This is the first time that I have been successful in the ballot for Westminster Hall and I am delighted to initiate a debate on a subject that is important for not only my constituents, but the general population. I regret that the venue is Westminster Hall and not the main Chamber, and I hope that the relevance of what we have to say today will not be lost.

The more cynical amongst us might think that Westminster Hall, which is hidden away from the glare of publicity, has been provided as an escape valve to allow those Back Benchers who are boiling away with frustration to let off steam quietly and unobserved. I also issue a plea to the Minister to hold the annual debate on policing in London, which is overdue. There are serious questions on that issue to which the many hon. Members who represent London constituencies want answers.

The subject of police numbers is fundamental and much in the news. Crime is rising and that is of great concern to all of us. On a day when the bastion of Labour support, The Mirror, urges its readers to vote Conservative, the Government would do well to listen to the increasingly loud demands for action, not words, and for an end to the intolerable amount of spin emerging from the Government.

I shall begin with some general observations and then turn to the crisis in the Metropolitan police, particularly the Hillingdon division, which affects my constituency. Police numbers are falling. Between 31 March 1997—I acknowledge that that was a couple of months before the Government came in—and 31 March 2000, the total number of officers in England and Wales fell by 2,358, which represents a decrease of 1.85 per cent. Police funding is falling. The settlement for 2000–01 constitutes a small increase of £202.6 million, but police funding in real terms has fallen since 1997.

Crime is rising under the Government. Between March 1997 and March 1999, recorded crime fell from 4,545,337 to 4,481,817 incidents: a fall of 1.4 per cent. However, in the year to September 1999, the total of reported offences was 5,234,211, an increase of 2.2 per cent. on the previous year's figure.

I am not a great one for bandying such statistics around because we all know that figures can be used to give different results. However, it is worth pointing out that, under the previous Conservative Government, the total strength of the force increased by almost 15,000 between March 1979 and March 1997—an increase of 14 per cent. Sadly, between March 1997 and September 1999 there has been a decrease of 1.6 per cent. The overall fall in police strength in the year to March 1999, including seconded officers, was 0.6 per cent. That is the biggest annual fall since 1990.

Cuts in police numbers have created a real crisis in the police service. That crisis continues, and I should like to quote a few examples. In Merseyside, twice as many officers are leaving as are being recruited. In Staffordshire, there is a recruitment freeze, and there are warnings that 250 jobs will be lost as a result of a cut in the annual budget of £8 million.

A survey conducted by The Sunday Telegraph found that

an area the size of an entire police force has been wiped off the map due to cuts in police numbers and budget pressures under Labour's term of office.

The worries of many people were given voice by a senior officer in a northern English city, who was reported as saying:

We could not possibly publicise the numbers. It would destroy public confidence and would be an invitation for every criminal and his dog to come here.

My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Uxbridge, Sir Michael Shersby, was for many years the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I remember attending Police Federation meetings at successive Conservative party conferences and listening to the speakers. They always gave a view of events that reflected the feelings of officers. Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation, has said:

The hard fact is, despite Government reassurances that the fight against crime is still a top priority, the police service has witnessed the largest fall in actual police numbers since the crisis days of the mid-1970s.

That worries me. Mr. Broughton continued:

Every police station in this country is facing anger from its community.

We in Hillingdon echo that feeling. He also said:

Fewer officers, a rising workload and high levels of crime are combining to make the state of policing the worst I have ever known.

Between March 1992 and March 1997, the number of officers in the Metropolitan police fell by 1,477. Between March 1997 and March 2000, officer numbers fell, approximately, by a further 1,132. Under a recent funding settlement, the Metropolitan police's budget will be cut in both cash and real terms. In 1999–2000, it received £1,743.9 million. In 2000–01, it will suffer a cut in cash terms of 0.7 per cent.—a real-terms cut of 3.13 per cent.

Crime in London is rising. Between October 1997 and September 1998, and between October 1998 and September 1999, the number of recorded crimes rose by 80,285, or 8.7 per cent. In January 2000, London street crime was more than twice the January 1999 level. Muggings rose by more than a third over the past year in comparison with the previous year.

It is not only the cut in budgets that is causing the problem. All London Members of Parliament will recognise that the Metropolitan police has a real problem with regard to recruitment and retention. The financial pressures of living in London are incredible, and low morale is also detrimental to recruitment. If police numbers are to be increased, it will be necessary to help police officers with the cost of living in London—not only through London weighting and accommodation, but through a real increase in salary. The Association of Chief Police Officers now appreciates that the Metropolitan police must be regarded as a special case.

The Police Federation has warned that a significant proportion of police officers are taking second jobs to boost their incomes. Some work as adult education teachers or nurses, while many others work as minicab drivers, couriers and pizza delivery drivers. That situation cannot continue.

I turn to Hillingdon, my local borough. The Hillingdon division of the Metropolitan police has an excellent record, for which I pay tribute to the previous borough commander, Alan Shave, and the current commander, Alan Matthews. The community is working well with the police and, for the first time in many years, there is a good working relationship with the local authority. We have an active and constructive police consultative group. All three Members of Parliament, who represent two political parties, work on an all-party basis and are highly supportive of the police's work. Yesterday, when the three of us met the Metropolitan police Commissioner to lobby him about local problems, it would have been difficult to tell that we were from different parties.

What is happening in Hillingdon is similar to what is happening in the rest of London. A look at the Hillingdon crime trends for the period from 1 April to 31 July 1999 gives some idea of the position. Street crime was up by 19 per cent. Motor vehicle crime was up by 18 per cent. All violent crime was up by 11 per cent. Burglary was up by 8 per cent. Total crime was up by 15 per cent. Clearly, more police personnel are needed to combat the current increases in reported crime. But what do we have? We have more reductions, with more planned.

The council tax payers of Hillingdon want to know why, in the past three years, their precept for the Metropolitan police has gone up by 36.29 per cent., yet they are getting fewer and fewer police officers for their money. Four police stations in Hillingdon are now closed to the public or operate restricted schedules, with opening hours that generally do not include weekends, bank holidays or any hour after 6 o'clock in the evening on any day. Only Uxbridge police station is open to the public for 24 hours a day.

In my constituency and the rest of the borough, there is more than a perception that police levels have become unacceptably low. There is an argument that a decrease in police numbers does not necessarily lead to an increase in crime, and that was true for a while in Hillingdon. Various measures, such as getting officers on sick leave back to work more quickly, meant that there could be some cuts without an increase in crime figures. However, it is now felt that enough is enough.

On the subject of sick leave, it would be a mistake to give the impression that many members of the police service are sitting at home when they should be at work. Last week, I called on a police unit in Hillingdon that is doing excellent work. The officer in charge is waiting for a kidney transplant. He is seriously ill and in a great deal of pain, yet he remains at his desk, working hard. We must dispel the myth that there are many more savings to be made by getting ill police officers back on duty.

The problem is that Hillingdon is regarded as a leafy suburb, and is not given priority. Other hon. Members may wish to raise the subject of rural crime, which has its own problems. I shall speak up for the suburbs, because they are inevitably squeezed in between the inner cities and the rural populations. We are told that the suburbs can be left alone to get on with it, and that they have no problems. However, they do have great problems, and if we are not careful, they will become worse.

It is easy to be glib and we, as politicians, can come out with glib expressions from time to time. It is easy to trot out well-worn phrases such as, "We have the best police force in the world". If we really believe that—as I do—we must give the police our support. There are people who nurture strong anti-police feelings. It would be timely to remind such people in the capital that, if they want more effective policing, they should take note of the advice given in The Mirror today. Just under three years ago, that newspaper gave different advice, when it urged the voters of Uxbridge to vote Labour. I hope that it will have more influence today than it did then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can see that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude by quoting the chairman of the Police Federation, Glen Smyth, who has said:

There is now a crisis. This has got to be solved, and if it is not solved, our ability to deliver is not going to be there. If the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary really want to arrest the rise in crime, they must first arrest the dramatic fall in police numbers.

I am grateful for the chance to take part in this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) may have described Westminster Hall as a backwater in the maelstrom of House of Commons activity. However, I believe that it is a useful debating Chamber, in which issues can be debated sensibly and rationally. There can be an exchange of views, and we can lay out our concerns in the excellent manner shown by my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on securing the debate, in which he has skilfully raised the problem of police numbers with an appropriate emphasis on its impact on his constituency.

The issues of police numbers, police effectiveness, public confidence in the police and public confidence in the legal system have been given a great deal of prominence over the past two weeks following the trial of Mr. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer convicted of killing a 16-year-old burglar and given a sentence of life imprisonment. Mr. Martin's property straddles the border between my constituency, South-West Norfolk, and that of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner).

When the incident took place last August, an enormous impact was felt in the local community of Emneth in south-west Norfolk. I was given the opportunity to describe that in an Adjournment debate that I was granted in October. It was and is impossible to overstate the volume and intensity of the impact. In the wake of the reaction to the outcome of Mr. Martin's trial, Ministers and other hon. Members have had the opportunity to judge whether what I said in October was an exaggeration.

Since August, I have avoided commenting on the case, the trial or the verdict. I have been a magistrate since 1973 and would be unlikely to make any comment on a case that may be the subject of an appeal and so may be sub judice.

Order. I can perhaps help the right hon. Lady. The matter is sub judice because there is an appeal.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to make it clear that it has not been my intention today or in the past to comment in the media on the case. For the avoidance of doubt, I add that the Norfolk police's handling of the matter was rapid and effective at a time when the force's resources were severely stretched by two other high-profile murder cases, one of which led to a conviction and another to an arrest. One of them took place a few miles from the site of the Tony Martin incident.

My argument throughout has been that if the public perceive that the police lack the resources to protect them and their property, they may be tempted to take the law into their own hands. I received a letter last month from the Swann family of Stowbridge. They stated:

If the police cannot protect us (and the Chief Constable admitted that last night)—

that was a reference to a television interview—

then we must protect ourselves.

Mr. Martin's case illustrates why that state of affairs and state of mind must be avoided.

That view is illustrated by one of many reports in the local and national press. The Eastern Daily Press of 26 April stated:

in the PC's view, the shooting at Martin's…farm…could have happened within any Norfolk village because the policing cover was simply too thin to prevent it.

Mr. Kevin Allen, a retired police officer, was quoted in the article as saying that

The aftermath of what happened at Emneth Hungate poses a fundamental question about the way in which the force is run…do we want to police rural areas or don't we?…There is no police presence to act as a discouragement, and that's the issue in West Norfolk.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that closures of police stations at night and the reliance on hotlines to towns that are often a long way away adds to the anxiety of people in rural areas? Is it right that Wisbech police station no longer opens in the evening?

I cannot comment on Wisbech police station, which is not in my constituency; indeed, it is in a different county. However, the public are not reassured when making 999 calls to find that their calls are routed around a county, and that the people to whom they subsequently speak are not necessarily clear about the location from which the call is made. That is not reassuring.

As I said in the Adjournment debate last October, the problem has not arisen overnight. Criminals are more mobile and have improved communications. The volume of traffic has increased, and, paradoxically, the success of CCTV in many of our market towns has driven crime into the countryside. Those are some of the factors involved. However, there is no doubt that there has been a reduction in police numbers under this Government over the past three years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge cited the reduction of 2,358 officers in the past three years which, translated into Norfolk terms, means that we have 50 fewer officers than three years ago. Norfolk has the smallest number of uniformed officers of any force in England. They do a good job with what they have, but they do not have the resources that they need.

Three times, to date, the Government have announced an increase in police numbers. They initially disputed the fact that numbers have fallen since they have been in power, but they now seem to accept what is an indisputable fact. I wonder whether the Minister will announce today that he intends to take notice of the report that his Department commissioned on rural sparsity in policing. As he knows, that is what rural police authorities, including Norfolk, are pressing for. For Norfolk, it would mean an additional £2.4 million for police on the beat.

In a letter to me, the new chairman of the Norfolk police authority states:

The Home Office's own consultants indicated as far back as 1998 that the funding formula which distributes central Government grant to Police Authorities underestimates the true cost of patrolling rural areas.

He refers also to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made:

It fails to take into account the additional expense of maintaining sufficient resources available to respond to urgent calls speedily enough to bring a sense of safety and security to people living in isolated villages…Norfolk bid for 90 further officers in the recent Home Office "challenge funding" but we were only allocated 66 over a three-year period, now possibly reduced to two years. Since 1997 total officer strength has fallen by 50.

That is the view of the chairman of Norfolk police authority. The chief constable of Norfolk goes further. He is worried about perception. The Minister will say, and up to a point I agree with him, that no crude correlation exists between police numbers and the reduction of crime. He will also say, and we would all agree with him, that the management of police resources and the modernisation of their use are also vital. However, so is perception. The chief constable of Norfolk expressed his dilemma thus:

The real difficulty for me is handling the fear of crime issues and confidence in local police. No matter how hard I try to describe how we allocate scarce resources, people are going to be sceptical because all they see are scarce numbers of police officers on the ground.

That widely accepted perception is not confined to individuals. At the end of last month, Swaffham town council in my constituency contacted me, saying:

We write to you to express our greatest concerns…Police presence is inadequate. We are told that there are 10 constables covering our area. This has to be stretched to allow for four shifts over each 365 days of the year.

The Fenland Citizen, a newspaper based in Wisbech that covers a large area of my constituency, recently asked its readers two questions. One concerned the outcome of the Tony Martin trial, and I shall not quote it. The other question was, "Do you feel safe in your own house?" to which 1,050 people have responded to date—a respectable figure by MORI poll standards. Of those who replied, 91 per cent. said that they did not feel safe in their own house. In the 21st century, such a response does not show a satisfactory state of affairs. Whatever the Minister's response, I am sure that he shares that view.

The Government will say that the Opposition want to spend more on this and more on that, and that we must be aware of the implications that that would have on public spending. However, it is a matter of priorities. Norfolk is asking for an additional £2.4 million. Recently, the Government gave £100 million to help former mining communities. If that is the Government's priority, so be it, but let them say what their priorities are. If policing in rural areas and an increase in police numbers are not their priorities, let them be open about it.

I have described events in my constituency, but I have received hundreds of letters from people throughout the country, one of which was from a serving police officer in the Devon and Cornwall constabulary. He wrote:

Whilst I can't condone the use of "More force than is necessary", this incident—

the Martin case—

was bound to arise, I would suggest anywhere in the country.

It may or may not surprise you to know that such a large area as Okehampton has been in the past, solely policed by one officer, even Probationary female and male officers. Night and day patrols subjected to all that it implies, compounded with radios that can't be guaranteed to function due to the undulating countryside…It would appear to the rank and file officers, that senior management's time is occupied by constant appeasement to the Home office for good results figures. keeping the pressure groups that are constantly shouting that the Police are not Politically correct…happy…I hope that you do not think that I am an old embittered Police officer writing to you. I am not. It is my intention to extend a further two years beyond my time, but we lower rank officers feel so helpless at being unable to rectify the elementary shortcomings of the police service.

I swore an oath for the "Protection of life and property, Prevention and detection of crime". It is becoming ever more difficult for me and my colleagues to keep that oath.

I hope that somebody in your position can alter the wrong road the best Police Service in the world is now sadly taking.

I am not in any position to change that road. The Minister is.

I am glad of the opportunity to take part in the debate, as the matter of police numbers is not devolved to the National Assembly in Wales, unlike the situation in Scotland. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge on raising the subject, which it is appropriate to focus on at this point.

I represent a scattered rural area; there are 93 villages, hamlets and towns within my constituency. Therefore, the rural dimension to which the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) referred is high on our agenda when considering the availability of police resources and police numbers. The rural dimension of the police service has recently received a considerable amount of attention, partly owing to the case that the right hon. Lady mentioned from her area. Therefore, it is appropriate that we give some time to that aspect, while recognising the equally important problems that arise in urban areas.

There is a strong feeling in the villages in my constituency that they do not enjoy the benefits of a truly community police service that they enjoyed a generation ago. That is not a criticism of the police; it is in some ways an inevitable consequence of the change in the patterns of life and, not least, of the rightful expectations of change that police officers have for their working patterns. In the old days, a police officer would live in the village and might be on call virtually 24 hours a day. That was unfair on the individual, who, as a consequence, might not have been able to buy his own house as he wished.

To address rightfully changing expectations, we need a significantly larger number of officers to give the same cover. We might need four or five officers to give the cover that one officer used to give in village police stations in the past. That clearly has a significant bearing on resources, and presents a challenge to police forces as to how to distribute their resources.

In my area, as in that of the right hon. Lady, we have seen the closure of village police stations. Villages, and small towns such as Nefyn in my constituency, are concerned about the possible loss of their police stations. If the Nefyn station is closed, there will not be a single police station on the northern side of the Llyn peninsula, from Caernarfon to Ynys Enlli—Bardsey island, for a distance of around 45 miles. There will not be a police station between Caernarfon and Bardsey island, and there is no station on Bardsey island either. That is clearly a matter of concern to Nefyn town council, but it is of equal concern to those who live in the area and to those who go there on holiday—the population of that area expands tremendously in the summer. One needs a police presence that is in line with the summer as well as the all-year-round demand.

There is a basic problem with sustaining locally based services and police numbers in areas such as mine. In north Wales—although technically it is in mid-Wales—Dolgellau is a centre for the police service, and yet the staffing levels are so inadequate that an appropriate inspector cannot be available 24 hours a day. Those who are arrested in the Dolgellau catchment area are taken up to Caernarfon, which is more than 40 miles away, and are held there overnight. That means that they are taken away from their families and, perhaps, held for two or three nights away from them and from the solicitors to whom they would normally turn in their communities. Their basic human rights are contravened as a direct consequence of the inadequate levels of staff available in centres such as Dolgellau and the smaller villages to which I referred.

The question of rurality has been placed on the political agenda because of recent events. The right hon. Lady referred to a report that I, too, wanted to bring to the attention of hon. Members in Westminster Hall. An independent report from ORH Ltd. was commissioned by the Home Office and was published on 30 April 1999, more than 12 months ago. That report considered the question of the additional costs associated with policing sparsely populated areas, and its conclusions were that a sparse population meant that costs were higher, because of the need for greater police numbers. The costs can be quantified and the current funding formula can be amended.

If I understand it correctly, the report set out three options. In the North Wales police force area, an additional £1.9 million would be needed to provide adequate strength for the police force to deal with the rural dimension. In the Dyfed Powys police force area, the figure would be £3 million. As the right hon. Lady mentioned, the report referred also to various English areas and specifically to Norfolk, which clearly suffers from the same kind of problems.

Will the Minister clarify whether the Government's recent comments on providing more resources for rural policing imply a full acceptance of the consultants' report? If so, has a decision been taken on how to amend the financial formula for distributing resources to take into account sparseness and rurality? When will the resources be available to the police forces that desperately need them?

If we are to avoid encouraging people in rural areas to resort to guns—heaven forbid, none of us wants that—we must build up their confidence in the police force's ability to protect them. That means giving police forces the resources that they need to do the job that we, as a community, ask them to do. It also means putting resources into schemes such as neighbourhood watch, which the police force in my area greatly appreciates. Incidentally, it is worth noting that the use of firearms in robberies dropped from 11.7 per cent. in 1991 to 4.8 per cent. in 1997. That is an acceptable trend, about which we are glad. We do not want that to be reversed as a consequence of the kind of tragic incident that occurred recently.

The fear of burglary is substantial. It is twice as high in Wales and England as it is, for example, in Spain. It is three times as high here as in Sweden, and five times as high as in Switzerland. That is the size of the challenge to build up the confidence that is needed. We know that notifiable offences have gone up by 50 per cent. from 1991 to 1998. Despite the increase in crime and the changing social patterns to which I referred, the police force in Wales and England has increased in size by only 25 per cent.—from 97,000 in 1971 to 126,000 in 1998. If we are to have the police presence that we need in rural and urban areas, we must be prepared to put our money where our mouth is. I hope that the Minister will make a positive statement when he winds up this debate.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was able to secure this debate, and I want to echo the central message of the contributions of the right hon. Members for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

Hon. Members representing all kinds of different communities—rural, urban or suburban—are saying that unless the public have confidence in the police force, they will believe that they must act independently. The letter to which the right hon. Lady referred epitomises the increasing perception across the country. I know each of the right hon. and hon. Members' constituencies to some degree—I know the constituency of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon better than the others—and, although I represent an entirely different kind of community, the same feeling is abroad. Unless we respond to that, we will be in severe difficulty. There will be much more crime because people will act in a criminal way to protect themselves.

I want to start by making one critical comment. I shall follow the right hon. Lady's example by not going into the details of the specific case. As a lawyer, I know that it would be unwise to discuss the merits of a particular case, which is now the subject of an appeal. I have been troubled to discover that, in response to the wider debate, people have given foolish and simplistic answers, including the leader of the Conservative party, who said the other day that the police should be freed from bureaucracy—we would all agree with that—and from race awareness seminars to spend more time catching criminals. I can see how that might appeal to the majority, and even how it might appeal to some of the police. However, if that is the leader of the Conservative party's idea of a responsible attitude in the light of all the recommendations of the Lawrence inquiry, his definition of "responsible" is not one that most people would share.

There is every argument to say that we must have enough police—I shall address that in a moment—but to believe that good policing can be achieved without an understanding of the whole community is not appropriate. There is probably no community in England and Wales that is not racially mixed to some degree, although the degree is greater in areas like mine than it is in Norfolk or north Wales.

The issue does not distinguish between urban and rural communities. I was brought up in rural Cheshire. We then moved to rural Glamorgan and then to rural Herefordshire, and I spent much of my family time in rural Meirionnydd. I understand the needs of those communities, but suburban Uxbridge or inner-city Southwark and Bermondsey are made up of communities—some small and some large—which all need to feel that they have their own policing. They all want to relate to the police service and feel that it is close to them.

The history of police strength over the past 10 years is not a comfortable subject. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk rightly criticised the present Government; the last five years of the Tory Administration were equally uncomfortable on that issue. Before then, police numbers had risen. The Tory Government's final years were the precursor to what we have seen since then. In 1995, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), promised 5,000 extra police officers. By 1997, the number was lower than at the time of the general election in 1992; instead of 5,000 extra, there were hundreds fewer.

Last year, at the Labour party conference, we had the famous speech from the Home Secretary, promising 5,000 extra police officers. However, when examined, the figures showed immediately that, because recruitment levels are, sadly, so low, police numbers at the next election will not even be back to what they were at the last election.

I accept that the Labour party did not come to office promising a specific number of extra police officers. Its specific pledge was to put more officers back on the beat, but that has not happened either. The Audit Commission—not politicians—makes it clear that the number of police officers on the beat has gone down. Its last report said that there were 1,000 fewer. That is where the public often perceive, in the first instance, whether there is satisfactory policing.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Audit Commission's point was that constable numbers had increased throughout the period of the Government from 1992 to 1997? It said:

It is significant that over the last year this trend of increases in constable numbers has begun to reverse.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to be serious about the 1992–97 period, will he agree that the number of specials was up by 4,000 in that period, civilians by 2,000 and constables by 4,000?

I shall not take issue with the hon. Gentleman on the fact that the numbers moved in that direction. He is right. I am simply saying that the public have seen two major trends—a reduction in police officers across the country and a reduction in constables on the beat. They want more police officers and more constables on the beat.

The difficulty is evidenced by figures published in The Observer on 9 April, in an article headed "Britain's hardest hit police force". In Suffolk, the number leaving from March to October 1999 was 46 and the number joining zero; in North Yorkshire, leaving 42, joined two; in Cleveland, leaving 80, joined nine; in Merseyside, leaving 85, joined 39; in Staffordshire, leaving 39, joined 20: in Sussex, leaving 178, joined 100; in Hampshire, leaving 145, joined 92; and in Greater Manchester, leaving 277, joining 169.

We are not recruiting to fill the gaps and, unless we address that question, people in the village communities of Norfolk or Hampshire, in suburban Uxbridge and in inner-city north Southwark and Bermondsey will not have the policing that they feel they need. The situation was reflected by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon, and I want to make some suggestions.

In the six months before September 1999, police numbers fell in 29 of the 43 forces in England and Wales, including the Met—in which there was a huge fall—and the forces in Hampshire, Devon and Cornwall, Merseyside and North, South and West Yorkshire. Rural and urban areas alike have been affected. The number of volunteer special constables went down by 3,300 between March 1997 and March 1999. If we exclude police pension money, which eats into the money available for policing, we find that 14 police forces had a cut in funding, in real terms, in the last financial year: Bedfordshire, City of London, Cleveland, Cumbria, Essex, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Sussex, Warwickshire, West Mercia, West Midlands and West Yorkshire.

The Audit Commission made it clear that, although the rate of public satisfaction is about 50 per cent. in terms of mobile police patrols and about 95 per cent. in terms of police responses to emergency calls, the rate for police foot patrols is 23 per cent. Less than a quarter of the public is happy with the bobby on the beat.

The Government allocated an additional £35 million for recruitment this year, but the policing of the millennium celebration cost £33 million, and that was not compensated. The money was eaten up in just one set of events throughout the country. There is no simple equation that states that we can reduce crime simply by adding more police but, for the reasons that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and I have given, if the police presence is not increased, the public will lose confidence in the police. I have never heard anyone argue that having fewer police means that we have a better chance of catching criminals. Having more police may not help us to do better, but having fewer is certainly not the way either.

We need to reverse the cuts and increase strength. Every community—in villages, towns and cities—ought to have its dedicated police officers. The Church of England, to use a rather odd example, serves the whole country and people in every parish know who their priest is. In the same way, there ought to be permanently dedicated officers who are always accessible and not distracted from that job.

When researching for this debate, I discovered a bizarre figure in an Audit Commission report from 1996, showing that, round the clock, only 5 per cent. of police strength is deployed on the streets, in cars or on foot. Only 5 per cent. of on-duty police officers are out and about in the community. That is not acceptable. We could increase the number of retained officers just as, in parts of the country, there is a retained fire service. Ministers should allocate more money to police services to increase the number of retained officers, as well as special constables. I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about that.

There is no simple separation between rural and urban issues. Of course, there should be a better service for those rural communities that are not being properly served at present, but the figures show clearly that more than half of property crimes and one third of the victims of those crimes come from one fifth of the population of England and Wales. That part of the population lives in lower-quality social housing where people are three times more likely than owner-occupiers to be the victims of personal crime and twice as likely to be the victims of property crime. Victims of repeat crime are most likely to be found where crime is concentrated.

I was recently in Dewsbury and Doncaster, parts of which were like the third world. They were derelict and it was as if no police had ever been there. The housing and community estates were strewn with rubbish and litter and felt abdicated, particularly the part of Doncaster that I visited. I met the police in Dewsbury who spend a huge amount of time dealing with the drug problem, but many people feel that they do not receive much service in their communities.

We must be realistic about the use of plant and resources, including police stations. Some good Audit Commission work has suggested that we should think more imaginatively about where we have a police presence. I was brought up in north Wales and the police house at Maentwrog was available to the community 24 hours a day. That may not be appropriate now but, in village communities, the police could be available not just where the shop or post office is but where the vicar or the pub is—

Or where the bank was.

Absolutely, or in the village hall or parish hall. There are ways of sharing resources and plant, and the Audit Commission made some sensible recommendations. That is the route to take with the confidence of the public. I have never taken the view that police stations should never close, because that is unrealistic. Some police stations are now in the wrong place because communities have developed a long way away. The Minister is right that we need always to reduce paperwork, which is the bane of police officers' lives. The more paperwork that can be given to civilians, the better. Sickness must also be reduced.

I am sure that there is a future for sponsorship schemes. People used to be recruited to the services and to large companies such as ICI by payments to enable them to go to college in return for a specific number of years working in the services or for the companies. The police are ready for that and many youngsters could be recruited from all communities if they had that incentive.

I am completely clear that we must develop the community constabulary and warden scheme, as the Government have started to do. We need two tiers of policing. We need local community policing based on the local authority and people who work as park keepers, caretakers, school patrol people, traffic wardens and so on. They are the eyes and ears of neighbourhood watch and business watch. We also need police to deal with regional crime issues, the big dealers and so on. Unless we have both, the public will not perceive that anything is being done.

The transport police could be developed and transport providers could be given more responsibility to ensure that stations are safe. In London now, Mr. Grieve is examining murder and other serious crime and we need also some police to concentrate on persistent criminals. As in the Norfolk case and others, some people's names are always on the books with a list of charges and histories as long as your arm.

On London, the Minister should remove Metropolitan police funding and support from the general structure of Government funding, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge suggested. As the police service for the capital city, the Metropolitan police has a wholly different set of needs and obligations. It would be helpful to London's police and to the other 43 forces if London was not part of the same funding formula, but was funded separately. I support that argument for all sorts of reasons, of which the May day events are only the most recent.

We must allow for the greater cost of living and working in a capital city. That is not an argument against the rest of the country, but it is a fact that, whatever public service people work in, it costs more to buy a home in London. I know from where I live how prices are rising.

I am conscious that tomorrow is London election day. I hope that the voters of London will elect a mayor who does not want to be mayor of the world, as certain people seem to want to be. Some people want to take on global capitalism and to try to solve the Irish problem, as well as every other world problem. I hope that the people elect someone who wants to concentrate on London issues only. The candidates of the three main political parties, but not the independent candidate, come into that latter category, and Susan Kramer would do the job best.

I hope that London voters do not elect someone who will be continually distracted from the issues facing the electors of this great city; that would not be a service to London or to the London communities which, like rural communities, want a larger police service in which they can feel greater confidence.

I was going to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on having secured the debate, but I am not so sure now that it has given the Liberal Democrats a platform to make an election broadcast. To be serious, it was a good debate to instigate. The problems experienced by cities and by rural areas have been highlighted; I am not sure that they are so different.

I know the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) quite well—not least because he trounced me in the 1987 general election—as I have friends there. There is concern that the Rotherhithe police station will be put on to short hours and that policing will be based at Walworth. That is the sort of problem that one gets in areas such as Cambridge or south-west Norfolk; the police station at Wisbech closes in the evening, for example, and people have to telephone a distant place to get the police to come. It all creates an atmosphere of concern, lack of confidence and genuine fear.

I suppose that the Government have to put on a bold face—the Minister has delivered sweet words on the subject—but what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said about Hillingdon, and what my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said about her constituency, should give the Government pause for thought. The public are not stupid, and when they read headlines like "Demoralised Met Can't Fill 400 posts", "Met Shuts 23 Police Stations at Night", "Tax Strike as Police Cuts Anger Residents"—that refers to Finchley—and "Huge Rises in Street Crime", they ask themselves whether that is just media sensationalisation. They then go down to the local police station and find that it is not open in the evening, or they notice that there are not the numbers of police out and about that there used to be. That creates a climate in which people are genuinely worried.

We cannot discuss the details of the Martin case, but I have spoken to people in my constituency—it is not the kind of rural area that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) represents, but it still has pretty remote spots—and people there are worried that a 16-year-old will burgle their property late at night and that the police will not be able to get there on time. It is not electioneering or politicking to point out that that is happening because the Government have made a terrible mistake in allowing police numbers to run down.

Between 1992 and 1997, the Conservative Government stripped out some of the middle ranks of the police service, and the overall numbers of police can be said to have fallen. However, as the Audit Commission recently pointed out, the number of police constables rose year on year. The front-line crime fighters who were seen to be doing the job increased throughout the years of the Conservative Government, as did the number of specials. Specials are very important in terms of dealing with crime on Friday nights and at times of pressure.

The number of civilian staff also increased, enabling police to get out and about. In 1992–97, the number of specials was up 4,000, the number of civilians was up 2,000, and the number of constables was up 2,500. The Government have reversed that situation, and the Audit Commission is right to criticize that. The number of police has fallen by 2,300 which includes, for the first time since 1990, a fall in the number of constables out and about. The number of civilian staff has remained at 53,000 throughout the period, and the number of specials has fallen by 3,500. It is not surprising that people are beginning to notice that there are fewer officers.

There is a problem with the recruitment of officers, especially in London where 400 officers for whom there is funding have not been recruited. Hendon needed 1,300 new recruit officers in the past year but did not have anything like that number. It had only two out of every three officers that it needed. The problem may be about money, but it is also about the fact that officers feel insulted and demoralised. They feel that criminals who are let out before the end of their minimum periods then re-offend.

The Government have turned the job of policeman from one that was held in high regard to one that people have concerns about. Even officers who join the Metropolitan police do not stay. The number of probationers—officers in their first two years with the Metropolitan police—has fallen by 353 in the past nine months. The position in London is of great concern, but the rural situation is also worrying. The Minister knows the eastern region well, and the number of officers there has fallen by 357 since his Government took power. There are 46 fewer officers in Bedfordshire and 30 fewer in Cambridgeshire. In Norfolk, numbers are down 50; in Lincolnshire, 85; in Suffolk, 20; and in Essex, 126. The number of officers needed can be judged easily from the recent crime-fighting fund bid for the extra numbers that the Government are prepared to fund. Nationally, 8,220 were requested and only 5,000 were given. In the Eastern region, 397 were given but 556 were wanted, so 160 officers fewer than needed were provided in that region alone. The result of that is fear in rural areas.

People are worried also about the spin and fiddling of the figures that the Government go in for. The Government often say that they shall provide 5,000 extra officers. At first, we all thought that there would be an extra 5,000 police, but it does not mean that at all. It means that they will recruit 5,000 on top of the existing plans. All the arithmetic was blown to pieces after the Home Secretary's conference speech.

If the Government keep saying that police numbers do not matter and have no direct relationship to the detection of crime, why are they so desperate to persuade us that their 5,000 extra officers over the next two years will make all the difference? The reason is that they have made a terrible mistake in running down police numbers and are now trying to rescue the situation.

We know that 6,000 officers a year are lost through natural wastage, and that the police wanted to recruit 12,000 officers over three years. They have added another 5,000 over three years, which is a net loss of about 1,000 officers over the period. Recently, the police have said, "No, it will not be three years. We intend to recruit those 5,000 officers over two years." We have asked for the revised number of recruits for each force, because we want to know where they will go over the next two years. But what happens? We are just told, "We are having discussions. We shall make a further announcement as soon as details of the accelerated scheme have been finalised." Why are the Government announcing a scheme when they have not finalised the detail? When will the details be published?

I come now to the Milburn letter. The Minister will remember that the then Chief Secretary wrote a letter shortly before the Labour party conference when the recruitment of the 5,000 officers was announced. He said that police training schools would be operating at more than full capacity and he was worried that they would not be able to train that number of officers over three years. The Government are now saying that they will produce those officers over two years, but how on earth will they manage that? Will the Minister say whether the training schools have that extra capacity? How will it be achieved?

My other worry concerns the third year. If the new officers are to be provided over two years, there will still be the natural wastage—6,000 officers will be gone in the third year. What will happen then? Or is such intended action just a gimmick running up to the next general election? Will the Government put in a few extra officers in the two-year period and then, after the election, have a situation like a cliff face, with numbers going right down again? Is it true that, in the third year, wastage will outstrip recruitment and the numbers will fall back again?

When the Minister announced that he would allow the recruitment of the 5,000 officers over three years, he said that £35 million would be provided in the first year for the first tranche of officers. Yet the Budget statement suggested that, in order to double recruitment in the year 2000–01, the Govt would provide a further £11 million. How can they obtain a doubling in the figures for half the money?

Ask the spin doctors.

Yes. The fact is that the public have rumbled the Government and they want real action. They want delivery, not more words.

The chief constable of Humberside explained how he felt after only 29 per cent. of the officers that he wanted in the crime fighting fund bid were granted. He said that it was a "body blow" for the force and that the announcement meant fewer officers to provide the service that the public want. He said that, in slashing the budget, the Government had ignored the views and concerns of local people. Glen Smyth made the simple point that we must have feet on the beat to put hands on collars. I cannot put it much simpler than that.

The Government should take seriously the recent survey of 6,000 police officers that showed that more than three quarters of them felt that morale was low. The same survey found that 71 per cent. would take another job if it were offered to them. That survey compares well with the survey carried out by the Fenland Citizen, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk referred, which showed that 1,050 people—91 per cent. of the respondents—did not feel safe in their own homes.

Is it not time that the Government restored the numbers to the level that they inherited, took away from police officers many of their time-wasting jobs and looked at imaginative initiatives—such as that being launched today by the shadow Home Secretary—which would allow police officers in rural areas to work in shops? The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey agreed that that was a good idea.

Why are the Government not coming up with such imaginative ideas? Are they stuck, enjoying the Whitehall world? Are they not considering how to protect people and meet the essential contract that the citizen has with the state to be protected and free from fear?

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate, which has generally been constructive and positive. I welcome it and I hope to respond in that spirit.

We have debated these issues on the Floor of the House, such as in the debate on police funding on Thursday 3 February, in which several hon. Members representing London constituencies spoke. A full discussion of the issues involved has taken place. I agree with the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who approved the Westminster Hall style of debate. That was right and positive.

I shall respond to the debate by making a couple of points about funding overall, and I will then deal specifically with the point about London. I shall deal specifically with rural sparsity, and I will then make some general points in response to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire about police numbers and bobbies on the beat.

The Government's overall spending plans for the three years beginning April 1999 were announced in July 1998. Under our plans, an extra £1.24 billion is being provided for police in England and Wales between 1999 and 2002. For the year 2000–01, the current year, the total amount of police authority spending to which the Government are prepared to contribute their share of funding will be £7.35 billion. That represents an increase in police funding of £212 million, or about 3 per cent., over the year 1999–2000.

I acknowledge the point that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made—I made the point in the debate on police grants—about how pensions take a significant chunk of spending, and that that varies among different authorities. He is right to raise that issue. We are actively considering the matter at the moment, because not only does it take a chunk of spending away from police authorities, it impacts on different police authorities in a highly variable way, simply because of the percentages involved. I have received several representations from hon. Members, chief constables and police authorities about pensions. I shall not dwell on the matter, but I wanted to acknowledge the point.

We recognise the costs of the Metropolitan police and, in this year's funding settlement, the force was allocated an extra £182 million. I pay tribute to the work of the Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, who has put support for front-line policing at the heart of his plans to reorganise the Metropolitan police. The decision to streamline the Met and remove the area tier of management is enabling the Met to transfer resources and to maintain police numbers managed locally. Those officers are in turn supported by all the other officers who provide pan-London and specialist services.

The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) mentioned Southwark. I met the Southwark division a few weeks ago, and discussed in detail issues such as Rotherhithe police station. The changes being effected in Southwark will increase local police presence throughout the borough. Some proposals have aroused controversy, especially in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, but the general effect is part of the overall drive to have more policing on the front line.

During this year, the Commissioner intends to transfer funding for 445 posts from central Metropolitan police budgets directly to those responsible for divisional policing, thus moving people into the divisions of London. Priority will be given to filling divisional vacancies. That will put an additional 300 officers on the street by the end of the financial year. Specific increases resulting from the crime fighting fund will be targeted at boroughs that face the most serious challenges in terms of burglary and street crime.

Target numbers for police officers for 23 borough commands will be unchanged, although that will enable many to increase their numbers by filling vacancies. The initial allocation of funding under the crime fighting fund will enable an additional 242 officers to be utilised in the London boroughs that most need them.

Although this debate is about police numbers in general, I shall refer briefly to the points made about recruitment issues in London. As a result of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement, Metropolitan area pay issues are being considered through the standard structures and procedures, about which I cannot comment here.

The Minister said that resources would be targeted on those boroughs in most need. Was he referring to boroughs with the largest number of incidents, or those with the largest increase in incidents such as burglary?

I cannot answer that question directly, as it is a matter for the Commissioner. However, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on how that will be defined. The Commissioner will seek intelligently to focus on those areas in greatest need. I shall discuss whether they are defined by the increase point or by the level point, and write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

Rural issues were raised by the right hon. Members for South-West Norfolk and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I am familiar with those issues. Although my constituency is not rural, it is in the middle of a rural county in which the issues raised by the right hon. Lady have been current, as she is more than aware, in the media and more generally. As she said, she raised the issue in an Adjournment debate on 19 October last year. Perhaps I could apologise to her, as I did at the time, for not being able to respond to that debate. I am delighted to do so now.

Much of the subject was discussed yesterday in an Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). I do not intend to go over the whole territory again. I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk for stating so clearly that she has confidence in the Norfolk constabulary. As I said yesterday, I felt that the statement by the right hon. Lady and the other Conservative Members representing Norfolk—which implied a lack of confidence in the constabulary—was damaging and wrong. I am delighted that she has put the record straight, and focused on the important political issues.

The Minister must not be carried away by the spin that is put on specific words. In the statement to which he refers, I and my three colleagues from Norfolk made it absolutely clear that we were worried—as, clearly, were our constituents—that the police do not have the resources to do the job, and therefore are at risk of losing the confidence of the public. It is not because of the police, but because they are perceived to be thinly resourced. I have made that clear this morning, and that is what we sought to highlight in our press release.

I am grateful for that clarification, which repeats what the right hon. Lady said in her speech. I am responsible for spinning many things, but I am certainly not responsible for the spin put on the statement made by the right hon. Lady and her colleagues to the media in Norfolk and elsewhere. All I can say is that a perception is abroad, which she has helpfully knocked on the head, that a lack of confidence in the Norfolk constabulary might have been expressed. I am delighted by the absolute clarity that she offered in her speech and her intervention.

On sparsity, I shall not repeat what I said yesterday, except to say that I take it extremely seriously. I have met authorities and discussed the issue fully. The argument has power and force, which was expressed in both speeches on the matter this morning. It is being addressed in the context of the comprehensive spending review, the first year of effect of which—in answer to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon—is 2001–02. I cannot prejudge the conclusions of the comprehensive spending review; that is a matter for the Chancellor and for the Government as a whole. However, as I have often said before, the argument has force, and those who make the argument on the basis on which it has been made today are justified in doing so.

The Government will publish a White Paper on rural communities later this summer, and I am optimistic that there will be a chapter in it specifically on rural crime. Several significant issues raised in the debate need specific attention. I agree that there are points of common experience that are shared across the country, but I believe, too, that there are issues specific to rural areas that need to be addressed specifically.

The hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to what Glen Smyth said about a feeling abroad. In my view, that relates to the colloquial phrase "bobbies on the beat", or the extent to which there is a police presence in a community.

There are four factors to the question of bobbies on the beat, the first of which concerns police numbers. The Government have never taken the view that numbers do not matter; they do, but that is only one factor in terms of police presence. The second factor is technology, the third is the abstractions of the criminal justice system and the fourth is the development of partnership. Those are matters for the chief constable of each area and his authority, but they are all important considerations in increasing the numbers of bobbies on the beat.

I will deal with those factors briefly, one by one. Police numbers have fallen in five of the last six years, despite what is said. Overall police numbers fell under the previous Government from 128,290 to 127,158 between March 1993 and March 1997, which represents the loss of more than 1,000 officers. We are responding to that situation, and the Home Secretary announced in his Labour party conference speech last year the recruitment of 5,000 officers. We have more recently announced that that recruitment will be brought forward from a three-year period to a two-year period, as a result of the additional resources announced by the Chancellor in his Budget.

I can tell the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that the original proposal before the Budget was that, for the three years beginning 2000–01, we would have 1,000 officers, and then 2,000 and 2,000. Now, the total of 5,000 will be spread over two years instead of three and, so far, we think that the number of officers will be doubled in the first year. That would mean that there would be 2,000 officers in the first year and 3,000 in the second.

To be frank, we want to increase that first-year number from 2,000, and we are actively considering the number to which we can increase it. Instead of 2,000 officers in the first year, followed by 3,000 in the second, there might be 2,500 in each year or 3,000 in the first and 2,000 in the second. For exactly the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—training facilities and resources—we are discussing recruitment with the chief constables, the police authorities and the training people. We intend to make an announcement on those discussions shortly. The effect will be to accelerate significantly the recruitment of extra officers in every force, which will be widely welcomed.

The point that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made about the third year will be discussed as part of the overall comprehensive spending review for 2002–03. We are discussing what the appropriate levels of funding for extra officers will be, in the context of that review. However, I know he will understand that I cannot say anything about that until the comprehensive spending review is concluded.

Another important question is that of civilian numbers. As the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk said, in Norfolk there was a reduction of 49 police officers between March 1997 and September 1999, although there was an increase over the same time of 57 civilians. That is not untypical; such a distinction has occurred in many forces, precisely because of the operational decisions taken by the police about the best way in which to use their resources. The previous Government rightly decided to take those responsibilities away from the Home Secretary and give them to chief constables.

I agree with the points made about retained and special officers; we are considering that for the comprehensive spending review. I must conclude because my time is short, but I would like to continue on another occasion. It is important to recognise also that the issues of technology, the criminal justice system and the hon. Member of developing partnerships all have a massive impact on the number of bobbies on the beat. We should give those issues at least as much attention as police numbers.

I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the review conference of the non-proliferation treaty. The conference opened on 24 April and will continue until 19 May, so the timing of the debate is highly appropriate.

This debate follows an Adjournment debate on the wider topic of weapons of mass destruction and the implications for global security that took place in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, which was timed to coincide with the launch of the all-party group on global security and non-proliferation. It also follows a very interesting visit to the United Kingdom by the United Nations Secretary-General's special envoy for peace and disarmament, Mr. Michael Douglas, who addressed a well-attended meeting in this Chamber some weeks ago. He called on the UK to use its particular influence in international negotiations to ensure that the NPT review conference was a success and that nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states reaffirmed their commitment to achieving global nuclear disarmament.

The UK's attitude to nuclear weapons is not typical of most countries. The national Governments and peoples of most countries long ago rejected nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of their defence policies. The overwhelming majority of states are now strongly committed to seeking the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

In the post-cold war era, the debate about nuclear weapons is very different from 20 years ago. There is now a consensus among nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states that the disarmament process must continue. The United States and Russia have taken major steps forward in that direction, although they have not yet gone far enough. The debate now centres on the means by which the commitment to global nuclear disarmament, as enshrined in the non-proliferation treaty, can be achieved.

The non-proliferation treaty was signed in 1968 and came into force in 1970. Originally, it was signed by 182 countries, which agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons. Some of them abandoned the nuclear programmes that they had already started. The treaty allowed the five current nuclear weapons states to continue to hold their weapons on condition that they promised to end the arms race and work towards nuclear disarmament. The treaty now has 187 members, at least two of which have unfortunately violated their treaty obligations. Four states remain outside the treaty, three of which—India, Pakistan and Israel—are now nuclear weapons capable.

The treaty was initially agreed for a 25-year period. At the 1995 review conference, after some debate, it was extended indefinitely. Significantly, the 1995 conference also agreed to three further measures: first, to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty by the following year, secondly, to commence negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty—that is, a treaty banning the production of fissile material—and thirdly, to increase efforts to pursue nuclear arms reduction.

At the heart of the non-proliferation treaty is article 6, which makes it clear that the treaty is about the commitment to nuclear disarmament, not just arms control or reduction. It says:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Since 1995, there have been many worrying trends in global politics. In May 1998, two major countries that have fought a number of wars and engaged in continuing conflict since their formation tested nuclear weapons. The tests conducted by India and Pakistan have changed the international climate on nuclear weapons, placing a question mark over the capability and willingness of the international community to continue to seek their complete elimination. In October 1999, the United States Senate rejected ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty, which had been agreed at the 1995 Europe review conference.

Two new states, Iraq and North Korea, are suspected of developing a nuclear weapons capability and have resisted international efforts to monitor and supervise their weapons programmes. NATO has reaffirmed its strategic doctrine, which puts nuclear weapons at the heart of its defence policy. In recent weeks, the new president of Russia, Mr. Putin, has also engaged in a new form of rhetoric, stressing the importance of Russia's nuclear weapons. Ratification of the START 2 treaty in Russia was seriously delayed, although—thankfully—it has been ratified in the past few weeks. At the conference on disarmament in Geneva, negotiations on the fissile material ban have resulted in deadlock. We have also learned of the United States' intention to seek an amendment to the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty to allow it to extend its anti-ballistic missile defence capacity beyond a single city and a single intercontinental ballistic missile site—as envisaged in the 1972 treaty—to the whole of the United States.

In that respect, the past five years have led to pessimism about the willingness of the international community to implement the principles of article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty. However, not everything has been pessimistic; there have been positive moves. The Russian Duma's recent ratification of the START 2 arms reduction treaty will pave the way for ratification by the United States Senate and negotiations on the START 3 treaty. START 2 cut the United States' nuclear weapons capability by approximately 60 per cent. If agreement is reached on START 3, it will cut Russia's nuclear arsenal by approximately 80 per cent. compared with the peaks of the cold war period.

There has been greater co-operation between the United States and Russia in respect of financial help for Russia's disarmament and nuclear clean-up programme. I pay tribute to the efforts of the United Kingdom Government and Lord Robertson, the former Secretary of State for Defence, in particular. His strategic defence review of July 1998 announced a significant cut, from 300 to 200, in the UK's warhead stockpile. That is equivalent to a nearly 70 per cent. cut in potential explosive power. The Trident patrol cycle has been relaxed, so that only one boat is on patrol at any time. The alert status of Trident has been reduced, so that missiles can now be fired only at several days' notice. The United Kingdom's stocks of fissile material have been cut, and a welcome new transparency of information about those stocks has been introduced. Earlier, the decision was taken to end the use of the RAF's WA 177 free-fall nuclear bombs.

On the international front, there has been a most interesting development by the non-nuclear weapons states, eight of which formed a new alliance, known as the new agenda coalition, in 1998. Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden published a major declaration in 1998 calling for a general convention banning nuclear weapons. They put their statement to the United Nations in December 1998 and obtained the support of 114 states, with only 18 states voting against the proposal and 38 abstaining. Significantly, one of the abstentions was from China, which is one of the five nuclear weapons states.

The review conference opened at the end of April. I shall focus on the two main arguments put forward at that conference to date: the position statements made by the nuclear weapons states and the new agenda coalition. The nuclear weapons states, represented by the spokesman from France, published a major document providing welcome reassurances about their continued commitment to the NPT process, from which I shall quote selectively. The French spokesman said unequivocally:

We remain committed to fulfilling all our obligations under the Treaty…We reiterate our unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goals of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The French spokesman also cited the many significant multilateral, bilateral and unilateral developments since 1995, and reassured the conference of the determination of the nuclear weapons states to ensure that the comprehensive test ban treaty was

a universal and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty

and to secure its early entry into force. That early entry is dependent on ratification by the United States Senate. The statement also reaffirmed the importance of a ban on the production of fissile material and urged the conference on disarmament in Geneva to agree on a programme of work to secure one as soon as possible.

In emphasising the importance of co-operation between the non-weapons states and the weapons states, the French spokesman also declared that none of the nuclear weapons held by the five weapons states is targeted at any other state. In respect of the START 2 and 3 arms reduction treaties, he said:

We look forward to the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the—

anti-ballistic missile treaty—

as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions. We are committed to placing as soon as practicable fissile materials designated by each of us as no longer required for defence purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification.

Reference was made to the creation of the two new nuclear weapons-free zones since 1995 in south-east Asia and Africa, and support was expressed for the continued establishment of further nuclear weapons-free zones, especially in central Asia.

In conclusion, the French spokesman said on behalf of the nuclear weapons states:

We are determined to take a forward-looking approach to nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The NPT provides an indispensable framework for future efforts against nuclear proliferation and towards nuclear disarmament. We fully acknowledge our particular responsibility and key role in ensuring continued progress in the implementation of the NPT.

The rhetoric of the nuclear weapons states was extremely encouraging and positive, but, 30 years after the treaty came into force, the world still has the capacity to destroy itself many times over with its existing stock of nuclear weapons.

I want to focus on the position of the states represented by the new agenda coalition and their efforts to persuade the nuclear weapons states to treat the disarmament process more seriously and specifically to ensure that when the next review conference takes place in 2005, there can be no doubt that the world is on its way to total nuclear disarmament.

The Foreign Minister of Mexico, Ms Green, was the spokesman for the new agenda coalition. In her opening remarks she said:

This…Review Conference offers us a unique opportunity to move definitively forward in the achievement of a world without nuclear weapons. We have reached the juncture when more far-reaching action must be decided upon.

It has been a theme of many contributors to the conference so far that this is the year when the world must choose whether to embark on a serious programme of global nuclear disarmament or find itself drawn down the road of further proliferation, with nuclear weapons being seen by more and more states as a normal part of their defence policy.

Ms Green quoted the example of other categories of weapons of mass destruction that have already been subject to reduction and, in some cases, elimination by international treaty. She was critical of the statements by some countries, which she described as

re-statements of policies and postures which reaffirm the central role of nuclear weapons in strategic concepts and the possibility of fighting war with the use of nuclear weapons.

That rhetoric is not the prerogative of any one country or group of countries. Countries and military alliances in all parts of the world have been guilty of it in recent years.

Ms Green was concerned about the

re-rationalization of nuclear weapons in an age when the context which gave rise to the original proliferation of nuclear weapons among the five nuclear weapon states has long disappeared.

As the cold war is now long over and, in spite of the many difficulties that face the world and the many global and regional conflicts that still take place, the original rationale of mutually assured destruction has long since become obsolete, the use of nuclear weapons as the central plank of defence policy is equally obsolete.

Ms Green acknowledged the various unilateral measures undertaken by two of the five nuclear weapons states, but called for

the early involvement of all five nuclear weapon states in bringing about the elimination of their respective nuclear forces. We consider that the principle of irreversibility should be applied to all disarmament measures. We look to greater transparency as the nuclear disarmament process gains pace.

The new agenda coalition has been consistently critical of the nuclear weapons states' failure to take detailed action to set in motion the 1970 treaty commitment. Time and again Ms Green, on behalf of the coalition, has called for a commitment to specific policies, such as no first use. Of the five nuclear weapon states, only China has committed itself to a no-first-use policy. Another example is de-alerting nuclear weapons and separating warheads from delivery vehicles. Another is the withdrawal of non-strategic nuclear weapons from deployment. The United Kingdom has done that, but other nuclear weapons states have not. The coalition also wants legally binding security assurances to the non-nuclear weapons states, so that they feel secure without nuclear weapons.

The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty was referred to as an essential building block in the nuclear disarmament agenda and the onus remains on the United States Senate to ratify it. It was agreed in 1995 that a fissile material ban would be an important next step forward, but there has been little if any progress on that in Geneva since 1995.

The new agenda coalition is also convinced that the establishment and gradual extension of nuclear-free zones is an important part in the wider confidence-building measures of the global disarmament programme and calls for additional nuclear-free zones in areas of tension such as the middle east and south Asia.

Finally, the new agenda coalition endorses the call by the United Nations Secretary-General in his report to the millennium assembly last year to convene a major international conference that would help to identify ways of eliminating nuclear danger. Ms Green stated:

We consider that an international conference on nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation, which effectively complements efforts being undertaken in other settings, could facilitate the consolidation of a new agenda for a nuclear weapon free world.

I do not want to underestimate the task facing the states that are party to the treaty, but there is now general recognition that the world is at a critical turning point and there is a choice to be made at this year's conference. Do we allow what I referred to earlier as the re-rationalisation of nuclear weapons in the strategic concepts of the major military blocks or the defence policies of individual states, or do we unequivocally set in motion the detailed mechanisms to bring about the complete global nuclear disarmament to which the treaty commits its signatory states?

I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister has a strong commitment to securing the continuation of the process and the achievements of the United Kingdom Government in recent years, particularly following the strategic defence review. Is the Minister sympathetic to the detailed programme of the new agenda coalition set out in its statement to the treaty review conference? Does he agree that attempts by the United States to amend the anti-ballistic missile treaty and to go ahead with a national missile defence system would contradict the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty? Do the Government intend to co-operate with the United States by allowing the use of British military facilities, particularly Menwith Hill, which the United States would need if were to implement its plans? Do the Government support the principles enshrined in the new agenda coalition? What is their position on the adoption of a strategy of no first use, to which China has already agreed, the decoupling of warheads from delivery systems, the further development of nuclear-free zones and the urgency of the need for a fissile material cut-off treaty? What will the Government do to ensure that by the end of the review conference on 19 May, the mechanisms for establishing the fissile material cut-off treaty are in place?

Our Government can take justifiable pride in their international leadership during past three years on many complex issues that were considered to be intractable. I am thinking specifically of their work on the climate change problem, and that of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development on debt relief for the poorest countries. The Chancellor has also worked on the reform of international financial institutions.

This more complex and intractable problem provides an opportunity for our Government to show international leadership. As the United Nations special envoy on peace and disarmament said in this Chamber shortly before Easter, the Prime Minister must recognise that the future of the planet depends on this issue above all others. If we cannot negotiate an international commitment on it in the next few weeks, the opportunity could be lost for ever. We could then face a future in which the commitment of the NPT conference gradually weakened, more and more states currently without nuclear weapons violated their commitments under the treaty, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons again became seen as a normal part of national defence policies.

The Government have an opportunity to confront the complexity rather than shying away from it. They could make an unequivocal commitment to give the same international leadership on global nuclear disarmament as they showed in resolving the climate change difficulties in Kyoto and in the settlement of international debt for the poorest countries.

To conclude, I shall quote the South African representative at the conference, who said a few days ago that if the international community cannot free itself from nuclear weapons,

We will never be liberated from the unspeakable destruction and human suffering which these weapons can cause.

Thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise that I shall be unable to stay until the end of the debate, as I have a prior engagement at a question and answer session at a school in my constituency at 12.30. I declare an interest, as I have visited Pakistan with Lord Avebury in the past two weeks. It might be interesting to mention some of the discussions that took place on that visit.

My Labour predecessor in my constituency was Lord Jenkins of Putney, and I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is somewhat jet-lagged. He has also been a Labour candidate for Putney, so I am pleased that I can speak in a continuation of my constituency's tradition of interest in nuclear disarmament.

I pay tribute to Rebecca Johnson from the Acronym Institute. If I had more time I would speak at length from her extremely good briefing, which is available every day on www.acronym.org.uk. It details almost every speech made in the NPT review conference, giving full coverage of the new agenda coalition and interesting anecdotes and details, such as British comments on the Egyptian position in the middle east. The briefing states that

Britain reiterated its call to Israel to adhere to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state and to place all its nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards.

My hon. Friend the Minister may want to respond on that issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) did not mention in his excellent speech.

Rebecca Johnson points out that the additional protocol 93/2 has not featured highly in debate. I had the privilege to introduce it in a private Member's Bill last year, and it is now completing its final stages in the House before the protocol's ratification. Has my hon. Friend the Minister been able to urge any other states at the conference to sign and ratify the protocol, which would be a major move towards making the world safer? I regret that I shall have to read his reply in Hansard rather than hearing it.

In Pakistan I met General Musharraf, who is the chief executive of the country. I also met the foreign minister and nuclear weapons experts. President Clinton has called Pakistan the most dangerous place in the world, given the line of control in Kashmir. I strongly urge Pakistan to attend the NPT conference, primarily as an observer. Lord Avebury and I have raised the issue of the comprehensive test ban treaty and we should push for India and Pakistan to become signatories. I spent a significant amount of time urging Pakistan, on a bilateral basis with the IAEA, to sign the 93/2 additional protocol on safeguards on its nuclear weapons, particularly in terms of nuclear weapon technology becoming available to neighbouring states. That is an important initiative and I strongly urge the Minister to take it up with the Pakistani high commissioner in London to see whether a dialogue could be created. I realise that such an initiative is outside the scope of the NPT review conference, but as a measure that would make the world a safer place, it is obviously within its spirit.

It may be strange for a Back-Bench parliamentarian, but I have been concerned over the past two years to raise the issue in several countries that I have visited. It is important to ensure that nuclear weapons, wherever they are, are safeguarded and do not leak out further. I condemn both India and Pakistan for having gone ahead with nuclear tests. During any visits under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I strongly urge that the issue of non-proliferation of nuclear safeguards under the new agenda coalition be taken forward in every possible way. The review conference will continue until 20 May, so there is some time in hand. I hope that other countries will sign and, if possible, ratify the treaty; South Korea, for example, signed and ratified it on the same day when I was there last May.

To conclude my brief intervention, I wanted to update the House on the interesting situation of Pakistan being willing to consider a bilateral agreement with the IAEA, on the basis of the 93/2 additional protocol.

I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) well in his school question and answer session. He can watch the rest of the debate on video tomorrow morning. I also thank the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for initiating the debate. It is slightly disappointing that there are fewer hon. Members present than there were for the debate on police numbers in England and Wales. The issue of police numbers is obviously important for security, but this debate raises matters of security for the whole planet. We should bear the dangers in mind.

Debates on disarmament sometimes get bogged down in obscurantist language about obscure conferences taking place all over the world. It is easy to fall into that trap and miss the big picture—and I should know, as a life-long member of CND and a member of its national council. I sometimes get lost in all the acronyms and the endless references to conferences, and think, "Hang on a minute; we are here to discuss the thirst for peace around the world."

A year ago, I attended the Hague convention on peace, which attracted 8,000 delegates from all over the world. Many people came at considerable personal expense from island states in the Pacific and from elsewhere, because they were determined that at the end of the 20th century there should at least be an opportunity to discuss a peaceful future in which the world spent rather less on weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, and rather more on the redistribution of wealth and power around the globe and ensuring some kind of peaceful future. The world court has seriously questioned the legality of nuclear weapons, although the Foreign Office takes a somewhat different view. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says, but I believe that the opinion of the world court on nuclear weapons should be taken extremely seriously, as should the decision of the Scottish court on their legality.

Before moving to the main burden of the debate, I wish to reflect for a moment on the world situation. There are 30,000 nuclear weapons in existence. We do not know the location of all of them or whether they are all stored safely—a fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney drew attention. Given that there are 30,000 weapons throughout the world, the danger of leakage or proliferation is enormous. If the current non-proliferation conference misses the opportunity to achieve a lasting settlement on decommissioning, disarmament, no first use and ultimately the abolition of nuclear weapons, the danger of proliferation will be writ large.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney has just returned from Pakistan. Anyone who imagines that no country would seriously use nuclear weapons should bear in mind the tension and the rhetoric between India and Pakistan and the nationalist fervour in both countries. At some point, a politician somewhere will bow to that fervour and press a button—albeit to release a less powerful nuclear weapon than those held elsewhere. The consequences of a nuclear explosion set off in anger anywhere in the world and its knock-on effects are too horrific to think about. That is why the non-proliferation conference is so important.

This country can do a lot by example. We have access to the Trident nuclear submarine system. Various vessels are on patrol at any one time. Anyone who says that the acquisition and development of the Trident fleet is not nuclear proliferation is wrong. It is an enormous proliferation. On any one submarine, Trident carries 48 warheads. It could carry more. Each warhead has a capacity of 100 kilotonnes, and is the equivalent of five Nagasaki bombs. We now face a nuclear weapons capability that will make what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—on 6 August each year we commemorate the 60,000 or more people who died in each of those two cities—look like a minor firework explosion.

Will the Minister respond to my point about the legality of nuclear weapons? Many non-nuclear weapons states or those with nuclear capability that do not admit to holding weapons draw comparisons with those nuclear weapons states that say that they want disarmament, while at the same time increasing their nuclear capability. We must also take into account the United States' use of Fylingdales for its development of a national missile defence strategy. Are we to become once more a nuclear aircraft carrier for the United States, which so many of us spent much of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s opposing? The closure of Greenham Common and its restoration as a public open space is a source of great pride and triumph to many people, but will not a massive American facility at Fylingdales be just as dangerous as Greenham Common was—if not more so—for the people of this country?

The conference has an opportunity to bring about a solution to the problems, but it means that the nuclear weapons states will have to make a big move. I understand that the Government are opposed to nuclear weapons and want massive disarmament throughout the world, but they keep holding them in the mean time while there is a threat or danger in the world. Some countries have given up nuclear weapons. For example, during the apartheid regime, South Africa clearly had a nuclear weapons capability. It is to the eternal credit of President Mandela that one of the early actions of the ANC Government was to end all nuclear weapons research and to declare South Africa a nuclear-free state. It can be done and South Africa has provided an example and a way forward.

Is the stance of the Government in line with the current aims and objectives of CND, of which the hon. Gentleman is a council member?

I can pass the hon. Lady a vast amount of CND documentation. Clearly, CND does not agree with everything that the Government say. Nobody—neither the Government nor CND—would pretend otherwise. However, CND is involved in a process of constructive engagement with the Government. Meetings take place with representatives of CND and many Members of Parliament. I am a member of parliamentary CND, as are other colleagues who are present in this Chamber. I am not sure what point the hon. Lady is trying to make. If she is trying to say that the Labour party is in the pocket of CND, all I can say is that I wish it were. Unfortunately, it is not.

I am not trying to make a particular point. I understand that the Minister replying to the debate is a member of parliamentary CND, and I merely wonder how that is compatible with being a member of the Government, with whom CND does not agree.

I invite the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to meet CND—it is not far to come on the Metropolitan line. She would then understand that it is not in the mould of a democratic centralist organisation, with an all-powerful central committee that sends out edicts to every one of the thousands of CND members around the country, who religiously carry out those exact instructions. It is a wondrous affair, which encompasses Christian CND, trade union CND, Labour CND, and lots of other groups from lots of traditions, including pacifists, and ex-service CND. It is a peace movement in which a great deal of deal of debate and discussion takes place. Policies are arrived at and promoted. Many people who are in CND do not accept every tenet of everything that CND says or does. That is not a great problem; it is a peace movement that advances the cause of peace and has made a major contribution. The quality of its research and contribution to debate about Government statements is widely respected.

Does my hon. Friend find it unusual that, apart from the Front-Bench spokesperson, not a single Conservative Member is present in this Chamber? Not long ago, it would have been impossible to have a debate on this subject without a flood of Conservative Members rushing to be the first to denounce any attempt to suggest that the elimination of nuclear weapons might be good, or even possible. Does he agree that that change is highly significant? Does it not reflect a newfound consensus? The old debate, with those who believed in unilateral action and those who believed in multilateral action but did not have to do anything about it, is behind us—

Order. Interventions should be brief rather than repetitive speeches.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North was trying to allude to arguments that various absent friends would have made if they had been in this Chamber this morning. I miss them, because I miss the ritual denunciation of anyone who has ever been in CND, and the McCarthyite language that surrounded it. Nevertheless, I hope that they will read the debate in Hansard or watch the video.

May I move on, Mr. Cook, and take fewer interventions—

Order. It might be helpful if I were to remind all hon. Members that this is a sitting of the House and not a Committee. The House, in its wisdom, decided that the Chair should be addressed as in the parent Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg your pardon. You said that so well that you lost me along the way.

When Michael Douglas came here for a meeting, I was unfortunately unable to attend. I was at a far more glamorous affair in Islington—a tenants association meeting. Although I was unable to hear him, I read what he said and about his work, so I am aware of the efforts being made by the United Nations. It has drawn attention to the urgency of the situation.

The hon. Member for Putney spoke about the danger of war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. There certainly is a danger of those two countries developing a further generation of nuclear weapons and a delivery system capable of setting them off. There is a dispute over Kashmir. Both Governments are attempting to stoke up nationalist rhetoric to divert attention from the unremitting poverty of so many people living in those countries. It is regrettable and deplorable that both India and Pakistan—though the criticism applies to many countries in the world—spend far more on defence and weaponry than on education or health. We must do all that we can to bring about a solution to the Kashmir problem and to persuade both India and Pakistan to sign up at least to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty as a prelude to full involvement in the non-proliferation treaty discussions.

There are other countries that are either nuclear weapons states or on the threshold of being so. Some are undeclared, but Israel, for example, is now fairly open about its nuclear weapons. The threat in that region of other states such as Iraq having access to nuclear weapons is terribly dangerous. In Israel, the prisoner of conscience Mordecai Vanunu has spent 11 years of his sentence in solitary confinement. He is now out of solitary confinement and living in more general prison conditions, but he remains in Ashkelon prison. I attempted to visit him a couple of years ago, but I was denied access.

We must recognise that Vanunu, a nuclear scientist, is a prisoner of conscience, attempting to draw the world's attention to the danger of nuclear proliferation. I hope that the Minister will continue the policy of this and previous Governments in putting pressure on Israel to ensure that Vanunu is properly treated and attempting to secure his early release from prison. In my view, he has committed no crime other than drawing the world's attention to the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear weapons states can continue to operate as a club, to develop their own nuclear capability and to ignore the reality of the dangers all over the world. I want our Government to declare that we are serious about arms negotiation talks, that we are prepared to advocate a no-first-use policy, that we are prepared to decommission nuclear weapons and to put pressure on the United States to do the same and that we will continue to develop the encouraging rhetoric of the past few weeks about the real prospects for the peace process.

I shall quote from a CND document, which provides a summary of the UK's record on nuclear disarmament:

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament believes that the UK, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and one of the five declared Nuclear Weapons States under the NPT, is well placed to take the lead on the path of global nuclear disarmament. The end of the Cold War and the election of a Labour Government raised expectations, so far unfulfilled. Thirty years after it entered into force on 5 March 1970, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is in danger of being universally perceived as enshrining the privileges of the few to retain nuclear weapons indefinitely against the needs of humanity to achieve their abolition, sooner rather than later.

If we miss this opportunity, proliferation will continue and irresponsible will people get hold of nuclear weapons. If somebody sets one off, God knows where that catastrophe will lead us. This is perhaps the most serious debate of the present Parliament. It provides a chance that we must seize with both hands in order to bring about the worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on securing the debate and introducing it so comprehensively. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) in thanking and congratulating Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute, whose e-mails must have informed many of us, judging by how people smiled when he referred to them.

The sixth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is crucial because of our failure to take advantage of the end of the cold war in the past decade, because of the growth of unofficial nuclear weapons states, because we have reached a watershed, and because of the unimaginable horror if it ever goes wrong even on a small scale, let alone on a cataclysmic scale, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) movingly described.

Various crucial issues are involved, such as the future of the test ban treaty, nuclear weapons-free zones, the fissile materials ban and the future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North referred. I join him in welcoming the statement from the five recognised nuclear weapons states—perhaps more because they achieved a joint statement than because it contained especially ground-breaking comments. Achieving unity is important. I welcome the fact that all the states involved were able to show at least some progress. It would be fair to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North did, that Britain has achieved rather more than other states.

I share the pleasure expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney about the reference to the middle east and the importance of all states signing up to the non-proliferation treaty. Only one state now needs to do so, but it is perhaps the most important—Israel. I welcome the fact that Britain advocates sending a special envoy to encourage the development of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the middle east. I also welcome the support expressed in the statement for nuclear weapons-free zones, and the reference to India and Pakistan.

The statement also strongly welcomes the comprehensive test ban treaty. Now that the Russian Duma has signed up to the treaty, it must be the desire of the vast majority of hon. Members that it should be ratified by all major states, including China and the United States of America. Of the 155 signatories, 56 have now ratified. The Government and the Opposition Front Bench want the comprehensive test ban treaty to be brought into force, and they have the overwhelming support of Back Benchers from all parties, as was shown by early-day motion 929.

I welcome the statement that the anti-ballistic missile treaty should be preserved and strengthened, but I fear that an ambiguity may lie behind it. I suspect that the different parties have different opinions about exactly what is meant by "preserved and strengthened", but I welcome the fact that it seems to put down the idea of unilateral action by the United States of America. The unilateralist position was vigorously expressed last week by a leader writer in The Times, Michael Gove, who argued not only for the United States adopting national missile defence, but for developing all possible aggressive and defensive technologies and scrapping all arms control agreements. In common with some of the more rabid sections of the United States right, Mr. Gove seems to believe that the more nuclear weapons there are, the safer we shall all be. As I have said before, some people in the United States hold a similar view about guns, and believe that if everyone had guns, no one would be killed. However, that does not seem to work.

Adopting national missile defence and scrapping the ABM treaty would be devastating. It would undermine all other treaties, especially if, as some Republicans have implied, the Republican party would abrogate the treaty, even though it was originally signed under a Republican president. Whatever assurances were given to Russia and China that the missiles were not intended to be used against them, how would they know that some future Administration would not simply abrogate those agreements, too? There would be a grave danger that Russia might be encouraged to start re-expanding its nuclear capability rather than continuing with reductions.

Even if the ABM treaty is renegotiated with Russia, there will be a grave need for the United States to consider the position of China and other states. As far as I am aware, almost no other state at the negotiations strongly supported the idea of the national missile defence system, and there has been strong support for maintaining the ABM treaty. I hope that the United States will take account of that.

How far is NMD relevant to Britain, since we are not party to the ABM treaty? As has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, if the system were developed, we would be expected to supply tracking stations at Menwith and Fylingdales, and the people there would automatically become likely targets, but under present circumstances they would not be afforded any cover. Even if there were offers of cover from the system or extra local contracts and employment, it would be inappropriate to dice with the safety of our planet and our people.

We should examine the extent of the danger posed by rogue states, which is genuine, but it is a little unrealistic for states that claim to believe in deterrence, and have several thousand times more weapons that any rogue state could develop, to say that they also need a massive missile defence system. Tactical capacity has been vastly overestimated. It is easy to say that one suspects that a state may have a missile delivery system capability, or is close to achieving it, or that it may have the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon, but that would probably be far too large for the purposes of their missile delivery system. There is often a tendency to exaggerate such threats. In any case, other means of delivery are available to such states, such as bringing in a weapon on a lorry or by boat. That could apply to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

National missile defence threatens to undermine our arms control system, yet we have no guarantee that it would actually work. So far, the only tests that have been carried out have been unsuccessful, and it is unlikely that there could be any tests even suggesting that it might be successful before 2001. I suspect that the push to adopt the system is partly electoral and partly the result of financial inducements—that is, pork barrel politics, with politicians claiming that billions of dollars would be spent in different parts of the United States. While I do not expect Britain to take a public stance on the issue, I hope that we could employ private diplomacy to try to discourage the United States from taking precipitate action that might undermine the whole arms control and disarmament process. It is vital that we try to make progress with START 3, now that START 2 is likely to be confirmed.

In his article, Mr. Gove—using the slightly extravagant language that appeared to make my hon. Friends nostalgic—described my hon. Friend the Minister as one of the KGB's "useful idiots". If it is any consolation to the Minister, he used the same phrase to describe the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. By Mr. Gove's definition, even his own icons, Baroness Thatcher and President Reagan, must also have been useful idiots, as they engaged in arms control negotiations. Like the cartoon of the Japanese soldier on the desert island who was unaware that the second world war was over, Mr. Gove appears to be similarly unaware that the cold war ended more than a decade ago. I say that not only to poke gentle fun at him, but because it illustrates part of the problem that we face. Einstein said that nuclear weapons had changed everything except the way in which people think, and the end of the cold war seems to have changed everything except the way in which some people who pontificate on defence matters think.

The statement by the five nuclear weapons states, which contains

an unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goals of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a treaty for general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international controls

has caused concern. We all agree that general disarmament is crucially tied up with the effort to reduce weapons of mass destruction. The new agenda coalition and the movement of non-aligned states said:

the total elimination of nuclear weapons is an obligation and a priority and not an ultimate goal, and even less a goal that is linked, subject or conditioned to general and complete disarmament.

The phrase, "total elimination" is sometimes used by starry-eyed idealists and hardened cynics—I am reminded of the decommissioning situation in Northern Ireland. Positive statements are good, but timetabled reductions are better.

We face a race against time. To put the point in simplistic but dramatic terms, this century's challenge is to establish whether human beings can eliminate nuclear weapons before nuclear weapons eliminate human beings.

I start by echoing the comment that was made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor)—I, too, am disappointed that there are not more hon. Members present. Today is the eve of the local elections, the London mayoral elections, in which our candidate, Steven Norris, is fighting a good fight, and the by-election. Presumably, that explains why there are no Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman made some good observations, but he failed to point that out. I hope that I can make up for the absence of support from the Opposition Back Benches by making a brief contribution from the Front Bench. This subject has been debated for some time, but it is apposite to discuss it today in view of the start of the review conference.

The likelihood that threats to European security will become a reality has increased rather than diminished during the past few years. Today's global security environment is characterised by the same complex mix of political, economic, military and social factors that undermined stability during much of the 1990s. There are uncertainties regarding Russia, China, the middle east and eastern Europe, as well as various rogue states—to which hon. Members have alluded this morning—groups and individuals. There are also growing disparities in global wealth and source distribution and there has been an unwelcome spread of ethnic and religious conflicts.

For this country, one of the most obvious and disturbing features of the post-cold war order is the proliferation of ballistic missiles and the weapons of mass destruction with which they are armed. Between 35 and 40 countries have such a missile capability and, according to a report from Lancaster university, 18 countries have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons warheads with which to arm those missiles.

The post-cold war environment has proved to be increasingly open to proliferation activities. New alliances have formed, providing pooled resources for developing those capabilities. Technology, expertise and the hardware with which to build ballistic missiles are proliferating rapidly. That process has been instigated by advances in information technology. Foreign assistance is a universal characteristic of the contemporary ballistic missile development environment.

It is widely recognised that the key suppliers include China, Russia and North Korea. China has provided missile-related items, raw materials and assistance to several countries, including, I believe, Iran. It has also provided support to Pakistan's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes.

Russia has provided a variety of ballistic missile-related goods and technical know-how to Iran, and it is expanding its assistance to countries such as Syria and India. Iran's earlier success in gaining technology and materials from Russian companies accelerated the development of its Shahab 3 medium range ballistic missile, which was first flight-tested in July 1998.

North Korea continues to export ballistic missile-related equipment and missile components, materials and technical expertise to countries in the middle east and Africa. The export of ballistic missiles and related technology is one of North Korea's major sources of hard currency.

It is against that background that the hon. Member for Bury, North has initiated this debate. He referred to the meeting in this Chamber that was attended by Michael Douglas, the United Nations peace ambassador, to which the Minister and I were privileged to contribute. I am not sure what that visit achieved. I know that Michael Douglas hoped to capture the imagination of the man in the street and raise the profile of the review conference, but I doubt whether that has happened. If a visit to Parliament by Michael Douglas cannot raise the profile on a lasting basis, I wonder what can. The man in the street is less concerned about such issues than in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Closing my eyes during the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), I could have been back in those decades, but I acknowledge that he has held those views consistently for many years.

The hon. Member for Bury, North welcomed the Russian Duma's ratification of the START 2 treaty, as do I. He quoted from position statements by the nuclear weapons states and the new agenda coalition. I would like to add to his questions on the Minister's attitude towards that coalition. The Minister must make the Government's policy clear, because we are getting mixed messages. The hon. Member for Islington, North rightly pointed out that CND and parliamentary CND do not currently agree with the Government. Nevertheless, the Minister, who is putting forward the Government's policy, remains a member of CND. That is incompatible with his ministerial duties, so perhaps he can tell us whether he feels that he should resign from CND. If he does resign, we shall feel better about his stance.

At the same time, and building on questions asked by the hon. Member for Bury, North, we need to know the Minister's attitude towards the American missile defence programme. The hon. Member for Bury, North mentioned Menwith, and the hon. Members for Islington, North and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) referred to Fylingdales. What exchanges have taken place between the Minister and the Americans? Has he confirmed our support for the missile defence programme, or has he said that he has some difficulty in that regard? What is the Government's exact position? What has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office done to reassure the Americans of our continuing support? Today's debate has cast some doubt on the support expressed by certain members of the Government earlier this year.

What is the position of members of the Opposition Front Bench? Some have spoken strongly in favour of national missile defence, but some prominent and experienced members of the Conservative party oppose it.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he reads my speeches, he will see that I have always been extremely supportive of the Americans, and I do not seek decoupling of the defence arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States.

The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) asked the Minister about Pakistan. We would be pleased to have an Adjournment debate on Pakistan, particularly as it is currently suspended from the Commonwealth. As was evident from what the hon. Member for Putney said, dialogue with Pakistan is continuing. I hope that the Minister will tell us what recent contact there has been, what diplomatic work has been done on proliferation and whether the issue of nuclear weapons was raised at the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group earlier this week.

The review conference is a process. The Minister should tell us what impression he has of the progress made to date. Does he perceive any problems in the process? Has he suggested how that process might be changed? What is his assessment of the effectiveness of the process? The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North hopes that a solution to the problem might be found at the conference, but it is obvious that it will be a continuing process. The Minister should tell us what the next stages will be, not only for this country, but for the five nuclear weapons states.

The four countries outside the process are just as important, and I would like to hear the Minister's assessment of the positions of Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan. The hon. Member for Putney and others have sung the praises of Acronym and Rebecca Johnson, and I am happy to do likewise. I quote from Acronym 13:

How the NPT parties address the nuclear capabilities of India, Israel and Pakistan may determine the future credibility of the regime as far as some significant non-nuclear weapon State Parties are concerned. The Treaty cannot admit new members without amending the definition of a NWS in its 1968 text (where a nuclear weapon state is defined as one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear device prior to January 1, 1967).

What suggestions has the Minister made concerning those countries and about the problems associated with admitting new members under that definition? What progress has been made on that issue?

Many questions have been raised about Pakistan and India, and I would like to ask the Minister what comments have been made about China's role, specifically its support for Pakistan's nuclear programme. There seems to be general assistance to India and Pakistan to improve the safety of their nuclear-related command, control and communication systems. Does the Minister approve of that assistance, or does he believe that it legitimises the nuclear status of those two countries? What is the position of Her Majesty's Government?

I read on a website the Minister's contribution to the NPT review conference in New York on Monday 24 April. I was delighted to see that, significantly, he referred to three achievements. The first was

the completion by no later than 1996 of the negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament for a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The second achievement, which was

identified as particularly important by the parties to this Treaty at the 1995 Conference

was

the negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material.

The third was identified as

the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally.

I was pleased to note that they were all agreed under the last Conservative Government, so I find it odd that he claimed that the Labour Government had transformed Britain's role in the nuclear disarmament process. That is slightly disingenuous of him, because great progress was made under previous Conservative Governments. It is a sad shame that that is rarely acknowledged in any arena.

The non-proliferation treaty process may not be perfect, but it has survived and fared well over the years. Certainly over the past five years nine new states have joined and only four remain outside. We must now move forward, building on the progress made on disarmament and peaceful co-operation, and make more progress on preventing proliferation, which has been such a serious challenge to the entire process. However, we must never forget that these weapons have helped to secure the peace. We must all support the international co-operation that enables us to work continuously to ensure that the world is safer and more secure.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for giving us the opportunity to debate this important review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who worked energetically on his private Member's Bill and deserves a great deal of credit for its achievement in nuclear safety regimes across the world.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has a long and honourable record of interest in and campaigning for nuclear disarmament, made a number of points, which I shall come back to, although I thought that he was audacious in inviting the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to CND's offices. I do not want to intrude on private grief, but I think that it would be an enlightening experience for both of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), who contributed in his normal expert fashion, continues to enjoy my support for his work in chairing the all-party non-proliferation group.

In relation to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, in our bilateral contacts with the new regime in Pakistan we have repeatedly stressed that it is in its interests to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty requirements and, in particular, to the comprehensive test ban treaty, and to adopt controls on the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which are undoubtedly a concern both to and from Pakistan. The visit of the Chief of Defence Staff, at our request, in early January, provided the vehicle for delivering that message firmly.

The NPT remains the main instrument for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and it is vital that the review conference succeeds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, there have been positive achievements during the past five years: nine states have become new parties to the treaty over that period; agreement has been reached on how to strengthen the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency; a number of new conventions relating to nuclear safety have come into force or have been opened for signature; and the United States and Russia have been busy implementing the START 1 reductions in their nuclear forces, while a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty has been concluded and signed by all five of the NPT's nuclear weapons states, none of which has carried out a nuclear explosion since signing. Two nuclear weapons states—the United Kingdom and France—have ratified as well, while, in a welcome move, the Russian Duma recently approved ratification of the treaty. I congratulate it on so doing.

The United Kingdom, especially under this Labour Government, has been a leading force for nuclear disarmament. I acknowledge that some of it started before we came to power. In the past few years we have completed the dismantling of the maritime tactical nuclear weapons that we withdrew from service some time ago; we have withdrawn from service and dismantled all our air-delivered nuclear weapons so that now they are only submarine-based; and we are currently dismantling the Chevaline warheads from our old force of Polaris submarines.

As for Trident—Britain's only remaining nuclear system—we have reduced the number of operationally available warheads to fewer than 200. We have stated that only one submarine may be on patrol at a time, that it will carry 50 per cent. fewer warheads than the previously announced ceiling, and that it will operate at a reduced state of readiness. Furthermore, all our missiles have been de-targeted since May 1994.

The British Government have taken a number of other important steps over the past five years. We have signed and ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, strongly supported efforts to establish the treaty's verification system—a crucial objective—and taken a leading role in efforts to persuade others to sign and ratify the treaty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North asked about the fissile material cut-off treaty. We have pressed hard for negotiations on such a treaty at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, and, despite the highly regrettable absence of progress there, we have taken steps to ensure that all British reprocessing and enrichment operations are now under Euratom safeguards and are either inspected or liable to inspection by the IAEA. We have also made it clear that when we are satisfied with the progress towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons, British nuclear weapons will be included in multilateral negotiations.

Furthermore, we have been transparent about the size of our stocks of nuclear material, military as well as civil. We have declared some of our previous military material as surplus to our defence requirements and taken steps to place it under safeguards arrangements. We have also carried out some initial work to account for our past production of fissile material for defence purposes, and begun to develop a pool of expertise in verifying the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons that we are working to achieve.

Hon. Members who keep an eye on the Foreign Office website will know that I had the privilege of making many of those points at the NPT review conference on its opening day last month. Following my discussions in New York I believe that there is a widespread recognition that the United Kingdom is second to none among the nuclear weapons states in trying to move these matters in the right direction, but the path to nuclear disarmament is not one that we can walk alone.

Over the next five years, we will work towards securing universal adherence to the NPT treaty by pressing the only remaining non-parties—Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan—to join the 187 countries that have already signed up to the NPT. We shall deal robustly with countries that renege on their commitment to the NPT, including Iraq and North Korea. We shall also play a leading role in making progress towards nuclear disarmament.

Central to further progress towards nuclear disarmament is the continuation of the strategic arms reduction process between the United States and Russia. I welcome the news that the Russian Duma and the federation council have now approved ratification of the START 2 treaty and its 1997 protocol. We urge the US Senate, which gave its consent to ratification of the treaty in January 1996, to give its consent to ratification of the 1997 protocol. We also urge progress in the current talks between the US and Russia on a START 3 treaty and the anti-ballistic missile treaty.

That brings me to the concerns expressed by several hon. Members about the potential impact on nuclear disarmament efforts of American interest in the establishment of a national missile defence system. A number of Members have expressed the fear that the deployment of such a system could set back the strategic arms reduction process between the United States and Russia, and could also be used by China as a justification for expanding her nuclear forces. Those are legitimate concerns, which the US also recognises. I had discussions on the matter in New York and Washington last week. Also legitimate are the concerns, felt not only by the United States, about the acquisition of long-range ballistic missiles by countries of concern. No responsible Government can afford to ignore that potential threat.

National missile defence raises thorny issues that require calm and measured dialogue. That is why we welcome the intensive discussions on these matters in which the US and Russia are currently engaged. Despite the obvious differences between the two sides, highlighted by the Russian Foreign Minister in his speech to the review conference last week, we hope that they can ultimately reach an agreement that will strike an appropriate balance between the competing considerations. We have made it clear to both sides that we continue to attach great importance to the strategic stability that the anti-ballistic missile treaty provides, and that we wish to see it preserved alongside global reinforcement of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. I made those points personally in the course of my recent visit to the United States.

Some hon. Members have asked about the Government's position on meeting any potential American requests to use facilities in this country for national missile defence purposes. Let me make it clear, once again, that the United States has not yet decided to deploy any NMD system, and has, therefore, not put a formal request to us to use facilities in this country for such a system. If such a request is made, we shall naturally consider it carefully, taking into account all the circumstances.

I have tried to be as frank as possible and I will not disguise the fact that the future of the nuclear disarmament process and the anti-ballistic missile treaty raises difficult and complex issues. I assure the House that the Government are working hard to encourage the United States and Russia to find a way forward that will meet the legitimate interests of all concerned and allow the positive progress made in reducing nuclear weapons during the past few years to continue. We hope that at the review conference the other parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will not forget the vital need for early entry into force of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and for an immediate start to negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North referred to the new agenda coalition. I welcome the contribution made by some non-nuclear weapons states, including that coalition, to the debate on measures that might be pursued in the next five years. We are studying closely the speech made by the Mexican Foreign Minister on behalf of those countries. I assure hon. Members that we are ready to engage in constructive discussion of those and other ideas. I held such discussions with the Irish and New Zealand Foreign Ministers, and with the South African delegation in New York.

I have instructed my officials still at the NPT in New York to discuss with the leading countries involved in the new agenda coalition—including New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland—amendments that would enable the UK to support their proposals to the conference. We agree with the vast majority of their proposals, but there are some sticking points, one of which is the proposal to demate warheads from delivery systems. In Britain at least, that is impossible, because our weapons are submarine based. I hope that we can obtain an agreement with the non-nuclear weapons states, because we overwhelmingly share their aims for nuclear disarmament. I ask my hon. Friend to think again about the need for an international conference. I do not want detract from the important NPT process.

We recently marked the 30th anniversary of the treaty's entry into force. It remains vital. We hope that all parties will recognise that the treaty continues to be overwhelmingly in their interests and those of the international community. As a nuclear weapons state that complies fully with the non-proliferation treaty, we want this important conference to take a giant leap forward, to curb the current threat of a new nuclear arms race and achieve our ultimate objective of a nuclear-free world.

The Labour Government have placed Britain in a unique pivotal role. We are a key member of the P5 nuclear weapons states, but also a country that the non-nuclear states can see as a friend in court, advancing our common objectives to reduce nuclear weapons proliferation. We agree with many of the non-nuclear weapons states that want faster progress towards nuclear disarmament, and we have tried to lead by example.

When the cold war ended, many thought that the planet would be a safer place. The recent unblocking of the stalled disarmament discourse between Washington and Moscow has renewed that hope. I am pleased to tell the House that in a common statement made in New York on Monday, as a result of British efforts, all five nuclear weapons states declared that none of their nuclear weapons was targeted at any other state. That statement also contained an important confirmation of our unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goal of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

There is almost universal agreement that we need a united and vigorous response to tackle the problems of global insecurity and ensure that we have proper controls on the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. We must do all that we can to ensure that humankind does not jeopardise its own future and that of the planet. However, some states continue to challenge the objectives of the global non-proliferation regime. Although Iraq and North Korea are parties to the NPT, they have attempted to acquire nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan have carried out nuclear weapons tests. Israel's nuclear stance is seen by the non-nuclear states in the region as a factor complicating the middle east peace process, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said. There is a great deal of work to do, but Britain is leading the way in accomplishing it.

Hon. Members who do not wish to stay for the next debate, which looks absolutely fascinating, please leave quietly now so that we can get on.

This is my first experience of Westminster Hall. I was a strong supporter of the experiment when it started, but I did not realise that it would be as difficult to be drawn out of the hat as it is to get six winning numbers on a Saturday night in the national lottery. This is my first opportunity to open a debate here, and I am delighted that it is to be a debate on the subject of diastasis symphysis pubis. I have discovered that if one wants to attract the interest of colleagues and journalists in a debate, it is a good idea to have a title that nobody understands; I have had dozens of calls from people who wanted me to explain it to them.

If my persistence in seeking the debate has paid off, it has been nothing like the persistence of my constituent Mrs. Angie Lambert, who suffered chronic pain during and subsequent to her pregnancies in 1992 and 1994. She received no adequate support to deal with that pain, no explanation of it and no suitable treatment, but she would not accept that it was the norm and that pregnant women must put up with it. She was told that pregnant women must face that sort of pain and had to grin and bear it, and that it went with the job of having children.

Mrs. Lambert began to research the subject and came across an article entitled "Mind the gap" by Margaret Polden, then the superintendent obstetric physiotherapist at Hammersmith hospital. When Mrs. Lambert read the article she realised that she had been suffering from one of a group of conditions called symphysis pubis dysfunction, or SPD. In particular, she was suffering from the condition known as diastasis symphysis pubis, or DSP. She found that there was no organisation to provide care for that condition, or advice about its treatment. Having been encouraged to do so by Mrs. Polden, she set up the British DSP support group, which has subsequently been renamed the British SPD support group. So far as I am aware, it is the world's only support group for the condition. It is based in my constituency in an office in Ramsgate.

The group is responsible for raising awareness of the condition, among other things. As part of that process, and for the benefit of all the parliamentary colleagues who have, I hope, switched on monitors around the Palace of Westminster to find out what diastasis symphysis pubis means, I will briefly describe the condition.

There are three major bones in the pelvic girdle. The one at the centre is called the sacrum, to which the backbone is attached at the base of the spine. To the side are two curved bones, which join the sacrum at the back and curve forward and are jointed at the front. The joint at the front is called the symphysis pubis; the bones are held together by ligaments, and the gap in the joint would usually measure around 4 mm to 5 mm. The ligaments soften as a result of the hormones produced during pregnancy, and the joint moves apart slightly, possibly by another 2 mm to 3 mm, to facilitate the delivery of the baby. A gap of 9 mm would be considered normal during pregnancy, but if that gap gets too large or if after birth the ligaments do not toughen up and the gap does not close down again, problems arise. The condition known as diastasis symphysis pubis occurs when the gap has grown beyond 10 mm.

The consequences of the condition are chronic back pain, shooting pains in the legs, suprapubic pain, sacroiliac or lumbar pain, radiating pains to the buttocks, groin and legs, and tenderness. The woman will often walk with a waddling gait because she cannot walk normally. She will find it difficult to walk with normal long strides and will have difficulty in moving her legs. She will be unable to get in and out of a car, turn over in bed and climb the stairs. She will find it difficult to do the shopping and normal household activities. Sexual intercourse becomes difficult, and the woman often experiences loss of self-esteem and depression. Many women find that the quality of their lives is severely affected by SPD.

Many women cannot lift their babies out of their cots to cuddle them, which can be distressing for a mother with a newborn baby. A woman will find it difficult to sit on the carpet and play with her new baby, which is one of the pleasures of close bonding. She will feel cheated out of that experience and will consequently often face depression. Her marriage may be affected, and family relationships often suffer. Her sex life and social life can be affected. Women who intend to return to work can find employment difficult, and obvious financial problems result. Depression, resentment, anger, lack of self-esteem, frustration and lack of confidence are all common.

On top of that, the medical profession finds it difficult to recognise the condition and to provide appropriate levels of support, because awareness of the condition is not high. The woman will therefore often find that nobody believes in her. She is almost told to go away and pull herself together, with the words, "This is normal—it's just a bit of backache, which will disappear. Take a couple of aspirins." In fact, the condition is anything but normal. Once it has been recognised, it can be managed very well and treated, but it is seldom recognised.

As the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the support group is based, I have had many telephone calls from men throughout the country who have said, "My partner has had this condition for months. My life has been made a misery because of the difficulty that she has been having. Nobody told her what she was suffering from or what to do about it. We have just found out about it by accident. Somebody has introduced us to the support group, and we are now getting help. What are you doing as the MP to make people aware of the condition?" One thing that I hope will come out of today's debate is that people will become aware of the condition and the Department will start to follow that up.

There are slightly more than 700,000 pregnancies each year in the UK. About one woman in 250, or close to 3,000 women will probably suffer from SPD in one form or another. Of those 3,000 women, only 45 per cent.—or 1,300 women—are ever put in touch with the SPD support group. It is the only group that supports such women, so one must assume that 1,700 other women who suffer from the condition are never given appropriate counsel.

Doctors still are not taught about DSP and SPD. During training, they receive only a basic knowledge of ligament pain and are not given specific details about the condition. Many hospital trusts have no specialists who can spot it, and many women suffer for months without it being recognised. Once you know that you have the condition, your lifestyle can be assessed and you can be given advice to help you manage the pain and the condition and to bring about comfort, if not a cure.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is using the word "you". When he uses it, he refers to me, and, in the circumstances, I am physiologically incapable of having the condition.

My great apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you will now be able to counsel appropriately constituents who come to you with this problem.

Once the condition is recognised, an individual can be counselled to address the matter. Postural advice is especially important. Osteopathy and chiropractic treatment can bring a great deal of relief, as can the Alexander technique. Generally, a plan can be put in place to manage the condition and the pain associated with it. The first step is for doctors to recognise the condition and for the woman to be put in touch with people who can help and advise her.

I have various questions that I want my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to address. I know that she has addressed the first, which is an issue that gives weight to the support group's view that nobody is taking the condition seriously. The group wrote to Her Majesty the Queen some months ago, to bring the matter to her attention, and Her Majesty wrote back to say that she would bring it to the attention of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State did not respond. The group wrote directly to the Secretary of State, but he still did not respond. It wrote to me and asked me to obtain a reply from the Secretary of State. I wrote to him, and, lo, no response came. The letter still has not received a reply. I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has managed to track down that correspondence, and she assured me that there will be a response. However, I am sure that she will understand that that has added to the feeling that nobody really cares about the condition.

Why are doctors still not being taught about the two conditions? What steps can the Government take, presumably through the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, to ensure that such study is included in doctors' training? We would like the Under-Secretary to consider making osteopathy and chiropractic treatment available on the national health service to women who have been identified as having the condition. The Department of Health should consider an awareness campaign, not only within the medical profession but in clinics that women attend for check-ups. Consequently, if a woman should start to experience such chronic pain, before or after her baby is born, she will at least know that there is a group that can advise her. Alternatively, she can ask her general practitioner whether he has considered that she might have SPD or DSP, and ask him to put her in touch with the support group. It is likely that the condition is often made worse by midwives using a technique called lithotomy, whereby a woman gives birth with her feet in stirrups or on the hip of the midwife. The support group believes that midwives should give serious consideration to the use of that position, given the possibility that women might suffer from SPD or DSP following the birth.

Those are key points, but I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider a further point, on which she does not need to take immediate action, but which she should start to think about—the future funding of the support group. It has been funded for three years on a generous lottery grant, which the group was thrilled to receive. However, that funding runs out next year. Prior to the lottery grant, grants were made available through the Department of Health for the group's work. We must consider what will happen if there is no renewal of the lottery grant, because the group provides a vital service to women suffering from the condition. Will the Under-Secretary also consider whether the Department might fund a lecturer to tour medical colleges and hospital trusts to raise awareness of the condition. It is a debilitating condition for many hundreds—probably thousands—of women. It can absolutely ruin what should be the greatest experience of a woman's life: having a baby and looking after that child in its first months. Not only can the condition destroy that experience for many women, it can destroy their family and social life. We must start taking it much more seriously. I congratulate Mrs. Lambert and her excellent team in my constituency for their work. I wish to encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to pick up the baton carried by that group of people and ensure that the Department of Health carries it forward.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on securing this debate on diastasis symphysis pubis and on the care with which he is representing his constituents' interests in such matters. He gave a powerful description of the problem and of the health, emotional and social consequences of the condition. As my hon. Friend described, diastasis symphysis pubis—DSP—and the more common condition, symphysis pubis dysfunction—SPD—are conditions that occur in pregnancy and affect the front joint of the pelvis, which can cause considerable pain. It can take some time for that pain to relieve completely after the birth, and physiotherapy is often helpful in managing the condition. My hon. Friend has made very clear the extent to which DSP and SPD are misunderstood, can remain undiagnosed and cause considerable misery and distress for sufferers and their families.

SDP and DSP are characterised by pain over the symphysis pubis joint. They can cause considerable pain in the hips, groin, lower abdomen and inner thighs. The extent and the severity of the condition vary from woman to woman, but there is no doubt that it can have a significant impact on the physical and emotional well-being of sufferers. I assure my hon. Friend that I take seriously and have listened carefully to the points that he raised about the condition. I want to deal now with some of matters to which he referred, and I shall later follow up some of his other points in my Department.

I agree that raising awareness of the condition is important. SDP and DSP may be difficult to diagnose and raising the issue more widely will make more health professionals aware of the symptoms and better placed to respond speedily and appropriately. I share my hon.

Friend's concern and that of his constituents to see services for women who suffer from such conditions continuing to develop and improve.

We are aware of the concerns of various patients' groups. I wish to take this opportunity to apologise to my hon. Friend's constituent, Mrs. Lambert. We cannot find her original correspondence in the Department of Health. I apologise for the delay in replying to my hon. Friend's letter, a copy of which we have. After receiving his letter, to which he attached the correspondence from Mrs. Lambert and the support group, we have asked the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to consider the issue further and, if necessary, to reinforce its advice to members.

I understand that the college's scientific advisory committee has put the issue on the agenda of the meeting to be held on 16 June and I am sure that any guidance forthcoming from the college will help the medical profession better to recognise those women who are in need of specialist care. We are also aware of concerns about the low level of interest and awareness of DSP among health professionals, particularly general practitioners, and the wide variation in referral habits. We recognise that the pain and disability accompanying DSP and SPD can be minimised through early diagnosis and appropriate management, as my hon. Friend described. It is clear that such conditions will require expert knowledge.

It is encouraging to note that a small, but steadily increasing, number of health professionals are developing an interest in DSP and SPD. For some GPs, that has led to developing competence in diagnosis, changing and adjusting treatment and providing support and advice. A number of midwives are also taking an interest in DSP and SPD, and specialist obstetric physiotherapists are making a valuable contribution to the development of expertise in treatment. Much can be learned from their experiences. It is unlikely that individual health professionals will see more than one or two cases of DSP a year, if that—though they may see considerably more cases of SPD—so it is vital that they receive help to enable them to identify more easily women who present with symptoms.

The Government have done much to promote and disseminate good practice that has been built up in maternity care, and in health services generally. The national health service learning network, for example, has been designed to help the NHS to modernise and to boost the spread of good practice in service delivery and management. The network combines the best of bottom-up learning from the service with practical help and know-how from national initiatives. We must see how we can use the learning network to disseminate best practice further in such areas as DSP and SPD.

The Government continue to provide central funding to support maternity service liaison committees, which facilitate the sharing of information about good practice and local initiatives. The committees embody the type of patient-professional partnership that we want to flourish, giving service users the opportunity to work with health professionals to develop appropriate and responsive local services that put the patient at the heart of NHS services.

The development of primary care groups will present an opportunity to explore new models of care delivery, and people with conditions such as DSP and SPD will be able to influence change as the new NHS unfolds. Service users and voluntary groups such as my hon. Friend's constituents' organisation will play a special role in that process.

My hon. Friend is right that people are better informed today, but they also expect better information. The case that he described of his constituent seeking more information about her condition is typical: people increasingly, and rightly, want to know about their illnesses and the services that they need to manage them. That is why the starting point for a modern care system in the NHS is as a provider of information as well as a provider of treatment. In maternity services as in any other aspect of health care, communication and information are key aspects of good quality and effective care. We welcome the development of self-help groups, and I pay tribute to the work of the DSP support group—the SPD support group, as it now is—and its valuable role in raising awareness and helping sufferers of this distressing condition. I shall look into my hon. Friend's points about raising awareness of the support group and about its long-term future.

Concern has been raised in some quarters that women may be denied access to elective caesareans as a preventive measure. I take that point seriously, because a fundamental principle of "Changing Childbirth" and the Government's approach to maternity services is that women should be free to choose the care that they feel is most suitable. The woman must be the focus of maternity care and feel that she is in control of what is happening and able to explore and discuss her wishes regarding the birth with those who care for her.

The Government are funding a national audit on caesarean sections by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to develop standards and monitor the wide variations across the country in the number of caesarean sections carried out. We hope to learn lessons from that audit.

My hon. Friend mentioned other issues relating to maternity care, including the position in which women give birth. I shall respond by reflecting on the broader principles that guide our approach to maternity services.

We have made it clear that the ethos of women-centred care, with the emphasis on appropriate, effective and accessible care, must drive all maternity services. Since the publication of "Changing Childbirth" in 1993, Government policy has consistently and successfully promoted that ethos. We remain committed to those principles and to ensuring that women receive the clear and unbiased information that they need to make informed choices about their care.

Huge advances have been made in changing women's experience during pregnancy and childbirth. Women are more actively involved in making decisions about the maternity services that they receive and no longer have to make do with what is decided for them by others. That clearly includes the position in which they give birth, which is even more important for women suffering from DSP or SPD. We expect midwives to discuss with women the most comfortable position for them. Giving birth with one's feet up in stirrups or lying flat on one's back is considered to be old-fashioned by modern midwifery and obstetric practice.

The overriding expectation of pregnant women, their partners and families and the health professionals who care for them is a safe pregnancy and delivery and a healthy mother and baby, but childbirth is about more than safety. Maternity services exist to support the whole family, not simply during pregnancy and childbirth, but after the birth too. That must include managing conditions such as the DSP and the SPD to which my hon. Friend referred.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the availability of osteopathy and chiropractic, and other additional support and treatment for women suffering from SPD. The decision to commission services is a local one and must carefully balance clinical priorities with cost-effectiveness as well as taking into account the local population's needs. We are examining the commissioning of alternative therapies, and osteopathy and chiropractic treatment must be considered in that context.

My hon. Friend raised some crucial issues in this morning's debate. He deserves credit for initiating it and for raising awareness of this subject. We know that we have a long way to go to improve maternity services and care for patients with all kinds of conditions; we must not be complacent about the care and support provided by any part of the NHS. I commend the work done by the support group mentioned by my hon. Friend. I hope that referral of the issues to the Royal College and the consideration that it will give to them will help to take this matter further. I shall also consider the additional issues raised by my hon. Friend about extending awareness and about the future of the support group.

I hope that my remarks emphasise the Government's on-going commitment to the principle of good-quality, women-centred maternity services and support for all the conditions that women may experience during pregnancy, labour and childbirth. The initiatives that I have described today can make a difference in improving awareness, prevention, treatment and swifter diagnosis and can spare many women the misery and discomfort of DSP and SPD.

I welcome the opportunity for this Adjournment debate and am grateful for the chance to speak about important issues surrounding mental health services in the London borough of Sutton and beyond. I shall keep my comments relatively short, to enable my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) to make some comments.

The timing of the debate is fitting, as it follows the "Saving Lives" debate at St. George's hospital on 25 February. That debate focused on the Government's target to reduce the rate of suicide in the mental health service and explored people's vulnerability when they feel unwell, raising many issues relevant to Sutton that are worthy of debate.

It may be helpful if I provide a brief history of developments in mental health services in Sutton over the past 12 months. In 1999, Sutton's services merged with Springfield university hospital to found the South-West London and St. George's Mental Health national health service trust. The trust's geographical boundaries encompass Wandsworth, Merton and Sutton.

The Minister will be aware of the cuts—euphemistically termed efficiency savings—that threaten many mental health services, and the pressure that they put on trusts to limit services. Our local trust needs to make efficiency savings of about £200,000. Since the merger, the trust has concerned itself with making savings in respect of day care in Sutton. Of the three boroughs covered by the trust, Sutton is at a disadvantage. That is ironic, given that it is thought to be rich in services. Services in Sutton could therefore be seen as an easy target for money-saving schemes. The trust has no deficit, so it will not benefit from the first tranche of new NHS money.

After a lengthy day care review, the closure of Chiltern day hospital was proposed. The hospital often provides out-patient care for people with acute mental health problems as an alternative to in-patient treatment, or following discharge from hospital. The therapeutic community treatment programme consists of sociotherapy, psychotherapy, occupational therapy and drug treatment. Many people, including professionals and clients, campaigned against the threat of closure because the hospital provides an invaluable service. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I campaigned on that very issue.

I am pleased that the proposal to close the hospital has been withdrawn. The trust is taking a holistic view and reviewing mental health adult care services in Sutton as a whole. However, the need remains to identify savings of £200,000. It is clear that savings on that scale will leave mental health services in Sutton depleted, and cast doubt on the future of Chiltern day hospital and the Wallington and Cheam resource centres.

The "Saving Lives" debate to which I referred revealed sobering facts that highlight the importance of appropriate after-care. The 1999 report, by the national inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness, stated that

24 per cent. of suicides occurred within three months of discharge from in-patient care…These post-discharge suicides were at a peak in the first week after leaving hospital; within the first week, the highest number occurred on the day after discharge…41 per cent. of post-discharge suicides occurred before the first follow-up appointment.

It will be clear to the Minister that those are worrying statistics. If we are to achieve the Government's targets for reducing suicide rates, we need services that provide community care for people at the vulnerable time immediately after discharge.

On that issue, I want to raise the tragic case of 30-year-old Kevin Thadani, who was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. Mr. Thadani was found dead on Mitcham common six weeks after being discharged from the Jasper ward of Sutton hospital. He died from hypothermia, and the coroner recorded a verdict of misadventure. Mr. Thadani had a long medical history, and the Minister will note from the diagnosis that he was a vulnerable man.

After only a few weeks of in-patient care, Mr. Thadani was discharged into an unsupported bed-and-breakfast in Streatham, despite indications that he needed supported accommodation. Although Mr. Thadani had asked to be closer to London to increase his chances of getting a job, the bed-and-breakfast was unsuitable in other respects. Apparently, it is in a well-known red light district of Tooting Bec common. The Minister will agree that that is not the most suitable place for a person who is feeling unstable. As far as I am aware, no provisions were made for Mr. Thadani, apart from breakfast at the bed-and-breakfast, and presumably he spent considerable periods of time isolated in his room.

Mr. Thadani's absence was not reported immediately, and his appearance after death suggested that he had been living rough for several weeks. Clearly, he was a man who needed continuing care and support to maintain his mental health. Appointments with his community mental health team were not enough for him to sustain his health.

I know that that is not an isolated case of a person with mental health difficulties being discharged into an unwelcoming and possibly frightening situation, which results in a relapse. That raises the question of why tragedies like Mr. Thadani's death occur. The Government are rightly keen to emphasise the importance of community care, but this case represents an example of the failure of community care.

Could the mental health services and the local authority have done more to support Mr. Thadani? The answer must be yes. An ideal, but not unrealistic, alternative to his follow-up care would have been supported accommodation and a referral to one of the day care services in Sutton or a neighbouring borough, if that was where he was resident. That would have ensured that someone had continuing responsibility for Kevin's care.

The Minister will remember the sobering statistics that I mentioned earlier about the high risk time for suicide, and therefore relapse, in the first 24 hours. The Chiltern day hospital, which was under threat of closure, provides an assessment within 24 hours of discharge from hospital, thereby acting as a safety net for many vulnerable people.

Other valuable day care services in Sutton—Wallington resource centre and Cheam resource centre—provide continuing care for people with acute and long-term mental health problems. The centres' treatment is similar to that of the Chiltern day hospital. They integrate activities within the wider community and in educational and employment services, and treatment is provided in a non-clinical environment.

The majority of people with mental health problems receive little appropriate support from families and live isolated lives, thus increasing the risk to their health. Services such as the resource centres and Chiltern day hospital are invaluable in providing people with a regular routine and social interaction. As we have seen from the case of Kevin Thadani, the lack of effective and regular community support can result in tragedy. I therefore ask the Minister not only to support the concept of day care services in Sutton and elsewhere, but to invest nationally in preventive and containing community treatment.

It is worrying that neither Mr. Thadani's absence nor missed appointments were apparently followed up. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that. The case of Mr. Thadani also reflects the importance of appropriate housing for people with mental health problems. It raises the question of whether the council should be made more aware of the needs of people with mental health problems, which is necessary for better liaison between clinicians and the council. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is rarely sufficient for a vulnerable person and is often an isolating and insecure experience. Many good supported housing associations operate in Sutton, such as Croydon Churches and Sutton Community Development Trust, which provide supported flats for people with mental health needs. Support includes practical help, monitoring of health, emotional support, social interaction and liaison with clinical services. Finding appropriate housing is extremely difficult, and is becoming more so, yet it is a fundamental necessity. If a person's housing is not right, their mental health often deteriorates.

A further concern is the emergency procedure that is available in respect of Sutton's local NHS trust. People in crisis or feeling unwell either have to contact their general practitioner or go to St. Helier accident and emergency unit for a referral to the on-call psychiatrist. Out of hours, it is extremely difficult to contact a GP, especially one who is familiar with the patient's case. A patient who chooses instead to go to the A and E unit may face a very long wait. A constituent of mine in a suicidal state had to wait six hours to see the casualty doctor before the psychiatrist was called. She said that psychiatric emergencies are often treated with a degree of ignorance or derision, which often deters people from asking for the help that they need. A and E procedure needs to be changed to make the mental health services more easily accessible to people who are at their most vulnerable.

I want to raise several further points to which I hope the Minister will respond either in this debate or in writing. Will he comment on the practice of placing in appropriate housing homeless people who have been discharged from hospital and who have a history of mental health difficulties? What action will be taken? I appreciate that supplying all types of housing is a major problem, but supplying affordable, supported or appropriate accommodation to people who have mental health problems is an even greater problem. What action will be taken?

What steps will the Minister take to prevent tragedies such as that involving Mr. Thadani's death, and to lower the risk of suicide in Sutton and elsewhere? The case to which I referred is just one among many. There is only one course of action that the local mental health services in my constituency could adopt to prevent tragedies such as that involving Mr. Thadani, and help to meet the targets for reducing the suicide rate—they should continue to invest in mental health services locally, and not attempt to make efficiency savings.

I ask for the Minister's support in raising the profile of mental health issues in the health service generally. The need for that was put to me forcefully when I discussed the matter with people on the trust. There may be a reluctance to talk about mental health issues, and Members of Parliament may be reluctant to support that valuable service. What action will the Minister take in that regard?

Finally, I express my gratitude to Kevin Thadani's brother, Joe, and his parents, for allowing me to refer to Kevin Thadani's case. That enabled me to highlight my concerns about mental health services. I am aware that this is a painful issue for Joe and his family, but if firm action is taken—it cannot guarantee that such a tragedy will never reoccur, but it could reduce the risk—Joe may feel that Kevin did not lose his life in vain.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for initiating this debate.

My hon. Friend referred to the review that the South-West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS trust undertook last year in relation to day care—it proposed closing the Chiltern day hospital. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that that proposal went down like a lead balloon with service users, carers and staff, who felt that the trust failed to understand the hospital's role of assessing, containing and treating people with acute mental health problems. Users of the service and staff told me that the system works like a safety valve, because it prevents the need for in-patient admissions. Closing the hospital represents a false economy for service users and perhaps for the trust's budgets. Closure would have an impact on acute mental health patients and on the resource centres that provide day care services in Sutton. There are two centres in the borough—Wallington resource centre, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency, and Cheam resource centre, which is in mine. The closure of the day hospital would dilute their work and convert them into an integrated service. They would lose their client focus and client-centred approach to those who suffer from chronic mental health problems. Staff at the resource centres were worried that the case management systems that they had established would have been undermined by such changes. An audit of the work of resource centres was undertaken in Wallington and revealed their considerable value in reducing re-admission rates into the acute sector. There is great concern that service changes would have been to the detriment of many of the service users instead of for their benefit. One concern about the closure was that it would lead to a focus on acute mental health problems at the expense of chronic mental health patients.

The staff told me that they had a sense of déjà vu because, 10 years ago, the service was configured to integrate acute and chronic mental health service users under the same provision. A review found that service was not being delivered to the satisfaction of either group and was not providing the best outcome for either group. We are seeing the recycling of old ideas that have failed previously but are being brought back into service. That seems to be due, at least in part, to financial imperatives in the trust's budgets.

As part of the review, I visited Cheam resource centre and Chiltern day hospital. As a consequence of my discussions, I asked 14 questions in letters to the trust management. I have not yet received replies to those questions, but, as my hon. Friend rightly said, thanks to the campaigning of service users and others, the plans have been abandoned or put on the shelf. We hope that they will gather dust for many years.

We now have a review of the trust's services and the remit has been widened, which is welcome. The local authority is about to start a best value review of its mental health services. That provides an opportunity to consider the concerns of my hon. Friend by widening it to examine issues affecting housing and the integration of services. They work well together, but, as my hon. Friend's case demonstrates, they do not work well enough. More needs to be done to ensure that the national service framework is being properly implemented and that the new emerging mental health strategy in Sutton is fully implemented. Those should be the key criteria for developing services in Sutton, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance on that.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this debate on mental health services. It is unusual for hon. Members to have the opportunity to discuss mental health services, which is a shame given their importance to millions of citizens. It is not often appreciated that mental health problems are as common as asthma in our society and at any one moment 6 million people in Britain may need support from the NHS or local authorities to help them to deal with mental health problems. Anything that we can do in this Chamber to raise the profile of mental health services would be welcome.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to take more steps to encourage the development of mental health services and to provide some leadership. We are trying to do that. We have made mental health services our top priority for the NHS and I shall say more about that shortly. It is important in this debate to be honest with each other. Mental health services have been neglected and undervalued for decades in the NHS and we must put that right because those services are crucial to many vulnerable people. The hon. Gentleman referred to the specific and tragic case of Mr. Thadani in his constituency. The history of mental health services is littered with such tragic cases in which things could be been done differently with a better outcome for patients and their families.

We must make a big change in the quality and consistency of mental health services and we are trying to do that. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that later this year I shall visit every part of the country to talk to chief executives and chairs of trusts and others about implementation of the national service framework. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) asked us to do more to implement the national service framework, but it came into operation on 1 April, so it is only a month old. We must be realistic. There is a lot of work to do to ensure that all the standards identified in the national service framework are translated into front-line services. Some health authorities are starting from a different position and are further advanced in developing the standards. There may be a significant need to do more in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and that of his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and I shall not argue about that. The hon. Gentlemen have put forward strong arguments for change and improvement and we would certainly encourage that. However, I would like to pick up on the impression that they gave, perhaps inadvertently, that health services in Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth are experiencing a contraction of funding. That is not the case. The health authority in that area is receiving more than £30 million in additional funds in this financial year.

I believe that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has served on a local authority—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam certainly has—and I am sure that he would argue that there is always a justification for ensuring that money is being used efficiently and effectively. Best value for money should be a principle that unites everyone in the House, rather than causing divisions and arguments between us. There is a strong case for ensuring that services are provided efficiently and effectively, but it would be wrong for the hon. Gentlemen to give the impression, albeit inadvertently, that mental health services are having their money cut in Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth. That is most definitely not the case.

I checked my facts yesterday, and had a discussion with Duncan Selby, the chief executive of the trust. He thought that the trust would be required to make savings of £200,000—he used the euphemism "savings"—and he was worried about the impact that that would have.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. However, what he and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam failed to point out was that the situation needs to be set in the context of £30 million of additional money going into the health authority of which his constituency forms a part. The NHS is growing in his constituency. Its capacity to provide better quality front-line services is increasing in Sutton, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that as everyone else does.

The hon. Gentleman made two more points to which I would like to respond briefly. He is right on these points, and I would not wish to take issue with him over them. He stressed the need for better partnership working between local authorities and the NHS in relation to mental health services. There is a strong need for closer, better integration of services between local authorities and health authorities and trusts in providing services for people with mental health problems.

I cannot think of a better example of the need for better partnership working, because the needs of people with mental health problems will not be met simply by the NHS. They will be met by a combination of services and different providers, not necessarily under the local authority umbrella, in relation to housing, social support and other services that are not the preserve of the national health service. If people with mental health problems are to recover as we want them to, and to lead normal, fulfilling, natural lives, they will need a range of other support services that the NHS cannot provide. We recognise the need for the networks of social support and proper housing that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and we are taking steps to improve them.

The hon. Gentleman also made the important point that in Sutton, as elsewhere, there is a strong need for round-the-clock access, especially to services for people with severe mental illness. He referred to his constituent Mr. Thadani in that context. We are making significant investments—I shall spell out in more detail in a moment the areas to which they will apply—to ensure that mental health services are available round the clock. People with mental health problems do not have them only from 9 to 5.

Does the Minister agree that, in view of the fact that we are to have two reviews of mental health services—the best value review by the local authority and a review by the trust—it would be desirable to have either one review or two very closely integrated reviews?

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. As partnership working in mental health services becomes the norm, there is an obvious case—especially in relation to pooled budgets and integrated service provision—for the best value regime to be common to both parts of the services. We are not quite at that point yet in relation to services in Sutton, but I hope that we shall get there sooner rather than later.

Leaving aside those general points, I should like to return to some of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I was sorry to hear of the tragic case that he described, and I offer my sympathy to those who knew Mr. Thadani at what must be a sad and difficult time for his family. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to go into detail today about the circumstances of the case, or to draw any conclusions from it. South-West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS trust and the London borough of Sutton social services department are conducting an investigation into the circumstances leading to Mr. Thadani's death.

I offer my sympathy to those who knew Mr. Thadani at what must be a sad and difficult time for his family. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for me to talk in detail today about the circumstances of the case or to draw any conclusions from it. As he will be aware, an investigation by the South-West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS trust and the London borough of Sutton housing and social services department is being carried out into the circumstances that led to the death of Mr. Thadani. Both organisations have agreed to an independent membership of the joint investigation team. The investigation's objective is to establish the circumstances and the reasons for the tragedy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is the best way to ascertain the facts and, by learning from the problems of individual cases, to avoid repetition in the future. We are determined to ensure that service failures are not followed by tragedies in individual cases. We want to ensure that services are comprehensive and effective and to learn any lessons that need to be learned from this terrible case.

I shall refer to the points made by the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Sutton and Cheam on mental health services generally before I consider the specific circumstances relating to Sutton. A number of problems have been identified in mental health services: not enough joint working between health and social care; inadequate investment; problems with professional demarcations; problems brought about by a lack of effective, integrated services. Those problems mean that despite the strong commitment and invaluable hard work of those delivering the care services, we have not always managed to deliver the seamless, accessible and effective services that people want, need and deserve. Yes, there are continuing problems; there is much room for significant improvement. Things are not entirely as we and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and his hon. Friend would wish. It would be foolish to pretend that things are perfect and I shall not do so.

I can say with confidence, however, that although there is a long way to go, the Government, the national health service, social services and the other stakeholders are rising to the challenge. In the national service framework, we produced one of the most widely welcomed statements on the development of mental health services in many years. Mental health services will no longer be the Cinderella service of the national health service; improving mental health services is one of the Government's top priorities for the NHS. The national service framework provides us with a unique opportunity to build on examples of good and innovative practice throughout the country. That will benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Sutton as it will people in other parts of the country.

Every health authority is developing its local implementation plans for ensuring that the national service framework becomes operative and effective locally. Significant amounts of additional investment are going to improve mental health services. We have identified £700 million in the existing comprehensive spending review period to invest for that purpose. A significant amount of that investment will go into the areas to which the hon. Gentlemen referred: improving access to round-the-clock services, more assertive outreach teams, greater access to 24-hour staff care, a different mix of beds and secure accommodation for people with mental health problems and, most importantly, we are investing significantly to ensure that there is greater use of the atypical anti-psychotic drugs, a matter that I know interests the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.

I have stated some of the priorities in terms of investment in mental health services nationally. Although he did not refer to it, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will be aware of the new mental health strategy document for London, "Health Services in London—A Strategic Review". It is an important context in which to discuss mental health services in Sutton.

This is the first time that a Government have attempted a comprehensive mental health strategy for any of the regional offices in the United Kingdom and the first one that we have been able to prepare, develop and launch covers London. It is a strategic blueprint; it is not about individual boroughs and their health plans, but it provides us with a context in which future mental health services in Sutton can be expanded, developed and enhanced.

There are some good news stories in Sutton mental health services; for example, there is better access for Sutton residents to specialist drug and alcohol services and a dedicated in-patient unit on the Springfield site. I hope that there will be better use of mental health beds in Sutton, which will mean that residents will have access to services locally and do not have to travel to other parts of London for treatment. Clients on an enhanced care programme approach—the seriously mentally ill—will have better access to services 24 hours a day all year round and to a duty psychiatry system which can be addressed at either Springfield university hospital in Tooting, or at Sutton hospital. Significant additional investment of hundreds of thousands of pounds has gone into improving mental health services at Sutton. These include funds to develop Derby ward at Sutton hospital and turn it into a secure unit. There is now a single team for children's services in Sutton which has received more than £100,000 in funding. An additional £175,000—

Order. Time is up.

I welcome this opportunity for a further debate on the second crossing of the Swale and the vexed problem of the proposed Queenborough roundabout or traffic lights. It is particularly important to the people of north-east Kent and especially so to my constituents, who have waited far too long for the second crossing—I was tempted to say the second coming—at Swale.

The House may be familiar with some of the issues that I raise. I had an Adjournment debate about the second crossing two years ago, which led to the scheme being included in the 1998 review. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the debate and look forward to explaining once more the reason that the new crossing is so important to Sheppey's industry, economy and local community. I hope to make it clear to my hon. Friend that I place great store by the Government's road safety strategy, which was published recently by my noble Friend Lord Whitty. I hope, as do other hon. Members and our constituents, that his vision of making the roads safer for everyone is realised.

For that reason I am leading the campaign for a roundabout at the Queenborough corner junction, in which I have the support of many constituents. I am supported also by Bob Eatwell, head of the governors of the local school, and many major businesses, which have had the courtesy to write to me. They include: Jonathan Fowler of ASW Sheerness Steel Limited; Del Monte's managing director, Mr. Peter Miller; Neil Fenn of Abbott's Laboratory in Queenborough, one of the great pharmaceutical companies in the world; David Cottam of Coolchain in Tenham-which is not in my patch but close to it; he has a huge road haulage company; and Les Harris, the managing director of Kent United Contractors Limited, on the island.

At present there is only one way across from the mainland to the island—the single-lane lifting bridge. Built in 1960, the crossing is not suitable for traffic flows today or for the needs of the economy for the 21st century. A growing population of 40,000 often doubles during summer weekends, because there are between 30,000 and 40,000 weekend caravans. Congestion is a perennial problem for my constituents, and especially for local businesses. We have acknowledged that the existing bridge cannot cope. Only last Friday, a major accident close to the bridge resulted in traffic flowing back almost three miles on either side of the bridge. Indeed, it so upset Mr. Peter Cooper, the managing director of Britannia, who was in the queue on the bridge, that he faxed me that day to ask when the bridge would be coming and whether we could have a roundabout. Little did he know that I was caught in the same queue.

The single-span lifting bridge has to go up every time a smallish yacht passes underneath. Thus the problems faced by those who use the bridge are greatly increased by the flow of traffic on the Swale itself. It has always been my contention, but I have not always won the debate, that the bridge and the new A249 link from the M2 have been built back to front. We wanted to enable Sheerness port and the people of Sheppey to connect to the mainland, but instead we built a dual carriageway from the M2 to the bridge and did not change the infrastructure on the island at all. We still have not solved the dilemma of how to gain access to the island. That is just one vexed problem in the argument of the traffic lights versus the roundabout.

However, the lack of an adequate link to the mainland only exaggerates the problems of social exclusion felt by my constituents, who refer to themselves proudly as islanders. In fact, we have the highest rate of home births in the United Kingdom. People are nervous about coming off the island. It is not that they necessarily feel that they need a passport, rather that they prefer to have their children at home. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the term "islander" does not reflect the reality of an area so close to the heart of Europe. Sheppey should be able to share in the prosperity of the rest of south-east England, one of the top 10 areas in Europe.

Public transport on the island is unreliable and inefficient. If that is to improve, the infrastructure needs to be in place before the operators can be expected to deliver an improved service. Improved infrastructure is the carrot with which to persuade public transport operators to improve their services. That is why the bridge is important.

I am confident that, with a second crossing, we can manoeuvre our way around those obstacles; without it, I fear that those obstacles will only increase in number and size. The local economy needs a second crossing and, as I have shown, local industry rightly demands and deserves it.

Sheppey has high long-term unemployment, and some of our wards are among the poorest in the United Kingdom. However, matters are looking better. Economic prospects are much more positive and unemployment has reduced for the first time in many years. Much credit for that must go to the Government's new deal initiatives and single regeneration budget funding.

Medway port, in Sheerness, is the fifth largest port in the United Kingdom. If it is to be developed into the fourth largest, it needs the bridge. Those who visit the island say, "What a fantastic port", but we consistently lose contracts because people cannot leave the island when the bridge is raised. We need to resolve such problems, but the issue of the traffic lights versus the roundabout contributes to them.

I am pleased that we have a major port, but we also have a number of professional small businesses and leading international companies, to which I have referred. The previous Government failed to provide them with the infrastructure that they need to develop. The White Paper "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", published by this Government in 1998, included the second crossing in its targeted programme of improvements. But two years later, my constituents expect to know when the Labour Government will make good that provision. Businesses have had to endure uncertainty not merely for the past two years, but for the 40 years since the last bridge was built.

Without a second crossing, the Isle of Sheppey cannot prosper. It would be wonderful if, for a change, we could be a plus in the Treasury's notebook, rather than a minus. With access to a second crossing, the island's potential for economic growth could be realised, and businesses would be better able to attract further investment. That would also create new jobs, which we badly need.

In the light of my comments, I hope that the Minister and other hon. Members have no doubts about my commitment to the new crossing, which I want to see built as soon as possible. Nevertheless, having waited for decades, I want us to get the crossing right. That is the core of my argument. My constituents are entitled to a scheme that does not repeat the errors of the 1970s, but reflects the best design techniques of the 21st century. As I have said, the design of the M2 system was fundamentally wrong—it was back to front.

I turn to the proposal for the Queenborough corner roundabout. The current Highways Agency scheme for the second crossing proposes a complex junction of traffic signals at the Queenborough corner junction that will require pedestrians and cyclists to negotiate seven sets of lights. Although I welcome the fact that the Government instructed the Highways Agency to look again at proposals for the second crossing—I hope that completion of the public inquiry is a positive sign for the scheme—I am not yet convinced that the agency has put forward the best possible design for the junction at Queenborough corner. My concerns about the design are reflected in a supplementary report produced by Ove Arup and Partners, which, hon. Members will recognise, is one of the world's leading consultant engineers.

The layout of the junction proposed by the Highways Agency poses a direct threat to the future of the local service station and family pub. Those two small businesses, which each employ 20 people from Queenborough, play a significant role in our community by providing different but important services. My constituents want the new road to bring new jobs to the area. Without a roundabout, the opportunity for the pub to be developed into a hotel and conference centre will be thwarted, and we see no reason why existing jobs should be sacrificed.

In response to the threat to the service station that it owns and operates, George Hammond plc commissioned the further work by Ove Arup, which examined an alternative roundabout scheme to the Highways Agency model. George Hammond commissioned that work because it was properly motivated by concern for its business and employees. It has done a service to the local community by identifying a design that is better than that currently proposed. I am grateful to the company for that, and in particular for highlighting safety issues.

The report from Ove Arup and Partners stated that safety at Queenborough corner junction would be greatly enhanced by constructing a roundabout instead of creating a monstrous network of traffic lights. The traffic signal layout proposed by the Highways Agency will require cyclists and pedestrians to navigate seven sets of signal-controlled crossings to travel from one side of the road to the other.

I have a copy of the safety audit response to the Highways Agency's proposal, which was produced by the agency's own safety auditors. I do not want to take too much time, but it stated:

The traffic signal controlled Queenborough Junctions are considered to compromise a very severe safety hazard … Pedestrians are to be provided with complex routes requiring a number of crossings which may well prove dangerous. Cyclists are also likely to experience safety problems in crossing the wide junctions …Complex multi phase traffic signals on high speed roads can have a poor accident record.

The key recommendation was that

an alternative form of junction be adopted. In particular it is recommended that consideration be given to the use of a traffic signal controlled gyratory system.

That comes from the horse's mouth.

The Highways Agency ruled that the safety auditors' recommendation be rejected and that the view of the designers, Mott Macdonald, be accepted because

The safety auditor has taken a very subjective view that the form of junction will be inherently unsafe…the route is not complex and the crossings are controlled…Had there been a more suitable form it would have been adopted…no change in the form of the junction is proposed.

There is a difference of opinion between two sets of contractors.

In its conclusion, the Highways Agency stated that the safety audit team had been slightly alarmist in its language when describing the problem, that some issues are subjective and that different engineers have different views on the acceptability of a design. The view of the Highways Agency was that its scheme, although not an ideal solution, provided a perfectly adequate design. We know all too well that when accidents happen, complacency is often the cause, and I am sure that the Chamber will agree that "adequate" is not good enough when referring to public safety, especially for our children. The Government make it clear in their road safety strategy that safety is the number one priority in transport. That is a commendable objective and many of the practical measures that they want to implement are designed to achieve that objective.

My concern is that the current layout at Queenborough corner will not meet those objectives. That is particularly important because the local school is located at the junction. Can we seriously expect young children to wait patiently to cross seven sets of traffic lights to get from home to school and the same seven sets again on the way home? I am sure that I am not alone in believing that we would all fail if we exposed children to such a risk. That is why I am campaigning for the alternative.

The Ove Arup report sensibly supports a reduction in the number of crossings because the potential for children to take risks will be reduced. Parents, staff and governors at Queenborough school all recognise the safety improvements that the roundabout would bring and have written to Lord Whitty supporting the design. I hope that the Government will listen to those people Many local businesses have also written in support of the roundabout. The Government's strategy states that there must be recognition that good engineering reduces the risk of accidents. The Ove Arup design does that and it is important that the Government consistently stand by their safety objectives.

A secondary consideration is that the Ove Arup design is £350,000 cheaper than the Highways Agency's proposal. Not only is it safer, it is cheaper and I am sure that that will not be lost on the Minister. That is due primarily to a reduced land take requirement, and I urge the Minister to think again about the scheme.

In the House next Monday evening I shall hand in a petition signed by 850 local residents urging the Government to adopt the alternative roundabout scheme. This is a serious local issue for all of us.

I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minster would confirm that there is nothing in principle to stop my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions from issuing a letter stating that he is minded to approve the road project in total, subject only to modifications to the proposed layout at Queenborough corner. I understand that that process need not be lengthy.

I urge my hon. Friend to do what he can to help me in my campaign for the new road, but, primarily, to ensure that the safety issues at Queenborough corner are understood. I realise that he has a quasi-judicial role and will not commit himself this morning, but he might give us a clue as to his intentions.

I hope that I have done my constituents a service by making the case for the second crossing. Percy Wells, whom I have described in the past as our best-ever Member of Parliament for the old Faversham constituency, began the campaign for a new crossing in 1945, but it is only since the election of the new Labour Government in 1997 that any progress has been made. However, we need to move on. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do all that he can to offer my constituents something concrete to reassure them that we will get the road and that it will be the safest possible road.

In my maiden speech, I mentioned that after the 1997 general election, some mischievous islanders erected an eight-foot sign saying, "Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Sheppey: A Tory-free Zone". I would dearly love to return to this Chamber to inform my hon. Friends that islanders had erected a 10-ft sign saying, "New Labour; New Crossing; New Roundabout".

I hope that under the Freedom of Information Bill that is currently being considered in the other place, my constituents will soon have access to all the Highways Agency's work on the issue, so that we can better understand how it reaches decisions on the basis of the overall advice that it is offered.

We are moving to three-year spending reviews. The 1998 roads review said that the second crossing scheme would be spread over seven years. Will the Minister consider putting into the public domain, at the appropriate moment, not only the scheme bit by bit, but the whole scheme—that is, its approval, funding mechanism and build date?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on his success in securing the debate. I fully appreciate that it is an important matter not only for him, but for all the people who live and work on the Isle of Sheppey.

Naturally, I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's points, especially to his arguments in favour of the second crossing and the roundabout. With regard to the latter, as he knows, the inspector's report on the local inquiry into the scheme that took place last November is before the Secretary of State awaiting a decision.

The inspector's report was received in my Department on 21 October 1999. In the normal course of events, we would have issued the decision on the scheme before now. However, post-inquiry correspondence arguing for the introduction of new evidence was received from an affected party while the inspector's report was being considered. We therefore decided, in the interests of fairness and natural justice, that the views of all interested parties should be sought before reaching a final decision on the published orders for the scheme.

On 5 April, my Department wrote to some 60 parties with a direct or indirect interest in the matter, enclosing a copy of the report. They were given until 26 April to comment. The Secretary of State is considering those comments and the conclusions and recommendations in the inspector's report. My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that the Secretary of State's decision on the scheme will be issued later this month.

The Secretary of State and his Ministers act in a quasi-judicial role when taking decisions on schemes and orders authorising trunk road proposals that have been the subject of a public inquiry. My ministerial colleagues and I must therefore be seen to be even-handed in dealing with all interested parties, scrupulously following the statutory procedural rules and having regard to the rules of fairness and natural justice, as developed by the courts. Failure to observe any of those principles carries the risk of making decisions vulnerable to legal challenge. At worst, that can result in schemes or orders authorising a road proposal being quashed by the High Court.

The period between the close of an inquiry and the announcement of a decision is especially sensitive. Ministers must avoid giving the impression that the decision might have been influenced by private representations or factors that were not put before the inquiry. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am bound by that legal framework, and cannot discuss the merits of the scheme or any issue that the Secretary of State will need to consider in making the decision.

I am able to say, however, that on 2 April 1998 my hon. Friend made a powerful case in the House for a second Swale crossing. As he knows, the A249 Iwade bypass to Queenborough improvement scheme, which includes the proposal for a new crossing at the Swale, is in the Government's targeted programme of improvements announced in the 1998 roads review. At that time, a commitment was given that all schemes in the programme would definitely start within the next seven years, subject to satisfactory completion of the statutory procedure. The importance of the scheme to the Isle of Sheppey is fully understood. That is why its primary objective is given in the roads review as regeneration and integration.

The A249 Iwade bypass to Queenborough improvement scheme was one of the 37 schemes in the targeted programme of improvements, or TPI. A previous Transport Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), announced the programme on 31 July 1998, at the time of the publication of the roads review report, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". In the roads review, the Department carefully scrutinised what my right hon. Friend described at the time as a "vast, unfunded 'wish list"' of 150 schemes, most of which would never have been built. They were inherited from the previous Government's programme, which had already been scaled down from more than 500 schemes, the time scale for which was never specified and for which the necessary money was never guaranteed. The schemes included in the TPI had to be robust, ready to be taken forward quickly and consistent with the five criteria that were drawn up for the new approach to appraisal, or NATA—safety, the environment, the economy, integration and accessibility.

"A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" sets out a radical new approach, designed to deliver a road network capable of meeting the challenge of the 21st century, bringing the policy on building and operating roads into line with the Government's integrated transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". There were seven schemes that were not sufficiently advanced to be considered for the TPI at the time, but which addressed serious and pressing problems, to which there were no realistic alternative solutions. Those schemes were to be taken through their preparatory stages and statutory processes so that, if they passed assessment under NATA, they could be taken forward.

On 24 March, my noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston announced how the transport fund of £280 million in the Chancellor's March Budget would be spent. He announced four more schemes—two of which were from the list of seven to which I referred earlier—to be added to the TPI. There are now 41 schemes on the TPI, although that will be reduced to 40 when the Mayor of London takes over responsibility for most of the trunk roads in Greater London on 3 July.

All 40 schemes in the TPI are important to the Government. It is a realistic, focused programme of schemes, all of which can be started in the next seven years. The schemes will help to create an integrated transport network in a manner that is environmentally sound, as safe as possible and which can help to develop the economy and promote an integrated and accessible transport network.

The Government wish the road proposals to proceed as soon as they have completed the remaining statutory procedures. However, what the Government want is not the only matter for consideration. Like the majority of road schemes and other major development proposals, the schemes must undergo a process of independent scrutiny by an inspector nominated by the Lord Chancellor and appointed by the Secretary of State. The inspector's duty in a local inquiry is to listen to all the evidence and submissions and ask questions, as necessary, in order to obtain a full understanding of all the matters raised. The inspector will submit a report, containing the salient points of the cases and a recommendation to the Secretary of State on whether the published orders for the scheme should be made. All major road schemes must pass that statutory procedure before the Secretary of State can give the go-ahead.

That is the stage that we have reached with the A249 Iwade bypass to Queenborough improvement scheme. The inspector's report on the local public inquiry held at the beginning of September is with the Secretary of State, and the inspector's conclusions and recommendation will be considered alongside the post-inquiry representations. The Secretary of State will make a decision on whether the published orders should be made, taking into account the inspector's recommendation and all the available evidence. That decision gives the go-ahead to the scheme.

I noted my hon. Friend's earlier debate, when he explained most eloquently that the Isle of Sheppey, although part of the United Kingdom, has been detached from mainland Britain for more than 1,000 years. That creates unique problems for its full-time population of 40,000 and its weekend population of almost 80,000. I appreciate that those problems are not helped by the current inadequate transport link with the mainland. As my hon. Friend has said, it prevents industry and commerce on the island from expanding and developing as easily as they would like. I acknowledge that a new crossing of the Swale would assist regeneration of the Isle of Sheppey. That is why the A249 Iwade bypass to Queenborough improvement scheme is in the TPI and has been given the primary objective of regeneration and integration in the roads review.

The scheme would also deal with the problems that are caused by the Kingsferry bridge, which has a central lifting span and carries a single-track railway. Earlier, my hon. Friend said that raising the bridge on demand for shipping on average six times a day causes long delays and congestion for vehicles. The A249 is an important link between Maidstone and Sheerness, and it shares junctions with the M20, M2 and A2. In October 1996, a 9 km stretch of the M2 to Iwade was opened.

In response to a parliamentary question in December 1998, Lord Whitty announced that, subject to the successful completion of the relevant statutory procedures, the A249 Iwade bypass to Queenborough improvement scheme was one of three major trunk road schemes in north Kent that will be taken forward under the proposed Kent design, build, finance and operate contract. Final decisions are yet to be taken on the procurement process. Such public-private partnerships remain central to our plans for modernising the way in which vital public sector projects and services of the highest quality are delivered more cost effectively.

On a point of clarification, does the Minister mean that we need to wait for the other two schemes to be approved before the Queenborough-Iwade development is approved, or will that project be independently funded?

I assure my hon. Friend that we do not have to wait for the other two schemes to be approved. I hope that that gives him some comfort.

The Government have revitalised the private finance initiative. Only three weeks ago, on 12 April, we awarded a £200 million design, build, finance and operate contract for managing and improving the A13, which will boost jobs and improve the environment in east London and docklands. Under that arrangement, the Government are building improved roads and purchasing miles of properly maintained and operated highways that deliver the best possible service to users. The public-private partnership encourages contractors to keep traffic lanes, footways and cycleways open, to improve facilities for public transport and goods vehicles and to minimise the disruption that is caused by utilities' work.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire to give a firm date for the start of work on the Iwade-Queenborough scheme. However, for the reasons that I gave, I am unable to do so while the matter is still subject to the statutory processes. I do not want to prejudice the outcome of those procedures. My hon. Friend has my assurance that, subject only to the satisfactory outcome of the outstanding statutory procedures and the need to provide a solution that offers the best value for money to the taxpayer, we are committed to providing improved accessibility between mainland Kent and the Isle of Sheppey at the earliest possible moment.

I believe that the Prime Minister will soon respond to my hon. Friend's letter of 4 April. If my hon. Friend's constituents needed it, that is yet another demonstration of his assiduous pursuit of their interests in this regard.

I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates the legal constraints that have required me to be somewhat guarded in my response to his representations. I am grateful to him for raising this matter, which is of urgent concern to the people of the Isle of Sheppey. I congratulate them on electing to Parliament such a zealous advocate of their interests as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey.