Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on a problem that we all recognise as one of the most serious facing many of our constituents—anti-social behaviour. Constituents come to my surgeries and those of many hon. Members with all sorts of problems involving anti-social behaviour.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provided a range of new orders for tackling anti-social behaviour. One is the anti-social behaviour order, the purpose of which is to allow the police and local authorities to deal effectively with people who persistently seriously harass, alarm and cause distress to others. The local authority or the police may now apply to a magistrates court for an order to protect people from those who persistently make their lives a misery. The police and local authorities asked for that power because there was a gap in the legislation and they wanted it filled. They needed a quick and effective measure to tackle such behaviour, so the Government responded and provided the new laws.

We have all had constituents coming to our surgeries with horrific stories. What do they ask for when they come to see us? They want the opportunity for themselves and others to live peaceful and law-abiding lives. The anti-social behaviour order has teeth, so ordinary people do not need to take the action that they may feel too intimidated to take. It can be taken on their behalf, so they can remain anonymous and avoid further intimidation. One of the most appalling aspects of anti-social behaviour is that many people feel intimidated and unable to seek redress through the law. I have had people in my surgeries saying that they hoped no one saw them come in. The purpose of the orders is to remove the fear of intimidation by providing an opportunity for professional witnesses to be involved.

I am sure that most hon. Members could list a catalogue of experiences, and I shall give one or two examples of unacceptable behaviour that must be dealt with. I emphasise at the outset that, although I shall refer to experiences from my constituency, the vast majority of my constituents in Gedling in Nottingham are peaceful and law-abiding and want action to be taken against what is a very small minority. If I were to name any constituents who had experienced such behaviour, they would worry about being identified in a local newspaper report. Therefore, I must speak in general terms to demonstrate the scale of the problem. One constituent was persistently harassed, threatened and physically abused by a neighbour. Indeed, at one point the neighbour seemed to be taking pot shots at my constituent with an air rifle. It is difficult to believe that such things happen, but unfortunately they are all too common.

In my constituency, groups of youths gather every evening in a children's playground that is surrounded by houses. They drink, urinate on the swings and fornicate on the slide. Anyone who tries to reason with them is verbally and physically intimidated. Why should those who are going about their everyday business or watching television in the evening have to deal with such problems, only to be mooned at by young people? We seem to underestimate the extent to which people are intimidated by such behaviour. Youths have also been riding bikes around the corridors of an old people's complex in my constituency with bats in their hands. One can imagine the terror that that provokes. They stand in the streets and drink, throw stones at windows and act in a threatening and intimidating manner. Moreover, there are numerous examples of neighbour nuisance. People carry on unlawful activities without planning permission and carry out all manner of repairs in their garages at all times of the day.

Of course, I complain to the police and local authorities about such behaviour. They take action, and the behaviour stops—for a few days or a week. However, as far as ordinary people are concerned, an end point is never reached because no one is ever held accountable and punished. They also feel that parents are failing to accept responsibility for the behaviour of their children. Most of such offenders are young, and we must ensure that they do not get away with their crimes and that their parents are also held responsible. We are talking about not petty or trivial crimes, but the sort of crimes and anti-social behaviour that people experience in their communities and about which they want something done. My constituents express fears not about major crime—important though that issue is—but about the behaviour to which I have referred.

People often feel that, in trying to deal with such problems, they are coming up against a brick wall. The local authority tells them that it is a matter for the police, and the police say that it is a matter for the local authority. As a result, people feel that nothing can be done and nobody is responsible.

Anti-social behaviour must be dealt with quickly and firmly. I have urged Gedling borough council, in conjunction with the police, to use anti-social behaviour orders to deal with the many cases that have been brought to my attention. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has encouraged local authorities, the police and housing departments and agencies to work together. It has changed the culture, which is a major plus.

Gedling borough council has had a crime reduction strategy during the past two or three years, and has set itself high targets in priority areas such as domestic burglary and working with young people. It has tried to provide additional facilities such as shelters and basketball courts, and has carried out liaison work with the Guinness Trust—a local partner—to try to discourage vandalism. In addition, council officers have spent a considerable time in liaison meetings with the police, as part of their work against anti-social behaviour. There is a community safety partnership that encompasses Gedling borough council, Nottinghamshire county council and the Nottinghamshire police, assisted by the health authority and the probation service. Gedling borough council and Nottinghamshire police do good work together—the encouragement of such collaboration is one of the most positive aspects of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

Despite the appalling behaviour that I have outlined—and the appalling behaviour described by other hon. Members in their constituencies—not one anti-social behaviour order has been implemented in my constituency, even though great consideration has been given to the idea.

Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to study the Hansard report of the Committee stage of the Crime and Disorder Bill, when the complexity of the anti-social behaviour order provisions was discussed at length? Opposition Members were worried that that complexity would lead to great difficulty in using those orders in practice. Does he agree that the Opposition were right on that point?

This is an important debate, and we need to try to build a consensus and a way forward. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to local authorities and chief constables to ask them what practical problems exist in relation to the implementation of anti-social behaviour orders. Later in my remarks, I shall refer to one or two of the problems that local police and authorities have drawn to my attention. It is important that anti-social behaviour orders are implemented. They are good things, and any difficulties or problems with their implementation should be brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister so that a way forward can be found. That is the point of today's debate. It is in all our interests to tackle the kinds of behaviour that I have mentioned. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's constituents have told him about such behaviour.

As I said, not one anti-social behaviour order has been implemented in my constituency. The latest figures show that only 10 have been implemented nationally. That is of concern to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and my hon. Friend the Minister will probably want to comment on it.

In Nottingham, the city council has made a 14-year-old boy the subject of an anti-social behaviour order. One order has therefore been implemented in the greater Nottingham area. It is amazing to think that that young man had been convicted 55 times in the past two years on charges including theft, taking vehicles, robbery, burglary, handling stolen goods and motoring offences. Many people have asked me why it has taken two years for an anti-social behaviour order to be applied, or for the law to deal with somebody who is clearly terrorising a neighbourhood. People are staggered by it, and, in all honesty, I find it difficult to provide an answer. One would have thought that at some stage, even if an anti-social behaviour order were not appropriate, another care provision—or criminal provision—should have been appropriate. However, the use of the order sent a powerful message to that local community and to many others across the greater Nottingham conurbation. I hope that it is the first of many such orders.

The important factor is that the young man's breaking of the order meant that he had committed a criminal offence and was put into secure accommodation. Consequently, the people who had been terrorised began to experience some peace in their communities. People continually complain to me that we appear to be more concerned about the human rights of those who commit offences than those of the victims who are being terrorised. A better balance is needed.

I want more use of these powers by local authorities and the police, because people all over the country want an end point to the problems that they face through tougher, quicker action and zero tolerance.

To refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), the lack of use of anti-social behaviour orders has been a matter of concern for my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Many hon. Members will have seen the Home Secretary's letter to all chief executives of local authorities, which was copied to chief constables, asking them to detail their problems in implementing the legislation and encouraging them to start to use the orders to deal with anti-social behaviour.

The letter makes the important point to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks, asking those concerned to tell the Home Secretary if there are problems in implementing the orders. It also states that the Government will consider the possibility of amending the legislation. In the spirit of trying to draw a consensus, we need the orders and partnerships to work, because they are for the benefit of our constituents.

I draw to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention a couple of matters that the police have raised with me about the anti-social behaviour order. They sometimes find its requirements to be too bureaucratic and complex—more complex, in some circumstances, than those of previous public order legislation. A case conference and other consultations have to take place before the application for the order, and a great burden of evidence is required. In the interests of a quick and efficient process, we had all hoped that would not happen. The weight of evidence that is required is often so off-putting that the police and local authorities decide that they cannot obtain it, and therefore cannot pursue an order because it would be thrown out of court. Another problem that has been relayed to me is that it is necessary for witnesses to attend court at the application stage, which is conducted under civil law. The police in my constituency tell me that the courts require that evidence be given at the application stage in the presence of the suspect. One of the greatest problems in tackling anti-social behaviour is the intimidation that people often feel, and one of the intentions of the legislation was to help to overcome that problem.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister use this occasion to remind the police and local authorities that anti-social behaviour orders are not a measure of last resort and that they are fully consistent with human rights legislation? If used quickly and effectively, they can nip problems in the bud. They can prevent serious offending and lawlessness arising from minor matters, if those matters are dealt with strongly and sternly, straight away.

I often seem to be in a minority with some of my opinions, but I believe that we ought to be very hard on people the first time that they do something wrong, rather than wait for them to commit a lot of offences and then be hard on them. If they then continue to offend, they really do need help, because the vast majority of people will learn from being punished at the outset.

Will the Minister comment on the effectiveness of parenting orders? Many people feel that parents should have a greater sense of responsibility. It could be very effective if the police sometimes took people home in the back of a patrol car and said to their parents, "Do you realise what your son or daughter has just been doing?" I have been horrified at some of the things that my son and daughter have done, but I have tried to deal with it. All parents know that teenagers are not easy to deal with. However, some parents abrogate all responsibility for their children's behaviour.

I believe that 10 is too young for child curfews, which are part of the consultation process. Will the Minister consider extending the provisions to encompass older children? I would prefer a minimum age of 16.

As the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) will no doubt point out, not all young people are involved in anti-social behaviour. I do not want to give the impression that they are. Many young people belong to uniformed organisations such as the Scouts and the Guides, and they are great. Many also take part in charity work. The problems that we are discussing do not affect the vast majority of young people. I recently spoke to sixth form students at Christ the King school in my constituency as part of UNICEF's "Put it to your MP" day. They were as concerned as anyone else about anti-social behaviour in their area, because the vandals have often vandalised the facilities that they want to use, such as youth clubs. Those students asked me what could be done about such anti-social behaviour, because they were worried about it and wanted it to be dealt with.

The Government have laid the foundations for crime reduction. They have established numerous crime reduction partnerships across the country, made huge investments in closed circuit television, made available crime-fighting funds to boost police recruitment and improved police communications. Alongside the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders, there are provisions for a radical overhaul of the youth justice system, fast-track punishment for persistent offenders, final cautions and referral orders with youth offender panels—the last of which is being piloted in Gedling.

In addition, there are measures to tackle the causes of crime—including the new deal for communities and the new deal for the unemployed—and measures to tackle social exclusion and truancy in schools. The Government have provided a framework for crime reduction within which we can start to tackle the problem of anti-social behaviour. That problem affects all of us. The police, local authorities, housing and health authorities, the Government and councils need to work together at local level to tackle the problem. We need to encourage a society that recognises and respects the rights and responsibilities of individuals and promotes a sense of community.

Anti-social behaviour orders are a highly effective approach that could make a huge difference to the victims of anti-social behaviour or harassment by neighbours. This important issue affects the lives of many of our constituents. An appropriate framework exists, but we should consider whether improvements could be made to it. Our constituents deserve a better deal from the anti-social behaviour orders, which should be used more frequently. The Government have given local authorities and the police significant powers, and they should use them to protect our communities from a small anti-social minority.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on raising this important subject. The examples that he gave from his constituency are, sadly, repeated in virtually every constituency in the country.

I stress a point that the hon. Gentleman made near the end of his speech: that the vast majority of young people are not guilty of anti-social behaviour—it is a tiny minority who give the rest a bad name. The examples that the hon. Gentleman gave—we shall doubtless hear more examples from others—show that the Government's anti-social behaviour orders are not working, although they were contained in flagship legislation. It is not clear whether six or 10 orders have been served nationwide, but either way the total is minute. The expectation was that the Government would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but they have not been.

The Liberal Democrats do not oppose the anti-social behaviour orders in principle and we did not vote against the legislation, but we and the Conservatives raised several concerns when it was passing through the House. For example, we were concerned that the standard of evidence was too weak. The Home Secretary has written letters to local authorities and police chiefs urging—indeed, begging—them to implement this flagship legislation, but the fact that only 10 orders have been served confirms that the legislation is too weak. The fact that the associated criminal sanctions are severe may explain why there is reluctance to impose more orders. Some civil liberty groups have claimed that mixing civil and criminal standards means that the anti-social behaviour orders may breach the European convention on human rights.

Liberal Democrats have raised concerns about the wide definition of anti-social behaviour, which includes harassment, alarm and distress. A letter that was published in yesterday's East Anglian Daily Times appeared to some to incite the pro-hunting lobby in East Anglia to descend on and protest outside my home. Would not that letter cause harassment, alarm or distress to my family and my neighbours? It was written not by an ordinary member of the public, but by the chairman of the Colchester Conservative association, who is involved in our democratic process.

Liberal Democrats and Conservatives raised the possibility that merely eccentric activities that are peculiar to individual minority ethnic communities could be perceived by some as involving anti-social behaviour, although there would be no public interest in taking legal action. The Government argued that proper guidance would be available and that there was no danger that eccentric behaviour would be targeted—so morris dancers are safe. Furthermore, ASBOs were designed partly to respond to people who were causing harassment, alarm or distress to ethnic minorities.

We did not believe that ASBOs should be the first port of call for the police and local councils, as the hon. Member for Gedling emphasised. The orders are serious and should be a last resort. The Government gave those assurances in Committee. We also wanted assurances about the use of the orders in cases involving young people.

Since ASBOs were introduced, some people have tried to highlight the Home Secretary's embarrassment that they have not been widely used. Whether the numbers involved are six or 10, either way they are not large. ASBOs were a high-profile plank of the Home Secretary's law and order agenda to crack down on anti-social behaviour, and were presented as part of the Government's zero tolerance approach. According to the Home Office, the threat of an ASBO is a good deterrent. That is difficult to measure or prove, although it is bound to be true to some extent. However, we continue to face the midnight do-it-yourself building workers and ghetto blasters into the early hours of the morning.

The hon. Member for Gedling referred to anti-social behaviour in children's playgrounds. A tiny minority cause a lot of distress to a lot of people and unfairly tar all young people with the same brush. One response from the Home Secretary was to blame wealthy liberal lawyers with no experience of what it is like to live in areas with anti-social behaviour for undermining and criticising the measures.

My party does not oppose the orders in principle. We warned that they might raise unrealistic expectations, and what we have heard today, as well as evidence from the Home Secretary, confirms that. Local councils and the police may be reluctant to request such strong orders, and the courts may be reluctant to issue them. The Home Office should revisit the legislation and consider what improvements might be made. Furthermore, it is entirely inappropriate to blame lawyers for expressing their anxieties about the human rights implications. The Government should have been more careful in drafting the orders.

We must also take into account what has happened in the past two years. We face a scene of police cuts throughout the country and particularly in my county of Essex. On the plus side, we have heard good stories about local authorities such as Gedling district council, to which I would add Colchester borough council, which installed closed circuit television security cameras with minimal support from the previous Government, the funds having been largely raised locally.

The involvement of young people is vital. If the Government want their joined-up thinking to be taken seriously, it is not good enough constantly to harp on about raising academic standards and about school league tables, because that gives the message that young people who are not academically gifted are of less worth to society. That message is being sent out, albeit unintentionally, and all three political parties are to blame.

A further problem is the playing down of sport and activities for young people. I invite the Minister to conduct a three-month experiment. Every young person entering a young offenders institution should fill out a simple questionnaire on whether they have ever been a member of a recognised, but not necessarily uniformed, youth organisation, and if so, which ones and for how long. We could then ascertain whether a pattern can be discerned of young offenders coming from a background in which youth organisations have played no part. Investing in our young people at an early stage will result in there being less anti-social behaviour as they hit their teens—or, indeed, even younger.

Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we should not put anti-social behaviour orders in a compartment on their own. There is a lot more to the matter, including education, youth movements, and sport and leisure activities. The problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Gedling apply throughout the country. If we can achieve the consensus that he called for, the Government will be able to deliver on the expectations that they raised two or three years ago.

Order. Members will wish to know that the House has ordered that a non-regular occupant of the Chair in Westminster Hall should be addressed by name and not as Deputy Speaker. My name is Mr. Jones.

I now call Mr. St. Aubyn.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. May I be the first Conservative Member to congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on his display of new Labour machismo on the fight against crime. However, I am sure that he, like me, is sometimes disappointed in the Government's response.

I wondered this morning whether the hon. Gentleman was applying for a job in the Whips Office, to help deal with a delinquent element in the Labour party. He spoke eleoquently about the crime on some estates in his part of the country—a problem that is shared by other areas, even Surrey. I represent the people of Guildford, and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I both know that our county does not suffer problems on the same scale as other parts of the country, but we certainly have a problem. Also as a former London councillor I know how difficult such problems can be for neighbours and others who suffer as a result.

The Government talk about crime with a forked tongue. At the same time as talking tough about anti-social behaviour orders, they allowed into the country last week one of the most anti-social people in the world. Mr. Tyson was convicted and sent to prison for a terrible crime and his record in the boxing ring is little short of disgraceful—so much so that many people thought that he should have been banned from boxing for life, as he nearly was. Allowing such a person into the country was a retrograde step. Banning him from entering the country would have done as much good as 100 anti-social behaviour orders and would have sent out a clear message to those who might otherwise be tempted to regard him as a role model.

I wish to concentrate on the orders as they were originally intended to be applied to disaffected youth. The Home Office guidance stated:

"Applications may routinely be made for the middle and older age groups of juveniles and young people (e.g. 12–27 year olds) as experience has shown that such individuals may commit serious acts of anti-social behaviour without adult encouragement or involvement."

That group was to be targeted by the ASBO, and we heard that curfews would be imposed on teenagers who caused disruption in a neighbourhood. According to a survey undertaken by the BBC last September, not only have no curfew orders been imposed under ASBOs, but, as the hon. Member for Gedling said, we are aware of only 10 orders having been made at all. The strategy has failed.

The Government have also been reluctant to implement provisions introduced by the previous Government that might be more effective against anti-social behaviour. For example, the Government have been asked several times to introduce the remand provisions of sections 152 and 158 of the Housing Act 1996. In July, Ministers told the House that they were in discussion on the matter with the Lord Chancellor's Department and that they would inform hon. Members when they had reached a decision. So far as I can tell, no decision has yet been reached. I hope that the Minister will tell us when those provisions will come into force.

The previous Government made a great deal of progress in giving local authorities powers to deal with anti-social behaviour on council estates. The Housing Act 1985 strengthened powers of eviction and gave local authorities the powers to bring in byelaws that might control anti-social behaviour. I have already mentioned the 1996 Act, which introduced powers to bring injunctions against anti-social behaviour. It also introduced introductory tenancies, whereby tenants are in a sense under review for the first year of tenancy. They have been used by up to half our local authorities.

In that context, what do ASBOs add to the fight against anti-social behaviour? Before any such measure is judged, we must ask what the sanction is if the order is ignored. It is severe. The Home Office guidance on ASBOs states:

"Breach of an order … is a criminal offence triable either way with a maximum penalty on indictment of 5 years in prison."

Even for the language of new Labour machismo, that sounds over the top, and that is the problem. The sanction is far too strong to use against teenagers who display anti-social behaviour. It is not credible to threaten children of 15 or 16 with being sent to prison for five years. The sanction is not workable. Therefore, local authorities are put in the invidious position of invoking an order that may then be ignored and are left in a quandary as to what to do if the process is discredited. Sometimes they hold the order like a sword of Damocles over the youths, while knowing at the back of their minds that using it is a high-risk strategy with that group.

The hon. Gentleman is making a point about the deterrent involved in someone breaking an ASBO. The example that I gave about a youth in Nottingham—I appreciate the fact that there are not many such examples—was that the ASBO was broken and, as that was a criminal offence, the youth was sent to a secure unit. I cannot remember how long he was there, but it was a huge relief to local people. It showed the effectiveness of the sanction, and in my view acted as quite an effective deterrent in and beyond the local community.

I remind hon. Members that interventions must be brief.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was about to say that, in extreme cases, there may be a justification for removing someone behaving anti-socially from a locality. That is surely a feature of the powers given to local government in recent years.

If the hon. Gentleman will let me, I shall draw a parallel between the use of ASBOs on estates and exclusion orders in schools—an issue that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and I considered in detail when we served on the Select Committee on Education and Employment. We examined the subject of disaffected children, the group that our debate on ASBOs is about. We made some interesting findings. The fifth report of the Committee from 1997–28 says that

"they are predominantly male …; they are drawn disproportionately from African-Caribbean backgrounds; children looked after by local authorities are disproportionately represented; they include a high proportion of young offenders; many are likely to come from difficult and disrupted family backgrounds; they frequently lack self-confidence and self-esteem; they tend to have few 'basic skills; many have emotional and behavioural difficulties; there is a high prevalence of risk-taking behaviour, for instance in relation to smoking, substance abuse and early sexual activity."

That group is also more likely to be among those who behave in an anti-social manner on the estates where they live.

We felt that to exclude this type of child from school was not necessarily the right response. Clearly it is necessary, particularly when a school is failing and must be turned around, to make dramatic changes, among which may be a need to exclude the most disruptive pupils. That is very much in the school's interests, and we must keep the interests of the majority of children in mind in such cases. However, unless we are, in parallel terms, talking about a failing estate, one wonders whether excluding a child from an estate is the right response. We know that taking children out of the normal family environment can be harmful, and that children in care have low educational attainments, as the report has identified. That places them on a cycle of low achievement and dismal prospects, which may be with them for the rest of their lives.

We must look at alternative strategies for the council and housing estates where this problem is prevalent. Like many local authorities, Guildford borough council has not used ASBOs. However, in the last 18 months it has appointed a nuisance investigation officer to deal with these cases, who typically deals with one case a day. That is the type of mediation role often needed, not just for juveniles, but for other disputes on estates. Mediation provided by a specified officer of the local council or an outside mediation service may be more effective in bringing home to those concerned their responsibilities, although we must always accept and require that other sanctions are necessary and should be available.

The sanctions of the introductory tenancy and the ability to evict a perpetrator are powerful and should not be ignored. Nor should the sanctions of the injunction or the use of byelaws, but we need a more imaginative response to disaffected children that involves other Departments. What discussions has the Minister had with his former colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment? Many disaffected children find that the academic rigour of a GCSE course is simply not for them; in many cases they may not have attained the basic skills necessary to achieve a result on such a course. Alternative strategies for them must be developed, particularly for those aged 14 and over.

There is good evidence that children over 14 who are put into a more adult environment—for instance, at their local further education college—may strive much harder when given the responsibility that such an environment requires of them. Indeed, if they are given work places, they may get to know role models, the slightly older people in that workplace, whom they can see have money in their pockets and a future—something to which they can aspire if they can attain basic skills and put them to good use. It is about setting the right example, which goes back to my earlier point about the incident last week. The ASBO's scope is therefore extremely limited.

We could also look at the overall design of estates. When I was a councillor in Paddington, I sat on a housing committee that visited some of the failed estates built in the 1960s and 1970s, which had often failed partly because of the way in which they had been designed. The belief was that long corridors of communication at every level of the flats would engender social cohesion, but, unfortunately, they simply provided the criminal element on the estates with a ready escape route. When we visited the Mozart estate, we decided to do some basic redesign. Many long walkways were bricked up, creating smaller clusters of accommodation and, therefore, a greater sense of identity among council tenants. That went some way towards improving behaviour on the estate.

I would welcome the Minister's comments on how ASBOs and other powers can be brought to bear on those who have exercised the right to buy on council estates. Some tenants in my constituency are complaining about a neighbouring family that has exercised the right to buy and is exhibiting anti-social behaviour towards those around it. The council has found that its powers are more constrained than if the family were still a tenant of the council.

We need a clear view from the Minister of what other action he will take on remand orders and on making agents of the law-enforcement process more aware of ASBOs. In July, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) suggested a training programme for magistrates on the implementation of ASBOs, and a national demonstration project was proposed, which the Home Secretary described as

"an excellent idea, which I shall pursue."—[Official Report, 12 July 1999, Vol. 335, c. 16.]

Will the Minister tell the Committee today, six months later, what the Home Secretary has done about a national demonstration project to highlight the advantages of using ASBOs?

As I said at the outset, it is difficult to know what is happening behind the machismo and new Labour spin. How serious are the Government about tackling the real problems? The evidence from the hon. Member for Gedling is that not enough is happening. That, ultimately, is the fault of the Government.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on securing the debate. I had not intended to speak, but I was moved to do so by the contributions from my former colleague on the Select Committee on Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), and from the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). The charge that the Government are not addressing the needs of young people and those who are disaffected with the activities of the majority of young people, whether sport, youth activities or attending school, is astonishing. The Government have put more money into education, starting with the early years, to assist such children. There is a sure start programme in my constituency, which is aimed at families with children under four. We know that disaffection, unfortunately, can start as early as that. In the past few days, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has stated that opportunities should be examined for vocational education with a less academic strand for 14 to 19-year-olds. The hon. Member for Guidlford and I discussed that in the Select Committee, which recommended that the Government should consider such opportunities.

Exclusion has been considered. My authority has one of the highest exclusion rates in the country, and that is in a predominantly white area where less than 1 per cent. of the community comes from ethinic minorities. In the Doncaster area we are considering the introduction of learning mentors, different ways in which to keep young people in school, even if they are not in the same classroom as everyone else for part of the day, and how we can tackle disaffection among young people. There are real problems in some of our communities and not just on council estates. In some mixed tenancy communities, harassment and intimidation occur daily and do not arise only from young people. Anti-social behaviour orders apply not only to young people, but to grown-ups who make people's lives a misery day in and day out.

I am worried that individuals and departments in the local community may thwart the purpose of the orders and the way in which they can be coupled with other opportunities to tackle issues relating to intimidation and harassment. There is evidence of non-compliance, even if it is well intentioned. Everyone must abide by certain laws and certain ways of treating each other, whether in the family, the community or the country. Most of the population, for most of the time, abide by the rules that we, as a community, decide that we should have. Jean-Jacques Rousseau said that people could do whatever they wanted as long as it did not harm anyone else, which, in some sense, is a philosophy by which we tend to try to run our lives.

Some people in our community, however, have not been brought up to obey any rules about how they should live. Children are brought up with no parameters of what is right or wrong, against the law, legal, or of the right way to behave towards an elderly lady walking down the street, an Asian family living in isolation, or their fellow human beings. That is a sad reflection on our time. We need to establish parameters, whether in school, where there is a set of rules about how pupils should behave, in the wider community in terms of policing, or in quality of life and how we live with our neighbours. We need to say, "There is a line over which we do not accept you can go." Anti-social behaviour orders have a role to play in that.

Despite all the good intentions of the Government, the direction that they want to give, and the opportunities that they want to provide—for goodness sake—to people at the sharp end who have to pick up the pieces for victims of behaviour that threatens so many people's lives, the orders are not being used. I have had separate discussions with my local authority and the police about that. Some crime and disorder partnerships spend a long time talking about and creating bureaucratic protocols, but, when push comes to shove, and something needs to be done, no one wants to take responsibility. Alternatively, one part of the partnership might not want to take responsibility. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give closer consideration to what is blocking the achievement of our aim of creating a safer and friendlier community.

I am interested by the comments about the design of estates, and the environment in which we live. There is no doubt that some estates almost invite crime. Motor bikes can zoom across them, and people can carry drugs from one estate to another to escape the police; they can move around at will. There is also no doubt that an environment in which everything is falling down is not a pleasant place to live. I read in my local paper this week that the Government have released further money from the sale of council houses to help to improve estates. With that regeneration money, there is no doubt that the Government aim to tackle that aspect of people's quality of life. However, it would be a crying shame and a waste of funds if we were to spend good taxpayer's money on rebuilding and refurbishing estates that the minority of people who cause mayhem tore down again. In 10 years' time, we would have to inject more money to refurbish estates and redecorate houses, and to make those communities look nice. Looking nice is not enough; there must be a community pact about the way in which people behave and treat each other. That is part of the jigsaw in which anti-social behaviour orders are meant to work.

It saddens me that councils often claim that they have no powers over private tenants. In my constituency, there are a number of communities in which mixed tenure is common. People own their council houses, and have private landlords. Getting private or absentee landlords to take responsibility for tenants has been a special problem. If these orders should have been applied anywhere, it is in that area. I am sad to say that that is yet to happen in Don Valley.

I have spoken with passion on this matter, because I care about young people and I care about disaffection. A multi-strand approach is necessary, but, at the same time, children and adults need to know that there is a proper way to treat people in the community. Creating such parameters may be our last chance to tell young people what is right and wrong before they move on to crime. I speak as an hon. Member who has in my constituency three prisons and one of the best young offenders establishments in the country.

I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Croaker) on securing this debate on a subject that concerns us all and on the persistence with which he has pursued this issue. This is not the first time that he has discussed this matter—he asked questions about the orders last year, on 11 June, on 16 June at column 161, on 12 July at column 15 and on 1 November at column 57. He has constantly held the Government to account and he has a record to be proud of. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said that he suspected that the hon. Member for Gedling might be auditioning for entry to the Whip's Office. However, the hon. Gentleman said that when he advances the views that he expressed today he normally finds himself in a minority of one. If he talked to Conservative Members more often, he would find that his views were widely shared, and he might discover that he had found his political friends.

Under this Labour Government, Oppositon Members often feel like Cassandra crying in the wilderness—we predict the effect of Government legislation, but Ministers do not listen to us. It is rare for Opposition Members' comments in Committee to be found to be accurate so quickly after the introduction of an Act, but that has happened in this case. The concerns that we raised in Committee about workability have been echoed by Labour Members, including the hon. Members for Gedling and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).

I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Crime and Disorder Bill, and it is interesting to revisit that debate. The concerns that were raised this morning by the hon. Members for Gedling, for Don Valley and for Colchester (Mr. Russell) were raised in Committee by Opposition Members. Labour Members might be shocked to re-read that debate, especially in view of the Pepper v. Hart decision, which means that Ministers' observations in Committee can be cited as an indication of the intended purpose of an Act.

The then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who now spends his time in the Welsh Assembly, made it abundantly clear—this may come as a shock to the Labour Members who have spoken today—that the legislation was not intended to deal with young or juvenile criminals. He said:

"First, in respect of juveniles, I must make it clear that they are not the main targets of these orders. Their use against juveniles … would be exceptional. They may be used because the juvenile is one of several members of a family involved in a pattern of behaviour.… An order would not be issued in isolation, but as part of an attempt to tackle the general problem."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 April 1998; c. 51.]

My hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for Woking (Mr. MalMs) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and I pointed out in an extensive debate that the proposal was completely at odds with announcements that were made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) before the general election, when he said that such orders would tackle youth crime. After the general election, when he had become Home Secretary, he foreshadowed what became the Crime and Disorder Bill in many speeches that he gave about tackling youth crime. My hon. Friends and I said in Committee that the legislation was an over-bureaucratic response that would not deal with the problem. A mere 18 months later, Labour Members are now saying that there have been only 10 such orders in the country. The hon. Member for Don Valley spoke in evocative terms of there being too much bureaucracy and talk—

Perhaps I should clarify my remarks. I said that, on the ground, the Government's policy is being thwarted by a tendency towards over-bureaucracy, not by a lack of willingness to enforce such orders. The problem lies not with the Government, but with the way in which the policy is being implemented.

I understood what the hon. Lady said. The underlying point of her speech, which she has ignored, is that the legislation created the bureaucracy. It was the Government who introduced an overly complex way in which to bring forward such orders. Hon. Members need not take my word for it. Sir Jeremy Beecham, who is not a known Conservative supporter, has written in Criminal Justice Management about the small number of orders. He said:

"There are two main reasons for this—the highly complex nature of getting one in place",

combined with the belief that an order should be seen very much as a last resort. In that article, Sir Jeremy, who is chairman of the Local Government Association and a well-known Labour figure in local government circles, talks about the difficulty of getting clearance from a council department:

"there are all the problems of court procedures. Councils are rightly concerned about protection for witnesses in these cases … with the Orders being carried through the Magistrates courts there is no protection for them"—

and no protection for witnesses—

"once the hearing is started."

Sir Jeremy, who, as I said, is a leading Labour figure in local government, and who is talking about his own Government's orders, continues:

"What we now have is a situation where the law does not solve the problems it was supposed to. There has been criticism that it hasn't been thought out on a practitioner's level."

Indeed. There was criticism from the Opposition Front Bench when the orders were debated in Committee.

Yet again, the Government's proposals are based on good intentions. We all know that anti-social behaviour is a huge problem, as this debate has demonstrated. Since being called to the Bar some 20 years ago, I have had extensive experience of prosecuting such cases in the courts. The Opposition pointed out during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill that it introduced a procedure so complex that it would not work. No less a figure than Sir Jeremy Beecham now says that it has not worked—a point repeated by Labour Members today. We have been proved right in only 18 months.

As we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Government have failed to understand that we must listen to those at the sharp end. For a procedure to work in the criminal courts, it must have one cardinal virtue: it must be simple and straightforward, and must ensure that decisions can be taken quickly and simply. Instead, the legislation has imposed a requirement for long and complex discussions between local authority departments and the police. As the hon. Members for Colchester and for Gedling pointed out, all the agencies that must implement the provision have good intentions, and we are not criticising them. However, the provison is not working—and I am not alone in saying that. As chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Jeremy Beecham talks to local authorities across the country and he, too, is saying that it is not working. The Government must revisit the problem and think again.

The hon. Member for Colchester is right to say that we are talking about only a minority of young people and problem families. If my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and I have the opportunity to revisit the problem after the next general election, when I hope that a Conservative Government will be elected, we will ensure that a simple procedure is put in place. When this over-complex and over-bureaucratic legislation is replaced, decisions about such prosecutions should be put purely and simply in the hands of the police, because the bobby on the beat on the problem estate knows the nature of the difficulties.

I do not for a moment suggest that employees of local authorities should not also be involved—they can give the police evidence about the difficulties that a problem family is causing to local authority staff. Usually one finds that such a family causes problems for every agency with which it comes into contact. However, if the decision to prosecute simply rested with the police—after all, that is the way in which the courts have traditionally worked—it would not be necessary to have umpteen meetings involving representatives from all the relevant departments of the local authority. There should be a straightforward decision to prosecute so that the matter can be brought to court.

The legislation should be amended so that it is targeted at the areas where many of the problems arise, especially in respect of young hooligans. As the hon. Member for Gedling pointed out, such cases often involve gangs of youths—yet the Minister says that the orders were not intended to deal with juveniles. Quelle surprise, therefore, that they have not been used to deal with the kinds of abuse the hon. Gentleman described.

This valuable debate has revealed, beyond peradventure, the need for the 1998 Act to be amended to deal properly with the problem. It is not only the anti-social behaviour orders, but the child curfew orders, that have not been used.

The hon. Member for Gedling referred to a case that occurred near his constituency in Nottingham, about which I have some press coverage. The newspaper states that Councillor Colin Chapman, the leader of Nottingham city council—

Graham.

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am merely reading from the article.

We cannot believe everything we read in the papers.

That is true. The newspaper has failed to get the hon. Gentleman's local council leader's name correct, which is extraordinary. Perhaps he is not even a household name in his own city.

Councillor Chapman said:

"People are fed up with children like these getting away time and again".

I congratulate people in cities such as Nottingham on the hard work that they have done in trying to find a way through the bureaucratic maze. They have not found it easy. If the article is to be believed—I should point out that it is from The Guardian, so perhaps it is not surprising that it got the name wrong—the council leader said that three similar cases were being prepared. That would mean that only four cases were in progress. Sadly, I am sure that there are far more problem cases than that in a city the size of Nottingham, and simpler legislation must be introduced to deal with them.

I have a cutting from the Glasgow Herald about a case in Edinburgh that involved a complaint relating to full volume blasts from Celine Dion, Shania Twain, The Beautiful South and Aerosmith. Although it may be enormously enjoyable to listen to those groups at normal volume, when they issue from a ghetto blaster at full volume, repeatedly disrupting neighbours' lives, that is bound to cause a major problem. I know from my practice at the Bar and from dealing with surgery cases that the broadcasting of very loud music late at night by problem families causes enormous upset and distress, especially to the elderly and families with young children.

The case in Liverpool that involved one of the first anti-social behaviour orders received a great deal of publicity, and was met with a rather hysterical reaction on the part of the Home Secretary. He blamed the fact that so few orders were being imposed on trendy civil rights lawyers who, having defended such people, jumped into their BMWs and went back to leafy suburbs where they did not have to suffer from anti-social behaviour. That caused a huge row in the legal and civil liberties press. The director of Liberty, Mr. Wadham, who was involved in defending the lads from Liverpool, pointed out that he was not at all prosperous and did not live in a leafy suburb.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a genuine feeling that the human rights of people who have perpetrated crimes are sometimes given more importance than those of the victims, who are the majority?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the situation is extraordinary when the director of Liberty can write to The Guardian attacking the Home Secretary. The fact that the Government are being attacked from the right and left and by their own Back Benchers shows what a mess they have got themselves into. In summary, they have got it all wrong. The legislation is not working. It must be torn up. The Government must start again or, preferably, a Conservative Government will have to come to the rescue and sort out the mess.

I commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on his most entertaining contribution to the debate but, more important, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gelding (Mr. Coaker) on his outstanding speech and on introducing such an important debate. I wish to highlight four of the points that he made. They are powerful and should dominate our thoughts. First, he said that we are talking not about all young people, but about the small minority of those who are anti-social in character. Our discussion should not be thought to cast doubt on the behaviour of young people in general, a statement echoed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell).

Secondly, my hon. Friend rightly put at the centre of his speech the issue of intimidation. Violent, physical and mental intimidation is the core of anti-social behaviour. An entire neighbourhood can be oppressed by the activities of a small group of people. We must change the balance between the intimidator and the intimidated, and the 1998 Act was designed to achieve that aim.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend drew attention, as did Opposition Members, to the need for tougher and quicker action—a point that reverberated around the Chamber this morning. Fourthly, he referred to the vicious circle of "Not me, guy". In the past, various agencies, whether local authority housing, social services or the police, have said, "It is not my problem to sort out, it is the other one's problem." The core objective of the legislation under which ASBOs were established was to end that culture and to say that it is the responsibility of us all to work together and deal with such problems, whether strategically in the sense of crime reduction partnerships or through specific relationships with particular agencies. That is one of the reasons why I reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. Returning to a culture of zero partnership in such situations and simply leaving such matters to the police would be a retrograde step. After consideration, the hon. Gentleman may agree that such a move would be ill advised.

I commend the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), especially her emphasis on the need to establish a culture that addresses such issues more effectively. By that, she meant a culture among people in which personal relationships are based on respect and trust rather than on intimidation and fear. There must also be a culture in all the agencies of the state, whether local government or the police, that says that they are about solving such problems rather than thinking that they will go away by some means that does not involve actively addressing them.

I really have only one response to make to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. He said that the problem was very difficult. He was right. We are talking about changing culture and behaviour patterns. We face the choice of whether to address that difficulty and try to solve it or just to sit back, say that it is too hard to deal with and leave it alone. The order filled a gap that had been left in the legisation by the previous Government. We accept that the problem is difficult, but we want to have a go at cracking it, rather than simply say that it is too hard a problem to solve.

Although it is entertaining to revisit the Committee debate—it helps parliamentarians to understand the broader context, as the hon. Gentleman intended—the Conservatives must answer a central political question. They must choose between having a go at solving the problem and deciding that it is too hard and that they cannot deal with it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has chosen the latter course.

The Housing Acts 1985 and 1996 contain powerful provisions to deal with the problems described by the Minister. Why have the Government not yet implemented the remand provisions of the 1996 Act?

I shall come to that in a moment. It was a legitimate point, and I intended to commend the hon. Gentleman for raising it in his speech—but not for the other points that he made.

At the moment, we do not collect figures for the number of ASBOs in force nationally. The order was implemented on 1 April 1999, and we estimate that between 20 and 25 orders are now in force, rather than the six or 10 that were mentioned earlier. The figures are moving forward and we want to encourage that. They operate in areas as diverse as Somerset, Liverpool, Derbyshire, Worcestershire, Blackburn, Coventry, London, Suffolk, Newcastle, York, Huddersfield and Nottingham. Expertise in those areas is building up.

I have to tell the hon. Member for Colchester that his town does not feature in that list. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not against the legislation in principle. I suggest that he ought in principle to be for it, and that he should encourage his friends on Colchester council to operate it. I know that he has great influence on the council, and I hope that he will consider urging his friends to put Colchester on the list. A shift in stance from not being against the legislation to being for it might be beneficial to his constituents and to everyone in that area. It might even help the Liberal Domocrat party's electoral chances, although I have no desire for that.

To our knowledge, only two of the 20 to 25 orders have been breached. In Newcastle, a defendant was imprisoned for 28 days and breached the order again on the day of his release. He was sentenced to two months imprisonment on 27 January for that second breach. The sanction bites when ASBOs are breached. In Nottingham, not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, an order was granted in December against a juvenile aged 14. The order has allegedly been breached, and the defendant is now on remand awaiting trial for that breach. I understand that the trial will take place in March.

Derbyshire was included in my list. It is worth quoting from an article published in Police Review by the officer in charge of the case in Derbyshire, Chief Inspector Royston Smith. He wrote:

"The neighbours have stated that it was a triumph of the community working together to fight off the bullies who destroyed their quality of life … as a result we were able to protect the civil liberties of the peaceful, law abiding majority who were at risk".

That is the view of the police officer in Derbyshire who dealt with the problem; it is a testament to the impact that the legislation can have when it is effectively applied. I congratulate the Derbyshire police force and the local authorities.

It is not only a question of successful legal action being taken. The metropolitan borough of Liverpool successfully applied for the first two orders. Over the past year, Liverpool has dealt successfully with more than 100 cases of anti-social behaviour, but only two have resulted in orders. I emphasise that although we need tough sanctions, our aim is to stop the anti-social behaviour. That is the purpose of ASBOs, so Liverpool's experience is encouraging.

The Minister has given us quite a lot of detail about how many orders have been imposed and where. I am slightly puzzled, because, in answer to the written questions that I cited, he said that information on the number of ASBOs granted or in progress was not held centrally. Do his answers today mean that such information is now held centrally and that we can ask further questions? If not, will be consider whether it should be?

I think that I said—I believe that the record will sustain this—that we still do not collect evidence centrally. We do, however, collect the details as far as we can.

The hon. Gentleman has a valid point. As part of the process, which I shall explain in a moment, I am prepared to consider whether data should be collected centrally, assisting not only the House but the rolling out of the whole programme.

Several red herrings have arisen on what ASBOs might cover. The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned Conservatives, hunters and morris dancers. It is not currently our intention that ASBOs, which deal essentially with anti-social behaviour on estates, should apply to those areas. The hon. Member for Guildford mentioned Mike Tyson; as far as I know, the Home Secretary, who considered many issues to do with Mike Tyson, did not consider whether an ASBO was an effective technique for dealing with him. There has even been a suggestion that the problem of Leylandii hedges be dealt with by ASBOs—an eventuality that the Home Office was able to prevent. We are talking about the sort of intimidation and anti-social behaviour that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling raised; that is the key aspect of the whole programme.

Several hon. Members correctly said that a wide range of measures are available. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) mentioned introductory tenancies, for example, which is an excellent idea that is being actively considered. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley also raised the question of school exclusion orders, and parenting orders were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. The range of options available to address the issues are under active consideration. We have not yet come to a view on the specific measures that the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned but are still discussing the best way to proceed. However, this point was legitimate and we are actively considering whether specific measures should be brought forward from the armoury of available measures. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned mediation. As a result of ASBOs, mediation has been able to work in several other specific ways.

It is critically important to develop a better use of ASBOs. That is why we have planned a series of meetings over the coming months to discuss the experience of those at the sharp end, to use the words of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is right: we want to learn the weaknesses in the structure in order to improve it and ensure that it moves forward. We also want to develop standard protocols, so that the wheel is not continually being reinvented, and to develop proper training and guidelines. We need to do better in those regards and are committed to doing so.

I shall deal with the several specific points that were raised. First, lawyers have raised several concerns about human rights. Apart from the rhetorical point on whose human rights are really at risk—on which I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling—the Government strongly believe that there is no human rights implication in the use of ASBOs that should in any way inhibit their use. That is the legal advice we have received, and it is our considered opinion. Those who argue that there is a serious human rights issue that should inhibit the use of ASBOs are, in my view and that of the Government, wrong.

The charge that the ASBO is too complex and bureaucratic was well made. However, apart from the fact that it is a two-stage process, we do not believe that it is unduly complex. It is in two stages because that enables us to address the issue at the first stage and does not immediately criminalise people. A civil remedy is provided at the first level. However, we are prepared to look at the precise way in which it operates to consider whether it can be made more effective. On the requirement, raised by my hon. Friend, for witnesses to attend court, the ASBO is a civil order and hearsay evidence can therefore be used, under section 1(2)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which deals with someone who is "likely to cause" harassment. It is for the courts to decide whether to accept such hearsay evidence, but the Home Office view is that such evidence is acceptable, thereby circumventing the need for physical attendance at court.

It has been suggested that the burden of evidence may be too heavy. Obviously, the amount of evidence required will ultimately depend on the court and the circumstances of the case. The police are aware that evidence needs to be proved only on a balance of probabilities. That is an important consideration. It is clearly in the interests of victims of anti-social behaviour for good quality evidence—

Order. We must now move to the next debate.

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr. Jones, and I am delighted that you will be presiding. I initiate the debate today because of the terrifying effect that may result from the Lord Chancellor's wish to save money by closing magistrates courts throughout the country, and especially in Devon and Cornwall. Lay magistrates, supported by justices' clerks, are best placed to provide local justice in courts throughout the country. However, judicial functions are increasingly being compromised by administrative expediency and financial cuts. That is unacceptable to the public, court users and the cause of justice.

Magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees of local magistrates selected by a selection panel of local magistrates. The committees act under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 and the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

The Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee is responsible for the proper and efficient operation of courts in Devon. It must determine not only the overall operation of justice but how many courthouses are necessary and what other accommodation, urban and rural, is required. In so doing, it acts in consultation with the relevant authority that makes money available for that work—in this case, Devon county council. The committee must operate within "the guidelines"—the diktat—of the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is trying to save the Government money.

The Lord Chancellor is obviously out of touch. When I complained about the centralisation of the youth court, which is to be removed from Axminster and sent to Exeter, he wrote:

"The magistrates Court Committee has no proposals to close Axminster or any court house in Devon and Cornwall."

Hon. Members might assume that that was written months or even years ago. The Parliamentary Secretary will probably have been supplied with the letter. On 22 November last year the Lord Chancellor was trying to fob off Members of Parliament in that way, when he must have known that his instructions to the magistrates courts committee would effect such closures. It is equally interesting that only last week the Parliamentary Secretary said in this very Chamber:

"The essential feature of local justice is that magistrates live or work in the locality."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34WH.]

The current approach of saving money through the Lord Chancellor's edict will result in exactly the opposite.

Closing the magistrates court at Axminster, which would require people who have been charged to appear in Exeter, is similar to closing a magistrates court in West Ealing and making people go to a court in Reading. That would be mad, and it is equally mad to expect those in the Axminster area to travel to Exeter for justice. What I am saying is not a foolish assumption—it has already happened. The youth court previously in Axminster has been transferred to and centralised in Exeter.

As usual, the right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful speech. He knows Devon and Cornwall well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and knows that there are countless such examples. Does he agree that it is ludicrous even to suggest that people from Okehampton should travel to Barnstaple for those purposes, and that the proposals are short sighted, unlikely to provide any savings and inimical to access to justice?

Order. I should tell hon. Members that the House has ordered that people such as me should be addressed by name, not as Mr. Deputy Speaker. My name is Mr. Jones.

So far as "local" is concerned, I shall quote from a letter from a well-known solicitor in my constituency, Mr. Colin Chesterton. He wrote to me after seeing the Lord Chancellor's letter in November and said:

"What we now have is the worst of all worlds, with cases being heard in the wrong place for the wrong reason. To describe Devon Magistrates Courts as 'locally managed' is a bizarre use of the word local. Devon and Cornwall is a 'region'. It is worth remembering that Axminster is equidistant from Penzance as it is from London. I take it that it is not proposed that somebody from Axminster should have a say in whether South London Magistrates Courts should do Youth Courts work. I am sure that those in the Lord Chancellor's Department are very clever, but geography is not their strongest suit. They could also brush up on their English and the use of the word 'local'. Unless of course they think we can be fobbed off with platitudes about what is really local decision making."

Let me come to the major worry. The magistrates courts committee has proposed that 10 of the 17 courts in Devon should be closed. Those are: Axminster, Exmouth, Kingsbridge, South Molton, Tavistock, Teignmouth, Tiverton, Bideford, Okehampton and Newton Abbot. Exmouth, the second-largest town in the county of Devon, is to have its court closed. Does that really make sense to its population? It is a tragedy for local people and is typical of the Government's lack of attention to the requirements of the countryside.

As my right hon. Friend is aware, the problems that he referred to are happening throughout the country. Does he share my concern that we are seeing an enormous centralising tendency in which everything local is subsumed to the diktats of the Treasury?

It is really a tragedy. In the long term, we will see local magistrates being taken over by stipendiary magistrates as part of the centralisation.

One of the major factors understood by everyone with experience of magistrates courts is that local magistrates know the people in their locality. They are most likely to know the local rogues and malcontents, and transferring them to centres a considerable distance away from their locality will soon mean that that important local aspect of justice is lost. To expect justices of the peace sitting in Exeter to have the knowledge of the local justice of the peace sitting in Axminster is nonsense. What is more, it is likely that people living 30 miles from the court will think twice before taking on the responsibility of becoming a local magistrate. Local people will not come forward.

I turn to the problem of getting respondents to a court many miles from their home. In an urban area, one can jump on a bus, or in London one can take the tube. There are no tubes in Devon or Cornwall, and the bus services in many country districts are so infrequent that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for some people to get to court by 10 am. People living in Beer, Branscombe and Seaton have a limited bus service, and would have to take the bus to Axminster and the train to Exeter. That is immensely time consuming and incurs considerable cost. Moreover, as one of my solicitors pointed out, they may not be able to get back home that night, which would mean finding a bed in Exeter.

Will the Minister tell us how much the Lord Chancellor's Department is trying to save by these amalgamations? I have heard that it is £225 million. I do not know if that is correct, but I would like a figure to be given to us in the debate. Even if the figure is that high, is it not well worth the Government's while to spend such an amount to ensure local justice?

May I analyse some of the effects of the closures of local magistrates courts? I take Axminster as an example because I know it well, and because it is illustrative of the other towns to which I have referred. Once Axminster court closes, it will lose its county court and its tax commissioners hearings, and we shall no longer have coroners' inquests. The probation service will have no office in which to meet its clients on neutral ground anywhere nearer than Exmouth, which could be difficult for female probation officers dealing with male sex offenders. That will be made worse by the announcement that the Exmouth court is to close, so the probation service in Exmouth will have to move to Exeter as well.

Local papers will be unlikely to report petty crimes, as they would if they were dealt with locally, because they will be dealt with in the two major courts in Exeter, with each court often handling 50 cases a day. Local papers will probably report only serious crimes, which is not much help to the elderly who are worried about crime. They would see papers carrying only stories about rape, murder and so on, instead of run-of-the-mill cases such as shoplifting and motor offences.

The Devon and Cornwall constabulary has confirmed that Axminster police station is to close. At the moment, we have a courthouse. Costs of about £7,000 will be incurred to make it comply with disability requirements. East Devon district council, realising the need to keep the local court, has offered to pay half that amount, even though there is no obligation for it to do so. If the courthouse is to disappear, the capital cost of any future replacement would be such as to make its reconstitution unlikely. It is interesting to note that the capital cost of the courthouse was written off many years ago.

I am worried that there has been no proper cost benefit analysis of the closure of this court. The Government do not know how human rights legislation will affect the operation of local courts. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on that? I am told that it will increase the work load in magistrates courts. It is nonsense to have the wholesale closures of courts and the loss of their existing facilities, if their work is to be expanded.

I return to the question of getting people to court. I have checked the following times this morning to ensure that they are correct. The people now served by the Axminster court in the villages of Hawkchurch, Dalwood, Branscombe, Chardstock and Membury have buses only once a week—Tuesdays or Thursdays—at only one time, which varies from 1.35 pm, 10.30 am, 12.45 pm, 9.10 am and 10.30 am. I suppose that the Government do not have to consider people living in those areas.

That is a major error of judgment by the Lord Chancellor, who should know better. He is there to defend justice, not to attack it. Undermining local justice to save a relatively small amount of money is a threat to local society, completely misunderstands the problem of those who live in and around the countryside. The Government should know better.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr. Jones. It is the first time that I have been required to answer a debate such as this in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary. I look forward to returning on future occasions, as I am sure that hon. Members will return to this subject.

Last week, I congratulated the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing a debate on similar issues. I now congratulate the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on securing this debate and allowing us to return to these matters. He has demonstrated the importance of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman made a most interesting speech, making many serious points well, expressing his constituents' concerns and demonstrating the local strength of feeling about this matter. It may help if I set out the current position in Devon and Cornwall.

Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee, which came into existence on 1 April 1999, undertook a review of all aspects of the service to decide how best to fulfil its statutory duty. As I said last week, it is sensible and rational for these reviews to take place, and the Government expect no less of committees discharging their responsibilities. In conducting reviews, committees must have regard to the level of service that they seek to provide across the area as a whole. They cannot look at any one part of their area in isolation.

The committee has begun a consultation exercise on its proposals to develop the service over the next five years. The consultation period does not close until 7 April. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate from previous debates that at this stage any matters in connection with the proposals are for the Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee to address.

Will the Minister tell the House whether there are any instructions from her Department, as alluded to by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), in relation to cost savings or overall budgets for Devon and Cornwall?

Having anticipated that those issues might be raised, I shall come to them shortly.

As I was saying, these are only proposals: the end result will not necessarily be the closure of 13 courts. The courts committee will carefully consider the results of its consultation exercise on 13 April, when it next meets.

The Government already encourage courts committees to extend their consultation processes wider than is required by section 56(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. They usually consult more widely than only among their paying authorities. Consultees typically include magistrates, the staff, the police, the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service, Members of Parliament and professional users of the courts. Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee consults far more widely than the statutory minimum.

If a magistrates courts committee makes a determination to close a courthouse, the paying authority has the sole right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor against the proposed closure. I assure hon. Members that we give detailed consideration to the case that is presented when an appeal is made, and we shall do in this case, should the paying authorities appeal.

Is the Minister saying that the Government will make available to the local magistrates courts committee the same amount of money that it has had in the past, and that it therefore does not have to close anything because it has the necessary money? Surely closures occur because the committees do not have the funds.

Proposals to change the way in which courtrooms are distributed are not normally cost driven, but are informed by the requirement of the magistrates courts committees to provide modern court services that meet the needs of court users. I shall come to that issue in a few minutes. I shall keep my eye on the clock so that I make sure that I respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

All the points made by local representation, the paying authority and hon. Members are listened to carefully. Travelling time, cost, convenience and accessibility to the courts are points frequently raised with the Department. Right hon. and hon. Members will be heartened to learn that not all appeals are dismissed by the Lord Chancellor.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of statutory responsibility, which, as he said, is set out in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. No instructions from the Lord Chancellor order that a court should proceed along a certain route, or that decisions should be driven by cost. I hope that I have reassured the right hon. Gentleman on that point. As I said last week, when he was present, magistrates courts committees are made up of local magistrates, selected by a local panel. We must remember that "local" means different things to different people: for some it means the town, for others the village and for others the magistrates courts committee area.

I want to spend a moment describing the functions of the magistrates courts committees and those elected to serve on them, so that hon. Members are aware of their responsibilities. The changes enacted by the previous Government were designed to make the committees more effective as management boards and to extend the range of skills available. The Government did not envisage individual benches of magistrates no longer having a say in the management of the courts in their area, but saw individual members being selected on the basis of the skills and abilities that they could bring to the area as a whole. The committee's function can best be summed up by repeating what Lord McIntosh of Haringey said during the passage of the Access to Justice Bill:

"The committee is there to decide strategy and set standards and to monitor and be accountable for implementation and achievement.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 1265.]

One way in which to modernise and improve the service would be to transfer the work load to better equipped centres. Local magistrates who form courts committees have local knowledge, and are best placed to decide how to make the best use of all their resources. Only when a decision is challenged by the paying authority does the Lord Chancellor become involved. The Government believe that those arrangements are working well and that committees are comprised of those who can best serve the needs of the area as a whole. It would not be consistent with our aim to modernise the service if we were to return, as has been suggested, to a system of geographical representation that may serve the interests of individual benches rather than the magistrates courts overall.

It is crucial that the committee should be able to plan strategically for the whole of its area. I can only reiterate that it is entirely for local magistrates courts to make any decisions on the number and location of courthouses, in consultation with the relevant paying authorities—in this case, Cornwall county council, which is the lead authority, Devon county council, Torbay unitary council, Plymouth unitary council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

Those matters lie solely within the responsibility of local magistrates courts committees. When resources are tight, it is up to the local committee to manage within available resources. However, the central council of magistrates courts committees has produced a good practice guide on the subject of court closures, and the Government encourage magistrates courts committees to follow that advice.

I turn to funding. I am sure that hon. Members are aware that the Government provide 80 per cent. of the revenue grant to magistrates courts committees and local authorities contribute 20 per cent. Individual committees are given an annual allocation, but it is left to each committee to determine how best to use the funds to provide services, including courthouses in each area.

I was asked last week about the funding formula. We are reviewing the mechanism for allocating grant to magistrates courts committees. One of the issues that is being considered is whether there should be a sparsity factor to reflect higher costs associated with providing services in generally rural areas. We expect to finalise that review in time for the financial year 2001–22.

The right hon. Member for East Devon asked about amalgamations. In the long term, it is reckoned that amalgamations will save 6 per cent. of the budget of a magistrates courts committee overall. Consultants were commissioned by the previous Government to look into proposed amalgamations at Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull. Efficiency savings are not just cost savings. They include improvements in the court service delivered to court users, as I discussed at length last week.

Dealing with Devon alone, prior to the amalgamation with Cornwall, in cash terms the total revenue resources available increased by £220,000 in the four years to 1998–29. We are not discussing an issue that is being driven by costs and cost savings. We are discussing issues that the magistrates courts committees must decide, bearing in mind their local information and experience, and bringing that to bear on the services that they provide to the court users and to the delivery of justice in their locality.

The Minister is being most helpful and I know that she is trying to assist me, but I shall come to the nub of the matter. Will the Devon committee receive this year the same amount in the 80 per cent. that comes from the Government as it received last year, although presumably with a 3 per cent. increase for inflation?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him in reply to that question, because I do not want to mislead him.

Will the Minister also extrapolate the projections for the two following years and send me a copy of the letter?

I shall be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my letter to the right hon. Member for East Devon.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Human Rights Act 1998 and I have only a few minutes left. He will be pleased to learn that the Government are considering the whole question of ensuring that magistrates courts premises provide, as far as possible, facilities that are compatible with the European convention on human rights. I do not anticipate any closures resulting directly from implementation of the 1998 Act on 2 October this year. However, magistrates courts committees may need to apply a higher threshold than now when considering, for example, the standard of custody, interview and witness facilities that are required in courthouses. When the viability of rural courts houses is assessed, many factors need to be taken into account, including the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Our overriding concern must be to provide facilities that can deliver the required service at an acceptable standard. We must take a pragmatic—

Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss best practice in the ambulance service, which has an excellent record in Staffordshire, where my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) are located. I also speak as someone who avidly watches "Casualty" every Saturday night.

A "Panorama" investigation that was broadcast on 17 January raised important questions about training, the pre-emergency hospital care that is available throughout the country and the management of the national health service ambulance service. That programme, which was criticised for concentrating on six incidents that I shall not discuss, shed a spotlight on wider issues, including the differences in ambulance services and training and response times between regions. I hope that we can discuss those matters constructively. The Government need to consider their response to the disparities in standards and performance that the "Panorama" programme highlighted.

I want to put Staffordshire's record straight and to discuss with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), whether Britain can benefit from my county's best practice and what best practice should be applied throughout the country. Ministers recognised in paraliamentary answers that were given to me in February 1998 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands in July 1998 that the Staffordshire ambulance service is a beacon. My county's approach should be in the main stream. My county's performance could help the Government to develop new standards.

Service provision in Staffordshire will be subject to an independent audit by the Sheffield university medical care research unit. We shall know, when that audit is published, whether the practice in Staffordshire could help to influence ambulance service provision. When we need an ambulance, it is important that we get it quickly and that it has a suitably qualified and experienced crew. I pay tribute to the work of paramedics and ambulance service crews across the country. We must ensure that they receive appropriate training and management and that they have career prospects that will help them to deliver the services that the public want.

What scope is there for ensuring greater standardisation of best practice? I want to ensure that there is a higher minimum standard; I do not want to stifle local variations and regional differences, which contribute to the overall performance of the ambulance service. That higher minimum standard would ensure that regional disparities were better understood and resourced and that all services were levelled upwards. Paramedics are about to become a state-registered profession run by a board that will operate under the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. What progress—I ask this in a spirit of constructive criticism—has been made in that regard? Will the new way of organising paramedics in the ambulance service contain sufficient powers to ensure that they can do the job that the public expect them to do?

I turn to the training of paramedics. I do not doubt their commitment and dedication, but do we offer enough? For example, compared to the training offered by other countries, or that offered to military technicians in our defence services, we could perhaps offer more. The standard of paramedic training in the United Kingdom is far below that required for emergency medical technicians and paramedics in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. We must consider best practice not only across the country but internationally.

We must also consider national funding, and the structures and mechanisms that are needed to improve training. How is that process being reviewed? I am slightly worried by research conducted at Sheffield university, which suggests that there is a detrimental variation in treatment offered by ambulance crews.

Should not greater attention be given to various clinical protocols throughout the country? On the "Panorama" programme, Barry John, who is chairman of the Ambulance Service Association, admitted that some services do not use best practice at the moment. We must ensure that the association is able to achieve best practice.

Some counties authorise certain life-saving drugs and others do not. Paramedics in some counties are trained in life-saving techniques and others are not. Is there any longer an excuse for such variations? In the light of the fact that three counties that have different protocols have merged to form an east midlands trust, the time has come for a national minimum standard.

Does the Minister agree that now is the time to rethink the new targets that will be linked to core prioritisation by April 2001? I recognise that progress has been made, but core prioritisation studies and the achievements revealed by Department of Health statistics make it clear that not all pilot projects have met the new national standards. New priority dispatch ambulance performance standards have been adopted. The aim is that 75 per cent. of category A calls—emergencies—will be responded to within 8 minutes, and 95 per cent. of all other calls will be responded to within 14 minutes. However, in adopting those standards and targets, are we not going backwards? Only Staffordshire ambulance trust has met them.

We should examine best practice and assess whether it can be applied elsewhere. We should consider implementing a system of modelling that has helped to identify peak demand areas and plan staff deployment, thereby providing better standards across the country. We should learn lessons from that, and from the target response times that have consistently been met during the past four years. I am worried that we are adopting a two-tier response system. Two out of eight pilot ambulance services have been unable to meet their targets. Time must be taken to assess that problem before further progress can be made.

During the time remaining, I shall focus on achievements in Staffordshire. Of course, we have wonderful crews and paramedics, a good working relationship with Staffordshire's Members of Parliament, input from trade unions and an enormous amount of community liaison work taking place every day throughout the country. I refer particularly to the 40 automated exterior defibrillators that we have in Staffordshire, and I support The Observer campaign for more defibrillators and put in a request for at least two more in north Staffordshire.

Under the Staffordshire partnership, about 1,000 pupils every year are trained in first aid by the ambulance trust. The lunchtime for lifeline programme offers training in first aid for those in industry and other workplaces. Above all, Staffordshire's records and response times far exceed those of anywhere else in the country and if we can achieve them, why cannot other places do so?

I pay tribute to the work that has been done to win Staffordshire a beacon award. The award is a standard of excellence for the retirement and retention scheme, which enables those ambulance workers who cannot continue working full-time to return, but to work different hours. That is an example of good personnel work. I also congratulate the Staffordshire ambulance service on winning a charter mark award for providing quality services.

All those factors can be linked to the modernisation programme that the new Labour Government want to put into place. I would be the first to accept that we cannot always get it right. Certainly, Staffordshire has had problems with the health authority's specification for its patient transport service, and it has proved difficult to meet response time targets. However, the new system that Staffordshire is modelling would benefit the rest of the country. I would like to see much closer links between hospitals and general practitioners and GP trusts. If a new category of beacon award is wanted, the North Staffordshire hospital trust primary group, which is seeking trust status, could act as a pilot scheme.

The time is now right to take stock and scrutinise. Above all, it is time to involve the professionals, the managers and the unions, who work so hard for the ambulance service. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to visit Staffordshire. We have been visited by ambulance service personnel and Ministers from all around the world, most recently from New South Wales. I would be very happy if a member of the new Labour Government could visit Staffordshire and discuss those matters in detail with Staffordshire's Members of Parliament.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing this important debate, and thank her for allowing me a little share of it. As my hon. Friend said, Staffordshire ambulance service has achieved outstanding results. What surprised me about the "Panorama" programme was the reluctance of the service nationally to explore the reasons for Staffordshire's success. It is no surprise to Staffordshire's Members of Parliament, but it must be incomprehensible to many others.

The changes in Staffordshire were brought about with considerable angst. Inevitably, staff were reluctant to be thrown out of their comfortable ambulance stations, but the results speak for themselves. Ultimately, all ambulance staff want to perform at their best. They are professionals who want to see a job well done.

We have a national health service that has national standards and national training courses. Why do we not have a national ambulance service? As we saw on "Panorama", different ambulance services make different drugs available. Each service purchases its own ambulances. That purchasing policy produces no economies of scale, and some services have made bad mistakes. There seems to be little exchange of ideas when it comes to choosing the right vehicles for such an essential job.

As my hon. Friend suggested, the most significant factor for patients is the absence of nationally funded training. Each ambulance trust has to fund its own training. Staff have to pay back their training costs to the trust if they leave the job. I cannot imagine nurses having to pay back the costs of their training when they find new posts at other hospitals. That might not be a problem if, as the "Panorama" programme suggested, training for paramedics lasted only six weeks, but it does not. Initially, basic grade ambulance technicians have six weeks' training, after which they work with an experienced person for one year. The technicians are then tested on their confidence and undertake practical and written tests. After a further two years, all prospective paramedics must pass a stringent examination before being accepted for training. Only then do they undertake six weeks' introductory training. They have also to undergo a series of study days during the following year.

Prospective paramedics are accepted as qualified paramedics only when they pass written and practical examinations. They are tested by consultants in hospitals. They must then undertake regular refresher courses. Training is rightly an important part of the ambulance service, because lives are at stake. Because trusts have to fund their own training budgets, training inevitably becomes squeezed. I have received complaints that ambulance staff have had problems being accepted on paramedic courses.

Ambulance services provide additional facilities. Because of its rural nature, Staffordshire, particularly my constituency of Moorlands, developed the first responder scheme. Trained volunteers are on call to provide initial support and assurance to people within their own communities before the ambulance arrives. That can be vital in isolated rural areas, especially in the winter when it can be extremely difficult to reach houses and farms. Such services must rely on the generosity of local vehicle dealers to provide suitable transport. Since 1991, Staffordshire has had an air ambulance service, which can ensure that patients arrive at the north Staffordshire trauma centre quickly enough to have a real chance of survival and a speedy recovery. However, that service is having to raise £120,000 just to build a new helipad outside the accident and emergency department. For it to operate, it needs sponsorship on a daily basis. As we enter the 21st century, is that the right way forward for a modern ambulance service? I think not. I should be grateful to receive my hon. Friend's response.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing the debate today, not least because she has had a longstanding interest in the performance of her local ambulance trust. I understand that she met my predecessor in 1998 together with the chief executive of the trust. She raised several issues, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), referring to the "Panorama" programme, the training of staff and regional variations. Lessons are being learned from what is happening in Staffordshire. I shall come on to core prioritisation and explain how it will not create a two-tier system, but allow us to prioritise. I agreed some time ago to visit my hon. Friend's constituency in Staffordshire and I shall be delighted to see what is happening there for myself.

Today's debate is very appropriate, because the ambulance service is at the cutting edge of the patients' experience in what are often life-threatening circumstances. The Government's commitment to a fair, fast and efficient service will be tested to its limits. We must consider what is happening to ambulance services in the context of the whole modernisation programme, which also covers NHS Direct and what is being done in accident and emergency departments to enable patients to receive a seamless service.

Training standards are important. The public expect a prompt response by skilled assistants when they call an ambulance in emergencies or life-threatening situations. That applies whether the response is from a conventional two-man ambulance or a lone paramedic in a fast-response vehicle.

It is also important to recognise that for some patients, particularly in cases of coronary heart disease or a stroke, the clinically based eight-minute recommended response time—Staffordshire is currently the only trust that meets the target—is extremely significant for recovery and long-term prospects. For that reason, we are keen to encourage every ambulance trust in the country to examine its practices. Such systems as Staffordshire's first responder scheme are also particularly helpful in rural areas.

I spent last Friday in an ambulance because I thought that I should know what I am talking about. That experience brought home to me how challenging the eight-minute response is. However, it is not just about making a rapid initial response; we also need trained control room staff and facilities so that vital advice can be given to the crew as they deal with the patient from arrival and during the journey to hospital. The evidence on what should and should not be done in the pre-hospital phase of an emergency is significantly lacking. That is a major obstacle that must be recognised. However, we have put into place clinical audits and research to devise the best model for the patient.

The Government modernisation agenda is based on improving our standards and service delivery on the basis of clinical evidence. That is also our approach to the ambulance service.

As we are about to start the next round of the comprehensive spending review and the modernisation programme for the NHS is such an important part of that, does my hon. Friend agree that we should press the Chancellor to ensure that ambulances feature significantly in the NHS modernisation programme, with ring-fenced money to enable them to play their part in the integrated whole of the NHS that we know and love?

We all know that the comprehensive spending review and manager negotiations are complicated and tricky, but I assure my hon. Friend that, as part of my ministerial responsiblity, I will fight my corner as best I can.

Having looked at the general concepts, I turn to the example of Staffordshire. Ministers have frequently been accused of ignoring Staffordshire. That is far from the case. Not only is research being conducted by Sheffield to consider Staffordshire in its regular visits, but some of the lessons that we have learnt from Staffordshire are already being implemented. However, it is important that we have a clear picture of why things work in Staffordshire and, more to the point, of what can be transferred. I was interested to read this morning's parliamentary briefing from the NHS Confederation, which largely welcomes what we are doing. It states:

"It is important not to assume that good practice can necessarily be transferred without adaptation from one location to another. We must therefore be quite clear where Staffordshire is succeeding."

I emphasise that Staffordshire has been at the cutting edge in technological development and has generously shared its experience with other services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned targets. The current target is to respond to 75 per cent. of category A—immediately lifethreatening—calls within eight minutes. Staffordshire has shown significant improvement in its handling of such cases, which has resulted in improved patient outcomes. Some of Staffordshire's radical and innovative measures have benefited the local population. That should be recognised.

Staffordshire and others are implementing more efficient services in several areas. One is improved dynamic location practices. I am sure that many of us have sometimes seen an ambulance waiting in a lay-by and wondered what it is doing. It is there deliberately—as part of a system of predicting demand patterns. Extremely successful statistical models are in use, so in Staffordshire ambulances stand by at the best locations in relation to expected demand patterns. Something similar is the case for improved relief levels. Having staff on call so that they can be brought in to meet unexpected peaks in demand has been effective, but is extremely demanding on the staff. There is a danger that they feel that they are on call for 24 hours.

Much the same applies to improved activation times, which require better control room procedures, preparation of crews and ambulance availability. All that cuts vital seconds in those essential fast response times. There must also be improvements in the matching of resources to demand, which means flexible rostering to ensure that the shifts match expected demand levels. It is only sensible to use the staff available most efficiently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North fears that core prioritisation may lead to a two-tier system. We must recognise the great variation in the kind of calls that ambulance crews receive in a day. Any system must ensure that the most urgent calls—those when response is clearly critical within eight minutes—receive the first priority. Some calls—those in category C, for example—allow huge scope for NHS Direct to use a second stage of triaging to assess appropriate response levels. I assure my hon. Friend that core prioritisation is not a means by which we intend to create a two-tier system, but simply a means to ensure that the response is appropriate to the need.

We shall have the report on the research in Staffordshire by the end of the month, and it is important that we learn from it. I would like to make a couple of brief remarks about state registration and training. My hon. Friend wanted to know about the board, which I understand met for the first time yesterday. We are delighted that is up and running. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands is right to believe that "Panorama" misrepresented the amount of training involved. Comparisons have been made with America, but gunshots and stabbings, which are common critical injuries in that country, require different kinds of response.

I would like to ensure that we all leave the debate with a recognition that ambulance facilities are part of our emergency service. The development of NHS Direct, ambulance facilities and accident and emergency facilities will provide important services. The failure of the vast majority of ambulance trusts to meet some response targets requires us to consider closely how we deliver the service. A patient needs a speedy response from the right people and to be taken to the right hospital at the right time. Staffordshire is giving us a good lead on how we should develop that.

Similarly, we will ensure that patient care is improved by considering how staff are used while the patient is in transit. We shall introduce state registration for paramedics and ensure that the people who respond to calls are appropriately trained and continue to be trained. We should also recognise what a difficult job those in the ambulance services have—a job in which demand is continually increasing. They make life-and-death decisions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and have had responded to around 3 million calls in the past year. However, there is no room for complacency. We must consider the needs of rural and urban areas, and above all ensure that we respond in time when clinical conditions are the relevant indicators, especially for an eight-minute response time.

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on the crisis in the pig industry. This is my debut appearance in this Chamber. Today's debate is especially timely, because it coincides with the National Farmers Union annual conference. Pig farms face unprecedented hard times and a complete lack of sympathy and understanding of the crisis in the countryside from the Government. That was displayed most recently by the Prime Minister this weekend, although he was, perhaps, slightly more sympathetic in his speech at the conference today. I invite the Prime Minister, as part of his tour of the countryside, to visit the Vale of York, meet local pig producers and witness their plight for himself. A glimpse of the reality in North Yorkshire would quickly change his tune.

The British pig industry is the innocent victim of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy regime. Simply removing meat and bonemeal articles from the animal food chain adds a cost of more than £5 per pig. Prices in the United Kingdom are depressed, as the Prime Minister today recognised. We face cheaper imports and a strong pound. The Government have failed to pay agrimonetary compensation for the high pound and the weak euro.

In addition, on 1 January, the UK unilaterally imposed a sow stall-and-tether ban. All other European Union countries, including our main competitors, Denmark and Holland, will face the ban only six years hence, on 1 January 2006. The cost to the UK producer of that one measure alone is estimated to be £220 million. That is unfair, and puts UK producers at a competitive disadvantage, as Dutch, Danish, Belgian, French and German producers are not expected to comply.

As a result, pound for pound and kilo for euro, British pork prices will increase, and the price of continental competitive imports will be reduced. Those disadvantages are aggravated by the increasingly strong pound and the crippling additional costs of implementing the European Union integrated pollution prevention and control directive, which will have a singularly negative impact on the UK pig industry. Early conservative estimates suggest an initial start-up cost of £18,000 a farm, and annual running costs thereafter of £6,000, equating to £1,200 a day, which will add an extra £2.50 to the production of each pig in this country. The annual cost of implementing the integrated pollution prevention and control directive in this country alone is estimated to be £13 million.

A three-pronged attack is the very least that the Government should consider. A one-off Treasury grant should be made to pig producers in order to restructure the pig sector—not to subsidise pig farmers' incomes, which is strictly forbidden under EU competition rules. The Prime Minister invites pig producers to diversify, but how can they afford to do so in the present crisis? They merely want a Treasury grant on a strictly comparable basis to those provided in other EU countries, such as the Belgian national aid provided to restructure the market in the wake of the dioxin scandal.

The aid scheme that pig farmers envisage would offset the cost of BSE-related measures that have been imposed on the pig industry on public health grounds. There was a general belief, which the Government encouraged, that the Commission received such a package from the Government last year. I received a letter from the European Commission dated 11 November last year, formally notifying me that no such package had been received. A gentleman whom I am sure the Minister knows extremely well, Mr. Legras, the director general for agriculture, wrote:

"The services of the Commission are aware"—

perhaps more aware than the Government—

"of the difficulties confronting the pig sector in the UK and informal contacts have taken place between my staff and the British authorities to discuss what form an aid might take. At the present time, however, we have not received from the UK any formal notification of proposals to grant aid.

In order to be acceptable any aid must of course meet the conditions laid down by the Treaty. In particular, the aid should facilitate the economic development of the sector. Aids which are simply intended to offset trading losses are in principle not acceptable under the Community rules."

There has been some movement today. BBC News Online states that the Prime Minister said in a speech to the National Farmers Union conference this morning that he

"did not rule out the possibility of cash help for the beleaguered pig industry"

and was

"prepared to listen to ideas."

However, he went on to say that

"while investment could help, it had to be tied to long-term change and reform."

Commissioner Franz Fischler, in correspondence with pig farmers nationally, had indicated that such a package would be favourably viewed, provided it did not cause distortion to the market. In his letter of 9 December 1999, he set out the acceptability of state aid being granted to compensate British pig producers for higher production costs for pigmeat resulting from restrictions on disposal of offal. In the past, such aid from the UK to pig farmers was authorised by the Commission under article 87(2)(b) of the treaty, as an exceptional occurrence intended to make good the damage caused by the BSE crisis. If the Government are to reintroduce such aid, they must prove that the losses that are being incurred by UK pig producers are the direct result of an exceptional occurrence recognised by the Commission, and are not due to other factors.

I am dwelling on the matter in some depth because I was a trainee in the Commission's competition directorate, and perhaps more familiar with the terminology than are many hon. Members. In his letter of 9 December, Commissioner Fischler set out an alternative head of aid. He stated that aid to facilitate development of the pig sector must be justified under article 87(3)(c) of the treaty—that is, to help to restructure the industry to meet changed market conditions.

There seems to be some convergence between the Prime Minister's hopes and aspirations for pig farmers and the requests that pig farmers wish to submit to the Government. I fully accept that aid that is simply intended to offset current trading losses is unacceptable. Given the exceptional circumstances that those in the pig industry have endured for at least the past six months, I make a plea to the Minister—and, through her, to the Prime Minister—to demonstrate the Government's big heart by making a one-off payment to the industry, subject to the European Commission approval that I outlined. That would enable pig farmers to deal with the unprecedented and uncompetitive conditions that they face, satisfy EU criteria and give pig farmers a means of earning their living, now and in future.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I welcome the support of the hon. Gentleman, and that of other hon. Members who are here, but unfortunately he did not advise me or the Minister that he wished to intervene.

Will the Government be big-hearted and brave-hearted enough to show an understanding of the crisis and of the despair in the countryside? That would be very welcome in the Vale of York and elsewhere. Today, the Prime Minister invited farmers to diversify, but they simply do not have the funds to do so.

Today's speech by the Prime Minister suggested that there may be some movement in favour of positive animal welfare-friendly labelling. That was welcome. If pork is imported and processed here, the label should say so. Marking the country of origin of pork would assist consumers in choosing which meat to buy. If it does not meet this country's stringent animal welfare criteria, the label should say so, and consumers should be allowed to decide for themselves. Cheaper pork of inferior quality, which is produced under less humane conditions that do not meet our animal welfare specifications, could be introduced.

Working within the parameters of agenda 2000 and the new objective 2 funding I accept that objective 5b status has gone. The possibilities of rural development funds will apply increasingly in the future. North Yorkshire qualifies for a generous allocation of new objective 2 funding. I hope that all hon. Members can work together to ensure that objective 2 benefits North Yorkshire and other regions that have been badly affected by problems in the pig sector. I hope that consideration will be given to certain aspects of rural development policy, and especially to areas threatened by abandonment. I hope that we make an imaginative application of the limited funds available.

I shall now conclude to allow other hon. Members to speak before the Minister's reply. I urge the Minister to agree that there is a crisis in the countryside, and nowhere more visibly than in the pig sector. I invite the Minister to work closely with the pig industry to agree a one-off grant of assistance with the approval of the European Commission. That is not a novel idea; it was successfully pursued by the Irish Government in June 1998, the Belgian Government in July 1999, and the French Government, who submitted a £17 million application this year. Farmers in the Vale of York have been heavily involved in the application to the Government, and I would like to pay tribute to Stewart Houston, who farms at Thornborough in Bedale. He said:

"The industry believes we can put forward a scheme for support which is legal and operable and which Brussels would support."

I therefore urge the Government, and the Minister, to save our pig industry and show their human face in recognising the plight of the countryside in general, and of pig farmers in particular.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate on an important subject. She referred to the importance of the industry to her constituency and to her part of the world, of which I am well aware. That is because I have visited the area on a number of occasions, and because of the way in which she and other hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, have raised these issues in recent weeks and months. I am also aware not only of the number of pig farmers in her area but of the related pig processing industries and of the work involved in delivering pigmeat and pork products to our supermarkets.

I share the hon. Lady's concern about the pig industry and I hope that, on some points at least, I can respond in a positive manner. I believe that the Government have done a great deal in recent weeks and months to address concerns in the pig industry, although it is true that some of the ideas that have been put forward are difficult to implement. The hon. Lady and I will be especially aware of the reason for that, as we have both been Members of the European Parliament and know the European Commission and the European system. Some of the constraints in agricultural sectors do not receive high levels of intervention and market support. The pig industry, of course, does not come under such provisions. The hon. Lady also referred to certain significant events, especially the annual conference of the National Farmers Union, in London, and the Prime Minister's speech to the NFU this morning.

The pig sector is in serious difficulties; there is no way of disguising that. It is acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides. Although the industry has had to contend with peaks and troughs on many occasions in the past—the cycle of the pig industry is well known—the current crisis is deeper and we must take certain special factors into account.

As the Minister said, pigmeat is not a supported sector in the European Union. Would it not be appropriate for the Government to look kindly on the provision of one-off aid? Most of the cost to the pig industry has been imposed by the ban on sow stalls and tethers, by the IPPC directive and by the so-called BSE tax.

In responding to the hon. Lady, I shall mention each specific sector in turn. The Government have proposed specific schemes in recent months, notably the agricultural development scheme. Furthermore, in December the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made an announcement about the future direction of agriculture under the rural development regulation.

An important aspect and asset of that development regulation is that it is a way of helping sectors not traditionally supported under the common agricultural policy regime. We welcome the flexibility in the rural development regulation to look at all sectors of agriculture and not only those that have traditionally received a great deal of public support through the common agricultural policy. That point needs to be placed firmly on the record.

UK pig producers contributed to the production increases in Europe in 1996 and 1997. In 1998, our pigmeat production reached a level not achieved for many years. However, when prices started to fall, producers here responded in the way in which they always have, by cutting back on production. That would normally have resulted in shortages of pigmeat, which would in turn have resulted in higher prices. That did not happen for a number of reasons. Production continued to rise in some countries, and, even now, after nearly two years of crisis, production levels in countries such as Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and France have only just started to fall. Consequently, large quantities of pigmeat are available on the market at very low sterling prices. The hon. Lady mentioned the problems for pig producers caused by the high level of sterling and the low level of the euro during the past year.

UK production still attracts a premium, and we are still net exporters of pork. It is important that those calling for disruptive action against legal imports should bear that in mind, as they may not realise that any retaliation would affect many pig producers still exporting pork products.

Can the Minister confirm that the competition from abroad is not subject to the same humane restrictions that are imposed on our pig industry? Will she also confirm that, since those restrictions are imposed by our own Government's requirements, there is a strong case for the industry to be given special support?

I shall come to those points, which the hon. Member for Vale of York raised in her speech.

I wish to develop the point raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Will the Government consider raising consumer awareness of the higher quality of produce created in this country? That would enable shoppers to make a more discerning choice between pigmeat produced here and imports from overseas that may be of inferior quality.

That is an important point on an issue on which we have been active for some time. I hope, if time permits, to list the initiatives that we have taken in that direction.

The industry in Britain faces problems that our competitors in the European Union and the rest of the world do not. There is no doubt that the BSE crisis has caused the pig industry difficulties. Ironically, at the beginning of the crisis the pig industry, which the hon. Member for Vale of York described as an innocent victim, was an innocent beneficiary. As we know, for a considerable time there was much lower confidence in beef, and many consumers switched to pork and pigmeat. We are all glad that British consumer confidence in the beef industry has been restored, but that has involved a switch in consumption back to beef, which has added to the pig industry's difficulties.

The BSE crisis also resulted in strict health controls that are not mirrored in other countries. There has been a great deal of discussion with the European Commission to look at ways of assisting the industry to combat the effects of the BSE tax, as the pig industry has started to call it. Indeed, the hon. Lady referred to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech to the NFU this morning about the pig industry.

However, the hon. Lady did not give a fair account of our contacts with the Commission. She quoted a letter that she had seen from the European Commission. Another from Commissioner Fischler to the head of the NFU confirmed our contacts in the autumn. However, even that letter did not convey the whole picture, because I had meetings with the National Pig Association in December, and further contacts took place subsequently between the United Kingdom permanent representative in Brussels and various Commission officials.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Executive and I met Commissioner Fischler only a week ago, at the time of the Agriculture Council in Brussels, specifically to talk about the pig industry. There have been a number of contacts and we continue to be willing to work with the industry to find ways forward, but the rules cause difficulty. I do not want to be partisan, but in many ways it is a pity that the effects of the BSE crisis on the pig sector were not identified in contacts with the European Commission at the beginning of the crisis in 1996. As a result, it has been much more difficult to argue for aid subsequently, as it was not part of the crisis measures relating to BSE that were introduced at the beginning.

Will the Minister give way?

I am sorry, I shall not give way, because I want to refer to some important issues that the hon. Lady raised.

The consumer is a significant factor to take into account. In an intervention the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) referred to the quality and standards of our pigmeat production, and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) talked about our animal welfare standards. As we are part of the European market and net exporters of pork, we cannot and do not want to take illegal action against imports. However, although the animal welfare regulations, which are important in the pig sector, were introduced with cross-party support in the House—one of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Vale of York, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body), introduced them in 1991—if we are to introduce stringent and welcome animal welfare regulations, it is sensible to agree them as soon as possible, at least at European level. If we impose stricter, although welcome, standards on ourselves, given European rules, our producers may find themselves with higher costs than our competitors. I welcome the fact that the laying hens directive is an animal welfare regulation that we are taking via the European route, rather than simply via the national route. It is important to bear that in mind.

We have taken a lot of action on misleading labelling. Labelling is crucial, as the hon. Lady said. I commend the work of our verification officer in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Mike Roper, who has been working with supermarkets, caterers and retailers to tighten the labelling on British pork and has worked for wider recognition of the quality and welfare standards of our own product. I believe that we have made progress in recent months. During my ministerial visits to supermarkets and retailers, I have been conscious that the pork quality mark is being used more often and that consumers are more aware of the issues than they were. However, a lot more can be done.

At the National Farmers Union conference this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State would announce a change in the guidance on country of origin marking to avoid consumers being confused by misleading labels and to give them genuine choice. Consumers have no choice if they are misled by wrong information on labels. Consumer choice is precious and we want to advance it. In his speech this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an example and said that the changes being introduced will mean that Danish pork can no longer be labelled "British" or "Produced in Britain" simply because it had been cured here. We are aware that people believe that it is wrong to label something as having been made in Britain, if only the packaging or the final part of the process is dealt with here.

In response to an intervention, I referred briefly to the agricultural development scheme and the possibilities under the rural development regulation. The agricultural development scheme initially provided £2 million, which has been used by the pig industry to introduce some interesting and worthwhile applications that have been approved. I pay tribute to the work done by Ladies in Pigs—an organisation that has been active in drawing the attention of consumers to our quality standards and providing them with information when they are shopping about labels and the importance of our standards on pork and pigmeat. I am pleased that a successful project under the auspices of the National Pig Association has been approved under the agricultural development scheme. It involves an interesting innovation in training in the pig sector.

Discussions with the industry continue on how to use additional marketing promotional money for the pig sector, particularly in support of a welfare-linked promotion campaign, which is relevant to the points made by the hon. Member for North Tayside in his intervention.

A number of initiatives show that the Government want a thriving and prosperous pig industry. No Government have a magic wand to make that happen. Pig production is a global industry, but it has tremendous marketing opportunities based not just on the price of the product but on quality and the methods used in production. I believe that our industry can put itself into the position to provide that.

It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.