keeps their mouths busy and can prevent them from talking back or shouting. It encourages them to listen and stay calm. That is a simple solution to a difficult problem.

In Northamptonshire, there are not enough police officers out on the beat, catching criminals and deterring crime. One weekend recently, only two police vehicles were operating to cover a 70-square-mile area. That is a pitiful number and nowhere near enough to allow the police to serve the community effectively. The latest available police manpower statistics show that, on 31 March 2008, there were 1,309 police officers in Northamptonshire, which equates to 196 police officers per 100,000 of population. It is the lowest figure of any of the other forces with which Northamptonshire is compared and the eighth worst of all police forces in the country. The national average is 264 police officers per 100,000 of population. In Northamptonshire, we have a quarter fewer police officers than the average in the country. Even if we had an additional 400 officers today, we would still be below the national average. We are asking too few police officers to do too much work.

My constituents worry most about how much time police officers spend patrolling the streets of Northamptonshire. They do not want them locked away in police stations, signing forms, attending strategy meetings and doing diversity training. They want them out on the street, catching criminals and deterring crime, so I thought that I would ask the Home Secretary what percentage of their time a police officer spends patrolling. I guessed that it might be as high as 75 per cent.; it would definitely be more than 50 per cent. I have just received the parliamentary answer. Incredibly, in 2004-05 in Northamptonshire, a police officer was on patrol for only 15 per cent. of their time. Despite that figure being woefully low, it almost matched the national average.

When we examine the latest figures, for 2007-08, the situation becomes much worse. Officers now spend only 10 per cent. of their time on patrol in Northamptonshire. That is 26 per cent. below the national average and a third less time on the beat than three years ago. It is time to cut the police bureaucracy, red tape and form filling. It is no good having more policemen if they are locked away in police stations, not out on patrol. If we could only increase the time that police officers spent patrolling to 20 per cent. of their time, we would at a stroke double the number of police officers on the beat in Northamptonshire. By cutting out unnecessary red tape and form filling, we could make our streets safer for the citizens of Northamptonshire.

I come now to the Government’s funding of Northamptonshire police. The Government formula grant is distributed according to a complex set of criteria. However, distribution does not operate according to the formula, because of damping. That means that when the grant gets to a certain level, Northamptonshire police receive only 13p in every pound that they are meant to receive. In total, Northamptonshire will lose £1.8 million of grant through damping over three years to subsidise other forces, such as Northumbria.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks earlier: I am most appreciative of them, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) is. Does he agree that the consistent and regular underfunding of Northamptonshire police in the support grant, as proved by an increase of only 1.4 per cent. last year when we take both the formula specific grants into account, is a major contributor to the problems that we face with antisocial behaviour, crime and the lack of police presence in our county?

The House might like to know that for a long time my hon. Friend was responsible for the county council’s finances. Of course, he is correct.

We did not stage manage this, Mr. Caton, but the next part of my speech is to state that it has not happened in one year only but that it happens year after year. The Government say that we deserve money, but then they take it away from us. I merely ask for what is fairly ours. The historic data used to calculate the grants take no account of the recent growth in population. The latest mid-year estimates, published on 21 August 2008 by the Office for National Statistics, show that Northamptonshire is the second-fastest growing police force area in the nation, its population growing at 1.4 per cent. annually. That is more that twice the national average of 0.6 per cent.

To make matters worse, those figures are not reflected in the grant that Northamptonshire is forecast to receive next year or the following year. The Government’s growth population projection for grant purposes is only 0.9 per cent, which equates to missing 15,000 people. It is like ignoring a small town when deciding how much money an area should get for policing. On top of that, the Government’s grant calculation for the next two years allows for inflation increases of only 2.6 and 2.7 per cent. That is significantly less than the current inflation rate of 4.7 per cent. There is no way around it: Northamptonshire police are dramatically underfunded, even based on Government figures.

I want to turn to a new idea. I want to see the introduction of a sheriff of Northamptonshire. I do not want someone wearing a ten-gallon hat, carrying six-shooters and tying up his horse outside the Wellingborough McDonald’s—on the other hand, though, that might not be a bad idea! Dictating from the top down is not the way forward, given that our police forces cover such a diverse range of issues. They should each be able to set priorities in areas that are relevant to them. Government targets, priorities and guidelines have severely restricted the way in which Northamptonshire police are able to tackle the explosion of antisocial behaviour that we are seeing in Wellingborough.

We need a locally elected police commissioner—a sheriff of Northamptonshire—who will target police resources for the benefit of local people, not for the benefit of bureaucrats setting targets in Whitehall. We need a directly elected sheriff, who would be responsible for targeting police resources for the benefit of local people. They would set local priorities, and the chief constable would then be charged with enforcing those priorities. They would be elected by ballot every four years, making them accountable to the public, and bringing in democratic control of policing. Such policies would be put forward in pre-election campaigns, and the public would be able to choose whose ideas they liked best. If the sheriff did not perform well or did not live up to expectations, the public could vote them out so that somebody new, with fresh ideas, could take over.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the county council has already taken a major step in that respect by giving a sizeable grant directly to the Northamptonshire police force to fund extra policing? His idea is in keeping with the thrust of that grant.

Indeed. I pay tribute to the way in which the county council manages to juggle an almost impossible situation. Farmwatch is a good example. Funding has been granted to that scheme, but because it is not granted to the county council for long periods it cannot always pass it on to local organisations. As a result, Farmwatch is worried that its funding will run out at the end of the year.

All that is needed to solve the policing problems in Northamptonshire is for the Minister to guarantee three small things: first, fair funding for Northamptonshire police; secondly, immediately providing 400 more officers; and thirdly, providing a sheriff of Northamptonshire. If he guarantees that, his first week at the Home Office will be well spent.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) on an excellent speech, and on the time and effort that he puts into the question of crime on behalf of his constituents. I endorse everything that he said, and I join him in thanking Northamptonshire police, the policemen and women, and the officers and support staff, for the tremendous work that they do.

Local residents are concerned that crime is not being tackled as effectively as it might be. Although crime has fallen for four years in a row, local residents are shocked to learn that their county has the highest crime rate per capita in England. The figures for Northamptonshire given in the British crime survey show that 62 per cent. of people agree that the county’s police force understood local concerns, but that only 44 per cent. felt that it dealt with them effectively. That is the third lowest figure in the country.

I believe that the Northamptonshire police force is doing a good job, but there is a tremendous amount more to be done. It is not rocket science. The three measures proposed by my hon. Friend hit the spot. We certainly need more officers on the beat. In addition, criminals who are caught and sentenced to serve time in jail ought to serve their time in full. Of the residents in Kettering with whom I speak about crime, 95 per cent. are of that opinion. They believe that those sentenced to spend time in jail should spend that time there. The Northamptonshire police force is of the same view.

I had the privilege a few years ago of spending 22 days with Northamptonshire police under the police service parliamentary scheme. Every police officer to whom I spoke said, “Philip, if we could lock up the persistent and prolific offenders in this county”—there are only 70 or 80 of them county-wide, with about 35 in the north of the county—“if we could take those people off our streets, we could concentrate on all the zero tolerance measures that people want to see with regard to tackling antisocial behaviour. But we spend the majority of our time chasing the same few individuals.” My message to the Minister is along the same lines as my hon. Friend’s. Can we focus on the persistent offenders who commit the bulk of the crime, not only in Northamptonshire but throughout the country?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) on securing this debate and I welcome the opportunity to discuss policing in Northamptonshire. As he said, it is for the second day running. Yesterday he gave us a taster of what he would say, and we have had the main course today.

All I can say about my second debate on Northamptonshire is that I bring twice the experience to the matter today that I brought to it yesterday. However, I fear that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed that I cannot give specific guarantees on the interesting points that he has raised. Nevertheless, I am sure that, in his inimitable way, he will continue to raise interesting matters on behalf of his constituents.

The performance of Northamptonshire police has improved significantly over recent years, thanks in no small part to the hard work of the officers and staff of the force, and I join those hon. Gentlemen who represent the county in paying tribute to it. However, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough pointed out, other individuals and organisations are involved with the Government in a joint effort to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in the area. Crime in the county is down. Over the past four years, vehicle crime, burglary and robbery have all fallen by 30 per cent. or more, and a greater proportion of offences are being brought to justice than ever. Of course, I share the hon. Gentlemen’s desire that that improvement continue. We are not complacent, particularly as we seek to bring the police service closer to the communities that it serves.

The Green Paper on policing sets out a new, clear vision for what the public can expect from their local force. It responds to what the public expect of the police, and the service that they tell us they wish to receive. That was highlighted in Louise Casey’s review of crime and communities. It also responds to what the police service told us in Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s independent review of policing. We know that the public expect the police to carry out many vital activities in order to fight crime and protect their communities, such as responding to 999 calls and advising members of the public, as well as those less visible activities such as tackling serious and organised crime, major crime and terrorism.

I am told that Northamptonshire police has invested significantly in proactive crime fighting activities. We spoke of some yesterday, including the targeting of prolific offenders. That focused activity is contributing to a reduction in crime for the people of Northamptonshire, but that is not necessarily reflected in figures showing how much time officers spend on patrol.

We know from our constituency surgeries that antisocial behaviour is increasing because of the focusing on, and targeting of, specific areas. There are not enough resources to spread around the county evenly and effectively, which leads to a rise in antisocial behaviour in areas that are not properly policed when the focus is on other places.

The activities that I was talking about are important for bringing crime down. I am not underplaying antisocial behaviour in any way, shape or form, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents want to ensure that crime levels continue to fall. I do not believe that it is an either/or question; I have a theory that other things are in play when there is an increase in antisocial behaviour. I hope to address some of the hon. Gentleman’s points on that.

I should stress that we know the public want the police to be visible in their local communities and to be responsive to their priorities, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough said. To emphasise the most important elements of the service’s relationship with the public, the Green Paper will introduce a new policing pledge, which will set out clear, public-facing, national service standards for the police from first contact to follow-up and which, through the important local element, will give the public a way to hold their neighbourhood policing teams to account for tackling local problems. We are consulting the service and the public about the pledge, but it is likely to contain commitments on how the police will engage with their local communities and respond to calls for services, and the follow-up action that people can expect to receive.

To help forces focus yet more on the needs of their communities, the Government are committed to reducing red tape and bureaucracy in the service, and to allowing locally determined priorities to direct day-to-day activities. To that effect, all but one top-down numerical target for police forces will be removed, leaving only a single target set by the Home Office: for each force to improve public confidence. Much of what the hon. Gentleman said was about gaining public confidence and responding to what the public say are their priorities. Furthermore, to strengthen the democratic link between the police and the public, directly elected crime and policing representatives will be introduced to police authorities. Their key role will be to hold the police to account for delivery against those locally determined priorities.

The Government remain committed to continuing the improvements in policing in recent years, and Northamptonshire police are no exception. The force has faced significant challenges in recent years, but it has benefited from significantly improved resources that have helped to bring about some of those dramatic improvements in performance. Overall, the police service in England and Wales has benefited from a police grant that has increased by more than 60 per cent., or £3.7 billion, between 1997-98 and 2010-11. Northamptonshire has benefited from an increase in total government grants from £52.7 million in 1997 to £88.3 million in 2008, an increase of £35.2 million, which is a 67 per cent. increase in cash terms and a 27 per cent. increase in real terms.

I understand the figures that the Minister cites, but one problem in Northamptonshire is that the population of the area in 1997 was much smaller.[Official Report, 13 October 2008, Vol. 480, c. 3MC.]

I appreciate that the local police authority expected a bigger increase, especially last year, and hon. Members will be aware that only so much money is available through the grant. We must ensure that all authorities have a broad minimum increase to ensure the stability of police funding in England and Wales. Of course, moving towards longer-term grants for authorities will help. The hon. Gentleman mentioned unfunded population increases, and I can tell him that we are working to ensure that the formula does not operate as he says.

In the meantime, we are doing other things to address the problems. For example, Northamptonshire police force and police authority may, along with all police service providers nationwide, benefit from new sources of funding, including new migration impact funds, which come from a fund of some tens of millions of pounds to alleviate the short-term transitional pressures of migration. The funds will be available from April 2009 and managed by regional Government offices. A key part of the scheme will be applying local knowledge to funding decisions and ensuring that the funds will be spent not only properly, but quickly.

Other sources of funding are available to forces and partners to improve efficiency and to build additional capacity and capability into forces, far beyond a simple interpretation of staff and officer numbers. For example, Northamptonshire police are to benefit, along with the four other forces in the east midlands collaboration, from £8.3 million that has been provided for the purchase of hand-held computers, which could go some way to addressing the form-filling problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That money is being made available as a direct result of the Government’s commitment to implement the recommendations made by Sir Ronnie Flanagan in his recent review. Results from similar schemes are encouraging, and reveal the potential for the initiative to contribute to the Government’s commitment to cutting unnecessary bureaucracy and to freeing up officer time to focus on front-line policing.

The allocation of resources within each force’s area is, of course, a matter for the chief constable and the police authority, and maximum flexibility has been afforded to them. However, it is clear that the increase in funding provided by Government and police authorities has facilitated an increase in officer numbers in the past 10 years. At the end of March 2008, Northamptonshire had 1,264 police officers, which is an increase of 87 officers on the previous year, and the force has 159 police community support officers. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about those officers, but he and I do not agree about their importance. Interestingly, in my constituency, local communities welcome PCSOs when they are introduced—they want to see someone on the street. The hon. Gentleman spoke in percentage terms or minutes per hour in relation to the amount of time that a police officer spends on patrol, but the job of PCSOs is to be out on patrol in local neighbourhoods, and their time is not reflected in the figures that he used in his parliamentary question. We should appreciate that there is more to it than that simple figure.

I accept that the resource situation is more challenging than it has been, and it is important to note that the recruitment of police staff has a direct impact on the capacity of police officers. Recruitment could free officers from duties that do not require an officer to concentrate on front-line policing. Neighbourhood policing has been successfully implemented in Northamptonshire, which now has 41 full-strength dedicated safer community teams. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said in September that the Northamptonshire force has made considerable progress in delivering both effective neighbourhood policing and the wider citizen focus agenda. The force was also graded as excellent by the inspectorate when compared with others after victims were asked whether they were satisfied with actions taken by the police. The force’s dedicated business engineering review team, which has been recognised by the National Policing Improvement Agency as good practice, has concentrated on work force modernisation to ensure that we get the best from officers and staff. The force has been praised for forensic science, which is an important part of tackling crime, for pioneering techniques in using DNA, and a host of other things.

The Home Office stands ready to commit extra resources for specific projects, as it did for a police operation to target domestic violence. Additional support is also available for tackling prolific and other priority offenders, about which we talked a great deal yesterday.

Those improvements in performance have been—

This afternoon provides an opportunity to help the Government by debating the aviation duty and helping them to come to a conclusion that is better than their original proposals. I know that they are listening, and along with colleagues from Greater Manchester I was able to have a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that he is thinking hard about the matter, even if not at this very moment, when other things are going on.

Nobody likes taxes, but the aviation duty would be a particularly bad one. I understand the logic of replacing the air passenger duty, which was introduced in the early 1990s with no objective other than to raise funding. I understand the Government’s logic in asking what is the point of only £10 of tax being paid on a plane with one passenger on it, when a plane with a lot of passengers on it will pay considerably more. That seems to provide environmentally perverse incentives and objectives, and I understand why the Government thought that changing the basis of taxation to distance and to the plane itself would provide better environmental incentives. When we look at the details of the scheme, however, it becomes apparent that the proposed aviation duty will also have perverse incentives, and I hope that the Government will change their mind about it.

Before I turn to the details of the tax, it is always worth while reminding ourselves of the importance of aviation to the United Kingdom economy. I was on the board of Manchester airport for a number of years, and 44,000 jobs depend immediately on it. A number of other jobs—it is difficult to define how many—would not exist if it were not there, because having the facility to travel internationally helps firms to relocate to Manchester and the north-west. What is true of Manchester is true tenfold of Heathrow and Gatwick, and it is true of all the regional airports.

I do not know whether this is still true, but three or four years ago, British aviation was the second largest aviation market in the world. Without it, this country would find it difficult to earn its living in the world and we would have a lot fewer jobs than we currently have. Like many parts of the world’s economy, it is going through a particularly difficult time at the moment. Within the past 12 months, 30 airlines have gone to the wall and become bankrupt, which shows what a tough business it is. Although taxation may need to be raised, we want to do so as sensitively as possible and in a way that does not damage the industry.

I have three main concerns, which I shall list before going through them in detail. First, the proposed aviation duty will have a disproportionate impact on regional economies and regional aviation. Secondly, there will be a potentially disastrous impact on the air freight industry. Thirdly, it is likely that if the tax is brought in, it will be environmentally damaging—as opposed to environmentally helpful, which I believe is the Government’s intention.

I turn first to the regional issue. The Government stated clearly in their 2003 White Paper that their policy was to support regional airports, but if we examine in detail what will happen if the aviation duty is brought in, we see that it is likely to damage regional airports. Airports such as Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham have been trying very hard to build up international and, particularly, intercontinental routes over the past two decades or so. When those routes are started, aeroplanes often have a load factor of 40 per cent., which is not the case with a new route from, say, Heathrow to Shanghai or India, which are among the world’s improving economies. A major airline considering running such a route from a regional airport often has to invest in it for two or three years before it becomes viable. If the airline started with a tax disincentive because it was effectively paying a tax on empty seats, such a route would be much less likely to be established. One fact that I discovered when I prepared for the debate was that the 40 intercontinental routes that Manchester used to provide have been reduced to 17, partly because of the changes to, and reorganisation of, British Airways but partly because of the toughness in the aviation business itself.

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has secured the debate. I, too, have had meetings with Treasury Ministers about this subject and expressed my concerns. He has mentioned the regional impact of the aviation duty, and it would have an enormous impact on my constituency, where Glasgow Prestwick airport accounts directly for almost 3,500 jobs. Across the whole of Scotland, it accounts for a phenomenal amount of earnings and capacity to earn from the trade that it brings. Does my hon. Friend think that the amount of money that is tied up in aviation makes it clear that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will lose out in the event of the introduction of the tax? There will be a negative impact, rather than the positive one that the Government suggest will be the case.

My hon. Friend is right. Oxford Economics has done a study showing that, because of the loss of gross domestic product that is likely to be consequential on the introduction of the tax, less tax will be collected. He is right to bring to our attention the fact that the industry—airports, freight carriers and passenger airlines—is extremely concerned about the proposed tax.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—in its current form, the tax will be a regressive, rather than progressive, environmental tax. I agree completely that we will see no lowering of emissions, just their displacement to other European hubs. There will certainly be no incentive for airlines to improve their overall performance, and I agree that there need to be more carrots than sticks. Does he agree that introducing the measure in its current form is likely to delay the modernisation of airline fleets? As he will know, as an expert who sits on the Select Committee on Transport, modernised fleets would be far more environmentally friendly than the current fleet.

I agree completely, and I shall make some of those points later. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Finally, on the impact on the UK regions, I was told by Flybe that it has a profitable route from Inverness to Belfast. It uses a new aeroplane, but it flies at 60 per cent. capacity. The route is vital to the economies of Inverness and Belfast and it seems ludicrous to impose on that aeroplane, which is doing a commercial job, as well as one that is economically important for those regions, a tax that a plane flying from London to JFK would not have to pay in the same proportion. There are other relevant issues about the regions, but I know that other hon. Members want to raise them.

On the subject of the regions, the hon. Gentleman started by saying that he wanted to help the Government. He will understand that I am not sure I go that far, but I go all the way in backing his desire to help passengers, freight companies, UK airports and UK airlines. I stand four-square on that. It is not just about the regions, although I can understand why someone from Manchester would focus on them. Does he agree that it is equally crucial for the UK’s hub airports that we do something about the matter? He spoke about transferring passengers out of the regions. The measures will give a price cut to people from the regions who go to a hub outside the UK, but not a British hub airport. I am sure he will understand why I am worried about that. It means redundancies for my constituents at Heathrow and a reduction in house values. I wish him well and cheer him on.

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent and important point. Heathrow, which is good for the economy of the whole United Kingdom, competes with Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt, and increasingly with Copenhagen and Madrid, as a major European hub. The measures are likely to help those competitors rather than Heathrow. It will send regional flights into their systems and not the south-east.

My hon. Friend has studiously avoided mentioning East Midlands airport, in my constituency. It is group-owned by Manchester airport and is the largest freight airport by weight in the country. The points that he is making about the over-taxation of the aviation industry would bring tears to a glass eye, but since the Chicago convention between the wars, aviation has benefited from generous largesse in being free of VAT and fuel tax. No one would suggest for a moment that it is on a level runway with other forms of transport, because it is not. Something must be done about that, which is why I welcome the Government’s attempt to balance a small proportion of aviation’s environmental impact with the contribution—not a great one—that it will make when the duty is introduced.

I do not particularly want to go down that route, as there is a huge debate to be had about subsidies that go to other parts of the transport industry which aviation does not receive, and about how different parts of the aviation industry are taxed. I am not making an argument about differential taxation between aviation and railways or cars. I hope to make a point about the proposals before us, whose aim is to raise tax. I understand that and am not against it, but the way in which it is being done will have perverse consequences, both for the environment and the industry.

Moving to freight, I have been provided with quite startling information, which I have sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about the profitability of a freight route between Manchester and Hong Kong. I can provide detailed documentation to show that if the proposals go ahead, a freight aircraft flying from Manchester to Hong Kong would go from making a profit of £5,600 a flight to making a deficit of nearly £3,000 a flight. It just will not exist. The companies are not in it for charity; they must make money. If that particular route were withdrawn from Manchester, it would damage the north-west economy by £28 million a year.

The proposals have stopped FedEx running a flight between Manchester and Memphis: that flight has gone. It was expected 12 months ago that the flights would double in frequency, but what has happened is that FedEx has moved them to Charles de Gaulle in Paris, which is not good for the economy. A lot of the manufacturing economy left not just in the north of England but elsewhere in the country depends on just-in-time delivery of high-value goods by air freight. If that is not available, costs go up, cars go by road from Paris to Manchester and the environment and the economy are damaged.

At Glasgow Prestwick, we have already had redundancies from freight companies that have withdrawn for those very reasons. The sad fact, to return to a point made in an earlier intervention, is that they are now landing their planes at either Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle and trucking all the goods into the United Kingdom, as far up as Scotland. On balance, it does not make a bit of sense for the environment. Trucking creates more emissions than flying. As a consequence, the Government should consider the matter if they are intent on doing something about the climate.

I agree completely. East Midlands airport was mentioned. Nearly 3,500 jobs are dependent on freight at East Midlands. If those jobs move to Brussels or Paris, where the main worldwide integrators’ huge hubs are located, they will be lost to the east midlands, and it will be difficult to get them back.

As the MP for that area, I think that that is grossly distorted. My hon. Friend is right about the number of jobs relating to freight; I accept that. There are 7,500 jobs in and around East Midlands airport, 10 per cent. or so of which belong to people living in my constituency, but a whole load of scaremongering is going on in relation to the impact of changed taxation on aviation, suggesting that somehow all those jobs would decamp to northern Europe. There is not a scrap of proof that that would be either economically viable or politically acceptable. It is highly unlikely to happen. It is just a false trail through the sky.

I hope that what I have shown so far is that some of it has already happened as a result of the proposals becoming public.

My hon. Friend said 3,500.

I was saying how many jobs would be at risk. I was not saying that all of those jobs would go. However, in a marginally profitable business—the margins per ton of freight are tiny in those areas—jobs are at risk. The viability of freight at East Midlands depends partly on critical mass as well as the individual profit that can be made on each route.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the impact on British road hauliers? If freight is trucked in from overseas after having been flown into Charles de Gaulle or Schiphol, that will mean more overseas trucks on our roads taking work from British hauliers. Also, despite the good work done to seek agreement at the European level about such hauliers taking on domestic jobs once inside the UK, the greater volume coming in will mean that more overseas trucks can take domestic jobs, again taking work from British-based hauliers.

My hon. Friend makes his point well.

Turning to the issue of the environment, I shall try to speed up. I have tried to be generous in giving way, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak. One can dispute the overall environmental costs of aviation, but it is the view of the Department of Transport that the external costs of aviation to the environment in this country are about £1.6 billion. However, the industry pays £2 billion in taxation, so generally, aviation’s financial contribution to the environment is positive.

We have already touched on the fact that if someone is charged £40 to fly to New York, for example, from a regional airport, it would be cheaper for them to pay the £10 tax and fly through a European hub, and go through Schiphol or Frankfurt, or wherever is easiest from their local airport. There would be a significant saving, particularly if they are taking their family away for the weekend. That is self-evident. What is less obvious—this was mentioned earlier—is that if the basis of taxation is both distance and the maximum take-off weight, there is no incentive, when there should be, for airlines using old planes to invest in new ones with less environmental or noise impact. We have a perverse incentive to keep using the old aircraft, in which an investment has already been made, instead of moving to newer ones.

Let us compare the carbon dioxide emitted by similar airplanes of different generations—the Boeing 737-200 compared with the Airbus A319. The Airbus is a heavier plane, but gives off approximately 25 per cent. less carbon dioxide, both in flight and at take-off. We should want to incentivise people to use that plane, but on the basis of the proposals before us doing so would cost more in tax, which is not sensible.

I wish to make a brief point, before the hon. Gentleman moves on from environmental issues. Doubtless, he would agree that trying to sort out environmental issues arising from aviation is a noble cause, but is it not the case that we are trying to use national action to solve an international problem? Simply by taking national action, we will not help the environment, but we will damage the British economy.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) very adequately.

Administratively, air passenger duty is collected by the airlines, and the collection system is very efficient—it costs a few pence per £100 to collect the duty. Transferring responsibility to airports would result in an inefficient system; the set-up and administrative costs would be large, and there would be difficulties if an airline was diverted—say from Manchester to East Midlands—over who would collect the tax. Would it be East Midlands or Manchester? It is not sensible to move the tax collection from the airlines to the airports.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

For the very last time, then I shall sit down, because I have just two more points to make after this one.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I represent Farnborough, in Hampshire, which is the finest executive jet base in Europe, and has received many nominations to that effect. Is he aware that what he is saying about the airlines does not just apply to them, but to a very important sector of general aviation in our country—corporate aviation—and that the airport will be obliged to collect the duty perhaps from an infrequent visitor who comes from, say, the United States for one visit and then returns? The airport will incur the cost and angst of having to administer a very complex system in the place of what he rightly says is a simple system.

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point.

I have a question that I would like the Minister to answer, but if she cannot do so, I would be grateful if she could make the information available in the House of Commons Library. UPS wrote to me—I dare say that it has written to other hon. Members, too—saying that the tax is unlawful, and in breach of the Chicago convention and the open skies agreement between the European Union and the United States of America, partly because it implies that this country will take tax in somebody else’s air space. Has she taken legal advice on that matter? If so, will she provide that legal advice, or a summary of it, so that we can come to a view on it?

Finally, I was not drawn into the debate on green issues. Today’s discussion is specifically about this particular aviation taxation, which will not do what it says on the tin. It will do something quite different: it will damage the economy, and it may well damage the environment. However, behind aviation debates often lies a general dislike of the high technology of aviation, which is used by some members, but not all—I accuse no one in this Chamber of doing so—of the lobby who tend to exaggerate the impact of aviation and who would actually prefer it if it did not exist at all. I found that to be the case when I chaired the board of Manchester airport and had to deal with some of the green campaigners protesting against the building of the second runway at the airport and its general development. One can argue about the details—whether the impact of aviation on global warming is 2 or 4 per cent.—but either way it is relatively trivial compared with other factors. It gets the attention of some in the green lobby, who like to point to it as a symbol of modern high-technology and because they would prefer lower-technology solutions.

I have a list of five hon. Members who have indicated that they would like to speak. I shall be calling the Front Benchers for the winding-up speeches at 3.30 pm.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on initiating this debate. The number of people here illustrates the interest in, and concern about, this topic. Governments introduce aviation duty for three reasons: first, as a tax-raising revenue; secondly, for its effect on the environment and climate change; and, thirdly, as a transport policy. The fact that a Treasury Minister is here illustrates one thing for certain: this is mainly about tax-raising revenue.

The hon. Gentleman very adequately explained the concerns that many of us have about this particular proposal. I want to make it very clear that I and my party are in favour of environmental taxation, if it is fair and will change behaviour. However, we are not in favour—I certainly am not—of a policy that will merely export jobs and economic prosperity from Britain to the continent, at the expense of our economies, whether regional economies, such as those of Scotland, Manchester or the east midlands, or around our main hubs, such as Heathrow and Gatwick. The impact will be the same in all those economies: they will be massively disadvantaged. That is what this proposal seems designed to do.

The hon. Gentleman used the example of a family going on holiday to America. If it costs £10 per head in taxation for a flight from Manchester or Heathrow via Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle, and £40 per head for the same journey straight from Manchester or Heathrow, which will the passenger choose? Obviously they will choose the cheaper option, which will mean that our airlines, such as British Airways, BMI and Virgin, will be massively disadvantaged by the impact of the tax. That might be acceptable if it did something about climate change and reduced emissions. With great respect, however, all that will happen is that instead of being emitted by British aircraft, those emissions will be emitted by French or German aircraft. That is perverse.

Similarly, on the point that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley made about weight, it is a nonsense that a modern aircraft such as the Airbus 319 is going to end up paying more than the Boeing 737-200. The policy is based not on carbon dioxide emissions, as a fair policy should be, but purely on weight. That is like taking a crowbar to this matter, and it will do damage as a crowbar would—it will damage jobs and employment in this country.

Freight has also been discussed. We have heard about Manchester and the flight from Memphis that has been withdrawn. There was talk of a second flight, and now it too has been withdrawn. We know also that the impact on the east midlands will be disastrous. What will be the impact of that? There will be more lorries on British roads, because goods will be flown into Brussels or Charles de Gaulle and then taken across the channel. That will have the perverse effect that VAT will not even be paid on the fuel that is used, because drivers will fill up on the continent, where it is cheaper. That will put more of our hauliers out of work. It is not only the impact on aviation that should be taken into account, but the impact on hauliers.

I agree entirely with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The situation will be even worse for Belfast International airport and Belfast City airport because Dublin International airport is just an hour down the road. It is inevitable that, for tourism, business and freight travel, people will move in that direction, adding to truck and other traffic on the roads to Northern Ireland. Does he agree that it will have a devastating impact on Belfast, in particular, given the proximity of Dublin airport, in another jurisdiction, just an hour away?

I agree entirely. We have seen that this week with the change on deposit guarantees. What one country does impacts directly on another.

There is a solution: it is to move away from the idea that this is about raising revenue. We have heard that airlines are already paying their fair whack in relation to the environmental cost. We need to have a proper debate, initially within Europe—that is happening within the EU regarding the carbon emissions trading scheme. It must also happen internationally, because aviation is an international business. We must have agreements in place to ensure that the carbon cost of flights is properly accounted for, not just in Britain, France or America, but across the globe. That would be much more sensible. The net effect of the policy will be to disadvantage British airlines and jobs, and none of us wants that. It will have the perverse effect of putting more lorries on our roads, thus increasing those emissions, and it will have a negative effect in terms of what we want, which is a positive effect on climate change and a change in policy. I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider the policy, which is bad for British jobs and for Britain and does nothing for climate change.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on securing this important debate. It might appear as though he tried to pour cold water over the Government’s proposals, but he and we want a successful and sustainable ecologically and environmentally progressive system that is administered sensibly and fairly.

The first thing I should point out is that I believe climate change is, in the main, man-made. I believe that radical action is needed to tackle it, and that aviation and shipping should be included in our climate-related reduction targets in the Climate Change Bill. I stand squarely behind that notion so I am not arguing against an aviation tax per se, but I want one that will help us to meet our targets. As the duty is based on maximum take-off weight rather than CO₂ or other emissions, the current proposals will mean that planes with identical maximum take-off weights will be charged the same, irrespective of noise or emission levels. So although a newer, heavier plane might produce fewer emissions than an older, lighter model, it will pay more duty because it will have a higher take-off weight.

Concerns have also been expressed that the proposals might lead to a significant increase in fuel-thirsty take-offs and landings. As we have heard, passengers will pay less tax if they avoid long-haul flights from the UK and fly instead from France or Holland. I want a duty that will not impact negatively on the UK’s regions. I accept earlier comments about Heathrow and other hubs, but I do not want the system to impact negatively on UK regions such as my own—the north-west. I am uneasy about the consequences for my constituents who wish to travel from Manchester or Liverpool airports for their hard-earned annual holidays, and for the economic development prospects of my region. My colleague and good friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley has covered that ground comprehensively. He pointed out that FedEx’s freight service to Memphis, in the USA, which operated four times a week from Manchester, ended in August 2008, and has transferred to Paris. That is real. It is not a projection or conjecture; it has happened. Manchester had expected a second daily FedEx service, and was in discussions with FedEx about a 50,000 sq ft freight facility. It is believed that FedEx was frightened off by the proposed aviation duty—wrongly, in my view. Such organisations should not be frightened off using what is a world-class facility. I support the comments of my hon. Friend and others about the disadvantage for regional airports inherent in the current proposals.

The hon. Gentleman is talking about regional issues. Northern Ireland is only part of the United Kingdom, but shares a land mass with another EU member state, the Republic of Ireland, which is not currently imposing that form of duty on aviation. I am led to believe that it does not intend to impose it. Significant investors will therefore bypass a region of the UK to go to another place that they find more attractive.

There is no way that the hon. Gentleman is going to draw me into Irish politics, but I agree with him. That is a clear consequence and it might happen.

Regional airports such as Manchester are already at a disadvantage when it comes to long-haul route development. They have fewer affluent customers to serve and fewer business headquarters to generate business travel. My colleagues have examined the arguments in fine detail, and some have taken the arguments outside the box.

In my final comments, I shall concentrate on another aspect that needs airing: the employees who need to be taken into consideration. We should hear from their representative unions. I am a member of the Unite the Union parliamentary Labour group, having previously been a full-time trade union officer for 20 years, and I am also concerned about the employment impacts of aviation duty.

We have heard much in recent weeks about the need to act globally to deal with the worldwide economic collapse of financial institutions. Equally, we must consider carefully the realities of introducing aviation duty in the UK in a competitive international market. I support the arguments put forward from all the sections gathered today about the international implications of this issue.

I know that Unite the Union is worried that if freight operators are charged, they will change their routes to avoid the tax. Moving freight by road to a European hub airport could lead to job losses. Although those numbers can be debated, it is quite clear that such a move would lead to job losses at UK distribution centres—a legitimate concern for existing employees in the UK—and the loss of capacity to have next-day delivery for documents and packages, except at a premium price. Although aviation duty would affect only aircraft departing the UK, if long-haul routes are slashed by operators this could affect our facility to import food from developing nations.

Finally, the Government want airports to collect the new tax. Airports have no systems in place to administer aviation duty. Surely given the recent problems in the delivery of tax credit, child support and the education maintenance allowance, we should be wary of imposing new systems for payments. It seems daft to stick airports in that position when there are existing facilities, skills and experience within the airlines themselves.

The Minister has been open to all arguments and has made it clear that she is prepared to consider seriously all sensible suggestions. If we propose anything that the Government regard as sensible, they have said that they will accept it. I would like to compliment the Minister on that openness and to put the same comments to those who have access to the Chancellor.

In conclusion, I want a much more rigorous assessment of the environmental, economic and employment consequences of the proposed aviation duty and I call for other alternatives to be considered. As a north-west MP, I argue strongly that it should be recognised that Manchester airport is the single most significant economic factor in the north-west, and we must not jeopardise that.

I welcome today’s debate. Air passenger duty is not a great tax, and it is quite something to invent a scheme that is considerably worse and that will greatly disadvantage our aviation industry which, as we have heard in this debate, is the second largest in the world. It has been a great British success story, but it is a very competitive industry.

As we have seen with developments in Schiphol and at Charles de Gaulle, there are great temptations for carriers to move overseas. The problem with the tax is that it is unilateral and will lead to the export of jobs. We have heard the concerns of hon. Members from Northern Ireland. We have also heard about the problems that may lead to foreign road hauliers bringing in goods on our roads. There is a real problem with the concept of it being a unilateral tax. The Government have not said very much about what will happen when the EU comes up with its new trading system. What will happen then? Will our companies effectively be double taxed?

We have also heard about the disadvantage for long-haul flights. The duty will greatly add to the red tape at airports. The Manchester Airport Group thinks it might have to collect £400 million from airlines, which is more than its total revenue of £300 million. It is concerned about who is liable for the tax because it will have to chase people and may spend a considerable amount of its revenue having to pay the Treasury for money that it cannot get back from third parties. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) about his concern for business aviation. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) have a first-rate airport in Christchurch—Hurn airport—which does quite a lot of business repairing aircraft. An aircraft that comes in to be repaired by a local engineering company may end up paying a considerable sum of money even before one screwdriver has been used. There are real concerns about the perverse impact of this particular charge.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this is also sending out a very negative message to the very successful British aviation and aerospace manufacturing industry. In my constituency we have FR Aviation, Meggitt Aerospace, and VT Aerospace. They are major users of the airport and a showcase for British manufacturing, yet this Government proposal seems to pour cold water on this very important part of British manufacturing industry.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is a great defender of the economic significance of Bournemouth airport, which offers a real benefit to the people in our part of the world. We have heard about the successful development of regional airports. Such airports are very important to local economies. If the Government proceed with this tax, they will be disadvantaged. The best thing that can be said about the proposal is that it is at its consultation stage. A final decision does not yet have to be made. I hope that this is one occasion when the Government, for good economic and tax reasons, listen. Ultimately, the tax will damage many thousands of jobs, a very successful industry and regional policy. There is concern across the parties and across the country; otherwise there would not be such a range of people in this debate pleading with the Government to listen to the very sensible arguments made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer). That is all I want to say. If the Government go ahead with this proposal, it will damage Britain. That would be a very sad day.

Hopefully, I will not take up too much time because I realise other hon. Members want to speak. I am not going to make the case for or against this particular tax; I will leave that to others. I want to bring up the unintended consequences of the tax, particularly for passengers who are flying from regional airports. I hope that you do not mind, Mr. Caton, if I confine my remarks to Aberdeen. It is not that it is at the end of the universe, although some people think it is—I do not mean that in a negative way. Obviously, because our economy in Aberdeen depends in part on international travel, there are important issues that we must face.

Aberdeen is the energy capital of Europe and many of my constituents make international flights weekly—and sometimes more often—to areas such as Azerbaijan, the middle east, Nigeria and Texas. That is part of our economy. Obviously many of my constituents want to fly abroad.

It has been hinted at by other hon. Members this afternoon that the problem with this tax is that when it is based on aircraft rather than passengers and passenger journeys, there may be a double or even triple effect on passengers flying from a regional airport to a UK hub. Someone from Aberdeen who wishes to fly to Florida to visit Disneyland will either have to fly from Aberdeen to Heathrow or Gatwick and pay one set of tax, and then fly from Heathrow or Gatwick to Florida and pay the second tax. On the way back from Florida, they do not pay the tax at all, but from Heathrow to Aberdeen they will pay the tax. As I understand it, they will be taxed three times. It is very difficult to work out because there are no figures on how much it will cost. There is potentially a triple cost on passengers. If passengers do not want to pay that extra £300, or whatever it might be for a family of four—it is very difficult to work out the figures—the real incentive begins to develop for them to travel by car to either Edinburgh or Glasgow Prestwick in Scotland to get those international flights. Aberdeen has some international flights, but none outside Europe. It has regular flights to both Schiphol and to Charles de Gaulle. My fear is that if the tax is introduced, there will be real economic incentives for my constituents to use either Charles de Gaulle or Schiphol as their international hub and not Heathrow or Gatwick. A number of holidaymakers use Manchester as the hub in order to transfer on to further international flights.

I should be grateful if the Minister could address that particular issue to show that at least some thought has been given to it, because under air passenger duty, if someone has a through ticket they pay duty not on every individual leg of the flight but just on the through flight. So it is difficult to see how something like that can be introduced when the tax will be on the aircraft and not on the individual passenger journeys. I do not want to say any more, but I hope I have explained the difficulties that my constituents might face: either they will be forced to spend a lot more money going through a British hub, or to use their cars more, which defeats the environmental purpose of the tax; or, they will feel that it is easier for them to use one of the international hubs.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on securing the debate and on making a serious contribution to an important issue. Next Thursday we celebrate the centenary of flight in this country. On 16 October 1908, Samuel Cody became the first man to make a powered flight, flying 1,390 ft from Laffan’s plain in Farnborough in my constituency. For 100 years, aviation has been one of Britain’s most successful industries; let us ensure that we do not knock it now.

I also declare an interest: I am a currently licensed aviator, together with the hon. Members for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). We have sought to speak up in this place not so much for the airlines as for general aviation, comprising light aviation, sporting aviation and business aviation, which already contributes £15 million in tax and VAT. We pay and the airlines do not—Mr. Walsh, please make a note.

I have two points to raise. First, general aviation—below 5,700 kg—generally uses Avgas, which is a petrol and on which we pay tax, so we are not affected by the measure. However, the industry is affected, because we are increasingly trying to move to diesel engine development, which is far more fuel-efficient and reduces emissions. It will be hit very badly, because diesel engines use Avtur Jet A-1, and such development will be seriously affected, meaning bad news for aviation in this country and for the British aviation industry.

My second point, which builds on a point that I made earlier, is about the concerns of the British Business and General Aviation Association, which represents the air taxi business, smaller airports, charter businesses and so on. It is very concerned about the impact of the proposals on its members, who are an increasingly vital part of the economy as major airports become congested. Businesses find it hugely convenient to use airfields in all our constituencies to enable them to get from A to B on the continent and to avoid the hubs, which is good for British business and for the local economy. The association told me:

“Absolutely no detail has been forthcoming from HMT or HMRC”—

Her Majesty’s Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs—

“about the scale of the duty calculation. It would be an absolute disaster if they simply drew a straight line based on MTOW”—

maximum take-off weight. The association continued:

“There has to be some degree of proportionality based on the number of seats to provide a smooth transition from APD to Aviation Duty.”

The market is seriously mobile: these people can up sticks and go somewhere else, which would be very bad news not only for the economy but for the Treasury.

I have discussed the process of collection, which will be much more complicated, and this afternoon I spoke to representatives of Farnborough airport in my constituency about the issue. Why impose another burden on that business? The airport is flourishing, so I hope that the Minister will attend to those concerns and ensure that the business aviation community is told exactly what plans the Government have for the implementation of the tax on a highly successful and enterprising part of the British economy which is vital to British interests. I hope that she will be able to do so in this debate.

In the meantime, I hope that everybody will take note of the events next Thursday. I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) whether the Vulcan bomber, of which I am a trustee and which I have helped restore to flight, will take part in the flypast. We hope that it will. I shall be in a smaller aeroplane in front of it, and I hope not to get overtaken by it. I hope, too, that the duty will not apply to the Vulcan, because we would just have to raise more funds from charitable sources.

I shall rush through my speech.

Currently, aviation use is taxed through air passenger duty. A freighter carrying cargo alone bears no levy, but a passenger aircraft carrying belly freight, which many do, is disadvantaged against the dedicated freight carrier, which is clearly anomalous. I therefore support the principle of fiscal measures to equalise burdens between different carriers and payloads.

The second issue, however, is how any tax should be designed, which depends on its purpose, presuming, as one does, that revenue generation is not the only motivation. The focus should be on the efficient use of aircraft capacity and the carbon impact of the flight itself. The tax should be used as an incentive to modernise carriers’ aircraft fleets. That has a particular bearing on the dedicated freight sector, which tends to use relatively old and less efficient aircraft. The tax should also remove perverse incentives towards particular transport choices. No rational integrator would move its operation without some long-term assurance about any marginal advantage that they would achieve through it. Bearing in mind the pressure that exists on all Governments to comply with carbon reduction targets, how realistic would any such assumptions be?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

It is a bit unfair to do so when someone else is coming up, I am afraid—particularly as I am his MP.

I represent a constituency adjacent to East Midlands airport and live under one of the flight paths. I also participated in an Industry and Parliament Trust attachment to UPS, but I think that Members will interpret that, in this debate, I do not necessarily represent its sentiments. The airport is not always the best neighbour to those who live close to it. It is the largest dedicated freight airport in the UK and the hub for two of the main freight integrators. Its carriers are modernising their fleets rather too slowly, and the duty could, if applied properly, incentivise that process. I conclude by saying yes to a tax, but design it properly, please.

I very much share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer). My view is simply that the proposals for consultation are fundamentally flawed, that the new tax will not produce the environmental benefits that are claimed for it, that it is unlikely to provide any additional revenue to the Exchequer and that it will simply damage the UK’s competitiveness and, particularly, its employment.

I stand in the Chamber between two colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who may have slightly different views from me, but all three of us live close to East Midlands airport. Although I live well within the area where one picks up the noise that the airport generates, I believe that it is a very positive facility in the east midlands. It has been a real job-generator; it is a successful airport, with 6 million passengers passing through it; and, by volume, it is probably the largest parcel hub in the UK. The East Midlands Development Agency has stated in its regional economic strategy:

“In the context of international trade and competitiveness, the ongoing function and success of (the airport), particularly as a strategic express freight hub, is important as it is one of the region's key economic assets.”

The companies that operate out of the airport, such as UPS, DHL and other, smaller, freight-forwarding companies, have invested about £70 million, which has created a large number of jobs. I shall knock around a few figures, which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire may contest, but if we consider the direct, indirect and induced impact of jobs, the number of jobs is about 9,000 to 10,000. Certainly, at the airport itself, about a couple of thousand people are employed on activities that are directly associated with incoming and outgoing freight, and a good number of them are my constituents and the constituents of my neighbouring colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for North-West Leicestershire.

I am concerned about the impact on jobs. The proposed aviation taxation is likely to lead to the danger of companies like UPS and DHL pulling out, retracting into Europe and back-shipping by road many of the parcels and bits and pieces that currently fly into the airport. That would be disastrous for the region, and it would also be disastrous environmentally. That is why I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley. The proposed taxation is bad news, and the Government should think again.

I add my congratulations to those already given to my fellow Manchester MP, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), on securing this important debate on the future of air passenger duty and its proposed replacement by aviation duty. When I found out this morning that the Treasury was responding to the debate, I thought that I had better check that I had not been transferred from the transport team to the Treasury team. I was relieved to hear that I am still a member of the transport team. However, I have been given the job of responding to this debate.

Air passenger duty is unsustainable. It provides no incentive for airlines to invest in more efficient and less environmentally damaging aircraft, nor does it incentivise against the use of half-empty planes. Hon. Members may recall a parliamentary question to the Prime Minister of 16 July in which the Liberal Democrat shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), highlighted the scandals of BMI’s intention to fly empty planes to keep its slots open and Flybe’s hiring of actors to fly between Norwich and Dublin to boost passenger numbers. Such things are clearly not acceptable. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcomed the consultation on aviation duty, and we welcome the principle of replacing air passenger duty with aviation duty as a positive step forward in cutting carbon emissions.

Since 1990, the proportion of total UK carbon emissions coming from aviation has more than doubled from 2.5 per cent. to 5.8 per cent. Since the Government have given the green light to the expansion of airports in the aviation White Paper, emissions are due to rise by up to 83 per cent. on 2002 levels by 2020. Greenhouse gases from aviation are expected to be responsible for 25 per cent. of the UK’s contribution to global warming by 2020. Bold steps must be taken to tackle that problem.

Aviation duty is only one part of the issue. We want a cap on airport capacity in the south-east, including no expansion of Heathrow or Stansted; the inclusion of aviation in the UK emissions target in the Climate Change Bill; an additional per passenger climate change charge on domestic, non-lifeline flights in the UK; and the development of an internationally agreed aviation fuel duty. At the same time, we want to encourage domestic passengers away from flights and on to the railways. We support a new high-speed rail link to the north and beyond. I am glad to see that the Conservative party has followed our lead on that.

The Liberal Democrats have long argued for a change to a per plane aviation duty, but we support basing that duty on the carbon emissions produced by the aircraft rather than its take-off weight. That would encourage aircraft manufacturers not only to build lighter planes, but to invest in lower-emission engine technology. Will the Minister explain why the Government favour maximum take-off weight when that will not encourage the use of newer, more environmentally friendly engines?

Opponents of aviation duty have claimed that although it should in theory incentivise airlines to offset the cost of the tax by carrying as many passengers as possible on each flight, there will be little practical benefit, because over the past 20 years, planes have gone from being two-thirds full to three-quarters full. However, that does not take into account the sharp discrepancy between different flights and airlines, particularly between chartered flights, which are often busy and full, and scheduled services, many of which remain half full or less.

Manchester Airport Group has expressed concern that while air passenger duty is a transparent, fixed fee that can be shown clearly on the ticket as a green tax, aviation duty will be based on a number of variables. If it is not transparent, it will be perceived as simply a stealth tax. I have some sympathy with that argument, but it could easily be overcome by ensuring that passengers or freight carriers are made aware of the aviation duty that they are paying within their ticket price.

Concern has been expressed about the impact of including freight in aviation duty. Manchester Airport Group has suggested that that could lead to freighters introducing a stop en route from the UK so that they are taxed only for the first leg of the journey or that the UK will be bypassed altogether, with transhipments using mainland European hubs and with freight being brought to the UK by road instead. It is an anomaly that freight-only flights should have been exempt from paying a form of aviation duty, so we therefore support their inclusion. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) for making those arguments and countering those made by opponents of the proposal. It is vital that the air freight industry take into account the carbon cost of transporting goods by air.

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am interested to know the impact on passenger costs in the UK and internationally of all the proposals put forward by the Liberals. On freight transport, has he made any estimate of the impact on carbon emissions that would result from airlines switching from British to European airports and then carrying goods into the UK by road?

I cannot give any exact figures. It is vital that we know what the Government are doing to encourage other European countries to follow our lead and I hope that the Minister will say something about that. I do not accept the argument that we should not do something simply because no one else in Europe is doing it. We should be taking a lead on this issue and ensuring that the rest of Europe follows.

We believe that the Government have got these proposals horribly wrong, given their intention that airports rather than airlines should collect the duty. Manchester Airport Group estimates that it would be expected to collect about £400 million a year in aviation duty at Manchester airport alone, which is more than the combined turnover of the four airports in the group. That would make the group’s main business tax collection rather than running successful airports. Surely it is more logical for airlines to continue to pay HMRC directly, rather than adding an additional unnecessary tier of administration. There is great potential for airports to be saddled with unnecessary bad debts even though the tax will already have been paid by passengers and freight customers. Additional costs will be incurred for staffing and administration. Will the Minister explain what will happen if an airline that owes aviation duty to an airport goes bust? Will she assure the House that the debt will not fall on the airport?

Finally, I urge the Minister to look carefully at the proposed distance banding system. We support the introduction of more distance bands to ensure that a flight’s band better represents the distance travelled and its emissions. That would help to protect lifeline flights from areas like the highlands, where there is no real alternative to air travel on domestic or international routes.

I shall try to keep my comments brief. Because so much has been discussed in this debate, I want to ensure that the Minister has ample time to respond.

There is no doubt that people approach the whole area of environmental tax with a massive amount of scepticism as the result of things such as the road tax earlier this year. The Government introduced proposals which, on the face of it, could have had a positive impact on the environment and changed behaviour but were found not to work effectively when one considered their substance. Broadly, that is our concern in this case.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), and I thoroughly understand his concerns. It is clear that there is consensus on some areas, including the methodology by which the charge will be levied—the maximum take-off weight—and the collection methodology. I shall briefly touch on those matters. As the Opposition spokesman, it is worth my reinforcing points that have been made.

Let us not forget that the Conservatives proposed reforming air passenger duty because of its impact on the environment. We recognised that, in some situations, planes were half empty. We have heard that some planes fly with virtually no passengers and pay no tax, yet they cause the same amount of environmental pollution as a full plane. There is clearly a need to reform the tax so that, from an environmental perspective, it works more effectively. The question is whether the Government proposals will achieve that.

Perhaps the Minister could discuss in detail whether Government thinking has moved on since the consultation. The current proposal, which is to use maximum take-off weight, simply will not achieve what they say they want to achieve in changing environmental behaviour. As we heard, it is not a good enough proxy for the environmental effect of the aircraft that will be subject to the tax, because it does not take emissions into account.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) asked why maximum take-off weight had been chosen. My understanding is that the Treasury believes that the data on emissions from aircraft are not good enough for people to be able to use carbon dioxide or nitrogen oxide emissions, but, frankly, I do not accept that argument. Data are available, and if the Government are to reform air passenger duty, they must take responsibility for doing so and ensure that it works effectively.

As Members will be aware, I, too, have an airport near my constituency. I am constantly being told that the extensive and time-consuming work that was done by the Government and the Department for Transport on expanding Heathrow focused mainly on the environmental impact of the fleet—and the future fleet—using that airport. I would therefore be amazed if a Treasury Minister said in this debate that there was not enough information. I urge the Minister to live the joined-up government dream and start talking to the Department for Transport, because it has data that can be used efficiently and effectively to make an emissions-based pollution calculation which would work much better than the proposal to use maximum take-off weight.

On the collection system, I have not heard anyone, whether in discussions with the industry or in this debate, who thinks that it is a good idea for airports to take collection on board. The old saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” comes into play. Again, I would be interested to hear whether the Government are listening to representations from the industry and from Members, and whether they are considering changing the approach that they say they will push on with, which is getting the airports to collect. I shall not go into all the reasons why it would be difficult to do so. We all recognise that the proposal is, frankly, fraught with risk and danger. A much better approach is to leave collection to the airline operators, as is currently the case.

Freight is a much more contentious issue, and there was no agreement among Members who contributed to this debate. We must take care to find a balance between ensuring that freight pays its way, as it does emit pollution, and taxing freight companies out of the UK and thereby losing jobs. Finding that balance will be vital. To do so, the Treasury will need a carefully thought-through fact base if it is to understand exactly the likely impact of the pricing level of aviation duty on the freight industry.

At present, we do not know what level the Minister is proposing to place on freight. We will all look at that key issue with real interest, because there is a danger that levels of taxation that are too high will put at risk some freight operators’ logistics and operations in various regions of the country. That includes the Manchester region, which we have discussed today, but also airports such as Kent International. We must be extremely careful that we do not embark on a blunderbuss approach and, by overtaxing, achieve the exact opposite of what we want. Freight can be included in any new duty, but that needs to be done sensitively so that the industry is not, in effect, taxed offshore, which would not be good for anyone.

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady. So far, she has not said anything about Conservative policy. Does her party have a policy on whether to replace air passenger duty?

My party drew up its policy before the Government. It was actually the Conservative party, in a relatively lengthy consultation document, that first proposed moving to per-plane duty. We obviously have a policy. Our concern is that any policy must be made to work effectively and efficiently, and we think that neither of those criteria is met by what the Government are proposing. That has come through clearly in comments made in this debate. It is important that the Minister tells us a little more about whether the Government are willing to take those concerns on board and make changes.

Finally, I urge the Minister to set out the Government’s time line for resolving the outstanding aviation duty issues. When will we hear final decisions on the exact tax? When will the industry find out what the proposal is, and will it have time to prepare for any change? Many of us are beginning to wonder whether we will hear about the proposal in the pre-Budget report—perhaps she could confirm that we will—or whether the Government are now thinking that it will take longer to reach a conclusion. If the Minister could explain the time line for finally getting a conclusion from the Treasury, it would be welcomed by everyone.

The debate has been wide ranging. What came through the most is the expertise of hon. Members, initially in the very able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), who was successful in his bid for a debate on this important issue. We have heard a microcosm of the consultation process that I have been involved in at the ministerial level with various stakeholders who have been in to see me. Those stakeholders included many hon. Members, as some were kind enough to mention, who have attended this debate but also many other people with particular interests in the issue.

It is important to note that we have tried to have as open a consultation process as possible on the design, not on the rates; although we do not consult on tax rates, we do our best to consult on the design. Not all those who have been to see me accept that this should be so, and some want to consult on the rates. Obviously, some of the details about effects on particular sectors in the aviation industry are dependent on rate setting. However, we cannot have discussions ahead of announcements about such matters, as I am sure everybody understands.

The Government recognise the important contribution that aviation plays in both regional and national economies. We have heard in detail about that from many hon. Members and many of my hon. Friends. For example, aviation directly supports some 200,000 jobs and indirectly supports up to three times as many jobs. All the evidence suggests that the growth in the popularity and importance of air travel is set to continue over the next 30 years. The Government are committed to supporting the sustainable growth of the aviation industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, in a comprehensive speech, mentioned a range of worries that reflect those of his own regional airport, which I saw in April. Representatives from that airport have continued talking to hon. Members and hon. Friends about their worries, particularly with respect to disproportionate regional effects, including the potential effect on the freight industry and whether there will be environmental savings. I have said to all those who have been to see me, “Please give us the data that you are worried about. Please give us the elasticities of some of your routes, including the ones that you think are vulnerable, so that we can try to work out, behind the scenes, before we set rates, the correct balance between enabling this tax to be effective and making certain that it does not have perverse effects”. As the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said, we should see that it does not chase freight offshore—it is in nobody’s interests to see that happen—so the elasticities of demand and use, and the economics of particular routes are important. I have said to all those who have contributed the 170 responses to the consultation, people who have been to see me personally, and people who have seen officials personally, “Give us as much information as possible, so that we can try to model these effects to make a sensible, reasonable decision about levels.”

I just want to clarify whether there has been any dialogue between the Treasury and the Department for Transport.

I can assure my hon. Friend that there is constant dialogue between the Treasury and the Department about a range of issues. Officials from the two Departments have been in touch with one another to see how best we can model and design this tax: that is what the consultation has been about, in some detail.

I accept that there are arguments for saying that introducing a new tax with a different basis changes behaviour. It is question of how we can best anticipate and model that so that we can achieve our environmental and revenue-raising objectives without causing damage. Hon. Members have talked about the aviation industry and the positive effect it has, both technologically and economically, in our society. I am still trying to get out of my head thoughts of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) in his aeroplane, hopefully ahead of the major bomber that will be taking part in the flypast. The hon. Gentleman captures the enthusiasm of a lot of people who are interested in industries that were created a century ago and upon which the prosperity of our country has been based for many years. The Government have no wish to do anything but continue to encourage them to prosper and grow.

My hon. Friends the Members for Eccles (Ian Stewart), for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton), for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made important and pertinent points. I can assure all of them that each detail is being kept in view in the work that is going on to design the tax. We are aware of all the issues to do with chasing freight offshore, the issues affecting particular regional airports and, obviously, of the economic benefits that come with having an expanding regional airport doing business. Clearly, Aberdeen has its own international context, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South talked about a great deal. Taking all these things into account is an important part of our design for the tax.

Opposition Members and hon. Friends talked about the way in which the tax was being modelled, particularly about whether using the maximum take-off weight was the right basis for the tax. This is probably the best proxy that we can get, in the current circumstances, upon which to base the tax, because we are trying to find an objective, uniform measure or combination of measures that will define an aircraft’s flight, and maximum take-off weight is a reasonable one. Many hon. Members have said, understandably, that emissions would be a better basis on which to levy the tax, but the difficulty is the Chicago convention. Charging for emissions on routes has already been deemed illegal in the European courts, so it is dubious in the extreme whether we could charge a tax purely on emissions for those purposes, given our international agreements. We therefore have to find a proxy. We consulted on maximum take-off weight, and heard about some of the problems that have been raised in today’s debate. We are happy to listen to other observations about whether we could use nitrate emissions and various other things, but the key to levying a tax is that it has to be simple enough for people to understand in advance what their liability is likely to be, robust enough not to vary between different flights by the same aircraft, and stable enough. Again, if hon. Members in the Chamber have other views, or have been in touch with stakeholders who have other views, I should be happy to hear them. However, we are still of the opinion that maximum take-off weight is probably about the best proxy for emissions that we have at the moment.

Will the Minister give way?

Yes, but I have only two minutes and I wish to deal with another issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley.

Will the Minister confirm that it is not lack of data that has prevented the Government from taking a different opinion? Is she saying that it is a legal issue rather than a lack of data?

It is not only a legal issue. If the hon. Lady looks at paragraphs 2.14 and 2.17 of the consultation paper, she will see that we say that nitrous oxide emissions

“have been shown to provide a reasonably good correlation to emissions en route”.

However, we are not assured there is enough robust, comprehensive data to base a tax on those emissions. There are therefore some technical issues that would put uncertainty into the tax base, which is not desirable. A combination of reasons have led us to use maximum take-off weight as the best proxy that we have for pollution and CO₂ emissions in this instance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley asked whether we were confident that the proposed tax was legal. We have taken legal advice. We would not propose a tax that we thought was illegal, since that is not a sensible way for Governments to behave. I suppose one can always find a lawyer to take a contrary view, but the way things stand, our legal advice is that we have a robust legal case for taking this tax forward and we will proceed with that advice. My hon. Friend asked whether I would publish our legal advice. That is a nice try, but he knows that Governments do not publish their—

Order. We now move to the next debate.

The City of Westminster is one of the most complex and diverse districts in the United Kingdom. As the cultural and political hub of our capital city, it attracts a vast number of people each and every day, on top of the residential population, who either come to work in Westminster or to visit its wealth of attractions.

Unsurprisingly, it is also a destination of choice for people arriving in the United Kingdom for the first time. Many plan to work for a short period before returning home, and others hope to make new, permanent lives here, but the true extent of that population is unknown. Hidden from official statistics are the asylum seekers awaiting a decision from the Home Office, countless migrant workers from the European Union who are often willing to sleep in crowded rooms, illegal immigrants working in the black economy, and of course those whose application for leave to remain has been rejected but who are yet to be removed.

At 24 per cent., Westminster has had the greatest proportionate increase in population since 2001—the time of the last census—of any local authority in the United Kingdom. That tide of humanity must be catered for, but in this unique area of hyperdiversity and hypermobility it is uniquely difficult to assess its extent. That is a problem because population figures form a key part of the Government’s calculations to distribute grants to local councils, as the Minister knows.

Westminster city council has repeatedly warned the Government that current methods of counting migration are simply not keeping pace with modern patterns of population movement. Consequently, the council and many other areas where migration is high are locked into a three-year grant settlement, which leaves Westminster paying £6 million every year for those unaccounted-for people living within its boundaries.

No doubt migration will always be a sensitive issue, but the failure of the Office for National Statistics properly to measure its extent will mean London council tax payers shouldering the burden without the benefit. Unless the Government address the problem urgently, they risk losing public good will with serious consequences for the cohesion of our communities.

I should point out at this stage that this is not a narrow, partisan, party political issue. I share representation of the City of Westminster with the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) who sits on the Labour Benches, and we work hard together on this and a number of other local issues. It has often been at the hon. Lady’s behest that we have had meetings with Ministers in years gone by.

Many of the problems with population figures are attributable to the lack of a single, all-inclusive system to measure the movement of people into and out of the UK, and the absence of such a system to allocate those migrants to the place where they reside. Westminster city council’s grave concern is that the population figures used by the ONS in the calculation of Westminster’s grant allocation are incorrect and significantly underestimate the area’s population. Consequently, the council encounters difficulties in providing the full complement of services for its residents, both permanent and temporary.

No one disputes that Westminster is a particularly attractive place for migrants to work, especially as they can avoid London’s travel costs and often find employment easily in the capital’s service sector. Research commissioned by Westminster city council found that many choose to live in crowded accommodation, and are often classed as mid-term migrants, staying for between three and 12 months. Yet the methodology adopted by the ONS does not include in its population figures migrants who say that they intend to stay for fewer than 12 months. That omission is significant in an area such as central London, but I appreciate that it applies not only to Westminster but to one or two other local authorities. Independent research has shown that Westminster has more than 13,000 illegal migrants within its boundaries at any one time and, in addition, around 11,000 short-term migrants who are not registered in the official statistics for the reasons that I have set out.

The Government are not unaware of the problem. Westminster city council has campaigned on the issue ever since the ONS was found to have missed more than 22,000 people from the 2001 census count of the borough’s population. Westminster’s specific case was investigated by the Statistics Commission before the UK Statistics Authority replaced it. Recommendations were made for migrant data to be improved urgently after the quality was found to be “presently wholly inadequate”.

I am afraid that no action was taken, and in May 2006 the commission had to write again to the Home Office. It concluded:

“Work by the Statistics Commission three years ago indicated that there was very wide agreement across Whitehall that statistics relating to migration, both internationally and within the UK, need urgently to be improved. But thus far we have seen little evidence of real progress being made”.

More worryingly, the commission gave its original warning before the European Union’s enlargement in 2004, which took in the A8 accession countries of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. The Government's colossal underestimation of the number of people arriving from those countries has been well documented, and the issue did not affect only Westminster.

Local authorities have borne the brunt of service provision for the countless hundreds of thousands who came to our shores without adequate support as a result of the Government's failure to prepare. Another two countries have since been added to the EU—the A2 nations of Bulgaria and Romania acceded on 1 January 2007—and the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs acknowledged last year that

“there is currently no satisfactory source which can provide the raw information, at national and local levels, that is required for statistical purposes”.

The ONS has recognised the difficulty of measuring Westminster's population and has expressly excluded it as a field test authority for the forthcoming 2011 census on the grounds that

“our methods might be sufficiently good enough for more typical cities.”

The understandable fear, which the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and I share, is that the council could again face problems at the next census and beyond, given the importance of the census figures for the calculation of grant in the decade to come.

The volatility and confusion in population estimates make it almost impossible for local authorities to plan ahead with certainty. While the Government reap the rewards of migration through increased income tax and value added tax, and the higher productivity of British business, local authorities are trapped with the costs of an increased population without being given a fair share of funding. The impact on services and quality of life in areas of high migration is significant in terms of housing, community protection, schooling and adult services. In 2006-07 alone, the council incurred costs of more than £1 million just for supporting people who do not even have any recourse to public funds. That represented only a fairly small proportion of the migratory flow.

Many A8 migrants choose to live in private sector housing, and that has increased rents, applying further pressure to an already oversubscribed social housing market. Westminster's 2006 housing needs survey identified that increased overcrowding and household size was linked in part to a growth in houses in multiple occupation. That adds further to the acute pressures on affordable housing in an area where 44 per cent. of children already live in overcrowded accommodation. As the local Member of Parliament, I can testify to that.

The two most common issues in my constituency postbag are immigration and housing, and I reckon that I receive between 10 and 20 letters a week from families either struggling to obtain council or housing association property or hoping desperately for a transfer to a larger home. Westminster city council understands their frustration, but in a high-density, urban area the supply of affordable homes simply cannot keep up with the colossal demand. The average wait for a permanent home for someone accepted on to the list today is likely to be between four and five years. For a family in a one-bedroom property needing a two-bedroom home, the transfer wait is currently six years, and for a three-bedroom home it is seven years and eight months. For those wanting to trade up to a four-bedroom home the wait is apparently, if academically, 27 years and seven months.

Furthermore, since 2004 London has seen increases in A8 migrants sleeping rough. Westminster city council has worked hard to tackle the needs of new arrivals and has worked with central Government agencies. I do not wish to offer too much criticism, because there have been significant improvements. The situation has ebbed and flowed at various times, and we have been trying to prevent nearly 400 A8 nationals from falling into long-term rough sleeping. I highlighted that work in a speech I made in this Chamber in January last year, when I warned the Government about the increasing pressure on homelessness services following the A2 enlargement of the EU; indeed, where I felt it was appropriate, I also complimented Government action.

Once A2 or A8 nationals have completed 12 months’ continuous employment as registered or authorised workers, if they remain in the labour market they have the same access to Jobcentre Plus services as any other citizen. The flip side of that is, of course, that Jobcentre Plus refuses to help A8 nationals to find work if they have not already been employed for that period. Those men and women rely on their local authority for support and advice and can all too often fall into homelessness, addiction and the other problems that arise in those circumstances.

The Westminster drugs and alcohol team is under increasing pressure to assist clients from EU accession nations who have fallen into alcohol dependency and drug addiction. Unfortunately, the influx from A10 countries has also had an impact on the council’s community protection operations. Strong evidence suggests that pockets of petty theft in the west end and persistent organised begging operations are being initiated by Romanian migrants. In fact, after several constituents complained to me specifically about aggressive begging in shopping districts, I had to raise the issue independently with City of Westminster police. The borough commander Steve Allen informed me that the police have had to put specific operations in place to combat a problem of which they are well aware.

Unfortunately, begging seems to be just one arm of organised crime that originates from eastern Europe. Automated teller machine fraud is another example of such crime, which, anecdotally, the local police have told me is conducted almost exclusively by Romanian gangs. I have tabled various parliamentary questions on that matter and was informed by the Home Office that it had no idea how much crime was being committed by Romanian nationals because country of origin data are not collected or collated in the crime statistics.

On education provision, short-term migration and the large number of migrants who move around the country seeking work cause significant problems in relation to the churn in schools. Such churn can leave teachers coping with a diverse class that has vastly different abilities in numeracy and literacy, and diverse cultural and language needs. Many children arrive mid-term and have no records, which has a significant administrative cost—about £400 for a primary school child and £800 for a secondary school child. In addition, extra support staff might be required to help migrant children with their learning and to liaise with related services. The council estimates that migrant families will contribute to a 10 per cent. increase in required school places in Westminster in the second half of this decade.

Child protection can be particularly difficult because of language and cross-cultural issues when investigating migrant families. In addition, mobility tends to be high, which makes investigations into problem families both costly and time consuming. With higher than average British birth rates, migrant families will often also have a greater reliance on primary health care facilities. A general confusion over who is entitled to assistance adds to service pressures, and there is increasing concern among local authorities about their legal obligations towards destitute people from abroad who have no recourse to public funds, such as failed asylum seekers or A10 nationals who have not worked for the requisite 12 continuous months. British citizens who have lived abroad for many years may also lose their right to benefits.

The obligation to support such foreign nationals with no recourse to public funds often arises as a direct result of a Home Office policy and practice, whereby support is withdrawn from failed asylum seekers, but they are not removed from the UK when their claim is finally refused. I have seen that phenomenon time and again in my constituency during the seven years I have represented it, and I am no longer surprised to find that a constituent is still writing to me many years after being told that they are to be deported and that they are still homeless, still wanting work and still desperate.

The Home Office has failed to provide local authorities with adequate guidance in such circumstances to the extent that many are concerned that they might be acting ultra vires. If local authorities disregard immigration restrictions on access to public services, they may be acting outside the law; but equally, a failure to provide services where there is an entitlement could result in judicial review and a claim for damages.

For obvious reasons, Westminster city council receives no funding from the Government to assist its work in supporting foreign nationals who have no recourse to public funds. That puts increasing pressure on the council’s departments, particularly adult services and health, to deliver services while maintaining strict budgets. Furthermore, regardless of benefits entitlement, all migrants are entitled to use leisure and culture facilities, and environmental services, join local authority-funded community groups, and have their children use local schools. Many migrants use the council’s libraries and one-stop shops and their visits often take longer because of language and cultural barriers. We all want to live in a civilised society and no one can deny that it is important for such individuals to have the right to play a part in various community services, but that comes at a significant cost.

Clearly, there needs to be a fundamental and radical reform of population measurement between each census, so that local authorities are funded appropriately for their true populations. The Government have committed extra resources—some £12 million—to the improvement of population estimates and have shown an important degree of leadership in taking forward progress via the statistics improvement programme board. However, I fear that those commitments might be insufficient to bring about the reform of the population estimates envisaged by the former Statistics Commission and by some local authority users.

Last September, the Statistics Commission stated in its response to the Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee that

“sample surveys, of the kind typically carried out by statistical offices, are not the answer”.

However, much of the work being carried out by the ONS to improve migration estimates seems to be centred on survey improvements, and if the plans to improve migration estimates are not more ambitious the council is concerned that the work being undertaken will simply replace poor data with the like. If that happens, confidence in official statistics could be irreparably damaged.

Widespread concern has been aired that the ONS is simply not being adequately funded to make the improvements necessary to provide confidence in migration estimates. The Bank of England believes the ONS’s move to north Wales

“poses a serious risk to the maintenance of the quality of macro-economic data.”

It is unfair to ask local authorities and the communities they serve to foot the bill or to suffer adverse effects to services while waiting for migration measurement to improve.

So what needs to be done? In the short term, the Local Government Association wants the Government to make a contingency fund of £250 million available to aid councils where migration estimates fail accurately to reflect the current population. The fund could be distributed via an agreed set of local and national administrative data, such as national insurance numbers and schools’ surveys. Going further, until a resolution is found to the wider statistical problem, Westminster would like the Government to introduce specific grants to council areas that face pressures caused by short-term migration. In the longer term, the Government need to invest a significant sum in research to ensure that statistics produced on migration are accurate and reflect the true number of both long and short-term migrants living in Westminster and the country as a whole. There need to be radical changes to the methodology used to estimate and measure migration movements, as migrants who intend to stay for fewer than 12 months are not yet considered in population counts. The ONS needs to be adequately funded so that skilled, experienced staff are not lost.

I note that one of the Government’s intentions is to introduce a transitional impacts of migration fund to build capacity in local service provision and support innovative projects from 2009-10. That response has come five years after A8 accession, and councils are still no wiser about how the fund will work and how it will be distributed around the country. The fund is unlikely to be the £250 million called for by the LGA and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and is, I fear, too little too late.

In an area where there is continuous movement of short-term migrants who are regularly replaced by other short-term residents, the impact on council services is continuous. Westminster is one such area and the borough receives no extra Government funding to meet extra costs. Although that problem was highlighted after the 2001 census, it has, as I have said, been exacerbated. I accept that the issue is not just Westminster-specific, but the problem is particularly extreme in my constituency and borough. In areas across the UK where migration is high, I expect worryingly similar problems have been encountered: difficulties in educating a mobile and diverse population, difficulty in coping with extra demand on housing stock and new problems with community protection.

I accept that migration will always be a contentious issue, despite the clear economic benefits of hard-working migrants coming to our country. Perceived threats to an existing settled community from new arrivals will serve only to increase those tensions. Unfortunately, unless the Government properly fund local authorities, such threats may come to fruition.

I sent my speech to the Minister, so he is well aware of some of these issues. I apologise for taking slightly more than my allotted 15 minutes, but I wanted to put some of the issues on the record. Having had sight of my speech, he will perhaps be able to reply not just in this debate but to Westminster city council at a later stage. With the 2011 census only three years away, I call on the Minister to take urgent action to ensure that the Government get their house in order and reform the collection of vital population data.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing the debate. Given the unprecedented events taking place in the banking and wider financial sectors, particularly today’s developments, I imagine that he is in a great deal of demand at the moment, but I pay tribute to the hard work that he undertakes not just on behalf of the square mile, but for his entire constituency. He has demonstrated that commitment today.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the calculation of the population census, population estimates and population projections is the responsibility of the ONS. Those statistics are used for a wide spectrum of purposes and by a range of users, including the Department for Communities and Local Government, where the statistics are used in part for the funding of local government through formula grant. As a Department with a key interest in the statistics, we are also involved in the cross-Government, ONS-led work to improve the statistics over future years. I would like to outline some of the improvements if time allows, but the hon. Gentleman raised specific points and I am keen to deal with those detailed concerns. If I do not have time to deal with them all, I will write to him.

We recognise that some local authorities are experiencing more challenges than others in dealing with recent levels of international migration. My Department is working with local authorities to manage the transitional impacts of migration on local areas and communities. As set out in the document entitled “Managing the Impacts of Migration: A Cross-Government Approach”, the Government have put in place a programme of financial and practical support for local service providers to help them to manage migration, to maximise the benefits and mitigate the transitional impacts experienced by local communities.

That includes a substantial cross-Government programme to improve population and migration statistics to ensure that the data on which local government funding is based are as good and as robust as possible. I shall return to that if time allows. We have also provided a £50 million investment in community cohesion over the next three years to help local authorities to respond to their particular challenges, including issues relating to migration. We have made available an exceptional circumstances grant for schools that either experience a rapid growth in pupil numbers during the period between the January pupil count and the start of the academic year in September, or that have a significant number of children who have English as a second language.

In February 2008, in the earned citizenship Green Paper, we announced our intention to set up a fund to manage the transitional impacts of migration, providing tens of millions of pounds to local public services dealing with high levels of migration. We are working with the Improvement and Development Agency on the migration excellence programme to share good practice among local authorities and promote peer mentoring.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that short-term migrants are not included in the population estimates. That is because the ONS estimates relate to the usually resident population of each area, so only long-term international migrants are included in the estimates. They use the United Nations recommended definition of a long-term international migrant—anyone who moves from their country of usual residence for at least a year. However, the ONS has recognised the interest that Westminster council and others have shown in the possibility of producing estimates of short-term migration. As a result, and as a product of its improvement work, this year the ONS has already published national-level estimates of short-term migration for mid-2004 to mid-2006 on an experimental basis. The ONS plans to publish a feasibility report on its plans for producing local estimates. That report is expected by the end of the year. If, after that, reliable estimates for that group of migrants at local authority level became available, we would be able to consider more carefully whether to include those data in the three-year grant distribution system. However, that would need to be considered in the same way as any other changes to the formula system, through discussion involving the official-level settlement working group and consultation.

In relation to the improving migration and population estimates programme, it is important to know that that work involves local government in a number of ways, as both data suppliers and data users. Local government is represented on the programme board and in the working groups by the Local Government Association. The ONS and the LGA are holding an open workshop to explain the research that has been undertaken towards the end of 2008. Implementation seminars are likely to be held in April or May 2009 further to explain any changes to the estimates. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman encourage Westminster council to take the opportunity to engage with the ONS through those workshops.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned three specific issues regarding funding for Westminster: the three-year formula grant settlement; affordable housing and homelessness; and foreign nationals’ recourse to public funds. I would like to deal with each of those in turn. With regard to the three-year formula grant settlement, the Government worked closely with local authorities in the context of the comprehensive spending review 2007 to examine all pressures on councils up to 2010-11 and the ways in which those pressures could be mitigated and managed. Councils will receive an additional £8.91 billion over this CSR period in total Government grant.

With regard to distributing formula grant to local authorities, the amount of grant paid to a local authority is based largely on its socio-economic and demographic characteristics and its relative ability to raise council tax locally. We then ensure that every authority receives at least a minimum increase, which is called the floor, on a like-for-like basis—that is, after adjusting for changes in funding and function. Understandably, population forms the main element of the demographic characteristics, and we use the ONS population projections, split into different age groups where appropriate, as the client group for most of our relative needs formulae, but it is not the only factor that determines the funding allocation. I stress that, to be fair when calculating local government finance settlements, we have consistently used the best data available at the time and that those data have to treat all authorities consistently. We took that approach when calculating the final 2008-09 settlement and the provisional 2008-09 and 2009-10 settlements in January.

For population projections, the best data available at the time were the revised 2004-based sub-national population projections published by the ONS in September 2007. That means that for the population client group for Westminster, we used the population projection for 2008 of 256,266 in the 2008-09 settlement, 262,592 in the 2009-10 settlement, and 268,569 in the 2010-11 settlement. In turn, Westminster received a 2 per cent. increase in formula grant on a like-for-like basis for 2008-09 and benefited from the floor damping mechanism by £14.4 million. Other local authorities were not so fortunate with the damping mechanism. Furthermore, in 2009-10 and 2010-11, Westminster will receive increases of 1.75 per cent. and 1.5 per cent. respectively and will again benefit from the floor damping mechanism by £8.5 million and £2.7 million respectively.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to mention, because it is a particular passion of mine, affordable housing and homelessness in Westminster. Tackling the shortage of affordable housing is central to our efforts, and it is a major part of my work and priority as a Minister. As the hon. Gentleman said, demand for homes to buy or rent is growing faster than supply, and it is the most vulnerable in society who suffer from housing shortages. We have at our disposal some £8.4 billion for new social housing until 2010-11, and we will build some 45,000 new social homes a year. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Government’s strategy to cut rough sleeping by two thirds, with the longer-term goal of bringing levels as close to zero as possible.

Local leadership underpinned by our Supporting People programme, along with local homelessness strategies, has promoted effective partnerships and improved services. In December 2007, I announced homelessness grant funding of at least £200 million over the next three years to continue to support local authorities and voluntary sector organisations to tackle and prevent homelessness in their area. That was the largest ever cash injection for homelessness services in this country. Westminster received £6.6 million for 2008-09, which was the largest homelessness grant allocation ever provided for London.

I do not have time to discuss foreign nationals with no recourse to public funds, but as the hon. Gentleman suggested, responsibilities—

Order. We have to move on to the next debate.

I am delighted to have secured this important debate, which follows on from previous debates that the Minister has had with me and many other Members. The issues that I intend to raise today are not necessarily specific to my constituency, although I shall mention some issues that arise there. I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Caton, and to have the opportunity to debate the subject again with the Minister, who has been very generous in offering advice. However, as I shall say in a moment, I hope that he will be less constrained today than he was in yesterday’s debate in Westminster Hall, when we debated the regional spatial strategy for the south-west.

The subject of affordable housing presents a vast and varied picture, but I want to address two aspects of it. The first relates very much to yesterday’s debate. The canvas on which we paint our response to the need for affordable housing clearly has to be the existing planning and housing strategies. The regional spatial strategy obviously has a significant impact on the ability of local authorities to respond.

Secondly, I want to reflect on the impact of the present financial crisis, particularly in relation to today’s announcement about the bank rescue package, and especially the impact of the crisis on the most vulnerable people. In response to interventions during his speech yesterday, the Minister said:

“Let me get to the very heart of my response. As the House is aware, owing to the quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State in this matter, I am very limited in what I can say… there is clear guidance for Ministers, based on advice from the Law Officers and first Treasury counsel. A copy of the guidance can be found”—

and so on. The Minister then said:

“The guidance states that Ministers should not enter into discussions with interested parties”.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 October 2008; Vol. 480, c. 46WH.]

I checked the guidance myself. There are two versions, but the one to which the Minister referred—as he properly said in our previous debate, it was produced prior to the Secretary of State’s proposed changes to the regional spatial strategy—clearly constrains Ministers. That is clear as far as those stages of the development of the regional spatial strategy are concerned. However, paragraph 17 of the document on guidance to which he referred states:

“However, such discussions can take place once the Secretary of State has published her proposed changes for consultation, so long as a formal note for the file is kept of any such discussion which is made publicly available.”

I should have thought that Hansard was a pretty good note, and it is certainly publicly available.

I hope that the Minister will feel less constrained today than he did yesterday, in view of my reading of the advice in that guidance. Perhaps we can look a little more carefully at some of the points that I raised in a debate on 25 June, and clarify the extent to which the regional spatial strategy is the product of the collective will—the desire of the population in the government zones, in this case, of the south-west—or that of the Government. Does he agree that the lessons of the past, particularly trend-based projections, should inform the production of the strategy? Does he accept that many of the unique challenges faced by the Isles of Scilly that I mentioned in that previous debate are shared in other areas?

If one wanted to create a new structure of unaccountability, the regional spatial strategy would certainly be a good model on which to base it. First, it is not based on a region that exists, in the sense that it has its own internal integrity or community of interest. It is obviously a bureaucratic construct for bureaucratic convenience, and it is served by an assembly that is not directly or democratically elected. It is a relatively flimsy, remote and permissive body, and it is about to be disbanded. It suffers all the constraints of being an agent of the Government rather than being able to make decisions with the latitude that one would expect of a body that was able to draw up a regional strategy.

The response from local authorities and others to the process that has led to the current state of affairs shows that, for a number of justifiable reasons, the proposed changes are inappropriate. For instance, they give too much weight to trend-based projections of household growth when compared with other planning considerations such as the impact on settlement character and infrastructure, and the need to balance housing with job growth. They are based on projections and a distribution that lack adequate evidence and justification. They also contradict other Government policies on the environment and climate change that give justifiable protection to other areas under other planning polices.

As I pointed out in a previous debate, if people wanted a classic example of how trend-based projections do not work but become part of the problem rather than the solution, they should come to Cornwall and see what has happened there over the past 40 years. Our housing stock has more than doubled over that period. Cornwall and its people cannot be criticised for being nimbys. Because of the imposition of trend-based projections and as a result of following them through, we have permitted and even encouraged development; in fact the area has the third-fastest growth in the United Kingdom. However, the housing problems of local people have become significantly worse.

One conclusion that we can draw from that example is that growth has been relatively unsustainable. The sheer rate of change has created real problems in many parts of Cornwall, and it has been difficult for the infrastructure of the place to keep pace with the changes. Having allowed it to happen, the real question is whether the building of all those houses has added to the problem. It certainly has not addressed our housing needs. Perhaps we should take a more sophisticated approach. Perhaps local authorities in Cornwall should enter into a dialogue with the Government rather than simply allowing things to carry on.

On that point, will my hon. Friend press the Minister to ensure that the planning system is mended? Indeed, funding provided out of the £8 billion set aside for social housing to ensure that we get more affordable housing in a managed way in rural areas could formally support my “Home on the Farm” scheme, which already has the backing of the president of the National Farmers Union and of South Lakeland district council. It would allow the conversion of unused or disused farm buildings for the specific purpose of social housing for local families.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am aware of the interesting “Home on the Farm” initiative. I hope that he will send a copy of it to the Minister, as it could provide a solution, particularly in remote rural areas

Although farmers and landowners in my constituency and in my hon. Friend’s constituency are paragons of rectitude and virtue, and one can rely on them without having to surround them with all the covenants and legal restrictions of section 106 obligations to achieve genuine affordable housing in perpetuity for local people on their land, sadly that is probably not necessarily the case in the rest of the country. The one thing that we need to do in the proposal is ensure—this is a belt-and-braces approach—that public good results from any permission that is granted on those farm buildings. That needs to be enshrined in the proposal, because, as my hon. Friend knows—it is also true in my constituency—when redundant farm buildings such as barns become available, planning authorities, applying existing planning law, will allow them to be converted for holiday accommodation, but not to meet local housing need. In fact, there is a way forward. It does not require an Einstein to propose a method to manage such developments, even if they are not attached to the local community, which is to say within reach of a local shop, bus service or school. Many local families could benefit from the kind of accommodation that my hon. Friend described. I hope that I have endorsed what he said, and that he will continue to pursue the matter.

As was mentioned in the debate on 25 June, the RSS does not apply to the Isles of Scilly in the same way that it does to mainland Cornwall. There is no attempt to apply proportionately the Government’s target of 3 million homes by 2026 to the islands. In effect, the RSS says that it is a local-need-only housing development plan for the period. However, I question the justification for giving the islands what is effectively a locals-only development constraint—although it is right that it does—when that is not extended to other areas that experience the same problems.

I believe that I have demonstrated that the Minister is less constrained than he was in yesterday’s debate. Does he accept that it is reasonable to advance the debate about the ownership of the document and the process as I did earlier? Does he agree that the lessons of the past are relevant, especially regarding trend-based projections of population growth and housing need, and that the RSS should be a plan with internal integrity and not simply a hotch-potch or collation of Government-imposed targets? Will he explain why the challenges of meeting affordable housing need on mainland Cornwall do not apply to the Isles of Scilly?

In the light of today’s announcement of the bank rescue package, what progress have the Government made to provide a rescue package for those at the bottom of the housing ladder, who are suffering most from the impact of the credit crunch and the current financial instability? I ask that question, bearing in mind that just the other day, there were 50 repossessions in court in Penzance, as reported in the papers. Apart from the Bank of England’s special liquidity scheme, which was announced in April, the Government have clearly indicated a desire to act. I congratulate them on announcing initiatives, but it is a question of applying them. I am talking about the rent-to-buy pilot, the new shared equity and mortgage rescue schemes, financial advice and assistance, extra money for registered social landlords, purchase schemes of private, developer-led developments that cannot proceed for whatever reason, and the housing private financing initiative.

Other organisations have made proposals. The National Housing Federation has proposed that housing associations develop their own mortgage rescue packages to assist those who face difficulties, and the purchase of unstarted, started and complete private developments. Shelter has proposed better information and advice provision for those who are in arrears and face repossession. It also said that the Government and the Financial Services Authority needs to be tougher on irresponsible lenders who are all too ready to take repossession action; needs to regulate private mortgage rescue sale and leaseback schemes; and introduce a pre-action protocol for mortgage arrears in court to ensure that repossession is a measure of last resort; and look again at income support for mortgage interest.

The financial crisis has, of course, made home buying less affordable, because deposit requirements have gone up as, effectively, have interest rates, particularly for first-time buyers, notwithstanding today’s announcement. The new Homes and Communities Agency will have substantial funds, but it has a huge job in delivering the Government’s affordable homes targets because of the fall in private sector development. There may also be packages in urban areas, not least in the north, for the Government to deal with surplus buy-to-let developments. I hope that the Minister and my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the agency has a clear brief to continue the work that it has been developing on smaller rural communities, particularly villages. They may not be an obvious priority in the current circumstances, but they have experienced some of the sharpest affordability problems.

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I commend his report, which was published at the beginning of the recess and is entitled, “Living Working Countryside”. The Minister is aware of it, and I look forward to the Government’s response.

I hope that the Minister feels unconstrained, or at least less constrained than he was in yesterday’s debate, when he responds. Reasonable questions have been asked about the impact of the RSS on the ability of local authorities and others to respond to the desperate need to provide affordable housing, rather than allowing the planning system to fuel a developers’ paradise, which it has done in the past. We should look at extending help to the most vulnerable people and families in these hard times.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important debate on affordable housing and planning. In the debate on 25 June on planning and housing estimates, which he mentioned, I paid tribute to his expertise, professionalism, knowledge and insight on housing matters. I should like to reiterate those sentiments today—I have not changed my mind—and say how much I welcome this timely debate on affordable housing and planning. The emphasis has been almost exclusively on rural housing, rightly, because the hon. Members who have spoken represent rural constituencies.

I should like to provide some context and remind the Chamber what the Government have already done to help to provide affordable housing in rural areas. Since 1997, more than 71,000 affordable houses have been provided in rural areas. Between 2006 and 2008, the Housing Corporation was able to deliver almost 7,500 homes in settlements of fewer than 10,000 people, of which almost 5,500 were homes in settlements of fewer than 3,000 people. We have provided in planning policy statement 3, on housing, for local authorities to develop rural exception sites so that affordable housing can be built on land that would not otherwise be available. We have also set the corporation a challenging national target to deliver at least 10,300 properties in small rural communities in this spending review period.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of points in his excellent speech, and I am keen to address them. In many ways, he reiterated the points that were made in yesterday’s debate on the regional spatial strategy for the south-west, but he also advanced them. He asked me to be less constrained than I was in that debate, but I am a risk-adverse individual, and the age of irresponsibility is at an end. I do not intend to shoot from the hip. I reiterate what I said yesterday and on a number of other occasions: the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in the process, and I do not want to do anything that would compromise her ability to make a free decision. I do not want to be subject to any kind of judicial review. All that I say is that in debates today, yesterday and on several other occasions, hon. Members have been able to raise points that they and their constituents wished to have raised, and that is welcome.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned affordability and protection for more vulnerable households, and I welcome his comments on that. I wish to mention at length the package of measures that we announced on 2 September, because this is probably the first opportunity that hon. Members have had to discuss it. The hon. Gentleman showed in his speech that he is very much aware of the state of the UK housing market. It is going through a sharp adjustment, triggered largely by the global credit crisis. People are finding it extremely hard, if not impossible, to get mortgages, house prices have fallen and house builders are experiencing extremely difficult trading conditions after years of favourable circumstances.

On delivering affordable housing, we are aware that housing associations are facing problems in accessing credit at competitive rates and that their business models, by which houses for sale at market value help to subsidise properties for social rent, are under severe strain because of the lack of mortgage finance. Purchasers of our low-cost home ownership products are facing similar problems in obtaining mortgages or raising a sufficient deposit.

At the heart of our announcements on 2 September was pulling those factors together by helping first-time buyers on to the property ladder, trying to minimise the risk of repossession and increasing and enhancing the supply of social housing. They built on a number of measures that had been taken in July and earlier to help families adjust to the current tough state of the housing market. The new package will help those most in need, and I shall explain the impact that it will have on affordable housing.

First, the package will provide up to 10,000 more first-time buyers who are currently frozen out of the mortgage market with the chance to get on to the property ladder through a new shared equity scheme in a new partnership with housing developers. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in rent-to-buy models, and we will run a pilot rent to homebuy scheme on certain sites from 2009 to allow households to benefit from below-market rent for two to three years while they save for a deposit. After that, they will have the option of buying a share of the property.

The package also included a one-year stamp duty holiday on all houses costing up to £175,000, meaning that about 50 per cent. of all house purchases will be exempt. We are also providing more support for social rented homes by bringing forward £400 million of Government spending to deliver up to 5,500 new social rented homes at good prices in the next 18 months.

We are supporting house builders and the housing sector by adding to the £66 million already allocated, so that a total of at least £200 million will be available to buy unsold property from house builders, principally for use as social rented housing. The Government also announced new support measures to help vulnerable house owners meet their mortgage interest payments. The Department for Work and Pensions announced that it would reform support for mortgage interest by shortening from 39 weeks to 13 weeks the waiting period before it is paid for new working-age claims from April 2009. The capital limit for new working-age claims will also be increased to £175,000 from that date. A further £100 million investment will be provided to support SMI reform, which we estimate could help to prevent 10,000 repossessions.

Bearing in mind that this is a debating Chamber, and not one for posting information, I have raised issues that are worthy of debate in a debating Chamber. With the greatest respect to the Minister—I admire him equally, so there is mutual admiration going on—I suggest that he could send me a written note of the information that he is reading out about the package of measures that both he and I have mentioned. I would be happy to get that helpful information, but can we debate some of the issues around the regional spatial strategy itself, such as the relevance and impact of trend-based projections and the relevance of applying the RSS differently to the Isles of Scilly and the mainland? It is better for us to tease out such issues in debate here and now than for the Minister, if he does not mind my saying so, to give me information that I would be quite happy to receive in the post.

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s wishes, and I am more than happy to help in that regard. I was trying to set out the details of that important package of measures, because the House was in recess when it was announced. Some £1 billion of public money is being provided to help support the wider housing market, particularly vulnerable householders who face the risk of not being able to get on to the property ladder or of repossession. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of parliamentary scrutiny in both yesterday’s and today’s debates, and I was keen to mention those matters for the first time since we returned from recess. However, I take on board his point, and I am keen to move on.

If I may, I should like to talk at length about the important matter of affordable housing and planning estimates, particularly in a rural context. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) is in his place because, as has been mentioned, he has provided an excellent report. The Prime Minister asked him to look into the issue, and I shall quote from his original terms of reference, although I am sure that he does not need me to reiterate them. [Interruption.] I will be giving a test later on. He was asked to examine

“the application of land use planning to facilitate the provision of land for greater economic and social sustainability within rural communities, including land for enterprise and the provision of affordable rural homes”.

The report was published in July. The crucial point that I have taken from it is that the best way to see our rural communities thrive is to invest in the wider issue of rural economies and communities, both by supporting jobs and through affordable housing.

To take the matter to another level, the concept of the sub-national review is to bring together the regional economic strategy, which is about the economic development of an area, and the regional spatial strategy, which discusses planning, housing numbers and a whole range of spatial issues, into an integrated regional strategy. That is key, and it is a bit of a no-brainer in some respects, because it is so important. I reiterate that I took from the hon. Gentleman’s report the idea that we cannot only talk about affordable housing, and that how to sustain that housing with a vibrant economy is key.

I shall address directly the hon. Gentleman’s point about the role of the Homes and Communities Agency. I hope that he welcomes the agency, as it will be valuable in driving forward a range of matters on affordable housing, the regeneration of communities, sustainable development and improvements in design principles. This morning, I addressed a rural housing conference called “Investing in Rural Futures”. Sir Bob Kerslake, the chief executive of the HCA, made a speech, as did I, and so did Candy Atherton. I was able to announce that Candy Atherton, who has played an enormous role in pushing forward the issue of affordable rural housing, has been appointed to the board of the Homes and Communities Agency. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and others that the agency will not be an urban-led regeneration organisation, important though that is. It will also have at the heart of its strategic direction the importance of rural communities and affordable housing.

Just before coming to the debate I spoke at the same conference, where people have been in break-out meetings during the day. Key to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) has made is the fact that, as my report reflects, there is consensus that Government leadership is needed on the issues addressed. That consensus exists among people at the conference and elsewhere. I hope that we will have a chance to discuss those issues further and that the Government will act on the report. That was a message that came out of the conference.

I am very keen to do that. The Government are considering their response to the hon. Gentleman’s report, which is going across Departments at the moment. We will hopefully be in a position to respond shortly. I take his point, and there are issues that we can sort out centrally. We have a good way of disseminating good practice, for example. I was very much taken by his point about how to link thriving economies with the planning system, and by the point that it is easier to convert a garage into a snooker room than into an office. We want to promote enterprise, hard work and entrepreneurialism, so where is the sense in that? We need to do something about it, and that is where his report comes into its own.

I think that I am running out of time—

The sitting having continued for two and a half hours after half-past Two o’clock, it was adjourned without Question put.

Adjourned at Five o’clock.