I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this important issue today, as 7 July is the 50th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949—now known as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—which established the existing framework for wildlife protection and access to the countryside. I know that wildlife protection is a matter of great concern to hon. Members, especially on the Labour Benches, and I hope that a number of others will be able to participate in the debate.

I hope that, in the debate, we will succeed in persuading the Government to include a new wildlife and countryside Bill in the 1999 Queen's Speech, to cover the many issues that need to be addressed—the measures that would not only increase the protection of wildlife but increase people's enjoyment of the countryside. That would not only benefit us today, but would be an inheritance that we could leave for future generations.

The past 50 years have brought marked changes to our environment and countryside, some of them good, but many of them destructive and regressive. Many of our best wildlife sites have been lost and species that were once common are now endangered. That is a matter of great concern to my constituents and, sadly, sites in my constituency, are among those that have suffered as a result of inadequate protection.

The challenge to protect our natural heritage is greater than ever. That is emphasised by the shocking figures that starkly illustrate the threats to our countryside. At a rate of almost one a day, more than 300 of the United Kingdom's best wildlife sites are lost or damaged every year. We have seen a huge decline in wild flower meadows, lowland heathland, hedgerows and ancient woodlands in Britain.

Over the past 50 years, more than 25 species have become extinct in the wild in the UK, and more are heading that way. The World Wid Fund for Nature has projected that if no action is taken, water voles will become extinct in 2003, skylarks in 2009, and the song thrush will vanish from farmland by 2006.

Many have welcomed the Government's Green Paper on sites of special scientific interest, which I shall call special sites. It outlined how such sites could be better protected. However, it is critical that those proposals are translated into action at the earliest opportunity. Delay simply means more damage and destruction to our countryside. The Government could do more than they have outlined in the Green Paper by examining the needs of species outside those special sites, where there are also serious threats to wildlife.

More than half of all hon. Members—343 in all—have signed early-day motion 11, which calls for a wildlife Bill based on the wildlife charter. The level of support that it has received sends the strongest signal to the Government that there is a firm belief right across the political spectrum that early action is essential.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act was revised in 1981, but it is out of date and is not working. Landowners and managers are not legally obliged to manage special sites for the benefit of the wildlife for which they were declared. There have been no prosecutions for destroying listed plants, and only a handful of prosecutions for harming animals, other than bats.

I participated in the Committee stage, which was 100 hours, of the 1981 Act. One of the troubles is not the Act, but the reluctance of authorities to go to the courts to prosecute. I wish my hon. Friend well with all my heart in her efforts to persuade the Government to introduce another Bill, but something must be done to persuade authorities to go to law, when that is justified.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The improvements to the legislation must include clearer statutory duties for landowners and managers, as well as better enforcement, strengthened powers to enter land, and stiffer penalties that would act as a real deterrent. There should be improved powers for statutory nature conservation agencies, so that they can fulfil an effective watchdog role. Landowners also need advice on how they can protect wildlife and which practices will cause damage.

The objective is not anti-farmer or anti-landowner legislation. Farmers in my constituency have made clear to me their commitment to wildlife and the environment, and how they want to co-operate with the Government and environmental groups to get the best for the countryside.

That brings me to incentives. I ask the Government to consider incentives to encourage landowners to invest in the proper management and protection of wildlife. In 1996–97, management payments on special sites amounted to £12 million. Those were typically compensation payments for not carrying out an activity, rather than an incentive for positive management. Compensation payments can be far less than an owner could get for rearing sheep or cattle, or for growing flax, so better directed incentives may reap better rewards for wildlife in the UK.

I urge the Government to take a broader look at how policies across Departments impact on the success of wildlife and countryside legislation. For instance, agricultural intensification has led to a reduction in the quantity and quality of habitats such as heather moorland, chalk grassland and lowland wet grassland. Species are lost because of overgrazing of pastures, undergrazing of marginal land, the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and the loss of traditional crop rotations. Water abstraction can lead to the drying out of important wetland sites, and planning decisions made years ago continue to cause harm to sites—for example, through mineral extraction. Revising planning policy could help in that respect. The Department for Education and Employment could also have a part to play in improving education in our schools on the environment and protection of wildlife and encouraging initiatives among children to help to protect their local wildlife.

A coalition of 22 wildlife organisations, including the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Friends of the Earth and the Wildlife Trusts, is supported by more than 5.5 million people in the United Kingdom. Most political parties would be glad of such a membership. It is campaigning for better legal protection for wildlife. Specifically, it wants legislation to be introduced that will deliver the Government's manifesto commitment to

"ensure better protection for wildlife".

Such a Bill will also provide an ideal opportunity to introduce the Government's proposals for improved access to open countryside, and I know that ramblers in South Swindon are anxious for it to be enacted at the earliest opportunity. I therefore urge the Government to announce a comprehensive wildlife and countryside Bill in the 1999 Queen's Speech to back up their determination to halt further environmental degradation and to bring many of their good intentions to fruition.

In many cases, we cannot replace the wildlife habitats that we are losing without legislation to protect them. We certainly cannot bring back species that become extinct. There is a consensus on the need for action. For the sake of wildlife, the enjoyment that our countryside brings and the wonderful inheritance that we could leave for future generations, I urge the Government to listen to the calls made by my hon. Friends and by me today.

I support much of what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) has said and I am sure that the Bill for which she asks will enjoy broad cross-party support. Indeed, I have expressed my support for it by signing early-day motion 11 and a number of similar ones.

For the benefit of the Minister, I want to air a parochial concern that, because of the nature of the New forest and the fact that it is the most important wildlife and ecological sanctuary in western Europe, is also a concern for the nation. I do not want him to take the opportunity presented by the introduction of a wildlife protection Bill in the next Session to slip through a new national park status for the New forest. My concern is that changes made to the existing management structure of the New forest will be for the worse and to the detriment of wildlife protection and that sensitive ecological area.

I estimate that no modern legislation would afford the powers that the existing structures enjoy, although those structures are undemocratic. It would not give them the power to stand against so-called progress and development. If hon. Members consider the issues of development versus conservation as they have arisen over the past 30 years in the New forest, they will find that, on every occasion, one or other of the local authorities—be it Hampshire county council or New Forest district council or its forebears—has stood on the side of development, democratically representing the wishes of the people.

To take the cause celebre—the great Lyndhurst bypass—there was a democratic call for the private Member's Bill on it which was considered in this Parliament. By sponsoring it, Hampshire county council was responding quite legitimately to the democratic concerns expressed by the people of Lyndhurst and of Lymington. We know the history of bypasses at Newbury and in the west midlands. We also know of the attendant legitimate concern of people who are interested in the protection of wildlife habitats and we have witnessed the public disorder that may arise from that concern. But we should bear in mind the fact that the people of Lyndhurst and of Lymington sought that bypass.

The bypass would have taken up an enormous swathe of the New forest. My concern is that, had there been a park authority—loaded, as it inevitably would have been, with representatives of the democratically accountable district and county councils—it would have said, "On people versus ponies, because of the development of the fast-growing, economically viable southern coastal strip below the New forest, people are more important that ponies, so we ought to let the bypass go through." I believe that that would not have been in the interests of the New forest or the nation.

It is the job of legislation to protect the interests of the New forest. The Minister will no doubt assure me, as he has done in the past, that the existing structures will not be constrained by any change in status that he might envisage. In other words, the existing laws, which govern the New forest and give the verderers court the power that it now enjoys to thwart development, will not be changed. I understand that, but there is a difficulty and it will arise merely because of the existence of a national park authority or quasi-authority.

I quote the experience of Anthony Passmore, one of the senior and most experienced verderers, as he told it to me. He said, "Mr. Swayne, a national park body may not constrain or change the existing verderers court and its authority, but suppose that there had been a national park authority, representing the strategic view of the future of the New forest and all that that implies, when the Lyndhurst bypass Bill was going through Parliament. Suppose that it had said that there should be a Lyndhurst bypass. Would the verderers court, irrespective of its ability and power to say no, have had—to put it bluntly—the guts to say no when the whole thrust of the strategic authority, which is charged with drawing up the strategy for the future of the New forest, had been that the bypass should go ahead?"

With respect to any changes that the Minister might envisage that would not necessarily change the power of the verderers, who are the guardians of conservation in the New forest, I warn him that there may be unforeseen effects. I would counsel him that any legislation that he might introduce that would change the status of the New forest or alter the balance of the powers within it would be highly likely to be a hybrid Bill, given the existence of the commoners and their rights. That might introduce all sorts of difficulties for a wildlife protection Bill, which the hon. Member for South Swindon would not welcome.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing an Adjournment debate on this most important topic. My constituency is at the core of the new 200 sq miles national forest. It is developing rapidly and transforming the landscape in several different counties. I shall speak about the mirror image of our expanding forest: the contracting ancient woodlands and the continuing threats that they face.

In England and Wales, ancient woods are areas where there has been continuous woodland cover since at least 1600. Planting was uncommon before that date, so woods were likely to have developed naturally. In Scotland, ancient woods date from 1750, because the best historical maps available are from a military survey carried out at about that time.

It is particularly relevant in the context of this debate to address the protection of ancient woodland, which is one of the great irreplaceable glories of our natural heritage. As the habitat most representative of original, natural, stable conditions, it is home to more threatened species than any other habitat in the United Kingdom. That is underlined by the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan, which suggests that broadleaf woodland supports nearly twice as many BAP species as any other habitat. It supports more than twice as many species as chalk grassland, and nearly three times as many as lowland heathland. It must be a key element in any Government strategy aiming to provide better protection for wildlife.

Ancient woodlands are the last bastion of a good deal of our wildlife heritage. They deserve proper protection, and there could be no more appropriate time than the millennium to consider that. The problem is that 85 per cent. of ancient woodland, including five of the 12 largest ancient woodland sites in the United Kingdom, lacks the designation of site of special scientific interest, or, indeed, any other designation. More than half of Britain's semi-natural ancient woodland has been lost since the first world war, mainly through conversion to conifer woodland and clearance for agriculture. In England, Wales and Scotland, just 300,000 hectares of ancient semi-natural woodland survive—an area roughly the size of Leicestershire. In Northern Ireland, there are no accurate records of the amount of ancient woodland, as far as I am aware.

Ancient woodland remains constantly under threat, especially from development pressures. The Government forecast that, in the next 20 years, 1.44 million more homes will be needed in south-east England; but that is the richest area that we have for ancient woodland. Kent, Hampshire, East and West Sussex and Surrey hold nearly 30 per cent. of such ecological treasures. The Channel tunnel rail link, the Newbury bypass and countless less well-known road schemes have threatened or destroyed areas of ancient woodland. Increasingly, ancient woodland is now to be found in small fragments: islands of biodiversity surrounded by a hostile landscape of intensive agriculture and urban sprawl.

More than 80 per cent. of individual ancient woods in the inventory of England and Wales are less than 20 hectares in size. Just 500 exceed 100 hectares—1 sq km—and only 12 ancient semi-natural woods are larger than 300 hectares. These fragments are often too small to sustain healthy populations of many woodland species, and too isolated to allow migration. As global warming becomes a reality, many species, unable to relocate, face the likelihood of extinction. The bleak picture is considerably worsened by the degradation of our ancient woods through inappropriate use, poor management and repeated replanting with non-native species.

Although, in some ancient woodlands, endangered species, such as the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), hang on, in the past 100 years more species have become nationally extinct in broadleaf woodland than in any other habitat—46 species—and it also contains the most globally threatened and rapidly declining species—78. The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology's "Countryside Survey 90" showed that, between 1978 and 1990, there was a 14 per cent. loss of "species richness" in such woodlands, a higher figure than in any other semi-natural habitat.

What action should the Government take to staunch the worrying losses of ancient woodland? There are some encouraging signs that the need to protect these crucial sites is being recognised, but words must be matched by actions. The "England Forestry Strategy", published by the Government at the end of last year, contains a commitment to review the effectiveness of existing measures to protect ancient semi-natural woodlands, and to provide added protection if that is shown to be necessary. Organisations such as the Woodland Trusts, in its recently launched millennium challenges to Government—I believe that the Minister was present at the launch—have said how crucial it is to deliver on that core commitment. A similar commitment was given in the "United Kingdom Sustainable Development Strategy", along with a statement of the Government's aim to halt the trend of ancient woodland loss and fragmentation. It is crucial for those commitments to be acted on quickly.

Hon. Members sometimes speak of the need for protective mechanisms targeted at land adjacent to SSSIs, and of the importance of empowering Government agencies to fulfil an effective watchdog role. I agree: SSSIs certainly need to withstand environmental change, and the measures suggested would be helpful. Agencies have a key protective role, but I believe that similar measures for our ancient woodlands are needed even more urgently. There must be no further loss of ancient woodland. The time really has come to say, "Enough is enough."

I support environmental organisations that are pressing for a fully maintained, up-to-date inventory of ancient woodland covering the whole of the United Kingdom, with regular assessments to confirm the extent and quality of the nation's ancient woods. We must also provide better protection of ancient woodlands such as Gracedieu woods in north-west Leicestershire through legislation and the planning system. I believe that, in the longer term, a special designation for them will be needed to toughen up those controls.

We must also encourage owners of ancient woodland to understand its importance and manage it appropriately, and provide better guidelines and incentives to help them to do so. We must assist appropriate groups to continue to acquire ancient woods, and bring them under sensitive management. Finally, in providing new native woodland cover, we must target it to link and buffer existing ancient woodland sites that should be seen as the key resource in enhancing people's enjoyment of woodland.

I believe that we should treat ancient woodlands, those timeless places of great tranquillity and beauty, as the foundation of our approach to improving biodiversity. I should very much like to hear the Minister's comments.

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing this important debate. I support her call for the inclusion of a wildlife Bill in the next Queen's Speech, and would be happy to facilitate the swift passage of such a Bill.

As has been said, the debate is timely. Fifty years after the post-war Government's landmark legislation, new measures are needed to protect our wildlife. The House is well versed in the arguments: we debated them in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on 14 April, and, only last week, a linked issue—the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty—was discussed in an Adjournment debate called by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton).

Early-day motion 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), continues to attract increasing support. As of yesterday, when I checked, it had the support of no fewer than 343 hon. Members. In the last Session, a similar early-day motion received the support of 302 hon. Members, so progress is clearly being made. A clear majority not just of Back Benchers, but of the House as a whole, now favours legislation. I hope that the Minister will note that.

Threatened species were mentioned in those earlier debates, and have been mentioned again today. I have obtained a few new examples. One is the nail fungus, which lives in the dung of horses, mainly in the New forest in Hampshire. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) may well be familiar with such species. The nail fungus is internationally threatened, but has been refused protection because the threats that it faces are not intentional. That is a key point, which the Minister should consider. The Wildlife Trusts tell me that it can only advise on the need; there is no law to back it up.

There are other examples that are more local to my constituency. As a Member whose constituency is in Greater London, I am particularly concerned about the future of the Erith marshes in south London, which support breeding skylarks, grass snakes and the hugely important population of water voles. They are threatened by the proposed development of a supermarket distribution depot. Currently, the law can do nothing to stop that development.

I could mention many other wildlife species or habitats whose days are numbered. In Surrey and across south-east England, where the pressure to build is greatest, acres of ancient woodland are under threat. The Deptford pink, the sandy stilt puffball and dormice are all under threat somewhere in the United Kingdom.

Today's debate is timely not only because we are marking the anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, but for another reason, because the Government seem to be starting to wobble in their commitment to require that 60 per cent. of new build should be on brown-field sites. As the current rate of such build—1996 is the most recent year for which figures are available—is 56 per cent., a target of 60 per cent. can hardly be thought to be challenging. The Government have to be bolder both on that issue and on wildlife protection.

The debate is also timely because a revised planning policy guidance note 3 has just been issued, although it has relatively little to say about the biodiversity implications of new housing development. The PPG also provides no guidance whatsoever on minimising the indirect environmental impact of housing development.

I should like to deal with a couple of wildlife reform matters that I have not dealt with before. First, it is—at best—unclear whether the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan is adequate to fulfil the requirements of the 1979 European Union birds directive and the 1982 habitats directive, both of which require restoration of protected habitats. As the biodiversity action plan has not been implemented statutorily, many of its prescribed actions have no Government funding and can be undertaken only by voluntary bodies. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us whether such provision fulfils the function of habitat restoration required by the EU directives.

The second matter also concerns EU law. The EU birds directive requires the United Kingdom Government to designate as special protection areas sites that support internationally important concentrations of particular bird species. However, certain species listed for protection under the directive are not covered by the existing SPA network, as their populations are dispersed over a much wider area. Some heathlands in England—the Thames basin heaths, Wealdon heaths and Breckland—for example, support important populations or rare species, such as the stone curlew, woodlark, nightjar, and the Dartford warbler, but are still not protected by SPA status. Although that issue is slightly different from that of sites of special scientific interest, it is certainly relevant to today's debate, and illustrates the general crisis facing United Kingdom wildlife.

We should be in no doubt that time is running out for our wildlife. Here are a few facts: every day, another SSSI is destroyed or damaged; in the past six years, there have been more than 2,000 cases of damage to SSSIs; and 45 per cent. of all SSSIs are deemed to be in an unfavourable condition. Time is, therefore, of the essence—as I said in our most recent debate on the issue, in April. Since then, unfortunately, nothing much has changed—except that two more months have elapsed, and, undoubtedly, another 50 or 60 cases of damage to SSSIs will have been recorded.

In 1997, Labour was elected with a pledge to ensure better protection for wildlife. As we approach 2000, it is time to deliver on that pledge. In 1949, the Attlee Government had the foresight to introduce their legislation; now, the Government should show similar foresight. As other hon. Members have said, adequate legislation must be introduced in the next Queen's Speech. The House of Commons wants such legislation. I think that Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions also want legislation, and I know that the country wants it. Now, it is time for the Prime Minister to deliver it.

I am very happy to contribute to this very important debate on wildlife conservation. I shall keep my remarks brief, as I know that many colleagues wish to speak.

A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the importance of ancient woodlands, and said that we should help people to understand the importance of maintaining them. As he was speaking, I allowed myself a wry smile, because it was only a few years ago, in 1995, when the warden of Windsor great park ordered the felling of 63 ancient oak trees that dated back to Queen Anne's days. The warden of Windsor great park is, of course, the Duke of Edinburgh. If he does not know the importance of ancient woodland, what hope is there for us?

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) spoke about the nail fungus living in the dung of New Forest ponies. Tragically, that is not the only species that has gone in recent years. I received a briefing from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, stating that the Essex emerald moth has gone—it is extinct. The mouse-eared bat, which sounds like an endearing creature, is gone for ever—extinct. As for plant life, alpine butterwort is gone, as is the purple spurge. I do not know what the purple spurge looks like—I have probably never seen it in my life—but I feel that it is a tragedy for all of us that it is gone.

We need to act, and to act quickly. This morning, on the "Today" programme, I heard the Minister for the Environment tell us that action would be taken. He was good; he is always good. If I had a vote for Ministers—tragically, I do not—he would have my vote. I hope that he keeps his job.

Kiss of death.

We all want my right hon. Friend to keep his job. We do not want him to be moved, to placate some lobby saying, "The Government are too green. We've gotta get rid of him." I want him to stay where he is.

The countryside Minister told John Humphrys that we need legislation to protect sites of special scientific interest, and that it was not a question of if, but when—which had a familiar ring to it. This year, in March, when I withdrew my Right to Roam Bill, he told me that the Government were in favour of opening up the countryside—4 million acres of mountain, moorland, heath and common land—and that that would be done as soon as parliamentary time permits. This November, we want to see that parliamentary time permitted.

This Session, we have dealt with the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill. No one asked me whether we should consider that Bill. Mysteriously—magically—we discovered ourselves debating it in the Chamber. That Bill has never been debated in the parliamentary Labour party, and no one in the wider Labour party knows about it. Personally, I feel quite hostile to it; but we debated it. In the same breath, however, we are told that we cannot introduce wildlife and habitat legislation because of a problem with parliamentary time. There is lots of parliamentary time.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be prepared, as I would, to extend our stay in this place a little into our rather generous summer recess to address the issue?

The hon. Gentleman's comments would carry more force if he had a few Liberal Democrat colleagues sitting behind him. I should say, just for the record, that one Liberal Democrat Member—from a party that waxes lyrical about its concern for wildlife and habitat—is in the Chamber. It is a pity that, today, he could not get a few more Liberal Democrats Members to come and support his request.

This morning—to get back to the point—the countryside Minister said that he was seeking the earliest legislative slot for the relevant Bill. Listening to him, I started running around trying to find a pen, as I thought that he was going to say something of great moment, which he did. He said that there was a very good chance of obtaining that legislative slot, and then he played his trump card: "Tony Blair is strongly in support of this."

So what is the problem? The Prime Minister apparently supports strongly the need for early legislation. The problem is that too many people just do not believe it. Philip Rothwell, head of policy operation at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Birds [HON. MEMBERS: "Protection."] I am obviously too fired up today. Let me call it the RSPB. Mr. Rothwell was quoted in The Express as saying:

"Tony Blair is not interested in the environment and he has surrounded himself with advisers who are not interested either."

The RSPB is not some fringe organisation that can be dismissed with a wave of the hand. There are 3 million members of the RSPB and other organisations dedicated to the protection of wildlife.

If the RSPB holds that view, we can imagine the millions more who feel the same. The perception exists that the Government are dragging their feet, and much that has happened has reinforced that idea. I was given a commitment in March that there would be legislation on the right to roam, but the papers tell us that the idea has been shelved in case it alienates landowning interests. Fox hunting is immensely important, particularly to our younger constituents, but the Government give the impression of being unwilling to take on the blood sports lobby.

Despite what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said on the radio this morning, there is a feeling that wildlife is another area that may fall off the end of the plank. If we are governed by focus groups that tell us that health and education are the top priorities—as they must be—it is inevitable that wildlife protection will be regarded as less important in the great scheme of things. But that is a mistake.

Our attitude to wildlife boils down to trust. Do the people trust the Government to deliver? If we do not deliver on wildlife, it will be impossible to make promises about legislation at the next election. We have an enormous majority, and we control the legislative agenda. We could sit here for 12 months to pass a wildlife Bill if we wanted to.

The Government must recognise that SSSIs are being damaged and that more must be done to protect habitats. There is huge support for legislation, and a Bill would immensely cheer up my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party. A fortnight ago, we held a debate—no vote of course—on what we should like in the Queen's Speech, and there was overwhelming support for legislation on access to the countryside and on wildlife. To coin perhaps the wrong phrase, we could kill two birds with one stone by yoking the two areas together in a comprehensive Bill. The legislation would have no cost, or at most a very low cost. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do all in his power to persuade the decision makers to introduce such a Bill in November.

I am delighted to add my voice to those calling for greater protection for wildlife, and particularly to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) who spoke with great passion. It is fitting that we should mark the 50th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which was, as so many have said, ground-breaking legislation introduced by a great Labour Government, by returning to the issue of wildlife protection and asking what improvements we can make.

We must accept that improvements are now needed to that legislation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment knows that, and I commend him on his hard work in this area. However, to make improvements that we all want for the protection of sites of special scientific interest, we need new legislation, and I hope that the next Queens Speech will include a Bill.

The need for improvements is illustrated by Government figures showing that more than 300 SSSIs are damaged every year. The effect of even just one more year's delay is absolutely clear. A year's delay would mean another 300 of our finest and most treasured wildlife sites being destroyed or ruined. We cannot allow that to happen.

My constituents have raised this matter with me. The protection of wildlife sites and SSSIs has real resonance with members of the public who want our countryside to be preserved and the wild animals and wild flowers that make the countryside such a special place to be protected. I have received many letters from constituents, and many hon. Members will have received, in the form of an enormous daisy chain, a novel and very large petition from their constituents.

It is easy to see why the issue has such resonance with the public. Many beautiful places known to our constituents are being damaged. In Northamptonshire alone, two SSSIs have been all but destroyed. A tiny fraction of Harleston heath remains; despite its SSSI status, the rules to protect it from development and forestry were too weak. Likewise, only a fragment of the Oakley purlieus SSSI remains, its having been destroyed by quarrying.

On top of the loss of those beautiful places, the public recognise the loss of important and well-loved species. I was staggered to see in today's report from the wildlife and countryside link that 25 species have become extinct in the UK since the passage of Clem Attlee's 1949 Act. We think of extinction as something that happens in countries struck by poverty, or as a relic of the last century. We think of it happening when people destroy habitats in a desperate attempt to grow food or scrape out a living. We do not think of it happening in a prosperous country such as the United Kingdom, where there are laws to protect the countryside.

Other species have suffered dramatic declines. The grey partridge has declined by 78 per cent. since 1972, and the tree sparrow by 87 per cent. Even among birds as common as starlings—once positively a pest because of their enormous flocks—numbers have dropped dramatically. People notice these changes, and the introduction of a Bill to halt the decline would be extremely popular and effective politics.

As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has taken a superb, excellent and dynamic lead on the issue. The coalition of wildlife groups, with a total membership of some 6 million people—a heavy voting body there—welcomed the positive spirit of co-operation that he has shown and gave him an excellent reception at a public rally here at the House of Commons. Now is the time to build on the support and good will for the Government's work so far, but we need to maintain that momentum by introducing the necessary legislation to protect our wildlife.

Along with many other right hon. and hon. Members, I would be delighted if new legislation provided greater access for people to enjoy the countryside. This is how our Labour Government should celebrate the 50th anniversary of Clem Attlee's last Bill; it is how we should welcome the next century and it would delight the many millions of people who would welcome such protection.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on her initiative in introducing today's excellent debate. I very much support the call from my hon. Friend and others for new countryside and wildlife law. I do so as a committed environmentalist and as a Londoner.

Despite the common perception here and elsewhere, London's wildlife encompasses rather more than the pigeons in Trafalgar square. Londoners have always very much supported and valued the city's elegant parks and municipal flowerbeds. There is increasing recognition of the precious diversity of our wildlife. We have urban habitats, railway corridors, private gardens and wasteland, all of which support valued wildlife.

The London Wildlife Trust has a membership of 7,000 and I am proud to be one of them. We are engaged in a great fight to try to preserve our precious wildlife against the on-going and unrelenting pressures of development. It is not that the development is unwelcome—indeed, in my run-down and deprived constituency rehabilitation and regeneration are critical to our economic life and employment opportunities. Although I support building homes on brown-field sites and protecting the green belt, the pressure on those sites means that Londoners may be deprived of their wildlife and that is clearly not acceptable.

Our quality of life in London depends on getting the balance right between appropriate development and respect for ecology and the recognition that biodiversity matters. A surprisingly wide range of animals and plants are found in London. Many of them are thriving, but others are only just surviving. We cannot take that natural wealth for granted. In London, as elsewhere, there has been a haemorrhage of wildlife sites over the past 30 years. Unless we have stronger wildlife laws, the process will continue inexorably.

My constituency is no exception. Although its border is just five miles from here and it is a dense urban area, just 200 years ago it was an area of market gardens. A nationally rare species of plant known as the Deptford Pink dates from that time. Another rare species is found in Deptford creek. The black redstart, which is rarer than the golden eagle, first bred in London in the 1920s. Seven per cent. of the national population and 40 per cent. of the London population of black redstarts are found in Deptford creek. However, Deptford creek is now a silted up part of the river. It is bordered on all sides by dereliction and it is prime land for redevelopment. The creekside project in my constituency, led by Jill Goddard, has undertaken a mapping exercise to ensure that we understand what wildlife is there so that the development that we welcome will preserve wildlife habitats. Amazingly, the Environment Agency has constructed new flood defences from old wood and in a way that protects the wildlife habitats.

Given all that, why do we need new laws? The black redstart is listed in schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Its nests are protected; its eggs are protected; breeding adults are protected and so are the young birds. However, for the rest of the year it is possible to destroy its habitat and, as we all know, if the habitat is destroyed, the species cannot breed.

There are many similar cases in other parts of London. Water voles are under threat in many areas such as the Erith, Crayford and Rainham marshes that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake).

Many other sites are being targeted for development, including those occupied by skylarks, stag beetles and other wildlife. I have not time to mention them all, but they are extremely numerous and precious. They are important not only to Londoners, but regionally and nationally. Without new laws, the quality of life in our great city will be undermined and so will our biodiversity. I very much support today's debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing today's debate. I should like to concentrate on peat lands and the Thorne and Hatfield moors that are in my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). They form one of the United Kingdom's rarest and most vulnerable habitats and are all that is left of a vast wetland that once existed around the Humber estuary 4000 years ago. Over time, layer upon layer of mosses accumulated and became compacted in the waterlogged conditions. Plants and insects colonised the surfaces and rare or even extinct bog plant, dragonflies, butterflies and beetles were commonplace many years ago.

Today, 94 per cent. of the United Kingdom's peat bogs have been lost and fewer than 6,000 hectares remain in near natural condition. Thorne and Hatfield moors are part of this and today they represent England's largest raised peat bog site. They support more than 3,000 insects, 800 flowering plants and hundreds of liver-worts, lichens and fungi. They are vital for breeding, migrating and wintering birds including golden plovers, hen harriers and nightjars. People have worked on the moors for 500 years and the incredible archaeological record contained within the peat was, until relatively recently, undisturbed.

Such a site should be managed for its incredible wealth of bog vegetation and associated wildlife, yet, instead, I am sad to say, it is being threatened by commercial peat extraction. Instead of being treasured, protected and nurtured, it is being plundered for its peat.

Peat extraction threatens many important sites in the United Kingdom. Of the 14 extraction sites in England, nine have SSSI status. Thorne and Hatfield, along with Wedholme Flow—all three proposed EU Natura 2000 designations—account for more than 50 per cent. of UK production. The fact that extraction of peat is permitted on SSS1s highlights the major weaknesses in protecting those sites.

The problem dates back to 1951 when planning permission was granted for peat extraction. Then, as for hundreds of years previously, hand-digging was the norm, but industrialisation of the process has ravaged the land. In the 1960s, the process was mechanised and now, since milling methods were introduced in the 1980s—with little complaint from the Opposition—extraction involves the almost complete removal of surface vegetation along with the top layer of peat. That has occurred on large tracts of Thorne and Hatfield and the huge areas of stripped, bare earth, where once were beautiful moors, are a very sad sight indeed.

The vast majority of peat that has taken many, many years to be created, has been lost in only the past decade. That has heightened the sense of the urgent need for Government action. Each day that extraction continues and the land is stripped and drained, with the removal of tons of peat, nature's foothold on the Thorne and Hatfield moors weakens.

Locally, there is immense concern that such an important site is being lost. I get more letters from constituents on that issue than on any other. When English Nature proposed removing the SSSI status there was an amazing campaign, which we won. I was pleased to attend a meeting in Thorne where more than 400 local residents came along to make their feelings known. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North and for Brigg and Goole have had the same experience.

Environmental matters are often said to be the concern of the middle classes—eco-warriors shut away in their leafy suburbs—but the letters that I get are from people in the former coal mining villages that surround the moors, who are witnessing the disappearance of a national treasure. They understand only too well that the extractors' economic arguments do not add up.

Extraction is not and never was a long-term employment option; it will result only in the permanent destruction of the moors. We believe that there is an alternative: a sustainable tourist industry on the site, protecting it while providing enjoyment and long-term economic stability for the local population.

There is such concern that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has established a peat working group that includes representatives of the industry and of the environmental lobby. Labour Members are keen that, wherever possible, business interests should be married with the public interest, but my worry is that, on this issue, there is no common ground that can be established between the extractors, who see money in peat, and the public, who want the moors to be preserved.

I am not surprised that the peat working group has so far failed to produce any report, but I am very concerned and I call on the Government to bite the bullet and take the long-term environmental view that is so clearly in the national interest. Many solutions are available. In the long term, my constituents want a complete end to peat extraction. That could be phased to avoid any major impact on jobs. We can work with the industry to develop alternatives to peat. I am sure that many hon. Members are keen gardeners and viewers of "Ground Force". We want a "Ground Force" team of our own in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I leave it to Ministers to decide who should be Alan, Tommy and Charlie, but if the Government can find a solution that will preserve the moors for all time, they will receive great credit.

The longer we spend without a clear policy, the more events will take their own course, and the moors will simply be worked to death; with them will go much of the precious wildlife that they support.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) has done the House a service in securing this debate.

I want to express my support for the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who has waged an unrelenting campaign to secure the right to roam. I agree that it is essential to ensure that access to open countryside is built into comprehensive wildlife and countryside legislation.

Such legislation also provides the opportunity to settle once and for all the contentious issue of fox hunting. No other issue has aroused such interest, especially in young voters. Our manifesto made it clear that our position was not to legislate against fox hunting but to provide the opportunity for a free vote, although there is huge public support for a ban.

I endorse the work of the Government and the previous Government in developing biodiversity policies. It is important to understand that wildlife protection is not only about furry creatures but goes far deeper: it is about environmental survival. The variety of species that survive is an indicator of the health of the planet on which we all depend. This is not an add-on extra: it goes to the heart of our survival on this planet.

I commend the previous Government's biodiversity action plan, and especially the recently published volume 4, on invertebrates. For those with any interest in creepy crawlies, it is a treasure house of fascinating information. I look forward to volume 5.

Whatever legislation we pass, the protection will be limited if we do not tackle the root causes of environmental degradation. In most cases, those are the deregulated economic processes, both industrial and agricultural, that have disfigured our society and environment for so many years. We must set this debate in the wider context of the reform of the common agricultural policy and the implementation of the Kyoto directive on climate change.

Whatever an individual Government may do, this is a matter on which the limitations of the nation state are most evident. We must work internationally. The European Union has an important role and it is crucial that we play a full part in the various international treaties and protocols that have been and will continue to be established to secure biodiversity.

The Government and the previous Government have an enviable record in not only signing international treaties but ratifying them quickly. I urge the Government to continue that process, especially with the Kyoto protocol and the Århus protocol on access to environmental information. There are two important protocols that we have signed, but not yet ratified: the heavy metals protocol and the one on persistent organic pollutants. Those protocols are crucial to biodiversity and I urge the Government to ratify them swiftly.

I welcome this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) has given everyone an opportunity to express their views and feelings, which is very important. There is nothing more important to people in this country than looking after wildlife, habitats and countryside. There is more pressure as more people want to enjoy the countryside, and we must make it more accessible.

All our mailbags are filled with letters from people who want an end to fox hunting. Sooner or later, it must be tackled. The majority of the House and of the country support a ban. It is time to legislate. Let me describe what happens in conservation areas that are supposed to protect wildlife. In Rivington, a beautiful part of my constituency—I am lucky to have a mainly rural constituency where we can enjoy the pleasure of the countryside—the hunt comes along, and the fox hunters, having had no luck that day, dig out a fox. They do not kill it instantly. Oh, no. We cannot have fun without cruelty. They release the fox and chase it and chase it before killing it. Is that how we should treat our wildlife? I say not. The time has to come to end such cruelty.

In the southern lakeland, gamekeepers use traps on badgers. In their view, killing them instantly is obviously wrong. They believe in cruel traps and it takes a long time for the badgers to die. We have found half-skeletons of badgers. What a terrible end for such a beautiful animal. Badgers are protected, but such practices continue.

Protected species of birds have their nests robbed and their chicks stolen. There is no true protection. Fines are not enough: if it takes mandatory prison sentences to protect the birds, let us do that. Hen harriers—beautiful birds—are shot by gamekeepers because they do not fit in with what they think a grouse moor should be. The countryside is not about that; it is about balance. We must ensure that species are protected for everyone to see and enjoy, because they are not for the few to destroy. It is time for us to change our views about wildlife, habitats and countryside. If we work together, we can ensure our future.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing the debate. She will be either cheered up or worried when I say that I agree with about 90 per cent. of what she said. The Minister and I are getting used to each other: this is the second Wednesday morning in a row that we have discussed countryside protection. If we go around the same course again next Wednesday, I hope that he will still be with us in his post.

It is clear that we broadly agree on many of the aims of wildlife and habitat protection, although I am slightly worried by the means that many Labour Members have discussed. There is an inclination to reach for the stick rather than the carrot, and I hope that the Minister will not go too far down that route.

I shall deal with the various details in a moment, but the question at the heart of the debate is not whether there should legislation, but why there has been none so far. Like the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I listened to the "Today" programme this morning with great interest. However, when the hon. Gentleman said that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, with its 3 million members, had written off the Prime Minister as uninterested in the environment, he added a plea that the Minister for the Environment should retain his job. If I were that Minister, I am not sure that I would consider that the most helpful intervention in the debate this morning.

The "Today" programme item was instructive for several reasons. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) repeat what she said on the programme—that the reason for introducing wildlife legislation was that the Labour party was worried about losing rural seats. That is a terrible reason for wanting to protect the environment, and anyway it will not wash, because of other factors that I shall describe later. However, I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that, even if she is right about the reason for introducing legislation to protect wildlife and endangered habitats, Conservative Members would still support it, because we consider the underlying issue so important.

The contribution to the programme this morning by the Minister for the Environment was equally instructive, although I am not sure that I am as optimistic about what the right hon. Gentleman said as the hon. Member for Pendle. To me, taking to the air waves to fight for a place in the legislative programme is a sign of desperation, not of confidence. I hope that I am wrong, that the matter is all stitched up and that the Minister was simply making a lap of honour in public. However, I suspect that I am not wrong.

The Minister for the Environment also said that the Prime Minister, and the whole Government, were very much in favour of the legislation. Perhaps that is so, but we are coming up to what may be the final full legislative session before an election in which the Government can guarantee taking a Bill through the House, and we are still unsure about whether such a Bill will be introduced, despite the manifesto commitment to do so. St. Augustine famously said:

"Oh Lord, make me chaste, but not yet."

The updated, modernised, new Labour version would be:

"Oh Lord, make me green—but only with the agreement of colleagues across Whitehall."

That will not do. If the Minister cannot give a positive commitment to early legislation, fears will arise that delay is turning into inaction, and that another broken promise is on the way.

What specific measures should any new legislation contain? The first point to be made is that it would be much more sensible if the Bill were confined to updating the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We would support a Bill with that general aim. Various hon. Members have spoken this morning about how a Bill should be extended to include much more controversial matters such as access and the right to roam, and some have even proposed that it be used to bring back anti-hunting measures. Anyone observing the debate will have noticed that the latter possibility, more than any other, set the juices flowing among Labour Members. It was instructive to see so strong a desire to oppress minority interests. We all agree that there is an urgent need to promote wildlife and habitat protection, and Conservative Members would support and seek to improve any legislation to that end. However, including in a Bill other, much more controversial measures would impede its passage through the House, and might even prevent it altogether. That would be a tragedy for our wildlife and countryside. I hope that the Minister will resist the siren calls from Labour Back-Bench Members.

Any legislation would cover those areas already designated as sites of special scientific interest, but it could go further. The RSPB has proposed some helpful principles for the contents of a wildlife Bill, and I hope that the Minister will consider them seriously. The RSPB proposes that such a Bill should include a statutory purpose for individual SSSIs and the whole SSSI network. It should also contain provisions to give a legal underpinning to the bio-diversity action plan, to improve the powers of the statutory nature conservation agencies, and to impose a duty on all public bodies to protect and manage SSSIs.

However, we need a comprehensive strategy for all green land, whether it be part of an SSSI or not. Friends of the Earth rightly wants greater protection for species that are outside SSSIs, and a related problem involves land adjoining an existing site. If that land is developed unsympathetically, the knock-on effects can be very damaging to the neighbouring SSSI. We hope that any legislation to be introduced will be wider and more comprehensive. It should include incentives for better management and adopt a partnership approach.

I said that I was worried that Labour Members shared a tendency to reach for the stick rather than the carrot. In the long term, without the partnership approach advocated by responsible bodies such as the Country Landowners Association and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the effects on the countryside will be less beneficial. We need to engender support for the measures in a new Bill among people who live and work in the countryside. A permanent state of war between visiting regulators and people who live in an area every day would not be helpful.

I am sure that the hon. Member for South Swindon would agree that merely establishing a strict police force is not enough and will not work. Strict policing is necessary, but there must be a mixture of regulation and incentives.

In addition, there must be radical reform of the common agricultural policy. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) say that one of the problems was that farming was too deregulated. Has he ever met a farmer? He said that industrial and agricultural deregulation was bad for the countryside. The problem with the CAP is not that it is deregulatory, but that it pours billions of pounds into encouraging farmers to produce intensively in ways that may damage the environment. It pours only a few million pounds into encouraging them to farm less intensively.

That is not what I said. In fact, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis: the problem with the CAP is that the resources have been wrongly directed, not the degree of regulation associated with it.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that clarification.

There is much to be discussed in the detail, but all hon. Members clearly agree that the need for action is urgent. We have heard this morning about the various species that have been made extinct already, or are in danger. The doomsday list of the World Wide Fund for Nature is alarming, as the hon. Member for South Swindon noted. She mentioned some of the species in danger, but the WWF has warned that the high brown fritillary butterfly and the pipistrelle bat may be extinct by 2007, and that even the skylark may have vanished by 2009. Clearly, those would be large-scale ecological disasters.

Therefore, as long as he sticks to what is sensible and gets on with it, the Minister has a chance to lead a wide consensus among all the parties, including even landowners and the many environmental non-governmental organisations. If he does that, Conservative Members will seek to give him a fair wind when the legislation is introduced.

I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) for his kind remarks and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on using her parliamentary time to obtain a debate on such an important issue, especially at this historic time. She is a worthy champion on the issue, as she is on a number of others.

That is not surprising as my hon. Friend's constituency is fortunate to include several nationally important nature conservation sites, including three geological sites of special scientific interest at Great quarry, Okus quarry and Old Town railway cutting, and a further four biological SSSIs at Coate water, Burderop wood, Clouts wood and the Coombes, Hinton Parva. Included within those sites are open water, woodland bird communities and chalk grassland. They all contribute to the overall value of the national SSSI series and to protecting our natural heritage for our children and grandchildren.

The Government share the view of many of the hon. Members who have spoken that the UK's nature conservation heritage should be given effective protection. Indeed, I welcome the opportunity that is provided by the debate to reaffirm the commitments in the Labour party's manifesto to affording better protection to wildlife, and the priority that the Government are giving to implementing those manifesto commitments.

At this point, I should like to answer queries that several hon. Members have raised that may not be answered in my brief. That is important because it is always an easy option just to go on and not to give replies to specific queries in a debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon raised incentives for management. I confirm that the Government propose to move from a compensatory scheme of payments to landowners to positive agreements. Even now, in advance of any changes in legislation, a substantial number of payments for support action are under way, rather than cash compensation payments.

The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) never misses an opportunity to raise questions on the area that he represents. I repeat my assurances to him that, within the present consultation, there is no thought within Government for any changes that would affect the status of the verderers. I say it every time. To his credit, he always raises a range of issues on the New forest. On that particular one, I reconfirm our position.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned widely dispersed bird species, which pose a particular difficulty for boundary definition. We are committed to effective and full implementation of obligations under the birds and habitats directives. My Department is discussing with English Nature the best way in which to protect such wide-ranging species. I will write to him to give further information on the matter, and try to get an answer to the point that he raised on restoration.

The hon. Member also asked me to acknowledge the tide of support for early-day motion 11. There is no doubt that that can and, indeed, should be done from the Government side of the Chamber. We are aware of the support and greatly impressed by it. It is very large—one of the largest gatherings of support on an issue since the last election. The Government are reassured by the level of interest and the swell of opinion on the need for legislation. We are aware of that and keep it in mind in all our considerations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster raised the question of peat working on SSSIs. [Interruption.] Sorry—my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). We support moves to encourage alternatives to the use of peat. Where sites have Natura 2000 status, there will be obligations to review extant planning permissions. We are considering the options for other sites. All the issues that she raised in respect of that will be considered.

The Government's approach to wildlife conservation must blend a strong statutory framework for the protection of species and their habitats with positive measures through biodiversity action plans and environmental education. In that respect, we have encouraged a participative approach to conservation through partnerships between the public and private sectors and involvement of voluntary conservation organisations and the public. We believe that each element is important in ensuring that we protect and enhance the value of our countryside.

I take first the protection of habitats. We continue to make good progress in implementing Natura 2000, the network of special sites that are recognised at European level. The United Kingdom has now classified 200 sites as special protection areas for their ornithological interest under the birds directive, and submitted 340 sites as candidate special areas of conservation to the European Commission under the habitats directive, giving recognition and enhanced protection to the cream of our nature conservation heritage.

The UK Government are committed to full implementation of the requirements of the habitats directive. Our SAC list has been selected through a rigorous and iterative scientific process, which has applied the directive's criteria consistently throughout the UK. What is more, there has been full consultation on all the proposals, which, in a number of cases, incorporated changes in the light of comments from the voluntary conservation movement and other consultees. I acknowledge criticisms of our list, but those have been based on unscientific comparisons and misunderstandings of the directive's requirements.

Natura 2000 sites—together with sites listed under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance—are all sites of special scientific interest, all of which are designated for their national importance and constitute some of our most precious areas for wildlife, hosting rare or endangered species and providing habitats where they can flourish and—I hope—multiply. Although many are well managed and in good condition, and landowners and managers enjoy a constructive relationship with the conservation agencies, the Government agree with hon. Members who have expressed concern about special sites that have been damaged, or whose interest is declining as a result of both human activities and natural processes.

English Nature is already aiming to increase the percentage of sites in England that are being positively managed for conservation and to reduce the proportion that are in an unfavourable condition. The comprehensive proposals that we announced in last year's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation paper on SSSIs will also help to deliver real improvements in the immediate future and will substantially strengthen English Nature's hand as steward of the most valuable examples of our natural heritage. Those proposals covered a range of options and looked at ways in which enhanced protection could be delivered quickly without new legislation, as well as the case for legislative change.

The Government believe that it is important to foster the constructive relationship that has already been established with the owners of SSSIs, many of whom are sympathetic to conservation aims and work actively alongside statutory agencies to conserve the interest of their land. On SSSIs, the consultation paper emphasised the need for a variety of partnerships with owners and occupiers, with local communities and voluntary conservation organisations and with Government Departments, some of which are major landholders and custodians of our wildlife heritage. We accept the responsibility that that places on us. We will help and encourage others who similarly accept their responsibilities for the nation's wildlife.

The paper acknowledged—

Order. We now come to the next debate.

May I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how grateful I am to have secured this debate. I thank the Minister of State for visiting the National Missing Persons Helpline, of which I am a trustee. Those who work for the helpline very much enjoyed the visit and hope that something constructive will come out of it.

Since my election to Beckenham, the subject of police numbers and the link with police funding has come up constantly. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends and Labour Members also get a lot of complaints from people who say that they do not see enough police on the beat. Often, constituents do not link that subject with reduced crime figures or the sophisticated arguments about how intelligence-led policing is changing the nature of policing.

In Bromley, of which Beckenham is a part, we have an active police consultative committee and sector working parties, which constantly discuss police numbers and funding. In the annual report for last year, which was published in June, the committee chairman states:

"During the last three years, I cannot recall a year when there has not been underfunding to cover the cost of maintaining the existing strength of the police with inevitable cuts in the service in one way or another. This year the increase in the annual budget for the Metropolitan Police is to be 1.7 per cent. which is below the national average increase of 2.7 per cent. It again falls short of what is needed to cover the increase in police pay and pensions and the rise in inflation. In past years there has been a steady reduction in the number of uniformed officers in the Bromley area to cope with inadequate funding."

His comments are backed up by Bromley division's own figures. Its manpower target strengths, to use the jargon, have gone from 497 police in the borough and the division—the two are co-terminus—in November 1994 to 440 this year. Civilianisation has not replaced the uniformed copper. In November 1994, there were 121 civilian staff. This year, the figure is down to 113, so the numbers of both groups have dropped.

Penge, which is in my constituency, has been identified by Bromley police in a much-admired document on crime and disorder, as a high-risk area. Last April, the inspector in charge told the Penge sector working party:

"we have 9 Community Action Team Officers for community policing between Crystal Palace and Coney Hall"—

another area of my constituency—

"with several having 2/3 council wards to patrol on foot."

As hon. Members know, in particular those who represent cities, that is a large area to cover. The inspector continued:

"There are 3 high street patrols, in Penge, Beckenham and West Wickham."

Some people may think that leafy Bromley borough and Beckenham should reduce their police numbers to help in other parts of the Greater London area where crime levels are higher. However, the authentic voice of the Beckenham resident wrote to the Home Secretary and to me at the end of 1998. He pointed out that

"there has been growing disquiet among members of the public concerning the near-absence of uniformed officers patrolling the streets on a routine basis… During the past two or three years there appears to have been a reduction in real terms".

He is absolutely right. Figures provided by the Metropolitan police show that, since 1995, that force has reduced from 27,945 to 26,563 this year. Indeed, when I was on the Metropolitan police parliamentary scheme along with two Labour Members, one of whom is here today, the story everywhere was the same and I am sure that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will agree. The police are concerned about cuts in manpower, old equipment and buildings that need refurbishment.

The pattern is repeated nationally. It is happening not merely in Bromley or in the Met, but throughout the country. Just last week, on 30 June, a Home Office press release stated:

"Numbers of police officers have fallen by 793 to 123,922 in the year ending March 1999—a reduction of less than 1 per cent."

The first sentence of that press release shows the Home Office's sensitivity about linking police funding with police numbers. That sentence reads:

"The number of police officers has fallen despite increased police spending".

I can understand and appreciate why the Home Office is going to such lengths to decouple funding and police numbers. Linked with that issue is the reduction in crime. We all congratulate the police on reducing crime, but most of us would agree that other issues have contributed to that reduction. When employment is high, there tends to be a reduction in crime.

The Audit Commission has backed up the Home Office and I can understand where it is coming from. It says that some forces have higher clear-up rates and lower numbers of police relatively and/or smaller budgets—

The Audit Commission supports the view that there is no direct correlation between numbers of officers and amounts of crime. On the last occasion on which we debated the matter in the House, 18 March, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, unusually:

"However, I rather agree with the Home Secretary on that point. I do not think that there is a direct correlation between police numbers and crime."—[Official Report, 18 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1277.]

Does the hon. Lady agree with her right hon. Friend?

If the hon. Lady listens to the rest of my speech, she will understand my argument. It is difficult to disagree with the Audit Commission's figures, which show that smaller forces may have smaller budgets and higher clear-up rates. Indeed, the Audit Commission has compared like with like: it has compared one rural force with another and found differences in clear-up rates; it has also compared one inner-city area with another and found differences. Statistically, I do not disagree, but the problem is that the British public and police forces themselves do not make that link. I suspect that the better clear-up rates reflect both good management and historic spending patterns. As I pointed out, the problem is that the public and the police do not believe it.

As I said, the consultative committee in Bromley regularly links underfunding with lack of police numbers. When we toured various operations under the parliamentary scheme, we were told time after time by the police, from the constable on the beat to the inspector in charge of any police station, that cuts in funding were leading to reduced numbers.

One can always bandy statistics about, but for the first time in many years, there has been a cut in police manpower and in auxiliaries in Dorset and, for the first time in five years, crime has increased. That shows that criminals, at least, think that it is now safer to commit crimes in Dorset because fewer police and fewer resources are coming from this Government.

I would not go so far as to argue that, but it is an interesting point. One is conscious that hardened criminals are as astute and aware of the potential for crime and not getting caught as the general public are aware that, as they believe, there are not enough police on the streets.

The constables will describe the increased pressure that they are under because of what they believe are shortages in numbers on patrol. One of their principal concerns is that, when they are in trouble—they could easily suddenly find themselves in a fracas on a hot day like today, when people's tempers are short—there might not be sufficient back-up to help them out of it. Indeed, that already happens. If the police feel vulnerable and lose confidence, they will not do their job to the best of their ability and constituents will complain.

As I said to the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), I acknowledge the argument—I am sure that she shares it—that modern and effective policing is intelligence-led. It is effective and it works. We have seen how successful Operation Bumblebee has been, for example, in targeting criminals and ensuring that continual troublemakers are taken off the streets or warned that they are being watched. Intelligence-led policing contributes enormously to modern policing, but I return to the fact that the British public do not believe that it is working because they do not see police on the streets.

The Police Federation also does not see police on the streets. Fred Broughton, the chairman, was quoted in The Guardian of 18 May. The article said:

"Violent crime has increased because police forces are having to cut the number of officers on the beat.

Mr. Broughton said successes in tackling burglary and car crime had been bought at the cost of a failure to patrol the streets.

'It is clear to every force that the uniformed presence is reducing on a monthly basis. That is while the government and chief police officers are talking about an alternative. All the indications are that it will get worse.'"

The hon. Lady has made the point that intelligence-led policing works, but that the public do not believe that crime is being tackled unless they see bobbies on the beat. If she accepts the argument that there are better ways in which to spend our resources to tackle crime, is she in favour of spending money on, say, a medicine that does not work simply because the public believe that it does? Is it not her task and our's to lay out the facts and convince the public of what actually works in tackling crime—contrary to their perception? It is surely down to people such as us to play a role in ensuring that the public believe such things.

They do not in Dorset.

As my hon. Friend says, people in Dorset do not believe it—nor do people in Bromley, the Police Federation or, as I am about to quote, the Association of Chief Police Officers.

John Newing said that the 1999–2000 settlement

"leaves the Police Service well short of what it needs."

Even though the Home Office has said that the 2 per cent. efficiency savings can be reinvested, and even though the police forces can keep the income from property sales, the forces are facing the need to spend much more money on new communications systems.

Anyone who has been into a police station will have seen the variety of computers and how they are not linked to one another. Work is duplicated because the custody officer may enter information into one computer, while upstairs the detectives are putting the same information into another system. That shows the need to spend money on communications. I am not arguing about the need for that; however, the public must also be reassured. If they are not, the whole basis of policing by the consent of the community will disappear.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the phenomenal clear-up rate of the Victorian police force was primarily not because their methods were less fastidious, but because they lived in, and were part of, the community that they policed? As we have withdrawn forces into almost fortress-like police stations and police officers into panda cars, we have lost the proximity of the community, which was the source of success.

I can see my hon. Friend's point, although the whole purpose of the Scarman and subsequent reports was to try to develop the role of the community police officer, who builds up the intelligence that was enjoyed by the Victorian police force. We have not lost that form of policing; the problem is that we do not have sufficient police officers to be able to conduct it as effectively as one would wish. That is why I am linking the two subjects—even though the Home Office and the Audit Commission doubt the correlation between police funding and numbers. Such a link needs to be made because we must ensure policing with the consent of the community.

I pointed out the need for new communications systems and the cost of them. There is also the cost of the pensions problem facing all police forces. We must acknowledge what a large proportion of their budgets is going on pensions—about 17 per cent. in the Metropolitan police and 20 per cent. in Greater Manchester. Obviously, if we were starting again, we would not start from here. A pay-as-you-go pension fund and an historic inability to control it has left forces with a huge demand on their slender resources. John Newing said last week that if additional funds are not forthcoming, there will have to be cuts in the numbers of officers in operational roles.

As a great believer in the development of the pensions industry and the provision that we have managed to create, I would say that it is time for the Home Office and police forces to get to grips with the pay-as-you-go pension scheme and reform it. That would be a most effective way of reducing the pressure on budgets. I know that that will not be easy and that it is a very long-term solution, but it should certainly be considered closely.

Despite the demands on budgets for things such as communications systems and pensions, I return time and again to the importance of the Home Office recognising the inextricable link in the minds of the British public between funding and proper staffing. The public cannot believe that there is no such correlation. As I have—I hope—shown, nor can many who work in the police, even when crime is coming under control. The position has clearly worsened recently and the forecasts are deeply pessimistic.

The police force is in a unique position to make its views known and clear to every member of the public. That will only reinforce the public's fears. The police, particularly if they are involved in community policing, are talking day in, day out to our constituents. If they are fearful of their future, they will make the public—our constituents—fearful, too.

The Home Office must ensure that the public are reassured that the thin blue line will hold. At present, the public believe that the line is under significant pressure. I very much hope that the Minister can reassure us that there will be a greater police presence on the streets, so reassuring our constituents.

I am pleased to participate in this important debate. I shall restrict most of my remarks to the issue of funding.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) realised that the crux of the apparent contradiction is due mainly to the perception of crime. In the past couple of days, the Women's Institute has referred to the importance of police on the beat in rural areas. However, that is not necessarily the same as catching criminals. We must ensure that we put resources where they really count, and invest in intelligence and the most effective policing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made clear. I should be worried if we went away from the debate believing that the contradiction was easy to solve. The Government have got the balance right. I shall explain how that can be enhanced and how it can be made clearer to our constituents that the funding situation is right and reasonable.

I shall restrict most of my remarks to funding, which is at the core of the debate. I have been engaged in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister about the needs of Gloucestershire. We shall be having a meeting shortly to discuss those matters in greater detail. It was a little disingenuous of the hon. Member for Beckenham to refer to the pensions problem, because the Conservative Government signally failed to grapple with the issue. They have left us an incredibly difficult legacy. Let us be honest. No police organisation wants to renegotiate the pensions situation, because they could not get a better deal. I may be wrong on some of the details, but I believe that a police constable retiring from the force today after 30 years' service would take about £60,000 in cash, plus half his current salary. With the best will in the world, that cannot be improved by a renegotiation of the pension terms. However, we shall have to deal with that dilemma.

I do not want to speak for very long, because I know that others want to contribute to the debate. Many factors, including the pension situation, affect the funding requirements. I am grateful to the Government for addressing Gloucestershire's funding problems in respect of the number of royal households in the country. The problem with the 2 per cent. efficiency savings is that they have to be found from those areas, as well as from the wider budget. That causes us some grief in Gloucestershire. Perhaps that requirement should be reconsidered.

We need to fund policing properly, but we must also ensure that we are policing in the right way. We welcome the progress on the public safety radio communications project—a phrase that does not slip off the tongue easily—but we have to find a means of funding it, which is difficult. In Gloucestershire, there will be an annual leasing cost of £750,000, which is the equivalent of 40 police constables. I hope that the Government will come up with some good news on that. It is a project that we not merely want, but have, to implement. Gloucestershire has been bedevilled by a problem of hills. The communications network has never functioned properly, because people on one side of the Cotswolds cannot communicate with those on the other side. I try to go out with the local police on a Friday night. They have to switch wavelength regularly because that is the only way in which they can communicate with each other. That is a bit ramshackle at the end of the 20th century, when we are looking for the most effective way to deal with law and order issues.

We welcome the drug strategy, initiatives on youth offending and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, but we must find ways to fund those ideas. Our old friend information technology will have a part to play and a lot of money is being put in that direction. We all agree that such spending should not be at the expense of front-line policing. People have a perception of crime and want to see their bobby on the beat, but they also want the most effective means of catching criminals and following up the more deviant members of society. We have to find ways of doing that.

We can argue about the statistics and what they mean, but we were disappointed with the 1.4 per cent. increase in funding in Gloucestershire, which was below the national increase of 2.3 per cent. We responded by putting up our budget and raising our precept. I could argue that Gloucestershire's precept was too low, but we had the fourth-highest increase of all police authorities, and there is a limit to the number of times that we can do that. We may now be more in line with the family of authorities that we all lovingly compare everything to in these days of benchmarking and the rest of it. I hope that the Home Office and the Treasury will look favourably in future at how we can make good our funding needs.

We are looking to the future. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for our success in achieving funding for the tri-service control room project, which brings the police into line with the ambulance and fire services to make best use of our control rooms. There are ways of taking that initiative further forward. It is an efficient way of using our funding. That may be special pleading, but I hope that the Home Office will have more to say today or in the future about making more effective use of such funds.

We do not pretend that funding is not an issue. I am one of three Gloucestershire Members here today, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) beside me and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). We have regular meetings with police authority representatives, who tell us their problems. Funding is always at the top of their agenda, so there is no point in pretending that it is not. However, the situation did not start with the election of a Labour Government in May 1997. It is an historic problem. In the debate on 18 March—which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned—I talked about having separate police authorities, some of which, including mine, are small. That has its benefits, but it also has its downsides, because there are no economies of scale and we were bound to have difficulties with the separation of administrative costs and overheads resulting from splitting police authorities from county councils.

Within reason, we are doing what we can. We need more funds. We need help from the Home Office and the Treasury to get the special projects up and running and to make them as effective as possible. That is as true in rural Britain as in urban Britain, as the recent report of the Women's Institute says. A report by the Back-Bench group of Labour Members published a couple of weeks ago contains an interesting article by Simon Anderson of System 3 about people's perceptions of crime in rural areas and how the globalisation of crime has a special impact on more isolated communities, because they want to see the police presence, but they also want to know that the policing is as effective as possible. That is the essence of the problems with getting the funding formula right. There is a need for more help in rural areas, because the funding formula is not as effective as it could be.

We have heard a lot about the perceptions of the public and the desire for more police on the beat. However, we should also recognise that the Government have done a great deal in looking at other ways of preventing crime and taking the stress off police forces by ensuring that there are always police on the beat to deal with the after-effects of crime and clear-up rates. We have had the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and there is a duty on local authorities to have local crime prevention partnerships. We had a big launch of that in Gloucester, which included all the stakeholders. The initiative was greatly welcomed by every section of the community involved. The police said that they felt that it would have a great impact on the public perception of crime and on preventing crime, which would take the stress off the police.

Order. The hon. Lady must sit down when I get to my feet. That is the first thing that she must learn. The second is that she should not make a speech during an intervention.

I acknowledge the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) in her constituency, both now as a Member of Parliament and before coming here. She has much to offer, and she made a valid point.

We will not hide from the funding issue. We welcome many of the initiatives and we recognise that there must be a balance between urban and rural areas. All the figures show that the majority of crimes are committed in urban areas. The incidence of reported crime is four times greater in urban areas than in rural areas, but we have seen a relative increase in rural crime. That is due partly to globalisation, because people can move about more quickly. People in rural areas feel very vulnerable.

I hope that all that is recognised in the formula. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have some good things to say about how all that can be rectified and about the most appropriate use of the overall funding package.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing this debate and on the detailed way in which she gave examples of where police funding is inadequate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who made the case for extra funding for Gloucestershire. I want to mention that. The fact that there are three Members of Parliament from Gloucestershire in the Chamber suggests that things are not well with police funding in that county.

The general funding of public services leaves something to be desired. The Labour party spent 18 years telling the public how the Conservatives had underfunded public services, but, now that we have a Labour Government, we still have similar problems. It is not only the police who are suffering in Gloucestershire. Despite the high-profile figures about health service spending, the health service in Gloucestershire is having to make £5.5 million worth of cuts because of inadequate funding. Tewkesbury borough council has had its grant reduced, causing it to increase the council tax. It has been named and shamed by the Government for reacting to a problem that the Government brought about. The same is true of police funding.

The national pay award, over which each force has no control, was 3.5 per cent. for 1999–2000. Price inflation was 2.2 per cent. Yet Gloucestershire constabulary has been given an increase of only 1.4 per cent. Again, as with the health service, the Government have made a high-profile pay award, with which very few people would disagree, but they have not funded it. That causes a big problem.

Why has Gloucestershire been given such a derisory award? Is it because the Government are diverting money from the shire counties to areas in which their more natural supporters might live? Every shire county apart from two has suffered real-term cuts. The Minister might find that amusing, but it is not amusing to those who live in shire counties. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, Gloucestershire has suffered the fourth largest real-terms cut to its operational budget. I am aware of the problems in the Labour areas to which the Government seem keen to divert money, because I was not born in Tewkesbury, but I am also aware of the problems in rural areas.

My hon. Friend is being over-generous to the Government. In Dorset, we also saw a real-terms cut in the operational budget. Was there not also in Gloucestershire, as there was in Dorset, a massive stealth tax because the Government ensured that local tax payers were paying for all the additional money that came forward? Not a penny extra came from the Home Office or the Government.

I would be called to order if I went too far down that route, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

There are difficulties with crime in rural areas. For example, all Gloucestershire Members have received a note from the chief constable about drugs and drug-related crime. That is becoming as much of a problem in rural areas as in urban areas. The sparsity of policing in rural areas encourages that crime.

I do not wish to spoil the hon. Gentleman's argument, but if he believes that money is going to traditional Labour areas, which mine used to be, he is wrong. We are not seeing that and dancing in the streets in my area. The police are reporting just as many problems in areas such as South Yorkshire as they are in rural counties.

Perhaps I have underestimated the funding problem.

The 2 per cent. efficiency saving is being taken into account when grants to constabularies are being calculated. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, the 2 per cent. target includes police pensions and security elements, over which chief constables have no control. A 2 per cent. saving nationally may be achievable, but it is difficult for each force to achieve it locally. For example, the police force in Gloucestershire has to provide security for the royal family. We are delighted that they live there and the force receives a grant to cover the cost, but, given that minimum standards of security must be provided, that should not be taken into account when calculating the 2 per cent. efficiency saving.

Gloucestershire has already made many efficiency savings. It has one of the lowest figures in the country for officers retiring through ill health, sickness levels are below average and it has the smallest number of superintendents. Given all that, why has Gloucestershire received a real-terms cut? Where is the money to come from? As we have already heard, Gloucestershire police have had to increase the precept by 19 per cent. That makes it look as if it is a local problem, when it is not. Also, the chief constable has told all the Gloucestershire Members of Parliament that cuts are having to be made in operational areas. Is that what the Government intended? I do not remember their claiming at the election that there would be cuts in the operational services provided by the police. The Minister must look at what is happening on the ground and not just at statistics which may appear to be okay on the surface, but do not reveal all that happens in the policing of counties.

I am delighted to have a further opportunity to speak on policing, police funding, police numbers and the Government's drive to tackle crime. It is the top issue for the people in my inner-city constituency. I believe firmly that unless we tackle the problem of crime and disorder, all the other social exclusion initiatives on which we are engaged will not be as successful as we would like. If people do not feel safe and secure in their communities, all our other measures to provide jobs and opportunities will not yield the results that we want.

We need some facts in this debate. Over the next three years, the Government will be spending an extra £1.25 billion, which has been gained from the comprehensive spending review. In addition, there is an extra £400 million for crime reduction projects, extra funds for CCTV partnerships between the police, local government and business to try to tackle crime, a major anti-burglary initiative and anti-car crime projects. We have set rigorous targets because we want to see the outcomes.

It is all very well to talk about perceptions, feelings and ideas, but what really matters to the people whom I represent is whether we are preventing, reducing and detecting crime and locking up those who commit crime. We aim to cut vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by the year 2002. That is a tough target, but the Government do not shy away from tough targets because they know how important those issues are for local people. There is no point spending money without tying it to targets. I know that the Conservatives have recently become a tax-and-spend party, but I do not see any point in spending money without the right outcome.

We must not forget the Tory record. I know that it is uncomfortable to be reminded of it, but, under the Tory Government, recorded crime went up from 2.5 million cases in 1979 to 4.5 million cases in 1997. Constituents such as mine bore the brunt of those crimes. A total of 40 per cent. of crime in this country happens in 10 per cent. of areas, and 4 per cent. of people are the victims of 42 per cent. of crime. Those are staggering and scandalous statistics and we must tackle them.

Under the previous Administration, the figures were up for violent crime, burglaries and assault. Crime and disorder was out of control, with young men running wild on estates, making people's lives a misery. The Government's plan to tackle all that is one of the top issues for the whole community.

We are beginning to tackle those problems. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) accepts that intelligence-based policing is the way to tackle crime, detect crime and ensure that convictions are secured, but I ask Conservative Members to use their brains and recognise that, in addition to intelligence, we have to use a little creativity and imagination. The Conservatives appear to be on a tramline of thinking that the only one way to tackle crime is to increase the number of bodies, but I want to increase the number of brains in our crime and disorder system as well.

Let me give some examples of new projects that are being carried out in my city to try to get maximum added value from our investment. Crime reduction partnerships bring together local government, the police, the business sector, the chamber of commerce, voluntary organisations and the local community in an effort to identify the problems of crime and how best to work together to tackle them. Are the police always right for a certain job, or could it be done better by, say, the housing authority? Is it better to bring in the youth service to intervene early in youth crime, rather than always look to the police to provide solutions? Without that partnership, we shall be unable to sustain the regeneration that we all want.

We have also drawn in resources from other areas, through projects such as Operation Victory, which has taken place in Greater Manchester in the past few months. It is the biggest police operation that Greater Manchester has ever known: in Salford, Trafford and Manchester on one day, more than 65 people involved in burglary, handling, theft and the laundering of drug money were arrested. It was a massive operation and, not only did it succeed in taking those people off the streets and locking them up—which was a great relief to my constituents—but it sent a message to the community that they could have confidence that the police were able to tackle those problems and that we are not sitting back and allowing ourselves to be overwhelmed by a wave of crime.

We are going out there, tackling crime and using our intelligence. The information used in Operation Victory was gathered over a period of 12 months—the operation was not here today, gone tomorrow. In often difficult and dangerous circumstances, officers gathered evidence and information to use in prosecutions.

Will the hon. Lady tell me what is the difference between Operation Victory and Operation Bumblebee, which was instituted in the mid-1990s and which achieved exactly the same ends? Is not Manchester's action a little late?

Not at all. Operation Victory was incredibly successful and, although similar programmes have happened before, it was the largest programme yet, being carried out on such a scale that the impact on the community was enormous. It was an excellent project.

The hon. Lady is extremely enthusiastic and we love to hear such enthusiasm. However, my son is a police officer in the north of England and I have to tell her that her speech seems to reflect more closely the views of the Treasury than those of police officers on the beat, who know about their lack of resources and overtime and their resulting inability to get out there and do all that the hon. Lady wants them to do. Will the hon. Lady go back and listen to police officers in her constituency rather than to the Treasury?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listen to police officers in my constituency. Three weeks ago, as the local Member of Parliament, I personally called a crime and disorder forum in my constituency, because I believe that we have a role to play in crime and disorder partnerships. I called together the police, the voluntary sector, business, social services and the youth service to meet me and talk about the new Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I asked them to tell me whether the Act is working and what the difficulties with it are. I asked how best we could institute the anti-social behaviour orders and what sort of protocols were needed to get the evidence to enforce the orders.

I am in daily contact with local police officers. They have inner-city beats, which is hard and challenging work—yes, it is tough out there. However, we have just introduced sector policing, whereby officers are responsible for their own neighbourhood and so are in close, daily touch with their communities. They monitor crime, know where the criminals are, and are able to direct resources into tackling crime in their own neighbourhood. I completely support local police officers, who have a demanding, difficult and challenging job.

We are trying to ensure not only that police officers have the resources that they need, but that they use them in such a way that they get results. If we do not, we are just sending them out on the streets, they do not get results and they see the same criminals day after day, making the same people's lives a misery. The Labour Government's policies are about using intelligence and creativity to give police officers the tools to do the job.

The other example of local action in my city is a massive truancy project. I feel passionately that instead of spending our money on mopping up the results of failure, we should prevent that failure from occurring in the first place. In 1997, 40 per cent. of burglaries, 25 per cent. of robberies, 20 per cent. of thefts and 20 per cent. of criminal damage were committed by children aged 10 to 16. Those children should be in school. We have set a tough and challenging target—that, by 2001, exclusions from school will have been cut by one third—and backed it up with £500 million of extra resources.

We have to consider more than police funding. Look at all the extra resources that are being put into education through education action zones and truancy projects; that will help to prevent crime. Look at the money for the new deal, which gives young people the opportunity to work rather than become involved in crime. The Opposition have a one-track mind and do not see all the different parts of the jigsaw that is being assembled by the Labour Government. Four hundred thousand more people are now in work than were in work under the Tories. The hon. Member for Beckenham recognises the link between unemployment and crime: having more people in work means less crime on the streets.

The Government have set tough targets for efficiency savings, but those savings are being made. The briefing from the Association of Police Authorities—the very people who constantly ask for more funding—states:

"this year alone, cashable efficiency savings have been identified totalling £107 million…an additional £75 million of expenditure has been redirected into frontline policing activities."

That is what my constituents want to hear—resources redirected into reducing crime, detecting crime and convicting criminals. If the Government are able to shift the emphasis from simply having bodies on the street to intelligent policing that actually reduces crime, the people whom I represent who are repeat victims of robberies, burglaries, assaults and theft will be mightily relieved.

I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Beckenham about pensions. We have to tackle that issue. Nationally, about 13 per cent. of revenue budgets are eaten up by pensions; in Greater Manchester, that figure is 20 per cent. That cannot be allowed to go on. The Government must tackle the issue of pensions.

I believe that the best way to get added value from the resources that we put in is to work in partnership. It is easy to quote statistics and figures, but, in communities such as mine, we are only now beginning to count the true cost of the policies of the previous Government. Conservative Members do not like to hear it, but crime, unemployment, poverty and the breakdown of family life are the true price of Tory government. That is the Tory record, and my city is counting the cost. If the Labour Government are able to tackle crime and make Salford a safer place for people to live, work and bring up their family, we shall have done a great deal. I believe that the Government are up to the task.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing a debate on police funding, which is one of the Liberal Democrats' main home affairs hobby horses. We need to move the debate on from the well-worked theme of whether there is a direct correlation between funding and police forces' effectiveness. I do not believe that there is such a direct correlation, but to suggest that there is no correlation at all between police funding and police numbers is ludicrous.

It is strange and interesting to hear Labour Members argue that tight public spending settlements lead to efficiency savings and improved services—a view that differs from that which was expressed for many years by their colleagues in local government. In fact, their local government colleagues are still expressing that view, even thought they now have to do it quietly, for fear of embarrassing the Government. We might hear next that the Government decline to abandon local government capping, but merely intend to replace it with a slightly more complex system of capping. Instead of allowing local government to spend what it needs to, perhaps it will be suggested that more efficient social services or education services would be the result of tight and challenging settlements.

I should like to touch on the issue of police numbers, especially the number of special constables, which is of particular concern to the Liberal Democrats. I shall also refer to funding pressures, some of which have already been mentioned and about which the police are extremely concerned. I shall also briefly explore the Government's longer-term strategy, especially in respect of private security. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify comments heard in recent months about the role of private security which appear to be a response to a Government squeeze on funding. It is important that we explore those issues before policies emerge that cause us even greater concern.

The number of full-time police officers has fallen by 1,043 since the general election. We have heard various arguments about whether or not that is a problem. When the Labour party was in opposition, it was ingenious in not giving a specific commitment on numbers, although it gave a clear general impression that it was concerned about the falls in numbers under the previous Government, and launched attack after attack on them. It can now get out of that one by saying that it gave no specific commitment to increase the police numbers so the new falls are acceptable.

The number of special constables has fallen by 3,250 in two years. That is a 16 per cent. fall from 19,500 in March 1997 to 16,500 in March 1999. I know that the Minister has a particular concern about special constables because he said in January:

"Today's special is a police officer trained to professional standards commanding full confidence of regular colleagues and the public.… We believe this is an excellent use of a valuable resource available to chief officers and support this continued development of the Special Constabulary for the foreseeable future."

It gives us concern, and I hope that it concerns him, that we have seen a fall in numbers at a time when the Government seem to advocate increased use of that resource.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see an increase in police numbers. We suggest an increase of 6,000 as a useful way forward. The Government have helpfully costed our proposals in answer to a parliamentary question from one of their Back Benchers. In a written answer on 6 July, they said:

"The estimated annual cost of 6,000 additional constables would be around £150 million."—[Official Report, 6 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 487.]

That would work out at about 5p a week for every citizen, or less than a penny a day. I feel that people would be willing to pay that to have an extra 10 constables in every constituency. People can relate to less than 1p a day and they would be happy to stump up.

We should not talk simply about a conflict between intelligence-led policing and police constables on the ground. There is a possibility of both if people are willing and able to pay. It is valid and legitimate to put it to the public that we need both to combat crime effectively by intelligence-led policing and to combat the fear of crime by providing uniformed officers as a point of contact. The two are not mutually exclusive. I should like us to consider funding both.

I am hesitant to talk about falls in numbers in any area, having heard from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) how intelligent our criminals are these days. I fear that they may browse through the pages of Hansard, discover where police numbers have fallen, and target their efforts there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman sees no influx of politically astute criminals into Dorset, although that may be one way to describe his campaign team.

I hope that the Minister will respond to the report published by the police service expenditure forecasting group in June. If he does not respond to Opposition concerns, he must respond to the group's comments that

"the revenue support grant settlement for 1999/2000 was insufficient even to meet inflationary pressures and other spending commitments. In itself, it provided no scope for investment to improve service quality and deliver."

That is the view of the professionals. They have made an assessment, and given us their honest opinion that the pressures are significant and are causing police forces problems in delivery of services.

The group has suggested that police forces have a particular problem with long-term projects such as the public safety radio communications project. We need to examine funding for such projects. The PSRCP will cost £23 million next year, but I understand that, as it rolls out in the following three years, it will cost even more. My force in South Yorkshire says that a major alarm bell is ringing on that issue. It simply does not have the money. There are two possible ways forward, both of which would be a problem. The first is to go forward with the full expenditure and cut front-line services. The second is not to take up all the options within the project, in which case the force will end up paying for a more expensive system without deriving all the benefits because it cannot afford the total package. The Government must look into that.

Pension changes are likely to cost more than £64 million next year, but concerns have been expressed that the changes needed in the pension system may end up costing more rather than less in the short term. We need to be assured that the Government are willing to make the changes in a way that does not impact on front-line services, given that the changes need to be made.

It has been estimated that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will cost about £15 million in the next year. We have welcomed the Act. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) referred to initiatives such as crime and disorder partnerships. We are fully behind such initiatives, but there was an expectation that the Act would be revenue neutral in its impact on the police. Yet I know from my police force that it is putting a significant amount of senior officer time into it. That is quite proper, but it gives the police a short-term funding pressure estimated at £15 million over the next year. That is £15 million well spent, but I hope that we shall not simply ignore the police authorities when they say that the legislation is costing them more than expected.

We must also take into account specific events such as the millennium. Police forces have flagged up a serious problem in funding police support over that period.

Certainly, the West Mercia constabulary has expressed to me its concerns about funding police support at the millennium. However, the millennium is a foreseeable event—we have known about it for 1,000 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the policing of unforeseeable events such as the demonstration at Consort Kennels in my constituency by animal rights activists places enormous additional burdens on the police? That demonstration diverted police officers away from their normal activities. The police do not believe that they receive adequate Home Office support for unforeseen events that crop up from time to time.

That is a general problem. In my constituency, we had the tragic circumstances of the Hillsborough disaster. Continuing legal battles are costing the police service money. It is receiving conflicting advice. It is a huge political minefield, but, whoever is right or wrong, the police have faced unexpected expenditure. The demonstrations at Shoreham also created a policing requirement. We do not want local police forces to feel that they cannot provide the required level of policing. Some form of ability to respond would be helpful.

We accept that efficiency savings can be made in the police force, but we do not accept the Government's denial that there is any problem. The hon. Member for Salford referred to an increase of £1.24 billion over three years. The Government's comprehensive spending review presentation has been wonderful. They announce, announce again and then announce again. They multiply any figure by three to give a better appearance to their public spending figures. However, when we unravel the Government's ingenious accounting methods, we find that the increase over three years is £675 million, not £1.24 billion.

We should consider funding over the whole Parliament. We were critical of the Government for accepting Tory spending limits. The House of Commons Library has shown that, over the Parliament, there will be no real-terms increase in central funding for the police. In 1998–99, there was a real-terms fall in central funding for the police. That was only the second time that that had happened in 20 years.

Police force reserves are another problem. Police forces often dip into their reserves for specific events, such as the millennium. That increases the overall cost to the force. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy has shown that 11 forces are now running reserves below the recommended level.

The hon. Member for Salford said that police officers faced challenging times. That was also the word used in the Home Office press release on its spending settlement. It said:

"This is a fair but challenging settlement for the police".

Everyone who has watched "Yes, Minister" knows that "challenging" is a Whitehall euphemism for "much lower than needed". One could say that local government had challenging settlements from the Tory Government in the past 18 years, and we know what impact that had on it.

We do not accept that there is a one-to-one relationship between funding and improvements in the police service, but we do not accept that there is no relationship whatever. That point is important and needs to be examined.

I wish to refer to the future direction of the police force. It is not a total coincidence that, at a time of tight police funding and falling numbers, the Government have opened the debate about the future of police patrolling. We are concerned about the Government's intentions. The Home Secretary has openly welcomed and encouraged the debate about the role of private security in patrolling the streets, and he has made public comments to that effect. We do not wish to see the private security industry ignored, as it has a significant role in private spaces, such as shopping centres, where one can define clearly who is responsible for that space and who should properly pay for the security.

There is a difference between that situation and sending people out on patrol, and we are concerned by talk about private security officers patrolling estates. There are two distinct services. Police forces are made up of accountable, professional, trained, disciplined and sworn police officers, who provide a distinct public service. Private security officers—we regret that the Government have not moved further on regulation for them—do not conform to the same disciplines. I hope that the Minister will indicate that there will be further regulation for private security officers.

The Government must ask themselves the crucial question—if private security provides a cheaper service, why is it cheaper? We believe that it is cheaper precisely because the industry does not have to maintain the same standards as the police. There is a lower quality, in that the industry is not an accountable public service with sworn loyalty to the Crown. I hope that the Government will make it clear that it is not their intention to civilianise police patrols. While there are proper arguments for civilianisation of non-front-line policing functions, we believe that they do not apply to police patrolling.

I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the specific concerns about funding issues, identified by the police agencies, and to some wider policy issues. That would shed far more light than simply repeating the mantra of the over-inflated and oft-repeated comprehensive spending review figures.

First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and to other hon. Members for being unavoidably detained and missing the start of the debate.

I will make a brief speech, concentrating on two themes. First, the West Midlands police force—one of the largest in the country—is not suffering under the misapprehension that it has had a resource cut; in fact, the budget for 1999–2000 shows a total revenue expenditure increase of about 2.3 per cent. It is significant that, in its budget planning, the West Midlands force has been able to put an extra 50 constables out on direct patrol on the streets. It has been able to do that because, as in Manchester—as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) explained—the force is engaged in a radical exercise in sector policing, which is designed to cut out wasteful bureaucracy in the police force.

The West Midlands police force has the highest percentage of constables to other ranks in the country, and the lowest management costs in the country. That theme is extremely important in terms of police funding.

As resources are made available, there are particular aspects of policing and projects to which we would like to see more money directed. Personally, I think that there is more scope for the use of technology in DNA processing, which would be an investment worth making. It is important that we get value for money. The key to that is to reduce management costs and to get a greater ratio of constables to other ranks.

The hon. Member for Beckenham said that numbers matter, and I understand her point. However, it strikes me as significant that the Audit Commission reports have pointed out consistently that, even where the numbers are high, there are forces which, at any one time, can call on only 5 per cent. of their total force to patrol the streets. One must ask what kind of organisational structure pertains where, out of a force of huge numbers, only 5 per cent. are doing active policing. The lessons from Manchester and the West Midlands must be taken on board by other forces if we are to get greater value for money and efficiency.

My second point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). In this day and age, it is difficult to understand how it can be reasonable—with all the amazing technological advances, and the inevitable costs that they impose—to have 43 police forces spread throughout the country, ranging in number from 950 officers to 29,000. We have 43 authorities that are duplicating the costs of chief constables, personnel departments, research and development departments, payroll departments and purchasing departments. That seems to me to be an extraordinary waste of money.

I would not urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take direct action to compel forces to reduce overall numbers, or to rationalise the size of police forces. However, where improvements can be made by sharing at least some of those activities, there is scope for amazing cost savings, and that would be a significant step forward. I would particularly like to see a regionalised police force—the time has come when we can afford to reduce the number of forces from 43.

I am not concerned now with the question of a democratic deficit because of two significant developments. The first is sector policing. Local superintendents are now accountable to the local population, so there is direct democratic accountability. That is the great strength of sector policing. The second development is that the introduction of police authorities in itself removed directly elected accountability, in the way that it was understood traditionally. Having made that step, we do not need to rehash the old argument.

We must look for the maximum efficiency for the money we put in. That cannot possibly be achieved by 43 authorities that are duplicating every activity endlessly, and are wasting money on bureaucracy that could be spent on patrolling the streets and protecting people from crime.

I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) about police forces. Dorset is a relatively small force, but it is efficient and commands public support. I do not wish to see vast county or regional forces, or a national force. The British system of doing things, with a degree of local accountability, is the best. The county forces, including some of the smaller ones, have a good record. Problems have tended to occur in some of the larger forces, particularly the West Midlands force and the Met. The smaller forces have delivered a good service over the years.

I wish to refer to the overall concern about funding and numbers. I know that "more funding and more numbers" is not the only answer, but it helps in terms of the management of the police. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made an intelligent speech—apart from her political points at the end—and made some good points. However, the reality is that, in Dorset, we are struggling with pensions—as are all forces. Over the last 10 years, police pensions as a proportion of budgets have risen from 7 to 13 per cent—an added strain without additional budgets. That is a problem with which all Governments have had to deal.

Apart from pensions, there is the problem of the millennium, which—as the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) pointed out—is a predictable event. Major public services, whether police or hospitals, will have to make extraordinary arrangements to deal with that.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has said that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will cost £20 million. Much of that Act has been welcomed by my local force, and it may have a positive role to play in policing. However, there are resource implications that have not been addressed fully within budgets.

The fear of crime must be addressed. People are reassured when they see bobbies on the beat. I have a well-developed network of neighbourhood watch groups in Poole, whose members are extremely good at getting on to the police and asking, "Where are the bobbies on the beat? What is going on?" We should pay attention to the public relations aspect, which is particularly important to older constituents.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing the debate and introducing it with such skill. Although there are undoubted differences between hon. Members across the Floor of the House, all of us, regardless of party, are united in acknowledging how much we and our constituents owe to the professionalism, dedication and constant vigilance of our police service.

My hon. Friend sensibly drew attention to the fact that there is no straightforward correlation between police numbers and police effectiveness in tackling crime. However, like my hon. Friend, other hon. Members pointed out that police numbers do matter.

For example, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) noted, it is a matter of concern, especially to people in rural areas, that they may at times have to rely on a response time target from a relatively remote urban centre, rather than having officers on duty, particularly over the weekend or through bank holidays, in the police office or police station in their own village or market town.

The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) demonstrated all the passionate, born-again zeal for tight budgets that one would expect from the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. With a cut of 113 police officers in Greater Manchester since the general election, I am not surprised that she steered clear of that subject.

More generally, there is a difference between a considered decision by a chief officer to deploy more of his officers to intelligence gathering, problem-solving policing, surveillance and targeting known villains and repeat victims—for which there would be support across the House—and chief constables and police authorities feeling compelled to reduce the numbers on their establishment below the level that they would regard as satisfactory, simply because of budget constraints resulting from spending decisions imposed by central Government.

The Home Office's figures show that there has been a reduction of more than 1,100 police officers since the general election. The biggest losers include London, where the figure is down by about 680; Sussex, where the figure is down by almost 240; and West Yorkshire, which has lost more than 200 officers. Of the 43 forces in England and Wales, 29 have cut their police numbers since 1998.

The Government's priorities for spending were made clear in their comprehensive spending review. The figures that I have seen suggest a cash increase of 2.7 per cent. in the current year, plus the hoped-for efficiency savings. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, the Government's published spending plans involve real increases of no more than 0.7 per cent.

As four fifths of police expenditure goes on pay, a tight budgetary settlement inevitably means that there will be an impact on manpower. That has been recognised by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association, which have all vigorously drawn attention to the fact that such a tight settlement will make it extremely difficult for them to deal with the priorities that they have been set by the Home Secretary, and to provide the quality of service that they want to give to their local communities.

ACPO has said that an increase of 6.1 per cent. in police spending is needed in order to stand still in the provision of service. If the Government disagree with ACPO's assessment of necessary expenditure, I hope that the Minister, in his response or in writing subsequently, will spell out in detail the methodology that the Government have used to reach a different conclusion from that of ACPO.

As time is short and to enable the Minister of State to respond, I shall concentrate on three topics related to resources, on which I hope the Minister will comment. The first topic is patrols. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) expressed concern about problems affecting the special constabulary. The Minister knows that there has been considerable disquiet among police officers at the idea that, partly as a consequence of constraints on resources, the Government may be considering greater reliance in the future on ancillary citizens patrols or private security patrols of some sort.

Concern about that is not confined to those on the Conservative Benches. A Labour peer, a distinguished former officer, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, warned in another place of

"substitute, second tier public or private patrols, which certain chief constables are flirting with."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 723.]

We on the Conservative Benches have no problem with voluntary initiatives in support of the police. Neighbourhood watch was a great success story of the 1980s, and I am delighted if those on the present Treasury Bench have been converted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to the advantages of "walking with a purpose". It is always pleasant to see Labour Ministers swallowing the words that they expressed in opposition.

What powers would those patrols have? Would those on patrol hold the office of constable? What would their relationship be to the police? Would there be disciplinary procedures if the powers of those patrollers were abused?

The second topic is pensions. The inspectorate of constabulary concluded that police pensions will cost about 14 per cent. of police expenditure by the financial year 2001-02. It is just over a year since the Home Office published its consultation document on police pensions. Lord Burlison, another distinguished Labour peer, said in another place:

"We intend to publish soon specific proposals on the future of police pensions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 737.]

I hope that the Minister will tell us how soon that document will be published and over what time scale the proposals will be implemented.

My final point concerns the public safety radio communications project—PSRCP—to which other hon. Members alluded. I am sure that the Minister of State is aware of a letter of 17 June from the chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, Dr. Henig, to the Home Secretary, in which she wrote.

"It is already clear…from the indicative prices that many authorities will face very serious problems if the full cost of this service is to be met from existing funding allocations."

She continued:

"The police service cannot afford to finance PSRCP within the existing level of police grant, without a direct effect on the availability of officers for frontline policing."

My own authority in Thames Valley told me that its estimates suggest that the reality of absorbing PSRCP costs within current baselines set by the Government would result in the need to reduce police officer strength by 167.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give answers to some of those questions. He and his colleagues now have the responsibility for making budgetary decisions and setting priorities for a service that all of us in the House support. I hope that he will deal with the concerns that have been expressed not merely by hon. Members in the Opposition parties, but by senior representatives of the police service.

This has been a useful and largely good-humoured debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on raising an important subject that the whole House will want to be tackled. She was wearing her sensible shoes today; to be fair, she always does. Unfortunately, those sitting behind her—the bovver boys of Dorset and of the New forest—were determined to put her off track. They were true to form; she rightly talked about the importance of sophisticated argument and sensibilities in respect of numbers. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) knows nothing of sophistication, and sensibilities are hardly the stock-in trade of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). We heard from them a crude party political response to the debate which did them and their party no service whatever.

The truth is that the Government have made available to the police resources far over and above those made available by our predecessors. The figures speak for themselves: estimated total revenue expenditure on the police service in England and Wales for 1999–2000 is £7.426 billion—an increase of £225 million, or 3.1 per cent., over 1998–99. Let us look at police numbers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Beckenham. Police numbers fell between March 1992 and March 1998—by an average of more than 340 officers a year on the basis of a Conservative budget in each and every one of those years—and the Metropolitan police lost 2,060 officers throughout that period. We have stabilised the position and the Met lost only 21 officers in 1998–99. Those are the facts and she must give credit where it is due. Under the Government whom she supported, police numbers fell by more than 340, year on year.

The hon. Member for South Dorset complained about the budget of the Dorset police, but it has increased in the current year by 5 per cent., or £77.4 million, which is above the national average of 3.1 per cent. The people of Dorset would not have had that money spent on policing had his party been returned to government. It was not returned to government and, as a result, expenditure on police in Dorset is greater than under our predecessors.

Will the Minister give way?

No.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) also complained, saying that the presence in the Chamber of three Members representing Gloucestershire seats showed that Gloucestershire's police funding was in crisis. On the contrary; that is a sign of diligence, not of crisis, and it is no accident that the Conservatives were outnumbered. One Conservative and two Labour Members representing Gloucestershire seats were present, and the House can draw its own lessons from that. The contributions of those Labour Members, as well as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Ms Blears) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), recognised the real gains being made in policing on the ground resulting from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Those gains were reflected in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham).

All my hon. Friends recognised that the 1998 Act has provided a totally different context for policing and the reduction and prevention of crime in our country, and that it has enabled partnerships to be established on the ground. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who wears his sensible shoes on almost all occasions, was good enough to give due credit to all those good folk in Dorset who are taking advantage of that Act, which the Labour Government passed, to build effective partnerships between the private and public sectors, which is the best way of bearing down on crime and disorder.

We heard the usual Liberal rant from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan): money, money, money, money, more resources, more resources, more resources. Some absurd figures were picked out of the air and it was suggested that if only we would take another penny out of our pockets and give it to the police—it could have been two pennies, but one never knows with the Liberals—all would be well and police officers would suddenly spring up like dragon's teeth. My response is that he really must get real. Why are the Liberals so afraid of recognising the benefit that private-public partnerships can bring?

The hon. Gentleman attempted to raise the spectre of neighbourhood wardens as if the House should be frightened of them. The reverse is true and I am sorry that, in an otherwise unremarkable maiden Front-Bench speech on these matters, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) saw that same spectre. He suggested that neighbourhood wardens somehow presented a threat to traditional policing values. They do no such thing, because community patrol and neighbourhood warden schemes do not provide substitutes for police officers. On the contrary; their role is to add value to the work of police officers, not to replace them. The benefits of that are being experienced by local communities up and down the country. If the hon. Member for Hallam listened to communities more rather than always having the next edition of Focus in mind, his party would be much better sighted on these issues.

Two serious points relating to police pensions were raised by my hon. Friends and echoed on occasion by Conservative Members. We recognise the difficulties faced by police authorities—they are part of the poisoned legacy left to us after 18 years of neglect of these issues and this part of public policy. We have increased the proportion of revenue funding to be allocated on the basis of pension commitments to 14.5 per cent. in 1999–2000 in recognition of the increased burden of pension costs. I assure the hon. Member for Beckenham that we have been prepared to confront those difficult issues in our review of this matter.

There are no easy answers to the problem of the cost of police pensions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford said. We have not yet made final decisions on the detailed content of the firm proposals that we intend to introduce, but we shall do so shortly. The House will then have an opportunity to consider them, as will the police service and the wider community, in terms of the decisions that we shall have to take.

The public safety radio communications project is important because it relates to new technology, and to improving and enhancing police capacity in that area. Negotiations are taking place between the police information and technology organisation and BT, the putative contractor. They will soon produce outcomes and it will then be possible for us to consider a proper response to the funding challenges.

These are challenging times, but partnership between the police and the public—not simplistic solutions, but recognition of the importance of efficiency and effectiveness—is at the heart of our policies. If we recognise the complexity of modern policing, and if we do not accept simplistic answers to simplistic questions, we shall go forward successfully.

I hope that you are sitting comfortably, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is also sitting comfortably, because I am about to retail a horror story that is worthy of the Hammer house of horror—apart from the fact that, in this horror story, Anglian Water plays the combined role of Baron Frankenstein and Count Dracula.

At the beginning of this year, the Grimsby fish merchants who buy and fillet fish in Grimsby's market—Grimsby's wonderful new fish market, I should say—received a shock. These merchants, who carry out what could be described as the primary process, were given estimates by Anglian Water showing the scale of the increase in charges that would take effect from June. The increase had been imposed to pay for the new treatment station at Pyewipe, which was to come on-stream in that month and, indeed, has come on-stream. The existing charge for Macklam's was £738 a year; it was to increase to £20,400—an increase of 2,600 per cent., at a time when inflation was running at about 2 per cent. The current charge for Arthur Bacon was £2,700 a year; that was to increase to £49,000, an increase of 1,735 per cent. The current charge for Cheek House was £7,000 a year; that was to increase to £63,500, an increase of 790 per cent.

Those horrendous increases were due to the urban waste water treatment directive, which requires urban waste water from coastal towns to be collected and treated prior to discharge by the end of 2000—next year, in other words. Grimsby was to have the pleasure of pioneering the measure and of paying the full charges 18 months before the deadline. That was because Anglian Water happens to have a new treatment station—originally intended to remove discharges deposited on beaches in Cleethorpes—which was planned and started before the directive. The station was to be financed by the charges, although what is discharged by the fish merchants—the primary processors—is organic biodegradable waste.

The Sea Fish Industry Authority tells me:

"The direct discharge of this effluent to the open sea is relatively harmless, it simply returns the fish nutrients back to their origin."

Indeed, generations of fish in the Humber estuary and its environs have been reared on exactly such discharges. Anglian Water says that the discharges, although organic and biodegradable, are polluting; but that is only because they are mixed with human and other industrial waste before being treated. If the material were discharged directly into the sea—that would be possible, with consent, and it is being considered in north-east Scotland—there would be no threat of pollution.

Anglian Water imposed the charges on Grimsby before imposing them on any other fishing port. I am talking about ports with which Grimsby is in direct and increasingly intense competition. For instance, it is competing with Hull for landings. Hull has no processing plant, so no charges will be imposed in that regard—if, indeed, charges are imposed at all. If they are imposed, they will be imposed in 2001, or perhaps later. Grimsby must also compete with north-east Scotland and parts such as Aberdeen and Peterhead. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) will know, the North of Scotland Water Authority intends to set up a plant under the private finance initiative, but bids will not come in until next year and we do not know when the plant will be completed.

The competition is intense. Because of the shortage of fish, Grimsby market's throughput has fallen by 25 per cent. since its establishment. The problem is that this is a mobile industry. The merchants and traders can do their business anywhere. Grimsby merchants buy in Hull; Hull merchants buy in Grimsby. If there is a threat of much heavier charges in Grimsby, the merchants will simply transact their business elsewhere.

Fish can be landed anywhere. Why should they be landed in a place where charges will be so much higher than they are in every other fishing port?

The strength of Grimsby market lies in the fact that a large number of merchants are competing, and they set good prices. The competition sets good prices. If a substantial proportion of merchants go bust because of these charges—20 or more firms may go bust—there will be less competition to set the prices. The possibility of bankruptcy is imminent for several. Anglian Water says that the increase amounts to no more than 1 per cent. of annual turnover, but the Sea Fish Industry Authority estimates that in 1994 processors' profit amounted to only 1.5 per cent. of sales, so most of the industry's profit will be eliminated by the charges. Bankruptcies will result, and firms will go under.

Grimsby's ability to set a good price will be lessened, as will its attraction in regard to fish landings. The charges will deal a blow to our competitive position in the United Kingdom, and, when they are imposed everywhere—as they will be—will deal a blow to the competitive position of British fishing, as opposed to the European position. The directive leaves it open, but I have no doubt that if charges are imposed everywhere, they will not be imposed in the same heavy-handed fashion elsewhere. Other countries do not have the hard-nosed water companies that we have.

Other countries are helping their fishing industries to adjust. Denmark, for instance—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will in a minute, when I will be making a point directly relevant to my hon. Friend's constituency.

Denmark is giving its industry relocation grants. France is giving its processors 70 per cent. grants to enable them to install treatment equipment in their plants; 35 per cent. comes from the chamber of commerce, while 35 per cent. is provided by European grant money. Other countries are coping without higher charges, and that will deal a blow to the competitive position of Grimsby and the British industry as a whole. It will also deal a blow to fishermen, because the cost of fishing will increase. Fish is already experiencing difficulties in the supermarkets. Demand is down because the price is up: people are turning to alternatives such as chicken. As a result, there is surplus capacity on the processing side. We are already seeing manufacturers restructuring and jobs being lost, and the charges represent a further prod in that direction, because they will increase the cost of fish in the supermarket.

As soon as this became known, I was confronted by an outcry. I began corresponding with Anglian Water. The joys of corresponding with Anglian Water must be experienced to be believed: I really ought to publish the correspondence on the internet. It involves all the pleasure of corresponding with an "I speak your charge" machine that replies only, "We must do this in order to clean up the environment. Charges will go up. You will enjoy it later."

Anglian Water has pretty much refused to budge. It did agree that its initial sampling procedures, on which it has based its charges, were wrong. I am glad that it agrees about that because the procedures were wrong, so Anglian Water has made no great concession in that respect.

I arranged a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. He urged compromise. Anglian Water said, "In that case, we will start the charges one month later." That, too, was no great concession because Anglian Water could not have started the charges in June anyway. It also said that it would limit the increase this year to two and a half times the existing charge, or 250 per cent when inflation is 2 per cent., provided that the full charge—up to 500 per cent. for smaller merchants, which will amount to about £250,000 for one of our biggest processors, Bluecrest come in—next year, so Anglian Water gets the merchants into its net, and then closes the trap.

Anyone who protests about the charges is now being referred by Anglian Water to its legal department. Such is Anglian Water's desire for accommodation and compromise. There is still to be an increase of 2.5 times, and a damaging blow is still to be dealt to Grimsby—and it is based on inaccurate information. Samples of the effluent that is discharged vary widely. The Sea Fish Industry Authority has carried out checks, and its findings are very different from those of Anglian Water, whose findings from surveys and spot checks fluctuate wildly.

There is no legitimate basis for these charges. It is a basic principle that charges should reflect the actual costs. Anglian Water does not know the actual costs, and it therefore has no legal or reasonable basis for the charges.

There has been no co-operation with the Fish Merchants Association, because Anglian Water has been unhelpful on the "divide and rule" principle. Indeed, Ofwat wrote to me on 28 June saying that

"Anglian Water did not properly consult fish merchants". properly.

That was a crushing indictment of Anglian Water.

Fish merchants have had no time to implement changes in their procedures to reduce effluent. All sorts of changes could be made, but they all take time, investment and planning. Merchants could use less water—which they use at the behest of their customers, who want the product to be clean and not to be filleted in dirty water—or they could arrange for primary treatment of effluent, or they could remove solids, which could be collected by the council. The big processors could construct a dissolved air flotation plant—which would cost £250,000, so it really is only for the big boys. Consents for direct sea discharges could be obtained. Small business men could be grouped, so that they might better cope with the charges or install plant to reduce effluent.

The Sea Fish Industry Authority is prepared to advise on alternatives; even Anglian Water could help and advise, but it has done nothing. The fact is that there has been no time to act on any alternative, because Anglian wants its money—its pound of fish—now.

The fishing industry in north-east Scotland has brought in environmental consultants—CORDAR—financed by local authorities, to tell it how it might reduce effluent and, therefore, the charges that it pays. In Grimsby, we have had no time to take similar action.

Anglian Water has not even considered the regulator's suggestions. The Environment Agency told me that

"scope exists for Anglian to present an argument to OFWAT that Grimsby fish merchants are a special case and their costs should be phased in."

To which, in a letter to me, dated 6 July, Anglian Water simply replied:

"Using the economic argument would set a precedent applicable to other groups".

Gosh—how awful it would be if people were able to contest charges on economic grounds!

On 7 April, the Office of Water Services suggested to Anglian that

"charges should be delayed until waste minimisation and agreed sampling procedures have been put in place."

There was no response.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has finally been stirred, and realised that the charges will damage the industry. MAFF urged caution in applying the charges, which are only one of many burdens being imposed on the fishing industry. MAFF has received no response from Anglian on the matter.

Grimsby is on the front line of this issue, as all the other water companies are waiting to see what happens there before imposing their own charges elsewhere. Some companies, such as Yorkshire Water, are being a little more sensible about the issue. However, South West Water is proposing increasing water charges from 3'7p to £5 per cubic metre. North-east Scotland's pelagic industry is facing a 28-fold increase in water charges. Therefore, everyone is waiting to see what happens on the front line.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) is interested in related events in Lowestoft, and I hope that he will lead the resistance to similar charging there.

Fish merchants in Lowestoft are watching the situation with great trepidation, as Anglian Water is just about to commence work, just north of Lowestoft, on a new sewage works, and we fear that the same charging regime may be imposed in my area. My hon. Friend has made the point very well that no business can face such crippling charges, and pointed out the irony that fish merchants' waste itself does not harm the marine environment.

I also tell my hon. Friend that my experience of Anglian Water is essentially the same as his—Anglian is arrogant and insensitive. Moreover, Anglian itself was recently fined £14,000 for polluting the beaches at Lowestoft, resulting in the loss of a European blue flag.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which reinforces the argument.

I should also emphasise that these Grimsby merchants are new Anglian Water customers. Previously, Associated British Ports added 18 per cent. to its charges, and then divided up those charges and billed individual businesses. When ABP discovered the size of the charge increases, it decided to let Anglian Water cut out the middle man and crucify its customers directly. Those Grimsby merchants are therefore new customers, for whom Anglian should allow a one-year moratorium in applying the new charges so that a proper and legal charging basis may be agreed, and customers advised on how to reduce charges. After the moratorium, the new charges could be phased in.

I also ask the Government to consider how they might assist the British fishing industry, the competitiveness of which is being affected by a massive increase in charges. Our industry needs help and support which has been made available in Europe, but not in the United Kingdom. Something has to be done to encourage our industry. It needs encouragement and advice on training, and proper investment in new procedures to reduce effluent—which, consequently, would reduce bills. I am sure that no other European Union member state would insist that the new charging regime should be implemented as fully and rigorously as Anglian is trying to do.

Despite the temptation—as hon. Members will see, I am labouring under strong feeling on the issue—I shall not apply John Edmond's two-word description, one word of which was "greedy", to Anglian Water. I do not want to call Anglian greedy—its behaviour will prove whether it is. Nevertheless, Anglian Water has the power to do anything. It has the power to establish a moratorium and to phase in the charges gradually. It should exercise its power for the benefit of our fishing industry, which has been very hard hit, and to create good relations with its customers. It is a monstrous and unforgivable tactic for Anglian to use its legal department to threaten customers who express doubts about the size of the charge increases.

Anglian Water's only defence is but a sophisticated form of the Nuremberg defence. Anglian tells me, "We're improving the environment—everyone wants that". Anglian said:

"We are merely seeking payment for the services we are providing".

The Nuremberg defence was, "I have killed you for your own good and for the good of others", and Anglian has taken the same line.

Our fishing industry accepts the need to clean up the environment. It has cleaned up its own environment by using an enormous amount of water. However, it cannot absorb such a huge increase in charges. We are not at the 11th or the 12th hour—it is 12.30. Nevertheless, I tell Anglian Water that the charges will be resisted. I cannot advise merchants to pay the charges, or say, "You've got to behave reasonably towards Anglian Water because Anglian has behaved unreasonably and inconsistently towards the fishing industry."

I tell Anglian Water this, "If you persevere in blind, unaccommodating, inconsiderate and greedy behaviour, you will irreparably damage the fishing industry and—specifically, and in advance of the rest—the Grimsby fishing industry. You'll kill the goose that lays your golden eggs. If you do that, I'll not forgive you, Grimsby will not forgive you, and the fishing industry certainly won't forgive you."

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate. It is a very important debate not only because of the importance of the United Kingdom fishing and food processing industries, but because of the importance of the communities in the areas represented by my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the Chamber.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, but also to other Labour Members for attending the debate. It is noticeable that only Labour Members have attended this very important debate on an issue affecting not only Grimsby but many other fishing communities across Britain. I am sad that Opposition Members have not bothered even to be here.

My hon. Friend has a long history of supporting and expressing the concerns of the fishing industries. I remember that, long before I was elected to the House—even before my hon. Friend was a Member of Parliament—in the mid-1970s, he was campaigning on issues affecting the fishing industries. Similarly, some of my other Friends in the Chamber, in their short time in the House, have expressed in the House concerns about food processing and fishing companies in their constituencies. My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) persistently raise their concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) also raises matters of concern frequently, but fishing is a devolved matter in Scotland, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who deals with these matters in Scotland, is present in the Chamber.

Order. I ought to point out to the Minister, as the Chair has frequently had to do to hon. Members, that half-hour Adjournment debates are the property of the hon. Member who introduces them. They are not wide-ranging debates, and the absence or presence of other hon. Members has no significance for them. The debate is a matter between the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister.

I appreciate that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I referred to my hon. Friends because of the enormous number of representations made to me before the debate. I realise that the debate is narrow and time limited, but I recognise the concerns of many of my hon. Members.

This is a serious matter, but I must disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby by saying that the Government do not have the power to intervene in the charges set by Anglian Water this year. Under the law, we cannot tell Anglian Water what to charge. Neither Ministers nor Ofwat have the power to control charges, provided companies do not discriminate unduly and remain within price limits. Our only power—we have used it as best we can—is to encourage all parties to search for an agreed solution.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment recently met a delegation led by my hon. Friend. We have not been able to achieve an agreement, but I am more than willing to meet my hon. Friend, and others, to discuss their concerns. We shall use our best endeavours to gain some movement.

The Government value the fishing industry, and substantial grants for a range of improvements have been made to fish processors under the European Union fish processing and marketing scheme. Since the processing and marketing and port facilities teams were launched in 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made grant awards totalling more than £8 million to English fish processors, markets and fishing ports. The Sea Fish Industry Authority, which is sponsored by that Ministry, recently produced a 50-page guidance note on water and effluent minimisation, which has been sent free of charge to fish processors. The document contains guidance to fish processors on how to identify areas of wastage and minimise increases in costs.

We support the determination of our fishing industries to be fully competitive internationally. My hon. Friend suggested that we should do more than other countries to improve the environment, and he said that firms abroad receive financial help for environmental improvements. Each EU country supports its industries in different ways to suit local arrangements, but there are legal limits on assisting industries financially without falling foul of competition rules.

If my hon. Friend has any evidence that other EU states have supported their fishing industries beyond the limits of competition rules, it would be a matter for the European Commission to investigate. Other member states have different priorities and contribute different shares to the EU budget. Their fishing industries are in different stages of development and vary in their relative importance to national economies. It would not be appropriate to seek to match the spending of other countries in these areas. Spain, for example, receives a much larger allocation than anyone else, because of the size of the Spanish fishing fleet and the relative poverty of the areas concerned.

To provide decent services and to protect the environment, it is reasonable to expect all users of services to pay their way. In particular, charges should broadly follow the principle that the polluter pays. Producers—including the fish processing industry—of trade effluent hitherto discharged with little or no treatment have benefited for many years from relatively low charges.

My hon. Friend mentions the polluter pays principle, but one of our major difficulties is that different water authorities apply the rules differently. The industry is highly competitive, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) talks of possible job losses in Grimsby, I have to hope that some of those jobs might come to Aberdeen, but the playing field is not level.

I take that point, and I sympathise on the points made about the introduction of new charges. That is why I have offered to broker a deal.

Although the average bills of fish firms have been lower than average household bills, the firms produce much more effluent than households do. Consequently, their bills per cubic metre have been lower on average. According to Anglian Water, the previous charges to fish firms in the Grimsby area were about 25p per cubic metre. The increased charges work out at about 66p per cubic metre—just over half the volumetric price that domestic customers pay. Given the volume of fish firms' effluent, it is remarkable that previous trade effluent charges for some firms were as low as £112 when the average household sewerage bill in Anglian Water's area was £164 in 1998–99.

A few fish firms have claimed, as a reason for continuing to pay low charges, that they produce natural waste. However, fish processing includes processes such as battering and crumbing. It also produces discharges with a high content of putrescible solid waste. By its very nature, the industry is dirty, and effluent can contain blood, offal, oil, flour and other residues. The effluent is comparatively polluting and expensive to treat.

In England and Wales, since before privatisation, trade effluent charges have been calculated according to the Mogden formula, under which charges are set partly according to the nature of the effluent and partly according to the level of treatment undertaken. That is in line with the polluter pays principle, which we fully endorse.

Fish firms are being asked to meet the higher costs of treating their effluent to at least secondary standards, as is required by the urban waste water treatment directive. We support the directive's main aims, and I shall outline some of the main improvements that it requires. There should at least be minimum requirements for the treatment of all significant discharges of urban waste water from the sewerage network to fresh waters, coastal waters and estuaries. Secondary treatment—that is, treatment by a biological process—is required as the norm for urban waste water discharges.

The directive requires that the most potentially polluting urban waste water discharges—in other words, those into sensitive areas—should have been treated by the end of 1998. Those serving communities of 15,000 people or more must be treated to secondary standard or higher by the end of 2000, but treatment of smaller discharges can be deferred until the end of 2005. We consider that all of that is right, and we want improvements to be introduced as quickly as possible—

Order. We must now begin the next debate.

I am tempted to move to the Dispatch Box, given the absence of Conservative Members, but—

Order. This is the second time I have had to intervene. These half-hour Adjournment debates are the personal property of the hon. Member introducing them. The relevance of any other hon. Member attending them is not at issue; they are a matter only for the hon. Member introducing the debate and the Minister replying.

The south-west region suffers from an outdated conception of its prosperity that is based either on an old-fashioned view of current conditions—often resulting from people's childhood experience of pleasant summer holidays—or a view that the east of the region, which is prosperous, is somehow typical of the entire region. In a sense, we are the victims of our own marketing strategy. We spend thousands of pounds marketing the area to the rest of the nation and overseas as a place that is good to visit, with a high-quality environment, good standards of accommodation and plenty of attractions. That tends to hide some of the social problems that lie behind the facade of the marketing strategy.

Cornwall's designation as an objective 1 region demonstrates that there are substantial problems in the west of the region, but those problems do not end at the Tamar bridge. My Cornish colleagues may even agree with me when I say as a Devonian that parts of my county are indistinguishable from the county of Cornwall: the tin mine ruins of west Devon, the chapels of north Devon, the fishing port of Brixham and, linking both counties as a main centre of education and employment, the city of Plymouth, which provides thousands of jobs, as well as education and health services, for people who live in Cornwall.

The Plymouth-Torbay-Devon arc essentially represents a dividing line between the prosperity of the main south-west region and the Cornwall-Devon periphery, where unemployment is significantly higher and GDP per capita considerably lower than the national, regional or European averages. Indeed, 56.5 per cent. of people in the arc area are economically active compared with 62.6 per cent. of people in the south-west generally, and 16 per cent. are recipients of income support, compared with just 12 per cent. in the rest of the region. Average earnings are 84 per cent. of the UK figure and our GDP per capita figure is 82 per cent. of the European average. The figure for my constituency of Torbay is equivalent to that for Cornwall, at 71 per cent.

The area's historic economic rationale and its recent problems derive from its natural environment. Inland, the importance of agriculture and the natural environment dominates, while, on the coast, the traditional industries of tourism, fishing, defence and support services have been in decline for some time.

The decline of dominant sectors has affected every part of the north, west and south of the county, and includes a substantial decline in industrial employment in Plymouth, the slow and inexorable decline in agriculture-related employment throughout the rural part of the area, a continuing decline in the service sector, particularly resort tourism employment in Torbay and other coastal locations, and a decline in fishing and related industries.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a powerful case. We in Devon are delighted that Cornwall has received objective 1 status. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that if the Devon arc does not achieve objective 2 status, investment and jobs will go to Cornwall or remain in the prosperous areas to the east of the Devon arc, leaving us with a corridor of neglect?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is already evidence of that. A prospective call centre that wished to locate in my constituency is now looking at Cornwall rather than Devon because it has objective 1 status. There could be more such cases in future if our bid is not successful. One of the criteria laid down by the European Commission—which is also part of the Government's remit—is to assist areas adjacent to those that receive the maximum objective 1 support.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will know that we in Cornwall were very grateful for the support of colleagues from Devon for our bid for objective 1 status. Is he aware of how much we recognise the importance of Devon's objective 2 bid? It is important to acknowledge that we are not in competition here. One reason for Cornwall's success was the unanimity across the wider south-west that we needed objective 1 status. It is vital that the message gets through that Cornwall is also calling for objective 2 status for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, just as Devon called for objective 1 status for us.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Other partnerships of support are emerging throughout the south-west. I was very pleased about the support from Somerset, Gloucester and Bristol and from right across the south-west, as well as from Cornwall.

Our economic problems did not occur overnight with the loss of a major employer or an industry such as steel or shipbuilding, but the social and economic effects are just as severe. The question that has to be answered is not whether the area should receive assistance but when.

The Plymouth-Torbay-Devon arc bid is not an immediate reaction to a new set of events, but a considered response to a long-term trend. Traditional employment opportunities have been in long-term decline, new sectors have failed to emerge and low-wage and often part-time employment dominates the labour market.

The trend towards low-wage and part-time employment has increased in recent years. The majority of jobs in sectors under threat, such as fishing and defence-related industries, have been full time and higher paid. As those jobs have declined, they have been replaced by predominantly part-time and lower-paid service sector jobs. Even in lower-paid industries, such as agriculture and tourism, there has been a move away from year-round, full-time jobs to more seasonal part-time jobs.

Even though there is a strong and vibrant hotel and catering industry in the region, and especially in my own constituency, it supports far fewer people in the area than it did in the past. Gone are the days when a small guesthouse could generate enough to provide a sole income for the owners. Gone are the summer months when family-owned local shops would get a boost in trade that stopped the business from going under in the winter months. Gone are the week-long, bucket-and-spade holidaymakers in their thousands, whose holiday pay circulated in the local economy for months after their visit.

Today's visitor will spend more, but less of that money will stay in the local economy. It will be spent in national accommodation chains, nationally owned petrol stations and superstores, nationally run entertainment centres and tourist attractions and nationally franchised fast food outlets. Nationalisation in the literal sense has seen to that. Globalisation has had similar effects in fisheries, agriculture and defence—the other main south-west industries.

One of the main consequences of those changes is that well-educated, trained and skilled labour is fast becoming our main export to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Our problems were recognised under the far south-west objective 5b programme, the Plymouth objective 2 programme, through funding drawn down under European social fund objective 3 and Community initiatives such as PESCA, LEADER and KONVER.

The far south-west has an established track record of successfully implementing a number of European programmes, but the nature, mechanics and scale of previous programmes have only slowed the economic decline of the region. The 1994–99 programmes can be regarded as the start of the process of reversing decline, but it is far from complete.

The intention behind the new objective 2 bid is to build on past programmes. Already, a comprehensive partnership of local councils, businesses, community groups and voluntary organisations have come together and identified the main drivers for change. They include competitive small and medium enterprises. The long-term prosperity of the region is dependent on a strong, outward-looking and competitive business sector.

Technology and knowledge-based industries are also important. The growth of industries in which physical location and accessibility are less important presents opportunities for the far south-west. For example, 70 per cent. of all internet traffic in north America is transported on equipment made in south Devon. With our skilled work force, clean environment and strong university bases in Plymouth and Exeter, the area is very well placed.

We need to support sectors in transition. Adjustments in the agriculture, fisheries, defence and tourism sectors have hurt the local economy. With support from all four of the strands in the objective 2 programme, we can help those industries to create new opportunities and improve their competitiveness.

The hon. Gentleman is wise to have given way to me, because I intend to support him on this occasion and say what an excellent initiative he has taken in securing this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and I share his sentiments and support his case, and we hope that the Minister will be able to give us some good news.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the major factors in getting new money into Devon is that we should have a good transport network? Does he share our concern about the lack of railway development and agree that, without good air and rail transport, new industries will not want to locate in our area?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and agree that transport links are crucial. We may be able to tackle some of the transport problems through objective 2 funding, so it is doubly crucial that we secure it.

Community regeneration is another important economic driver. The major task will be to tackle the severe deprivation in the region's major urban centres as well as in some of the smaller towns. The failure of trickle-down approaches to the regeneration of deprived communities is now widely accepted. The region has a strong track record in community-led and co-operatively structured initiatives, with wealth and job creation centred on local needs, local labour markets and local solutions.

I think that the case has been made. It is one with which the Minister is familiar, as he has taken the trouble to visit the region and sample the reality of our economic circumstances. For that, we are grateful, and we assure him that a warm west country welcome awaits him should he want to make a return visit.

We await with confidence the Government's decision on which areas will qualify for the new objective 2 programme. There is all-party support for our case, and a wide partnership of councils, businesses and voluntary organisations is working together and hoping for the best. We know that we meet the criteria and we can demonstrate that we have the networks and partnerships to maximise the opportunities that objective 2 designation will bring.

We would like a hint that we are moving in the right direction, that the Government recognise that there are structural problems behind the marketing image that we create to attract visitors to our area, and that assistance is at long last on the way.

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for securing this debate. We are trying to bring more sense to the way in which we spend public funds in the English regions and to consider more strategically all the elements that need to be put together to tackle the problems in areas such as his, which, as he says, I visited a few months ago. The regional development agencies have a role to play in advising Government on the disbursement of the single regeneration budget, on the development of our assisted areas map and regional selective assistance, and on the structural funds.

We are genuinely trying not only to formulate joined-up policies for the regions but to get joined-up money to implement them. The representations of the RDAs have made this an interesting period.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). This debate is as important to my constituents as it is to his.

The difficulties of the economy in Plymouth are deep-seated. Is my right hon. Friend saying that we will be able to tackle the disparities through that joined-up thinking? The Treasury's public expenditure statistical analysis shows that the south-west is among the three regions receiving the least identified general Government expenditure. As he probably knows, in 1996–97 Scotland got £4,756 per head; Wales £4,553; the north-east £4,235; and London £4,601. By contrast, the south-west got only £3,651, or a whole £1,000 per resident less than Scotland. I hope that we will be able to begin to redress that, and the importance of objective 2 in that respect cannot be overstated.

I cannot answer directly, because I do not know the composition of all the figures, but my hon. Friend makes a telling point.

We must take a strategic approach, and land use and transport planning are major parts of that. I hope that when the examination in public for the regional planning guidance for the area takes place we will be able to factor in some of the problems. One of the RDA's first actions was to underline its support for the extension of the runway at Plymouth airport: a decision clearly taken with an economic as well as an integrated transport perspective.

The hon. Member for Torbay eloquently put the case for his area and for Plymouth. As the Minister with responsibility for the English regions, I welcome the opportunity to reply to the points that have been made.

At the Berlin summit in March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured a very good deal on European funding for the regions in Britain, and many areas of the United Kingdom will benefit from funding for economic development and regeneration over the next seven years. We have always accepted the need for member states to take cuts in the size of their population covered by the funds to make enlargement affordable—that has been generally agreed in the House—but the cuts have to be fair. We are pleased to say that we have negotiated an outcome that we believe to be fair and affordable for all future and existing member states, including the United Kingdom.

Figures released by the Commission on 1 July confirm that the UK got a good deal at Berlin. UK regions will get funding of more than £10 billion for 2000-06 for economic development and regeneration. That funding will be good for jobs and investment in the regions. Money will be spent on projects involving business support, education, transport and the environment. We aim to target the support directly to the UK's neediest areas.

That deal shows the Government's commitment to maximising the benefits of European Union membership for the people of Britain.

As the Minister probably knows, a third of Torbay is in my constituency.

A quarter.

A quarter, is it? I thought a third.

The Minister mentioned the most needy areas. Does he accept that the area under discussion is a needy area?

I shall come to that in a minute.

A unique package of support for Northern Ireland was secured at Berlin, as well as a special deal for the highlands and islands; both areas will continue to receive generous support of about £1 billion in total. Cornwall, West Wales and the Valleys, and South Yorkshire—my area—will receive objective 1 funding for the first time, and Merseyside will continue to be eligible.

It is not a great accolade to get objective 1. I think that I said that when I was in Cornwall. We do not aim for objective 1 or 2. We want to be at the top of the wealth creation league in Europe. That is what we have to strive for. I hope that, if I still have this job in seven years' time, I will not have to read out a catalogue of areas that have got objective 1 or 2 funding.

The Minister is making a powerful point about market forces, but does he concede that, in our part of the world, there are, rightly, significant planning constraints, and that objective 2 would help us to get the seed corn investment in jobs that we so urgently require?

I take that point, and it is why we are in the process of modernising the planning system. I have explained our new planning guidance on housing to the House several times, and have just done so to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. When I was in the Torbay area a few months ago, 350 workers had just been made redundant at Nortel. However, I spoke to the firm yesterday and was told that 500 people have been taken on to work in a new development. The Government want to assist wealth creation by business, through transport, land-use planning, and the economic benefits stemming from the regional development agencies.

Perhaps the most notable success in the Berlin summit discussions on the structural funds was to secure the two thirds safety net for most UK regions. Given the cuts in funding coverage, the safety net will be of significant benefit to the UK, as it will maintain two thirds of the existing population coverage under objectives 2 and 5b, which have been amalgamated. The original plans were not fair, and we had to negotiate hard to secure the safety net, which means that about 13.8 million people—rather than the 6.5 million originally proposed—will be covered between 2000 to 2006 under objective 2. That shows the extent of the Prime Minister's success in the negotiations.

On 30 March, the Government issued a public consultation paper, announced to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, to determine eligible areas for objective 2 funding. My hon. Friend invited interested parties to submit their views on possible eligible areas, as well as comments on preferred geographical areas—the NUTS areas to be covered—and outlines of the criteria that might be used to determine eligible areas.

That consultation ended on 25 May. More than 360 submissions were received from a wide range of individuals and organisations—indeed, 41 Members of Parliament wrote in support of their constituencies. I am very aware of the importance of the structural funds to the regions, as underlined by the response.

My hon. Friend and I have seen an enormous number of delegations over the past few months. As I said earlier, I have met the RDAs and representatives from each of the regional and local partnerships to discuss their objective 2 proposals. That has all contributed to the process of drawing together priorities for the proposed areas. The work of the RDAs has been a significant contribution to what has been a mature discussion in Whitehall about dispensing public funds, and I am grateful for it.

We also need to bear in mind the fact that this is just one of a range of instruments to address need at regional and local level. The Government are committed to providing a strategic and co-ordinated approach to tackling need, however it is manifested. That means matching the instrument appropriately to need.

During my meetings with regional delegations, I have emphasised the need to ensure that their objective 2 proposals are inclusive of other forms of funding, such as the single regeneration budget and the new deal for communities. The structural funds should be part of a funding package for the next seven years, led by the regional economic strategy. It is unfortunate that the RDAs will not produce their economic strategies until the end of the year, but they became operational only on 1 April. However, the RDAs' emerging economic strategies have contributed to their thinking, and they have been able to factor some of that thinking into their representations to Government about how the regeneration funds should be dispensed.

My Department, in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments, is now looking at the criteria and areas for funding based on local and regional representations, to help draw up the UK's list of areas eligible for objective 2 status, with a view to submission to the European Commission in the summer.

However, I stress that no decisions have been made yet. All areas will be considered equally for inclusion on the basis of need and against objective criteria, whether they are industrial, rural, urban or fisheries areas. The Commission's proposed breakdown of percentage covered by each strand—10 per cent. for industrial areas, 5 per cent. for rural areas, 2 per cent. for urban areas and 1 per cent. for fisheries areas—is indicative at EU level, not at member state level.

The Commission's definitive position is not yet known. It has released the amounts of money involved, but it has not yet clarified the criteria. We are waiting for that clarification, and we shall start work on the various maps as soon as we get it.

Does the Commission have to make that decision before any announcement of which areas qualify can be made? Will the Minister say who will make the decision, and how? Will it be made known first to the House?

I would hope that the announcement will be made to the House, but of course that cannot happen if the House has risen for the summer recess. As soon as we get the information from the Commission—and we hope that that will be sooner rather than later—we will make the announcement, but the timing is not altogether in our gift. I hope that the Commission can be hurried up a little, but we shall have to wait and see.

Discussions will take place with the Commission after we submit our proposed areas to it. We expect that agreement will be forthcoming in the autumn. An announcement will be made of those areas that we propose to the Commission for eligibility under objective 2.

As I said, areas losing full objective 2 and 5b status will receive continued funding, at a reduced rate. They will have the flexibility to profile spending across the six years of transition that we have negotiated. The transition fund will be worth about £450 million, and will ensure continued funding for many areas that currently benefit from the structural funds.

I am sure that all hon. Members welcome objective 1 status for Cornwall. I hope that the county uses this unique opportunity effectively.

May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the people of Cornwall? I know that they are universally grateful for the work that he has done to secure objective 1 status for the county.

I thank my hon. Friend, and can tell her that I shall be going to Cornwall for my holidays this summer, as I have done for the past 15 years. When the beauties of Torquay and Torbay were described earlier, I was reminded of my honeymoon, which was spent in Torquay. I have fond memories of the area.

Cornwall will receive about £315 million over seven years from 2000, which will go towards the regeneration of its infrastructure and economy. That will be a much needed and welcome boost for the area. I referred earlier to my meetings with delegations from the regions. During my meeting in May with the south-west delegation, led by Jill Barrow, chief executive of the RDA, we discussed, among other things, the case for Torbay and Plymouth's eligibility for objective 2 status. As I said, well before that meeting I had visited Torbay in October 1998, at the invitation of the hon. Member for Torbay. I was made very much aware then of the importance of gaining objective 2 status for the economic and social regeneration of the area.

I have taken note of what has been said in the debate, and of the powerful case that has been made for objective 2 status for the Plymouth and Torbay area. As I have said, the Government have not yet finalised their proposals for the new map.

Does the Minister accept that Torbay is a needy area and requires objective 2 status?

The representations made on behalf of the area have placed it in its rightful position in terms of the needs of the south-west as a whole.

It is not what it was on the Minister's honeymoon.

That is true, but we shall consider the whole picture. I therefore cannot predict the outcome of the consultation for any area, and it would be wrong to try. We have been objective and transparent in the way that we have considered the wider issues of regeneration, beyond the structural funds. However. I can assure the hon. Member for Torbay that the case for Plymouth and Torbay—as for all areas in the UK—is being carefully considered.

It is just over a year since I first had occasion to bring to the attention of the House the bullying and anti-competitive practices of Transco, a division of BG plc. I cannot decide whether my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry is more likely to begin his remarks by saying, "We must stop meeting like this," or with the somewhat less comradely, "Oh no, not you again." In the hope that it will be the former, let me start by bearing some good news.

Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure to stand with my constituent, Mr. Andrew Duffield, outside the High Court, where his solicitors had read a statement in open court announcing that BG plc had made an out-of-court settlement of £101,000 plus costs to Mr. Duffield and to his company, EGS—Exoteric Gas Solutions—in respect of the libel perpetrated against that company, which I had brought to the Minister's attention in last year's debate. That is indeed good news. I take the opportunity to thank him for his close and continuing interest in the case. But for his interest, BG plc might have taken even longer to capitulate. BG plc has deep pockets and it is hard for any impartial observer to do other than believe that it attempted to use its huge financial resources to bully a fledgling business into submission by forcing EGS to incur massive legal costs before settlement of the case.

If all I had to report were good news, however, I would not have presumed to detain the House this afternoon. In fact, I will expose lies and prevarication at the highest level in BG plc and Transco, and what must either be incompetence or a shameless lack of resolve on the part of the supposed regulator in the industry, the Office of Gas Supply.

Beneath all that, I will show that Transco's illegal and anti-competitive practices continue unabated, despite an enforcement order that was issued by Ofgas. Most disturbing of all, I will provide evidence that public safety has been jeopardised by Transco's change in response-time targets and in procedures for handling uncontrolled gas escapes.

I must provide the House with some background. The Gas Act 1986, which was amended in 1995, introduced competition to the business of connecting premises to the mains gas network. Previously, the market had been a monopoly controlled by British Gas-Transco.

In January 1997, Mr. Duffield, who had been a senior manager at Transco, left to set up a specialist gas connection company, EGS, to compete against Transco. Under the Gas Act, Transco is charged with custodianship of the gas mains network and all competitors such as EGS must apply to it for a quotation for the final-stage connection of any new development.

Without that information, EGS cannot provide an accurate quotation to the end customer for the cost of the scheme. For that reason, Transco has a statutory obligation not to abuse its position by delaying a quotation to its competitor to advantage its connections team, which is competing for the direct business. Nor may it over-quote for the final connection to EGS in order to raise the price quoted by EGS to the end customer, thereby making its bid uncompetitive.

It was those statutory obligations that I accused BG plc of ignoring in the debate of 9 June last year. I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Richard Giordano, chairman of BG plc, to Mr. Duffield dated 24 June 1998. It says:

"I am fully aware of the statements made by Mr. Gardiner M.P. at the Adjournment debate in the House of Commons having received a full transcript from Hansard of the debate including the Minister's reply. BG plc is furnishing the Minister with a statement on the main issues that were raised, a copy of which will be passed to you."

That was a lie. Despite three reminder letters, no such statement was ever passed to Mr. Duffield.

I have a copy of an affidavit sworn by Mr. Christopher Lefevre, a director of Transco, in which he deals with the circumstances surrounding the production of the libellous e-mail, the same e-mail in respect of which BG plc has had to pay £101,000 plus costs. That e-mail was headed:

"BG plc Transco Memorandum from the Area Directors to all Managers of District Operations."

In the affidavit, Mr. Lefevre recalls that

"Phil Nolan, who was then Area Director for East Area, assumed the role of acting Area Director for South Area."

Thus, Mr. Nolan, in two capacities, can be said to have sent the e-mail that was from all the area directors.

More than that, in the affidavit, Mr. Lefevre recalls that

"Phil Nolan asked me to deal with a letter sent by OFGAS".

He continues:

"I had a general discussion about the issue with David Ashbourne, the Manager of Legal Services and decided to issue the e-mail of 27 March 1997 instructing staff not to deal with the Plaintiffs"—

that is, EGS.

On 1 September 1997, the same Phil Nolan wrote to Mr. Duffield specifically to confirm:

"I have issued no such instruction and there are no such instructions to that effect in place."

That, too, is a lie. Phil Nolan has since been promoted to become managing director of Transco. Like the chairman of BG plc, Mr. Giordano, he remains in post.

The Minister is aware that, in February, Ofgas finally issued a decision document relating to its investigation of Transco. The document concluded that

"there have been unacceptable delays in Transco's quotations for connections, that there has been overcharging and that Transco's behaviour is anti-competitive".

It goes on to say:

"There is a likelihood of continuing breaches, if action is not taken",

and states unequivocally that

"information provided by Transco in the course of the investigation has proved to be untrue".

At last we have some tough talk from the regulator. It is two years too late perhaps, but, despite the fact that Ofgas stubbornly refuses to interpret the Gas Act as allowing it to punish past action, at least it insists on compliance with statute and the introduction of a system of compensation for any future breaches. The order states:

"The scheme shall provide as a minimum for payments to be made in such amounts in such circumstances and on such terms as are provided in Attachment 2 to this order."

Let us examine attachment 2, which deals with claims for compensation. Paragraph 7, subsection (ii) provides that:

"If, before the expiry of five working days from the submission of the claim the quotation is adjusted by Transco so that the reason why it was thought to be excessive has been addressed to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who submitted the claim no compensation shall be payable by Transco".

That may not pass the crystal clear standard of plain English, but the effect is devastating. It means that Transco has every incentive to continue overcharging in the certain knowledge that, even if it is caught out, all it will need to do is agree to reduce the charge to the proper level within five working days. It will then not have to pay any compensation at all—not even the client's costs of showing that it has overcharged. That is not regulation, but a fraudster's charter.

The case of Mrs. Moyies provides an example of Transco's racketeering and of Ofgas's total ineffectiveness as a regulator. She lived in an area of Cumbernauld that was not supplied from the gas mains. She obtained a quote from Transco to have her home connected at a cost of £2,730.17, an exorbitant sum, but she calculated that, within three years, the savings on her Calor gas bills would have recouped that enormous investment. She borrowed the money and got connected by Transco.

Over the next few weeks, Mrs. Moyies's supply was cut off by Transco as it connected neighbouring properties. Those were connected for £146 per house. When she complained, her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna), who is my good friend, took up her case and brought it to the attention of Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council. Transco insisted that the charge was correct. Mrs. Moyies had to pay for the extension of the mains and it was then permissible for Transco to spur off that extension to neighbouring properties. Neither Ofgas nor the Gas Consumers Council had the expertise to show that Transco had overcharged.

Fortunately for Mrs. Moyies, Mr. Duffield heard of the case on Radio 4's "You and Yours" programme. He was able to demonstrate that Transco had overcharged by 120 per cent. Mrs. Moyies's bill was reduced from £2,730.17 to £1,231.14. Transco had overcharged in accordance with its own statement of charges, which it published and which were provided to the Director General of Ofgas herself.

In a letter of 5 May 1999, some six months after the original complaint to Ofgas, Mr. Graham Boorer, gas distribution engineer of Ofgas, wrote:

"Transco accepts that the charge was not in accordance with its Condition 5 charging methodology and that it overcharged for the connection."

What did Ofgas do? It looked carefully at condition 5 paragraph (7) of the Department of Trade and Industry's standard conditions of public gas transporters' licences, which states:

"Where a statement in respect of the determination of such charges as are mentioned in paragraph (3) has been furnished to the Director under paragraph (3) or (4) then unless and until it has been superseded by a subsequent statement under paragraph (4), the licensee shall not make such a charge or agree or offer to make such a charge as is so mentioned other than the one determined in accordance with the methods and principles shown therein, unless the Director otherwise consents."

Transco made a charge other than the one determined in accordance with the methods and principles shown therein. This was Transco's own statement of charges as mentioned in paragraph (3), which provides:

"The licensee shall comply with any directions given by the Director to furnish him with a statement showing the methods by which, and the principles on which"

such charges are to be made.

Ofgas argued that although the statement had been sent by Transco to the Director General of Ofgas, although Transco had published and accepted it as its basis of charging and although it accepted that it had contravened that statement and overcharged Mrs. Moyies, Ofgas could do nothing because the director general had never asked for the statement as per paragraph (3). Of course she had not done so. One does not ask for something that one already has. Ofgas is supposed to be the rottweiler regulating the industry. In fact, it is the industry's lap dog, or more accurately, it is Transco's.

The Ofgas connections steering group has collected statistics from Transco itself, which show that out of 77 responses to inquiries during September and October last year only 57 per cent. were within Transco's own standards. That record is appalling enough, but the strange thing is that it improves so dramatically—to 86 per cent. within standard—if one excludes responses to Mr. Duffield's company EGS.

Only 21 per cent., or one in five, of Transco's responses to EGS were within standard. An objective observer might regard that as clear evidence of blatant discrimination against EGS. Ofgas continues to regard those responses as a series of isolated and unconnected mistakes on the part of Transco.

In a letter dated 25 February 1999, Mr. William Sprigge, Ofgas's legal counsel agrees that:

"BG has on occasions treated EGS differently to other businesses requesting quotations."

However, he is quick to add:

"Whether this has been deliberate is uncertain. We therefore cannot say that BG has not deliberately treated EGS differently to other businesses requesting quotations; nor can we say that it has."

For such a shameless display of fence-sitting, I simply express the wish that all Mr. Sprigge's fences be henceforth topped with razor wire.

Finally, I must make good my claim that there is evidence that Transco has prejudiced public safety by its changes to the procedures for handling gas escapes and the reduction in response time targets for such incidents. Prior to the establishment of Transco in 1994, BG responded to more than 99.99 per cent. of uncontrolled gas escapes within one hour. Since Transco took over, its performance has fluctuated between 97 per cent. and 92 per cent. Given that there are more than 1 million calls a year, that means there are tens of thousands of occasions on which the public has been exposed to a significant danger for longer than would have been the case under the old British Gas company.

In May 1997, Mr. David Varney, BG plc's chief executive, wrote following a challenge at the company's annual general meeting that:

"concerning the figure of 96 per cent. performance against the applicable regulatory standard of attending uncontrolled gas escapes within one hour, the information, as best we know it, is accurate… In terms of your query as to the former standard of 99 per cent. within one hour, I confirm that we are working to improve performance in this area. However, we are not in a position to disclose information relating to the 1997 target at this time."

Changes in response times are not the only adverse changes in safety standards that Transco has introduced. New working practices mean that teams attending uncontrolled gas escapes are often unsupervised. In some cases, the line manager is 100 miles away and yet different workers at the site believe that other members of their team have a supervisory role, which they do not.

I ask the Minister to raise those matters with the Health and Safety Executive and to establish what percentage of responses Transco currently meets within one hour, its current target response figure and the steps that it has taken to ensure proper supervision at the site of uncontrolled escapes and clarity and responsibility among the teams attending.

I said what steps Transco "has taken" because the safety issue is not new to Transco. Indeed, a report was prepared for the area directors of Transco in December 1996 by a senior manager who had particular expertise in the investigation of incidents and the formulation of policies and procedures to minimise the risk of further escapes. That investigation revealed that safety standards had fallen substantially from those inherited in 1994. In particular, the investigation revealed that procedures developed in response to previous incidents had lapsed into disuse. A serious question was raised about whether a single one of Transco's directors possessed the necessary skills and operational experience to carry out the proper review of incident trends.

The original draft of that report caused such a stir that its commissioner, Mr. Lefevre, phoned its author, who was buying a sandwich in his lunch hour. On answering his mobile phone in the supermarket, the author was curtly asked to destroy the report. He refused to do so, but eventually agreed to modify some of the language contained in it. The author of that report, which caused such embarrassment and disquiet to Transco, was of course Mr. Andrew Duffield who had been assigned that as a final project before his departure to set up EGS.

Some people might venture that the extraordinarily poor service that EGS has received from Transco in the past two years—the constant delays in quotation, habitual overcharging, and the refusal to pay the prescribed penalties for statutory breach even where it is admitted that they are due—has been in no small way related to the embarrassment that Transco felt at Mr. Duffield's report on its company safety.

Be that as it may, the fact that Ofgas has either not possessed, or failed to apply, powers to protect Mr. Duffield is just as serious. It must be the concern of all hon. Members that assurances are sought and received from Transco about public safety, that anti-competitive behaviour in the industry is eradicated and that Ofgas begins to take seriously its role in regulating that industry and protecting consumers such as Mrs. Moyies and companies such as EGS.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for raising this matter again and for securing this debate. I welcome the debate; he should not apologise for returning to the matter. It is the role of us all as Members of Parliament to persist in drawing attention to injustices and flaws in the structure of our laws and budgets. He has done so assiduously. He has raised serious matters on behalf of his constituent.

Although the Government do not run energy industries—all the companies operate privately in the marketplace—the gas and electricity industries are subject to competition regulation, to tackle both abusive market power and anti-competitive market practices. The independent regulator—there is now one regulator for the gas and electricity industries—operates within the relevant Acts of Parliament.

When we came into office in 1997, we inherited the Gas Act 1995 and the Electricity Act 1989, which set out the parameters for activities. We decided that, although they were okay as far as they went, they were flawed. We are updating them, and, when we have an opportunity, we shall change them through primary legislation. Indeed, we have already acted to change the terms of operation under the licence conditions.

My hon. Friend asked some detailed questions about the interpretation of conditions of standard. If I cannot reply now to all his points, I shall ensure that he receives a detailed response in a follow-up letter.

The gas and electricity industries occupy a crucial position in the United Kingdom economy, accounting for 2 per cent. of the gross domestic product. They provide essential services to millions of people. Our intention is to ensure that consumers come first and that the regulatory regime reflects that. We accept that the system is far from perfect and have already implemented a better and fairer one, which re-emphasises the consumer.

We issued a Green Paper on the regulation of utilities last spring, which laid the foundations for a better and more efficient regulatory system. We proposed to improve and align gas and electricity regulation under a single energy regulator, to separate electricity distribution and supply, and to provide a new basis for delivering policies to encourage energy efficiency and generation from renewable sources.

In response to our consultation in July 1998, we announced the intention to merge the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Office of Gas Supply. They now fall under a single energy regulator in one body. We also announced that the new regulator should organise the appropriate structure in which all energy industries are regulated. We have made a fresh start, with the appointment of one person to the posts of Director General of Gas Supply and Director General of Electricity Regulation—not least because electricity companies are now selling gas, and gas companies are now selling electricity.

Such a structure needs to be reinforced by law, and, when parliamentary time allows, we shall align the regimes of electricity and gas regulation, which were out of sync under the legislation that we inherited.

We have also taken action to change the rules when they do not work immediately in favour of the customer. As a result of complaints that I as a Minister and many other hon. Members have received about door-step selling, we inserted a marketing clause into the gas suppliers' licence to challenge bad practices and improve them. We intend to use the proposed utilities Bill to sort out regulation at the earliest opportunity.

My hon. Friend has pursued the case of Exoteric Gas Solutions with me and my Department. We have had many meetings and much correspondence on the issue, which was raised in the House in June last year. Following his constituent's complaint, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—Ofgem—carried out a thorough investigation into Transco's connections business, and found Transco to be in breach of standard condition 11(1) of its licence and section 9(2) of the Gas Act.

Ofgem consequently made an enforcement order against Transco, requiring it to introduce systems for handling quotations for connections to its pipeline system and to achieve the International Standard Organisation 9001 standard for the systems. Transco also had to introduce a liability scheme for failures to meet standards of service. Ofgas, as it was then, imposed the enforcement order on Transco on—I think—19 February, so things have moved on significantly since last June.

To be in breach of an enforcement order is a serious matter. It is the first time that such an order has been made against Transco. It takes the form of a public notice and the company must take responsibility for it. I know that Transco is taking it very seriously.

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the particular case of Mrs. Moyies's connection. I cannot answer it in detail in the House, but I will ask for a thorough investigation of the practice in order to draw out implications for the structure of the entire connections industry.

My hon. Friend mentioned that legislation allows the Director General of Gas Supply to make provision in a final enforcement order for a monetary penalty. In addition, if an enforcement order is made and not complied with, the legislation confers the right of action on persons who suffer loss or damage as a result of that non-compliance, subject to certain defences.

That describes the situation under the regulatory regime that we inherited from the previous Administration. We are considering those arrangements very carefully to see whether improvements can be made for future cases of alleged breach of licence conditions. It may be possible to give the regulator powers to impose monetary penalties that are proportionate to the circumstances for past as well as continuing breaches of licence conditions. I know that that is what my hon. Friend has consistently and persistently campaigned for, and I hope that we can give him some solace in the not too distant future.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on bringing this important matter before the House and particularly on highlighting the lack of expertise available to assist consumers in pursuing such issues. In the forthcoming utilities Bill, for which we hope, and the follow-up to the review, will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that the Gas Consumers Council or its successor body has the resources to make such expertise available?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She has championed energy consumer councils in her time in the House. In the revised regulation that we hope to introduce under the utilities Bill in the not too distant future, we hope to give consumers a much strengthened voice through the consumer councils. As she said, that means that they ought to have the resources to enable them to do the job well and properly.

I should mention the important question of safety, which is paramount. Under the licence condition, which is tighter than the general condition, a response must be made within one or two hours. I should emphasise that the National Audit Office, a body entirely independent of the Government, published a report on competition in the domestic market on 12 May, and some of its headline points were encouraging.

As we know, prices are down; all suppliers are offering lower tariffs. Customers have a choice; 26 companies are active in the domestic market. Crucially, safety has been maintained and the quality of service to customers has on the whole improved. I shall keep a close eye on safety, although the NAO's report was encouraging and I was heartened by the fact that it was, in the main, so positive.

On the downside, the report pointed out that many customers do not have sufficient knowledge of changing structures. There has been a maelstrom of change since the days of one nationalised gas company. Companies have proliferated, with new entrants to the marketplace as well as the separation of former nationalised industries. People do not know how much the market has changed or know what to expect. It is all right saying that they all have choice, but if they do not know of what, life is made incredibly difficult. There have been complaints of poor selling techniques and lack of information on what to expect. That in turn can drag down quality and performance. I am determined that that shall not happen, and I am sure that the regulator cannot tolerate it either.

I shall look in detail at all the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North has made. We must consider how we shape the market's regulatory structure for the future. That is precisely the point of our White Paper—

Order.