I welcome you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to our debate on transport strategy and economic development in the Yorkshire and Humberside region—a wide-ranging subject for what I hope will be a wide-ranging debate. I kept the subject of our debate deliberately wide to enable hon. Members to raise various aspects of transport strategy as it relates to their constituencies. I congratulate everyone who is in the Chamber on being wide awake and willing to take part in the debate this morning, bearing in mind that the House did not adjourn until 3.50 am.

The area stretches from north Yorkshire, with its rural communities and resulting transport problems, to south Yorkshire, with its industrial heritage and regeneration problems, to west Yorkshire and its commercial and financial centre of Leeds, to Humberside and the port regions. It is a wide area, which suffers diverse transport and economic problems. My colleagues from the region are here today to speak about their areas. I am no exception to that and I shall speak about Barnsley and south Yorkshire, but first it is appropriate to give an overview of the region and to explain some of the transport and economic aspects that are crucial to the area.

At present, Yorkshire and Humberside regional development agency operates under the title of Yorkshire Forward. The initial page of its website states:

Yorkshire and Humber is one of the fastest growing economic areas in the UK. A vibrant business centre, generating industries, jobs and expertise that attract some of the best brains and skills from all over the world.

It refers to

the rapid growth of Leeds to become the UK's largest financial and legal centre outside London…Industries range from engineering to information technology, biotechnology to chemicals, healthcare to tourism.

At the beginning of this year, however, south Yorkshire qualified for objective 1 status. An area does not achieve such a status with relish. It is not a badge of honour, but a sign of how poorly an area is performing compared with the rest of the European Union. One of the criteria for European Union objective 1 status is that the gross domestic product of a certain area has fallen to below 75 per cent. of the European Union average, and that has clearly happened in south Yorkshire. In fact, the GDP in my constituency has fallen to 66 per cent. Doncaster, Rotherham and Barnsley, in particular, have dragged the area to below the 75 per cent. level. Some people may say that 66 per cent. GDP does not mean a lot, but when one realises that it is less than the figure for Poland and for southern Portugal, one soon begins to realise just how poor south Yorkshire is. I hope that the objective 1 money will help drag us back above those figures and bring back some of the prosperity that has been drained away.

The full utilisation of the objective 1 money is therefore one of the key issues for our area. We must ensure that there are adequate sources of match funding, as I will discuss in regard to transport, so that we draw down every penny that is available. We must also ensure that the programme is on time. We are already six months into the first year of the six-year programme of objective 1 status and we are still waiting for projects to be approved and for approval of the single programming document from the European Union. Some projects must be committed before the end of the year so that we keep to the timetables; we can wait for the money to follow.

On match funding and the speed with which projects can be brought into being, does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor's confirmation in the spending review last week that match funding is guaranteed for not just objective 1 but objective 2 and 3 programmes was helpful, but that we need to simplify the system so that areas such as south Yorkshire can draw down match funding from national Departments? The second stage of the work is to make sure that match funding is accessible and that projects can come on stream quickly in the way that my hon. Friend has described.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Chancellor's statements are welcome and it is reassuring that the Government have promised match funding. We look forward to that filtering through. My hon. Friend is right that we have to move to stage two and keep to our timetables so that our projects are ready.

I shall make one further point on objective 1. I said that Barnsley's GDP European average was 66 per cent. and Sheffield's was around 75 per cent. so it was Barnsley, and to some extent Rotherham, that brought the whole of the region below the magic figure. Sheffield must not take a huge share of that objective 1 money, compared with Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. It is pleasing that one of the Sheffield Members, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), is present.

And he is nodding.

Yes. We have to ensure that Sheffield does not ride on the back of the rest of south Yorkshire. It was brought into an objective 1 area not because of its own economic performance but because of that of other areas, and it must not then walk away with the lion's share of the money. I hope that that does not arise, but I wish to flag up the possibility.

Uncharacteristically, I would like to speak up for Sheffield. What my hon. Friend says is right, but does he recognise that the future success of south Yorkshire depends critically on the future success of Sheffield at the heart of that economic restructuring?

I am not sure how to answer that. It has caught me a little off guard. Perhaps it does, but I do not agree fully with my hon. Friend that the rest of south Yorkshire has relied on Sheffield, although it is the major city in the grouping. Barnsley is, of course, the capital of south Yorkshire and has been since 1974, which might have some bearing on my thinking. My hon. Friend makes the point well that the area needs to progress in a united way, without rifts and arguments, to make sure that we take advantage of objective 1 money.

I shall deal later with the climate change levy, which is one of the problems of economic development in my area, but I turn now to transport. The Yorkshire and Humberside region has a diverse transport sector, much of which needs greater development and improvement in order to increase economic development. Accompanying the 10-year plan for transport funding that resulted from the comprehensive spending review was a Government statement that gives some idea of the diversity of our transport:

The Yorkshire and Humber region is at the centre of key north-south and east-west road and rail corridors including the MI, Al and M62, the East Coast Main Line and the Trans-Pennine rail lines. These routes are of vital importance to the competitiveness of the region and growing congestion problems need to be tackled to facilitate economic development. The Humber ports represent an important regional asset and improved road and rail links are a priority. Increasing congestion in the main towns and cities must be addressed to foster regeneration, improve the environment and encourage urban renaissance. In rural areas, improved public transport is needed to tackle problems of car dependency and social exclusion.

That sets the scene of transport problems in our area.

As that brief introduction stated, some of our motorways are congested, especially the M1 near Sheffield—junctions 30 to 34—and the M62.

Does my hon. Friend agree that long-established rail links will be vital to the future of the entire county of West Yorkshire and the wider region? I have in mind the rail link that passes within half a mile of the airport at Leeds-Bradford. If it were linked to the airport, an integrated air, rail and road system could be introduced. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to do that?

Absolutely. It is an essential part of our economic development and transport strategy that we integrate all aspects of transport, including our rail transport and our airports. I shall discuss in a moment the need for better access to our airports and railways from different parts of the area. My constituency of Barnsley is not even linked to the east coast main line by rail, so we cannot access that line from Barnsley. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I entirely agree.

As I said, the east coast main line is developing bottlenecks. We still do not have direct services to the channel tunnel, and they are a long way off. When Members representing the region were involved in debates on the channel tunnel rail link, we pressed hard for direct rail services through our area to the channel tunnel, but we still await them.

Our rural services need improvement. Historically, south Yorkshire has high levels of bus usage; indeed, in the 1970s, south Yorkshire, Sheffield and Barnsley were the highest users of bus transport in western Europe. Also, until 1986, we had a cheap fares policy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) said, we have airports—Leeds-Bradford and Humberside. The debate continues on Finningley, but the development is a concrete proposal. I do not want to take up time debating the case of one airport against another. That would be wrong, because we want more air services and airports in the region as a whole. However, I point to it as a matter for the future, and I am sure that it will feature in today's debate.

Whatever the arguments about Finningley and Leeds-Bradford or about Manchester airport taking passengers from Yorkshire, for example, the essential point is that Yorkshire and Humberside need better air services. Our air transport facilities need improvement, and we need more airlines and services.

I turn now to some of the relevant issues for my constituency and south Yorkshire. Part of the research into objective 1 status identified some of the key transport constraints on economic development in south Yorkshire. I read only yesterday an article in the 18 July edition of the local newspaper for Barnsley, The Star. Its headline was "£215m needed to bring 20, 000 jobs—Massive investment in transport vital, says study". The study, commissioned for south Yorkshire, states that £215 million of investment is needed to bring jobs to Sheffield in south Yorkshire. The report, which is from the Babtie group of consultants, has been published recently, and again emphasises the fact that we need to deal with our transport limitations.

I shall quickly skim through the key problems. They include the Midland Mainline capacity restrictions between Sheffield and Doncaster. There are long journey times south of our region, which simply are not competitive when compared to journey times on the M I. It is simpler to drive to the south of the country than to take the Midland Mainline train. The east coast main line also has capacity restrictions, which are now being tackled. I understand that a new means of access close to the M18 is proposed for it, but there is no direct rail link between Barnsley and that railway. We do not have direct trans-Pennine rail services to Manchester international airport from Barnsley. We hope that proposals to reopen the Woodhead line will be supported.

South Yorkshire's rail network is characterised by low-speed services, poor reliability due to limitations of track and signalling infrastructure, poor service integration, old rolling stock and low-frequency timetables. The poor rail services between Sheffield, Barnsley and Leeds mean that is easier simply to drive on the M1. The availability of parking at the Meadowhall shopping centre does not help. As a consequence, commuters and others opt to travel by car, which adds to congestion. The direct links from south Yorkshire into the Humber ports are somewhat poorly developed.

The M1 corridor between junctions 31 and 37 is a problem, and there is severe congestion at junction 34 because of the Meadowhall interchange outside Sheffield. The M18 corridor has capacity limitations between junctions 2 and 3. The east-west corridors from Barnsley and south Yorkshire over the Pennines to Manchester are restricted. The A628 is limited by its tortuous nature and the fact that it passes through a national park, so it is difficult to improve the road. There are many journeys from Barnsley to Manchester international airport, but the transport links are not good enough. The development of Finningley airport at Doncaster could give us an alternative to Manchester international airport.

There are three priorities in what is known as the single programming document for objective 1 that relate directly to transport. Priority 4 focuses on the role of community transport services in supporting the development of economic opportunities in targeted communities. That sounds a bit waffley, but I shall give an example. Grimethorpe colliery was one of the most profitable collieries in the country until it was closed. Now that it is no longer there, the village has no visible employment. Anyone who lives there who wants to travel to the other side of Barnsley for employment does not have a bus service. There is no public transport available to get someone from the village to his or her job for a shift starting at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Priority 5 is to support business investment through strategic spatial development in the three strategic economic zones located near to the motorway. We must improve transport for those strategic sites so that we can move goods and people. Priority 6 is to remove transport constraints on economic growth. We are required to select the three key transport bottlenecks that adversely affect the delivery of world-class rail passenger and rail freight links, the efficient operation of the strategic road network and strategic airlines.

I turn to the south Yorkshire transport plan, which is a five-year bid for transport capital resources within south Yorkshire. The first bid is for £20 million a year in each of the next five years for integrated transport measures. The second is for £13.8 million for structural maintenance funds, and the third is for seven new transportation schemes, three of which are within my constituency.

Given the announcement of the 10-year plan of extra funding from Government, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will respond by saying that the money will be readily available in the amounts required and that all those projects will go ahead. Some important local projects also depend on the south Yorkshire transport plan, including the Great North road quality bus corridor in Doncaster, the Cudworth bypass in Barnsley and the Barnsley busway, the Sheffield inner ring road and the West Bawtry road.

My final point relates to economic development and the climate change levy, although that is somewhat outside the terms of the debate. However, it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to set up the rebate schemes that compensate for the effect of the tax on jobs. I have objected to the levy since its inception because I do not believe that it is necessary. It is a tax on manufacturing jobs and is costing jobs in my constituency, particularly in the glass industry. There is a company called Potters Ballotini, which manufactures glass, that is not within the integrated pollution prevention and control directive so cannot qualify for the 80 per cent., just as Pilkington Glass or Automotive Windscreens cannot, although they are major users of energy in producing glass products. They will fall outside the rebate and the costs that will come to them will be extensive.

I would also like to know whether those proposed 80 per cent. rebates have been found to be uncompetitive within the European Union, or whether they will go ahead. Will we be taxed on delivered energy or primary energy? Will the 90:10 rule, which applies to processes outside the IPPC on single-site factories, be extended or left as it is? How much leeway will there be for other processes on same-site factories? How sure is the Minister that all the proposals will be covered, given that they are due to be published in January 2001, for a tax that will affect my constituents in the April that year?

In conclusion, there are diverse issues in relation to transport and economic development in Yorkshire and Humberside, covering rural and industrial areas. We need to improve transport industries to allow south Yorkshire—Yorkshire and Humberside—to develop to their full potential. I referred specifically to south Yorkshire, because transport needs to develop more quickly in that area, so that we may catch up with the more affluent areas. My key message is that we need that transport development to enable our area to develop to its full potential.

It is with great personal pleasure that I contribute to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on his success in securing this timely debate, and for the excellent way in which he linked wider regional matters to the publication last week of the 10-year transport plan.

With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall focus on my part of the region—north Yorkshire, and especially the north Yorkshire coast. I shall speak about the challenges and opportunities that face the communities of Whitby and Scarborough, and my belief that the economic regeneration of that part of Yorkshire rests totally on the continuing success of the policies that have been introduced by the Labour Government, with specific emphasis on the transport policies—an excellent route map—laid before Parliament last week by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Before I continue, it would be remiss of me not to place on record my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I hope that my past professional interest in transport management and construction will be regarded as a strong basis for the arguments that I shall attempt to deploy this morning. Working as a civil engineer, particularly in the region's railway industry, managing, developing and improving the country's civil engineering infrastructure over 18 sometimes very long years gave me the opportunity to view transportation from the coal face. Transport policy over those 18 years resulted in a legacy of failure. I estimate that two thirds of my design work for the much—needed renewal, enhancement and maintenance of railway structures now lies in a dusty drawer in the planning room among Railtrack's regional archives.

That personal overview spurred me into action, my personal agenda being to gain election to Parliament. Fundamentally, I am an engineer. I try to solve problems; I do not want to be part of the problem. From that basic philosophy, I regard the work of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister over the past three years as being at the heart of transport and economic regeneration, not only for my region but for the communities there.

Scarborough and Whitby have seen the start of the delivery of much-needed assistance. European objective 2 status has been granted for 95 per cent. of the community, and last week the match funding for that initiative was announced. We have also seen the Government's acceptance of Scarborough's £17 million integrated transport scheme. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his personal interest in bringing forward that initiative. I commend him for his personal expertise; the many years that he spent working in transportation have undoubtedly added to his reputation as a Minister who solves problems rather than makes them.

I was a member of the Committee that considered the Transport Bill, and I and my hon. Friends amended the Bill to include a much-needed national transport concessionary scheme for pensioners. My constituency, which did not have such a scheme, benefits from that initiative. Again, I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and his team for listening to and acting upon the representations made by the people who live on the north Yorkshire coast.

I turn to the reason why I wanted to make a contribution to this debate. For far too long, and under Governments of both parties, the transport lifeline into Scarborough and Whitby, the A64 trunk road corridor, has been the first road investment scheme to be chopped whenever the nation's finances looked bleak. That was certainly the case in 1995, when the long-awaited proposals were again kicked into the long grass. I should be staggered if any of the hon. Members here who have made the journey along the A64 did not appreciate how strange it was to cut that scheme, as they, too, will have sat in traffic jams for many hours when heading to the coast. Scarborough and Whitby offer visitors a warm welcome, but those trying to get there sometimes need a lot of patience.

The previous Governments' short-term transport policies, which were linked to their failed economic policies of boom and bust, were wrong in 1995. The failure to redress the mistake in the light of the forward-looking agenda of the new Government's transport policies for a new century would condemn my community to economic starvation and a bleak future. We could become the south Yorkshire at the northern end of our region unless action is taken. We are here to help prepare for success and not for the isolation and failure that would be induced by more than a million traffic jams and a million frustrated vehicle journeys into the constituency.

Last week's foresighted statement concerning the nation's trunk roads as part of the 10-year plan gives the people of Whitby and Scarborough hope such as they have not experienced for more than a generation. The prospect of a multi-modal study of the A64 corridor was also the focus of representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was able to visit my constituency last week. He had discussions with the senior management of McCains Foods, a world-class food manufacturer based in Eastfield in my constituency. Hon. Members will be familiar with the firm's products if they choose French fries in the restaurants of the House. The company is considering future investment plans. The Minister of Agriculture was given a clear message in no uncertain terms, from that important manufacturer with which to return to Government. Future investment for McCains will depend totally on the logistics and the future of the A64 corridor. The firm speaks up for the industrial businesses in Scarborough and Whitby. I expect next week, when the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), visits my constituency, that the hard-pressed tourism sector will strongly reinforce that message.

The multi-modal studies will allow a real investigation into the most serious problems on the region's trunk road network, including the lifeline into my constituency. We will be able to focus on the issues that were not addressed in the targeted programme of improvements laid out in the 10-year plan. The studies will allow an examination of the role of every type of transport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central suggested, we need a total integrated solution in my community and our region generally. We need to make the best use of the resources and the facilities that we have now and to place investment where it will have most impact.

I commend the work done for many years by North Yorkshire county council and by Scarborough borough council, which have dusted off previous arguments deployed to earlier Transport Ministers regarding the future of the A64 corridor and which have allowed me to present some perspective on what is happening at the moment.

The A64 is the only trunk road to serve the Scarborough and Whitby area. As such, its strategic importance cannot be over-emphasised. That has been recognised by the Department, with proposals for a dual carriageway between Malton and Staxton on the outskirts of my constituency. The A64 links the important regional centre of Leeds with the A 1, Tadcaster, York, Malton and Seamer. It is especially important because it provides an access route to the North Yorkshire Moors national park, about 60 per cent. of which is in my constituency, the Yorkshire wolds and all the east coast resorts. The road is an important lifeline and its national status has been recognised by its being retained as a core trunk route.

Economic regeneration for my community and the nearby coastal areas has been confirmed at European level following designation as a rural priority area and an objective 2 area for European Union structural funds. Nationally, the Government have given support to the town and urban areas of Scarborough with two single regeneration budget programmes. In May 2000, the employment rate for my constituency was more than double that of the rest of the county of North Yorkshire. Everyone recognises that Scarborough and Whitby are wonderful places to go on holiday. They are prime tourist destinations, the birthplace of the British seaside industry, and of national importance, especially when one considers the beauty and historical context of Whitby. There were almost 11 million visitor days in 1999, but the area's potential is not fully met. We can offer the sort of quality experience that people are seeking in their recreation time.

The challenges to tourism in the area hang on the fact that people have moved away from the long-stay holiday to the short break. Weekend breaks and additional holidays, which sometimes involve shorter journey times, are influenced by the quality of communication links. Therefore, the poor quality of the links to my constituency is fundamental to the future of tourism in Scarborough and Whitby. Virtually every other major seaside resort and conference centre already has a high-quality dualled connection to motorway networks, and that has an impact on the potential economic development of any area around our coastline.

Linked to the partnership that we have forged in our region for economic development, in particular with Yorkshire Forward, I ask the Minister to consider other aspects of the review for which I am calling. The county council, in partnership with Scarborough borough council, the Highways Agency, Railtrack and English, Welsh, Scottish Railway are investigating ways of encouraging the use of the passenger-only lines from York to Scarborough for the movement of freight. The railway part of the A64 corridor is not currently being used for freight, but its potential is tremendous, especially because of the major industrial companies that are located in Scarborough, such as Pinder Printers. That company is well known to the Minister and is a world leader in transport and travel information systems. In addition, Plaxtons, the bus manufacturers, provide about 45 per cent. of buses for the national and international market. Those companies, which are major players in the local economy, are totally reliant on good logistical links into Scarborough.

The partnership that has been forged with Yorkshire Forward, the possibility of an inter-modal study and investment in the corridor are fundamental to the future of my community. Following the Government's welcome strategy for coastal shipping, there is tremendous potential for Whitby, a coastal port, to fulfil its part in the maritime economics of the country. However, Whitby is restricted by the fact that there are inadequate transportation links into the port. I remind the Minister of the much-heralded proposal to reconnect the railway line from the trans-Pennine corridor—from Malton, up through Pickering—to the current line of the North Yorkshire Moors railway. An estimated cost of £19 million has been forwarded for the consideration of the Strategic Rail Authority. It is essential for Whitby's future that that sum should be provided for a link, not only for recreation but to revitalise the area.

I want to comment briefly on the region's airport strategy. Most people who leave Scarborough and Whitby for international flights would tend to take the trans-Pennine railway route directly to Manchester airport. We desperately need an important integrated link into Leeds-Bradford as soon as possible. That is fundamental to the prosperity of the region and essential to the future of my community. Our area of north Yorkshire is looking to the world. We want to play our part, and transport links are fundamental to that.

rose—

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I should point out that at least three other Yorkshire Members have shown interest in participating in the debate. I hope that subsequent speakers will take that into account.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) for securing the debate. I know that he shares my desire to ensure that south Yorkshire is part of the renaissance of the Yorkshire and Humber region.

There are many aspects of transport on which I could focus. I am pleased to have played a small part in helping to convene a transport conference in the Don valley with my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) and for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis). I dealt with the links between transport and child care development. The two factors most often cited by people who are asked what prevents them from getting into work are transport and child care. Work is needed to bring about an imaginative connection between providers of the two.

I give notice to my hon. Friend the Minister and to Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment that I intend to seek a debate on school transport after the summer recess. We need safer routes to school for children, and, although there is much talk of the road congestion caused by the school run, no extension of school bus services seems to be taking place. However, today I want to talk about airports in the region.

The Yorkshire and Humber region is punching below its weight in the aviation industry, among others. Perhaps, with the Finningley site in my constituency, I could be accused of parochialism, but I have always said that if there is no business case for that site, and if there are airports in the region that can provide the services that I believe that Finningley alone can provide, those who think so should stand up and speak. However, they cannot do that. We are one of the poorest regions in the country with respect to the aviation industry, which has a contribution to make to the regional economy and jobs. Social benefits would also be derived from such infrastructure.

Finningley should be considered in context. The proposed Doncaster Finningley airport would not be a 60-million-passenger Heathrow or a 20-millionpassenger Manchester. In 15 years it would cater for 2.3 million passengers. It would be half the size of Newcastle airport in 2015 and smaller than Leeds-Bradford airport. However, according to the Transport Research Laboratory, the airport and associated business parks would result in gross regional employment creation of between 7, 130 and 7, 700 jobs. The displacement of aviation business at other regional airports in Yorkshire and Humber would be modest. One reason for that is that air passenger numbers are set to double over the next 15 years. Another is that, as Ed Anderson, the director of Leeds-Bradford airport, said to the Bradford Telegraph and Argus in March,

Hardly any of our customers come from South Yorkshire and that's why we don't see Finningley as a major threat. In fact 80 per cent. of our customers were from the Leeds Bradford area last year…People from South Yorkshire tend to use Manchester or East Midlands.

He is right. Sixty per cent. of south Yorkshire passengers use Manchester, 15 per cent. use London airports and nearly 15 per cent. use East Midlands. That means jobs and spending leaking from the region, wasteful journeys to distant airports and lost opportunities in the Yorkshire and Humber region.

I agree with Mr. Anderson that Leeds-Bradford and Humberside are crucial to their local populations and play an important role for local business by providing links to Europe. They will continue to do so. However, the limitation on the region's economic development is not that those airports cannot take more planes on their runways and passengers through terminals—"capacity" as those in the industry call it—but that they cannot develop long-haul services. Runway length is a crucial limitation. We are all aware of the tragedy that happened yesterday. Hon. Members may say that Concorde can fly from Leeds and can fly transatlantic. Yes, it can. However, that is not the same as true long-haul potential.

That is not a partisan view that is taken only by me. In the inquiry into Liverpool airport in 1995, the evidence from Manchester Airport plc stated that Liverpool's runway

is too short to provide for a full range of long haul routes.

I agree, as would Liverpool airport. The irony is that Liverpool has a longer runway than Leeds-Bradford, Humberside or Sheffield airports. The real test of a runway is whether an aircraft can take off fully laden at maximum take-off weight. If it cannot, airlines can never gain the full competitive advantage.

A recent study of eight commonly used long-haul aircraft showed that only three could land at Leeds or Humberside. Seven of the eight could land at Finningley, including the Airbus A300 and the Boeing 757. That explains why Bill McGrorty, aviation director of Airtours, stated in Travel Weekly that, if Finningley does not proceed, Airtours would have to locate services abroad. The company operates from more than 20 airports. He remarked:

Finningley is a wonderful airport and it has a fantastic runway. It also has good long-haul opportunities. We only operate long haul from Gatwick and Manchester which is a bit limiting.

Airtours is not the only airline that wants to run long-haul services from Finningley—services that will not be located anywhere else in the region.

Airtours is Britain's fifth largest airfreight operator. Nowadays, 95 per cent. of air cargo goes in the belly of passenger aircraft. That is not a large-scale business at Leeds or Humberside, but imagine the potential of a plane a day landing from Miami, Orlando or New York. Cargo could make a huge contribution to our economic competitiveness. It is an entire aviation sector in which Yorkshire and Humber fail to compete, while Manchester, East Midlands and London take all the prizes. Long haul and airfreight services represent a gap in our air transport services that inhibits our economic competitiveness. It is incumbent on all Yorkshire and Humber Members of Parliament to face our regional shortcomings and to do something about them.

Finningley would be small in terms of any national or international comparisons—but God bless the Ministry of Defence for bequeathing such a fantastic brownfield site to our region. The business park and the airport wouldadd between £100 million and £130 million per year to Yorkshire's domestic product by 2015. That represents investment, spending power, passenger power and business opportunities that have so far bypassed the region.

I urge all Members of Parliament who represent Yorkshire and Humber to celebrate and promote our ports, our rail port, which serves Humberside, our motorway network, which bisects the country, and our east coast main line, with its long-term potential. With a new airport in south Yorkshire, we could boast a full house in air services—the business link to Europe from Sheffield, to major European cities from Humberside, and to the Caribbean, Chicago or San Francisco from Finningley.

Before I finish, I urge my colleagues to disregard the misleading and alarmist spin that they often receive from the Finningley airport network. As some hon. Members will know, Mr. Kevin McDonald has financed the campaign against Finningley. I should like to know whether Mr. McDonald, as he is an owner of Gamston airport, ever bid to use Finningley for aviation use. It is time that the public was told, and I have written to him about it. Did he ever employ Mr. Bell, his surveyor, who currently organises his campaign against Finningley, to appraise the site, check its condition and estimate its value? Now that Mr. McDonald is not the owner of Finningley, he may be gamekeeper turned poacher—desperately trying to convince anyone who will listen that this extraordinary site, in a low population area with the second longest runway in the north, would be better as something other than an airport.

Tonight, I shall present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Don Valley, the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) and for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, and people in the surrounding areas. More than 21, 000 of them have said, "We want this airport. We don't need a public inquiry." It makes the business case for itself, and, in the light of objective 1, gives real hope for the regeneration of south Yorkshire.

My constituency is currently enjoying the prospect of a double whammy of investment in its transport infrastructure. It is a matter of some local pride that, when the roads review was undertaken in the first year of this Government. well over 5, 000 of the 5, 500 representations received from the entire Yorkshire region originated from my Selby constituency, and related to the Selby bypass. After a 60-year wait, construction of the Selby bypass will begin next July, and the contract will be advertised throughout Europe this summer. The bypass will improve traffic flow in the town and the local environment and much industrial land will be freed, which could provide investment and jobs as the mines decline during the coming decades.

However, there is more than just the bypass. The rail link to London, which was terminated when the coalfield was established 20 years ago and the east coast main line was diverted, has been restored. One train a day from Hull—colloquially known as the Prescott express—stops at Selby on its way to London. Seeing the name of one's town displayed at King's Cross-station as a direct destination is a bit like seeing one's football team get promoted to the second or third division. There is more to come. In a few weeks' time, a new company, Hull Trains, will run three direct trains a day each way that stop at Selby.

However, I want to concentrate my remarks on the nuts and bolts of public transport in our region, which includes buses as well as trains. In Selby, Scarborough—I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn)—and the whole of north Yorkshire, it is boom time for rural buses. Spending on public transport has increased from about £1.3 million in 1997 to nearly £3 million today. In some villages in my constituency, those who were born in the war years could grow up, get a job, have children and grandchildren, and still be waiting for a bus. Now that my hon. Friend the Minister is responsible for such matters, there are buses in abundance in north Yorkshire. For example, the connexions route, which passes through the villages of Oxton, Bolton Percy and Appleton Roebuck, connects Tadcaster with the Askham Bar park-and-ride link to York. In a good week, 500 people now use that service.

However, for local people such developments sometimes constitute something of a cultural shift. When asked whether they objected to the erection of a bus stop for a new service, the representatives of one parish council said, "We don't have those sorts of things here—it's not that sort of village." In fact, they are now very proud of their bus stop, but a little persuasion was necessary. When travelling on another enhanced bus service, I noticed that there were no bus stops in any of the villages. I asked the driver whether that caused a problem, and he replied, "No, because our regulars know where we go." Perhaps that is not the marketing that we want, but such services are making a difference.

One issue that calls for regional planning—and, ultimately, perhaps regional government—is public transport in Yorkshire and Humberside. Three bodies are involved: South Yorkshire passenger transport authority, West Yorkshire passenger transport authority and North Yorkshire county council. I have referred to the county council's £3 million budget, but in west Yorkshire the passenger transport authority spent £91 million, including a direct grant for rail services of £37 million. No such grant is available for north Yorkshire. Clearly, that has an impact on the fare structure and level of services in north Yorkshire, and I shall consider briefly how pensioners and commuters are affected.

My dad is lucky to be a pensioner in west Yorkshire. He leads a full and active life. He goes to the races, the theatre and the cinema, and watches Bradford City. He can travel anywhere off-peak for 20p, but in south Yorkshire, the off-peak fares for buses and trains are, I believe, 33p and 35p respectively. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, there are no concessions at all. In Selby, one receives £8 worth of bus tokens a year. That affects people's retirement decisions. For example, Tadcaster and Wetherby are two very similar market towns within a few miles of each other, and a similar distance from Leeds. A day return from Tadcaster to Leeds costs £3.50, for a pensioner or anyone else. The journey from Wetherby is 20p each way.

We welcome the half-fare bus passes that are to be introduced next year, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred. Nevertheless, it is important to have reciprocal arrangements between the different transport authorities. South Yorkshire and west Yorkshire have just done a deal whereby a pensioner can travel off-peak from one county to the other for 34p. West Yorkshire also recognises the bus passes of pensioners from Lancashire and Greater Manchester, so if my dad goes to Manchester, he can get exactly the same concessions as a Manchester pensioner, but no such reciprocal rights exist with north Yorkshire.

West Yorkshire is, at the moment, recognising Lancastrians but not certain fellow Yorkshire men and women. It is essential that, next year, reciprocal rights should be established across the whole of the county of Yorkshire. That should be our aim, so that west Yorkshire pensioners, for example, can get on a bus and buy a half-fare ticket all the way to Scarborough and the coast. That would be a boon to tourism.

A ridiculous situation can be found within my constituency. In York, half-fare bus passes are already available, but if a pensioner travels by bus across the border from the York council area to the Selby council area, a half fare would be available for only half the journey. Two constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Eggleston, from Fulford in the York unitary authority area, regularly travel to Thorganby, a little village in the Selby area, to see their grandson. They are entitled to a half fare part of the way, to Wheldrake, but they have to pay the full fare for the rest of the journey. That is clearly crazy, and we need reciprocal arrangements. I urge the Government to bang a few heads together, if necessary, to encourage that process on its way.

I shall move on to commuters. Thousands of people commute from my area every day, especially into Leeds and other places in west Yorkshire. Although there are seven train stations in my constituency, many of those people get into their cars, go over the border into west Yorkshire and get on exactly the same trains that pass through my constituency, in order to save money. For example, a return ticket from Church Fenton—a village in my constituency—to Leeds costs £5.10 a day, but if one travels a few miles by car to catch the train at Micklefield, the fare goes down to £3.50. A couple commuting into Leeds every working day could save about £60 a month by taking that short car journey, which is obviously environmentally daft.

The matter needs attention, and is likely to become an even bigger issue in relation to the new rail franchise map. As I understand it, the trans-Pennine link is to be a separate franchise, and all the suburban services are to be franchised as a whole across the northern region, but with an insistence that they be managed in line with the boundaries of the passenger transport authority. We would not want to lose out in north Yorkshire because, although we have all those stations, there is no passenger transport authority.

There is a strong feeling in my constituency of Selby that we should benefit from greater links with the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority, which is allowed by law, incidentally, to organise services 25 miles from its boundary. I hope that we can reach the stage where we have one passenger transport authority planning services across the whole Yorkshire region.

I support another comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby: it is extremely important—for my constituents, as well—that we incorporate the rail link with the Leeds Bradford airport. That scheme shows how progressive and innovative the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority is. Not only is it applying for the rail link, but also it was the first authority in the country to organise late night buses to get people home from Leeds, which boasts that it is a 24-hour city. Buses run at weekends until 2.30 in the morning. It is, therefore, a very progressive transport authority and we should like to see some of its influence in north Yorkshire.

rose—

Order. I want to call the hon. Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). If they will make very brief contributions, I shall be happy to call them both.

Last Friday, the headline "Supertrams are go" in the Yorkshire Evening Post was an echo of the old "Thunderbirds" programme. I hope that the supertrams will be better than the old puppet television series.

From 1985 to 1995, 11, 000 new jobs were created in Leeds and 11, 000 new commuters came into the city during that period. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on introducing the debate. He said that Leeds is one of the economic engines of the region and there is no doubt that it is the main employment area and the economic generator of west Yorkshire. However, Leeds is grinding to a halt and I am delighted that, after 10 years of trying to obtain a tram system, we have the go-ahead at last.

It is not just the trams that we must concentrate on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and other hon. Members said, buses are crucial. In the 1970s and 1980s, Sheffield had a wonderful bus system and I remember travelling across the city for 2p in those good old days. Buses are the key to transporting people, but they are not the only method of transport. The guided bus service in my constituency is one method of making buses more efficient and avoiding some of the traffic jams, but we also need a more efficient road system.

I was pleased to hear that the east Leeds radial road will be built under the 10-year transport plan, but I hope that the Minister will support phase 8 of Leeds inner ring road because that will complete the ring. [Interruption.] I thank him for offering me the money already. Phase 8 is the final piece of the jigsaw to complete the ring road.

I was delighted to hear that Delhi is building its own underground and light rail system, but I want Leeds to be ahead of Delhi. Why can we not consider a light rail network, which would serve not only people in Leeds, but those who come to Leeds to work from surrounding districts—Bradford, Harrogate, Scarborough, Whitby, Selby, York and places further south such as Wakefield and Doncaster? Why can we not be adventurous and visionary and have a system that not only echoes what Delhi is doing, but is considerably better and serves the whole population of the area?

I am a recent convert to cycling and I take my life in my hands whenever I cycle through central London to get here more quickly than the traffic and even the tube. I would like more cycle routes. One of my constituents, Mrs. Hazel Maxwell, is interested in cycling, especially for children, and sent me an e-mail yesterday stating that more safe cycling routes were missing from the 10-year plan, or least the publicity about it. Will the Minister respond to that?

I support the points that have been made about the pressure for a rail link to Leeds-Bradford airport, including many of those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about Finningley, but I do not want to enter that debate now. I want Leeds-Bradford airport to have better access by rail and other public transport from Leeds and Bradford. I should like the Minister to tell us exactly what is happening about that. A rail link from central Leeds would link up with the rail network to south Yorkshire, so it would also improve the links there.

We now have two minutes left for the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West.

Most of the points that I wanted to make have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and I shall not repeat them. I want to emphasise the need to make use of existing wide-gauge rail systems. The engineering skills of our Victorian forefathers survive today. We should take advantage of that amazing infrastructure. Along with other hon. Members, I have referred to one such link: Leeds-Bradford airport, which is just half a mile away from a major rail link. That railway line goes on into east and north-east Yorkshire, passing through stations that were closed by a certain person some 30 or 40 years ago. We want to see one of those stations reopened, providing ease of access to the airport for people who are currently using their cars and clogging up small country lanes. Such a rail link would make a contribution to green transport.

I see from the clock that I have had my two minutes. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.

I shall try to speak at a rapid south Yorkshire pace, in order to get through the points that I want to make. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) secured this debate. We have a chance to show how united we are in south Yorkshire on the issues and, perhaps, to highlight those areas in which we are still groping for agreement.

The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central was right to raise the issue of match funding for objective 1 programmes in the context of transport. We need to raise that matter on every available occasion. The Government have said that they are willing to find the match funding, but they need to be able to remove the obstacles in the way of that, of which we are all aware. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) did not disappoint: she put the case for Finningley, as I suspected she would. I shall not disappoint either: I want to raise local concerns about Sheffield airport. It may be a different beast from the proposed airport at Finningley, but it does create employment in Sheffield. No one disputes that the volume of air traffic is growing, and I do not intend to start a detailed debate about that. None the less, a public inquiry is necessary, because of the wider regional issues involved. That is the only way to get the necessary assurances and bring everyone on board; otherwise, there will be a continuing grumbling dispute in the region. Finningley will develop in that context, but it is important that we start from the right point. The hon. Member for Don Valley explained how long term the proposals for development of the airport are, so we should not be concerned about delays at this stage because of a wider inquiry. I hope that we can have that inquiry now.

Is the hon. Gentleman giving the official position of the Liberal Democrats on the issue of a public inquiry?

I speak as a Member of Parliament for Sheffield. Since I am the only Liberal Democrat Member in the area—south Yorkshire—my position is as official as we need.

The hon. Member for Leeds, North East (Mr. Hamilton) showed his youthfulness, by saying that he travelled for 2p. I did too; that was the child fare. I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman was eligible for that fare at that time. Bus transport is a key issue. There is disappointment, especially in Sheffield, that it is still so difficult to get to grips with the bus operators and that there are no major powers to do so. Routes in my constituency have been changed and the PTA has been unable to do anything. Fares are still a major issue. Price is the key determinant for an individual in deciding whether to stand at the bus stop or take the car on a rainy day. If there were a cheap fare, as there used to be, people would choose to take the bus; with the fares that they have to pay now, they will not. I hope that there will be some prospect of passenger transport authorities having more direct control over routes and fares. They used to have such control, but it was removed by deregulation, and no adequate new system has yet been devised by the Government.

The hon. Member for Leeds, North East said "Supertrams are go" was a headline in his local paper. Is he going to steal our supertram? We have a functioning supertram, but it does not go to the right places in some areas, and that has been a problem. There will be proposals for extensions. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government will be favourable towards those who wish to extend existing schemes as well as to those who wish to bid for new schemes. Extensions of the tram network on which so much Government money has been invested could be helpful, especially in the university and hospital areas.

I favour moving quarry traffic on to the railway system. Sheffield has no ring road and quarry vehicles, from Derbyshire in particular, drive through it. Indeed, they go past my office, so I am very conscious of the traffic. I hope that the Government agrees that more quarry traffic should use the rail system and that they are willing to invest in EWS infrastructure to enable that to take place. Motorcycles are a good replacement for car traffic, especially for commuters. At present, in order for them to use bus lanes, a special request must be submitted to the regional office for dispensation because there are no approved signs for such traffic movement. Such a system seems very bureaucratic and I hope that the Minister can explain his thoughts about using motorcycles as a way in which to combat congestion in the region. Can anything be done to make it easier for local authorities to enable that to happen if they so choose? I could raise plenty of other issues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am conscious of the time.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

This morning's debate has been fascinating and I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on introducing it. We have been on a Cook's tour of villages, A roads, trunk roads, railways, those villages that do not want bus stops in the Yorkshire region and ended up in Delhi. That shows the diversity of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. I know it well from my time as a candidate in Sheffield in the early 1990s and as someone whose family comes from the Beverley area.

I agree with many of points made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central about the general economy. He referred to the energy tax. Now is not the time to go into such matters in detail, but I underline the impact that that is having on large manufacturing industries, especially the glass and chemical industries in south Yorkshire. Having stood as a parliamentary candidate for the constituency of Sheffield, Brightside, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the congestion at junction 34 of the Ml, an area that I know particularly well. I also have experience of the traffic jams on the A64 on the way to Scarborough. I represent a seaside town, and the hon. Gentleman should visit the A27 and experience the difficulties of travelling to seaside resorts in my part of the country.

The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) expressed a detailed knowledge of aircraft movement and I shall touch on the matter of Finningley later. I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on his contribution to the debate or, more particularly, his father who seems to be one of the more mobile senior citizens in the Yorkshire region. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the absurdity of what he described as environmentally daft anomalies in transport policy. As for the hon. Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), what can I say?

The Yorkshire and Humberside region is a diverse area. It has 5 million people. It is the same size as Scotland or Denmark. Its work force comprises 2.3 million people with an economy of £52 billion. It has nine universities and 40 colleges, and 118 pies have their headquarters in the region. Outside south-east England, it has one of the highest proportions of small and medium companies.

As we have heard, the region has many problems. It is on the wrong side of the north-south divide and, as the recent Cardiff university study showed, the Government's policy is widening regional economic disparities in England and Wales rather than narrowing them. Moves to assist business developments are improving the performance of the most competitive regions, not the poorest ones such as Yorkshire and Humberside. The region is near the bottom of the rankings in the United Kingdom for competitiveness. It is on a par with the economies of Hungary, Chile and Israel. The welcome success of securing objective 1 status from the European Union underlines the fact that south Yorkshire is one of the poorest regions of the European Union. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central confirmed that the figure for the region was 74 per cent. below the European Union average.

As we have heard, there are also big disparities in Yorkshire, which has its own north-south divide. The northern end of Yorkshire and parts of west Yorkshire are far ahead of south Yorkshire in the commercial exploitation of IT-based technology. GDP per head in south Yorkshire has fallen substantially over the past 20 years. Conversely, we have problems of overheating in Leeds, one of the most prosperous parts of the north of England. I understand that several bosses of electronics companies in Yorkshire recently approached Yorkshire Forward and said, in effect, "For goodness sake, stop attracting South Korean electronic companies to the region because we simply do not have the skilled work force for our own companies, let alone for employers coming in." There are real problems in that regard.

Transport will undoubtedly aid the resolution of such economic disparities. It is an anomaly that no transport role was given to regional development agencies in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. It is not part of their remit. RDAs constantly complain that they do not have a direct input into the transport infrastructure, which is such an essential part of the economic regeneration of regions such as Yorkshire and Humberside. I know from my conversations with the people who run the Sheffield development corporation that one of the key elements of the success of the urban development corporations in the 1980s and 1990s was the provision of a good transport infrastructure, such as links to the M1 in the case of Sheffield, that went way beyond some of the accompanying tax advantages. A SWOT—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats—analysis by Yorkshire Forward of the transport problems in the region, which several hon. Members touched on, highlighted the poor rail links between London and Sheffield, London and Hull, Sheffield and Leeds, Leeds and Manchester, and traffic congestion on the M1 and M62 and in key cities.

Will the Minister give us some detail on what last week's 10-year transport splurge will mean for Yorkshire and Humberside? His wallet is certainly under great pressure, with all the schemes that hon. Members assume have been paid for. Perhaps he can allay their fears and give them the good news that they anticipate. The website of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions identifies the need to upgrade the Al to motorway standard, particularly the key bottlenecks in the south of the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who would have liked to attend our debate but is sitting on the Transport Select Committee, has particular problems with the section of road between Bramham and Barton. She is also concerned about the high level of traffic accidents and road fatalities in the region, which the hon. Member for Don Valley mentioned.

There is also the issue of improvement of roads to the Humber ports, particularly Hull. Would the Minister, in the absence of his boss, comment on that? Would he also comment on the potential effect of VAT on river crossings and the bridges across the Humber? What about the Government's commitment to the dualling of the A66? Will any of the 100 promised bypasses be in the Yorkshire and Humberside region? Will my hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) get a bypass for Middleton-on-the-Wolds, to take the pressure of the lorries from Bridlington and Driffield?

The Secretary of State wants to shift movements between car and rail by 5 per cent. and contain car traffic at 1999 levels. That has a serious impact for north Yorkshire, in particular, a large rural area that has already been hit heavily and disproportionately by petrol prices. Can the Minister assure us that improvements will be made to bus services in the rural area of north Yorkshire rather than just concentrating on the towns? The submission of North Yorkshire county council to the Environment Committee report on the urban White Paper made interesting reading in terms of the consultation on rural bus services from market towns and the surrounding communities. Will the Minister allow county councils proper time for consultation with their parishes rather than bringing forward the cut-off date, as previously happened with North Yorkshire?

There is also the question of road repair. The Government have not made money available on necessary funding for local authorities to maintain their road networks. Sheffield, for example, currently has a backlog of repairs well in excess of £20 million. It seems absurd to give money to councils for bus lanes and cycle lanes if the roads are falling apart.

I do not have time to mention in detail the re-franchising of the east coast main line fiasco—no doubt the Minister would like to update us on it—the empty promise of the channel tunnel rail link to Leeds, and the incentives for the improvement of the trans—Pennine rail link. I shall not talk about the Finningley airport at Doncaster either, although the Minister might like to reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley.

The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central mentioned that the Government 10-year plan, and the extra money from it, would bring great hope to his region. It is up to the Minister today to give proper hope to people that some of the schemes will actually happen. Undoubtedly, the region is in great need of transport infrastructure improvements. I hope that the Minister will deliver for Yorkshire and Humberside, and start to do so by giving details now.

This has been a lively debate. There have been eight speakers in the brief period of an hour and 20 minutes. We have learned a great deal about the region and the transport needs of some of its constituencies, about which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have shown commendable impartiality. I was also touched by the passion demonstrated for the region by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), whose constituency is on somewhat distant shores from it.

I have been asked a huge number of questions, and I shall try to answer as many as possible. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on securing the debate. This is a significant and exciting time for transport in this country. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister unveiled the Government's 10-year transport plan, which is known as Transport 2010. Our goal is to transform our transport system over the next 10 years, tackling congestion and pollution, increasing choice and raising standards to make travel safer, more attractive and accessible to all.

Transport 2010 provides an investment of £180 billion, delivered through partnership between the private and public sectors. Before the plan, congestion on our roads was set to grow by 15 per cent. over the next 10 years. Our target set out in the 10-year plan is to reverse that trend by removing traffic bottlenecks and improving public transport, so that people have a real choice to leave their cars at home. The environment is important to us all, and our proposals will produce savings in greenhouse gas emissions, helping to achieve our Kyoto targets and more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central was right to point to the importance that the Government attach to the region in our recently published 10-year transport plan. We recognise that the Yorkshire and Humber region is at the centre of key north-south and east-west road and rail corridors. The Humber ports represent an important regional asset and I am aware that improved road and rail links are a regional priority. We recognise the fact that areas in the region also suffer from a disproportionately high number of worn-out roads, and Transport 2010 will rectify that. The main towns and cities in the region suffer from increasing congestion, which must be tackled to foster regeneration, improve the environment and encourage urban renaissance. There are also many rural areas in the region, and improved public transport is needed to reduce car dependency and tackle social exclusion.

Transport 2010 provides the funding to transform the transport system in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Individual projects will be determined through the funding programmes of the Highways Agency, the Strategic Rail Authority, and as part of the local transport plan settlement later in the year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central mentioned the objective 1 issue and the question of matched funding for European structural funds. The responsibility for the acquisition of match funding falls to the project applicants, and it is for the local partners preparing the single programming documents to assess the likely availability of match funding when establishing their financial plans. We envisage that local transport capital funds could be used as a source of match funding. The spending review statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer means that there is now more funding available to which local partners can look for match funding. That is obviously good news for areas with EU structural funds in the Yorkshire and Humber region.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central also referred to the need for improvement in the region's rail networks. Railways are an important part of the transport infrastructure in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Transport 2010 will allow exciting public-private partnerships to implement much needed investment in this area. For example, the east coast main line upgrade will provide increased rail capacity to the region and the potential for half-hourly services to Leeds and York from London. That will build on the £165 million Leeds station scheme currently under way. As my hon. Friend also said, the trans-Pennine rail routes are important to the region, and improvements can be expected to be agreed as part of the new trans-Pennine express franchise. There are proposals to improve the rail capacity and environment of Sheffield station, creating a more integrated transport facility for the city. Once again it is pleasing to see the public-private partnership at work in promoting these schemes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) drew attention to the problems of the A64. I note his call for a multi-modal study of that road but, in the meantime, further consultation is proposed this year to help consider options for improvements to Barton Hill junction, Whitwell on the Hill junction, the Whitwell dual to Malton bypass and Rillington bypass, which are all on the A64. He will be aware that there is already excellent news for Scarborough, in the Scarborough integrated transport scheme, on which local officials and my officials have been working together. Enormous progress has been made on that project in the past six months.

My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made a well-informed and powerful statement in favour of the development of Finningley airport. The proposed new commercial airport at Finningley, near Doncaster, is of considerable interest to people throughout the Yorkshire and Humber region, as is inevitable with such a significant proposal. We expect the local planning authority to refer the application to the Secretary of State in the autumn, which must then decide whether to call in the application for his own determination. It would be quite wrong for me to make any comment that could be perceived as either supporting or opposing the scheme. I can confirm that the current regional air services co-ordination study—RASCO—will not delay the process. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand, therefore, if I say no more about it at this stage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley made a general case for all the airports in Yorkshire. For the sake of a similar balance, I should say that I am powerfully aware of the strong campaign for improved surface access to Leeds-Bradford airport. I have received delegations on the subject and know that consideration is being given to how the airport could be accessed from the Leeds-Harrogate line mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). However, any proposals would have to meet the normal requirements of value for money appraisal and planning powers, and satisfactory funding arrangements agreed with the authorities.

I turn to the good news story about the rural bus boom, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). Our rural bus initiative has been a fantastic success throughout the country in the past three years. In that period, we have generated 1, 845 new and enhanced bus services. The 10-year transport plan will increase funding next year for the rural bus initiative from £60 million to £95 million, from which I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituency will benefit. That represents a commitment to the countryside by this Government, which was never contemplated by the Conservative party, although it so often proclaims itself the defender of rural areas.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby for his positive remarks about the national minimum concessionary fare scheme. The provisions in the Transport Bill will benefit 7 million senior citizens, not least the many deprived of any form of discounted fare by the Tory Scrooge local authorities throughout the country. I take his point about inter-ticketing arrangements, which have been built into the Transport Bill. We have discussed and reached agreement on it with the Office of Fair Trading. It will create a presumption in favour of such inter-ticketing arrangements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North East (Mr. Hamilton) mentioned the Leeds supertram, on which we are making progress. I am pleased to say that Transport 2010 includes billions of pounds for public and private investment for such light rail schemes. As we have said, we envisage up to 25 new light rail schemes in the 10-year period. I am aware of the increasing success—

Order. Time is up.

Every day last year, more than 460, 000 people commuted by rail to central London during the morning peak—3 per cent. more than the previous year's figure. Rail commuting has increased each year since 1993, and Railtrack predicts that it will grow by more than a third over the next 10 years.

How has the rail industry responded to that growth in demand? The answer is, badly. Public performance measures record a decline in the services provided over the past year by nine of the 10 train operating companies that serve London. Vying for pole position for poorest service are Connex and Thameslink. I have a particular interest in those companies. They both provide services to my constituents, as does South West Trains.

Why is the service so bad? Quite simply, the first round of rail franchising had just one aim—to complete the privatisation before the 1997 general election. There was no wider vision or strategy for the development of services or infrastructure. As a result, it is hardly surprising that no plans were made to meet the huge increase in demand for services on all London lines over the past three years.

To top it all, performance standards for the new train operating companies were set at the lowest possible level. Why? Quite simply, so as not to frighten off potential bidders. What the previous Government called "a passengers charter" was a licence for train operating companies to print money and rip off passengers. Although the train operating companies will probably prove the whipping boys in today's debate, the Conservative party should take responsibility for devising a system in which passengers' interests took, at best, second place.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the first round of franchises the train companies were appointed to manage a winding down of the industry?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the London regional passenger committee's final annual report almost says as much. It was assumed that the rail industry was in long-term, established and irreversible decline. The previous Government lacked ambition for our railway network. This debate relates to that lack of ambition and its consequences.

As a consequence of the previous Government's lack of ambition for our railway system both in London and more generally, the mailbags of many—indeed, probably all—hon. Members, of the rail user consultative committees and of the London regional passenger committee will bear testament to the outrage and anger that many of our constituents feel about their rail services.

It is worth placing on record that the national passenger survey conducted in March of this year revealed that passenger dissatisfaction levels were highest in and around London and the south-east. That is hardly surprising. By any measure, London has some of the worst-performing train operators in the country.

Examining the 10 London and south-east franchises, a pattern emerges. For example, in the case of punctuality—trains arriving within five minutes of the published time—in ninth and 10th places are Connex South Central and Connex South Eastern, respectively, closely followed by Thameslink. In the case of overcrowding, all 10 companies are operating beyond capacity, and Thameslink, Connex South Central, South West Trains and Chiltern Railways break the shadow Strategic Rail Authority's threshold of 3 per cent. Indeed, until quite recently, my constituency had the dubious distinction of having the most overcrowded service on the entire network—the 7.51 am Thameslink service from Sutton.

In the case of customer satisfaction, in joint ninth place are the two Connex franchises. Finally, in the case of customer complaints, last year, for the first time since privatisation, complaints from passengers in southern England fell. However, one company bucked the trend—Connex, which had a staggering 31 per cent. increase in complaints. In the league table of poor services in London, Connex stands out.

In its final annual report before handing over to the new body established as part of the Greater London Authority, the London regional passenger committee said:

Without any doubt, the most serious problems have been faced by the users on Connex Rail, who have suffered from what must seem to passengers an unending stream of allegedly unrelated problems. These have included overcrowding that resulted from the introduction of a temporary timetable on Connex South Central because of its continuing industrial relations problems and the rolling stock shortages caused by the problem with the Networker trains.

The report goes on to state:

For some Connex passengers in the LRPC area, the introduction of the summer 2000 timetable has been the last straw.

Too right, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it is nothing short of a disgrace.

The shadow Strategic Rail Authority should never have acquiesced in the introduction of the summer timetable. Connex South Central is now running 120 fewer trains a day. Although most of the trains deleted from the timetable are off-peak services—that is little comfort to off-peak users—some key rush-hour services to Victoria have been lost, including the 7.16 am and the 7.45 am trains. Services to London Bridge now stop at even more stations, which is exacerbating the overcrowding. Where there were four trains an hour, there are now often only two.

That reduction in services has been caused by a long-running dispute between Connex and ASLEF about overtime working. At one point, one in eight Connex drivers who should have been resting were driving trains. In the wake of the Ladbroke Grove disaster and the attention that is rightly paid to signals passed at danger, it is cause for concern that such dependence on overtime working could have been allowed to develop. I understand that Connex is struggling to make good a shortage of 60 drivers, and that it has 200 drivers in training. However, for my constituents that adds up to yet more overcrowding, more cancellations and more misery. Again, it is the poor passenger who pays for the failures of management and unions to reach any form of understanding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I yesterday met the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss refranchising the South Central franchise. We learned that the authority does not plan to impose a new requirement for the franchise to safeguard services if industrial relations are poor. Intractable disputes such as that at Connex should be put to binding arbitration in the public interest. Will the Minister ask the Strategic Rail Authority to examine that proposal? The London regional passenger committee has made a similar suggestion.

I turn finally to the refranchising of the South Central services. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington secured a debate in this Chamber on 11 April. During that debate, I asked the Minister how the transition from the old franchise to the new one would be handled. Unfortunately, the clock was against us and the Minister did not have the time to answer my question. I am sure, however, that he will recall telling the House that, were the refranchising to be aborted, the prospect of Connex continuing to run the South Central franchise until it expired in 2003 would be a second-best solution. I agree. Indeed, many of my constituents believe that Connex offers them a third-rate service.

The Minister will know that speculation in the industry is that if Connex loses the franchise, it will carry on until 2003 regardless. That led to me table written questions to clarify the powers available to Ministers and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. I asked what powers the SRA has to ensure the smooth and rapid transition to the new franchise. In reply, the Minister wrote:

This would be a matter for negotiation between the Franchising Director and the existing and potential franchisees. In the event of failure to agree transfer arrangements in advance of expiry of the existing franchise, the existing franchisee would be obliged to continue to honour its contractual commitments.—[Official Report, 7 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 314W.]

I was not entirely satisfied with that reply, so I asked what action could be taken if the commitments were not met. The Minister replied:

Although Connex have no such contractual requirements, they currently hold more than one franchise and are pre-qualified bidders or potential bidders for other replacement franchises. The Franchising Director is entitled to take into account the past performances of operators when considering the award of franchises. The Franchising Director has set no specific dates for the award of any replacement franchise, as to do so may prejudice his negotiating position.—[Official Report, 17 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 54W.]

In other words, Connex would be crazy to play games with the South Central franchise when so much else is at stake. I hope that the Minister is right about that. Certainly, since the story appeared in The Observer a couple of weeks ago, Connex has been at pains to reassure everyone of its good intent and willingness to play ball. Nevertheless, will the Minister assure my constituents and all Connex South Central passengers that should Connex decide to sit on the franchise, for whatever reason, all possible steps will be taken to protect the hard—pressed commuter from any further deterioration in services during the unexpired period of the contract? For example, will the Minister examine ways of imposing the new penalty regime on the company before 2003?

Before I conclude, I wish to raise three other points that range a little wider than concerns about Connex, although that company provides a substantial chunk of the rail services into London. My first concern is about late night services, or rather the lack of them. The results of an investigation into late-night services by the London regional passenger committee—entitled "Who goes home?"—were published earlier this year. The investigation revealed a wide variation in the times of last trains across the network. In particular, the report reveals that services to my constituency finish early.

I did not need to read the report to learn that because, when I leave the House after a late-night sitting, I know only too well that there is no means of travelling back to my constituency except via Croydon or elsewhere. There is a busy night-time economy in my constituency, where there are many restaurants, pubs and other entertainments, and more people want to go to entertainments in London, so it is unacceptable that the last trains run so early. The report produced by the LRPC contains a useful bar chart; it is a pity that it cannot be incorporated in the Official Report.

The chart shows the proportion of stations beyond zone 1 for which a departure from Leicester square after 23.59 hours is possible. The LRPC obviously decided that Leicester square was the Mecca of entertainment in London and the point from which all people would depart. The chart lists places such as Kensington and Chelsea, Redbridge, Westminster, Barnet, Harrow, Bromley and Sutton, but there are some services after 23.59 hours to every one of the destinations except Sutton, which stands out like a sore thumb. The last service to Sutton from Victoria leaves at 23.34, so one would have to leave Leicester square at 23.09 to catch that train, arriving finally in Sutton at 00.15. That is hardly an especially late time to finish a night out, and many people who work late find it equally frustrating that they are unable to get home. Will the Minister ensure that, in the light of the evidence produced by the LRPC and other evidence that I shall put to him today, the Strategic Rail Authority will examine critically the proposals of Connex and GoVia to secure significant improvements in the times of last trains to Sutton?

My second point concerns future infrastructure investment. London has one of the most extensive suburban rail networks of any city in the world. Despite that fact, the overground system fails to match the frequency, flexibility and reliability of the underground north of the river. There is still a need to develop an integrated turn-up-and-go suburban rail service that gets people into and around London. Orbital movement in south London, especially south-west London, needs particular attention.

The road network is choked; the Minister referred to congestion during the previous debate. The only orbital public transport in south-west London is the 726 bus, which battles its way through bottleneck after bottleneck. I am sure that bus priority has a part to play, and there has been substantial investment in bus priority throughout London, but it is limited by the constraints that restricted road space imposes. Targeted infrastructure investment is required to link Bromley and Croydon and, at Wimbledon, to open new rail corridors linking Bromley, west Croydon, Sutton, Wimbledon, Kingston, Twickenham and even Heathrow.

Using radial routes to facilitate orbital movements—going up to Clapham junction, only to travel out again—makes less and less sense given the limits on capacity and the increasing overcrowding. The aim should be to create more direct connections around London as well as improving interchanges between services.

My proposal to the Minister has not been dreamt up for the purposes of the debate. It is the result of a detailed examination by a consortium of local authorities in south-west London, which studied orbital rail proposals. Sadly, the plans developed and published in the early 1990s were stillborn because of the previous Government's lack of ambition for our railways. Will the Minister offer the prospect of a fresh examination of those detailed proposals and their costings to consider whether there is a possibility of capital investment to make them a reality now?

My third point concerns the new penalties and incentives regime that flows from the tighter performance measures. Anyone who uses the railways regularly regards the original passengers charter as a joke. It is deeply flawed. For example, the way in which the capacity and overcrowding statistics are collected leaves a lot to be desired. There is one count a year with an option of a second and it is done on a simple calculation. Its coverage is restricted because it is labour intensive. It gives a limited snapshot of the overcrowding on a fraction of the network.

As part of the refranchising process, all new rolling stock is to be fitted with passenger load-weighting equipment; old stock rolling stock is to be similarly retrofitted. By automating the recording of the information, it will be possible to measure accurately overcrowding across the network. I have no doubt that the introduction of the automated weighing equipment on to trains will lead to jokes about speak-your-weight trains but, jokes aside, it offers the prospect of a much tighter overcrowding monitoring regime.

Will the Minister tell the House when the new regime will come in? Must it await the refranchising process, or is the shadow Strategic Rail Authority considering ways of rolling it out sooner under the existing franchises? Further, will the standards for overcrowding and capacity be tightened still further to ensure that people making journeys of less than 20 minutes duration have a greater chance of getting a seat?

The biggest loophole in the old charter was the discretion given to operators to declare void days, on which no effective service was provided for reasons in the control of the railway industry. When reliability was less than 90 per cent. or punctuality fell below 70 per cent., a company could declare a void day and have the failure excluded from the passenger charter's calculations. That is a bit like a football team losing a match 7-0 and then declaring the game void to avoid relegation.

The new incentives and penalties are broadly double the figures under the current regime. Perhaps that will better concentrate the minds of train operators and will help to drive up performance. However, when will the new regime kick in? On Connex South Central, the latest date would be 2003. On south-eastern services and on those provided by London Tilbury Southend Rail, the current franchises run until 2011. Will the Minister say how long passengers will have to wait?

In conclusion, rail services in London need to be improved dramatically. The evidence is there for all to see. The first round of franchises has been a bitter disappointment for passengers. I hope that the Minister will respond to three points in particular. How do the Government intend to secure better industrial relations in the rail industry, especially in the Connex case, a serious industrial relations problem which is inflicting great misery on my constituents? How soon will the new incentives and penalties regime be in operation across the whole network? Will it be achieved piecemeal as new franchises are let or will it be rolled out in advance? Will the Government give serious and favourable consideration to investment in the infrastructure needed to facilitate orbital rail services in south-west London?

What my constituents and, I suspect, what all our constituents want above all from their rail service is a safe, reliable and comfortable journey. They want rail operators that always put the customer's interest first and deliver on their promises. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure my constituents on that point.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate and, more importantly, on his comprehensive survey of Connex services and of rail services across London, which has provided me with an opportunity to raise my constituents' concerns about the West Anglia Great Northern service for commuters in north London.

My constituency is very dependent on the railways. It is sandwiched between underground lines—the Piccadilly line to the west and the Victoria line to the east. The bus services travelling in and out of central London do not provide an adequate service because they suffer severely from congestion at peak times, leading to delays for people needing to reach central London in reasonable time. The only practical transport for people travelling to the City and to central London is West Anglia Great Northern.

I travel fairly regularly on the line and am only too well aware of the great frustration and irritation caused to my constituents' daily by the delays there. Perhaps I can give hon. Members a flavour of those concerns, by quoting from a letter from Mrs. Margot Wilson. She wrote:

In short the train service is appalling…I have the impression that I am being treated with contempt. In addition to the lack of reliability and punctuality there is a lack of information.

To deal with some of the complaints, at the end of last year, I invited the managing director of West Anglia Great Northern, Euan Cameron, to travel with me and my Enfield colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), on the commuter service to central London. While we were travelling, and in our subsequent meeting at Liverpool Street station, Mr. Cameron admitted to some of the problems and difficulties affecting commuters on the line and, perhaps more importantly, promised action to deal with them. Sadly, most of the problems persist, and so do the complaints, as my mailbag well attests. The complaints have increased in recent months.

Another constituent, Mrs. Norma Price, wrote to me about events on Monday 9 June. She told me:

The 08.50 arrived at Edmonton Green at 08.59. Result: severe overcrowding, late arrival at Seven Sisters—

that is the connection to the underground—

and missed connections.

Mrs. Price added:

There are too few trains in peak travel times and these trains are consistently late.

From all the evidence that I have gathered since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have found that three themes constantly emerge in relation to difficulties with services in north London. The first, which is reminiscent of the complaints about Connex South East, is that of repeated delays and train cancellations. Those seem to follow a pattern. Early in the day, during the peak early morning service, slight delays occur, which build up during the day because of the problems of infrastructure and exhausted rolling stock. If they are not checked, they become significant delays by the time of the evening rush hour. Trains are cancelled during the rush hour because of the backlog that has built up.

West Anglia Great Northern's favourite ploy for meeting punctuality targets is for trains not to stop at every station, so that they can reach their destination within the five-minute tolerance margin. That of course causes considerable disruption to people wanting to alight at the station or to catch the train that whizzes through. That matter was raised earlier, and my hon. Friend the Minister was at pains to reassure us that the situation was being monitored. Can he reassure us that the standards of service provision that the train operating companies are supposed to meet are being monitored effectively? Is action being taken when such abuse occurs?

The second area of concern is overcrowding. Substantial overcrowding occurs on trains at peak hours, in both the morning and the early evening. I shall quote from a letter that I received recently, which relates to events that took place on 6 July this year. My constituent states:

The train was grossly overcrowded and this overcrowding became worse at each stop when more passengers forced their way on board. At Seven Sisters, when passengers emerged from the heat of the train, looking (and feeling) as though they had been in a sauna, an announcement was made stating that due to signal failure at Liverpool Street all passengers were advised to disembark at Seven Sisters.

The source of the problem there appears to be that there is insufficient rolling stock to provide eight carriages on each peak-hour journey. One might say that that should be a fairly simple objective to achieve, but I discovered that this particular type of rolling stock had been out of production for a considerable number of years and cannot, therefore, be replaced. WAGN has to try to keep exhausted rolling stock going, year in, year out, and is unable to provide eight carriages for each train at peak times. That suggests that the only longterm solution to the problem is investment in new rolling stock, to update the railway system to a standard fit for the 21st century.

The third problem is a growing fear of crime, both on trains and at stations. Many people in my constituency will not travel on trains after dark. Although some stations now have closed-circuit television, and although WAGN has worked with Railtrack to improve the lighting on the stations, many people still have considerable anxiety about travelling on the railways during the evening.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that at a rail question time meeting that I organised with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) the issue most frequently raised was security. It was the key concern, even taking precedence over reliability.

I would certainly echo that. Most of the discussions that I have had with regular commuters involve mention of the time in the evening beyond which they will not use the service. They constantly express a desire for something to be done to address the problem of security, so that they can continue to use the railway as they do during the day.

That problem has been compounded in recent months by a steep increase in muggings in the area, both at stations and on trains. I recently dealt with the case of a constituent whose son had been accosted and threatened on a train. I contacted the British Transport police, and I am pleased to report that an arrest has been made. I welcome that, but there is still a strong feeling in my constituency that we need more preventive action to increase security at stations and on trains.

The most recent debate on WAGN services took place in Westminster Hall on 16 February and was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North. The Minister who responded to the debate said that WAGN passengers

generally enjoy a comparatively punctual and reliable service.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 250WH.]

He went on to say that survey evidence showed that around three quarters of passengers were satisfied with the service that was provided on WAGN. That is not borne out by my experience or that of any hon. Members through whose constituencies WAGN services run. Local rail users' groups have carried out several surveys that show a significant level of dissatisfaction with the service, which is also evidenced by the letters that we receive about commuter services in Greater London. When I speak to regular commuters on the station or on the train, their comments most frequently concern how bad the service has been during that week and the difficulties with the level of service that they face day in, day out.

Because of that—and the apparent mismatch between the official statistics that are produced and the unofficial statistics with which we, as Members of Parliament, are continually confronted—I commissioned my own survey. I admit that it is not scientific, and I would be the last person to make any great claims for it, but it covered more than 3, 000 commuters in my constituency. I am starting to receive replies, and I shall evaluate the results over the next week or so. There has been great interest in the survey and a great desire to contribute to it. From anecdotal evidence, that is because people want to express their concern about the service that is provided. I hope that as a result of the survey we shall be able to set up a local rail users' group, because that is one way in which commuters can have an impact on the service that is provided and can tell Railtrack and the train operating companies about the improvements that people believe to be necessary.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned long-term investment in the railways network. It is fair to say that both the Government and the train operating companies have argued strongly for the need for a longer time frame in which to allow investment decisions to take place. Indeed, when I spoke to Euan Cameron, the managing director of WAGN, he continually returned to the company's need to have a more secure base on which to grow the business and to invest in the infrastructure that will be needed in future.

Last September, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority was given the power to start to renegotiate franchise agreements. I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that there is great dissatisfaction and unhappiness about what has happened since then. I accept that it is probably appropriate to have a 20-year time frame rather than, as in WAGN's case, a seven-year time frame. However, there are difficulties involved in progressing along that route, and the service continues to deteriorate while we await those changes. Urgent action must be taken to ensure, while the process continues, that the service continues to respond to the needs of local commuters.

Several improvements are required. Trains must run on time and to schedule. The network must be expanded to accommodate increased passenger numbers. The buoyant economy that has been created in Greater London because the Government have got rid of boom and bust—I wanted to get that in—means that a significant number of people travel on the commuter lines. The network must have the capacity for that, and we must respond to the concerns of the passengers on the trains. The rolling stock used on my line dates back to the 1960s, and that is not good enough for the service that we need.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide some reassurance that the new franchises will begin to deliver the investment that is critical to the service, and that they will improve commuter services in north London and across the city. I am aware that other areas have even more intractable difficulties than north London, but we all seek a service that is fit for our constituents in the 21st century.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate. He and I have worked closely on commuting issues in the Sutton area. I should say how much I enjoy my Wednesday morning assignments with the Minister, and, yesterday, I was flattered to learn that the Minister does not allow me to intervene during his statements because he is scared that I might ask a difficult question. I hope that he did not tell me that in confidence.

My hon. Friend was right to highlight the role of the previous Conservative Administration in setting such abysmally low standards for the rail industry, in their desperation to privatise it. I spoke to a civil servant who was involved in that process, and he told me that he worked until 3 o'clock in the morning, trying to cobble together—he did not use that phrase, but that was my impression of the process—amendments that would be acceptable to hon. Members, so desperate were the Government to get the measure through. My hon. Friend also referred at some length to Connex and the Connex-GoVia franchise negotiations. In addition to those issues, we should consider where responsibility for rail services in London lies and examine the wider franchise negotiation process and the role of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority and the recently announced 10-year transport plan.

Londoners could be forgiven for thinking that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is Mr. Big for rail services. He has taken on a gargantuan transport job and has responsibility for the tube, the buses, Croydon tramlink, the docklands light railway and the roads; in fact, he has responsibility for everything except the railways. The provision of rail services in London remains the responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority, and the hon. Gentleman will have to be satisfied with being consulted on related matters. There must be a question over whether the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with such an arrangement. His response to the Government's 10-year transport plan, which featured prominently on the front page of the Evening Standard, does not augur well for his relationship with the Government and the impact that that could have on attempts to sort out London's rail service problems.

I hope that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will be up to the job of sorting out London's rail services. In recent years, debates about transport in London have tended to focus on the tube; it has a high profile, and many of the proposals for its development are controversial. However, large swathes of London—my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam—do not have tube services and local commuters, including me, are entirely dependent on suburban rail services to get to and from London.

As hon. Members will know, passenger numbers on London's suburban rail network have increased by 26 per cent. in the period to 1998–99. My own experience in the past 12 months confirms that that figure continues to rise. Rail travel in London accounts for a massive 38 per cent. of rail travel in the country as a whole. According to the Government's own figures, demand will grow by a further 15 per cent. by 2010, which presents an enormous challenge for the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. In London, the immediate task must be to bring to a successful conclusion the round of rail franchise negotiations. They must be transparent, and there must be extensive consultation with passenger groups, unions, individual commuters, train operating companies and Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend and I are also included in the category of individual commuters, in that we both rely on Connex to get us to and from Westminster each day.

Through the rail question time meeting to which I referred, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I took what steps we could to inject a degree of public input into the franchise negotiation process. The meeting was well attended, and it was particularly pleasing to discover that Connex and GoVia took it seriously. The acting managing director of Connex, Olivier Brousse—he is now the managing director—attended the meeting and gave the presentation. We are doing our bit, and those who attended the meeting felt that it was successful and time well spent.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said, yesterday we met Nick Newton, executive director of the Strategic Rail Authority, and Tony De Burgh. We discussed some issues arising from the rail question time meeting, and those relating to the franchise process. Incidentally, the Conservatives have not challenged our comments on the role of the previous Conservative Government in relation to rail services. During the meeting, the view was expressed that low standards were set and the previous Government made no attempt to ensure that, as part of the franchise process, the performance of the worst lines improved to match that of the best. Instead, franchises were established in such a way that new train operating companies continued to deliver the existing level of service, whether good or bad.

At the meeting, I sought clarification on the way which franchise bids are assessed. Certainly, the travelling public will expect the Strategic Rail Authority to set tough minimum standards when evaluating bids. I was assured that the matter is in hand, and I welcome that. Passengers will also want the franchise renegotiation process to address issues such as security, staffing levels, reliability and frequency of trains. The Strategic Rail Authority will be judged on its ability to deliver improvements in those areas.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, Connex South Central has an uphill struggle to meet passenger expectations. The new public performance measure of train operating companies shows that it has a rating of 82.6 per cent. According to the Capital Transport Campaign, that is 4 per cent. less than the previous figure, which makes it the third worst performing train operating company in London. Only Connex South Eastern and South West Trains—which runs a limited service in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend—have worse ratings.

The recent national passenger survey, which was commissioned by the Strategic Rail Authority, showed that London's passengers are far less satisfied with the service provided than passengers in most other parts of Britain.

In London, Connex South Central again fared badly with 33 per cent. of passengers being dissatisfied with the upkeep and repair of trains—the third worst figure in London—and 30 per cent. dissatisfied with the number of seats and the standing room available; that is the second worst figure in London. Passengers need a guarantee that the franchise bidding process will ensure that the situation improves according to a clearly defined, public timetable. That key point was made at our meeting yesterday. Matters could get worse in the short term because the necessary infrastructure projects may have a severe knock-on effect on services. However, if passengers can see clearly that targets have been set and that there is light at the end of the tunnel, I hope that most of them will accept that.

Before the shadow Strategic Rail Authority can award rail franchises, it must put its own house in order. The Capital Transport Campaign recently challenged the methodology by which the shadow Strategic Rail Authority assesses overcrowding on London's trains. The criteria used are lenient. On peak services, if the journey is 20 minutes or less, standing is considered acceptable. In broad terms, it is acceptable by shadow Strategic Rail Authority standards to have one passenger standing for every three seats before the train is classed as overcrowded. Will the Minister tell me whether consideration is being given to finding a definition of overcrowding that is more likely to be recognised as valid by those of us who must endure daily overcrowding?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the hitherto lenient regime. Does he agree that it is best characterised as an operator-centred standard rather than a passenger-centred standard and that, in future, it should be based on the perceptions of passengers rather than the needs of the operator?

I agree entirely. The extent to which train operating companies in the Sutton area and elsewhere are willing to involve passengers in consultative forums and to take on board exactly those concerns will be crucial.

The Capital Transport Campaign stated:

The sSRA is letting train operating companies off the hook by requiring action only when overcrowding taken over all the route groups operated by a particular Train Operating Company exceeds the overcrowding thresholds. This means that TOCs are allowed to operate route groups with excessive overcrowding condoned by the sSRA

because there is an averaging process. The SSRA's latest annual report lists four train operating companies which run overcrowded routes, but the Capital Transport Campaign believe that, if averaging were not allowed, six companies would be running overcrowded services. 1 hope that the Minister will say whether he agrees with the view expressed by the Capital Transport Campaign and what efforts he is making to ensure that a better definition of overcrowding is used. As my hon. Friend identified, trains that "speak their weight" are in the pipeline and will be able to weigh their cargo of passengers. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who is no longer in his place, referred to people travelling in sauna-like conditions and with "speak their weight" trains, the weight in the carriage may reduce significantly during a long journey.

A limited amount of good news came out of our meeting yesterday. "Speak their weight" trains was one aspect, another being the requirement to fit sanders to new rolling stock and to retrofit on to old rolling stock. Given that many parts of London are affected by bad weather or are subject to inclines that trains cannot manage when the weather is wet, such proposals will be welcome.

Yesterday's meeting prompted several interesting questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has referred to what will happen if an existing train operator refuses to relinquish the franchise. What will happen if the existing operator seeks such a high price for being bought out by the successful bidder that the successful bidder walks away from the deal because he is not willing to pay the price?

Given the gross overcrowding on rail services in London, any additional capital or revenue resources available as a result of last week's announcement will be welcome. However, we need significant increases in capacity in the network because of the increased demand that is anticipated. I hope that Crossrail will be built quickly and that Thameslink 2000 can deliver extra capacity. Those schemes must proceed with a degree of care, in that communities might be threatened. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that Southwark is at risk following such proposals and that a public inquiry is taking place at the moment.

Can the Minister guarantee that Crossrail and Thameslink will be delivered and will he outline a timetable for when that will be achieved? The section on transport in London in the 10-year plan suggests that various things might happen given the level of investment that is available and I am sure that hon. Members would want something a little more concrete in respect of what will definitely be delivered. I know that that requires negotiations with the Mayor and the Assembly, but the Minister must know what will be delivered and by what time. The same applies to the upgrade of services into London Victoria, a capacity increase in the Chiltern line and an enhancement of commuter routes from Waterloo.

There are few bigger issues in my mailbag than rail services in London. I am sure that that is the case for all Members of Parliament who represent London consistencies, so I am a little surprised at the attendance at the debate this morning. The 10-year transport plan must generate the extra capacity or it will have failed. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority must ensure that the next generation of franchises delivers consistent improvements in the service or it will have failed, too. It is the Minister's responsibility to reassure us that both the 10-year transport plan and the Strategic Rail Authority will deliver much improved rail services in London.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate. Both he and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) made some interesting points, once they had got over their ideological obsession with the railways and their attacks on my party. However, as a resurgent political party, we are bound to be the focus of attacks.

Rail services are important to the people of London. For the sake of the economy and for people to get around, rail is far more important to the capital than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is therefore necessary to get it right. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, the Library has produced figures to show that 460, 000 people commute to London in the morning peak; that is a lot of people to cope with under the system.

Of the 10 companies providing commuter services to London and operating beyond capacity during peak hours, Thameslink, Connex South Central, South West Trains and Chiltern Railways all exceed the shadow Strategic Rail Authority threshold of 3 per cent. above capacity. There were a total of 610 million journeys on railways in the south-east of England in 1998–99—1.7 million per day. That number has increased substantially, because of privatisation. The railways were built by the private sector and, for most of their history, were run by the private sector. That is the best way to operate railways.

Until the late 1970s, any investment in British Rail beyond £250,000—which represented, for example, the major refurbishment of a station—had to go to the Secretary of State for Transport. That is no way to run a railway, especially when the resources were, in many instances, competing with hospitals, schools and many other areas that I suspect have a higher priority with the British public. What the previous Government did was a step in the right direction; if there is any argument about it, it is about whether they should have done it earlier. Doing it very late in 18 years of office yielded precious little political dividend for my party. Although it will benefit the country, privatisation did not benefit my party in 1997.

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's thinking about the benefits of the fragmentation of the railway industry. At what point does he believe benefits will arise? Have they started to arise, or will it be some years before they do?

I believe that benefits have started to arise, but I think that it will be a slow job. Inevitably, there were some mistakes in the way in which the industry was privatised. One could argue that franchises should have been given for longer. Shorter franchises, certainly in the new round of franchises, give an opportunity to improve the deal that the public are getting and may be a blessing in disguise.

The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the franchises should have been longer. Could he confirm also that the standards set for the train operating companies to deliver should have been tougher?

As with all such matters, it is a question of experience. In any move from the state sector to the private sector, one has to include many methods of measurement of performance targets. The benefits have been coming through; more capital has gone into the industry and more people are travelling by train. As a consequence, much of the increase in complaints has come about because people believe that it is now worth complaining—unlike under British Rail.

The hon. Gentleman says that more people are complaining. Is he aware that, in the past few days, Connex has withdrawn the facility for people to e-mail complaints, thereby restricting the way in which people can raise concerns about its service?

I was not aware of that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. I would normally telephone if I had a complaint, rather than e-mail; perhaps that is less common in this modern age.

There are 460, 000 people who come into central London every day; of those, nearly 200, 000 go onto the tube network. As we all know, the tube network suffers greatly from excess capacity and acute overcrowding in many sections, including the Central line between Mile End and Holborn, the Waterloo and City line, the Northern line between London Bridge and Bank, the District line between Fulham Broadway and Earls Court and the Victoria line between Victoria and Green Park. A challenge for the future is to increase investment and capacity within the network.

It is interesting to study what will happen. Railtrack projects that rail travel will increase in the south-east by 36 per cent. The Government's 10-year plan projected an increase in London rail traffic by 15 per cent. over 10 years and, on the underground, by 10 to 20 per cent. There will be significant problems ahead, unless investment in capacity increases. The Government's proposals for congestion charging and workplace car-parking charging will also make matters worse.

I have some questions for the Minister on several points relating, to some extent, to the 10-year plan. The first focuses on his relationship with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), which has been the subject of some comment in the press. The hon. Member for Brent, East wrote an article for the review section of The Independent on 18 July, which was about his negotiations with the Government about capital. He stated:

On this score I am optimistic. Over a series of meetings, Minister for London Keith Hill and I reached broad agreement on the need for a long overdue increase in investment in London's transport system as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

We all heard that everything was sweet and wonderful and that there would be a joint press conference and a nice little piccy, but suddenly it all fell apart. As I understand the situation, £3.2 billion has been allocated to London over three years. In the first year, 2001–02, there will be £218 million, of which £104 million has been allocated to paying for the Jubilee line. The Minister is amiable—most of us get on well with him—so what went wrong in his relationship with the hon. Member for Brent, East? It is significant if a substantial political figure such as the Mayor of London is upset with what the Government are doing in terms of overall transport investment. That has a knock—on effect on rail, as the underground will come under the mayoral authority at some point.

Will the Minister update us on the public-private partnership? When is it likely to be announced? Many people come into London, so the tube is vital. The matter has gone on for some time, so we would like to hear the implications that the PPP will have for investment. We are reasonable, and if the Minister cannot give us details this morning, I hope that he will write to us. I am sure that all hon. Members would be interested.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made a point about Crossrail. Many points in the 10-year plan use "might" and "possible"—it is somewhat airy-fairy. The cost of Crossrail might be £3.5 billion. On page 71, the document claims that there would be the substantial benefit of a 15 per cent. increase in available seats on rail and underground throughout London. When the Government came into power, they dismantled the team at the then Department of Transport that was considering the matter. They have now earmarked some money for work on it, and we want to know whether they are putting their weight behind it. Is there likely to be a start date? What will happen? These points apply also to Thameslink.

The document suggests that the investment could cover

the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) City Airport extension and at least two other tram/guided bus schemes.

Will the Minister give us some idea of when those schemes will start? The plan mentions the

elimination of the backlog of maintenance and renewal work on the Underground through a Public—Private Partnership,

which is designed to improve

the quality of the service.

We need more details of what the Government intend to do. The document also mentions the

completion of Thameslink 2000, with additional capacity at London Bridge.

Would the hon. Gentleman like to ask the Minister whether he will use the opportunity to guarantee that London's passengers will not have to pick up the difference if the PPP costs are not entirely covered?

I am sure that the Minister heard that comment and will be delighted to answer it.

Having had the 10-year plan with its spin and big announcements of billions of pounds, we need details in relation to rail in London and the underground about how the Government intends to undertake their objectives. As page 72 of the 10-year plan states, the Government wants

a reduction in overcrowding on London commuter rail services to meet the sSRA's current standards.

Will the Minister tell us when they expect to achieve that? The key factor, Mr. Winterton, is that rail is important for London.—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. McWilliam; you must have very quiet feet.

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying that I creep about the place.

Certainly not, Mr. McWilliam.

The debate has been useful and it is a pity that more hon. Members have not taken the opportunity to attend because many of them must have mailbags full of complaints on the matter. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) raised an important point about crime and fear. If we want more people to use the public transport network—especially women, children and families—a lot more must be done to give them a feeling of well—being so that they feel comfortable travelling late at night. CCTV is one method by which that can be achieved. However, staffing levels in stations are an important factor. They would be expensive to improve, but we will have to take a view about whether we should invest in more security. In the long term, that investment would pay off.

I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to answer the few questions that I have asked. We need more details from the Government before we can judge whether they will achieve some of their targets.

We have had four interesting speeches in this morning's debate, raising several questions to which I will attempt to respond. However, I must first congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate and providing the House with another opportunity to discuss rail services in London.

The scale and complexity of London's transport system, coupled with the high levels of demand, mean that transport problems in London are of a different magnitude from those in other metropolitan areas and constitute a huge challenge to the people who attempt to solve them. London is provided with commuter services by 10 out of the 25 train operating companies: Chiltern. Connex South Eastern, Connex South Central, South West Trains, Thames Trains, Thameslink, Silverlink Trains, West Anglia Great Northern, c2c—formerly known as the London, Tilbury and Southend railway—and First Great Eastern.

Better to assess the performance of those companies and other train operating companies, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has introduced an improved public performance measure, known as PPM. That measure, for the first time, combines figures for punctuality and reliability into a single performance measure, which covers all scheduled services, seven days a week, with no exclusions. That will give a clearer picture of how train operators are performing, and remove the loopholes in the previous system, such as the use of void days. I hope that that provides my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) with the assurances that he was seeking about the proper monitoring of train operators' performance in service delivery.

In his usual assiduous fashion, my hon. Friend raised two other issues on behalf of his constituents. He mentioned the problem of trains missing stops to make up time. Let me assure him that the situation is being monitored and train-operating services are penalised under the timetable incentives regime. The provision exists, and I recommend that he pursues the question of the performance of his local service and asks whether such penalties have been levied.

My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of security on stations and trains. As one of its commitments at the February 1999 national rail summit, the Association of Train Operating Companies guaranteed to provide closed-circuit television in a significant number of stations and station car parks. That it has done over the past 18 months. It is planning to introduce more this year and it has also recruited additional security staff at stations and provided a more visible staff presence on board trains. Again, I am pleased to be able to assure my hon. Friend about the response from the train operating companies to the issues that he is raising.

The performance figures based on the new public performance measure for the period April-June 2000 were published on 13 July. The House will be aware that the statistics showed that the overall performance of the majority of train operators fell compared with the equivalent period in the previous year. Of the operators providing commuter services to, from and within London, only the peak services of Chiltern and South West Trains have improved. The Government have made it clear to operators that their performance must improve and, at the rail summit 2000 in May, the industry committed itself to improve performance over the coming year as monitored by the new performance measure, and we expect it to deliver that commitment.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred to overcrowding. As well as punctuality and the reliability of London services, it is clear that overcrowding is regarded by passengers as a key area of concern. The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about it and I can say that the latest figures produced by the SSRA show that passengers experience excessive overcrowding on routes operated by four out of the 10 train companies that serve the capital. Thameslink, Connex South Central, South West Trains and Chiltern all exceeded their peak loading thresholds.

However, Thameslink has more than halved its overcrowding levels compared with 1998 by leasing additional rolling stock from other operators to meet peak-hour demand. As for other operators, South West Trains is currently introducing new rolling stock; Chiltern has ordered 19 additional coaches, 10 of which are due to be in service later this summer and Connex South Central has ordered 120 coaches. Further improvements are clearly necessary, however, and the provision of adequate capacity to meet customer demand is a fundamental requirement in the franchise replacement process that is currently under way.

Will the Minister give way?

Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish what I was about to say? It might satisfy his voracious appetite for information.

Earlier this year, the franchising director stated in his outline guide to franchise replacement that the current upper and lower capacity limit will be replaced by a single demand limit, which will reflect the capabilities of the trains and infrastructure. There will also be regular surveys to show satisfaction ratings for each company with penalties for those companies that fall behind benchmark levels. I hope that I have gone some way towards anticipating the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but if he still wants to intervene, let me say that, notwithstanding his earlier remarks, my door is always open.

I thank the Minister. I am pleased to hear that his door is always open and I shall perhaps make use of it in the future. However, he has not said whether he agrees with the Capital Transport Campaign that a further two operators, to all intents and purposes, have exceeded their overcrowding limits.

We are studying the campaign's observations, as we look at any reasonable observation about railway performance. However, I must issue a caution to the hon. Gentleman. I have noticed in these and other matters that he has a slight tendency to act as a conveyer belt for pressure group representations. In all candour, I must say that that if he or his party ever have a sniff of power, it will want to look more carefully at what demands are reasonable and deliverable.

One other matter that I raised in my opening remarks related to the introduction of the load weighting equipment on trains as part of the refranchising process. I asked whether that would be introduced ahead of franchising or whether it had to be dealt with as part of the refranchising process.

The reason why I have not responded to the hon. Gentleman's point is that I do not know the answer, but I shall pursue the matter and write to him and to other hon. Members.

As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will be aware, following the issuing of instructions and guidance to the franchising director by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister last year, the franchising director is currently seeking to deliver a range of additional improvements by negotiating the replacement of the shorter franchises. A continual increase in performance and in customer satisfaction will be key requirements of any replacement.

The franchises that I mentioned earlier for Connex South Central, Chiltern, GNER and South West Trains have been included by the franchising director in the first two batches to be renegotiated. For Connex South Central, the franchising director is currently assessing the detailed bids submitted by Connex Rail and GoVia. For Chiltern, he is similarly assessing bids from M40 Trains and Go-Ahead. There is no fixed time scale within which decisions on those franchises will be reached.

I thought that I detected a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Connex's claim to the new franchise on the part of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. From the serene smile that I see playing about his lips, I gather that that is the case. That is in contrast to the passionate support for Connex's claim from his colleague the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who I thought was the official Liberal Democrat spokesman on rail. It would be helpful to have some clarification of the official policy of the Liberal Democrats on the matter, or are we to deduce that this is another example of the usual Lib-Dem fence sitting?

By way of information, the official Liberal Democrat spokesman on transport is an hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency. I am the official London transport spokesman. Has the Minister not illustrated that the Liberal Democrats are not slaves to the bleeper, as are Labour members?

A good attempt, but it did not quite work. I am amused to discover that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is another Liberal Democrat official spokesman. The hon. Gentleman's party prides itself on its independence of spirit, but it has more Front Benchers and Whips than any other party. However, I must not be seduced into parliamentary jousting.

To get back on-message and to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about any possible changeover, as I have already explained to him in a written answer, the revised template for franchise agreements produced by the franchising director offers improved provisions for the smooth transfer at the end of the franchise. It goes without saying that the Government and the Strategic Rail Authority will take all possible steps to protect the rail customer in the event of any such changeover.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there would be any penalty regime for Connex before 2003. The Transport Bill will provide enhanced enforcement powers to ensure timely and effective action if franchise commitments are not met. I hope that that further reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way, but I have much more to say and little time in which to say it, so let us make the exchange brief.

I am grateful to the Minister. As a champion of my constituents and commuters, rather than as an advocate for GoVia or Connex in the franchise round, does the Minister agree that the important thing is to secure a smooth and speedy transition between the old and new franchises and to go into the new regime of penalties and incentives to get a better performance out of the new company?

I certainly agree that any changeover should be as smooth as possible. Clearly, I am not in a position to comment on the issue of speed, but all of us are looking for significant improvements from the franchise replacement renegotiation process in the delivery of rail services, not only in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman but in my constituency of Streatham, both of which are served by Connex South Central.

Four bids for the South West Trains franchise have been received. The franchising director will consider them and provide a shortlist giving detailed proposals, which he hopes to announce shortly. Two counter-parties remain in the on-going bidding process for the Great North Eastern Railway east coast franchise.

The Thameslink franchise will be subject to renegotiation in due course. The negotiations will take into account the proposed plans for a Thameslink 2000 project, currently the subject of a Transport and Works Act 1992 inquiry, and the proposed award of a replacement for the existing Connex South Central franchise. On 26 June, the franchising director announced that he had invited potential operators to submit proposals for a new Thameslink 2000 franchise.

In all cases and in consultation with other bodies such as the British Railways Board, local authorities and regional planning bodies, the franchising director will evaluate the proposals made by the counter-parties and will take into account the various costs and benefits before reaching his decision. I can assure the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that the franchising director will decide entirely objectively.

In the time remaining to me, I would like to bring the Chamber and, via the debate, the residents of Sutton and Cheam, up to date on positive developments with regard to stations in that area. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam raised the issue in debate only two months ago. There is good news; I am sure that we would all wish to rejoice together where there is good news. I am happy to inform the Chamber that, after lengthy delays, the extensive redevelopment of Sutton station has started and is expected to be complete by the end of the year, when it will be fully accessible for disabled passengers.

The £2.9 million regeneration programme is a joint partnership between Connex and the London Borough of Sutton. It will include new waiting areas in key locations, spacious new toilet facilities with wheelchair access, glass-fronted lifts for improved personal safety, closed circuit television, and improved lighting and customer information screens. I understand that Connex customers are being kept informed of progress by way of posters and fliers.

Work has now recommenced at Cheam station as part of Railtrack's regeneration programme, which will include reglazing the station canopies and repainting and refurbishing the station subways. Additional closed circuit television has been installed in the past two months. Connex will be carrying out further works, including reopening the waiting rooms and toilets, opening a small refreshment and newspaper outlet, supplying additional staff in the afternoons and evenings and opening a staffed information point on the London-bound platform. The work is due to be completed by November this year. I have asked the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to monitor progress at both stations. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.

I could respond in some detail to the speech made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), the official Opposition spokesman and my old jousting partner. I know that he is a reasonable man, but he will surely agree that the privatisation of the railways, masterminded by the Conservative party, led to a fragmented mish-mash of 100 or so companies working in a strategic vacuum with a predominant culture of blame. The customer was clearly not being put first.

To reverse that change in the short term, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister called the first national rail summit in February 1999, when he put the industry on notice that its various parts would either sink or swim together. It is generally accepted that that message got through. For the longer term, the Strategic Rail Authority, under Sir Alastair Morton, was created in shadow form to give the railways the strategic direction that they lacked, to invest in the railway network and to bring together plans for freight traffic. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the Transport Bill, which has just had its Second Reading in the other place, will create the proper Strategic Rail Authority.

We have achieved much in the railway industry during the three years since the general election. I believe that the policy framework is right and that, with the 10-year plan, we have secured the investment necessary for the future growth of the railways, reversing decades of decline. Among our achievements, I would single out a 17 per cent. increase in rail passenger journeys, with 1, 300 more trains running daily to meet demand; more than double the investment in the railway industry; the rescuing of the channel tunnel rail link; the improvement of nearly 2,000 stations and the building of 17 new stations; the creation of 50 new freight terminals; a 22 per cent. increase in the movement of freight by rail; and the replacement of the old slam-door stock at latest by 2003, with the requirement that all new rolling stock should be accessible to disabled people. We need no lessons from the Opposition on how to run a railway. We are greeting the new millennium with a real rail renaissance.

I shall speak briefly about London and the 10-year plan—[Interruption.] I do not have time to give way, and I have been reasonably generous in allowing interventions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will be aware of the extra Government investment heralded by the launch of our 10-year plan. The plan is designed to reduce congestion, improve integration and provide a wider choice of quicker, safer and more reliable travel on our railways, roads and other public transport. It is a significant milestone on the way to realising our transport policy, and it is relevant to today's debate.

During the next 10 years, we expect to see capital investment in the railways of about £49 billion, of which £34 billion is expected to be private investment. That will have a significant impact on rail services in London. As well as helping to deliver rail franchise replacements, which will lead to the upgrading of services out of Victoria station, increases in capacity for the Chiltern line and the enhancement of commuter routes out of Waterloo station, that extra money could deliver also the completion of the Thameslink 2000 project, extra capacity at London Bridge and the construction of the east London line extensions.

That investment could also help to deliver a new east-west rail link, such as Crossrail, delivering an increase of up to 15 per cent. in the total number of rail and underground seats into central London during the morning peak hours, as well as new east Thames road and rail crossings. In addition, the plan provides for preparatory work on longer-term projects, such as a possible Wimbledon-Hackney rail link, and improving the surface access to London's airports.

Allied to infrastructure enhancements, about £7 billion of the £49 billion is expected to be invested in new and replacement rolling stock. That forecast takes into account expected growth in the railways over the next 10 years and known orders placed by train companies. It also assumes that replacement of existing rolling stock will continue during the second half of the 10-year plan period.

Everyone acknowledges that not all the challenges that the rail industry faces can be solved overnight. There are large loans to sustain and long-term investment is required to upgrade infrastructure and rolling stock, to cater for the continued growth that is forecast and to ensure that sufficient additional capacity is not only planned but provided in the longer term. That is true for rail services across the board. I am delighted about the continued success of franchise renegotiation—

Order. Time is up.

This may seem to many to be a boring subject, but the impact of the Government's policy on council pension deficits has potentially serious consequences for my constituents, who rely on borough council services. In Swindon there is a £14 million deficit in the pension fund, and that has a twofold impact on the council's revenue funds. The council is obliged to restore the £14 million deficit over a number of years and must also make up for the reduced investment income resulting from it. Both those shortfalls must be covered by revenue funds. That will cost Swindon residents £4.3 million next year. That sum will not be available to provide much-needed services.

The council has done everything to balance budgets and to ensure that reliance on one-off moneys is limited and reserves are reasonable. It has embraced the Government's best value regime and rightly wants to provide the best service possible for the residents of Swindon. However, it is in an increasingly difficult position. It is pushed by central Government into passporting the annual financial settlement into specific services, such as education, without regard to the pressures on it. Those pressures are, principally, the deficit in the pension fund and increasing demands for service from an expanding population, but there are also increasing needs, for example in the fire service. Those are not allowed for fully in the council's standard spending assessment.

Dealing with the pressures that I have outlined is particularly frustrating for a borough council such as Swindon, whose own resources contain the potential to improve things. Government approval is needed for that to happen. To emphasise the importance of what I am explaining, I shall briefly outline the state of affairs in Swindon. The annual financial settlement from central Government continues to underestimate—although by less than the Tories did, so there have been some improvements under a Labour Government—the levels of demand for community care packages for the elderly. There are also pressures from the people of Swindon for developments such as new libraries and concert facilities, which would entail associated revenue costs. Although the Labour Government have given more funds to Swindon than any Tory Government did, that has not saved any of the council's departments from the necessity of making difficult decisions.

Of particular concern to my constituents have been decisions to close, for economic reasons, schools that were much valued by their local communities and provided unique facilities and support for students; the closure of elderly people's day centres; the threatened closure of centres for people with disabilities; and possible changes affecting transport tokens for elderly people. From my surgeries I can identify ways in which more council spending would greatly expand services and opportunities for my constituents. I should like, for example, more education opportunities, an expanded home help service and more services for those with disabilities. For the environment, I should like greater opportunities to tackle graffiti, more recycling and a larger budget for road safety maintenance. The Government has undoubtedly done more than previous Governments in all those respects, but some needs are still unmet. Unless the problem of the pension fund deficit can be solved, the borough council will continue to be frustrated in its aim of achieving the best that it can with its resources.

The council is keen to meet the demand for service improvements and has the resources to tackle at least some of the needs that I have identified, but is restrained from doing so by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions rules. Those rules do not apply to the Government. "Prudent for a purpose" is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's expression, and that is right. The Government use money to reduce deficits, to release further money for public services. I ask the Department to allow Swindon borough council to he prudent for a purpose, too.

I know that Ministers are used to Members of Parliament placing special emphasis on the needs in their areas and on the need for more Government support for local government finance. I am asking for the council to be allowed to solve the problem using its own resources. It has rightly reviewed its assets and sold those that are surplus to requirements, and those capital receipts could be used to pay off the deficit on the pension fund and release much-needed revenue funds for the services that my constituents desire and deserve.

That would exactly follow the policy adopted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in dealing with the deficit left by years of economic mismanagement by the Tories. I know that Ministers are wary about creating a precedent that will threaten their public spending figures, but Ipswich city council has been allowed to tackle its pension deficit in this way, and Swindon's case is equally strong.

The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions does not normally allow capital resources to be used to pay off deficits on its pension funds, but in 1997, the Department published on its website guidance notes for requests for capitalisation to allow part of pension deficits to be written off, which stated:

Directions are not normally issued unless the expenditure

(a) is substantial in relation to the authority's revenue for the financial year concerned and was unforeseeable when the budget was adopted; or

(b) cannot be met out of financial reserves but will result in revenue account savings in future years.

Swindon borough council's pension deficit fits those criteria exactly, so I hope to persuade the Minister to allow the council to capitalise the deficit, following similar economic policies adopted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Swindon borough council wants to use prudence for a purpose, that purpose being to deliver better services to the people of Swindon.

The request for capitalisation undoubtedly meets the criterion of being substantial in relation to the authority's revenue budget. The council's expenditure towards the pension fund deficit is £3.5 million this year, compared with a net revenue budget of £143.5 million. There is an expectation of a further £800, 000 increase in contributions as part of next year's budget, making a total of £4.3 million.

If the council had had £3.5 million in 2000–01, those funds could have provided an additional £120 for every primary and secondary school pupil in the town. That would have enabled Swindon to use its own resources to spend at the level of the average unitary authority—although we would still have had one of the 40 worst funded education authorities. Alternatively, the money could have provided 9, 000 hours of much—needed home help services and allowed 300 patients to be discharged from the local Princess Margaret hospital and given more appropriate care, at the same time allowing more people to be treated at the hospital. Those are high priorities for the town.

Anyone who has been associated with local government will know that 3 per cent. of the borough's revenue budgets represents a substantial sum. Using those revenue funds for the pension deficit is having a serious impact on other services.

The next question concerns whether the scale of the problem that we have in Swindon was foreseeable. Clearly, it was not. The problem did not arise because of any lack of planning or poor management by the council, but was entirely due to factors beyond the council's control. The deficit was far greater than anticipated when Swindon borough council became a unitary authority. The actual deficit was calculated by outside actuaries over whom the council, quite properly, had no control. In its shadow unitary form, the council based all its assumptions on the 1995 valuation, which was the most recent valuation at the time. That carried the expectation that contribution rates would peak at 1998–99 levels before declining.

However, the figures arising from the subsequent 1998 revaluation, after the council had become a unitary authority, were alarmingly worse, and were not formally notified to the council until January 1999. By that time, the budget planning process for 1999–2000 was largely settled. The borough council had no choice but to make reductions in its plans for service budgets. Those included lower expenditure on schools than the council would have wished. Although more was spent on social services, due to an expanding population and increasing needs, there had to be a tightening of the eligibility criteria for community care packages, a reduction in home care support and the closure of residential beds. It is thus clear that the deficit was not foreseen.

One might ask why the deficit was so large. There were several reasons for the worsening contribution rate. When the borough council came into being as a unitary authority, the split of total liabilities on the fund for the former county services, such as social services and libraries, meant that Swindon's share of Wiltshire's deficit rose from £18 million in 1995 to £40 million in 1998. That would have been impossible for the council to predict before the 1998 actuarial revaluation and those massive numbers show the problem that this is creating for Swindon.

Had Swindon remained a district council, the pension fund would have needed to cover fewer staff, and the deficit would have been smaller and—although still a great problem—easier for the council to manage within its own resources. The council also had to deal with the unforeseen abolition of advance corporation tax credits in the 1997 budget. Although I understand the importance of that for the wider economy, I know that the Government recognise that the abolition has an impact on pension funds. However, it is of particular relevance here that the abolition causes additional pressure for those councils struggling from a deficit position. The final reason why the deficit was unforeseeable was that the level of early retirements triggered by the local government reorganisation in 1997 was higher than expected.

There were, therefore, many reasons why the level of contributions was not foreseeable: previous actuarial valuations were over-optimistic; new revaluations were not notified until late in the budget cycle; the unforeseen split of liabilities on former county services was way in excess of the council's best estimates at the preparatory stage; advance corporation tax credits were abolished; and the levels of early retirement were higher than expected.

Although the Government might argue that better estimates might have solved one or two of the problems that cannot be said for them all. Many compelling, compounding factors have produced a convincing case that the contributions were not foreseeable by the borough council. I have made it clear that the deficit cannot be met from revenue budgets or reserves alone, without further revenue account savings in future years. The demands are increasing.

It seems entirely reasonable that the council should be allowed to sort out this problem using its own resources. It seems unreasonable that my constituents will be prevented from having access to home helps, better education and adaptations to their homes—for those with disabilities—because the Government refuse to help Swindon in this way. This situation was unforeseen, and it is about local people tackling local problems using their own resources. I ask the Government to reconsider the issue and to help my constituents in this way.

I believe that there is a clear case for the whole £40 million problem to be solved with a capitalisation direction. However, if that is impossible, let no one say that the borough council and I are not prepared to discuss the situation to see whether we can reach a compromise. If the Government really believe that using £40 million of Swindon borough's own funds in this way will challenge public expenditure targets or create too great a precedent, I am willing to take to the council a proposal to phase the capitalisation direction over two or three years. Indeed, the indications are that the council and the director of finance would positively welcome that sort of approach.

Assistance should be provided to help Swindon to help itself. Short of handing over a few million pounds to Swindon borough council every year, this is the biggest contribution that the Government could make to improving local services in Swindon, and I hope that the Minister will tell us today that she is willing to help my constituents in this way.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) for raising the subject of local government pension funds. I agree with her that it is an important subject, and well worth discussing. This debate will give me the opportunity to explain some of the important issues involved—some of which she may not have mentioned in her speech—and to set the record straight on some of her other contentions. It may be helpful if I begin by explaining how the local government pension scheme works, and the Government's role. I shall then deal with the specific problem of Swindon and its possible solution.

The local government pension scheme in England and Wales is a single pension scheme providing the same benefit structure for all local government employees, no matter where they work. It is open to anyone employed in local government, and recent changes allow access to the scheme for contractors who win bids to provide outsourced services. That has been a great benefit, and is an important factor in maintaining the stability of a pension scheme. It can help to prevent premature maturing of the scheme, whereby a small number of employees supports a growing number of pensioners. In turn, that can lead to higher employer costs, which is perhaps a significant issue.

The scheme is divided into 89 separate funds that are administered by county councils, London boroughs or, in those parts of the country that were reorganised in the 1980s and 1990s, a lead district council. The funds vary in size from £180 million to £6.5 billion. In total, they are worth about £75 billion and account for about 10 per cent. of all funds held by occupational schemes in the UK, so it is clear that this is a big issue for local government and potential pensioners.

Importantly, administration and management are handled locally, and due regard is given to the requirements in the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1997 and the 1998 regulations on investment and management of funds. The Secretary of State's role respects the right and capacity of local government to manage its finances prudently and securely. The regulations do not prescribe but create a framework whereby, for investment purposes, risk must be spread and properly managed, without reducing the ability to maximise investment returns.

In setting employer contribution rates for councils such as Swindon, there is some flexibility, subject to due regard for long-term reasonableness and the cost implications of decisions. Rates should be set so that wild fluctuations are avoided and what is affordable is contributed. By and large, and despite criticisms from elsewhere, local government has demonstrated proper regard for the cost implications of meeting pension liabilities.

Because it is recognised that the nature of local government is entirely different from private sector companies that run their own occupational pension schemes, the local government pension scheme was, and remains, exempted from the minimum funding requirements in the Pensions Act 1995. The statutory framework, with separate provisions to control management and investment of funds, and a requirement for three-yearly actuarial valuations at which contributions are set, has also been recognised as an important way in which to create the necessary stability. When taken together, and properly managed within the disciplined framework of local government finance regulation, the provisions ensure the on-going solvency of funds. In turn, that covers those areas that gave rise to concerns about impropriety, with which the 1995 Act deals.

In the long term, there has been a high degree of stability in employers' contribution rates, in line with the statutory requirement that, in respect of the desirability of maintaining as constant a rate as possible, employers contribute at a rate that secures solvency. In the long term, local government pension funds have performed as well as or better than the pension industry average. That is a success that local government should rightly be proud of, and for which it should be given due credit. By and large, it has performed very well as a pension fund manager.

The level of contributions is a key issue in explaining the situation in Swindon. The 1997 regulations that govern the scheme contain no requirement that funds should have assets covering 100 per cent. of liabilities. That recognises that liability is a constantly moving target that is affected by, among other things, current and future inflation rates, pay inflation, the age profile of the work force, retirement and so on. Similarly, the value of assets can vary. In the short term, variations can be extreme, but prudent management of pension funds with a view to long-term sustainability smoothes out those peaks and troughs.

However, we recognise that some authorities, as a result of their funding position, are none the less paying high employer contributions. In some instances, as in Swindon and elsewhere, they are paying a rate that is perhaps three times more than what we would regard as the normal, averaged-out rate. I appreciate the concerns of that small number of authorities that face the prospect of having to pay almost a fifth of their pay allocation into the pension fund.

I would like to respond to some of the points made by my hon. Friend about the local government revenue support grant. I do not accept the reasoning that she gave, in explaining the position in Swindon. I can assure her that the Government are fully committed to providing local authorities with the money that they need to fund the vital services that they provide. In the past three years, the Government have increased the grant to local authorities by almost £6.5 billion, an increase of 8.8 per cent. in real terms. In the recent spending review, we announced that, in total, local authorities would benefit from further increases up to 2003–04, the last year covered by the review. Swindon has benefited from those increases, and will continue to do so.

I do not want to give the impression that we have not benefited hugely from the fact that there is now a Labour Government—much more funding has been given to Swindon than was ever given by the Tories—but there are still unmet needs in the town, and I want my hon. Friend to recognise that. As she says, there is a need, in the context of the comprehensive spending review, for more resources for Swindon. However, we could do more from our own resources, and that is what is so frustrating for the council and the town.

I shall get to the second point in a moment. On the first point, I would say that there are pressures on every local authority and on central Government. People in government, at whatever level, have to acknowledge that the job involves making choices between competing priorities, managing resources as efficiently as possible and finding new and better ways to meet the needs of citizens. Other authorities are doing that, and I hope that Swindon will also be able to do that, as it should, in the context of significant increases in its budget.

My hon. Friend spoke about the need for improved services and the council's responsibility to the people of Swindon. The Government have done as much as was possible in three years to improve resources for Swindon and other authorities. It is up to Swindon to apply those resources in the best possible way, to meet the needs of its citizens.

The borough council is asking to be allowed to do just that and to use its resources as efficiently as possible to deliver the best for the town. That is why it is seeking a capitalisation direction.

It is no surprise that Swindon and other authorities in a similar position want to use their capital receipts to reduce their pension fund contributions. To authorities that have made substantial property sales and are in the fortunate position of having sufficient receipts in the bank, that may appear to be the obvious solution. However, authorities may not normally pay capital receipts into pension funds, for good reasons. Receipts from the disposal of capital assets are an important capital resource. They may be used to buy other capital assets, which is the most prudent and beneficial use of such receipts. Receipts may not normally be used to meet any part of an authority's revenue expenditure, including pension fund contributions. There are good macro-economic reasons for that, and other authorities that have managed their budgets well and have paid their contributions from revenue, as they should, may take a dim view if councils such as Swindon are allowed to use the capital resources that they are fortunate enough to have to offset revenue expenditure that they should have met from their revenue budget. Other authorities have done that with careful management. There is an issue concerning not only the wider aspects of public finance and the limitations on public expenditure, which is a legitimate concern of central Government, but equity with other authorities.

Turning to the criteria for allowing capitalisation, we have discretion to permit exceptions to the general rule. We do that by issuing a capitalisation direction to the individual authorities to allow them to use capital for revenue purposes when certain conditions have been met. One is serious financial pressure and, from Swindon's point of view, the size of its deficit is a serious matter. Another criterion is whether the deficit could be said to have been unforeseen. My hon. Friend argued her case carefully and gave a number of reasons why Swindon's deficit was unforeseen, but I do not share her view, because increases in pension fund contributions are generally foreseeable. Authorities may not know exact figures, but they are usually aware of the sort of sums that will be required before they set their budgets. If they act prudently, they should be able to make good estimates of what will be involved, even if they do not have hard information, and act in accordance with those judgments. I am not convinced that Swindon did so.

However, having set the record straight, I have decided that the capitalisation criteria that affect Swindon and some other authorities and were established some time ago should be reviewed to see whether, on a one-off basis—I emphasise that—we can respond in a systematic and defensible way to the situation faced by those authorities, bearing in mind other issues that I have outlined in terms of equity between authorities. That review is now well under way and we are working on a proposal to allow capitalisation of pension fund contributions in a wider range of circumstances than at present. It is important to establish criteria, because we are dealing with public money, and those must take account of the position in local government as a whole rather than responding to one or two difficult cases. It is important to get it right and to consult on the proposals with local government. That is the stage that we have reached.

I must emphasise that we will not allow unrestricted capitalisation of contributions to pension funds. If I change the criteria, I must have a robust model so that that cannot happen, because it would encourage a few imprudent authorities to use that route as a substitute for proper budgeting. I am not prepared to allow that, because it would put at a disadvantage the more responsible authorities that have already made tough decisions to enable them to maintain their pension contributions and to respond to service development.

The criteria must be robust and we must not allow authorities to forget the true cost of using capital resources to meet revenue expenditure. That cost is a reduction in the potential capital investment in their areas. Residents of Swindon will suffer through a direction because that capital will not be available for such uses.

I am sure that my hon. Friend understands my concern. We accept that there is a case for a modest, one-off relaxation of the rules and I hope to be able to announce that shortly after the consultation. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts my argument that we must have a robust model. I am not prepared to allow local authorities to use capital routinely for revenue purposes, even for pension fund contributions.

I thank my hon. Friend. That step forward will be much appreciated by Swindon borough council. It shows that a Labour Government listen and give more money to and support local government. I look forward to a positive outcome for the borough council, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister.

Some of my hon. Friend's earlier remarks almost made me change my mind. However, I am too far down the road, and a serious issue is involved. I hope that we shall deal with the matter satisfactorily and robustly.

I raise an issue, in one of the last Adjournment debates of the Session, that is of enormous interest to my borough of Richmond and to many others, especially in big cities such as London and Manchester. The problem arises from a combination of factors. A large volume of cross—border flow of pupils in schools, which has been facilitated by the Greenwich judgment, has been combined with the absence of recoupment of costs arising from big differentials in standard spending assessment allocations. My estimate, which no one has contradicted, is that the way in which the formula operates in my own small borough effectively costs it about £2.2 million.

The matter has been raised before. A few years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate on the Greenwich judgment, which was responded to by the Minister of State, who was subsequently promoted to Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Although he gave no ground on the Greenwich judgment, he understood that the financial implications were difficult, and in subsequent discussions with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) he undertook to ensure that his officials discussed with borough officials how some of the financing aspects might be dealt with. The conversations petered out with his departure, but it was understood that there was a problem.

Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), whose borough has a similar problem, suggested that recoupment should be included in the Learning and Skills Bill. Perhaps the Minister present today, who dealt with that matter, accepted that there was an issue, but did not believe that that was the proper way to deal with it. Ministers and officials have been sympathetic, but to date the problem has not been followed through. I shall try to set out the arguments in a little more detail in the hope that we can make some progress on the matter.

The problem is the result of three separate developments in education policy, each of which makes sense on its own, but which create considerable anomalies when they interact. The first is the Greenwich judgment. I do not want to use the debate to repeat arguments about the Greenwich judgment. Many of us have made the case for repeal, but we accept that the Government, like the previous Government, will not move on the matter, and there is no point in banging our heads against a brick wall.

However, it is worth reiterating why the matter causes a problem in a borough such as mine, which genuinely believes in the Government's dictum of education, education, education. It spends more than its SSA and attaches great value to local schools. However, local children were passed over for places in especially favoured—not selective, but none the less especially attractive—schools in favour of pupils from outside the borough. That causes enormous resentment, and much of my casework relates to that matter, including extraordinary cases of parents using long tape measures to calculate exactly how close they are to the school compared with people from outside. The key point is authorities' inability to give their own residents preference even when they have paid over the odds in council tax. That anomaly causes resentment. However, I accept that this is not the context in which to pursue that debate.

The second element of policy, which is more directly relevant to today's debate, is the abandonment of recoupment that took place under the previous Government. I am not entirely clear about why that happened—it may have been for administrative as much as political reasons—but it clearly presents a problem when substantial numbers of pupils cross borders. In my case, 40 per cent. of our secondary and 12 per cent. of our primary population come from outside the borough. As 123 per cent. of resident pupils are in local schools, an enormous net receipt of pupils is involved, but that happens mainly as a result of migration from authorities with substantially lower SSAs. Richmond's SSA is £3, 181; Hounslow's is about £500 more than that, at £3, 629; and Wandsworth's is about £1, 000 more, being an inner-city allocation, at £4, 158. That is important, because many of the pupils have substantially greater educational needs than the local population, but they do not bring the money with them to meet those needs.

The evidence is partly anecdotal, but some of it is hard. For example, Wandsworth's primary schools come, I think, 126th out of 150 English authorities in the Government's league table of standard assessment tests at the age of 11. My borough is top, apart from the City of London and the Scilly Isles, which are both small authorities. Primary pupils are coming into our secondary schools far behind in levels of literacy and numeracy. There is nothing wrong with that—pupils as individuals are welcomed into the schools and the teachers accept the challenge of teaching them—but they are not funded appropriately in terms of the SSA formula. The money does not follow the pupils.

In Wandsworth's case, that is compounded by the fact that, for ideological reasons, it has chosen to maximise the use of selection in its system, within the permitted limits. One could argue that authorities such as mine have to pick up some of the problems associated with such a divisive system.

Clearly, migration within boroughs is a common phenomenon. It is a complex, two-way process. My borough exports substantial numbers of Roman Catholic pupils to Catholic schools in the neighbouring borough of Hounslow, and that is welcomed. It does not present a financial problem for Hounslow, as its SSA is higher than ours. The pupils come from primary schools at which they have already achieved, by the age of 11, an exceptional level of attainment. Hounslow has no problem accommodating children from our borough—the problem is entirely a result of migration from low-SSA areas.

There are problems with the Greenwich judgment and the absence of any recoupment. Those two decisions—one legal, one administrative—were made under a previous Government. A third problem arises from decisions made by this Government under what are admirable schemes such as excellence in cities, single regeneration budget schemes and education action zones. I welcome such initiatives but, as the Minister will acknowledge, they are administered according to educational need as defined by borough.

In my borough, we have schools with serious educational problems as a result of taking in a substantial number of pupils from inner-city boroughs nearby, but which are not recognised as eligible for special treatment under the schemes. One school in Richmond Park has 44 per cent. of pupils with free school meals. It has many of the characteristics of an inner-city school, but would not be able to apply for the excellent Government initiatives. In my constituency, Hampton community college is ambitious about raising standards, and has a large number of pupils from Hounslow. Many of them have serious educational needs, but the college struggles with a limited budget to provide remedial education to bring 11 and 12-year-olds up to a good standard. It is not funded appropriately. If schools were judged on their merits, rather than on the basis of borough characteristics, such schools would be in receipt of special funding arrangements.

I shall talk about some of the ways in which the anomalies might be rectified. Like other boroughs in the same position, at present the borough simply has to cope. Essentially, it has to redistribute funds within its school budget, which is about 5 per cent. above SSA, to accommodate the extra problems. The borough is also told that it has to try to find savings from the 15 per cent. of the budget that is not passported to schools. I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are anomalies within the formula.

The 15 per cent. non-passported budget includes such non-bureaucratic items as transport used for special educational needs and the purchase of special educational needs services from the independent sector, as often arises for autistic children. Money that could, at least in theory, be used for special purposes and diverted away from what pejoratively might be called the bureaucracy is used for special educational requirements, and is not divertible in such a way. The scope for redistribution within the existing budget is limited.

What could be done to reform the problem? First, one could reopen the Greenwich judgment, but I do not propose to pursue that line of argument. Secondly, I ask the Minister whether there is any scope for a fresh look at recoupment, although I realise that I am provoking the reply that we do not want yet more paper chasing, in a system that the Government are trying to make more streamlined and less bureaucratic. I understand the administrative reasons why they do not want to reintroduce recoupment. There are anomalies in recoupment because it operates for special needs, not mainstream, pupils. Could we not have a limited system of recoupment where there is an exceptionally high level of cross-border movement of pupils, particularly severe disparities in SSAs, or a combination of the two? Could it not be linked to the Greenwich judgment so that boroughs that wish to take advantage of that judgment to gain access to a neighbouring borough's schools accept the need for recoupment within a geographically limited area? Those are all ways of limiting the scope and the bureaucratic complexity of any arrangement. Will the Minister reflect on whether recoupment can be brought back on the agenda?

The third possibility is whether the Government's new schemes, such as excellence in cities, can be extended to cover specific schools that have problems arising from the arrangements. The criticism is often made of my borough that we are trying to create an enclave of middle-class, professional educational excellence and to keep out underprivileged pupils from other boroughs. That is not the case. The teachers to whom I talk about the issue would welcome a diverse intake and take it as a professional challenge. They are not trying to dodge responsibility for relatively underprivileged pupils but ask only that they should be properly resourced to do that job properly. At present, they are financed entirely on the basis that their intake is indeed a professional, middle-class, largely white population, but that is no longer the case in many schools. It would be enormously helpful if the Government could think of a way of enabling individual schools to access those schemes.

To put that in a wider context, I was shown yesterday the report of a commission that was set up in Islington, which is now ruled by my party. It undertook an imaginative project in collaboration with the Labour opposition, chaired by Professor Tim Brighouse. One of the outcomes of that report is the proposal to adopt a pan-London, rather than just a borough-based, approach to educational under-attainment. I am sure that my own borough would accept that it is truly—not just geographically—part of London and should play a role in raising the standards of London education, providing that it can be integrated within schemes that are rather narrowly focused in financial terms.

My final point—1 hope that I will not exceed my 15 minutes—is whether there is any scope for the Minister to look at SSAs. I know that she has been pressed by low-SSA boroughs such as Gloucestershire and Coventry to examine whether there are grounds for lifting the floor of SSAs. That principle could be applied in London, where there are specific problems. That would not be discriminating in favour of authorities, such as mine, that have to cope with cross-border migration. That may need to be considered. There is a disparity of at least £1, 000 in the SSA between boroughs in outer London, not just in areas such as Richmond but in Hillingdon, Harrow and inner-London boroughs. At the extreme, the disparity can be as much as £2, 000, as between Richmond and Lambeth.

I accept that, on the grounds of social justice, deprived areas must have higher SSAs—that is right in principle and I do not question it—but I question whether it costs £2, 000 more to educate a child at secondary level in Lambeth than in Richmond. Those areas are, after all, in the same pool for recruiting teachers, especially head teachers, and it costs the same amount, for instance, to repair a drainage system in either set of schools. Lambeth and other comparable authorities can access other schemes. Will the Minister consider the disparity between SSAs in outer and inner London? Will she consider raising the SSA for outer London boroughs, bearing in mind the cost problems?

Will the Minister consider the problem that I have described, which I have put in the context of Richmond's needs, but which also applies to other outer boroughs, which have identical problems? Will she give a broad indication of how the Government might ease the problem, and pursue the matter in more detail in her Department?

I acknowledge the sincerity of the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has written to my Department on a number of occasions. The matter under discussion is important to him, in terms of the Greenwich judgment and the financing of the London boroughs. Clearly, I accept that it is an important issue for his constituents. Although the end of term has passed, I want to put on record my appreciation of the work of schools in his constituency during this academic year. 1 hope that next year is also successful for those schools.

The hon. Gentleman raised some important issues, and I shall sum up my answers with a few noes and one or two maybes. Underlying all that, I acknowledge that he has raised some issues that we need to grapple with in the future. However, I fear that I shall sit down in 10 minutes' time without having mapped out a way forward or having left him a happier man than when he arrived in the Chamber. Perhaps we will be able to work out an agenda on which progress can be made during the next couple of years.

The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the Greenwich judgment has been discussed before, and he will know our arguments on the matter. My constituency is on the border with Solihull, so in some ways I share his problems. He painted a picture of parents wanting choices for their children and measuring the number of yards from a particular school with a tape measure. My advice bureau on Friday was full of parents who had done exactly that. I suspect that parents simply want a good school, and not necessarily one that is in their borough. If such a school is just outside the borough, they will not choose one in their own borough. Parents choose a school, in their own borough or elsewhere, because they perceive it as a good school.

The argument about the effects on financing for the borough is for politicians and not parents. The Greenwich judgment was introduced because parents want good schools. Of all the criteria in relation to oversubscription, the use of a boundary, which can be elastic, often does not make sense to individuals who live on either side of the road. It is perhaps not the most appropriate option, and 1 am grateful that the hon. Gentleman did not pursue it too energetically.

On recoupment, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that the previous Government changed it for an administrative reason, not a political one. I do not want to hold out much hope of revisiting it, because of its bureaucratic nature. Clearly, there had to be a number of head counts—of children in the relevant local authority and other local authorities—along with billing and chasing up the money. I have been led to believe, on more than anecdotal evidence, that the amount of paperwork that went from LEA to LEA, in the process of trying to get the money back, was a wonder to behold. Some LEAs had still not received the recoupment five years after they had spent the money. For Richmond, it would be more worrying never to get the money than to get less money on time. Both outcomes are unsatisfactory, but I can understand why the previous Government chose simplicity. I recognise the element of rough justice. The previous Government decided to fund special educational needs children on statement because that was an element of rough justice too far.

A number of issues need to be explored, and the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers may not be as bad as he thinks. Those children who need the most expensive education—that attached to a statement—will receive the costs of the statement; it is not done through the recoupment process. I am not familiar with Richmond and its boundaries, but it is not always true that children in one part of a borough that neighbours another borough share the characteristics of the borough in which they live. One of the reasons why the next borough might be funded more handsomely than Richmond is that, as a whole, it has more children with needs of the type that we are discussing. One can barely tell when one leaves my constituency and enters Solihull, as the housing is alike in both areas. The environment does not change at the boundary as one crosses from borough to borough, but gradually as one moves through the borough. Although the children in the neighbouring borough may get more money, their level of need for education may not be significantly greater than the children in the borough to which they move. The startling figures may not reflect the extra costs according to the need of the child.

The underlying assumption, which the hon. Gentleman is bound to make—and that is not a criticism—is that the SSA reflects a need. I do not believe that it does. That is the area in which there is an element of rough justice. If I thought that the different SSAs in each of the London boroughs represented genuine need, I would be more worried than I am. As he knows, the Green Paper, which will be published at some time during the summer, deals with ways of funding schools and the formula that we use.

I speak with no prior knowledge, because announcements about the formulae have not been made and I do not know sufficiently well the details of the indices of deprivation in the boroughs that the hon. Gentleman has named. However, it may be that, in a new system of funding, the disparity between neighbouring boroughs is not as great as it might be. He suggested levelling up the funding of the worst funded boroughs. I do not know what the Government will decide to do. I suspect that a disparity of funding between neighbouring boroughs, which is hard to justify in terms of deprivation or need, may solve itself to an extent and that Richmond may end up a net gainer. Work that we are doing on SSAs may, coincidentally, help with the problem.

I also have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on the issue of areas of deprivation within areas of relative affluence. That is caused not only by children who may be imported from other boroughs and bring a change in circumstance with them. Some urban and rural areas are simply like that. I have always had sympathy with hon. Members who raise that point, and I hope that we can deal with the problem. In introducing initiatives such as excellence in cities or education action zones, we focused on boroughs that had high numbers of free school meals. Most boroughs that have been part of excellence in cities, which is a popular and successful initiative, have free school meals for 30 per cent. or more. The hon. Gentleman would argue that Richmond's need was greater, and he mentioned that one school had 44 per cent. free school meals. Clearly, if that school was a borough in itself, it would have qualified for excellence in cities in the first round, and not only in the expansion of the scheme.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, when we expanded excellence in cities after the Budget, we extended it to part of a borough in the North West. The borough itself did not qualify for excellence in cities on the basis of free school meals, but part of that borough was hugely disadvantaged. Not only one school, but a collection of six or so secondaries and several primaries—almost a small borough—had a level of need that earned it a place in excellence in cities. In Solihull, which the hon. Gentleman will agree is a fairly affluent borough, there is a pocket in the north called Chelmsley Wood, which has a free school meal rate of more than 30 per cent. in its three secondary schools. Only this week, we were able to work with Solihull to ensure that only that northern part of the borough benefits from some of the initiatives to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Government were right to focus extra attention on the boroughs that need help most and suffer acute deprivation. We can develop the programme to focus on clusters of schools that need extra support, as we want to direct help where it is most needed, when resources allow.

There will be no return to the Greenwich judgment. I do not think that a return to recoupment would be popular with local authorities. It is not that they are not funded—it is merely the way in which the children are counted. Funding is provided for the children who are educated by an authority, rather than simply for the children who live in the area. I point that out so that nobody who reads the Hansard report of this debate will think that children from outside are not funded. The issue in Richmond is that some are underfunded in respect of the relative amount that is provided under the SSA. That does not provide the solution, although help may be at hand as SSAs are reconsidered, which could knock the unfairness out of the system.

I should like also to offer some hope for the future, although I hope that the approach will not be interpreted incorrectly in relation to a specific school getting help next year. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the way in which the Government has rolled out their policies and strategies to help schools in challenging areas. I hope that we will move in the not-too-distant future from helping whole LEAs to helping clusters of schools that are in need. I think that I have offered some alternative routes that do not directly involve the inequity of funding in connection with the movement of children between boroughs. Other Government policies have been established in order to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve—not to fund children in accordance with a notion of an unreal entitlement or by another system that does not reflect reality. We want to fund children, local authorities and schools on the basis of need. As our policies roll out, we may be able to help clusters of more deprived schools in areas of relative affluence.

I hope also that one of the most important aspects of excellence in cities in areas that border Richmond, and from where children are imported, will be to raise standards in schools. I return to my first point: parents want to secure education outside their own borough simply because they perceive that schools are better there. Part of the challenge is to stop that by changing the reality of schools in some of the underperforming areas, and by changing parents' perception—one has to come after the other. When excellence in cities and education action zones are successful, schools in the home boroughs will become higher achieving schools. It is a stated aim of the programme that parents will choose to educate their own children in their own borough because it offers them the standard of education that they want.

This is a genuine issue. Nothing irks parents and local politicians more than feeling that their children get a raw deal from a rough formula—an issue that it is entirely legitimate to raise. During the next few months or years, as our policies roll out and the Green Paper is launched, the hon. Gentleman may want to pursue the matter, either in writing or through other contact. In response, I shall want to ensure that, as far as possible, any new systems that are introduced get rid of the anomalies. However, I hope that he will accept that this is not about revisiting decisions made in the past and building in even more anomalies. It is about rolling out new policies that can address the real need: funding children for what they need, regardless of where they live.

I am very pleased to have secured this debate on pension reform and especially to have this opportunity to set out some of the views of pensioners in my constituency. We expect further changes in pensions policy during the coming months. When they come forward, I hope that the views of pensioners in Northampton, North, as set out in the survey that I have conducted, can be taken into account.

As every Member of Parliament knows, pensions policy is one of the most difficult and controversial areas with which we must deal, and the pensioners' lobby is one of the most determined and persistent. Like every other hon. Member, I have received many letters from pensioners about their difficulties and needs, and I have listened on the doorstep to what pensioners have to say. Most pensioners have thought long and hard about their personal circumstances and the changes introduced by the Government. They often want to talk at length about their experiences and views and explain the various financial pressures and family circumstances that, in some cases, have made their lives in retirement difficult.

Because of the depth of concern and the complexity of the issues raised, colleagues in Northampton, North and I organised a questionnaire survey, designed partly for pensioners but also for people of working age, who must prepare for their retirement, because we wanted to know what they thought the Government should be doing about pensions. The results give some insights into pensioners' views of the reforms that have been introduced to date, and I hope that they will have some input into the shape of future reforms. Above all, the results give a clear picture of the depth of concern among pensioners in my constituency.

On Monday and Tuesday, we sent out the questionnaires, and on Wednesday they started to come back. On Thursday, we received a deluge of them. I have never experienced such a fast response. People must have sent the completed questionnaires by return of post. In fact, one person was away on holiday and his children faxed him the questionnaire, which was returned within two weeks from Finland. There was obviously considerable interest in ensuring that people had their say. It was also striking that there was a strong consistency of views. People seem to feel strongly on the same issues, and it was difficult to find divisions according to income or gender.

I am sure that it will not surprise my right hon. Friend the Minister when I tell him that the biggest single change that pensioners said that they wanted was a substantial increase in the state pension, although not specifically linked to earnings. Some people did suggest that, but many said that they wanted their pensions to be linked with prices, as they already are, or the cost of living, which is a formulation that Liberal Democrats in Northampton have chosen to use and is, in effect, the same as a link with prices. Some said that they wanted the link to be with European pensions or, in one particularly ambitious case, MPs' salaries and allowances. For the most part, the need was simply for a substantial rise. That does not mean that all the pensioners were completely hard up. A third described themselves as being very or moderately comfortable.

The anxieties about poverty in retirement were also apparent from the responses from people in work. Bearing it in mind that Northampton has historically high levels of employment and a thriving economy, the biggest single fear that people of working age have about their retirement is of not having enough money. Almost half said that they would have to make major changes in their life style and 17 per cent. said that they worried about being poor.

A link emerged from the survey between financial well being in retirement and having a second pension. Most of the pensioners who said that they were very or moderately comfortable had some form of second pension. Occupational pensions in particular have provided extremely good value and are a success story of pension provision in the UK. It was also clear that women have more restricted access to second pensions. Many women in my constituency work and always have worked—that is not a new phenomenon in Northampton. The lack of access to second pensions is a measure of their low incomes and a glaring hole in current pension provisions, which have not provided properly for people with interrupted career patterns or who work part-time and therefore have very low incomes.

The figures on financial well being also demonstrate the importance of the Government's drive to get more people to take out second pensions, either through the new stakeholder pension or the second state pension. Unfortunately, the restructuring of pensions comes too late to help the present generation of pensioners. I hope that the message will get over about the need for further self-provision by future generations of pensioners. It was interesting that, of the small group of people of working age who responded to the survey—most of the replies came from pensioners—the stakeholder pension ranked joint third with winter fuel payments as the most important measure that the Government had introduced. I was, frankly, surprised that people had even heard of the stakeholder pension as it is not yet in operation and there has not been much advertising of it by the financial services industry.

Once the stakeholder and second state pensions are in place, there will be a huge job to be done to ensure that people take advantage of the new measures and get proper provision for themselves. I hope that efforts will be made to ensure that women make proper independent provision for their retirement so that they are not left alone and struggling financially, especially not when they are older and frailer. I would not underestimate the needs of women pensioners. Many come to see me, often on their own, because they are widowed and do not have adequate provision for their future financial needs. Many also come with their husbands and are cross because, although they have worked all their lives, they have no independent pension arrangements. Having been financially independent, they suddenly find themselves completely dependent. Understandably, they do not like it.

Another of the Government's big reforms is the introduction of the minimum income guarantee designed to boost the incomes of the poorest pensioners. I did not ask people if they received the guarantee: it is new and the picture that I got might not have been relevant. In addition, I wanted to keep detailed questions about finances to a minimum because I found that people tended to respond more readily to surveys if they were not asked for a lot of personal details. The public has clearly latched on to the recent national publicity about the minimum income guarantee. I congratulate the Department on that. The concept is hard to convey, but the publicity seems to have worked.

In the survey, 82.9 per cent. of pensioners said that the guarantee was very important; 11 per cent. said that it was important; and only 6 per cent. were indifferent or said that it was unimportant. Interestingly, those attitudes were virtually the same among more comfortably off pensioners as among those who were struggling. Across the income range, pensioners saw that the policy was relevant to their needs as a group. It was also interesting to see that attitudes were virtually the same among people in work. Whatever the Conservative Opposition's criticisms, the scheme has clearly struck a chord with the public, who see it as meeting the pressing need to provide extra money for the poorest pensioners in society.

I hope that the pensioners tax credit will meet with similar approval. Certainly, it should address the biggest need of so many pensioners in my constituency—the need for more money—and people's biggest fear when they think about retirement: being hard up. The credit should help especially the many pensioners in my constituency who have incomes above the minimum income guarantee level, because they have made personal provision during their working lives, but who do not earn enough to pay tax, and who are struggling and falling into the gaps between the Government's reforms.

The survey also asked about how pensioners wanted to receive their pensions and their attitudes on claiming other benefits. Perhaps not surprisingly, the vast majority said that they still wanted to get their pensions through the post office. That applied both to people on higher incomes and to those who were struggling. However, an increasing number were interested in getting their pensions through the bank. They were also interested in some of the newer ways of claiming benefits, including electronic methods, because those allow greater access and flexibility for people who have difficulty in getting out. I hope that, if the new universal bank proposals are developed, they will meet some of pensioners' needs for dealing with benefits and pensions claims.

The survey asked about the pressures on pensioners, which resulted in quite a big surprise. I had assumed that, since what they wanted most was extra money, the biggest pressure point in their lives would be lack of money. That was not the case; the biggest overall concern was health care, which ranked higher than money pressures. The survey posed separate questions about continuing care and home care. 1 understood the pensioners' concern about health care to relate to the basic NHS primary and acute services.

Two points arise in relation to that part of the survey. First, pensioners who said that they were financially comfortable were more concerned about health care. That perhaps suggests a future increase in demand for health services for pensioners, as the pensioner community becomes more affluent. I am sure that that will happen, in the light of the reforms and new pension structures that are being established. Secondly, the kind of services that pensioners use could become an issue. One area of health care that is especially important to pensioners is orthopaedics. I understand that there is a national shortage of skilled medical staff in orthopaedics, with consequent problems with waiting lists. My constituents consistently face delays of more than 50 weeks for orthopaedic appointments—even initial consultations. That is far too long, especially with the extra resources that are being ploughed into the NHS. Recent incidents have also raised questions about the quality of care for two particular constituents.

If we are genuinely to provide for the needs of people in retirement, health care is a key priority. That is especially true for the services that are particularly important to older people, such as orthopaedics and podiatry—an area that is quite often raided. I realise that that is not within my right hon. Friend the Minister's sphere of responsibility, but if there is to be joined-up government, pensioners' health care needs will have to be considered while their financial needs are being met.

The Conservative Opposition have repeatedly criticised Government initiatives to help pensioners, especially the winter fuel allowance, which they derided as a gimmick, and which they said they would roll into a basic increase. However, my survey showed strong support for the key initiatives for pensioners, especially the winter fuel allowance. That allowance, the minimum income guarantee, the free television licences for pensioners over 85 and free eye tests were all seen as important, or very important, by upwards of 75 per cent. of pensioners. That applied both to pensioners who were more comfortably off and to those who were struggling.

There were some marked difference in attitudes towards the measures, but they occurred more between retired people and those still in work. People who were still in work paid lower regard to the measures. For example, 63 per cent. of pensioners thought that free television licences, which have been much derided, were important and 30 per cent. thought them very important. In contrast, only 37 per cent. of people of working age thought that they were very important; 32 per cent. thought that they were important; 19 per cent. were indifferent to them; and 12 per cent. thought them unimportant.

In the survey, 98 per cent. of pensioners thought winter fuel allowances very important or important. Only 0.5 per cent. of pensioners said that they were unimportant. In fact, a substantial number of pensioners said that they wanted more help with winter fuel costs, and placed that high on their list of policy priorities. I was surprised by some of the results, because I had thought that pensioners would say that the measures are not nearly as important as having the basic state pension. The revelation that that is not so proved to be one of the advantages of conducting the survey.

Pensioners clearly value the measures. They did not make derogatory remarks in the space for comments. Whoever the Conservatives think that they are speaking for in dismissing them as gimmicks, it is not pensioners. The derision with which the Conservatives treat the extra help provided by the Government does not square with the reality of the difference that the initiatives have made to pensioners' lives.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has a copy of the survey, and I hope that he will take those points on board when he considers plans for future pensions policy and reform. I have not explained the whole methodology of the survey, but it was conducted with a reasonable amount of care and gives an accurate picture of the concerns, needs and priorities of pensioners and non-pensioners in my constituency. Pensions policy is vital for the future well-being of my constituents and is a matter that many people overlook until it is too late. In the past, it has served some groups of pensioners well, but it has left many—especially women—in real financial difficulty.

The Government are addressing many of the shortcomings through their reforms. As they do so, I ask them to take note of the needs and concerns of my constituents. The survey provides a snapshot of one community, but I suspect that, if it were repeated elsewhere, the results would be very similar, and that the voices of pensioners in Northampton, North speak for retired people across the country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—first, on securing the debate, secondly, on her speech, and thirdly. and most importantly, on the survey that she has produced. I have had a chance to look at my copy, and I will obviously give it serious consideration.

Ministers are on the receiving end of many pieces of correspondence, some of which say thank you and some of which do not. We see no end of petitions. It is the easiest thing in the world to put a heading on a piece of paper, collect names and addresses and go off to put one's views to the Government. I have done it myself. However, in terms of usefulness, what can a Minister do with a statement with a few hundred or even a few thousand names appended? There is a message, in that people have taken the time to do it, but its impact will be infinitesimal in comparison with a document such as that given to me by my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend said that she had not gone into the details of the survey's methodology, but she clearly explained the range of issues that she covered and people's perceptions of them. She did not try to elicit detailed financial information, because people are reluctant to give it—but they do want to explain how they feel about how things are going. On the basis of my brief look at the survey, it is evident that it is excellent in that respect. It addresses not only the policies of the Department of Social Security but other related matters.

We have made many statements and announcements and have put several new policies into operation. Others remain at the planning stage—for example, the pension credit, which was announced in the Budget and on which we will produce proposals before the autumn statement. We will probably not be able to implement it fully before the next Parliament, because it will require substantial legislation. However, early signals of our intended approach will be given this autumn.

My hon. Friend referred to people's perceptions, especially those of people who are just above the minimum income guarantee limit, have saved for a pension—money that they have put aside with their employer through deferred earnings and tax relief—and can feel quite bitter about being left out of what they see as extra Government assistance. It is important to acknowledge that that perception exists. My hon. Friend said that, on one of the questions, health rated higher than income, because of people's fears about the future.

I cannot pre-empt any Government statement, and I am always reluctant to say that we expect a statement today or tomorrow. I have learnt over the past three years that one has a statement only when one gets it, because its date of issue can sometimes change the night before it is due. However, I am reliably informed that the Government will respond tomorrow to both the royal commission on long-term care and the proposals for NHS reform. Their response should address some of the points raised by my hon. Friend's constituents regarding health care.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the minimum income guarantee, which has been welcomed across the board. We have only just started the take-up campaign—it is by no means finished. The Government's target is to write personally to 2.2 million pensioners—the figure has risen slightly since our original plans were drawn up. We have already contacted just over 400, 000, and in the next few weeks we shall contact a second tranche of 800, 000, of whom 30, 000 a day will be contacted by letter. The television advertisement, featuring Thora Hird and Peter Sallis, is planned to coincide with that.

It is too early to give any indication of feedback, but several thousand pensioners have claimed the minimum income guarantee since the take-up campaign started in earnest on 30 May. The average amount of extra money that they are receiving is well over £10 a week—probably nearer £20 than £10. We hope to produce figures as soon as we have some viable results, but it is too early to do so at present. The campaign will continue until October, and we shall obtain an evaluation of it at that time.

My hon. Friend also mentioned that one of the points in her survey was the issue of perceptions and people at work. I was surprised, as I think she was, at the reference to stakeholder pensions, as there are none on the market. No pension company has yet been regulated to sell stakeholder pensions. They will not be able to register to be a regulated stakeholder pension provider until October. Stakeholder pensions will be marketable and available from April 2001. In the meantime, we have a programme to contact companies employing five or more people, because they will have a legal duty to give their employees access to stakeholder pensions, unless they have provisions that exempt them from so doing, such as occupational pension schemes.

It is good that people are already getting the message that they need the comfort of a second pension. Throughout my hon. Friend's survey, the number of people with occupational pensions, with private pensions and in the state earnings-related pension scheme probably represented the generality of the population. Without those extra pensions, those people would be on the means test and would have a poorer quality of life. That is why we want to move more people into funded second pensions.

To assist with that aim, the Government are planning a large-scale pensions education programme over the winter months, into which my hon. Friend's survey will provide an input. I am not sure of the exact start date, but it will probably be January or February, rather than December. It will be a general pension education programme, and stakeholder pensions will form a small part of it. Companies themselves will market their particular products.

We are in the early stages of planning the pension education programme, in terms of advertisements, key phrases, filming and so on. I shall certainly make sure that my hon. Friend's survey is brought to the attention of our officials and the outside experts who are assisting them. It is crucial to get across to working people in their 20s and 30s the idea that it is important to think about a pension. My hon. Friend has highlighted that point. In that respect, her survey is all the more valuable because it did not concentrate exclusively on today's pensioners. She also thought about tomorrow's pensioners—people of working age—which is excellent, because it gives a more rounded survey.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the position of women. I understand her point. The previous debate in which I took part in Westminster Hall related particularly to women. There is no question but that they have been badly served in the past in terms of pensions. They were badly served by the way in which the national insurance scheme was constructed in 1948, when many women did not go out to work, and by the married women's opt-out. We still hear of women who did not know that paying a shilling meant that they would not receive a pension. I dealt with that during the 1950s and 1960s, when I was a junior manager in industry, and now see the difficulties. I was in the House when the previous Labour Government recognised the problem and decided that everyone in work must pay the full stamp so that they will receive a full pension. That was in the late 1970s, when women who had already opted out could remain opted out and many chose to do so.

Women also suffered with the changes in the state earnings-related pension scheme during the 1980s. It was based initially on the best 20 years of working life, but was later changed to an average throughout working life. Women suffered from the change and we have been unable to right that in our modifications. However, I hope that the legislation on the state second pension will complete its progress through both Houses in about three hours so that it can receive Royal Assent before the end of the week. Benefits will start to accrue in 2002, and it will make a major strike for women, because 2 million carers will start to accrue a pension for the first time. It will take some time, but carers, most of whom are women, will be locked into a system whereby they can accrue a pension in their own right.

My hon. Friend referred to television licences. The provision has been greatly welcomed, by and large, and there will be 100 per cent. take-up by the over-75s. Procedures are in place to ensure that it is as flexible as possible so that all over-75s receive the benefit. The BBC is doing a first-class job in reaching the very people to whom we intend to give the benefit.

My hon. Friend referred to the winter fuel payment. It has been described as a gimmick, but this year it will amount to £150 cash per household, which is a substantial sum compared with what it was when she entered Parliament—it was zero. It cannot be derided, because it is tax free and not means-tested, so there is a massive take-up. It is a useful sum for pensioners, and this year it will be paid to men over 60 as well as to men of pensionable age. It has been attacked as a gimmick, but not too many people have sent it back, and the letters that I have read suggest that it is extremely welcome, as my hon. Friend's survey showed.

My hon. Friend referred to the method of payment. She can reassure her constituents on that. The Prime Minister pledged at the Dispatch Box that people would be able to collect their pension in cash at post offices. That is the Government's policy intention and that is what we shall deliver. The Prime Minister said that we want to give people a choice, and 51 per cent. of those who are becoming pensioners this week have chosen to have their pensions paid through a bank instead of a post office. A lot of planning is required for electronic money transfer, but being able to obtain money in cash through the post office network is taken seriously and we shall deliver on that with programmes for a universal bank and modernisation of post offices. We take second place to no one in wanting to protect the rural post office network.

Perceptions are important, and different figures can be bandied about. The basic pension is not enough to live on and the minimum income guarantee is only a safety net. We must do better than the present level of the minimum income guarantee and we intend to do so as quickly as possible. When we have signalled our proposals for the pension credit later this year, people will see that we are serious about delivering it.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend and I shall ensure that her report is distributed widely throughout the Department of Social Security so that it can be taken fully on board in planning for the issues that we are about to announce. It is a solid contribution to the delivery of a better quality of life for pensioners in this country and I am grateful to her.