I welcome the opportunity to discuss the rural economy and to raise some rural issues that are specific to my constituency. The rural economy plays a very big part in my constituency. However, as the past week's developments have focused attention on one specific aspect of the rural economy, I shall keep my remarks brief, so that other hon. Members can speak on that topic.

I shall address wider issues in the rural economy before addressing the prevalent issue. I should like to hear the Government's philosophy on, and perception of their role in, supporting the rural economy. Is such support a priority for Ministers? Is maintaining a vital rural economy a priority, or are they happy for the drift towards purely urban environments to continue depleting the rural base? Specifically, I should like to hear the Government's views on the future of objective 5b funding—which affects part of my constituency—of structural funds, and of efforts to preserve the rural economy.

The oil industry dominates the city of Aberdeen and its outlying commuter areas, affecting especially house prices. How do the Government propose to encourage affordable housing in rural environments, so that families can stay in those areas? There is a crisis in the north-east of my constituency, because the only people who can live there are those in well-paid occupations who commute into the city.

At the heart of the housing problem is the need for the Government to confront capital funding for public sector housing. As Liberal Democrat Members have repeatedly said, it is farcical that money invested in housing that guarantees a return to the Exchequer is treated the same as money that brings no return. The Government must examine their accounting processes so that investment can be made again in council and other public sector housing in rural areas. The sale of council housing, and the general failure to build new housing, is creating a serious problem of keeping people and indigenous industries—which would stay when oil moves on—in rural areas.

Especially in the north of Scotland, there has traditionally been a recognition that, wherever one lives, one should be connected to society. The history of hydro-electric, particularly, demonstrates the belief that people should have equal access to electricity supplies regardless of where they live. Opening markets and a market-driven philosophy in running the economy have increasingly attracted people to urban environments, which provide all the quality public services. The worry is that rural areas will be left out of transport links and be less well connected to infrastructure.

There has been a proliferation of telecommunications masts in all the juicy spots in my constituency. Rival companies have been gaining access to the mobile telephone market, yet vast tracts of my constituency have no access to that network. Similarly, the BBC is developing new broadcasting technologies that will involve more people in the media, but parts of my constituency do not yet have access to current technology.

The fear is that, with less-regulated utilities, people in rural areas will become increasingly unable to obtain services, to stay in their community and to participate fully in society. I should like to hear the Government's assurances that they will encourage and sustain activity in rural environments, rather than encouraging people to move to urban environments.

Another important issue is the future of rural transport. As hon. Members on both sides know, bus deregulation led to a major downturn in the availability of bus services, and to a reduction in the quality and use of bus services. Significantly, on the same day that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions was encouraging people to get out of their cars and start using buses, the local bus service in Finzean in my constituency was completely cut. Will the Government explore more imaginative ways in which to encourage community buses? Perhaps community councils could provide minibus services so that people without cars can continue to live in the rural economy.

In the light of the present headlines, it is difficult to have a debate on the rural economy without turning to the most pressing problem affecting many of my constituents—the crisis in farming. I shall keep my remarks short so that other hon. Members can go into some of the detail.

I start with the underlying philosophical aspects of the problem. Since the war, there has been a tradition of the state being heavily involved in the agricultural economy. All parties have accepted that the state has that role. There has been an unwritten contract or partnership between the farming community and the state under which the state has interfered in and operated in the market. That has led the farming community to be dependent on the actions of the state.

The Government have recognised that the previous Government's handling of the beef crisis led to a delay in finding a solution and to even more burdens being placed on the farming community. Ministers recognise that the state has a responsibility, but they have failed to recognise that the Government should assist the farming community. I should declare an interest at this point. Although I am not active in farming, I own a farm.

The crucial point that my constituents make to me is that the Government have a chance to compensate farmers for the fluctuations in the green pound. So far, the Government have failed to make their intentions clear. They have implied that they will not compensate farmers, but they have not ruled it out. The easiest way in which to boost the farming economy would be for the Government to give farmers access to funds.

The rules of the European Union allow Governments to compensate farmers for fluctuations in currency. If the Government fail to compensate our farmers, they will be forcing them to operate with one hand tied behind their back in an open market. If the Government believe that the rules should be changed, they should change them. The rules should be changed not as a result of Treasury decisions, but after negotiations in the European Union. That is fundamental.

The beef crisis has not affected only farmers. It has also affected the hauliers who take the cattle to market, the abattoirs, the markets themselves and the whole food processing industry, which is vital to the north-east of Scotland. One farmer said to me, "I may be very green, but I always thought that we grew beef for our own consumption." Farmers see farming not as a business, but as a way of life. The Government have failed to take that on board. If the Government withdraw economic support, there is no escape route for farmers. That is why there are high rates of depression and high suicide rates.

I hope that the Minister will give us some answers on the wider issues of the rural economy. I also hope that he will give us not just a message of sympathy—the Government are quite good at that—but some hope of concrete action and a commitment that they will use the powers available to them to compensate farmers for the crisis in farming, which was of the previous Government's making.

I am grateful for being called, Madam Speaker. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) for initiating this debate on a Wednesday morning, when there is an opportunity for a number of hon. Members to make a contribution.

The hon. Member talked about Government interference, a point which needs greater investigation. I talked to a farmer in my constituency on Friday about the history of farming. Between the wars, there was such a severe and prolonged agricultural depression that, in parts of East Anglia, it was possible to have a series of fields for three years before being expected to pay rent. The plight of farmers matched the plight of those who worked in heavy industry in the north-east of England at the time. The state "interfered" to assist farmers, to guarantee food production and to guarantee our position in the world after the second world war.

The situation has changed since then. The whole emphasis of the common agricultural policy has been to stimulate production, a process which has gone hand in hand with rural depopulation. I do not mean that the number of people living in rural areas has declined, but that there are fewer people working in agriculture and agriculture-related businesses.

The House of Commons Library assisted me yesterday by providing figures for the number of people employed as hired agricultural workers. The figure for 1945 was just under 900,000; the figure for 1996 was 250,000. Over that period, there has been a 70 per cent. reduction in the number of those working on the land. More recent figures suggest that the figure may have fallen to an even lower level—perhaps to 156,000.

The whole thrust of the CAP has been to neglect employment in agriculture as a means of earning a living. I hope that during the Agenda 2000 negotiations, the Government will follow up one of the points raised in the document, which says:

"The Union should make a parallel effort to enhance the economic potential and the environmental value of rural areas and their capacity to provide sustainable jobs."

The policy thus far has not been to provide sustainable jobs, but rather the reverse. Even since 1992, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of people employed in agriculture.

My submission is that the way forward is—to use one of the jargon words that bedevil agricultural economics—decoupling. We should take away support and subsidy for production on an accelerated basis.

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Does he agree that farmers in his constituency and in mine are in a serious crisis? Does he agree that they require the Government, who were, we were told, elected to look out for the many and not just for the few, to help them? There are many farmers in serious crisis. Does he agree that the Government should seek to unlock the compensation funds in Brussels as a priority? Farmers are not just business men. They are the guardians of the countryside, and they require our help.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has clearly read a synopsis of my later remarks. I agree entirely that the Government are pursuing a strong policy to support farmers. The figure of £1 billion of support because of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis flips off my tongue, in addition to the £500,000 to support the beef industry.

The hon. Gentleman mentions £1 billion. We were told by Ministers at agriculture Question Time last week that the figure was £1.5 billion. I hope that he understands that that money was negotiated by the previous Government, and was in addition to the agriculture budget. That was done to help the beef industry in a crisis. It is incumbent on the Minister to go back and negotiate more money from his Chancellor in another crisis. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage him to do so.

The Government cannot just parade £1 billion as money that they have obtained. It was obtained in a crisis by the previous Government. We are asking the new Government to do the same now.

I had hoped to avoid going into the origins of the BSE crisis and apportioning blame. The issues should be raised above the political knockabout so that we can examine the root cause of the problems in agriculture. I am sure that others will deal with the party political points in due course.

To sustain the rural economy, people have to work in it. That can be achieved by decoupling the payments from production and supporting the farmer for being the custodian of the countryside. The farmer has two important functions: to produce food and run his business; and to act as the custodian of the countryside. The countryside is for us all to enjoy and appreciate, but it cannot be managed on the cheap. It is only right and proper that farmers should be paid for sustaining environmental projects, keeping the countryside as we like it and supporting the conservation of wildlife.

The advantage of moving subsidy in that way is that conservation schemes are more labour intensive than non-conservation schemes. A hedge can be taken out overnight with a tractor and a man on overtime. It has then gone for a long time. Putting a hedge in requires continual care and cultivation over many years. The more hedges that go in, the more sustainable jobs there are. The more deciduous forestry plantations there are, run in proper woodland management schemes, the more labour will be required to coppice. The more traditional industries that are brought back to agriculture—such as charcoal burning to meet the ever growing barbecue market—the more jobs are put back into agriculture. The growth in game conservation will also put jobs back into agriculture. Each genuine rural job that is put back in agriculture is a boost to the rural community—the shop, the church, the pub and the village hall. It sustains traditional communities that have existed for generations and creates a real countryside, as opposed to a commuter haven for visits at weekends or during the summer.

rose—

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Was he giving way?

I always seek to do so if I possibly can.

I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had finished or was giving way.

It is early in the morning. I am a constituent of the hon. Gentleman, and we share a problem as constituency neighbours. Our rural communities are threatened by the supposed need for 4.4 million houses to be built in the south-east of England over the next 20 years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a lose-lose scenario? It will destroy our rural communities. There will be no sense of community if vast new housing estates are to be plastered all over our rural areas.

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in resisting the logic that says that such houses are needed in those areas? It will be bad for the rural economy, bad for the environment, because people will be dependent on cars, and bad for those who will have to live in those soulless housing estates.

As my constituency neighbour and one of my constituents, the hon. Gentleman will know that I have frequently spoken in the constituency against the building plans for that part of northern and central Essex. However, now is not the time to pursue that issue. We had a debate on it recently, when hon. Members aired their views widely.

I shall seek to reach a conclusion, because this is a short debate. Rural communities cannot be sustained without rural employment. Without agricultural subsidies directed at providing incentives for farmers—or business men who are farming—to employ people, there will be ever fewer people working and living in the countryside. That will result in the horror of large housing estates for commuters or retired people built on green-field sites with no economic connection with the local area.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for—is it Aberdeen and Kincardine?

West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.

I apologise. I congratulate him on introducing this debate on the rural areas of our country, which are so important.

As a representative of a rural community, I pay tribute to the farming community, particularly at this time when it is facing such tremendous difficulties in all sectors. The contribution of the farming community is often undervalued. Wherever one drives in the United Kingdom—I say United Kingdom advisedly—one sees the most beautiful scenery and well-husbanded land. We do not give enough credit to the farming community for keeping it like that.

The first principle of farmers is to produce good, wholesome food, which has been done throughout the ages. The second is to recognise the impact of agriculture on the environment. They are the custodians of the countryside; environmental policies can be introduced through them. In addition, they provide the habitat for wildlife.

Farmers in Cheshire are interested in, and committed to, the land that they farm. They do all that they can to plant new woodland and habitats for wildlife wherever possible. That can be done only where the industry is profitable. As we have heard so often recently, the industry is in a state of crisis and its future is under threat.

Milk is important in Cheshire. The strength of sterling has driven down the produce price, but my farmers do not see much reduction in supermarket prices to reflect that. We can safely say that some people's margins have increased dramatically at the expense of our farming community. That should be said loud and clear. Supermarkets have introduced great benefits to the housewife, providing a wide range of fresh, good-quality food, but there is a down side to the control that they have. We must recognise what is happening. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say last week that he would speak to the chairmen of all the main supermarkets and tell them that he was disgusted by their behaviour.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the same phenomenon applies to the beef industry? Last week, we saw the lowest prices ever for beef on the hoof in Chippenham market, but the supermarket price remains miraculously unchanged.

My hon. Friend is right. One of the problems with beef is that, while the hind quarter has sold exceptionally well since the beginning of the BSE crisis, there have been difficulties in shifting the cheaper cuts.

The dairy industry works hand in hand with the beef sector. It provides the cull cows and breeds some of the bull calves, although they do not go into the beef industry. Both sectors have been equally hard hit by the recent crisis.

Dairy farmers in my constituency ask me how it is that Britain has been the second largest net contributor to the budget of the common agricultural policy, yet our Government will not apply to Brussels for green pound compensation for the four revaluations this year that have caused them such difficulty. They also say that the present Government have given up one lever that they could have used in respect of interest rate policy by handing over responsibility for fixing interest rates to the Governor of the Bank of England, who is advised by an unelected committee of experts.

We believe that the Government should apply to the European agri-monetary compensation fund to assist our agriculture industry. Beef prices are down throughout the United Kingdom. Beef farmers have been hit by the weight restrictions in the over-30-months scheme and hill farmers in particular are in dire straits. The good stock is bred and raised by the hill farmers before going down to the lowlands to be finished. If the hill farmers do not survive, vast tracts of the country will go to rack and ruin. Hill farmers look after the environment, produce exceptionally good stock and have a very hard life indeed.

It is all very well for right hon. and hon. Members who work in the warm facilities of the House of Commons and elsewhere, but hill farmers get up very early in the morning to work in all weathers and we should recognise the valuable role that they play in our uplands.

I served on the Select Committee on Agriculture for 10 years, including during the beef crisis. The previous Government were advised by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which comprises distinguished scientists in the field. The Government of the day have always followed its advice to the letter. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) tried to apportion blame, but it is indisputable that the BSE crisis cannot be blamed on anyone.

Last week, I was horrified to hear the new ruling on deboning. Scientists can advise, but Ministers and politicians must make policy decisions. It was a political decision.

I am rather perturbed to hear that. When we debated the issue last week, I thought that there was unanimity on a difficult decision. As it is widely understood that we do not know what caused BSE, surely the precautionary principle should be foremost. Does the hon. Lady agree?

No. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, as the Minister was faced with three options and took the most severe one. In doing so, we have all let common sense fly out of the window. Naturally, we all regret the people who have died from the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, but those numbers must be balanced against the fact that the chance of contracting the disease is one in 600 million and falling because of the policies that have been introduced over the years to minimise the risk.

The British people showed what they thought of the new decision when they rushed to the supermarkets last week to buy ribs of beef and T-bone steaks. We live in an age when we are expected to take no risks. I probably took more risks getting out of bed this morning and coming to the House than ever I would by eating T-bone steaks every day for the rest of my life. Last week's decision lacked balance and judgment, and beef farmers will suffer as a result.

I have represented Congleton for 14 years. Although there have been ups and downs, there has never been so much depression and such low morale in all sectors of agriculture.

I should also mention badgers and tuberculosis. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) commissioned the Krebs report on badgers and TB, and we are awaiting its publication. The problem is extremely serious; Members representing the west country may wish to mention it later. The disease is spreading northwards to Shropshire and Staffordshire, where it has a considerable impact on the farming industry.

Let me quote from an article in Farming News on 28 November to

"emphasise the damage the badger moratorium is causing".

It was about a Staffordshire farmer who

"has lost 20 cows through TB. He was aiming to expand his herd to 120 cows and took on a herdsman in the summer, but after 20 reactors were found, his expansion plans are back on hold."

There is strong circumstantial evidence that the badger is implicated in the transmission of TB to cattle. The present policy is not working because it does not allow proper clearance of infected badgers. I agree with the many people who believe that the system should be changed to allow clearance and that it should be a top priority. Badger numbers are growing dramatically in certain parts of the country and, where badger numbers are high, there is a strong likelihood of spontaneous outbreaks of TB. Shropshire is a graphic example; the badger population there must be managed.

Compensation to farmers is grossly inadequate. It needs to be at least 125 per cent. of replacement value to cover the increased costs involved and the long-term effects on farm businesses.

I am grateful for the time of the House today. I have tried to impress on the Minister the need for positive and urgent Government action to assist British agriculture.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) on his good fortune in being able to initiate a debate on the rural economy at such a pressing time.

I shall confine my remarks entirely to agriculture, and I hope that the Minister will communicate to his ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office and other Departments the strength of feeling—underlined by the presence of so many Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches—about the present crisis. The word crisis is often overused in politics and in the House. None the less, if anything underlines the fact that there is a genuine crisis not only among farmers but among their leadership, it is the resignation of Sandy Mole yesterday as the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland.

People such as Sandy Mole do not walk away from the jobs that they have been elected to do, and which they have done with diligence and honour, unless there is a deep-rooted problem. I hope that Scottish Office Ministers will have observed the sad fact that he has given up his post before the end of his term of office, and will recognise that that is a sign of the crisis of morale that has gripped Scottish agriculture, as it has gripped United Kingdom agriculture as a whole.

I hope that any sense that the Government may have had that this is all just farmers crying foul, or Opposition politicians demanding action, has now disappeared. There is much more than that. This is serious stuff. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine was right to use the opportunity to raise the matter today.

While we are talking about individuals, I must point out that the Government have one great worry—the sole unequivocal support that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food received in the House last week came from his immediate predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

There may have been a perception at European level that the previous Minister of Agriculture was doing too little, too late, but the great worry is that in connection with beef on the bone, the present Minister may have done too much, too soon. None of us, especially among the Liberal Democrats, would disagree with the idea of making available to the public scientific advice that is in the pipeline and is being put on Ministers' desks, but it would have been more sensible if the Minister, while reflecting on the advice that he had been given, had passed it on to the public and allowed them to make their decision.

The consequences of that decision over the past week, in terms of both prices and morale, have been catastrophic. I hope that the Government will realise that they have added to an already inflamed situation at the ports, and that they therefore need to take decisive action.

What decisive action should the Government take? I said that I would contribute only briefly to the debate, so I shall confine myself to making two essential points. First, for the rural economy in general and for agriculture in particular, the fact that British taxpayers are subsidising beef production and imports everywhere else in the European Union except in the United Kingdom adds insult to injury. That is a crazy state of affairs; it is like an episode of "Yes, Minister". The Government must do something about it.

Secondly, cognisant of the fact that we must send the right signal not only to United Kingdom farmers but to Brussels, the Government must get off the fence and clarify and confirm the terms and the remit of the independent inquiry that will be set up into the whole sorry saga of BSE.

The state of affairs at the moment is ludicrous. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and I raised the matter in the House last week. The Prime Minister's press secretary—let us be clear about who I mean; it was Alastair Campbell—was briefing people at No. 10 that the decision had been taken in principle some time ago, and that we now had to move ahead with a remit.

However, in the House both the Minister of State and the Leader of the House responded to questions from me and my hon. Friend by saying that no final decision had been taken, and that the Government were not yet in a position to clarify matters. Why are the Government at sixes and sevens over the issue? They should listen to the voices in the Chamber, where it has been made clear that the Labour party is in favour of, and my party has been a long-standing advocate of, an inquiry. The dog that will not bark is the Conservative party. The Conservatives are the only people who are not calling for an inquiry into BSE.

I wonder why.

We know only too well.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

In a moment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who has experience of the Scott report—and the scars to prove it—will be the first to underscore the need to confirm not only that an inquiry will take place, but that it will not take the same form as the Scott report. It must be open, independent and accessible, as that process was not.

May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party is happy to have a public inquiry? However, we are anxious to ensure that the setting up of an inquiry is not used by the Government as a smokescreen to curb other action that may be necessary immediately. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree.

I certainly agree. There will be no disagreement among the Liberal Democrats with the statement that a public inquiry should not be used as a smokescreen. That is not the point of a public inquiry, which is a flushing-out rather than a covering-up exercise. I note the hon. Gentleman's recommendation and the endorsement that he has given on behalf of his party. I expect that we shall rediscover his comments in due course, as and when such an inquiry takes place—or, more important, when it reports.

The history of the problem, which goes back far beyond the immediate BSE crisis, will demonstrate that actions taken by the previous Government on deregulation and so on are extremely relevant to the situation in which we now find ourselves. I am talking about not only agriculture but the rural economy as a whole.

I hope that the Minister who is to respond will be able to say something positive about the need to access European funds to help the farming community, and about how swiftly the Government will press ahead with an independent inquiry.

There is no doubt about the strength of feeling. The Minister will know that, if he has spoken to his Secretary of State. When 500 people turn out in Kirkwall to confront the Secretary of State for Scotland, as they did last Thursday night, to make their point in a peaceful and considered way, that is an expression of the depths of despair in the agricultural community. I know that that point is not lost on the Secretary of State, and I hope that it will not be lost on the Minister.

Did my hon. Friend note that no fewer than 1,000 south-western farmers turned up at Milbay docks in Plymouth on Friday night, as well? As well as the points that he has already made, will my hon. Friend emphasise the need to restore hill livestock compensatory allowances, which were cut by the previous regime, to a reasonable level if we are to help some of the hardest hit of our livestock farmers?

My hon. Friend is right about HLCAs. The same is true of the cuts in the over-30-months scheme that the present Government have endorsed. If ever there was an example that makes the case that the Liberal Democrats have argued before, during and since the election—that we should not adhere to the somewhat arbitrary spending limits of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer—it is the decisions that the present Administration have taken on agricultural expenditure.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great concerns for many farmers, especially tenant farmers who own no land, is the way in which the cut in the money for the over-30-months scheme has cut the capital value of their businesses? For many farmers, that capital value represents their pension. With a stroke of a bureaucratic pen, many British farmers' pensions have been cut.

My hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am sorry, my hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.] It is good to get something out of constructive opposition—[Interruption.]—but I am told that the honour predates the present regime. My hon. and learned Friend is right. How many farmers, as well as seeing their pension prognosis scuppered, have seen the value of their herds, their stock and, therefore, their bankability, wiped out overnight? In backing my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, I urge the gravity of the situation on the Minister.

Farmers are not by instinct or tradition militant people. The last thing they want to do is to stand at British ports, checking out vehicles and lorries from other parts of the British Isles. The fact that they feel moved to do so is a recognition and a reflection of a situation that is desperate and is getting worse. As Guy Fawkes said, desperate diseases require desperate remedies. To date, the desperate remedies from the Government have not been sufficient in terms of the overall profundity of the situation. The Minister has a good opportunity today to send the right signal from the Dispatch Box. I hope very much that he will do so.

I am glad that we are having another debate on rural Britain. I think that this is the third time we have been down this course—it shows the importance of the matter. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) proposed a similar debate and I was able to initiate a debate on the housing problems that affect the countryside.

We take a dim view of being lectured by the Conservatives on these problems, as much of what is wrong with rural Britain is their responsibility. They had 18 years to put some policies in place. In the six months we have held power, we have tried to deal with what I admit are serious problems in the farming community and we seem to be picking up some of the blame for the Tories' inadequacy.

I want to refer to two issues that relate to agriculture and to the way in which the farming community has been affected. I noted the remarks of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) and I share many of his views. We feel that the blame should not be attached to us; if the previous Administration had taken more prompt action on BSE, we would not be where we are today.

My point was that the responsibility of government to an individual in a state exists as a continuity, regardless of the fact that there may have been a change in the party of Administration. The present Government have recognised that the previous one was at fault, but the liability lies with the Government to redress some of the burdens put on the farming community, albeit by the actions of a different party; it was still the Government in terms of the relationship with farmers.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why we will see through the culling process, although it is causing great angst. There is no alternative if we are to get our beef back into world markets. We must go along with those desperate measures and it would seem, on the basis of all the evidence, that they are now working. Some say the crisis will come to a natural end next year, or possibly at the start of the year after, when the stock that could have been affected by BSE has been removed.

We are in a peculiarly difficult position. Although emphasis, understandably, will be placed on the beef market, there are difficulties in the milk and arable sectors. Never in recent years have so many agricultural products been in so much difficulty. That is why I understand what farmers are saying: I understand their anger and why they want action. The Government are listening and will take appropriate action.

What specific measures will the hon. Gentleman press on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to provide the answers that he is so hopeful of?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman lets me finish, I shall propose some measures.

The farmers I feel particularly sorry for are tenant farmers, who are often mortgaged to the hilt and face increases in input prices and now have the difficulty of an insecure market.

To take the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) in the spirit in which it was intended, I will make some suggestions. I want to refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who said that as much as the Government can do things, action is very much up to those who buy farm produce; dare I say it, the consumer. I would like to stress that the Government—this is not a party political point—have done everything to prove that the quality and standard of British beef is the best in the world, yet many of the problems that have angered farmers have been caused by their being undercut by cheap foreign imports.

I plead with supermarkets to listen to farmers and to a view that is shared throughout the House; if they make more effort to stress the fact that British beef is safe—we can argue about last week's measures—the situation can improve. Next month, the full traceability scheme is to be introduced, but consumers could be faced with imported beef that is not of the same standard as, and which may be older than, the under-30-months British beef that we presume is being sold here. Supermarkets have an obligation to explain that.

In a free market, we cannot say that supermarkets should take all imports off the shelves, but they should stress that British beef and British products in general are the best. That is why I asked a question on the statement last week. We encouraged the introduction of the food standards agency, which stresses how vital it is that we get our act together and do things right. The consumer will make the right choice, but there are ways in which the consumer can be helped to make that choice.

I do not want to lose the opportunity to talk about some other aspects of the rural economy. Although agriculture is not all of what goes on in the countryside, it is a very important part. It is still the major employer, particularly in the more marginal rural parts of Britain. We are faced with a series of dilemmas which the Government will address.

The document we produced in advance of the election, "A Working Countryside", was a good position paper and the previous Administration's rural White Paper was a statement of how things were. We would argue that the previous Government did not take the issue any further and did not take the action that could have been taken. There is much to be done.

The rural White Paper was not a static document and there was an obligation on the Government to report progress annually. I hope that this Government will continue that.

I hope that the Government will consider ways—although not necessarily the same ways as the previous Government—in which to ensure that the rural debate is at the top of the agenda. The Government must genuinely show that action is being taken.

The legacy is painful. As has been said, we have had bus deregulation, a continuing decline in the number of shops and other services and the imposition of signing on in person and the jobseeker's allowance. The last has caused an enormous number of problems in my constituency. They have tried to sign on in person, but there are no buses.

Poverty does not affect only urban Britain. Because the number of rural poor is small, the problem is not statistically recognised, but rural poverty exists and has been made worse by rural decline. I strongly support the establishment of the social exclusion unit, but we must ensure that it has a rural as well as an urban dimension. I believe that we can and will do that.

I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister say that regional development agencies will have a rural dimension. That shows what the Government can do. Some may say that that is at the cost of the Rural Development Commission, but my view is that that quango had served its purpose. I believe in taking decisions at the lowest possible level; that will surely be the role of regional development agencies.

This is a debate that must continually be heard. Serious problems afflict agriculture at the moment, but there are wider rural issues and I look forward to the Government addressing them in the appropriate manner.

I want to follow the example of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and concentrate entirely on agriculture, in particular livestock producers in the hills and uplands, where the crisis is most acute.

A survey by the National Farmers Union in 1995 showed that 42 per cent. of farmers in the less-favoured areas had a net farm income of less than £10,000. By any reckoning that is a low figure and it is the background against which we must view the worsening situation.

The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) was right: agricultural employment has been falling for a long while. That is happening predominantly in the arable areas, whereas the hills and uplands tend to have family farms and the fall there has been significantly smaller.

It has been implied this morning that the whole of the problem in the hills falls to the BSE crisis. We cannot get away from the fact that it is a significant factor, but we should consider some more up-to-date information. The peak of the crisis came at the end of March 1996, when the market collapse took place; market prices climbed back during 1996 and other livestock prices benefited from the collapse in beef prices.

Today, fat cattle are about 90p per kilo, compared with £1.09 12 months ago, after the recovery. Store cattle have fallen by more and fat sheep by dramatically more, to 94½p from £1.39 per kilo a year ago. That picture is mirrored across all other farm produce. Imports are coming from countries that use inputs such as mammalian meat and bonemeal, which are banned in this country.

We have had four currency revaluations in 1997, of which two were under the previous Government, because of the appreciation of sterling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said, the two later revaluations must have been partially affected by the handing over of the control of interest rates to the Bank of England.

It has been estimated that the total cost of the revaluations to the agriculture industry is about £2 billion off farm gate prices. The consequences are there for all to see. The Meat and Livestock Commission estimates that in 1997 sheep exports will be between 400,000 and 500,000 head, compared with 1 million head in 1995 and 770,000 in 1996: a dramatic decline and one significant reason for the fall in sheep prices.

In January to September this year, beef imports from the Republic of Ireland were up 72 per cent. on the same period last year. Those from the rest of the European Union, including many countries that do not have all the controls that we have, but where BSE is known to be present, were up 42 per cent. In particular, it seems odd that we can import beef from over-30-months cattle, whereas we quite rightly cannot consume our own.

The price falls show that a significant part of the current crisis falls to events of the past few months. The Government's actions do them little credit. They abandoned the regional panels within days of taking office, thereby severing the contact with the industry that would have let them know what is going on. The over-30-months scheme cost the industry £29 million, but one should consider that farmers in the less-favoured areas, with an income of about £10,000, would have to dispose of only two cull cows to reduce their income by 10 per cent. because of the difference in price over the past 12 months.

Hill livestock compensatory allowances have been cut. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the Conservative Government cut HLCAs. I acknowledge that they did in some years, but that was against the background of a falling pound, rising exports and increasing prices.

The Government decided to charge farmers £5 to £10 for cattle passports. The Conservative Government said that we would fund the setting up of a computerised system; the current Government have abandoned that. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said the other day that the existing passport scheme costs about £7.2 million; but his proposed figures could raise anything up to £38 million. When I challenged his Minister of State, he refused to rule out the possibility that the Treasury might make a profit from the fees.

The Meat Hygiene Service will cost the farming industry about £44 million. I share the views of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West on the subject of beef on the bone. I believe that the evidence demonstrates that the public believe the ban to be an overreaction.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has criticised my party for urging extra public expenditure on monetary compensation, but he refuses to take on board the fact that some money is available to him. The sheep annual premium scheme will underspend in the current year, so there will be a significant increase in our Fontainebleau rebate in the next financial year; Treasury figures suggest that it could be in excess of £100 million. That money could be reallocated back into the Ministry and used to help with European compensation without an overall increase in public expenditure.

In the past few months, the Labour party has made a great deal of its alleged representation of rural areas. There is a great difference between representing and caring. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already garnered a reputation for being distant, remote and unwilling to meet representatives of the farming and other industries for which he is responsible. By getting rid of the regional panels, he has cut himself off from the one link that he had. He has been worrying about new names and logos for his Ministry, but the current problems may lead to a dramatic diminution of the agriculture industry for which it is responsible. I hope that the Minister will take on board not only the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken this morning but the views of the thousands of farmers across all sectors, but especially in the livestock sector, who face a desperate future. They have gone out on the streets and to the docks. I do not condone any violence, but I recognise the plight that has driven them to those actions.

I hope that the Minister will go back to his colleagues and say, "Act now. We cannot let farmers face the new year in this abysmal situation; the pound continues to harden and prices continue to fall." In this densely populated country of ours, we cannot afford to let the countryside fall into dereliction, but that is what will happen to our hills and uplands if we do not assist farmers now.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) on obtaining the debate and enabling us to discuss some topical and important problems that confront the countryside. As he began in Scotland, I too shall begin with comments about Scotland.

I sometimes wonder whether those who live in the central belt of Scotland understand that rural Scotland not only comprises 90 per cent. of Scotland's land mass but is home to one third of the Scottish population. That seems sometimes to be forgotten in Scottish domestic politics. It is certainly forgotten by Labour Members, because they have not bothered to turn up this morning.

Employment in rural Scotland increased by 6.5 per cent. between 1981 and 1991; the population rose by 3.5 per cent. In office, the Conservatives set up the rural partnership fund, which was worth £3.7 million in 1996–97 and £4.2 million in 1997–98. In response to a specific point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, I remind him that under the Conservatives capital allocations to housing were substantially higher for rural Scotland than for urban Scotland. He made one or two valid points.

The Conservatives also introduced rules under which receipts from sales of council houses had to go towards repayment of debt rather than investment in the quality of the local housing stock.

I shall not go into that argument. Repayment of debt is important when some councils in the United Kingdom have debts higher than those of some third-world countries.

Today, we have had the rural Liberal Democrats trotted out. More townie than townie or more country than country are the Liberal Democrats, depending on the audience. In a different debate, we will have the townie Liberal Democrats trotted out. A party that cuddles up so closely to the Government—and with a leader who waits under the Cabinet table for any crumbs of prestige that might be dropped on him—is in danger of being found guilty by association with the Labour Government.

The Government do not regard the countryside as a real place with real people or real jobs. For many members of the Government, the countryside is somewhere where people from Islington go at weekends. We have to ask what the Government have against the countryside. They have increased interest rates. The rural development agencies will be based in urban areas. In the south-west—a matter that is important to my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for South—West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who were unable to speak in the debate, the RDAs will be dominated by Bristol and Plymouth, not rural areas. The local government settlement has a rural to urban bias.

The Government failed to fight for beef at Amsterdam. They have failed to compensate for the rise in the pound. They have introduced cattle passport charges, new Meat Hygiene Service charges and extra abattoir waste costs. They have cut over-30-months scheme cattle compensation and the hill livestock compensatory allowance. The Government seem to serve no one's interest but their own. They are there to serve the cult of the Prime Minister's ego, not the people in the countryside.

The question is—[Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats should stop for one minute and contain themselves. Why does the rural economy matter? Because it has a £17 billion turnover. It represents 1.5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product. It employs 608,000 people—more than transport, mining and quarrying, research and development, post and telecommunications, or the energy or water supply industries. It makes an important contribution to our trade. It is important for our investment. However, the key measure of farm investment—the agricultural gross fixed capital formation—will be hit by the current loss of confidence and the Government's raising of interest rates.

Farmers are the natural custodians of the countryside. Under the Conservative Government, more than 5,200 farmers signed up to the countryside stewardship scheme. By designating environmentally sensitive areas, which cover more than 15 per cent. of UK land, we encouraged integration of agricultural practices with sensitive conservation management. Under the farm woodland premium, more than 17,000 hectares of tress have been planted. Those are all important environmental gains.

The problem with farmers is that they are capital rich and cash poor. When a crisis hits, they stop spending, which presents a potentially catastrophic downturn for rural service industries. The low incomes associated with the current situation mean that the young will not enter farming. Where will the next generation of farmers come from? If people leave farming, prices will fall, there will be a loss of capital value and we shall have a spiral downwards. That is the root of the crisis. As several of my hon. Friends have said, we face a genuine crisis in the countryside.

Then again, the countryside and environmental management require farming to make a profit. Stone walls do not build themselves. Hedges do not look after themselves. What those in towns tend to call nature is in fact a constant battle against nature, waged on the nation's behalf by those who look after our countryside.

The point made over and over again by hon. Members from all parties is the plight of the beef industry. I represent a constituency which has a large number of beef and dairy farmers. There is a need to understand exactly where we are at present. We have fulfilled the conditions that were set out at Florence. We have kept our part of the bargain. We have the safest beef in Europe. That has been accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House today. The public view what the Minister announced last week as an excessive knee-jerk reaction, but we must accept that the beef ban is now political and economic. It is nothing to do with safety. It is a protectionist measure levied against British farming by a protectionist mentality in the European Union that seeks to protect European farmers from higher-quality British products.

The Government should feel most ashamed of their failure to fight for beef at Amsterdam. We have made it clear that we would not have allowed the Amsterdam process to come to a conclusion without the lifting of the beef ban, but it was cast aside callously by the Government, who have no regard for what was happening.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I do not have time. The pictures of the Prime Minister being embraced by Euro mobs are an adequate price for a few farms going out of business—as far as the Government's news management is concerned.

A strong pound has driven down farm incomes. It means more imports and fewer exports. It means that minimum prices in the United Kingdom are cut. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) asked, why are the Government doing nothing with agrimonetary aid; every other eligible state in the European Union pays its share? Why not Britain? The Minister who is to reply, who has responsibility for Scottish farmers, should tell us why we in the United Kingdom will not support Scottish farmers but, as EU taxpayers, we are subsidising every other group of farmers in the Union.

In Scotland alone, the costs are £7.6 million for cattle passports, £8.3 million in new Meat Hygiene Service charges and £12 million extra in charges for abattoir waste disposal. HLCA payments are down by £50 and sheep support has been frozen at the 1996 level. What will the Minister tell Scottish farmers when they are confronted with those drops in income and when the service industries face reductions in their income as a consequence? He cannot simply sit back and say, "Well, there were 18 years of Conservative government, so we have no responsibility for the crisis you face." Much of the crisis that farmers face at present lies fairly at the door of the Labour Government.

There is no doubt that the rural economy is in crisis. Farming needs action; not inquiries or soundbites. Farmers have not sought confrontation; it has been forced upon them. Everything the Government have touched has been bad for the countryside. Everything they have said shows a callous disregard for farmers; and everything—from the Prime Minister's pictures in Country Life magazine, posing as the country boy, onwards—shows that their appeal to the rural electorate was, like so much else, a web of deceit.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) on securing this debate on the rural economy. We have had an informed and wide-ranging debate that has covered many areas of public policy. The House will be aware that I do not have responsibility for all—indeed, for most—of those areas, but since May I have visited many parts of rural Scotland in connection with my responsibilities for transport, local government housing and European structural funds.

I have 10 minutes in which to speak and I propose to spend five minutes on the general matters the hon. Gentleman raised and five minutes on the beef question. He started by asking about the Government's philosophy and their role in supporting the rural economy. The Government have been elected on a manifesto commitment to sustain vibrant local communities in rural and remote areas. We recognise that those who live and work in rural areas have special needs. Our manifesto also stated that we recognised that the countryside is a great natural asset and a part of our heritage that calls for careful stewardship.

On 31 October, in Scotland, we published a discussion paper, "Towards a Development Strategy for Rural Scotland", which set out the aims we plan to follow in all our policies for rural Scotland. It stressed that sustainable development is at the heart of those policies. In rural areas, such development requires an integrated approach to three main policy objectives: economic, social and environmental. In economic life, we want more job opportunities and improved education and training to enhance the life opportunities of the rural population. In the social area, we want to improve services and enable local communities to retain population and expand social and cultural facilities. In environmental matters, we want to safeguard our natural heritage in a way that recognises that people continue to have an active place in the rural environment.

In short, we are committed to a living countryside. We reject the assumption of general rural prosperity that underlay the previous Government's 1995 rural White Paper. We recognise that there are specific rural problems: low wages in some sectors of the rural economy; inaccessibility for new businesses; and lack of employment opportunities. These are not new problems, but the Government are committed to enhancing opportunity and promoting employment and investment for sustained economic growth. Our aim is to enhance the life chances of rural citizens, especially those who suffer from social exclusion—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).

When the Minister discusses employment opportunities in the countryside, will he bear in mind the enormous impact a hunting ban would have on countryside employment?

How I voted on that issue is a matter of record and I do not propose to speak about it now.

Since coming to power in May, the Government have taken decisive action to help rural communities. First, our proposals for devolution will enable far more extensive discussion of rural issues in Scotland; a proportional voting system will ensure that the new Parliament is an inclusive one in which rural Scotland has a strong voice. Secondly, we have announced our intention that national parks will be established in Scotland, ending many years of indecision on that matter. Thirdly, we have established a land reform policy group for Scotland, in fulfilment of our manifesto commitment to

"initiate a study into the system of land ownership and management in Scotland".

I shall comment briefly on the three specific areas mentioned by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine: structural funds, housing and transport. He will be pleased to learn that a press release today will announce objective 5b funding for his area of the country and we are determined that structural funds for rural areas should continue under the new objective 2 arrangements.

We are also determined to keep funding for the highlands and islands and hope to invoke the sparsely populated area criterion to establish that. Some hon. Members might be surprised to learn that the highlands of Scotland are almost as sparsely populated as Finland. We shall also make use of the new treaty language on islands. I am especially aware of the problems of island communities, having visited the western isles this summer. I recently wrote to the chairman of Caledonian MacBrayne asking him to reconsider the decision to raise fares on the Ullapool-Stornaway route.

In the past two weeks, we have started three major housing initiatives that will help housing in rural areas: the energy efficiency initiative, which is tied in with welfare to work; the empty homes initiative, about which there will be announcements next week; and on Friday we announced £35 million for new housing partnerships, and I have said explicitly that that should apply to rural as well as to urban areas.

In many recent transport speeches, I have emphasised that solutions appropriate to urban areas might not be appropriate to rural areas. We shall have a new framework for bus services, which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine mentioned. I have also flagged up the importance of community transport and I hope that there will be an announcement about that soon. I have ensured that a member of the Community Transport Association is on the national transport forum which I recently convened.

Beef contributes between one quarter and one third of Scotland's total gross farm output. The continued presence of beef production on our hills and uplands is testament to the Government's commitment to this sector and the extent to which, as a Government, we are prepared to continue to support it. To put that contribution into perspective, I remind the House that the beef industry in Scotland received £127 million in direct subsidies in 1996, not to mention the institutional support that is provided via intervention. Put another way, direct subsidies represent between 200 and 300 per cent. of net farm income on specialist beef farms in our less-favoured areas.

Will the Minister give way?

I have only four minutes left, but I shall take an intervention at the end of my remarks about beef.

On average, each beef farmer in the less-favoured areas receives roughly £25,000 in subsidy. Much has been made—understandably—of the present difficulties that confront beef farmers. In considering that, one has to recognise that various forces are at work. First, there is the long-term downward trend in beef consumption. Secondly, bovine spongiform encephalopathy is having a major impact on the sector. Thirdly, as has been mentioned in the debate, sterling is strong at present, which is a clear reflection of the confidence investors have in the current Government—unlike the previous one.

Much has been made about the downside of a strong pound. I acknowledge that it is aiding imports to this country, particularly from Ireland. It is hardly surprising that farmers—especially beef farmers—are queuing up to press for agrimonetary compensation. There was, however, no such queue when the pound was weak and farmers were overcompensated to the tune of £100 million per year on average between 1992 and 1996. Even taking account of recent revaluations, common agricultural policy prices in the UK are converted at a rate that is 5.6 per cent. higher than it was in January 1990.

Will the Minister give way?

In a minute.

Such is the Government's commitment to the beef sector and such is our recognition of its importance to Scotland that the claims of the beef farmers are not being ignored, pending a review of whether they are justified. If any help is possible—I use the word "if' advisedly—it will have to take account of the tight expenditure provisions within which the Government as a whole have to operate. All the calls for European money ignore the fact that much of that will have to come out of general public expenditure.

rose—

I have only three minutes left, I so I shall take only one intervention, from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).

Does the Minister recognise the difference between the situation facing beef farmers today and that of a year ago? The new situation has arisen because of high interest rates and the strength of the pound. On mixed farms, when beef was down, farmers could continue to survive through milk cheques and payments relating to other sectors, but now all sectors are down. That is why the current situation is such a crisis.

I accept that point. The Government are giving it further consideration, although some of the factors, such as high interest rates, have to do with the incipient inflation we inherited from the previous Government.

The hon. Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) referred to the deboning issue. I am well aware of the effect on the industry of the measures we had to take. Although the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee perceived the risk from that source to be extremely small, it was only prudent—given the policy of successive Governments of regarding public health as paramount—that we should take action to safeguard the consumer.

Time is running short, but I should like to refer briefly to the BSE inquiry referred to by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make an announcement about that soon. Time will not allow me to mention reform of the common agricultural policy, except to say that we are keen to achieve that, and CAP reform proposals set out in Agenda 2000 are an important step in the right direction.

As I have already said, rural policy reaches into almost every public policy. We have had an interesting and informed debate. The Government are committed to a living countryside and we are sure that the measures we are putting in place will ensure the maintenance of vibrant, productive local communities.

I welcome this debate, which is the first one on cycling for many years. It is particularly timely given the Kyoto conference on the environment and the Government's review of integrated transport policy. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on that because they are following a course that will be extremely effective, and I want cycling to play its part in the debate.

I should declare an interest as chairman of the all-party cycling group, which has more than 40 members and is growing all the time. It hopes that the views expressed in the debate will be taken into account by the Government. I am sure that that will happen. I am particularly grateful to see that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, is present. He is well known throughout the House for his long-term commitment on this matter and for his campaigning to raise the status of cycling in various guises. I am sure that in the unfortunate circumstances of his party coming to power again, the battlefield means of transport would shift from the armoured personnel carrier to the bicycle.

The purpose of the debate is to stress the need for the Government to have a co-ordinated and coherent strategy to promote cycling in all areas. We believe that that strategy will reduce congestion, promote the Government's general environmental policies and promote public health. That is why we believe that cycling must be regarded as a vital part of the Government's overall transport policies.

I should emphasise that I speak not on behalf of the 1 million cyclists in Britain—although that figure is significant—but on behalf of many more people who would like to cycle if only they felt able to do so but are inhibited from doing so for a number of different reasons. The following figures sum up the current problem: 90 per cent. of children have bikes; 2 per cent. of them cycle to school; and 17 per cent. of cars travelling at 9 am every morning are taking children to and from school—an average journey of about 1.8 miles. The absence of cycling routes increases congestion, makes cycling more dangerous and makes the condition of our environment worse. We want to replace that vicious circle with a virtuous one.

Many people want to cycle, but fail to do so. A number of statistics support that claim. In 1975–76, 14 households in every 100 had a bike. Last year, 30 households in every 100 had a bike. That represents a dramatic increase in the number of bicycles in Britain—23 million bikes are kept by British households. In the past decade, however, bicycle usage has gone down by 20 per cent. at the same time as the ownership of bikes has doubled. That illustrates as well as any figure could the fact that many people want to cycle but are inhibited from doing so.

The pattern of cycling varies across the country. According to the 1991 census, 27 per cent. of people cycle in Cambridge; 18 per cent. in York; 15 per cent. in Gosport; 11 per cent. in Crewe; and 10 per cent. in Grimsby. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is in his place because he has been a long-standing parliamentary advocate of cycling. In Norwich, the figure stands at 3 per cent., although we are trying to push it up. Those figures reveal the variety of bicycle use across the country, ranging as it does from the top level of 27 per cent. to 3 per cent. in cities such as Norwich. One must compare that with the 43 per cent. bicycle use recorded in Delft in Holland or Munster in Germany—what a dramatic difference.

As the Government's figures suggest, United Kingdom bicycle use is low when compared to that internationally. The figures show that 2 per cent. of journeys in the United Kingdom are made by bicycle, compared with 10 per cent. in Sweden; 11 per cent. in Germany; 15 per cent. in Switzerland—which is so flat, of course!—and 18 per cent. in Denmark. Those figures show that the number of people who cycle is not simply a matter of geographic convenience but depends on whether respective Governments have focused their policies on making such journeys work.

Consider what has happened in Munich, a great city which is not generally considered to be occupied by green cyclists, veggie eaters and all the rest of it. It has increased the number of bike journeys to work from 6 per cent. to 15 per cent. in the past three years by means of properly focused policies.

The scope for such an increase in bicycle use in Britain exists if local and national Government apply themselves to introducing policies to put cycling at the core of an integrated transport strategy. The Royal Automobile Club estimates that 8 per cent. of car journeys, one in 12, are of less than a mile. That is equivalent to a five-minute cycle ride—less if one is the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. It also estimates that 25 per cent. of car journeys cover less than two miles, which is equivalent to a 10-minute cycle ride.

The desire to increase the use of bicycles also exists and has been admirably set out in the Government's discussion paper, "Developing an Integrated Transport Policy". Cycling is an option for the vast majority of people, including those under the age of 16 to whom many other forms of transport are not available. It is affordable and helps the poorest in our country. A journey by bicycle can be made door to door, a service which public transport, despite its advantages, often cannot offer. An increase in the number of journeys by bicycle would reduce congestion—one of the Government's principal goals—and cut CO₂ emissions in our atmosphere, so improving air quality and health.

What are the inhibitions on the use of the bicycle, given that so many people own a bike and yet fewer and fewer people are using them? There are three fundamental inhibitions that it is within the Government's power to address. The first and most obvious is the danger involved. For understandable reasons, many parents will not permit their children to cycle to school because of the risks involved. The second inhibition relates to the storage and security of a bike at the place of work or wherever the journey may end. The third inhibition relates to convenience and comfort.

We could attack the problems of danger if the Government committed themselves to creating an integrated high-quality network of cycle routes throughout our cities. The Sustrans initiative—I should declare an interest as one of its patrons—has been outstanding. It has made and will continue to make major improvements in the level of cycling, but its efforts are by no means enough. In every town and city we need an integrated transport route strategy to ensure that people can conveniently and safely cycle from home to school or to their place of work or wherever.

Hon. Members are listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman, whose comments we support. Given the role of district and borough councils and the highway authorities, which are often county councils, one of the best things would be to encourage those organisations to work out what would help their staff to travel to work by bicycle. They should make all their staff, not just the bicycling officers, sensitive to what could be done easily, fast and cheaply to encourage bicycle use. That would set an example that could be followed by other employers.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I agree that the role of employers is critical. They spend large amounts of money subsidising company cars and other items which are not in their best interests and, in many cases, it would be much cheaper and better for them to encourage their employees to cycle to and from work where that is feasible.

We need a high-quality integrated network of cycle routes throughout the country. The Cyclists Touring Club has estimated that it would cost £130 million a year over 10 years to establish such a network. Compare that with the expenses incurred in my region, the eastern region, on motorway building. The estimated cost of projects and schemes in preparation for the widening of junctions 10 to 14 of the M1—as recorded in the Government's roads review, so the work may not go ahead—is £228.5 million. Compare that with the £130 million needed to develop a national cycle network. The M1 junctions 6 to 10 widening will cost £105.9 million, and the A14 improvement, £122.3 million. Those are some of the schemes in my region. The cause of the nation's health and the environment would be advanced if, in the Government's roads review, they tried to put that integrated high-quality cycle network in place throughout the country, rather than widening a few bits of motorway and adding sliproads here and there.

It is particularly important to focus on the issue of safety around schools—the reduction of car speed and protected access to the cycle route are crucial. Experience abroad shows that the more cycles are used, the less dangerous cycling is. Some of the fashionable newspapers are portraying cyclists and pedestrians as being in conflict. When such a conflict occurs, it is bad, but it is nothing like as bad as the conflict between the cyclist and the motorist, as a result of which the cyclist may end up dead or seriously injured. The way to deal with that is to ensure that cyclists are not forced to choose between dangerous roads and illegal pavements. There should be a proper cycle route.

Secondly, on storage and security, it is critical that when people cycle to work or school, they can leave their bike in safety and park it in a proper facility, and that there should be facilities for them to shower, change their clothes and store their cycling gear.

The intervention of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) was extremely pertinent. Several employers are taking initiatives and working with Transport 2000—for example, the Royal Mail, Hewlett Packard, the Body Shop and a number of public sector bodies—to try to achieve the kind of co-operation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I hope that as part of the integrated policy, the Government will approach employers and employers' organisations to encourage cycle use among employees, and that the Government, as a major employer, will do likewise.

In schools, cycle storage is not available now, as it used to be. Some heads actively discourage children from cycling to school. I was about to make a joke about the historic role of the bike shed in British education, but perhaps that would not be appropriate in a tidy debate such as this. Government support for schools to provide proper storage facilities for bikes is an important element which the sustainable roads for schools programme seeks to encourage.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the people who can influence others, such as teachers, school governors going to their meetings, and parents, started cycling instead of pointing the finger and telling other people to cycle while they themselves go around in their 1.5 tonne steel waistcoat with the radio blaring, it would be far more likely to help others to put that into practice? Could we start by encouraging Westminster city council, with or without the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to put an advance stop line for bicyclists at the bottom of Whitehall, and make a bicycle lane as well, and perhaps close the gates of the House of Commons car park for one day a year?

I entirely agree. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the all-party group had a useful meeting yesterday with the councillors who chair the environment and transport committee of Westminster city council, and also with the people who run the royal parks. We spoke about the specific matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, and also about general issues. The councillors said that they were committed to providing proper bike parking around the Palace of Westminster for visitors. We are pursuing the matter with the Serjeant at Arms.

I take this opportunity to advertise the fact that 10 June next year will be National Bicycle Day—the Wednesday in the middle of National Bicycle Week. We will be organising a bicycle ride in which we hope that as many Members of Parliament as possible will do their bit to encourage people to cycle to work that day, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the integrated transport strategy is crucial, and that more than one Department has a role to play? May I invite him to develop his argument on the role of employers and to reflect on the role of the planning authorities, which receive applications for new places of employment? Does not planning policy provide a great opportunity to require and encourage employers to make proper facilities available, so that they are built into every new place of work?

I agree with my hon. Friend—and especially with his point that it is a matter not just for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but for a wide range of Government Departments, including the Cabinet Office, which is at the centre of government as an employer. The national health service clearly has an interest in promoting health, and hospitals and health facilities are both a massive employer, and places where a massive number of people go. The Department for Education and Employment has a critical role to play in promoting safe cycling to school.

On planning, I agree that the goal should be to reduce out-of-city building, and to plan new developments—retail developments, hospitals, places of work or whatever—with the shortest possible lines of communication between the development and the people who are likely to go there. That in itself would encourage transport by bicycle.

Thirdly, with reference to comfort and convenience, I shall cite the results of a controlled exercise: a cyclist took 13 minutes to cover the 3.5 miles from Camden lock to St. Paul's cathedral. The same journey took 20 minutes by cab, 29 minutes by car, 32 minutes by tube and 40 minutes by bus. That is an interesting illustration of the fact that the bike can be convenient, effective and speedy. If we could simply solve the problems of danger and proper storage, people would choose to use the bike, because of the convenience.

That also involves a proper exchange between the bicycle and other forms of transport—the fashionable term is intermodal transport. The obvious example is the train, and the argument entails another virtuous circle—if proper bike parks are available around commuting stations, more people will cycle to the bike park, leave their bike securely and travel by train, rather than driving. That would increase business for the train company and benefit the environment.

I am pleased to say that Anglia Railways, which is the train operator between London and Norwich, has won several awards. The company is grateful to the Minister for Transport in London for presenting those awards at a ceremony at Liverpool Street station a few months ago. Anglia Railways removed travel restrictions on bicycles, reduced the bicycle fare from £3 to £1 and was awarded the first cycle mark by Sustrans at the presentation that I mentioned. The company has further plans to increase capacity for cycles by January next year.

Such initiatives are important. In the context of convenience and cost for cyclists, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for her determined campaign for the granting of cycle allowances by the House and more generally. She is working extremely hard, with our full support.

I hope that I have made the case that the Government could make a big difference to cycle use in Britain by drawing up a coherent and co-ordinated strategy. That would improve the health of the nation and the environment, as other countries have shown. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is committed to that course, and I hope that she and her colleagues in the Department will listen to the contributions in the debate and reflect our concerns in the White Paper to be published at the beginning of next year.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate this morning. It is important not least because the House rarely gets to debate this issue—I am not sure that there has been a debate specifically about cycling in this place before. Cycling is vital to the creation of an integrated transport strategy. We expect to hear news today from Kyoto about the outcome of the climate change conference. Sadly, it is likely that any proposals will be inadequate. Nevertheless, changing our transport system and encouraging people to use non-polluting forms of transport is crucial to securing reduced pollution levels and improving our climate.

"Get on yer bike" was a phrase somewhat abused by the previous Government, but it is an increasingly important option in the face of unsustainable growth in road traffic. Cycling is both healthy and non-polluting, and it can play an important part in developing an efficient, integrated transport system. That said, there would be little point in this place's pretending that, in the next 10 years, for example, the bicycle will overtake the car as the preferred form of transport for many types of journey. However, the car need not be people's first preference for every type of journey, as it is at present.

The car should be only one of many ways of getting from A to B—and it should certainly not be the mode of transport most encouraged by Government policy in terms of planning, the roads system and the tax system. In a properly integrated transport system, people should be able to use different travel combinations—car, public transport or bicycles—depending on what is most suited to their journey, and they should have the facilities that make their choice practical.

At present, the car is not only over-used but literally pushing everything else off the road. The Liberal Democrats have long argued that providing everyone with the means to reach work, shops and schools is possible sustainably only if different forms of transport do not conflict with each other and are brought together in an integrated transport strategy. We must ensure that the car does not overwhelm other more environmentally sound ways to travel. We must make travelling much more straightforward so that people do not always feel the need to turn to their cars.

For example, if a train passenger were able to leave his bike at a station in a secure place or take his bike on the train to use at his destination without excessive restrictions or penalty fares, the journey would be quicker and simpler than one that involved sitting in traffic or parking the car. However, in truth, the current rail system is more often a foe than a friend of cycling because it places many obstructions in the way of cyclists. The challenge is to create a system in which cycle routes link with public transport over longer distances so that green transport options are not only the most sustainable but the easiest route to follow. We need to integrate cycling literally into our transport system.

I am pleased that the Government have recognised the urgent need for a complete overhaul of our approach to transport in Britain with the publication of the integrated transport consultation paper. I look forward to the outcome of that process and I hope that cycling will play a full part in the document's conclusions. It is certainly a contrast to the ostrich approach that characterised much of the previous Government's transport policy. The Conservatives ignored the environmental and congestion problems and seemed to pull their heads out of the sand only to give the go-ahead to one road scheme or another. More often than not, such schemes did not relieve congestion but simply transferred it, thus exacerbating the problems that they were meant to solve.

To be fair, the previous Government eventually gave some recognition to the possible contribution that cycling could make to rationalising the transport system by introducing the national cycling strategy. That strategy, which has been adopted by this Government, seeks a fourfold increase in cycling by 2012. Given that cycling accounts for less than 2 per cent. of trips in this country—the hon. Gentleman referred to cycling levels in other countries, including 11 per cent. in Germany and 15 per cent. in Switzerland—an increase to 8 per cent. over the next 15 years is perhaps not such an ambitious target. In any case, the real issue is not the target but how Ministers intend to achieve it.

Today I shall briefly touch on some of the major schemes that have been developed to encourage cycling in Britain and how I believe that the Government could take them much further. The safe routes to school project, which has been referred to already, is funded basically by local authorities and Sustrans. It addresses one of the most pressing problems currently facing cycling in Britain: the problem of safety and, perhaps more accurately, of fear on the part of children who cycle and their parents. Nobody enjoys sitting in rush-hour traffic: it is both stressful and time-consuming. It is also often unnecessary. Much rush-hour traffic, especially in urban areas, is caused by people making short local journeys that could be made quickly and more safely in other ways.

The recent national travel survey found that, before 9 am during term time, about one in every five cars were taking children to school. On average, such trips are less than two miles long. If parents and pupils felt happy cycling or walking to school, there would be a great deal less traffic in the morning and thus less pollution and less danger. That would encourage more people to walk and cycle, thereby creating a virtuous cycle.

In contrast, a vicious circle exists at present. Increasing car use has made cycling and walking to school more dangerous, so more parents decide to use the car and school routes become even more dangerous. The safe routes to school initiative seeks to break that circle by taking people out of their cars and on to safe cycle routes that both parents and children can use without fear. That would get polluting traffic off the roads and help to reverse the declining level of fitness in Britain, thereby creating real long-term health benefits.

That is an excellent project, but it exists only because of funding from a charitable organisation and because some local authorities have managed to find the money. Limited funding means that the project is able to cover only a handful of areas. The Government must look closely at how they can expand their at present limited role and ensure that safe routes to school are available to all Britain's schoolchildren. That involves looking at planning guidance and reducing traffic speed around schools. For example, 20 mph limits around schools and active traffic-calming measures could be introduced. It means supporting schools in providing proper storage facilities for bikes and encouraging both parents and children to cycle. It also means providing local authority funding for that work—a point to which I shall return later.

The National Cycle Network will provide another welcome boost to the campaign to improve safety for cyclists through the creation of 2,500 miles of traffic-free and traffic-calmed paths by 2000. I congratulate Sustrans on securing more than £40 million from the Millennium Commission to fund that innovative scheme, which involves planning cycle tracks along disused railways and towpaths and creating routes not only for work or school but for tourism. It will bring money into, and traffic away from, many of this country's most beautiful areas.

The National Cycle Network will bring the health and environmental benefits of cycling to many areas. However, many of its plans are running into difficulty or face substantial delay. Although it is a millennium project, very little of it will be completed by the millennium. Cash-strapped local authorities are finding it hard, if not impossible, to provide their portion of the funding for their sections of the cycle network. Many local authorities are experiencing difficulties in that area, and the case of Derbyshire was raised with me. The network route between Derby and Burton-on-Trent and between Derby and Nottingham has been postponed.

My home country of Cornwall has difficulty not only with its sections of the cycle network but with its own ambitious cycle path proposal, the Cornish way. The latter project has been on hold for more than a year since the Millennium Commission turned down an application for funding. The project aims to provide a network of eight routes throughout the county not only for cyclists but for walkers and the mobility-impaired. Given the Cornish economy's reliance on tourism, the delay is economically costly. Although the county council is providing all the funding that it can, the Cornish way scheme must now look to Sustrans for assistance. However, Sustrans has little to offer in the way of financial support. Meanwhile, the recently announced local government settlement has cut the county's highways budget even further in cash terms, which guarantees that even fewer discretionary projects will get off the ground.

All local authority cycleway spending has been under pressure since the previous Government's local transport settlement, which was announced last December and which cut the total money available for minor works and safety schemes from £177 million to £139 million. As that budget is the only source of funding for cycle measures, many local authorities, not just Cornwall, have had to suspend cycle schemes in this financial year. Safe routes for schoolchildren have had to be postponed, for example, in Cambridgeshire and in Hertfordshire, as have railway partnership schemes to improve facilities at stations for cyclists in Hampshire. That makes nonsense of the supposed national cycling strategy. We are falling further and further behind in pursuing the initiatives that we want.

At present, funding for cycling is simply not adequate. Research by Transport 2000 shows that just 2 per cent. of local authority transport capital spending goes to cyclists. By contrast, the German environment department recommends that its regional governments spend £20 per head on cycling, 100 times that spent in the United Kingdom, where local authorities are able to spare only 20p per head to turn motorists into cyclists. However much it may be argued that local authorities can transfer things, with that gap, we need to consider the overall funding system. A lot of funding could be found from the tax incentives and other incentives that are given to motorists to drive. That is a good source for the Government to consider.

Cycling can save money. Recent evidence shows that congestion on roads costs the nation £15 billion annually in terms of national health service, health and environment costs and the congestion's effect on the atmosphere overall. We will deal with that only by creating a genuinely integrated transport system, such as cycleways connecting people with school, work or other forms of transport. Funding must reflect the importance of such a system.

The Government have announced further cuts in local government standard spending assessments for transport in 1998–99. I urge the Minister to fight the corner for improved funding for those schemes to ensure that we have not only an integrated transport strategy but, as it were, an integrated budget strategy for the environment and transport.

I hope that Members of Parliament will win the battle to have cycling allowances alongside the generous incentives that we have for motoring. Perhaps at the same time the Minister could deal with the fact that, if members of the public who do not normally have access to this place cycle here, they are not allowed to park their bicycle, but are turned away. As cyclists are banned from locking up their bikes in the streets around Westminster, that seems an extraordinary system. I understand the security issues, but I hope that that rule will be changed.

This welcome debate takes place at an auspicious time in the context of the Kyoto conference. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) have mentioned Sustrans, a charitable company that was formed by an imaginative, creative and forward-looking group of people in Bristol in 1979, and that considered in particular how we could have a sustainable integrated transport system, with a focus on cycling.

To increase the percentage of journeys that are made by cyclists, we are looking for a safe and attractive infrastructure—with traffic-free routes and traffic-calmed roads, where often the speed limit should be only 20 mph—and for a clear lead from central Government, local government and the media to sustain cycling as a modern form of transport that should be encouraged. Sustrans, which had that vision in 1979, has been working hard. It has already put forward, built and designed 250 miles of traffic-free routes for both cyclists and pedestrians. As has been mentioned, in 1995, it was awarded the first Millennium Commission project to build the national cycle network. By 2005, that project will provide 6,500 miles of cycle routes, which will go through city centres and include safe routes to school and work and easy access to the countryside—all without the use of the car. That is what is needed to raise cycling's profile.

Sustrans has drawn my attention to the fact that, in this country, 70 per cent. of all journeys are under five miles. Most of them, of course, could be made by cycling. It is worth remembering that most of the people who are responsible for making decisions about transport travel much further than that to work and may have a different perspective on the use of transport generally.

Cycling is relatively cheap, yet that millennium project, imaginative as it is, will cost about £180 million. A quarter of it has come from lottery funding. Much more is being raised in other ways, but transport money will also be needed. The Government's contribution towards the aim of opening the first 2,500 miles by midsummer's day of the year 2000, is to provide for 63 new and 38 modified road crossings. I hope that the Government will be able to confirm that we are on schedule and will recognise, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell said, that Government funding will be needed within local government financing to complete the urban sections of the network. Billions have been spent on roads, but spending millions on cycle routes would contribute significantly to a better transport system and to reducing the crisis on our roads.

While Sustrans has been making that important national contribution, which many individual cyclists support, my constituents have come up with some more immediate priorities, which echo some of the points that have been made. The first concern is that there should be a clear and combined cycle-rail transport scheme. In Denmark, for example, 35 per cent. of people who use rail reach the station by cycling. In Germany, the figure is 15 per cent., but in Britain less than 1 per cent. of people cycle to the station and continue their journey by cycle at the other end.

The position in my constituency of Bristol, West is interesting. Cyclists may use a local branch line, the Severn-Beach, which has received support from local government, free of charge without the need to book, but, if they reach Bristol Temple Meads—although the security for cycles there has been improved if they wish to leave their bike—and want to travel to a further destination with their bike, they are faced with three different operators, offering different charges and different conditions, with or without booking. That complicated system needs to change if we are to encourage cycling to the station and an onward journey with the bike. A common policy would encourage cycling.

Secondly, individuals are looking for more traffic-calming measures in residential areas. It seems that the Bristol cycle campaign, which was inaugurated six years ago with the main objective of achieving 20 mph speed limits in urban areas, was setting a precedent. Many more people want a national slowdown initiative to reduce the speed of traffic, particularly in residential areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South mentioned accident levels at different speeds. May I spell that out? At 40 mph, an accident involving a pedestrian will almost certainly lead to loss of life. At 30 mph, the pedestrian has a 50:50 chance of survival. At 20 mph, usually only one in 20 will have a fatal accident. It is so logical to reduce speed limits. In addition, in the urban context, driving at 20 mph—remembering of course that the majority of those journeys are under five miles—will add only one minute to the journey time.

We should see cycling as an important part of an integrated transport system. It can be enjoyable, and many more people could take it up. An integrated transport system with more cyclists could, as we have already heard, benefit health, local communities and the environment.

I am sorry that the Chamber is not packed this morning, but I know that many House of Commons staff cycle, and I am delighted to see bicycles as I walk through the Courtyard. I hope that more Members, more staff and more people everywhere are encouraged to cycle by the Government's policy and the work initiated by Sustrans.

The debate is fascinating, but the case for encouraging cycling is so obvious that we should not have to put it in such a little debate; it should be central to Government policy. It was powerfully put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), whom I congratulate on initiating the debate.

There is an environmental case for cycling: it relieves congestion. As has been said several times, most journeys are short—70 per cent. of car journeys are less than five miles—and ideally would be taken on a bicycle. There is also a health argument. Although cycling is compatible with being overweight in my case—and, I suspect, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South—it is a healthy pleasure. Then there is the convenience aspect. I used to live in Kilburn before my wife had delusions of grandeur and decided to move us up in the world to Victoria, where it is hardly worth getting the bike out. It used to take me 25 minutes to cycle in from Kilburn—although that was when I was at the peak of fitness; I was a young contender in politics then—but it took me between 45 minutes and an hour to come in by car, and 45 minutes on the tube.

Given the strength of the argument for cycling, it is amazing that so little is being done. Other countries do much more. In this country, cycling is regarded as a slightly cranky occupation. I wish that my hon. Friend had shorn his beard, partly to help his career in the Labour party but also to present a slightly less cranky image of cycling.

What about your tie?

That is not a cranky image; it is a fashionable image.

Cycling is regarded as cranky and quirky. People pay lip service to it, but they do not do anything. A dynamic drive from the top downwards is needed to push the case for cycling, and to bring it into all transport considerations. Pious words and endless deference—which, it is fair to say, we do hear—are not enough. I do not know why more is not done, but encouraging cycling is central to the improvement that we need. Use breeds interest. The more people cycle, the safer cycling is—and, as all the figures show, the fewer people cycle, the more dangerous it is. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are more people on cycles, but fewer people use their cycles to make, for instance, the journey to work. We must remove the obstacles to cycling. That means recognition of what the obstacles are, and a massive effort to get rid of them. The all-party cycling group will do its best, but the drive must come from Ministers, as well as from local authorities.

What are the obstacles that need to be removed? One of the main problems experienced by cyclists—particularly in London, but I experience it in Grimsby. in Yorkshire as a whole and, indeed, all over the country—is that, having cycled somewhere because, in general, it is more convenient to cycle a short distance than to walk or drive, they have nowhere to put their bicycles. That is a perennial and pressing problem. There are signs defacing railings everywhere, especially in London, saying that police will remove cycles—but what better use is there for railings, except where dogs are concerned, than as somewhere to lock cycles so that they are not stolen? The signs are a monstrosity: we should be able to put our cycles somewhere. There should be facilities at workplaces, and also in the street. Why are there no cycle parks in central positions in London? Why are there not cycle parks at more railway and bus stations, so that people can combine cycling with other forms of transport?

Even at the House of Commons there is cycle storage space, but the facilities at Norman Shaw are pathetic. Cyclists compete for places with great bags of rubbish which, when moved, usually knock all the cycles over. When I lean my cycle against the wall, it is then moved because it is an inconvenience. Cycle storage space at work is essential.

Facilities for changing are also essential. I tend not to cycle in my fashionable suits—I prefer to cycle in a pair of jeans and a shirt—but I sometimes cycle to the House in a suit. When people shuffle away from me during debates, it is not because of my politics, old Labour though they are; it is because, having cycled in, I am hot and sweaty, and there are no facilities to enable me to shower and change my clothes. The facilities are few enough here, but in most other places they are pathetic.

There should be more emphasis on safety, so that people feel more confident. I would make crash helmets compulsory. More cycling routes should be designated—not just routes through parks, which we discussed yesterday in the all-party cycling group, but on the roads. As others have said, we also need traffic-calming measures. Traffic should be slower in the vicinity of schools, so that children will be encouraged to cycle to school. My heart goes out to mothers with small children perched on the back of their bicycles. When I see my daughter taking my grandchildren to school on the back of her bike, it worries me enormously.

Should we not re-examine the question of roundabouts? When the local authority in Cambridge discovered that most accidents to cyclists took place at roundabouts, they removed them, which led to a significant reduction in the number of casualties.

I agree entirely. There should also be designated places at traffic lights, so that cars do not suddenly sweep across cyclists to turn left when the cyclists are going straight ahead.

Bicycles should be better designed. I am tempted to buy a small collapsible bicycle, but I am so tall that when I ride such bicycles they wobble all over the place, because the saddle and the handlebars are so extended. It is like riding a jelly—or perhaps I am the jelly. Nevertheless, portable bicycles are very useful, as are bicycles with facilities for carrying things. When I was cycling from Kilburn, I lost the manuscript of a book that set out the whole case for new Labour. [Laughter.] No, no: it forecast accurately everything that needed to happen to the party. That was in the early 1980s. I sometimes wonder whether the manuscript was discovered in the park through which I was cycling by my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. Perhaps that was the beginning of his rise to power. As far as I know, the book was never found, despite my desperate inquiries of the police; but its suggestions have certainly been implemented by the Labour party. If proper carrying facilities had been available, the manuscript would not have dropped from my bike and I would now be in a powerful position rather than standing here pleading for cyclists' views to be heard.

The case for cyclists has been well put by hon. Members. We need a drive to cycling, a policy that is wider and more powerful than the enthusiasm of those of us taking part in the debate. That means a drive by local authorities to introduce cycling into all traffic developments. Grimsby in north-east Lincolnshire is a case in point and was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South. We have developed effective cycling policies, but the limitation is always finance to build cycleways and install facilities. There should be dedicated finance for local authorities to encourage cycling.

I was distressed to find that the national network of 6,500 miles will not provide facilities in such beauty spots as the Yorkshire dales, the Lincolnshire wolds and the lake district. It is just a means of getting from one end of the country to the other rather than a facility that will allow people to branch out into beautiful areas. We need imaginative national planning but most of all there must be a drive from the top to encourage cycling, and that means a Minister whose specific responsibility is to promote and develop cycling so that it is included in all considerations and decisions. That Minister would develop a financial framework to promote cycling and reward cyclists. That would bring a whole new enthusiasm to cycling matters and make it a central rather than a peripheral part of transport policy. The simple answer is to do what we have suggested and I call on the Minister to get on her bike.

It is an enormous pleasure to speak in this important debate because cycling gives much pleasure to those who are able to engage in it. It is also a great tourist opportunity which is currently undervalued. My wife and I spent more than a year cycling abroad, an activity that enables one to see a country from the bottom up in a quiet leisurely way without making any impact on it. It is a superb way to explore a country, but although this country is ideal for such touring because the key sites are close together and many of them can be visited in a day, our roads system is inherently hostile to cyclists. We are missing a great economic opportunity.

Some people say that they cannot cycle because they have children. In the year that my wife and I cycled 5,000 miles through California, Mexico and Australia, we had a two-year-old child in a trailer on the back of the bike. If we could do it in our state—we are not quite so portly as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—I suspect that many people could do it.

I am especially concerned about children, and primarily those who cycle to school. The statistics are alarming. In 1971, some 80 per cent. of our children cycled to school, and I was one of them. Now only 10 per cent. do that. A recent survey in Bury St. Edmunds showed that fewer than one in 20 of our children were taking the amount of exercise that is necessary to maintain minimum fitness. That is frightening. Nine out of 10 juniors own a bike but only one in four of them are allowed by their parents to cycle on the roads. As 300 children a year are killed on our roads, such parental objection is understandable in the light of a roads system that is inherently hostile to cyclists.

Denmark has 10 times the number of cyclists in Britain but as hon. Members have eloquently said, a Danish cyclist is 12 times less likely to be killed or injured per mile travelled. Some 23 per cent. of our children travel to school by car, and that accounts for one in five cars at peak times although the distances travelled are between one and two miles. Over such short distances, catalytic converters do not have time to warm up and, paradoxically, those journeys produce the highest levels of pollution.

The advantages of a national strategy to encourage children to cycle to school are overwhelming. The first of those is health: we do not want a nation of couch potatoes. We must train children to use their bodies and minds responsibly. The Health Education Authority has asked for cycling to be doubled, and the British Medical Association says that that will make a significant contribution to the nation's health. If children are encouraged to cycle early, they will keep the habit for life. If we deprive them of the opportunity to cycle early, they will not adopt that habit. Cycling provides a great opportunity to teach children independence because when cycling they make limited decisions. It will also cut congestion and protect the environment.

How are we to reach our goal? The first step is to recognise the benefits and then to invest in cycling routes as part of a rearrangement of our transport priorities. We must overcome the fear of parents and children of cycling. We can take some simple steps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has said, there should be secure facilities for locking cycles. We must introduce traffic-calming measures and 20 mph zones around schools and encourage road safety and cycle training within schools. Nine out of 10 children have bicycles, and we are failing in our duty if we do not teach them to cycle safely as part of the national curriculum.

We must build on the excellent work that has been carried out under the safe routes to school project. We need better and safer junctions and car-free routes and we must build on good practice. In areas where cycling to school has been promoted, the effects are startling. Reading and York both promote cycling and now 35 per cent. of children in Reading cycle to school. That is a vast improvement on previous statistics and those children reap the benefit and get into the habit of cycling. As hon. Members have said, what we need most is guidance from the top for a comprehensive and properly funded strategy. The targets in the national cycling strategy are impressive, but without the necessary drive we will fail to reach them, just as the previous Government failed to reach the "Health of the Nation" targets. Labour is in government and I hope that policies will be implemented to make sure that, for everybody's benefit, the targets are met.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on securing this important debate. I should like to relay my experiences from my constituency. In the past seven years, two road projects for bypasses were planned for my area—one for Rhyl and one for Prestatyn. The Rhyl project was to cost £17 million and the Prestatyn one £10 million. The terminology is interesting. Initially, they were called bypasses but when the business community found that it was to be bypassed the projects were called relief roads.

Some £27 million was to be spent on two relief roads that were unwanted and unnecessary. A massive petition was presented and the two projects were knocked on the head. Compare those unnecessary projects, costing £27 million, with the £42 million that the lottery, a charity, gave to Sustrans. What is our priority? Is it to promote unnecessary and unwanted roads, or to promote a strategic cycleway system for the United Kingdom?

Before being elected to the House, I taught in a large primary school which had 560 pupils. I attended the same school in the 1960s. In the 1960s, my school had bicycle sheds that were filled to overflowing with bicycles. On my most recent visit there, in September 1997, I saw one bicycle chained to the fence. The bicycle sheds had gone, and one pupil out of 560 had cycled to school. That situation is mirrored in towns and cities across the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) said that our children are being turned into couch potatoes. It is true. Their parents drive them to their destination, because they believe that the roads are too dangerous. The more children are driven to school, the more road traffic will increase: the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling, and fears increasingly become justified.

Provision of off-road cycleways specifically for schoolchildren would bring great benefits to the United Kingdom. It would encourage children to cycle and take regular exercise from an early age—which is the critical factor, because children establish patterns for life at an early age. Schoolchildren cycling to school would drastically reduce the 8.30 am and 3.30 pm rush hours caused by school runs, thereby reducing traffic, the number of accidents—especially those involving children—and pollution levels.

When I served as a councillor in my community, I participated in a project to discover what local schoolchildren wanted. In nine local schools, we asked 600 children, ranging in age from seven to 16, what facilities they wanted in their tourist-oriented town. They did not want more "palaces of culture"—a euphemism for slot machine arcades. They wanted pure and simple things: the first was cycleways and the second was ice rinks.

All the jigsaw pieces are in place. There is demand for cycling, and people own bikes. Parents, however, are reluctant to allow or encourage their children to cycle because of perceived dangers. The Government should be concentrating their energy on the young, whose attitudes and life styles are still being formed.

I ask Ministers to listen to the many valid points made in this debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I urge the Government to lead the way in promoting cycling by providing finance, co-ordination and—most importantly, as has been said many times in this debate—vision, so that cycling can play its full role in an integrated transport system.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate. He was absolutely right to begin his speech by recognising my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) as a key factor in the development of cycling policy in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman did not mention my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—who did sterling work with the all-party cycling group—but I am sure that that was a mere oversight.

I should declare my interest as a cyclist. I am a member of the Dorset cyclists network, a long-standing member of the tandem club and the owner of not only a tandem but a tandem trailer. For hon. Members who have not seen my tandem and tandem trailer together, it is approximately the same length as a Volvo estate. I have also participated with my family in the mass cycle ride in Christchurch, which was initiated to celebrate the 900th anniversary of Christchurch priory but has now become a very popular annual event in Christchurch during environment week. I have participated also in "Healthy Bike Ride", which was promoted by local general practitioners.

I agree with the priorities stated by the hon. Member for Norwich, South to deal with the barriers to people starting cycling—especially the problems of safety and danger, storage and security, and convenience and comfort.

Cycling is not and should not be a party political issue. I am delighted that the Government have endorsed the national cycling strategy—initiated by the previous Government—of doubling cycle use by 2002 and quadrupling it by 2012. However, the Library tells me that there is no specific mention of cycling in the Government's consultation on integrated transport. That is an extraordinary oversight which the Government will have to face up to.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) essentially asked the Minister to get on her bike. I am worried about rumours that she never cycles. It has even been rumoured that she cannot ride a bike. If that is true and the result of some phobia, may I offer to take her out on my tandem? Perhaps I can introduce her to the joys of the open road.

Thanks to the policies of the previous Government, we now have very severe traffic congestion in many of our cities. I am fortunate in living in Cambridge, which has tried to cater for cyclists. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that in many cities cycling is quite hazardous and should not be undertaken lightly or with little preparation?

I thought that the hon. Lady was going to say that cycling should not be undertaken with a Minister on the back of a tandem. She has anticipated the burden of my remarks, which will emphasise the safety problems.

The Liberal Democrats' contribution to the debate, as usual, has been long on need for more money. I take issue with the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) in saying that the previous Government were ostrich-like, taking their head out of the sand only when approving roads schemes. I remember going to the hon. Gentleman's constituency as Minister with responsibility for roads on many occasions to open roads schemes such as improvements to the A30 for which he had campaigned, and he is campaigning for more improvements.

The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has been campaigning for full dualling of a trunk road in his constituency, and everyone knows that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) was campaigning vigorously for a bypass in his constituency. Across the country, Liberal Democrats are campaigning for increased roads expenditure. They are campaigning even in the county of Dorset, for completion of the Poole bridge. They are also promoting a scheme for a new road near Wareham. The Liberal Democrats are therefore committed to increasing roads expenditure.

Perhaps we can return to the subject of the debate, which is cycling. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the previous Government spent too much, too little or just the right amount on cycling provision?

Cycling provision is largely a responsibility for local authorities, and most cycling is done on local roads. Perhaps not the hon. Gentleman, but hon. Members who understand how responsibilities are shared out will realise that responsibility for local roads is for local authorities. It is up to them to decide on what priority they will accord to investment in cycling.

As I said, the safety issue is paramount, because it is the main barrier to participation in cycling. The fact is that cycling is now as dangerous as motor cycling. Some hon. Members talk about the perception of cycling as dangerous, but it is the reality: cycling is indeed dangerous.

The report on road accidents in Great Britain in 1995 shows that whereas in 1975 motor cycles were three times as dangerous as pedal cycles per 100 million vehicle kilometres covered, by 1995 they were about the same. In that period, the danger of riding a motor cycle had fallen to one third of what it was before. The danger of riding a pedal cycle, having dropped in 1985, increased in 1995 to a level similar to what it was in 1975. I am keen that we should increase participation in cycling, but to do so we must overcome the real dangers involved.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the danger is a product of the culture of the Tory Government for 18 years? They were a captive of the road lobby and indulged in the philosophy of building more roads, causing people to buy more cars, then building more roads, again causing people to buy more cars. In that situation, cycling is bound to become more dangerous. The need is for a national policy of integrating cycling into transport so that we give it a push.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must consider ordinary, everyday cycling. Why are only 1 per cent. of journeys to school made by bicycle? I can remember cycling to school down the old Bath road. The reason why it is dangerous to cycle on the roads is that the provision for cyclists is often inadequate. Increased investment is needed to deal with the problem.

In recent years, three members of the Dorset police have been seriously injured while cycling. Two suffered extensive head injuries and one was severely and permanently disabled. Horrible cycling accidents take place all too frequently. A few weeks ago, there was a serious hit-and-run accident on the Christchurch bypass in which a cyclist, Mr. House, was killed on his way to the Conservative club. Sadly, he is not the only cyclist who has been killed near my constituency. A prominent member of the New Forest cycling club was killed on the A35 while cycling up a hill near Holmsley. The accident was caused by there being no extra space on that road for cyclists. We ignore the dangers of cycling at our peril. If we cannot persuade parents that it is safe for children to cycle to school, we should not encourage them to put their children on bicyclesz and send them off to school.

I urge the Government to spend more money on basic highway maintenance. The Government have announced in this year's grant settlement that they will reduce by 0.5 per cent. the money available nationally for spending on highway maintenance. This is at a time when the use of roads is increasing dramatically and inflation is also increasing. The Government seem to regard spending by local authorities on the road network—and that includes expenditure to fill in the potholes that are a nightmare for cyclists—as less important than the previous Government did.

We need a policy of zero tolerance towards bad cycling. A few years ago, my wife was knocked to the ground by a cycle courier who was travelling at speed the wrong way down a one-way street. We need to penalise cyclists who intimidate pedestrians and force them off the pavement. In the past year, there have been four prosecutions for such cycling in Dorset and the problem is becoming more widespread. The reason is that cyclists are being forced off the roads on to the pavements.

The hon. Gentleman refers to zero tolerance. Surely it is more important that we should have zero tolerance of motorists who drive too fast and too close to cyclists, who are then forced off the road—whether well maintained or otherwise—on to the pavement. That produces the problem that the hon. Gentleman is describing.

I do not defend bad driving by car or lorry drivers which contributes to accidents. One problem cyclists face is encountering potholes. They have either to swerve out into the road or to go through the pothole risking a buckled wheel. Potholes are a real problem and I am concerned that the Minister does not understand the nitty-gritty issue of what it is like to cycle along roads with potholes. I fear that until she does we shall not get the investment in the local highway network that the country deserves. Let us remove the largest barrier to entry into cycling—the barrier caused by the danger to cyclists.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on affording the House an opportunity this morning to debate what has been an overlooked and underrated form of transport. He was courteous and generous in paying tribute not only to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), but to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) who, I am pleased to say, has joined us for this debate. I pay tribute to her sterling work on the issue of rates for Members of Parliament who are cyclists.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) began by pointing out that the debate had been remarkably apolitical, but he then tried to reduce it to a mere party political rant. He also misinformed the House. Cycling is indeed part of the Government's consultation document on an integrated transport strategy—and I can cycle. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer of tuition but, given the lamentable lack of leadership and direction that is the hallmark of his party, I must decline his kind offer—I would think twice if he offered to lead me across a road, potholed or otherwise.

Hon. Members on both sides have expressed their concern about the decline of cycling in recent years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South pointed out, 20 years ago, 3.2 per cent. of all journeys on the roads were undertaken by bicycle. Regrettably, the figure is now 1.26 per cent. The average number of journeys made by bicycle per person per year has dropped from 30 to 17. Those are depressing statistics and they are even more depressing when compared with similar statistics for other European countries.

There are, however, more positive signs which indicate considerable potential to reverse the trend. Annual sales of new bicycles have grown to about 2 million, exceeding the number of new cars sold. It is estimated that there are now about 20 million bicycles in existence. About 99 per cent. of men, 89 per cent. of women and 90 per cent. of children can cycle.

Hon. Members on both sides raised the issue of children being taken by car to school. All hon. Members have a common interest in promoting and expanding safe routes to school. That point was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), and by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). This is an issue on which the Government have been concentrating since we took office. We want to reduce the number of unnecessary car journeys on our roads, but there is also concern about the health of the nation's children. The lack of exercise by children is a cause for concern.

As I said, the Government are committed to safe routes to school, but we must examine the idea in the round. It requires close consultation not only with schools, school governors, teachers, parents and pupils, but with local authorities. Several schemes are up and running and they provide best practice. Our encouragement of the greater use of cycles is part of our integrated transport strategy. Not only on this but on all issues connected with cycling, we must work out how we can disseminate best practice.

Is the Minister promising additional Government finance? Does she accept that there are schemes and examples of initiative and enthusiasm across the country, but they lack resources?

The Liberal Democrats have spent all the money already.

As my hon. Friend points out, that miraculous 1p that the Liberal Democrats were going to use to solve all the nation's problems has been spent 12 times. I understand that the approach of some Liberal Democrat-run local authorities to the road network is benign neglect.

The extent of the traffic congestion in the capital means that cycling now offers the fastest journey time for trips in inner London. Cycling has the potential to confer a range of positive benefits. It is widely available and gives direct, door-to-door, flexible and reliable transport at any time. It offers equivalent personal freedom to that associated with the car at a fraction of the cost, and without the negative impacts of pollution, congestion and inefficiency. In addition, cycling helps to sustain fitness—that is particularly relevant for the nation's children—and mobility for people of all ages.

Last year saw the launch of the national cycling strategy—a blueprint for cycling. It was developed by a steering group comprising central Government, local authorities, the commercial sector and voluntary organisations. That spirit of partnership remains an essential prerequisite for delivering the targets set out in the strategy, which the Government are keen to support.

The objective of the strategy is to establish a culture that favours the increased use of bicycles for all age groups. We want to develop innovative policies and good practice, with a central target of doubling the amount of cycling by 2002, and doubling that again by 2012.

The aims of the strategy link in with the Government's wider objectives of air quality improvement, sustainable development, transport efficiency and personal and public health. We need to recognise the bicycle as a serious transport option for going to work, to the shops, to the bus or train station, or to school. That means focusing on infrastructure as well as attitudes.

On which of the occasions that the Minister has just described does she use her bicycle?

I regret that my ability to use my bicycle to go to the shops has been somewhat precluded. Given the pressure of work, my ability to go to the shops is almost nil.

A national cycling forum has been established. It is responsible for ensuring that national and local policy and provision deliver increases in cycling, in line with the identified NCS outputs. The forum also co-ordinates the contributions of a number of working groups. Seven such groups have been established to look at a range of subjects.

One of those groups is exploring ways to maximise the opportunities for combining cycling with public transport. That is a major issue that involves not just bicycle carriage on other vehicles, but the provision of physical facilities at stations, bus stops and major interchanges, and of information about what is available to those planning multimodal journeys.

We are looking to train and station operators to play a major role in developing a cycle-friendly railway system. That will be achieved only if operators deliver what cyclists want—facilities for cycle carriage, convenient and secure facilities at stations, and comprehensive information. The voluntary code of practice, "Providing for Cyclists", launched earlier this year, offers helpful guidance to operators. The code was developed by the cyclists public affairs group, the Cyclists Touring Club and Sustrans—to whose valuable and inspirational work my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) paid tribute.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South mentioned earlier, I was invited to make the first cycle mark award earlier this year to Anglia Railways for its "Bikes on Trains" initiative, developed in partnership—again I use that word partnership—with cycle user groups, the community, local authorities and the Government. Chiltern Railways has installed secure cycle racks at its stations. Great Western Trains has increased capacity and reduced its charge for reserving cycle carriage from £3 to £1. Thames Trains is providing flexible space for carrying bicycles on its trains. Those companies have pointed the way and we expect others to follow.

Making the railways more cycle-friendly is not the responsibility of just the train and station operators. On 6 November, we issued new objectives, instructions and guidance to the franchising director, placing a new duty on him to ensure that, as far as possible, the railway provides suitable facilities for cyclists. If a franchisee plans to order new rolling stock, the franchising director is now required to discuss with the franchise operator the provision of suitable space for accommodating bicycles on the trains. The franchising director is also required to encourage operators to provide suitable facilities for cyclists at the stations that they manage.

Hon. Members on both sides have mentioned the key issue of safety. We have announced our intention to set a new road safety target for the years beyond the turn of the century. The perception that promoting more cycling and reducing road casualties are not compatible must be challenged. One of the forum's working groups aims to ensure that the national cycling strategy can work in harmony with the development of the road safety strategy. Traffic management and related highway engineering offer enormous potential to make cycling conditions safer and more attractive to use. Networks of bus and cycle lanes, advanced stop lines for cyclists at traffic signals and one-way streets with contraflow are just some examples of possible measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest highlighted the need for planning to take the needs of cyclists into account when creating new buildings and workplace environments.

Cycle security is a perennial concern for cyclists. No matter what measures are put in place to encourage people to use their bike, the chances of their doing so are diminished if they do not have a reasonable expectation of finding it, with all its pieces in working order, where they left it.

A working group has been exploring the potential for developing a graded set of security standards for locking devices and is also keeping in touch with Southampton city council's review of existing guidance on the design, manufacture, planning and siting of cycle parking equipment.

Local authorities are the primary agents for delivering physical improvements for cyclists. My Department is developing guidance to help authorities to review the cycle-friendliness of their existing networks and proposals for new road infrastructure.

The strategy invites local authorities to contribute towards its headline target by putting together their own local cycling strategies. Some authorities may find it relatively easy to achieve—or exceed—a doubling of cycle use. Others will find it more realistic to adopt a more modest target. That is why the strategy does not prescribe local targets, but encourages authorities to determine for themselves what is appropriate and achievable.

Public transport operators, bus and train station managers and employers can also be more proactive by providing secure cycle parks and shower facilities at work and by improving cycle access, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out. My Department offers interest-free loans to staff to purchase bicycles. There are excellent facilities available at Eland house and Great Minster house for staff who cycle to work. We have issued a green transport guide to all Departments. All Departments work together on a green Cabinet Sub-Committee to put the environment at the heart of all our policies. Transport has a major impact on our ability to achieve our aims for a sustainable economy and an acceptable and improving environment.

Putting in place practical and physical improvements will help to provide some tangible evidence of better provision for cyclists. There is a wealth of good practice. Information on successful initiatives, new approaches and innovations needs to be spread widely. There is much value in sharing knowledge and experience. The forum's best practice group has taken on the challenge and will be looking at topics such as cycling and town centres and cycling and health. Its task is to generate and disseminate guidance covering the principles of the national cycling strategy and relevant best practice examples.

Recent experience in cycle challenge and elsewhere has demonstrated the importance of establishing strong partnerships for action. I have asked my officials to analyse the outcomes of cycle challenge and ensure that the results are disseminated widely. Public transport operators were involved in a number of cycle challenge schemes. They include Greater Manchester passenger transport executive's drive to improve cycle parking at Metrolink stations and an initiative by Transport Management Services in conjunction with Stagecoach Cumberland to enable buses to carry bicycles on rural routes.

Examples from the health sector include a partnership between Southampton city council and Southampton University Hospital NHS trust to improve cycle parking on the hospital site and to reduce the number of cars coming on site. Stockport health authority received cycle challenge funds to operate a cycle leasing scheme to staff willing to give up their cars.

Employers, too, took part in cycle challenge. Dover council worked with Pfizer UK to improve cycle facilities for staff on the site, to fund cycle facilities in the town of Sandwich, and to improve access and local routes for cyclists. BNR Europe established cycle facilities and improved access to its site at Harlow in Essex.

Many voluntary groups either received cycle challenge funds or—

Order. We must move on.

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate a debate on an important case. I shall keep my remarks as short as possible, to allow others to speak. It is a debate about procedure and about a serving Army major who has been arrested under the Official Secrets Act 1911. It is not a debate about substance, as the major has not been charged. I do not know what any charges will be, or what they can be, because, during the relevant period, he was serving with the United Nations force in Bosnia—a force which, by definition, has neither secrets nor enemies—and, therefore, he could not be accused of passing a secret to an enemy.

Major Milos Stankovic is a serving officer with the Parachute Regiment. He is British, he has a British passport and he is a loyal British subject. His father was a Serb who fought with the Chetniks in the second world war and barely escaped with his life. He came to Britain with nothing, built a new life and started a family. In due course, his son Milos wanted to become a Regular Army officer and had the distinction of being selected by the Parachute Regiment. He served as a platoon commander and a captain with the UN force in Kuwait.

In October 1992, the British Army was deployed for the first time on a large scale in Bosnia and was looking for Serb speakers. It had only two in its ranks—both were the sons of Serbian fathers, and Milos Stankovic was one of them. He was assigned for four tours of duty—two years in Bosnia. He served longer there in hazardous conditions than any other British soldier. He acted as an interpreter, interpreting not only the language but the people, and as an adviser to Colonel Bob Stewart of the Cheshire Regiment, to General Smith and to General Rose. His job was to deal with the Serbs—the most difficult of the three ethnic groups—and he did so. His job was to win their trust, and he did so. His job was to get to know them, and he did so.

In the Bihac crisis of late November and early December 1994, Milos Stankovic was personally responsible for freeing 50 Canadian UN hostages held by the Serbs and unblocking convoys and the airport. He did that alone and with great distinction. He crossed front lines in a soft vehicle under fire. He is a man of great courage.

In May 1993, Major Stankovic saved the life of a Muslim woman wounded by Croatian sniper fire in the town of Vitez. He scooped her up and took her to hospital and saved her life. He was awarded the MBE. He received his medal from the Queen at Buckingham palace.

Beyond the line of duty, Major Stankovic took part in humanitarian endeavours. He was responsible for helping many people. I shall not specify exactly what he did, although if charges are laid against him I may have to do so because they bear upon his courage and his character. However, I shall read an extract of a letter that he received from a Muslim woman whom he had helped and who had a Serb husband:

"We really must consider you our friend since what you have done for us is a huge thing. Such people who are prepared to help others risking their own lives are people who really must be considered friends. Therefore, one more huge thankyou for what you have done—you and that great humanitarian, General Rose."

In spring 1995, Milos Stankovic was returned to normal soldiering. He served with distinction as a company commander with the first battalion of the Parachute Regiment in Aldershot and he was eventually selected to participate in the joint services task force at Bracknell. It was there on 16 October this year that the Ministry of Defence police came to get him. They arrested him, but they did not charge him. They took him to Guildford police station where he was locked in a cell. They told him that, because of the gravity of the case, he was not allowed to make a single telephone call. After two hours in the cell, the Guildford police quite properly countermanded that decision and allowed him to make a telephone call. Eight hours later, the arresting officers returned with a questionnaire. If their instructions had been obeyed, he would have had no advice in helping him with his replies.

During those eight hours, the police had been searching Milos Stankovic's house. They took away six boxes of documents, papers and mementoes—the kind of thing that people gather in war zones. They did not give him an itemised inventory, so he does not know exactly what they have. Therefore, it is difficult for him to prepare any defence. They took something from a shrine that he kept to the memory of his father who had died 18 months earlier. It may seem unusual for a serving British officer to have a shrine in his house, but there is nothing seditious or suspicious about it. They took his medals from his mess kit—the minature medals. They were the GSM for service in Northern Ireland, the UNIKOM medal for service in Kuwait, the Bosnia medal that he won four times over, and the MBE.

Last week, the police sent Major Stankovic a letter saying that he would have to be rebailed not, as originally agreed, on 11 December, but on 11 March. Apparently, there will now be a five-month fishing expedition. What was most upsetting was that the letter was addressed to Mr. Stankovic—there was no rank and no medal. It may seem a trifling discourtesy to someone who has not worn the Queen's uniform, but to someone in Major Stankovic's position it is a clear indication that he has already been judged guilty.

Major Stankovic has the same right as any serving soldier, charged with or under suspicion of having committed a grave offence, to have a senior soldier as his adviser, godfather or prisoner's friend. That courtesy has not been extended to him. He has been told to talk to no soldier, and any soldier who talks to him has to report it. He is left twisting in the wind.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for having given me notice that he intended to raise the subject. I represent Aldershot, the home of the Parachute Regiment. The hon. Gentleman is explaining that the major has not been allowed to talk to anyone serving in the Army. The Parachute Regiment has been adroit in representing the interests of some of its past members who have been in trouble. Does the hon. Gentleman know whether former members of the Parachute Regiment have been able to assist him or the major, and are they supporting him?

I believe that Major Stankovic has wide support within the regiment and, indeed, within the Army. A retired member of the regiment would be ideal. In some ways, General Sir Michael Rose would be ideal, but he cannot be involved because he may have to give evidence. The same applies to General Sir Rupert Smith who is the colonel-commandant of the regiment. The gap has not been filled and Major Stankovic still has no one to help him. The House should know that.

I had hoped that the Minister might be here, because I have some points to put to him. I wonder whether anyone else would like to intervene while I wait for the Minister.

Major Stankovic is a constituent of mine living in Farnham. I acknowledge the efforts of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) in finding an opportunity to raise his case in the House. Those who have already heard some of the background to the case will be deeply concerned. Clearly, Major Stankovic is an officer who has seen dangerous duty and shown courage in some of the most difficult circumstances.

The hon. Member for Tatton, on the basis of his specialist knowledge, has further information that the House and the Minister will no doubt wish to consider. As we learn more about the matter it seems that there are two elements, in particular, that the Minister will want to consider.

First, there is the question whether there is any truth in the allegations against my constituent. I am certainly in no position to provide any comment on that matter. If there is any truth in the allegations, and if they are substantial, one must ask the Secretary of State for Defence to hasten the inquiry and afford my constituent natural justice by allowing the evidence to come forward. Charges should be brought, or the investigation should be dropped and Major Stankovic publicly exonerated.

The present state of affairs, in which ignorance is prolonged by delay, is not fair. It is also enormously damaging to Major Stankovic and his family. Whatever the state of any allegations, there seems to have been great difficulty and lack of care and support in the way in which he has been treated.

There appears to be a conspiracy to hold my constituent completely incommunicado and to deprive him of essential evidence for his defence. There has been a choice not to follow the normal Army system of appointing an officer to advise him after his arrest, and he has been left with no information about whether charges are to be made.

Underlying that, there is also the possibility of personal danger arising from public allegations of partisanship in a vicious situation. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I add my concerns to those raised by the hon. Member for Tatton. Now that the Minister is here, I believe that the hon. Member may wish to address the House again.

I am grateful for the intervention by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). She mentioned Major Stankovic's family, and this is a time of great anxiety for him and of distress for his 75-year-old mother. May I say how grateful I am to see the Minister here, and how much I appreciate what he does? I believe that the armed forces are lucky to have him. That is genuine; I regard him as a friend.

The case that I have been laying out is that of a serving major who I, like other people both in and out of uniform, feel has been denied due process. That applies especially to the fact that he was not allowed to make a telephone call after being arrested and that his medals and documents were taken. He has been left to twist in the wind.

I know that the Minister's powers in the matter are limited, but there are some things that he can do. I urge him to ensure that Major Stankovic's rights are respected and protected, and that his documents, including his driving licence, are returned to him, having been photocopied if necessary. I urge the Minister also to ensure that Major Stankovic's medals are returned, with an apology, and that the case is brought to an expeditious conclusion. I also urge him to wonder whether the fraud squad of the Ministry of Defence police is the right agency to investigate a matter of such complexity.

I finish with a question. What kind of a people are we, and what kind of a signal does it send, if we reward our heroes by arresting them? Heroes are ordinary people who do extraordinary things. Major Milos Stankovic is such a man.

First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for my late arrival for the debate. It was unavoidable. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that I travelled here by car with Ambassador Butler of UNSCOM—the United Nations Special Commission—to try to fit in my arrival with the time of the debate.

As a preliminary, may I tell the hon. Member that the whole House admires the way in which he worked, risked his life and showed such courage in reporting the war in Bosnia? He showed great personal courage in some dangerous situations and reported what he saw with passion and with compassion, but always with integrity and objectivity, too. Whenever he raises any matter in the House, we listen to him with great respect. In my view, the hon. Gentleman displayed deep compassion for all sides of the dispute in Bosnia and for all the peoples of that troubled land, whether Bosniac, Croat or Serb.

However, today it is not the war in Bosnia or the prospects for peace that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to raise. He knows that, because of the position that I hold, I rise to respond to him under restrictions and restraints of which he is well aware. I am restricted and restrained in how I can respond to the points that he has made—although I can say that the whole House will have heard what he said. I shall seek to respond to those points that do not fall properly within the process of judicial inquiry and operations.

The hon. Gentleman has made a judgment in deciding to raise the matter today. I am sure that he did so after careful thought, and with the conscientiousness that he would normally apply to such questions. He will know that in speaking about the case of Major Stankovic he will inevitably have given that case publicity. He will also know that it has already featured in detail in an article in the Daily Mail on Monday. Some of the points that he had previously made in private and has made again today were also expressed in that article.

Therefore, inevitably, publicity will surround the case. The hon. Gentleman will have made a judgment about that before embarking on his course of action. I have no means of knowing either what informed that judgment, or Major Stankovic's view of the publicity that his case will now receive, and whether he may believe that it will be helpful or otherwise to his own position.

For my part, in case there is any doubt on the subject, I wish to place on the record the fact that my Department has sought no publicity whatever for the case. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that we in the Ministry of Defence have been scrupulous in doing everything in our power to avoid publicity, which could cause unnecessary distress to Major Stankovic, and could risk prejudicing subsequent proceedings, or his defence if—I repeat "if"—he were to be charged.

Indeed, hitherto my Department has not even acknowledged the name of Major Stankovic or given it to the press. Whatever speculation may have arisen in that regard, it did not arise in any authorised fashion or, I hope, from any element in my Department.

From the public prints, are not we entitled to ask whether the role of the military police will be seriously looked at, as that certainly is within the purview of the Minister's Department?

My hon. Friend is entitled to ask anything he likes, but I am more constrained in how I can reply. If he asks whether, in due course, consideration will be given to the MOD police, that subject—particularly during the strategic defence review—could be examined. If he is implying that I should somehow intervene in the investigation, that course is not open to me, and it would be unwise. That is precisely why I am being as constrained as I am in my remarks.

I would not wish to take any action or make any comment that might in any way influence an investigation that is under way or which ultimately could be perceived in any way to have affected the investigation or even the case for the defence, if charges were brought against Major Stankovic.

As time is running out, will the Minister find it in himself to address two points: the protection of the rights of Major Stankovic, and the provision of a serving or ex-serving military officer to help and advise him?

I will address those points if the hon. Gentleman bears with me. He has relayed his views to me personally and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has written to the chief constable of the MOD police about the case, as was right and proper, and he has met MOD police officers. He will be able to confirm that my right hon. Friend and I told him that, while we could listen, we could make no comment on the merits of the case or the conduct of the MOD police investigation, for reasons that will be obvious. Ministers do not answer for the operational activities of police forces. The chief constable of the MOD police is responsible for the conduct of the investigation by his force and, in his constabulary capacity, he is independent of the Government under law.

Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I outlined the processes involved. When the MOD police complete an investigation, they report to the Crown Prosecution Service, and careful consideration is given to the question of prosecution. If, having applied the criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, the CPS concludes that proceedings are appropriate, it will make any necessary applications to the Attorney-General for his comments. If the decision is not to prosecute Major Stankovic, standard procedures will be followed by the MOD, including consideration of whether there might be evidence of a military offence having been committed.

It would be understandable if the hon. Member for Tatton or Major Stankovic felt concerned that the process could take some time. I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that once the MOD police have completed their investigation—and a decision has been taken on whether Major Stankovic should be prosecuted—and when the matter comes within the realm of my responsibility, my Department will carry out our procedures with fairness and with all possible speed.

I cannot make any prediction of the outcome, any more than I can comment on the merits of the case. The hon. Member understands all that, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have explained it to him carefully. In any case, he is well aware of the procedures. However, I thought it right to set them out in some detail in case they were not entirely familiar to some hon. Members or to members of the public who may read our reports. I trust that the House will understand why I cannot reply to many of the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman in his speech.

I wish to emphasise that if Major Stankovic is charged with any offence, he will have a full opportunity and plenty of time to prepare his defence. He may wish to refer to some of the matters to which the hon. Member referred. The House will understand how prejudicial it would be to any subsequent procedures, and to Major Stankovic's interests, if I were to say anything at all about the matters today. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give serious thought to those considerations.

One point to which I can refer, because it falls within my responsibilities, is the Army's support for Major Stankovic, which the hon. Gentleman believes is inadequate. I can confirm that Major Stankovic is receiving Army support, as I made inquiries about this matter—and this matter alone—as late as yesterday. He is entitled to the assistance of what is called a soldier's friend. His commanding officer has advised him on that entitlement, and a soldier's friend has been appointed. An individual may choose any Army officer who is not in the chain of command or a potential witness. I am glad that I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point.

I also assure the hon. Gentleman that if charges are not brought, the matter will be dealt with, so far as our procedures are concerned, in an expeditious and fair manner. Other than that, there is very little that I can say that would not be open to misinterpretation as interference in the due process of the investigation.

I understand the difficulties that the Minister faces in terms of the legalities. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) raised some procedural matters—for example, the failure to provide an inventory of the personal effects taken from Major Stankovic's home—which the Minister could properly deal with. Any of us who had had items removed from our home would feel, at the very least, that we should have a proper inventory of all that was taken. The hon. Gentleman referred to Major Stankovic's medals, and perhaps the Minister might also be able to address that point. Will he ensure that the MOD police provide an inventory of all items taken from the major's home?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will know that the fine distinction that he is able to draw between interfering with the process of an investigation and alleging any irregularities in the procedures of the investigation is one that might not be apparent to every objective observer. On these occasions, it is as well to err on the side of caution so that there is not seen to be any ministerial interference in an independent investigation.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will know that the proceedings of the House will be watched, listened to and read by a number of people, including the chief constable of the MOD police who will, by this afternoon or tomorrow morning, be well aware of the questions that have been asked. He will be aware also, no doubt, that when the procedure is finished, hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Tatton may wish to return to those questions. Even without my directly intervening in any way, the casual observer might conclude that the matters would be attended to.

I shall ask whether such an important matter as this debate, which is relevant to general police matters, can be brought to the attention of the chief constable of the MOD police. That may suffice to meet the hon. Gentleman's point without direct intervention.

To pursue the point raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I would never dream of asking my hon. Friend the Minister to interfere in an investigation; the issue that I raised was the behaviour of the military police, as described in the public prints, which appeared not to be acceptable to a possibly distinguished and brave man.

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it is a fine philosophical point to draw a distinction between the behaviour of the police investigating—

Order. It is time for the next debate.

I wonder whether I am the only Member of Parliament who, when sitting down to watch television on the odd occasion at the weekend, consults the weather forecast before looking at the television guide. The problem of poor television reception experienced in my part of rural Norfolk is shared by many other sparsely populated areas, but it is uniquely annoying in north-west Norfolk because, although over the years there have been technical attempts under the analogue transmission system to improve reception, they seem to have failed abysmally for many thousands of my constituents.

Mrs. Ellen Ward from King's Lynn says:

"We only have Yorkshire TV despite having two aerials. The chap who came to fix our second one tried in vain to get Anglia for us. The picture is awful and we have not been able to watch it. I am disabled through illness and although I watch very little TV I do especially love news items. I think most of this area gets pretty peeved off about the coverage we get."

Not only do we have problems with the weather, because reception is marginal from the transmitters designed to serve East Anglia, but, as in Wales, where I understand that 30 per cent. of people get better coverage from English than from Welsh transmitters, we get better reception from transmitters serving Yorkshire and northern England than from those meant to transmit to the people of East Anglia.

Yorkshire Television is transmitted from Belmont and has plenty of news about what is going on in northern England in its regional news programmes. To be blunt, people in Norfolk are more interested in the Canaries and the King's Lynn football team than in the affairs of Barnsley football club. One of my constituents, in a letter to the press, said:

"I have spent hundreds of pounds on aerials and boosters trying to obtain Anglia TV and BBC East so my family and I can see the local news for our area. But to no avail, we still have to look at Yorkshire TV (wonderful picture, super picture and sound) and hear about what is happening in Leeds and Bradford…that is unless the atmospherics are feeling benevolent and allow us through the snow to get a glimpse of something nearer home, and hear how Norwich City or King's Lynn got on at football, instead of Barnsley and Huddersfield!"

On a more serious note, a constituent tells me:

"We are just a couple of miles from the coast, with the Ouse and Nene nearby. I am fearful that in not having our own local news, storm and flood warnings might be missed, while we were watching the news from the North!"

One of the best quotations, in the technical environment in which we live, came from a constituent who said:

"It does seem quite abysmal that men can travel to the Moon and back yet, even with a booster fitted to the aerial you are unable to get reception to my sitting room!"

The problem has been long standing. As an electronic engineer, I at least can understand what the engineers tell me. Since I have been a Member of Parliament—and indeed when I was seeking election—they have told me woefully about the technical problems in transmitting analogue television. I know, because the King's Lynn Citizen mounted a strong campaign, that at least 5,000 people in my constituency have been troubled enough to write and say so.

I know from the campaigning of some borough councillors, especially Charles Ward and Marcus Liddington, who are bringing the issue to the borough council today, that the problem is large; and the solution, with analogue television, could be expensive and, given that we as a nation have stopped building relay transmission for analogue television, would probably not be achievable in the present regime.

As an electronic engineer, I am also extremely well aware that there is a solution. I am in the fortunate position, I hope, not of merely carping to the Minister but of being confident that the technical problems of the past, so well expressed by my constituents, can be solved by modern technology. I refer in particular to the revolution in communications represented by digital transmission, which is the distinctive way of transmitting information much more efficiently on the same radio waves.

The House will not want a technical lecture on the subject, but let me outline the two major advantages of digital television. First, some clever engineers have ensured that, by compressing data, the frequency spectrum, which is finite and governed by equations not even in the control of the Minister, can be more effectively used. For every television station that we can transmit by analogue transmission, using the same range of frequencies, we can transmit at least four, and probably more next year and the year after, digitally.

We shall have an enormous number of options in terms of picture quality, added services, interactive television and help for the handicapped. Fifty or so frequencies are available but, with analogue transmission, only four or possibly five channels can be received nationally—and those with difficulty, as my constituents know—but without cabling, which will not happen quickly in rural areas, and without people having to subscribe to Sky, we shall, with digital transmission, be able, with the transmitters that are currently in use, to transmit 20 to 30 television channels to every home. That is a huge advantage in terms of the wealth of communications that we can deliver from every transmitter in the land, as we move from analogue to digital.

The second advantage is that digital television will be much less susceptible to interference than the analogue that it replaces. We are about to enter an interim period during which analogue television may well be interfered with by digital. That is a jolly good argument for speeding up the process by which we move to the digital domain with its much greater efficiency. Under digital, much lower signal levels will allow high-quality pictures to be received, which will be a godsend in the sparse rural environments and the difficult patches of Norfolk to which I have referred. As an engineer, I have a clear understanding that there are no technical objections to the solution, which should be explored and implemented.

As a nation, we should have a social requirement that the key channels—bluntly, it is BBC1 and channel 3 that have the proper regional variations—should be, as of right, universally received in the United Kingdom. To do that, all we need to do is to ensure that transmitters that are now technically capable of transmitting only four channels and which will, as we move forward, be able to transmit 20 or 30, include within their expansion the channels that the people who receive broadcasts from that transmitter want to watch. Greater priority should be given to ensuring that people get the television reception that they want before they are plagued with requests to pay for the extra facilities, many of which they will not want, that the new technology opens up. People will not thank the Government if, in several years, they can receive 20 channels, but they still cannot receive the key local coverage and the channels that they most want to receive.

I am particularly grateful to the Library for trying to bring me up to speed on the legal side of the issue. Emma Downing has served me especially well in guiding me through the labyrinth of legislation. I shall summarise what I have gleaned from that. It seems to me that there is nothing in the legislation which stops us achieving what I have suggested, but there is possibly not too much that encourages it. The responsibility to ensure universal coverage, or the nearest to it that we can obtain, seems to be divided between the Minister, the Independent Television Commission and the BBC.

I have had mixed responses from the BBC. When complaints were made some time ago, its local spokesman said that the television licence was like a fishing licence. It enabled people to receive television, but it did not guarantee that they could do so. That was not an acceptable response to my constituents, given the extra facility that the BBC is given in legislation to transmit extra information around the country. I must say that I received a much friendlier hearing from the chairman of the governors last week. He has at least offered some meetings, so that I can discuss with BBC technical advisers a more satisfactory route forward.

Neither has the ITC held out any prospect of an easy solution. My predecessor was told that it did not see the prospect of a solution with the move to digital television. Bluntly, that is not acceptable. Today I have my opportunity to ask the Minister to ensure that a fresh look is taken at the matter. It seems to me that a fresh look is appropriate for a new Government.

I and the many other hon. Members who represent sparsely populated rural areas do not expect immediate solutions, but given the wealth that the technical advances have given us in terms of our ability to communicate better, I hope that we can hold out a prospect today that we shall not wait for ever—mañana, mañana—for our problems to be solved. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the validity of my complaints on behalf of my constituents, but will also acknowledge that many others in other rural parts of the country could argue similarly.

I have already mentioned that one third of the people in Wales receive English television more clearly than Welsh. They, too, could be helped by my proposed solution. In taking a fresh look at the problem, does the Minister accept that, in the array of opportunities made available by the move to digital broadcasting, there is a possibility of solving the problem that I have emphasised today at least for the vast majority of my constituents, and possibly for many others in this interim period of mixed analogue and digital broadcasting?

Will my hon. Friend the Minister undertake to ensure that those responsible—it is a divided responsibility, and that is one of the problems—face up to the issues that I have raised and give proper priority to universal reception of core television channels? The new Government have made much of the need for communities to act, and for community solutions to problems, whether crime or problems of regional development. We have an obligation to ensure that those communities are given the support of community television, at least in the regional variations that the main broadcasters provide. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to use not only his power under the Broadcasting Act 1996 but, probably more important, his influence.

I suspect that technology will ensure that we legislate yet again on broadcasting during the lifetime of this Parliament. The fact that telephone, computer and broadcasting communications are merging technologies will necessitate that. I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Minister would tell those who had vested interests to protect and wanted to see the licence fee retained that constituents such as mine were not prepared to pay the licence fee while the BBC viewed it as an opportunity to receive television signals, but did not put enough effort into making sure that its services could be watched.

I have a more personal plea. As a former lecturer in digital electronics, I am confident that the fastest possible track should be given to the revolution that engineering has made possible and which politicians now need to ensure that we exploit.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing an Adjournment debate on the important issue of television reception in his constituency, on which he and I have recently corresponded. As he says, the issue is of interest to a wider range of people, because it affects many rural areas in different ways.

I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will appreciate his assiduous pursuit of their interests, including his detailed discussions with the engineering division of the ITC, which is responsible for terrestrial transmission arrangements in my hon. Friend's part of the country. His advocacy, as he modestly did not stress, is given extra weight by his expert knowledge of the technicalities of transmission. He is a former university lecturer in electronic engineering. I suspect that he speaks with greater knowledge than any other Member of Parliament on a difficult and abstruse issue. The people of north-west Norfolk could not have a better champion than my hon. Friend, with his determination, his success in obtaining this debate and his almost unique expertise.

Many of my hon. Friend's constituents are unable to receive their preferred regional television service. He cited Mrs. Ward of King's Lynn. She and others must be baffled that, at a moment of huge technical advance, they cannot receive their preferred transmission. It is frustrating for them to pay a licence fee to receive a service which is not the one that they want.

I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's constituents and, indeed, with my hon. Friend himself, who is one of his own constituents who does not receive the service he wants. However, as he is only too well aware, the problems that we are dealing with are, first, the properties of radio transmission and, secondly, the topography of East Anglia. I know that, with his considerable technical knowledge, my hon. Friend is familiar with those issues; but it might be helpful if I summarise, for the benefit of those less expert in these matters, some of the difficulties that are encountered.

The radiomagnetic spectrum is a finite resource and we must operate within the constraints of what is available. We have available for broadcasting 46 frequency channels to cover the whole of the United Kingdom and, as my hon. Friend is aware, broadcast transmissions from one site can readily interfere with and distort transmissions on a similar frequency from a neighbouring site. In addition to meeting the spectrum demands within the UK, we must have regard to the impact of our plans on our continental neighbours, given that broadcast signals do not respect national boundaries and travel a long distance, especially over water.

Reconciling those constraints and problems can be hard and can lead to limits on the coverage area of transmissions within the UK. In some circumstances, it might simply not be possible to use certain frequency channels because of the potential to interfere with existing services in other nations. It follows that there are certain areas within the UK where available spectrum for broadcasting is a genuinely scarce commodity. Coastal regions such as my hon. Friend's area are especially prone to such limitations and there is undoubtedly a genuine difficulty, not easily resolved, in north-west Norfolk.

The television services of BBC East and the Anglia Television ITV franchise are, as my hon. Friend knows, transmitted from three transmitters—Tacolnestone, Sandy Heath and Sudbury—and are extended by associated relay stations. I gather that the ITC's engineers have made every effort to extend coverage and to remedy anomalies in the region, for example, by setting up three relay stations at Burnham, King's Lynn and Wells-next-the-Sea. Because of the frequency limitations that I have already outlined, those relays are limited to two channels: Anglia Television and BBC1. There are four other relays at Creake, Little Walsingham, West Runton and Overstrand.

I recognise, as does the ITC, that there are areas in my hon. Friend's constituency that do not receive a satisfactory Anglia Television service in particular. I gather that about 30,000 people, including my hon. Friend, have to rely on the Belmont main transmitter in Lincolnshire as the source of their programmes, and that Belmont delivers the Yorkshire Television ITV service and BBC North. Clearly, much of their programming is unlikely to be of major interest to most people living in north-west Norfolk, although I understand that some of Yorkshire Television's programming broadcast from Belmont reflects East Anglian issues to a certain extent. Nevertheless, I understand that the consequences can be serious, especially in a coastal region.

I should like to state publicly that today I approached Yorkshire Television and BBC North and asked them, exceptionally, to consider covering this debate, so that my constituents can see that I am speaking up for them. Interestingly, the BBC told me to get lost, but Yorkshire Television did at least say that it would give such coverage fair consideration as part of the news. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that having the odd item on Yorkshire Television is only a patch and can never be an acceptable solution to the problem. Until we get proper broadcasting from the Belmont transmitter into Norfolk, presumably in the digital domain, the problem will not be solved.

I am concerned that serious broadcasters did not take my hon. Friend's request more to heart, given that public service broadcasters have a responsibility to cover events in the House. He might have noticed that there is another Adjournment debate tomorrow, on the broadcasting companies' responsibilities to cover debates in this Chamber, which might be of some interest to him.

Although I appreciate that there is no direct comfort for my hon. Friend's constituents, north-west Norfolk has received a considerable degree of special attention—perhaps more attention than most of the rest of the country—from the ITC in an attempt to address the regional anomalies, as illustrated by the number of additional relays provided. However, I accept that existing analogue transmissions can never fully solve the problem. My hon. Friend, in his excellent contribution, envisaged the solution as being digital, and that does indeed offer greater potential than analogue. However, it must be recognised that, even with digital, frequency availability will remain a constraining factor, at least during the early years before the analogue transmission network is switched off and not least because, in most locations, people will receive their digital transmissions from the same main transmitter source as their analogue transmissions.

My hon. Friend will know that digital transmissions differ from analogue in that there is no gradual decline in the quality of reception; consequently, there are no "mush" areas between different transmitters and coverage may therefore be more easily defined. People will either receive a signal of sufficient strength to obtain a service, or they will not. That will ease some planning difficulties and further increase the efficient use of the 46 frequency channels available. However, I would not want to mislead either my hon. Friend or the House by offering a certain prospect that digital will offer his constituents a quick or necessarily total solution to their reception problems. In the longer term, with the closure of analogue, digital might offer a solution to reception problems in north-west Norfolk, but until further spectrum planning has been undertaken, that solution cannot be certain—at least, not as certain as my hon. Friend believes.

Digital terrestrial television is a new technology and we are still at an early stage in its development. At present, the transmission plans of only the first 81 transmitters are being devised. Those are the main transmitters and some of the larger relays, which together will deliver digital services to more than 90 per cent. of the UK population for multiplexes carrying existing terrestrial services. Those 81 transmitters contrast with about 1,200 transmitters required to achieve analogue coverage for 99.4 per cent. of our population. Further relays may be brought into the digital plan, but the spectrum planning for them cannot commence until the plans for the first 81 are completed.

I am not in a position today to inform the House definitively whether digital terrestrial television will solve the problems that my hon. Friend described. He suggested that the increased capacity offered by digital would enable Yorkshire Television to broadcast from the Belmont transmitter both Yorkshire and Anglia regional variations. The Belmont transmitter is in the first stage of the digital plan, and it will be operational on the launch of DTT services. However, the issue is not as simple as that, and we need to examine it more carefully. The ITC companies might consider that it would be sensible to use their digital capacity to deliver regional programming more accurately, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall pass on his concerns and those of his constituents to both the Independent Television Association and Yorkshire Television. I am sorry to be unable to give my hon. Friend the categoric reassurance that he would like at this stage. Obviously, the extent of digital delivery of regional services will be an issue that the Government will have to consider when determining our strategy for switching over from analogue to digital terrestrial television.

I emphasise that there are no quick solutions, but I assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that the Government take these matters seriously. He has raised valid complaints and described valid problems on behalf of his constituents, and we need to consider them seriously as the potential of digital is realised. I look forward to continuing the dialogue, both through correspondence and in other ways, with my hon. Friend.

I am well aware that the future of our town centres and the impact upon them of edge-of-town supermarkets and out-of-town supermarkets have been well aired in the House in recent years. Indeed, the Business Improvement Districts Bill is being discussed in another place at the moment. Problems still exist. I shall be as brief as I can be so that the Minister has maximum time to respond.

Between 1990 and 1994, 8,000 small shops closed. Hon. Members all know how the Merry Hill shopping centre in the west midlands, now of notorious repute, has caused the death of several town centres in midlands, including that in my home area, so I know them well.

My constituency of Richmond Park has two fine shopping centres, Richmond and Kingston, and many groups of village shops and small shopping parades within it. Over the years, the two borough councils have struggled to maintain the life of their town centres. They have encouraged supermarket chains into those centres, albeit on restricted sites. By doing so, they have given shoppers the benefits of supermarket shopping.

Recently, two supermarket developments have been allowed, on appeal to the Department of the Environment, after considerable local opposition. An application for another supermarket on the famous Old Deer park in Richmond is imminent. All three are on the edge of Kingston and Richmond and will cause severe traffic congestion and have a major impact on two beautiful towns. Those towns are also threatened by the expansion of air-side and land-side shopping malls that are part of the terminal 5 development at Heathrow airport, which plans to provide huge shopping facilities for its customers. With the removal of duty free regulations next year, how long will it be before British Airways organises one-day shopping trips to Heathrow? That could affect town centres throughout the country, and not just local ones. Richmond in particular will suffer because it is a small centre where, as our motto says,

"the countryside comes to town."

However much the Government fall back on planning guidelines—the planning policy guidance note 6 was introduced by the previous Government and was greatly welcomed—and claim that nothing has changed, discussions are taking place that will affect the future of our town centres. It is a mystery to me why that should happen, particularly in the case of the Manor road site in Richmond, which recently received planning permission on appeal. I am aware that the inspector makes that decision and not the Government, but I shall say no more than that it is a mystery to me.

Another aspect of the problem which concerns me has long-term implications because the sites being used for the supermarkets are brown-field ones—in two cases in my constituency they are the sites of old gas works. The local authority and the DOE have no power to command the total cleansing of those much polluted sites—they merely need to be decontaminated for the use to which they will be put. That is a less expensive option than that required if those sites were to be used for housing, and it is an option that British Gas welcomes. I have visited the British Gas laboratories at its invitation, but despite that and my repeated requests, it will not divulge any details about the two local sites in my constituency that most concern me—at King's road in Kingston and Manor road in Richmond.

That means that pollution will be locked into those sites for future generations. The local authorities will have to accept that they can never be used for any other purpose. Town centres will therefore always be under siege for new sites, and housing, for which there is such a desperate need, will never be built because the cost to the developer of proper decontamination will be prohibitive.

I shall conclude by asking a few questions. Why does not the DOE insist on the total decontamination of those sites, which would enable them to be used for housing? Why do we continue to permit out-of-town and edge-of-town supermarkets when we know how much damage they can do to our town centres? Where will the elderly, disabled people and those without cars go to do their shopping when the small retailers on whom we depend have gone? Why are the Government continuing to encourage shopping by car, which increases pollution? Why cannot the supermarkets operate smaller stores such as Spar, Mace and Europa do? I must commend Tesco because its Metro developments reveal that it is showing signs of looking for smaller sites and smaller outlets for its goods. Why can we not encourage such marketing? When will the DOE commission proper research into the impact of retail developments on town centres? In March, the then Select Committee on the Environment produced an excellent report on that subject. Why cannot the Government act upon it?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on initiating the debate. I understand why she has raised the subject, but I hope that she will equally appreciate that I cannot speak about any particular cases, such as those in her constituency, which are either sub judice or where an appeal might be lodged with the Secretary of State in the future. That is simply the product of the proper rules that guarantee that any such appeal that comes before the Secretary of State must be dealt with on a strictly impartial basis. I am, nevertheless, pleased that the hon. Lady has chosen this subject for debate because it gives me the opportunity to set out clearly the Government's policy.

The Government are committed to regenerating town centres and, unlike the previous Government who saw the writing on the wall much too late, we have always been the champion of town centres. The damage inflicted in the 1980s and early 1990s was caused by the permissive policies of the previous Government, ironically often aided by public money. The Metro centre on Tyneside, Meadowhall and Merry Hill, to which the hon. Lady referred, all received Government funds through enterprise zones, the derelict land grant, or by being in a development corporation area.

Such developments have had an inevitable impact on their surrounding areas, to which the hon. Lady has also referred, and now there are calls for public money to be spent to assist the regeneration of the areas damaged by those big developments. Obviously, that is not a logical and sensible way to proceed and it is not one that the Government will pursue.

The permissive policies of the previous Administration helped to bring about a major shift in retailing patterns. In 1979, just 5 per cent. of retail sales turnover was generated outside existing town centres. Today, that figure is estimated at more than 25 per cent. and it is likely to exceed 30 per cent. by 2000. That is the legacy that we have inherited. The permissions currently working through the system are largely those that were granted before we came into power. Therefore, we have no control over them. It is inevitable that there will be a further increase in permissions because of those already in the pipeline.

It was not until 1993, with the issuing of a revised PPG6, that the previous Government began to move towards the current policy. The change in policy was initially played down as a change in the balance between town centre and out-of-town development, but in fact it was the beginning of a sea change.

In its 1994 report on shopping centres, the Select Committee on the Environment endorsed the policy and recommended that it be strengthened. Its recommendations were broadly accepted by the previous Government, leading to a further revision of PPG6 in June 1996. The policy was further reviewed and endorsed by the Environment Committee, which reported in March this year.

In answer to the hon. Lady's final question, I can tell her that that report was one of the first matters to receive our attention after the general election. As she knows, we responded by the end of July, making clear our support for the policy endorsed by the Select Committee and our interest in a number of its specific proposals. There is no question of the Government doing anything other than endorsing the approach already recommended by the Select Committee—an approach committed to the regeneration of town centres and in particular, as I shall explain, to the rigorous application of the sequential test in relation to planning applications for developments of out-of-town centres.

Our response in July showed that the Government are firmly committed to PPG6 and it spelt out our key objectives for town centres: first, to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of existing city, town and district centres; secondly, to make them the focus for investment, particularly in retail, office, leisure and other appropriate developments; and thirdly, to provide easy access to a wide range of facilities and services by a choice of means of transport.

It is important to ensure that people have opportunities to reach shopping centres by good public transport, to avoid the problem of growing dependence on the car, to which the hon. Lady referred. Such investment is essential to the regeneration and enhancement of the attractiveness of our town and city centres.

That is not to say that town centres did not need to change and that some of the competition has not helped galvanise town centres to respond to the challenge. However, the challenge has been damaging. We are trying to mobilise public and private funds to combat the continuing, often slow, haemorrhaging of our town centres as the full, long-term effect of the new regional shopping centres comes through.

The full effects of those new centres have yet to be felt, as town centres within 50 miles adjust to the loss of trade and some stores close or contract. The effect of major new centres, such as Bluewater in south-east London, Cribbs Causeway on the edge of Bristol, Trafford Park in the Manchester conurbation and even the more recent Mortlake Road development in Kew, have yet to come through in full. Those effects are likely to be felt in the next few years.

How do we expect the policy to operate? Local authorities have a major job ahead. Many will need to review their development plans. Up to now, many plans have not set out a clear strategy for town centres that would encourage shops, offices, leisure and even housing back into existing centres. In many cases, local authorities have been essentially locked into a reactive mode—trying to defend their town centres from out-of-town shopping developments, and often having few policies for the other key uses of existing town centres.

We want local authorities to adopt a much more positive and proactive approach to planning town centres. We want them to say where development will be encouraged, and to produce a clear strategy, as well as policies for all key town centre uses. Indeed, we want them to go further. We expect them to adopt a sequential approach to identifying and assessing sites in or on the edge of town centres for their suitability for town centre developments.

Let me explain what the sequential test involves. It means, first, identifying sites within centres. If a suitable site is not identified, edge-of-centre sites should be sought. Only if that fails should local authorities consider an out-of-centre site, which is well served or could be well served by public transport.

We expect local authorities to be realistic and to discuss the suitability of such sites with the private sector. We expect them to develop planning briefs for town centre sites ahead of revising the development plan, and we also expect them to take a much more positive approach to using their compulsory purchase powers to assist with land assembly, where that seems necessary. That will require local planning authorities to take a more positive approach than many have adopted in the past.

The sequential approach also applies to the way in which developers should approach the issue. Any proposal, whether for a new development or for expansion of an existing development, for out-of-town locations will need to demonstrate that there are no suitable sites in more central locations. If there are no such sites, before out-of-centre sites are considered, there will still be a question to be answered as to whether there is a need for such a development. The Government have made it clear that that approach would apply as much to leisure, office and other town centre uses as to retail developments.

The policy must apply to all phases of the planning process: the preparation of development plans, the handling of planning applications and the determination of appeals. We expect inspectors to apply the same criteria in determining planning appeals.

Some people believe that the Secretary of State should call in all major applications and recover all planning appeals for his own determination. The Government's general approach to call-ins is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities, save in exceptional cases where that is necessary. The Secretary of State is therefore very selective about calling in applications for his own determination, and will generally intervene only if matters of more than local importance are involved.

Each case must be considered on its individual merits. In recent years, the average number of appeals to the Secretary of State has been approximately 14,000 annually. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that it would be impractical for the Secretary of State to determine such a large number of cases personally.

All appeals to the Secretary of State are handled in the first instance by the Planning Inspectorate executive agency. In well over 90 per cent. of cases, the appeal is determined by the inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State. A small number of appeals each year are recovered by the Secretary of State for his own decision. The decision to recover an appeal is taken by reference to published criteria contained in the Government's response to the Select Committee on the Environment in 1986—Cmnd 43.

In the case of supermarkets and large retail developments, the criteria specify that the Secretary of State will recover development proposals involving development of more than 100,000 sq ft. Those that the hon. Lady mentioned in her constituency were smaller than that and therefore did not meet the criteria, so they were properly determined by the inspector.

In addition to getting key commercial uses back into town centres, the Government are keen to get more people living there. We hope to achieve that by encouraging the development of more housing, on its own or as part of mixed-use development. That will help to bring back diversity and life to our town centres.

People are the key ingredient to revitalising town centres. We hope that, for some people, who do not want to live in a quiet suburban area, the town centre can offer an exciting and attractive environment to live in. Young people may be attracted by proximity to entertainment facilities and transport links, and older people may be happy to live in the centre, with easy access to shops and other facilities.

Often, a town centre's location may be extremely attractive, and we must do much more to encourage the imaginative use of sites and the re-use of existing buildings to provide housing opportunities in our town centres. That would not only meet housing needs, but help to bring life back into town centres, which too often go dead at night, when the shopkeepers leave and the businesses close, and where there is often a risk, because of the absence of people keeping watch over the area.

The hon. Lady rightly raised the question of contaminated land. The issue has exercised the Government considerably. A number of sites in urban areas are severely contaminated and require remediation work before they can be used. There are obvious questions of cost involved in the remediation of such sites. It is unreasonable to make developers clear up to a standard above that required for the purposes of the site. It would inhibit development if there were an artificially high remediation standard that bore no relation to the use proposed for the site. That creates a difficulty in terms of meeting the case advanced by the hon. Lady. However, there is no reason why sites could not be cleared up further after initial remediation to allow houses to be built on them, for example.

Does the Minister agree that a future developer who wished to build houses on a site that had been decontaminated for only supermarket and leisure use would be deterred by the cost of further decontamination? If the sites are decontaminated superficially only for the purposes for which they are intended now, those sites will be locked into that use for ever. No future developers will want to meet the cost of decontaminating the sites fully.

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I refer her to my earlier comments about the importance of local authorities taking a more proactive role in determining appropriate uses for sites in development plans. If local authorities adopt that approach, there will be an appropriate level of response to the future needs of sites. If a site is not designated for housing purposes in a development plan, it is entirely understandable—nder the plan-led system that we operate—that developers who acquire that site in future, anticipating the level of costs associated with decontamination and remediation for non-housing purposes, will say that it is not possible for the site to meet the higher standards required for housing. That is why it is essential that there be the greatest clarity possible in the planning system. Authorities should determine as far as possible in advance what is an appropriate use for a site so that all parties involved are aware of the implications and the associated costs.

The Minister must realise that, although local authorities have district plans, they are not written in stone. We are talking about district plans that may last for 10 or 15 years. Local authorities may set down the uses that they wish for particular sites, but I am thinking about 30 or 40 years hence. I do not see why any developer would want to develop a site if he must first spend millions of pounds on decontamination—which, in the two cases that I mentioned, should have been completed by British Gas before it vacated the sites.

Two issues arise from the hon. Lady's comments. First, we attach considerable importance to local authorities reviewing and updating their development plans regularly. Plans should not be allowed to remain in force for many years, long after they have ceased to be an accurate and up-to-date reflection of need. Regular updating of plans is essential. Secondly, there is no reason why changing patterns of use will not create new economic circumstances not envisaged previously. After all, we are talking about sites that, 20 or 30 years ago, were considered as being exclusively for industrial use. Planning policies at that time envisaged the maximum separation of residential development from such sites.

As industry has declined, it has become necessary to adopt a different approach and to see whether it is possible to put some such sites to other uses. As I have said, the Government are keen to ensure the re-use of brown-field sites that are no longer required for their former purposes and the re-use of existing premises that are no longer needed and could be put to more beneficial use. The housing use of former warehouses and office buildings is a case in point.

We must not assume that it is possible to lay out at a particular point a strategy that will govern the potential uses of sites for 30 or 40 years or more. Equally, it would be wrong to sterilise sites that may be used in the short term by setting an artificially high standard of decontamination and remediation that would deter any development and leave that site blighted and sterilised. We must adopt a pragmatic, step-by-step approach to ensure that, wherever possible, sites are brought back into use. We should not put obstacles in the way of development that might be appropriate and might help to improve the environment.

Local authorities have a major role to play, and will need to involve all the stakeholders. For many town centres, that process is already well under way. Local authorities need to develop a consensus in consultation with property owners, businesses, the local community and others with a stake in the future of the centre. From this, a strategy and an action plan must be produced and a town centre management body must be set up to oversee its implementation. Nearly 200 town centres have got this far already, and more are developing all the time. We encourage that development through support of the Association of Town Centre Management and the Civic Trust. The hon. Lady's constituency has adopted that approach and a town centre manager has been appointed. That is a very positive step.

The Government keep those policies under review, and we shall be prepared to make further changes if problems arise.

rose—

I am sorry, but time is short and I must continue.

The hon. Lady will know from the answer that I gave on 5 December 1997, Official Report, columns 401–02, that we recently clarified the policy further to ensure that proposals for extensions to existing out-of-centre supermarkets are subject to the same tests as other additional retail developments in such locations. That is an important extension of the policy to ensure that there is no scope for subverting its purpose by extending an existing supermarket rather than building a new one. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady an idea of the Government's commitment to keep policies under constant review and to take steps where necessary to ensure that they are effective in defending town centres.

The hon. Lady asked some other questions that I have not yet answered fully—which is why I required more time in which to respond. First, she asked why we permitted out-of-town or edge-of-town centres to be developed at all. The answer is that, in appropriate circumstances where there is no suitable town centre site, an edge-of-centre development may help to enhance the vitality of the town centre—particularly when good communication links are provided. In certain limited circumstances where there is no suitable town centre or edge-of-centre site available, the shopping needs of a community may require the provision of an out-of-town shopping centre. However, I stress that we do not envisage taking up that option when there is an alternative site available in the town centre or on the edge of the centre. In any case, there must be good public transport links in order to avoid undue dependence on the motor car.

Secondly, the hon. Lady asked why supermarkets cannot operate smaller units. That is a matter for the managers of those supermarkets. The hon. Lady correctly identified a trend, which is to be encouraged, on the part of some supermarket firms to develop smaller town centre outlets. Such outlets have proved successful, and I hope that others will learn from that experience. We must ensure that there is a wide range of options and choice for the public, as well as action to revitalise town centres. We must encourage trends that are already producing benefits.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked where elderly people will shop if there are no facilities in town centres. In order to meet the needs of the elderly and others who do not have access to cars and who depend on public transport or must walk to the shops, we are emphatic that there must be shopping in town centres. That is why we are so committed to retaining the vitality of town centres and action to support them.

The policies in PPG6 fit well with our concerns to tackle social exclusion, to develop a more integrated transport strategy than this country has had before, and to regenerate our most deprived areas. We are concerned to see that those policies are implemented consistently across the country.