I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which I know is in many ways a cross-party one. I know that there will be much consensus about what I am about to say. Many hon. Members have approached me in the past few days, since I won this spot in Westminster Hall, to say that they would be interested in contributing to the debate; several others who unfortunately cannot be here today have also shown an interest in it.

It is widely accepted that illegal drugs are the scourge of modern society. They ruin lives and leave behind not just death, in many instances, but family break-up, and they are one of the major causes of crime not just in this country but throughout the world. Drug-related crime is conservatively estimated to cost the country £2.5 billion—I have heard much higher estimates. Almost two thirds of criminals test positive for one or more drugs.

Drug use among our youngsters is also worrying, although I stress at the outset that the vast majority of young people do not take illegal drugs. There is a perception that it is the norm for anyone under 25 to do so, but it is not. That should be stressed time and time again. However, a recent study by the Alcohol and Health Research Centre confirmed that teenagers from Britain are more likely than are most of their European counterparts to have taken drugs. The report's author, Dr. Martin Plant, said:

"One of the problems we have is that drug taking has now become so commonplace that it is widely regarded as socially acceptable."

The report found cannabis use—that is, the percentage of those who had used it at least once—in Britain to be 35 per cent., in France 35 per cent, in Ireland 32 per cent., in Sweden 8 per cent., and in Greece 8 per cent. So we can see that we have a real problem compared with our European neighbours. The percentages of respondents aged between 16 and 59 in England and Wales reporting the use of cannabis, cocaine and heroin in the British crime surveys of 1994, 1996 and 1998 show an upward trend. Again, we have a real problem: the number of those admitting to taking illegal drugs has increased.

Deaths from hard drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and Ecstasy, have risen dramatically during the past six years. Since 1995, cocaine-related deaths have risen fourfold in England and Wales, while Ecstasy has featured in two and a half times more fatalities. Heroin or morphine-related deaths have risen by 110 per cent. from 357 in 1995 to 754 in 1999.It must be noted that that Office for National Statistics study did not include deaths registered as having been caused by drug overdoses.

Drugs are now commonplace in all parts of our society. More and more companies are testing their employees for drug use. British Airways recently announced that its crews were to face spot tests for drink and drugs—I think that we would all welcome that.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. Does he agree that the taking of hard drugs appears to be getting disproportionately worse in rural areas? The figure for hard drug addicts in Gloucestershire has risen from 28 in 1997 to 112 today. Does he agree that one of the best methods for combating that menace to our society is to have a proper preventive education programme? Only four police officers are dedicated to that task in Gloucestershire. Should not the Government wage war in that respect? Although they have announced a small amount of extra money for the drugs and alcohol action teams, should not they fund more dedicated police officers for a preventive education programme?

Like my hon. Friend, I represent a rural constituency. There is a perception that the drugs problem exists only in big cities and large towns. The Minister will know that that is not the case. There is a drugs problem in rural areas, and because the areas that we represent are so rural and so large, it is difficult to police them. We need to redouble our efforts on prevention, and education is the key. That is how we can get the message across to young people, especially in small rural schools, and we have to do it as early as possible. It is never too early to start.

I welcome the announcement that British Airways is introducing drug testing in the workplace. Doctors and nurses, too, will face random testing for drink and drugs under proposals that are being drawn up by the NHS trusts. The General Medical Council and the majority of medical students back the proposals, although the Royal College of Nursing would prefer the scheme to be voluntary. If we are to be treated by doctors and nurses, we want to know that they are not suffering from the effects of drugs.

Yesterday, we heard that the British Army is reputed to be relaxing its rules against drug use, in order to ease the shortage of recruits. More than 2,300 soldiers have been discharged since drug testing was introduced in 1995. In 1999, 485 soldiers tested positive for illegal drug use. In the last 10 months of last year, 580 tested positive, so the problem is getting worse.

I am most interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Will he extend his enthusiasm for drug testing to tests for legal and illegal drugs on parliamentarians and civil servants?

The hon. Gentleman's views on this issue are widely known and sincerely held. I disagree with him on many points, but I agree that we should consider the possibility of extending drug testing into key areas—for instance to pilots. I should not like to be on an aircraft where I thought that the pilot was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The same would apply if 1 were going into hospital. Drug tests are being used increasingly in many areas of work, particularly where machinery is used. [Interruption.] No, the issue must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I am not going to rule it out, and I am not going to rule it in.

Surely it is a matter of the greatest seriousness if people are inebriated—and their judgement is therefore affected—when they are in charge of a country, in charge of a legislature, or in charge of a foot and mouth outbreak.

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. His suggestion should be looked at, but on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps the Minister will consider it.

The message for new recruits, according to a headline in the Evening Standard, is that the Army seems to be going soft. I am sure that the last thing that the Government would like is to be seen as a soft touch on drugs. I hope that the Minister will refer to this new policy so that we can find out where the Government stand. A record number of British people are being held in jails abroad, which demonstrates that the problem is still with us, and that it is on the increase. We must be vigilant in all areas, including rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has said.

My hon. Friend mentioned education, which is how we can make the greatest inroads. The classroom is an important tool in getting the message across to our youngsters as much as possible. The simple fact that we declare substances illegal does not mean that people will immediately be influenced not to use them. We know that the reverse is often true. The chief rabbi wrote a piece in The Daily Telegraph today along those lines.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me again, especially as I am afraid that I cannot stay for the whole debate, as I am due elsewhere. Does he acknowledge that the Cotswold objective group on the role of drugs and alcohol in crime and disorder recently introduced a good initiative in the form of a needle exchange? Not only did many users come forward, but it was discovered that the youngest user in the first week was as young as 12. Does that suggest that the problem is becoming more serious in rural areas and affecting our youngsters at a younger age? We must pay attention to that.

There is no doubt that people are getting older at a younger age—if that makes any sense; I hope that it is the most illogical statement that I make during the debate. We would all be depressed by the knowledge that people as young as 12 were injecting themselves with illegal drugs. I hope that the support that they receive, in a voluntary or a professional capacity, will be sufficient to wean them off drugs. It is appalling and chilling to think that lives are blighted and wasted before they have even been lived. I shall say a little more about treatment shortly, and I hope that the Minister can respond positively. That 12-year-old should be in the classroom, but I suspect that he rarely visits any classroom, which is absurd. I hope that teachers will receive full support to help and assist that child.

All children and young people have role models. Everyone seems to be dazzled by the glitterati and the soap stars these days. The photograph of Daniella Westbrooke, a former "EastEnders" star, that showed that her nose had been eaten away by cocaine addiction, was one of the most horrifying pictures that I have seen in a national newspaper. I could barely look at it. As most youngsters look towards soap stars as examples that they would like to follow, I suggest that we use that photograph in any advertising campaign. If it cannot put people off snorting cocaine, I do not know what can. I read that she is trying to free herself from her addiction, but, sadly, is regularly relapsing. Few of us understand the pressures of addiction to cocaine and how people free themselves from it. She is certainly no role model for those who look up to people on television, although there are some good role models.

Another celebrity who is no role model is Eminem, about whom there was much publicity when he came here from the United States. There was an investigation following his performance in Manchester, as he was reported to have not only taken drugs on stage in front of 15,000 fans, but encouraged many of them to take Ecstasy and other illegal drugs. I suspect that there were many youngsters, perhaps people as young as 12, in that audience.

I do not know what stage the police investigation has reached. I hope that if it is proven that Eminem, from the stage, encouraged 15,000 fans—some of them may have been children—to take Ecstasy, the Minister will consider the incident seriously and ensure that the information is passed to the Home Secretary and that Eminem is forbidden to come to this country to play here again. It is appalling for someone like that to encourage our young people, who look up to him as a role model, to take drugs. The United States of America has a strong policy on admitting people to the country if they are known to have taken drugs. I hope that we will take an equally hard line and prevent a United States citizen who has so much influence to spread such a message from coming here.

Many others act as role models; I think of Ellen McArthur, Tracey Edwards, Colin Montgomery, Steven Redgrave and David Beckham, who walked out of the Eminem concert with his wife—good on him! He was disgusted by what he saw—Denise Lewis, Tim Henman, Lennox Lewis and Michael Owen also show that young people have many role models.

My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. Does he agree that the courts have a role to play in deterring those dealing in drugs with intent? A teenager in my constituency on his way to a night club recently was found to have 12 Ecstasy pills. That was far too many for his personal consumption, and he was convicted for dealing with intent. He was sentenced to 20 hours. community service. Does that not send totally the wrong message?

Absolutely. It is a joke. Whenever they can, the police put a lot of effort into cracking down on drugs, but for courts to impose such sentences must be morale-sapping for them. I suspect that no hon. Member would want that.

Given that a thousand times as many people are affected by tobacco, and have their lives wrecked and their health destroyed by it, than are affected by cocaine, and that even more are affected by the abuse of alcohol, will the hon. Gentleman set an example by ending the sale of tobacco and cigarettes in his shop in Swansea?

I would be more than happy. I also sell alcohol, so the hon. Gentleman could get me on that as well. However, he knows that we operate within the law on the sale of cigarettes and alcohol, and I would back a Government advertising campaign that spread information about the dangers of drugs. I happen to own a convenience store—

The hon. Gentleman is a drug pusher.

I own a convenience store, and tobacco is one of the many products that we sell. I agree that we need to educate people away from cigarettes and restrict their use of alcohol to a moderate intake. If the Government ever decided to make cigarettes illegal, I would stop selling them immediately. The emphasis is on the Government taking action.

Following that train of thought, we know that alcohol and tobacco are widely used, including by many hon. Members. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when parents have a cigarette or a glass of whisky to help them unwind at the end of the day, they may give their children the message that it is okay to take drugs to relax or unwind, but that the youngsters may then decide to take another drug that is not as dangerous as alcohol or tobacco?

Yes, that may be the perception, but I do not agree with it. Those who have a gin and tonic to unwind at the end of the evening do not do so to get stoned, but people who take cannabis do. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is falling into the trap of thinking that cannabis is not so bad, that it is a drug for younger people to use instead of gin and tonic, and that such drinks are only for the grey set. I totally disagree with her. In a moment, I shall cite what Professor Henry says on the subject, and I hope that she will keep an open mind.

I congratulate our teachers. I have spoken to a number of teachers in Ribble Valley over the past couple of days to find out what work they are doing, not only for children but for parents. I understand that it is now the policy for schools to educate parents in how to recognise whether their children are taking drugs. It cannot be an easy job—they are not skilled in it—and teachers would welcome whatever support can be offered. Teachers certainly appreciate life education. I am a Rotarian, and we do a lot to support life education vehicles throughout the country, which spread the message to young people about all substance abuse—not only drugs, but all substances, including glue, over-consumption of alcohol and cigarette smoking. I congratulate the people involved on what they do. I believe that they now have more than 50 mobile classrooms.

There were mixed messages from the Runciman report. I congratulate the Government and the Home Secretary on standing up against its recommendations on reclassification of some drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has talked about sending the wrong messages. What message would have been conveyed by reclassification of those drugs in a way that made them appear more acceptable?

I congratulated the Government on establishing the post of drugs tsar, which was a good idea. I hope that the drugs tsar will keep his messages straight and clear. There should be as few mixed messages as possible. When he talks about cracking down on hard drugs he must emphasise that it cannot be inferred that he will therefore be relaxed about soft drug consumption.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has presented a seven-point plan on drug taking. There is not time to list those points now, but it is vital to give head teachers the freedom to implement anti-drugs policies in schools and allow them to exclude pupils when they judge it necessary. There should be an emphasis on education. An emphasis in schools on the illegality of drugs will not have the desired impact. They should emphasise drugs' effect on people.

Professor Henry, a toxicologist who sees accident victims in the course of his work in the accident and emergency unit of St. Mary's hospital, wants more research to be done into the long-term effects of taking so-called soft drugs such as cannabis. I urge the Government to re-examine the need for that work. There is a perception that soft drugs, are not as bad as alcohol. Much research has been done in the United States of America, and we should follow suit, as well as sharing information as much as possible.

I welcomed drug testing and treatment orders when they were introduced, but they have not been as successful as they could have been. I believe that the drop-out rate is 50 per cent., which is far too high. I ask that they be re-evaluated, to ascertain how they can be made more effective.

I have received a letter from the Rev. John Garfoot, a Methodist minister in Norfolk, about treatment of addicts. He wants more Government action, and I agree with him. He writes:

"The basic mistake…is that drug misuse is treated as a crime problem not as a health issue. Seizures are commendably up but still massive quantities of illicit drugs are getting through to the streets. Arrest referral schemes are good but the damage is already done. What is needed is to attract into treatment drug misusers before they reach this stage. As it is, the only way many can get treatment is to commit an offence and be arrested. So treatment, treatment, treatment should be the watchword."

I agree.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the doctor whom he mentioned just now has not only been under investigation by the Home Office in the past, but is currently under investigation by the General Medical Council for prescribing high doses of drugs to the most chaotic addicts? If he is banned from practising, hundreds of the most chaotic drug users in London will be released onto the streets. No other doctors will take them up. Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as serious?

I am not aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and I hope that he will have an opportunity to make his own contribution to the debate. We must ensure that people with a problem receive treatment as early as possible. Banging up some of those drug users in prison without treatment is useless. Forcing them to commit crimes to get treatment is the wrong approach. I hope that the Minister will give close attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is chairman of the all-party group on drugs misuse and takes the issue very seriously.

A legal loophole exists with respect to crack cocaine. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it is illegal for the owner or occupier of a property to allow cannabis or opium to be smoked on the premises, but the law does not cover crack cocaine, which had not really been heard of when that Act was introduced. I understand that when raids are made, people need only to throw away the drug and they cannot be touched. Please will the Government look again at that?

I turn finally to drug driving, which is a real problem and is on the increase. As the Minister will be aware, I raised the issue on 5 February during Home Office questions, and I urge the Government to consider a four-point plan. This would include, first, a national campaign to highlight the dangers of driving while under the influence of drugs. That should take the form of a high-profile television and poster campaign. Secondly, the highway code should be redrafted to contain more information on the dangers of drug driving. Learner drivers must be expected to know about the dangers. I have a copy of the section of the highway code that deals with alcohol and drugs, and it is so small as to be almost useless.

Thirdly, it should be compulsory to he asked about the issues surrounding drug driving in the driving theory test, and drivers should not be allowed to progress to their driving test unless they have answered the questions correctly. Fourthly, information should be given out when anyone applies for a driving licence, or with other correspondence sent out by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, telling people about the ill effects of alcohol and drugs.

The four-point plan is straightforward. I know that the RAC wants more to be done about drug driving. Indeed, a letter from the RAC states:

"An estimated eighty-five per cent. of 22—25 year olds believe that their peer group regularly drive after taking drugs. Drug driving could be more prevalent than drink driving within this age range."

The letter continues:

"Unlike alcohol, most respondents attached little social stigma to driving after having taken ecstasy. One respondent described: `No, it's not shunned as such. There isn't anybody I know who'd get into a car with somebody that is drunk, but there is an awful lot of people I know who would get into a car with someone who is on E."'

We must do a lot more. I know that the Home Office recently announced the introduction of roadside tests to find out whether people have taken drugs. I welcome that, as far as it goes, but it seems to go no further than did our attempts to deal with alcohol consumption 20 or 30 years ago. More research is required into effective ways of testing for drugs. Please will the Minister consider the idea of an advertising campaign, and of rewriting the highway code to ensure that it contains much more information about the effects of drug and alcohol consumption on drivers? Will he make certain that the theory test will include questions about alcohol and drug taking, and that anyone who answers those questions incorrectly will fail the test? The problem cannot be over-emphasised.

Someone in my office spoke to the question bank manager at the Driving Standards Agency. He wants the highway code to include more information about drugs, because that would make it possible to question people in more detail about the problems of driving under the influence of drugs or drink. Any action taken by the Government that helps to educate youngsters about the problems of taking drugs will receive full support from the Opposition. We have a common battle to fight, and I want the Government, of whatever political colour, to get on with the job.

There have been two reports on drugs in the past 12 months. There is the "United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's Annual Report 1999/2000", which is vacuous piffle, unscientific, self-admiring and useless. Perhaps that is too generous—I tend to be mealy-mouthed whenever I talk about the drug tsar's report. Then there is another report—"Drugs and the Law: Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971"—which is scientific, authoritative, independent and practical. It was written over two years by a group of policemen and scientists, and it comes up with solutions. The sad thing is that the first report represents the policy both of the Opposition and the Government, and the second does not.

I have listened to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) with some interest. All drugs are damaging, and one should always make one's own position clear. I am a user of drugs— I am devoted to wine and beer, in modest quantities. They add a great deal of pleasure to my life and help me to relax.

Those are both legal.

All drugs are potentially damaging, but they are all part of nature, and gifts from God, to be used in either a detrimental or a beneficial way. On the subject of medicinal drugs, I must repeat that I have never taken an illegal drug in my life—and although I have had arthritis since I was a child, I have not taken any medicinal drugs for the last 25 years, and I do not intend to start doing so.

In considering the drugs problem, it is completely distorted to talk about the harm caused by a small group of illegal drugs and ignore the enormous damage to lives and health caused by legal drugs. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley, as I mentioned earlier, is a purveyor of tobacco and cigarettes, and of alcohol. He might also be a purveyor of medicinal drugs. The number of deaths caused by Ecstasy has been mentioned. Over recent years, the average number of such deaths, which were all terrible tragedies in themselves, and devastating for the families concerned, has been seven. The number of people killed by anti-depressants during every one of the past 10 years is between 400 and 500. More than 1,000 people are killed by analgesics every year, 120,000 by tobacco and 40,000 by alcohol. The costs that follow from all the other problems caused by those drugs are also high.

The hon. Gentleman has outlined the conventional, timid politician's approach, which is inexcusable. We should blame politicians. The hon. Gentleman told a story of failure. The turning point in British drug law was on 27 May 1971. The Misuse of Drugs Act is nearly 30 years old. All the parties agreed about it. The Act started out as Labour legislation and was subsequently taken up by a Tory Government. The result of that legislation—the result of policies the same as those presented by both the Government and the Opposition this morning—has been a 2,000 per cent. increase in drug harm in Britain. We are the worst drug users in Europe. We have more deaths, and they are increasing at a steeper rate, than in any other country in Europe.

For the past 18 months, I have been writing a report for the Council of Europe, as rapporteur for the Committee on social, Health and Family Affairs, which has looked at drug use in 43 countries. There has been a mountainous increase in all drug use in England and Wales—the part of the UK for which there are figures. How dare we, with this record of continuous failure by all Governments, dare to preach at other countries? How dare we reject this independent inquiry, which suggests reforms? Instead of reforming, we fall back on the comfortable, self-admiring report produced in Whitehall, which simply says that we should carry on, appear to do something and throw money at problems. We set up organisations and we create new bureaucracies so as to give an appearance of activity.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned drug education. That is a fascinating subject. There are incontrovertible reports of drug education leading to increased drug use. However, I know of no case, and I would challenge anyone to produce one, in which anti-drug education has led to a reduction in drug use. We used to talk about Operation Charlie.

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point. Does he agree that more sex education has led to more sexual activity among the young, especially the under-age?

indicated dissent.

indicated dissent

That is true, although hon. Members are shaking their heads. That is the effect of the way in which such education is given. If it is merely a damage limitation exercise, which is so often the case with sex education, and, in some cases with drugs education, one will get the result that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) described. However, a genuine drug prevention programme, sustained over a period of time, gives different results, as has been shown in America and elsewhere.

I ask the hon. Lady, as I have asked Governments of both political colours over the years, to give me an example of a scientifically examined anti-drug programme that led to a decline in drug use. Sex education certainly does not have much effect. Most young people in this country have been at it for a long time before sex education arrives in their schools. If we want an example of excellent sex education, we should look to the Netherlands and its remarkably low rate of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. That is the model to follow.

I do not want to take too long, but the hon. Lady should consider what America did in the 1950s, when anti-drugs groups were sent out to tell young people not to do drugs. They told young people that drugs were wicked—which is exactly what young people wanted to hear—and that their parents would not like them to do drugs, which presented them with another challenge. All young people want to do things differently from their parents. The groups also said that drugs were dangerous, but all young people are risk takers and believe that they are immortal. The anti-drugs groups sent out a message that was irresistible to young people, so drug use followed that drugs education programme as surely as night followed day.

There was once something called Operation Charlie, which other hon. Members may want to mention. Again, a tiny piece of drug education that involved 40-odd children for a brief period proved absolutely nothing, but we used it as a basis for our beliefs about what the way out should be. The Government refused to consider the practical policies that have reduced drug harm in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Italy. We should consider fairly what is happening in those countries, which are all moving away from the idea of prohibition, and what is happening in Sweden. Its policy of strict prohibition is similar to Britain's, and drug use there is rising rapidly. Of the 43 countries in the Council of Europe, the two countries with increasing drug problems—although Sweden starts from a low base—are the two most prohibitionist countries. Countries with policies based on intelligence and pragmatism have fewer and reducing problems.

The speech by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was the traditional one that we have heard many times. He referred to the Rev. John Garfoot. I had a case in my constituency of a young man who had reached the point in his life—as many addicts do after a bereavement, the loss of a relationship or another major event—at which he wanted to kick his drug addiction. That feeling does not always last long. Within a fortnight, he might have changed his mind, but when he came to me, he wanted to get off drugs. Could I, as his MP, or anyone else get him on to a course? I could not. I had to tell him that the only practical way of getting on to a course of treatment for his drug addiction was to commit a crime that was serious enough to put him in prison, and he would receive treatment straight away. That is exactly what happened with the son of a woman who bravely went on Radio 2 and said that she wanted her son to live. That is the current position in this land.

We are going down that road because of political cowardice and our failure to face up to the practical ways of helping people. We, as politicians, must take some of the blame. We cannot blame drugs, because they are inert substances, with which mankind can do as it wishes. By refusing to take hard decisions, we in the House are responsible for drug deaths. If present trends continue, there will be at least 1,000 avoidable drug deaths in Britain during the 10 years of the policy in the document, and we will be to blame. We can try to blame drug pushers, but why do they exist?

There is an illegal drug trade, and drugs empires, because we have prohibition. We are following exactly the same policies of prohibition that were followed in America in the 1920s with alcohol, and we are therefore having the same experience. The only way to start to get control of the drug problem and reduce it, instead of increasing it every year, is to collapse the illegal, criminal and irresponsible black market and replace it with a market than can be licensed, controlled, policed and regulated. At present, there is not a child in this country, of almost any age, who cannot get hold of a soft drug. If we had a licensed market on which soft drugs were available, people who sold drugs to children would lose their licences and go out of business.

The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the enormous amount of smuggling in cigarettes and alcohol from the continent to this country that is taking place now. Does he not realise that, if we have the licensed system that he suggests, white van man will come into this country with truckloads of illegal, or licensed, substances, and children would have access to them, too?

Where does the hon. Gentleman think white van man is now? How does he think uncontrollable amounts of drugs are getting into Britain now? The price of heroin has hardly changed in 40 years; there is no problem with the supply of drugs coming into Britain, as there is an open door for drugs. In a legal market there could be some control over the sale of drugs, but there is no control over an illegal market. There are other advantages, too: if people use the drugs legally they can take them without having to mix the soft drug cannabis with the terrible, addictive, killer drug tobacco, which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley sells in great quantities. People could take soft drugs by other means—by eating, by drinking, or through inhalers, for example—which are far safer than smoking. They could also take milder forms of drugs in a market where they were not prohibited.

In the United States under prohibition, the alcohol that was sold was distilled spirit, which was concentrated and easy to transport, but the alcoholic content was difficult to control. In this country now we have drugs and their lethal and addictive products in their most concentrated form. If there was a legal market for cannabis, the situation would be the same as it is in Holland, where people do not set out to get stoned; the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is entirely wrong about that. They have a choice of perhaps a dozen different forms of cannabis that they can smoke, or take in drinks or in a cake. In a legal market, the great majority take the mildest forms of drugs, as most of us drink wine or beer rather than spirits.

The responsibility is on us, as parliamentarians, to look fairly, intelligently and rationally at the drugs problem. The main difficulty is our own political prejudices and our fear of being pilloried as drug pushers by the popular press. It is the job of politicians not to follow what the tabloids tell us, but to give a lead; that is the only way for us to reduce drug harm.

I shall call the party spokespersons no later than 10.30 am. I should be grateful if the remaining two Back Benchers could divide the time left until then between them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing a debate on this important topic. In 1999, when Keith Hellawell published his first annual report, we had a major debate on the subject that took an entire Friday afternoon. I had hoped that that exercise would be repeated last year, and I asked the Leader of the House to secure such a debate, but one was not forthcoming. I hope that the Minister will take note of that, because drug misuse is Britain's number one social problem and all hon. Members should be given the chance to debate the anti-drugs co-ordinator's annual report when it is published.

When the Government took office, we were spending about £1.75 billion annually on tackling the misuse of drugs. Since then, the figure has increased several times, most recently in the March Budget. Will the Minister give us an up-to-date figure on what all the Departments are spending on tackling the issue?

When the Government began their work in 1997, most of that money was spent on enforcement, but little treatment was available for addicts or those who were affected by drugs. Since then, I have pressed the Government to move more closely to the treatment end of the spectrum. I believe that drugs misuse is a health issue with criminal consequences, rather than a criminal issue with health consequences. However, until recently, the increased sums devoted to tackling drugs issues have been spent at the enforcement end of the spectrum, and we have left it rather late to increase treatment provision.

I am worried that people who enter treatment via the Government's enforcement measures will gain preferential treatment over those who have not. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) illustrated that problem with an example. Surely it should be the other way round: those addicted to drugs or who have a drug problem should be able to secure preferential treatment without entering the criminal justice system.

I stress from the outset that I strongly deplore the misuse of all substances, including alcohol and tobacco. Ultimately, however, prohibition will not work. It is a complex issue, and I am pleased that we are able to debate it today. As it is difficult to collect data on such illegal activities, we do not know the scale of the problem. However, I congratulate the Government on devoting more money, which is long overdue, to researching drugs misuse. We must understand what drives people to the brink and how to stop them taking that path. Health and treatment must be available at the time of need.

Last year, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs published a report, "Reducing Drug-Related Deaths", which I recommend to right hon. and hon.

Members. It states that alcohol is responsible for 28,000 to 32,000 deaths per annum, and that smoking kills about 120,000 people per annum. We also know precisely how many deaths—580, in 1998—are caused by paracetamol. Unfortunately, we do not know precisely how many deaths are caused by illegal drugs—or even by legal ones such as methadone, an opiate substitute.

The report provides two figures for deaths by drugs overdose. On page xii, the 1998 figure is quoted at between 1,076 and 2,997, but, on another page in the main body of the report, the figure of 2,300 is given. That illustrates how we do not know the precise number of deaths attributable to drugs. Thousands of deaths are also caused by infection following the injection of drugs as a result of HIV and the hepatitis B and C viruses.

The report refers to the failure of coroners' offices to challenge death certificates signed by doctors before they forward the data to the Office for National Statistics, in London. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking to implement the recommendations of that excellent report?

Page xx of the report states:

"We conclude that the current system for collecting and reporting of drug related deaths in the UK stands in need of considerable amendment and strengthening".

I urge the Government to take note of that advice.

It is not only illegal drugs that cause deaths. The benzodiazepines are responsible for an ever-increasing number of deaths, especially when taken with other drugs such as alcohol. According to the dance magazine Mixmag, which takes a responsible attitude to drugs misuse, GHB—or gamma-hydroxybutyrate—is becoming an increasingly used so-called "recreational drug". If the chemistry is understood, it can be manufactured in the kitchen sink. We do not need to import drugs from abroad on to the dance scene. Irresponsible people—some of whom have had no training in synthetic chemistry—can make them in the garage or at home. We must get across to young people the dangers of using this veterinary anaesthetic, especially at the same time as alcohol consumption, when it can be fatal.

The drug pushers recognise that fashions and drugs change to suit the mood of the day, especially on the dance scene. Unfortunately, "brown and white" has now entered that scene; drug pushers are dangerously mixing brown heroin with white cocaine and pushing it to young people as a new substance without telling them the main constituents. There is therefore a new danger of poly-drug use, which has become a mega-problem in Britain.

Hon. Members might be surprised to learn that, according to coroners' reports, the hotspots for deaths from drug use are Blackpool and the Fylde, Brighton and Hove, inner London north, Lincoln, Peterborough, Norwich, Pembrokeshire and Reading. Some of those towns and cities would not be uppermost in our minds as hotspots of drug misuse and death.

Loss of tolerance to opiates is the principal cause of death, especially for prisoners who have served relatively short sentences. During that time, they may have largely abstained, thus developing a reduced tolerance to the opiates that they were taking before entering prison. Therefore, proper aftercare for prisoners is essential if we are to avoid their deaths through overdose on release. So far, however, aftercare has been fairly pathetic.

We must also consider the impurity of street drugs. When one young person died from one ecstasy tablet, the world lit up with headlines about it. Sadly, last year, when almost 50 people, mainly in the Glasgow, Merseyside and Greater Manchester regions, died from injecting biologically contaminated heroin into muscle tissue, those events were, by comparison, hardly mentioned in the national press. It was a great tragedy that went unnoticed.

I cannot understand why we do not return to the system of positively encouraging heroin addicts to register at clinics and prescribing them clinically pure heroin until we can wean them off it. That happened before 1971, and I urge the Government to re-examine the idea. It would take heroin addicts off the streets and away from the dangerous street heroin, and treat them as people whose health is at risk.

The debate will continue, and I hope that it does so in greater depth than we have time for today, because it is important to talk about social problem number one. The illicit drugs trade is one of the largest industries in the world—larger than steel or automobiles—and represents 8 per cent. of world trade. It is a pyramid selling racket that not only damages our health, but severely damages the economy. No tax is paid to the Government, and most profits leak out of the country to end up offshore.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing such an important debate. The contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) demonstrate the complexity of the issues that are involved. The extent of the problems that we have discussed so far perhaps shows that we should have had the debate on the Floor of the House. Certainly, enough is said about how important and difficult the issue is and how it is one of the greatest challenges that faces our society, but we do not seem to debate it much.

At the risk of encouraging my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West to suggest that I am just reinforcing failure, I will speak about the extent of drug trafficking and dealing in our communities. I recently spoke to the deputy divisional commander in my constituency, who told me that the police estimate that 80 per cent. of crimes of dishonesty—excluding car crimes—in my constituency are committed to fund a drug habit. An article in The Guardian on 10 July 1998 stated that the Office for National Statistics estimated that total consumer spending on drugs in Britain is somewhere between £4.3 billion and £9.9 billion.

Undoubtedly, illegal drugs and their abuse destroy families, lives and communities. One of the greatest obscenities, particularly in some communities in western Scotland, is that criminal dealers flaunt their wealth and power in the communities that they destroy. Throughout the land, individuals with no visible means of support enjoy life styles that belie their legitimate status. Not only does their trade destroy those with whom they live, but they rub people's noses in their manifest wealth—their life style often includes large cars and houses, foreign holidays and ostentatious spending.

There has been a manifest failure to reinforce the message that crime does not pay. The 1998–99 report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland states:

"An important dimension of impacting on drug traffickers… is the money they derive from it. Confiscating their assets is increasingly seen as a vital part of the law enforcement effort. Despite legislative advances and focus by police and the Crown the end results remain disappointing. About £630,000 is the total of orders made and the monies actually collected can be less. This is significantly disproportionate to the money made from crime."

For about 12 years, a substantial body of law, designed to help confiscate the assets of crime, has been in place. It has the stated objectives of punishment: denial of access to funds to resume criminal activities, deterring others and taking criminal money out of circulation—but they are just not working. In Scotland in 1999–2000, confiscation orders amounted to £822,270. To put that into perspective, the report from which I gleaned that information estimates that the current cost of the financial investigation in Scotland by police forces was, in terms of staff alone, £900,000. We are still only reaching the tip of the iceberg, yet we are spending more money than we can ever hope to recover. In 1995, research for the Home Office concluded that as much as £100 million from drug trafficking was likely to be available for confiscation—so why are we so poor at it?

Apart from the underlying philosophy about legislation of illegal drugs, it is clear that the legislation fails because it is possible to confiscate only where there has been a conviction. Even then, the courts are not obliged to confiscate the proceeds of crime; they only "may" do so. That contrasts with the effective use of legislation for civil confiscation and forfeiture in the Republic of Ireland—I had intended to speak in detail about that, but I shall pass over it quickly. The police themselves conclude that in Scotland there is a disparity between forces and their approach to asset confiscation. Senior officers lack commitment to that; it is seen as ancillary to core police work and there is a preconception that criminals have no assets worth recovering.

It is interesting, in the light of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, that agencies—this includes government agencies—do not always work effectively together in sharing information. They are hidebound by legal and procedural constraints that allow the sharing of information and intelligence only in circumstances that prevent, or help to detect, crime, that help to apprehend offenders, or that allow the assessment or collection of duty or tax.

Another report mentioned a case study that is relevant in that regard:

"The police were investigating and ultimately arrested an individual whom they suspected of trafficking in drugs. During the course of the investigation, documents in possession of the Inland Revenue were turned over to the police. These documents revealed that for the past 10 years, the defendant had reported to the Inland Revenue that his earnings rose from his activities as a drug trafficker. Since he always paid a substantial tax Bill, the Inland Revenue did not complain."

There is a lack of general awareness among the community at large of the importance of whistleblowing and suspicious transactions. The evidence suggests that money-laundering legislation works well in the financial service industries. Indeed, there are regularly about 14,000 disclosures per year to the National Criminal Intelligence Service economic crime unit. A straw poll in my constituency of businesses who must trade with people who deal in drugs revealed a total lack of awareness of obligations in that regard. The Government are working on that, and have announced a major initiative in the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill, which will introduce civil confiscation, tighten up on money laundering and implement the second European Union money laundering directive.

In Scotland the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has helped significantly to improve the work of the police in this area, as has the setting up of the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency. There have been additional resources. We must increase awareness both among the public and the business community of their responsibilities. Again at the risk of bringing my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West to his feet, I shall mention the fact that as a consequence of the deaths in the west of Scotland that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East spoke about. our tabloid newspaper, the Daily Record, has run a persistent campaign to empower communities against drug dealers. I unequivocally support that campaign, because communities are being destroyed not just by the presence, but by the activities of those people.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will not on this occasion, as I am concerned about the time.

Finally, there is no reason why we cannot empower our communities to deal with this, but parliamentarians and the Government have an obligation to put in place the framework for a confiscation programme that shows people that crime does not pay.

Before I call the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), may I ask the three party spokespersons to respect the convention of speaking for only 10 minutes each?

At the beginning of the 20th century a professor of physic at Cambridge university wrote in a standard medical text book:

"The sufferer is tremulous and loses his self command, he is subject to fits of agitation and depression. He has a haggard appearance, a renewed dose of the poison gives temporary relief but at the cost of future misery."

The professor was talking about coffee. As the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, no drug, either legal or illegal, is totally harmless. Alcohol and tobacco are responsible for many deaths and the related illnesses put high demands on the NHS. So does tranquilliser addiction. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) gave us some figures for that.

Ideally, none of us would use any kind of drugs except for medicinal purposes, but it is not an ideal world. For reasons of low self-esteem, stress, boredom and unhappiness, many people take drugs to help them to relax, unwind or escape from life's pressures. We have all, I expect, met someone whose life has been blighted by drugs. My father died of cirrhosis of the liver, so I know from close hand the impact that alcohol can have on an individual and on the family. I recently met a 17-year-old who had been involved in crime since the age of six. He started burgling people's houses when he was six because he was small, and the older boys with whom he hung out gave him crack cocaine as a reward. His life has followed a fairly disastrous path ever since. He had written himself off at the age of 17, as having no hope of redemption.

A young man from my constituency was convicted of dealing in Ecstasy at the age of 18. He was a university student and his case may have been similar to that described by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). It was his turn to get the Ecstasy for the others in his flat, and he therefore had more in his possession when the flat was raided than one person would be expected to need or use. He was convicted of dealing and ended up spending two years in Strangeways prison. That obviously has had a major impact on his life. He has not only experienced imprisonment, but acquired a criminal record. A criminal record for drug dealing will affect his ability to travel to other countries for the rest of his life.

There is no argument between us about the fact that drugs of whatever kind are harmful and can damage individuals and society. The big question is what can we do about it. In 1994, the chief constable for West Yorkshire said:

"The current policies are not working. We seize more drugs, we arrest more people. but when you look at the availability of drugs, the use of drugs. the crime committed because of and through people who use drugs, the violence associated with drugs it's on the increase. It can't be working."

That chief constable was Keith Hellawell.

One member of the Conservative party has advocated the legalisation of all drugs as a liberalisation issue, arguing that it should be of personal choice. Many former chief constables support the legalisation of all drugs on the grounds that it would cut off a large income supply from organised crime. Some people say that legalisation of cannabis alone, for example, would send a more credible prevention and education message about the more harmful hard drugs. It would also allow for regulation of the quality of drugs, thus reducing health risks. That is an argument for legalising all drugs. I am surprised by the number of young people who are, say, vegetarians or vegans, and check the labels on every product that they buy in the supermarket, yet will buy tablets in a nightclub. They have no idea of the content or purity of those tablets.

Prohibitionists argue that cannabis is a gateway drug to harder drugs, which are more damaging to society because of the cost of addiction and the associated crime. When I recently visited a drug treatment centre at a prison in Devon, I was shown statistics on gateway drugs. Without exception, all the hard drug users who had gone through the treatment centre had started by smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol when they were very young. Desperation and diminishing returns had encouraged them to move on to harder drugs. Some of them had not even tried cannabis, and only a tiny fraction of the 6 million people in this country who have used cannabis move on to harder drugs. Many drug addicts are also alcohol-dependent; their problem is one of dependency. Because cannabis is illegal, users have to resort to dealers to buy supplies, and of course, it is in the dealer's interest to try to introduce them to harder, more lucrative and addictive drugs. Some people argue that legalisation of cannabis would break that link and, rather than leading to increased hard drug use, would reduce it.

Some people say that cannabis could, in effect, be decriminalised simply by non-enforcement of the law. That already happens in many police force areas. The percentage of people dealt with by cautioning in 1988 was 25 per cent; in 1998, 39 per cent. This is another example of a postcode lottery: in some areas, people are given a caution; in others, they go to court and receive a fine or even risk imprisonment. The Police Foundation report, which was mentioned earlier, recommended that drugs classifications and penalties should be adjusted to reflect current scientific understanding of the relative risks that different drugs pose. I will not go through the report's recommendations; I am sure that hon. Members who are interested in the subject will have examined them. However, Dame Ruth Runciman said:

"We have concluded that the most dangerous message of all is that all drugs are equally dangerous."

Not all drugs are equally dangerous, but all drugs are dangerous to some extent.

Much more needs to be done to provide treatment for people who have an addiction. Other hon. Members mentioned the difficulty of getting treatment. I recently received a letter from a parent in my constituency whose son, a heroin addict, has been committing burglaries to support his habit. The father desperately wanted treatment for his son but was told that the burglary offences were not serious enough for automatic treatment referral. The suggestion was that the son needed to commit some more serious offence.

The lack of residential treatment facilities is a huge problem. People who have been through drug treatment units in prison often need follow-on residential facilities when they leave prison, but those are not there for them.

In my view, prohibition has not kept the number of users down. It uses valuable resources and criminalises large sections of the population. It is time for us, as politicians, to catch up with the debate—we are not leading it; many national newspapers and members of the public are ahead of us—and to stop being politically timid. We must develop an effective drugs policy with the objective of reducing the harm caused to society and individuals by drug misuse of all kinds, whether legal or illegal.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on introducing this interesting debate. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has been as consistent as ever—we expect nothing less—but I must point out, in response to his scathing remarks about education and prevention, that drink—driving education has actually worked. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. lddon) made the point that we should have a full day's debate on drugs. I second that, and also his comments about immediate treatment programmes for all those who need them. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) made a thoughtful contribution, predominantly about drug-related crime.

It is obvious to everyone—this was remarked on earlier—that the Opposition support the Government in their overall policy towards illegal drugs. From time to time, we have made constructive suggestions. For example, we believe that there should be greater emphasis on tackling the supply side. The work of customs officials, National Criminal Intelligence Service personnel and others involved in the struggle to prevent drugs from reaching the United Kingdom should be highly valued, not least because those people are becoming ever more successful in preventing huge shipments from reaching our shores. However, we all know that the amount of drugs that enter the country illicitly continues to cause concern. How can we best ensure that people, especially the young, are aware of the nature of those substances? What can we as a society do to protect the vulnerable from succumbing to peer pressure, and possibly ruining their lives by taking drugs?

In February, the drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell, said that:

"we need to discriminate between different drugs and the relative harm caused."

That is right to an extent, and explains why the Government have concentrated on heroin and other class A substances. However, it would be a fundamental error to ignore class B substances, especially cannabis, for several valid reasons. We all know the cannabis problems that face us at the moment. So many members of the public, especially the young, do not know that the drug has psychological and physical side effects, some of them serious.

The main psychoactive ingredient, THC, has certain psychological effects, which is why there is widespread, so-called recreational use to experience highs, altered states of consciousness characterised by emotional changes such as relaxation, altered perception and heightened sensory experiences. Not many people are told of the possible unpleasant psychological reactions to cannabis intoxication. Evidence supports the occurrence of more serious, although rarer, psychological problems. Dr. Andrew Wilski recently wrote:

"Today in my work as a consultant psychiatrist, I would estimate that 75 per cent. of the young people I see suffering psychotic illness have a history of cannabis abuse".

That is a telling figure.

Cannabis also has a more subtle, universal effect on concentration, memory and co-ordination, which I would have thought was not frightfully good for students. Another concern is the effect of cannabis on psychomotor functions, which has implications for driving, when perceptual accuracy and attention are vital. There are comparisons with intoxicated drivers who cause accidents. That serious problem was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley.

There can also be physical side effects, including increased heart rate, lower blood pressure, damage to the respiratory system and development of lung cancer. There is a 20 to 30-year latency period between the initiation of regular smoking and the development of cancer. Decriminalisation of cannabis will hugely increase the numbers of people who smoke on a regular basis. Thirty years down the track, we will see further lung cancers. THC promotes tumour growth. Well-documented research points out that cannabis can affect fertility, and when used in pregnancy can impair foetal development.

There are also worries that cannabis is a gateway to other drugs. Hon. Members have talked about the serious consequences of the use of hard drugs. Many cannabis users do not go on to use harder drugs—but studies have found links between cannabis and heroin, and I do not think that any user of heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy or other drugs has not begun by using cannabis. One reason advanced for that is that using cannabis puts young people in contact with users and sellers of the drugs, increasing the risk that they will be exposed to, and urged to try, more drugs.

Last February, the drugs tsar and the Minister for the Cabinet Office agreed that the Government should turn a blind eye to soft drugs Now, however, Keith Hellawell appears to have changed his mind. Research in New Zealand found that young people who had smoked a joint once a week were 60 times more likely to take hard drugs in future. As a result of that finding, he stated:

"The pro-legalisers who have said that cannabis isn't a gateway drug will have to look, at this hard and long."

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Forgive me, but because our time is so restricted, I must proceed. Keith Hellawell continued:

"I can say now cannabis is a gateway drug. I have not found any evidence anywhere that cannabis is not harmful, is not carcinogenic or that its usage will not lead to harder drugs."

More than half of all young people have not taken drugs. Of those who do, many resist moving on to other more harmful drugs. We must support those young people, but it is vital that Ministers send out the right message. To support young people, it is important that we have a national campaign. The drug action teams, which were set up to deliver drug treatment and prevention programmes locally, obviously cannot introduce a national campaign, which must be introduced by the Government, the drugs tsar, or a combination of the two. The same constructive message must be reinforced by schools, Churches, parents, people in sport, people in the music and entertainment industry, and any individual or organisation with influence over the young. We need such a sustained campaign, not to preach at our young people but to explain why, in their own best interest, they should stay off drugs, including cannabis.

I for one could never go down the path taken by the Liberal Democrats, or by others in the Chamber who have said that they believe that decriminalisation would solve the problem. I deplore some press statements, and some articles in what I would usually call responsible newspapers. I think it almost impossible that if we decriminalised, we could ever reduce the number of drug users. That point of view is seconded by the deputy administrator of the Drugs Enforcement Agency in the United States, who said:

"Whether all drugs are eventually legalised or not, the practical outcome of legalising even one, like cannabis, is to increase the amount of usage among all drugs. It's been said that you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I invited the hon. Lady to come to the Netherlands. She would find there that decriminalising cannabis, by separating the two markets, has meant that young people can use soft drugs in safer ways and less harmful forms, and not be exposed to the hard drugs market. The result of 20 years of decriminalisation of soft drugs in the Netherlands has been that use has reduced to a fraction of what it is here. Why does the hon. Lady persist in the nonsense of saying that decriminalisation would increase use? It does not.

The hon. Gentleman always makes that point. Of course, more factors than decriminalisation are involved, as he knows. I mentioned, for example, the difference in the number of abortions and single mothers in Holland, and the difference in the number of young people who do not take drugs of any description. That is partly because the family situation in the Netherlands is much more supportive than it is here—in fact, our traditional family has broken down. Other factors involved, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Netherlands is the drugs centre of Europe. There is manufacturing and growing there; we import Ecstasy and other things from the Netherlands.

Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman lived in the outskirts of Amsterdam, he would not like to see the pimping and other activities that feed on the drug taking there. I am sorry, but far more factors bear on the problem in the Netherlands than those that the hon. Gentleman—disingenuously, as always—picked out from his bucket of reasons. I disagree with him. He may be able to live with the consequences of decriminalisation, if it ever happens—but I could never bear to take that risk, and would not want it on my conscience. I believe that many other people in this country feel the same way.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing this debate and thank him for his bipartisan approach to such an important and serious issue, which affects all our communities. As can be seen from the piles of paper under which I am almost buried, it will be impossible for me to answer all the points raised in I he debate, but I will write to hon. Members whose questions I do not have time to deal with.

The emphasis in the debate has varied between the view that this is a health problem with criminal consequences, and the view that it is a criminal problem with health consequences. It is actually both, which is why the Government's policy on drugs has four prongs. First, we intend to provide education to help prevent young people, in particular, from becoming drug users. The second prong is treatment. The third is to cut off the supply of drugs, and the fourth is to protect communities, which are often badly damaged by drugs. I thank hon. Members who have given their support to that approach today.

All communities are affected by drugs. One of the earlier contributions to the debate emphasised that drug abuse is a problem that is increasing more in the countryside than in urban areas. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) for providing some extremely interesting statistics about the areas where unlawful drug taking has the worst consequences. However, the problem is not just rural or just urban; it affects all our communities.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley talked about the Eminem concert. Clearly, I cannot comment on that because the police are investigating the matter. However, it is worth saying—although it is an obvious thing to say—that the law should be applied to everyone equally, whether they are pop stars, footballers or anything else, and whether they are encouraging people to take unlawful drugs or inciting violence against certain groups.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley made the case for his four-point plan to deal with drug driving. He mentioned that he had raised the matter at Home Office questions. I am aware that he has also been in correspondence with Lord Whitty on the matter, and I want to quote briefly from Lord Whitty's letter to the hon. Gentleman, because it deals precisely with the sort of education campaign that he suggested. Lord Whitty wrote:

"The Department is working on the question of an appropriate publicity campaign. One of the key questions for an effective campaign is the precise nature and extent of the problem because all the professional advice we have tells us we would need to target the campaign accordingly (as demonstrated by the success of the drink-driving campaigns). We would need to give positive advice informed by research and for enforcement to be backed up by reliable detection methods. We do not believe that a generalised campaign (or generalised information such as you have suggested) would necessarily reach the right people."

Lord Whitty recognises that there is a problem, but we need to think more about direct use of resources to target the problem. A specific approach, rather than a more generalised campaign, is needed.

The point that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised about the law not covering crack smoking on premises is partially true. The police can take the same action against the owners of crack houses as they would against the owners of pubs and clubs where dealing was encountered. We are considering whether the relevant provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 need to be updated, but in considering whether to extend the scope of the existing offences we are mindful of the concerns of voluntary organisations that work with drug misusers. They are extremely concerned about their own liability to prosecution.

It is possible to become extraordinarily depressed when some hon. Members say that the problem is always growing worse. We have a 10-year strategy, and the targets that we published in the second annual report are being met. In response to the question that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked about young people taking drugs, I must point out—although I do not want to over-emphasise this—that according to research by John Balding, the number of 14 to 15-year-olds who experimented at least once with illegal substances fell to about 26 per cent. in 1998, from 32 per cent. in 1996. That is a glimmer of hope, and although it does not mean that the problem is solved, it is an important statistic.

If there was a common theme or question between those with a belief in liberalising the drugs regime and those who support the bipartisan approach of the two Front Benches, it was that there should be no criminal gateway to treatment for drugs problems. We all agree about that. The Government strategy is aimed at providing treatment for all who need it. The investment in treatment is almost doubling, from £234 million in 2001–02 to £400 million by 2003–04. That was announced as part of the spending review settlement. We are setting up a new National Treatment Agency to bring about a step change in treatment services, based on that major new investment.

I do not want hon. Members to think that we are complacent. The situation is not satisfactory.

Is there any Government research into the effectiveness of different forms of treatment? Are the programmes good value for money, and do they produce the results that the Government want?

I can take this opportunity to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) that programmes are assessed for effectiveness, and that we need to improve our empirical and evidence base on what motivates or drives people to take drugs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who talked about recovering the proceeds of crime, made his points extremely well. The answer to his question is similar to the one that I gave to the hon. Member for Congleton. Several proposals in the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill would undermine criminal markets. We have increased the amount of assets being seized, but it is not sufficient at present. Making the law more effective will satisfy the objectives of one of those four prongs, which is to destroy supply lines and stop people making a profit from the drug market. I do not have time to say more. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley for initiating the debate.

I welcome the opportunity to consider the impact of the Government's policy on families in Scotland. I am surprised that no members of the Scottish National party are here, because the debate is important to the people of Scotland. Opposition Members have condemned measures implemented by the Government because they involve additional regulation, because they do not do enough or because the Government appear to show no ambition. However, the manifestos of the major Opposition parties in the 1997 general election said little about pledging resources to tackle the problems of the poor in Scotland.

The Government have tackled the issue of poverty not only within Scotland and the United Kingdom, but internationally. The concept of the family and the traditional stereotype image of the past have changed dramatically. Whether or not we approve, young men and women are engaging in relationships at an earlier age, and are consciously entering long-term relationships outside the previously conventional marriage model. Although society believes that marriage traditionally creates the best environment in which to raise children, we must recognise unfortunately that it is not always possible. When relationships or marriages break down, policies should be in place to provide parents with a choice of financial and structural support, such as the provision of nursery care and after-school clubs, side by side with the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit. Work should be a real option for parents. It is vital to ensure that children have the best start in life.

A modern Scotland must be designed to meet the needs of children. Scotland should be a place where men and women have opportunity and real choice—the chance to use their talents and realise their potential to the full. I believe that the Government are breaking down the old barriers that for too long have held families back. They are eliminating the stigmatisation of lone parents caused by the language and vocabulary of the previous Government. Indeed, many individuals have suffered deep despair, poverty and lack of opportunity because of the inaction and lack of compassion of successive Tory Governments.

Government policies are benefiting families in Scotland in three ways. First, they are making work pay. Secondly, they offer a renewed, replenished and reformed system of benefits. Thirdly, through increased child care provisions, they offer better opportunities for parents to balance the responsibilities of work and parenthood.

In a memorandum to the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Low Pay Unit argued that the goal of making work pay is as yet unmet by the advanced industrial economies. A key part of the Government's strategy in tackling family poverty must therefore be to make work pay. Nothing crystallises the difference between this Government and the last Tory Government more than the fact that one of the few proclaimed triumphs of the Major Government was the winning of an opt-out from the European social charter. Nothing highlighted more clearly their vindictiveness towards working people than the damage and waste of that Government's final years. Is it not a disgrace that it was considered a triumph that, after 18 years of Tory rule, we had the lowest paid workers working the longest hours in Europe? The Tories denied working people basic employment standards and rights. I would therefore welcome Government measures that would overcome the poverty trap, and ensure that people are rewarded fairly for their endeavours. The Scottish Low Pay Unit welcomes the minimum wage, tax credits and the future tax reforms—potentially radical and progressive steps that demonstrate the Government's intention to put employment and economic policy at the heart of a national anti-poverty strategy.

The minimum wage is one of the Government's greatest achievements. It underpins the system of working tax credits and is tackling the scandal of low pay. It is building fairness and transparency into the work force. Until now Britain has never benefited from a national minimum wage. If we examine history, we can imagine what a future Conservative Government's attitude would be. In the 1970s, wages councils existed to set minimum wages for certain industries, yet the Conservatives abolished them in 1993. The Tories predicted that the national minimum wage would be a disaster. In 1997, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said:

"I think the minimum wage is a truly immoral policy."

It appears that he has now changed his mind. Its success and the increase of the national minimum wage to £4.10 this October tell a different story. The Scottish Local Government Forum against Poverty argues that it is a step along the way towards the goal of good wages for people in work, so that they can be taken out of poverty. The Low Pay Commission report states:

"Employment effects have been broadly neutral and employment among vulnerable groups has grown."

In all, 120,000 people across Scotland, or 6.1 per cent. of the work force, are benefiting from the national minimum wage. It should be noted that the national minimum wage has had the single most beneficial effect on women's incomes since the Equal Pay Act 1970. I also welcome the working families tax credit as a second part of the strategy. The Scottish Council foundation describes the credit as possessing the potential to make a significant impact on tackling in-work poverty. It allows families to keep more of what they earn. It is a crucial element of the strategy to tackle child poverty within a generation.

The old system of family credit had many faults, not the least of which was that, across the UK as a whole, more than half of family credit recipients also had to pay tax. Working families tax credit provides a fillip for moving low earners out of the poverty trap, and its payment through the wage packet makes clear the link between work and greater financial reward. Around twice as many single parent families are benefiting as did under the old family tax credit. Approximately 2,089 working families in my constituency are benefiting from the credit. From this April, they are guaranteed an income of £214 a week for full-time work. From June, the £5 increase will mean that they will effectively receive a minimum hourly rate of £6.40. Reforms to the national insurance scheme have also helped families. For too long, national insurance acted as a barrier to people on welfare who wanted to get into work. The Government have eased the burden by abolishing the entry fee and raising the thresholds.

Targeted cuts in direct taxation for hard-working families are also welcome. It is vital that we build a tax system that is fair for low-paid families; one that allows them to keep more of what they earn. Around 7,740 people who work in my constituency of Hamilton, South are benefiting from the 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax, which has brought the tax to its lowest for more than 70 years.

The introduction of the 10p rate is a further valuable measure towards making work pay. I welcome the £300 above-inflation extension in this month's Budget. That means that the first £1,880 is now taxed at 10p rather than at 22p in the pound. In total, by this April families will have seen a significant fall in the direct tax burden. The burden on a single-earner family on average earnings with two children will be at its lowest since 1972—down from 21.5 per cent. in 1996–97 to 18.6 per cent. this year. By October this year, Scottish households will be, on average, £580 a year better off as a result of all the measures that come into effect this year. Scottish households with children will be £970 a year better off as a result of measures introduced by Parliament as a whole. A single-earner family with two children on average earnings of £25,400 will be £520 a year better off in real terms. The same family, on half average earnings, will be £3,000 a year better off in real terms. Families with someone in full-time work will have a guaranteed minimum income of £225 a week or £11,700 a year.

I turn to child support. Child poverty is a disgrace. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, it is a scar on the nation's soul. Every child should have the best possible start in life, and no child should be condemned to poverty. For 20 years, the living standards of families with children fell behind those of families without children, and the rest of the population. Around four years ago, the average income of households with children was about 30 per cent. lower than those without children. Such a situation was totally unacceptable.

I therefore welcome the Government's reforms to child support. A more generous, integrated network of child financial support is being created. Child support for a family on average earnings with two children fell by 5 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1997. It will rise by about 50 per cent. during this Parliament. Labour introduced child benefit in 1977. It failed to rise in real terms during the 1980s and for most of the 1990s, and cruelly it was frozen by the Tories from 1987 to 1990.

The Government have shown that they are committed to the principle of universal child benefit by raising it to its highest ever level in real terms. Child benefit for the eldest child has risen to £15.50 from this April. In 1997, it was only £11.40. Child benefit helps around 8,900 families in my constituency of Hamilton, South. Child benefit for each subsequent child has risen to £10.35. That amounts to an increase in real terms of 26 per cent.

The increase in support for all children of all families has been striking. Combined with the increases in the working families tax credit, financial support for the first child of a family will range from £15.50 to £50 a week. In 1997 the range was between £11.05 and £27.70. Nothing else more clearly highlights the Government's commitment to the eradication of poverty.

The married couples' allowance was a badly targeted measure. It was the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea who began phasing it out, describing it as having "the least on-going justification". Under the Tories, the allowance was cut from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. Martin Barnes, the director of Child Poverty Action Group, last month supported its abolition. He argued that it was

"outdated, discredited and failed to put children first. The best way to recognise marriage through the tax system is to support children."

The Government have been right in reforming the allowance through the introduction of the children's tax credit. The specific aim of that credit is to support children. Again, that is vital in meeting the targets for the eradication of child poverty. The credit will be worth £520 a year for low and middle-income families. Significantly, it is worth more than twice the value—£197 when it was abolished—of the married couples' allowance. Up to 400,000 Scottish families will benefit. The only potential difficulty involves take-up. That is why I welcome the Government's £4.7 million national advertising campaign in anticipation of that.

The baby credit of £20 a week—£1,040 a year—for families in the first year after the birth of a child, is particularly to be welcomed. Families often need additional support at such a time. Martin Barnes argues that the new credit is

"a boost to parents and carers for children."

On child care, I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that the best start in life for children cannot be achieved by financial measures alone. Practical, day-to-day support for parents and children is required. It is vital that the Government's child poverty strategy provides parents with the opportunity for parents to work. I welcome the alliance of parents, communities, professionals and voluntary organisations that is being built to achieve that aim.

Last December, J. K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, spoke to the National Council for One-Parent Families of her struggle in trying to raise a child in poverty. As a single parent, she has spoken of the enormous barriers that she had to overcome in attempting to find part-time work. The same is true of all mothers who wish to work.

One of the biggest obstacles in that area, of course, is child care. Last year, the Scottish Affairs Committee spoke to representatives of the Govan initiative. They stated that problems with child care caused some people not to bother applying for work. In the 18 years when the Tories were in power, fewer than 74,000 child care places were created. I therefore welcome the Government's measures to help people to combine work and parenting, especially the national child care strategy, which aims to ensure that there is good-quality, affordable child care for children throughout Scotland. To target the greatest need, family centres with £42 million extra resources have been developed to support families with children aged three and under.

I welcome the local information services, the national website and the information line that has been set up to give parents accurate information and to help them make informed choices.

The new deal for lone parents has played a valuable part in giving lone parents the opportunity to work. The scheme offers individual help and support; lone parents are helped to overcome the barriers that prevent them from taking a job. Joining is simple; participants can telephone an advisor or visit a job centre. In total, a national network of about 800 personal advisers offers comprehensive help and advice on job search, training, child care, benefits and financial support.

I welcome, too, the enhancement of choices announced in the Budget. The reality is that all parents hold down two jobs—the one that pays the wage and the most important one, raising a healthy, contented, happy and well-adjusted child. This month's Budget has built on these measures; the flat rate of maternity pay rose by almost £15 to £75 in April 2002 and will be £100 the following year. The pay period for maternity pay has been extended from 18 weeks to 26 weeks from 2003; the right to two weeks' paid paternity leave for working fathers from 2003 is paid at the same rate as the statutory maternity rate. The £200 increase and the sure start maternity grant will be paid from April next year.

The changes provide support for all families who need it most when they need it most. They provide an increased choice for women to stay at home and look after children in the crucial first months of life. That is possible only because of the sound economic foundations that the Government have laid. The Chancellor's tough choice in introducing a new economic framework will ensure economic stability for Scottish families in the long term. Those achievements are of great benefit to Scottish families; we have the lowest inflation rate for 30 years and the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years; mortgages average £1,200 a year less than they did under the previous Government. More people are in work than ever before; there is the lowest unemployment since 1975. National debt is down so that much more money can go into public services and to deserving, hard-working families. Living standards are up by 10p in real terms.

The Government are delivering for the people of Scotland; changes in taxation, together with the introduction of targeted credits are rewarding work. New measures to balance the responsibilities of working parenthood are offering new opportunities for employment, boosting the income of families and bringing us closer to the goal of full employment. A new, integrated and seamless system of child support has been built in pursuit of the eradication of child poverty.

The Tories' record is of 18 years of neglect, the two worst recessions since the war, record unemployment, interest rates at 15 per cent., record repossessions, one in five families with no one in work, one in three children growing up in poverty and few rights for hard-working families. If we gave the Tories a chance, that would happen again.

I ask the Minister to recognise three points, and, first, the role of parenting. The nurturing of a child by its own parents is of enormous value and, as the Scottish Poverty Information Unit pointed out to the Scottish Affairs Committee, child care is work. With that in mind, I hope that the Government will examine further steps to ensure that where both parents work, sufficient time is made available for them to spend with their offspring in the vital stages of their development.

Secondly, there should be more recognition of the great diversity of families in Scotland today; the European Commission's 1996 "Guide to Good Practice, Work and Childcare: Implementing the Council Recommendation on Childcare" made the case for arrangements taking account of special circumstances. For example, children with disabilities, may need parents to take more time off, perhaps for hospital appointments. As the Scottish Parenting Forum argues, in rural areas of Scotland, men in particular are self-employed in the fishing and farming industries. The Government might like to examine further ways of providing enhanced provision for such groups.

Adoption is another important issue. I welcome recognition of the need for adoptive parents to spend time at home. The adoption system is vital to the future of many children and it is important that every possible provision is made. The Government might consider placing greater emphasis on the, importance of attachment for adoptive parents. Adopted children are often the most disorientated and in the greatest need of support. The Government should consider giving adoptive parents equal rights to parental leave.

The Government have the vision and the policies to deliver real, tangible improvements to the lives of Scottish families. This Parliament has made a substantial start and, given another term, we would achieve further progress. It is important to recognise the value of the family to society.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing this excellent debate. It is important and timely to examine the impact of UK national policies on Scotland. Some people north of the border—particularly the Scottish National party—are the real enemy of the Scottish people when they pretend that everything that matters now takes place at the Scottish Parliament and that nothing important to Scotland ever happens here in Westminster. They pretend that, until there is an independent Parliament in Scotland, this Parliament can make no difference to the lives of the Scottish people. The reality is that our Parliament has made a significant difference, particularly to families in Scotland.

My hon. Friend referred to statistics, and I have been reading a briefing by the Economic and Social Research Council on the impact of Government policy. The statistical basis runs from 1991 to 1997, which helps us to understand where we came in. Increased deprivation in the family unit was clear during that period. The research showed that single-parent females, as opposed to females in general, were less likely to he in work. In 1997, 3.6 million children were living in poverty. Job-poor people were shown to be income-poor people. The final interesting statistic was that: poverty was not continuous, but a fulcrum. People went from absolute poverty into low-income status and teetered on the edge. If they were lucky, they stayed at low-income level, but most of the time they fell back into absolute poverty, usually because of a break-up of the family unit or one or both parents losing their jobs.

I have not been able to obtain statistics, but public housing was significantly correlated with poverty. People living in public housing saw poverty as the consequence of being unable to struggle into private housing, particularly after a marriage break-up or the main breadwinner's unemployment. In those circumstances, people had to seek public housing. I hope that that problem will be addressed in the future. As a socialist, I regard it as a great indictment that people view public housing as something that they fall into rather than a life style choice.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South said, the Government have addressed these problems, and he referred specifically to child benefit. I shall not provide statistics about my constituency. We could all provide a litany of figures if we wanted to. I have been hammering away through the press, and I hope that my constituents know the facts. General policies are important, and the most significant is the working families tax credit. If job-poor means income-poor and that means deprivation, it is the transition from unemployment to work that matters—and it is now worth while to leave the poverty trap on benefits. The Government have made a significant difference through the working families tax credit, which has been a great success in my constituency.

I am in constant touch with the employment office, which tells me about the numbers of people who, when they work out the figures, realise that taking employment will make them significantly better off. The minimum wage has been a significant factor. They are no longer being offered £1.50 per hour as cleaners, but a minimum of £3.80 per hour and £4.10 per hour after the latest rise. The Scottish nationalists said that we were continuing with Conservative policies and we could not possibly introduce the minimum wage—but we brought it in. They then complained that it was too low and that it should be £4, not £3.80, and we made that increase too. The last item on my tick list for the minimum wage is the introduction of the adult wage from the age of 18. If people wish to be treated as adult workers, they should be paid an adult wage. I am sure that many hon. Members here today went into work before the age of 18 and expected to earn a man's wage by the time they reached 18. I hope that we will bring that in.

We are talking about getting people into work. Job-poor means income-poor and the Government have tackled that with the new deal. The figure in 1997 was burned into my mind: 513 young people under the age of 26 in my constituency had been unemployed for six months or more. In October 2000, the figure was 47. When 500 young people who are hanging around street corners go into work, it changes the atmosphere of a town. When I go around Grangemouth and Bo'ness people tell me about the difference that has made. Under the Tories, parents would tell me that they could not get their sons out of bed because they had no purpose. There were no jobs and they had given up. Those parents now tell me that their sons have an apprenticeship with BP, are working for Zeneca or Syngenta or have a job in some other part of the economy.

There is a change in the way that mothers and young people react. There is no more walking out of the house in anger because of feelings of frustration. Young people have returned to live in the family home because they have a job and can make a contribution. They have a bit of pride. The Government have found that generation who were lost by the Tories. They should be recognised as having done a great deal for them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South mentioned child benefit. The significant change in child benefit is important to many families in my constituency. It affects thousands of people. People receiving child benefit for a first child who also receive the working families tax credit can now have an income of over £50 per week more than when the Government came to office. That is very significant. I also commend the Government for introducing the baby tax credit. In those first years when incomes and family arrangements are usually dislocated, that extra money will not be just £10 a week, through the family tax credit, but £20 a week. However, not even spending £4 million on advertising will do enough to make everyone take up that benefit. People will still ask why they are not getting their £10 when they have forgotten to apply. Employers should ensure that all their employees put in their forms so that they receive the £10 from 1 April.

The final group that I want to mention is pensioners. In a sense I will do some recanting here, which I fully admit the Government deserve. I gave them stick over the rise last year. I and many others, including the Pensioners' Forum, demanded a link between the increase in earnings and the increase in the pension. With the £200, which is worth £4 a week, and the forthcoming increase of £5 and £8 for pensioners, the Government will have increased the level of the pensioner income by more than the increase in earnings between 1997 and 2001. I called the £200 a gimmick and I demanded on the Floor of the House that pensioners be given a real-terms increase. The Government have now responded to our demands. The fact that pensioners can receive the £200 as part of the new settlement has been welcomed by the pensioners that I meet in the Pensioners' Forum and others. They realise that the Government have delivered an increase in pensions higher than the increase in average earnings from 1997 to 2001.

The last element in the family is the grandparent, who may be a pensioner. When a young parent seeks assistance when the family group is composed of one earner and two children, or a young person seeks first employment, the older members of the family give so much. Our elderly parents helped to give us all a good start. They helped us to achieve a level of earnings and standard of living that was much better than they could had. At last, the Government are delivering for them and have listened to family groups.

Although we will debate the general economy next week, I want to point out that the stability created by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Government is the most important factor in giving the economy a chance to cope. The Tories predicted a crisis if the minimum wage was introduced, and that would have happened had we run the economy in the way that they did. Getting 1 million people back into work, as we have done, would have been a problem had we run the economy as the Conservatives did. The Government have listened to representatives of family groups and given us a stable base on which to deliver policies that have made a significant difference to the lives of families in my constituency and others throughout Scotland.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on securing the debate.

The substantial turnout of my Labour colleagues and the representation of both the Liberal Democrats and Conservative parties demonstrate the importance of this issue to the people of Scotland and its representatives. It is a pity that we do not have time for them all to make a contribution to this debate. Hon. Members will have noticed the absence of the Scottish National party. That shows clearly that they have other priorities. I suspect that if we were discussing the timing of a ministerial announcement they would be here in numbers, making substantial points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South has comprehensively dealt with many of the direct policies that have been put in place as a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's five successful Budgets to support families. Today, I want to concentrate on what might be termed indirect help for families and how that has impacted on my constituents.

One of the key elements in ensuring that families can enjoy a secure and happy life style is that their family income is stable and assured, and at a level that allows them to make informed and confident decisions about the future. In an area such as Kilmarnock and Loudoun with its persistently high unemployment and the very painful transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, too many families were denied that ability for far too long because they could not find work or, indeed, work that paid more than benefits.

When we came to power in 1997, some 1,135 of my constituents were among those termed as long-term unemployed, and more than 3,000 had no jobs. That is why it was so important that the issue was addressed urgently. It was also important because under the previous Government it had been a matter of policy. In my constituency the response has been successful beyond everyone's wildest dreams. First, we introduced the new deal. I know that our opponents have consistently criticised the new deal, and the official Opposition have made it absolutely clear that they would remove it completely, but since its launch the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds has helped 1,393 of my constituents, and 639 have been found jobs. I would like the official Opposition and the Scottish nationalists to tell those young people who have been able to find independence through the help given by the new deal that it has all been a waste of time, as they have consistently said. I suspect that the response from those young people would be termed in what we may call unparliamentary language.

We are all anxious for young unemployed people to find jobs. If the hon. Gentleman analyses the numbers in his constituency and throughout Scotland, he will discover that the reason why young people are now finding jobs and were not before is not the introduction of the new deal and all its glossy brochures and media spin, but the strength of the economy, which is based on the Conservative policies of the past 10 years.

I thank the hon. Lady for that observation as it gives me an opportunity to give the lie to that argument, as I have done previously. I shall find the statistics, and she can join me in examining them. The statistics for my constituency should be examined not only over the Government's term in office, to consider the effect of their choices in benefiting people, but over the longer term, by which I mean since 1979.

As the hon. Lady will know, there have been several periods of growth during that time, although, unfortunately, because of how her party managed the economy, they were followed by periods of deep recession. The significant factor in respect of long-term and youth unemployment in my constituency is that no one ever benefited from any of the previous periods of growth. In previous periods of growth, either unemployment remained the same or youth unemployment, in particular, increased. It is only because of the intervention of the new deal, in the context of continued growth, that we have been able to tackle that problem. Previously, economic growth managed by the Tories bypassed my constituency and many other constituencies in the west of Scotland—some of my hon. Friends are nodding in agreement. That was because the Government did not care about them. This Government care about the entire country, and deliver for areas such as mine.

It was recognised that the new deal was not enough. Pockets of persistently high unemployment exist in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Minister, and they had to be tackled through special means. That was why we lobbied and were happy that East Ayrshire was one of the pilots for the enormously successful action teams for jobs. In the short time of its existence, Jim Burns and his team at the Employment Service have built an excellent partnership with the local authority, local training providers and local businesses. They have already helped 397 local people in my constituency, and they have found work for 140.

The importance of such a targeted initiative is that it was backed up by real money, given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for people in such areas to be helped out of long-term unemployment and into work. The figures might not seem significant, but in both constituencies in the pilot areas, such targeted help has helped 20 per cent. of those w ho were long-term unemployed and registered for jobseeker's allowance—in six months, they are out of unemployment and into work. That is a sign of how successful such initiatives can be. That is why I was pleased that the Budget included a commitment to extend the action teams over the spending review period and to create more action teams. Whenever I speak to my hon. Friends about the matter, they ask how they can get action teams for their constituencies. I am sure that they will be able to get them soon, because the pilot has been so successful that the scheme is about to be rolled out over the country. I look forward to the benefits of the action team in East Ayrshire being extended to even more of my constituents and those of other hon. Members.

The importance of partnership has also been recognised in the proposal to create local strategic partnerships to create local employment plans. Such an approach has been widely welcomed by Kilmarnock and Loudoun. The East Ayrshire Employment Initiative, of which I am an unpaid director, brought together not only the local authority and representatives of the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments, but representatives of local business and the wider community to provide advice, guidance and support to people who are looking for work. Only last week, I directed a constituent in his late 50s who had been unemployed for more than six years to George Fraser and his team. They will be able to identify for him the barriers to employment, give him the skills to overcome those barriers and, I hope, find him a job in the not-too-distant future.

It is vital that that service remains available to my constituents. The funding and new initiatives provided by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment have done much to ensure that families can look forward to the future with confidence.

Educating our children is as important as supporting them financially, as we have heard from my hon. Friends. Although the delivery of education is a devolved issue, education has benefited directly from the Chancellor's successful management of the economy. The targeted assistance announced in last year's Budget was passed directly to schools by the former Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs in the Scottish Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I digress to express my regret, and that of many other hon. Members, at his decision to retire. We all understand why he plans to retire. He has shown great courage and has made a significant contribution to Scottish public life, which was motivated by a desire to bring people out of poverty. We should congratulate him on that, and we wish him well in the future.

I asked a number of local head teachers what it means to them to receive the direct funds. Stewarton Academy, which is justly renowned for its successful music provision, has embraced new technology. That has included wide area networks with feeder primaries and even contact with National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the United States. The head teacher, Derek Mathieson, told me that some of the funding was used to set up links for a local area network within the school, which will do much to enhance his pupils' education. He was able to make local decisions on spending and to enhance his school's development plan because the local authority and its director, Mr. Mulgrew, embraced the philosophy of the Chancellor to devolve as many decisions as possible to schools. That allows teachers at the chalk face to address the particular educational needs of their pupils.

Similarly, Mrs. Starrs, a teacher at St. Sophia's primary school in Galston, was able to use the funding to improve her school's environment by converting a redundant cloakroom into a workspace that will enhance her pupils' education. Mrs. Maclean, the head teacher at Gargieston primary school, was able to use the funding to secure additional staff.

Such uses of funding are examples of decisions that are taken locally in response to local needs and to the needs of local families. Head teachers and staff work out local development plans and consult the families that they serve. None of that could have occurred without Government guidance from the Chancellor. He has repeated the spending exercise this year, and I hope that the new Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs in the Scottish Executive, Jack McConnell, will repeat the practice of his distinguished predecessor. I know that such an approach will be warmly welcomed in Ayrshire and by head teachers in my constituency.

I turn to assistance for the disabled. Families with disabled members face additional costs over and above those faced by other families. That is why I welcome the disability income guarantee, which comes into force from 1 April, substantial increases in the disabled child premium, and changes to the disability living allowance higher rate mobility component and incapacity benefit, which deliberately target help for the younger disabled. I also welcome proposals on assistance for carers.

I address a specific issue that puts a great strain on the finances of families with disabled members. On Monday, I had the honour of presenting a petition to Parliament bearing more than 2,000 names on behalf of the Kilmarnock forum for the disabled. The forum has been campaigning for more than a year for the winter fuel allowance that is paid to pensioners to be paid to disabled people on medium or high rates of disability living allowance. The campaign co-ordinator of the group, Mrs. Margaret Lees, told me that such disabled people are particularly susceptible to secondary infections brought on by the cold because of their mobility problems, and that some of their conditions are adversely affected by the cold. They have great difficulty getting out of the house during the winter and can run up very large bills in attempting to manage their disability. They require urgent help, and I ask the Minister to give a message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that giving the allowance to such people would be widely welcomed in Kilmarnock and Loudoun by able-bodied people and disabled people alike. Such a change would enhance the Government's reputation for caring for disabled people.

The Government have done much for families in Scotland, both directly and indirectly. However, there is much yet to do, and only the return of this Government will ensure that families in Kilmarnock and Loudoun can continue to benefit from the increasing prosperity of our country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the Government, we have done much, but there is much still to do. That is a fair point. In Anniesland, we have more problems than most when it comes to poverty. The number of jobs has increased by almost 14 per cent. during the Government's time in office, but we remain one of the four worst areas in Scotland for unemployment problems. I ask the Minister to examine the situation, because there are not many employers in the constituency. We need work, particularly in regenerating the Drumchapel area and shopping centre. Young people hang out there, but it has no facilities.

Undoubtedly, there is a link between poverty and crime. Again, my constituency suffers more than most, but what better way is there to reduce resentment than to help those who are worse off to achieve a higher standard of living? We must do that, and I am glad that the Government have identified that need. The Budget recognised that families, and especially children, are important. My hon . Friend the Member for Hamilton, South said that he particularly liked the increases in the working families tax credit, child benefit and children's tax credit, and that they would go a long way to help families. I thoroughly agree. The jobseeker's allowance, which will increase in October, will also help.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has proved again that he is the family's champion by increasing maternity leave from n 18 to 24 weeks. He also announced that we would pay fathers for paternity leave from 2003, which will also go a long way. As a father of three children, my family did not have a lot, particularly when my youngest was born. Any help that could have been given would have been gratefully received. As a parent who has tried to shoulder my share of the responsibility over the years, I know that the increase will go a long way, not only in helping the family in general, but perhaps in showing male members of the family that they have a job to do and must share the commitments.—[Interruption.] I am glad that hon. Members agree.

Not all of them do.

As my hon. Friend says, not all of them do.

The Chancellor also helped small businesses, some of which were complaining that they could not afford the paternity leave. I am glad that small business relief has allowed businesses under the £20,000 threshold to claim back the full amount while, in effect, larger employers reclaim 92 per cent. In 2002, the threshold will double to allow 11,000 businesses per year to qualify, which will mean that 60 per cent. of businesses will pay a lot less than before. That dispels the myth that Labour does not help small businesses; Labour helps businesses and families.

The real challenge is to eradicate child poverty, which will not be done easily or quickly. The Government have at least pledged to try; I wish that the Conservatives had tried so hard when they were in government, instead of appeasing the paymasters. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, abolishing child poverty is a complex problem that needs a multi-dimensional approach. We need to provide a decent income, extra help for those who cannot work. excellent public services, a good education that ensures equal opportunities for all, and voluntary and community sectors working in partnership to deliver best practice. That will not happen overnight, but it epitomises what needs to be done. We must work together in the private and public sectors to help each other. If we could pull people out of poverty, society would be better, and, if society were better, more money would be available. If more money is available, businesses do better, and the whole country does better. I think that the Government are doing their best, and that they can make that happen.

Billions of pounds have been invested in schools, which emphasises our continued policy of putting children first. Added investment in health makes clear our commitment there. The jobless total for Britain has fallen to below 1 million and has greatly improved in Scotland—although Anniesland is, unfortunately, black spot, and I have asked the Minister to examine that.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) for mentioning disability, although he pre-empted the next part of my speech. His points are valid and apply not only to Kilmarnock and Loudoun, but to the whole of Scotland—and even to the whole of Great Britain. I am pleased that under the new deal for disabled people families with severely disabled children will benefit, from next month, by an extra £11.05 for each disabled child. I wish that it were more, and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would do more, but it is a start. I am sure that he will make improvements in years to come.

My colleagues' remarks have shown that the Government are a Government for families. They can go into the next election with pride in their record, and with the expectation of a second term. The alternative does not bear thinking about.

Following on from the speeches of my hon. Friends, I take up the theme that there is much still to do. I thought that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) took the biscuit—as he does, on occasion—by covering every area in which the Government have made improvements to date. Although we have done enough to be proud, and to justify re-election with larger majorities, we must recognise the need to tell people where we intend to go next. We cannot stand still. I want to focus on areas where there is still work to be done.

Unemployment in my constituency has dropped by more than 30 per cent. since the last election, but that drop is smaller than in many constituencies where absolute unemployment was lower to start with. Everybody is rising up, but the constituencies that were at the bottom remain there. If anything, the gap is widening. Glasgow has such concentrated difficulties and deprivation that it contains six of the 10 Scottish constituencies with the highest unemployment. There must be a greater area focus on Glasgow, perhaps with tax breaks, or additional funding, direct from No. 11. Additional cash must be spent on Glasgow if it is to share in the increasing prosperity that the Labour Government have brought to Scotland as a whole.

A major difficulty in my constituency—and, I am sure, in similar constituencies—is the scale of poverty of ambition. In a considerable number of families in my constituency, a tradition of unemployment and low wages has persisted for three, four, five or six generations. Such families believe that they are never likely to rise above the lowest income level. They do not look for improvement because they think that to strive is to be rejected. They must be given the opportunity to break out of the cycle that some of my colleagues mentioned: poverty, unemployment, low-paid jobs and then back to poverty. I can see no reason why the children of the poor in my constituency should not have the same access to the best jobs as those from wealthier backgrounds. I recognise that the hardest target—the poorest—will cost the most to lift to the standard of the rest. That is a price worth paying. As a Labour Government, we should make it clear that in our next term, and the term after that, we intend to make a concerted effort to deal with the problems of the most deprived in our society.

Some of my hon. Friends mentioned education, which offers a way out of poverty. Some of the schools in my constituency and in the city of Glasgow reflect the legacy of capital underspending over generations. When I was chair of education in Strathclyde, we received enough capital allocation from the Government to replace primary schools every 400 years. When schools and educational establishments are allowed to fall into decay, whereas pubs, bookies, bingo halls and other kinds of centres in the community are built to the highest standards, that inevitably sends to our youngsters a message that education is not valued by society.

More cash for staffing must be given to schools in the poorest areas. It has always been absurd that the head teachers and promoted posts who got the most money tended to be those in the most prosperous areas, because their schools were generally larger and salaries were paid on a per capita basis. That created a financial incentive for people to move out of poor areas into better-off areas, effectively moving away from the hardest tasks to easier tasks. The Government must try to find ways of reversing that process.

Although I recognise that many of these problems are now the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, we at Westminster have the same responsibility to Scots in poverty as to all those in poverty across the United Kingdom. There are ways in which we can take helpful action from the centre.

I turn to the plight of families living in poor housing in my constituency. Again, I recognise that much of that is now the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, and I regret that it is one of the areas in which it has not moved forwards as quickly as I should have hoped. However, we do have responsibility for housing benefit. For many people in my constituency, the operation of the housing benefit system acts as an enormous disincentive to taking work. They are caught in the trap of council tax benefit, housing benefit, low wages and part-time work, and are often unable to calculate what the benefits of work will be—notwithstanding the advantages of the working families tax credit and similar measures, which I applaud. We need to do more to ensure that the operation of the housing system no longer serves as a disincentive to self-advancement.

The thrust of the Government's policy, as dictated by Treasury rules, is to privatise council housing. That ideological obsession about removing housing from local authorities is a diversion from the main task of providing first-class housing to all. I am sure that, like me, the tenants in my constituency have no objection to genuine competition between alternative providers. However, they find it unfair when the scales are rigged and the balance is weighed so overwhelmingly in favour of privatisation, because that takes the choice out of their hands. A choice between a change of ownership and a continuation of dilapidation is no choice at all.

Pensioners are an important part of families, and under the previous Government pensioner poverty was a blight on our society. I applaud the Government for introducing the minimum income guarantee. I also applaud the five churches in my constituency that last week distributed to their entire congregations a leaflet that was drawn up by myself and the Benefits Agency to publicise the minimum income guarantee and to urge pensioners to take it up. Another seven churches distributed the leaflet to all their parishioners during the previous week, and three more will do so this weekend. Such partnership between church and state, acting in the interests of the poorest in our society, is greatly to be applauded. However, the issue of free television licences enables us to draw attention to the enormous difference in life expectations. It is anticipated that 50 per cent. of people in my constituency will live to the age of 75, and that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) more than 66 per cent. will reach that age. In some constituencies in England and Wales, the estimate exceeds 75 per cent. I see no reason why constituents of mine should not aspire to the life expectations of those in the most prosperous areas.

I believe that the measures that I have outlined are affordable. Millions-indeed, billions-of pounds will be flung at the current agricultural crisis, just as billions were flung at BSE. The crisis of poverty among many of my constituents and those of my colleagues is equally deserving of money, and we should pledge to spend money on them in the next term of this Labour Government.

Perhaps it is appropriate to have a change of party at this juncture, although I have no complaint about the fact that five Labour Members have spoken so far. Nor do I blame them for taking this opportunity to claim credit—in some cases, deservedly so—for a number of Government initiatives. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was right to say that we need to look ahead and ask where the money is going. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) said, although much has been done, there is still more to do. I do not agree that all the Government's initiatives have been effective or conducted in the best possible way, but I none the less welcome the fact that there have been a number of them.

Although the problems associated with poverty are extremely important and have to be dealt with, we should remember that this debate is concerned with the impact of Government policies on families in Scotland. We must consider the entire perspective, because in dealing with poverty we must level up, rather than down. Some who are regarded as part of the better-off strata of Scottish society nevertheless feel vulnerable in the light of current events. They fear that their standard of living and quality of life will decline rather than improve.

Given that I have an 18-month-old child. I should declare an interest in knowing whether the Government recognise a commitment to families. The principle behind such a commitment is right, and it should be given priority. It is clear that supporting people who bring up children is an important investment in the future quality of our society—not just in economic terms, but in terms of citizenship, social justice and the entire fabric of society. Of course, such support boils down to practical measures. It is a fact of life that in the flexible labour force for which this Government and the previous Government have argued, parents will be working, even in households where there is only one parent. We must ensure that the income available to those who work is sufficient to provide a good home for their children. Child care is also vital, and the right type and quality must be made available.

The Secretary of State has been a working mother, and she will not mind my saying that during last week's Question Time we had an informal discussion in the wings on the impact on children of such work. It has been suggested that working mothers might not be helping their children and should stay at home instead, but my view is that that is a fruitless and unfair debate. The truth is that many children who were brought up by working mothers proved well-adjusted and happy individuals. Working mothers need to know not just that the child care that they need is available, but that it is of the right quality. As was said, we do not want a left-luggage office for children, and more needs to be done to ensure that the right care is available. A nursery is not a place to park children; it is a place that provides children with a stimulating environment before they go to school.

I am proud of my association with the expansion of nursery education in my area. The north-east of Scotland was one of the first parts of Scotland to achieve almost total nursery provision for four-year-olds, and we are well on the way to achieving the same goal for three-year-olds. The Conservative party opposed campaigners for the expansion of nursery provision because its members regarded nursery education as an inappropriate leftist issue. Indeed. when the regional council was founded it came into power with a Conservative majority. Several nursery units, which the previous independent council had built, were not opened for 10 years because the Conservative group did not believe that that kind of provision was desirable. The policy changed only after the Conservative group was heavily defeated in local elections.

I am glad that Liberal Democrats co-operated with the Labour party to implement the strategy that created universal nursery education. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) muttering from a sedentary position, but I shall go further. That strategy demonstrated that for whom one votes makes a difference, even in local council elections. People realised that a fundamental shift in policy can bring about a beneficial change.

Families contain not only children, but older people and pensioners. The commitments that have been made to pensioners go some way to assuaging their anger about the 75p increase to state pensions and have made them feel that they are beginning to be treated differently. I shall be bullish and say that the Liberal Democrat party has made a positive contribution by campaigning and petitioning on the back of the 75p increase. I welcome the fact that the Government are under pressure from not only Liberal Democrats, but their own people and pensioners' organisations.

Never mind the argument about the earnings link. Pensioners have a right to expect that pensions and associated benefits will keep pace with general improvements in the economy. It is no longer acceptable to relate pension increases only to the cost of living, and no Government should accept doing so. As everyone else's earnings rise in line with the economy, pensioner poverty is accentuated. Although this is neither the time nor the place to develop that argument, it is one reason why the Liberal Democrat party will make a commitment to improve the income of pensioners, and especially older pensioners, the centrepiece of our general election campaign—whenever that may be. Whether or not we have an opportunity to deliver that policy, we shall pressurise any future Government to adopt it.

We have secured a commitment to provide personal care for the elderly in Scotland. I hope that that issue will be taken up by the United Kingdom Government for two reasons. First, if it is right for Scotland, it is right for the remainder of the UK. Secondly, if the UK Government made such a commitment, it would take the pressure to find the money off the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, which would ease the pressure on other resources.

Much has been made of the new deal. It is important to put it on record that those of us who criticised the new deal did not criticise and do not criticise the practical assistance and support that it has given to individuals. We appreciate that that kind of resource often delivers benefits to individuals. However, we are concerned by the high cost of the programme. A few people may have benefited substantially, but many did not benefit or the benefit was not connected to the new deal. Additionally, two questions arise. First, as a windfall tax for the duration of this Parliament has been the prime basis of funding for the new deal, how will the programme be funded in the next Parliament' Secondly, the Government have benefited from a growing economy, for which they claim the credit, but would that mechanism stand the test of being the best way of funding the programme if the economy went into a downturn?

I agree with the hon. Member for Pollok that to give people access to education, training and ambition and to raise standards we should encourage the private sector to play a more active part in poorer communities. More money must be spent, but it does net have to be state money; it could be private money from firms that employ people or open facilities that people can use, work in and gain benefit from.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that about 80 per cent. of those who have entered work through the new deal are now in unsubsidised employment? It is a mechanism for access, not to sustain them with public subsidy.

I accept that entirely, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government did not create the jobs. They provided the training and the economy created the jobs. There has been a happy match, but that may not continue in all economic circumstances.

The Government may have a commitment, but they are in danger of making life too complicated with too many different initiatives. If they really want to address the issues facing families, simplifying the tax system and easing the burden on the lower paid would be a far better way of doing so than too many, too complicated initiatives that not everyone understands.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on raising this important issue for discussion today. He and other Labour Members have made many valid points, and I agree that it is deplorable that, in such a debate, there is no representation from the Scottish National party. However, we are having a perfectly good debate without Scottish National party Members. I think that that shows that we do not need them as much as they need us, the Westminster Parliament.

I thought that the hon. Lady was referring to the Tories.

They need the Tories as well.

Having criticised the Scottish National party for its total lack of presence this morning, I am aware that I stand here alone—but that is not unusual, and I am not daunted by the massed ranks of the Labour and Liberal Democrat alliance in Scotland. I am used to facing them alone, ever mindful of the fact that safety is not always in numbers and that Robert the Bruce was massively outnumbered by enemy forces when he won the battle of Bannockburn. All hon. Members in this Chamber will agree with me on that.

We all want to create the best environment in which young people can make a good start in life. In most cases, but not all, such an environment requires a stable and well-supported family. Conservative policies always take account of the fact that many people, for a huge variety of reasons, do not start their lives in a stable family environment. However, that does not mean that we should ignore the family's undoubted role as the basic building block of society.

Many hon. Members have quoted statistics today. and the hon. Member for Hamilton, South rightly detailed the effects of the Chancellor's recent and previous Budgets. However, what is spun from the Dispatch Box and in the media is not always what happens in practice, and we have had a chance to examine what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done in the past few weeks. We found that his claim that he is attempting to support families and relieve poverty is a matter of interpretation of the figures. The figures used by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South have been achieved by excluding indirect taxes and non-standard tax relief, and they work only if one agrees that a typical family has no mortgage, no pension savings, no car and does not pay anything to a local council. I do not think that that is a typical family.

I have examined the figures on an average family in Scotland and discovered that recent Government policy has increased tax for such families by approximately £670 per year, which is significant. The following figures are from the House of Commons Library and Chantrey Vellacott—I have not made them up.

The changes in income tax rates give a gain of £431 to that average family. However, abolition of the married couples allowance loses them about £300; abolition of mortgage interest relief at source loses them £326; and abolition of dividend credits on the pension tax—I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that pensioners are an integral part of family life—loses them £400. The changes to national insurance contributions gain them £233, and the cut in VAT on fuel gains them £22. However, the increase above inflation of petrol tax and the freeze on vehicle excise duty lose them £185. Tobacco tax increases above inflation lose them £193. Although I might agree with that tax, that statistic should still be taken into consideration. Council tax increases above inflation lose them well in excess of £100. Although child benefit gains them about £170, if one adds up all the figures, the total loss is £670. That cannot be simply ignored.

Let us consider other ways in which the Government have implemented their policies. I ask the Minister—although this is really a matter for the Chancellor—why there was one year's delay between abolition of the married couples allowance and introduction of the children's tax credit. The Chancellor announced that he would replace the married couples allowance with the children's tax credit and said that, in his view, that was a reasonable change to fiscal policy. Why, however, was there a year's delay? Was it to allow the Chancellor to rake in more money to the Treasury's coffers, so that, a couple of weeks ago, he could give away what was taxpayers' money in the first place? He can say that he is giving money to families, children, pensioners, unemployed people and those who are in serious poverty only because he has been taking so much more in tax. It is not his money; it is money that he has taken from hard-working families in Scotland over the past four years. There is therefore a certain disingenuousness about the way in which his policies are presented and spun.

I want to leave enough time for the Minister to answer the few questions that have been asked. Hon. Members have, however, made some points that are worthy of comment. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) -accuse the previous Conservative Government of appeasing the paymasters. It is nice to hear good old-fashioned socialist rhetoric again; at least it gives Conservative Members something to get our teeth into. In fact, the Government whom I supported did not appease the paymasters; they encouraged the growth of the economy, which creates jobs.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

With apologies to the Minister, I shall briefly give way.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be brief.

It hurts me to be less than nice to the hon. Lady. but the Minister who is about to reply to the debate and I sat in the House through 18 years of Tory Governments and saw the misery that they inflicted on hundreds of thousands if not millions of families. There is nothing that the hon. Lady can say to defend the actions of 18 years of Tory government.

Of course I will try. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but, as I have already said to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), jobs are created by a strong economy and not through spin and rhetoric. I was also interested to hear the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) speak. He was absolutely right about the effect of working mothers on their children. At least, I trust that he was right. However, as he says that the Secretary of State agrees with him, he must be right. Families are helped not by rhetoric and spin, but by real policies and proper management of the economy, which is what Conservative Governments have given this country.

I join other hon. Members in justly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) not only on securing the debate, but on a speech that was so good and comprehensive that I feel almost redundant. We have had a good debate, and most contributions have been excellent. I can tell those who have not participated that there is a debate en poverty tomorrow afternoon and one on the economy next week in Westminster Hall. There will also be a Scottish Grand Committee. All that shows the importance of this Parliament to the people of Scotland. The fact that the Scottish National party is not present, even on an away-day basis, is a disgrace and an insult not only to the House, but to the people of Scotland.

There are two strands to our support for families: financial security and help to balance work and family. Everyone knows that worries about money and making ends meet can create insecurity and tensions in families, so financial security is vital. When we took office in 1997, the economy was in total disrepair. Unemployment was at record levels, and youth unemployment was a disgrace. Inflation averaged more than 6 per cent. between 1979 and 1997. Interest rates peaked at 15 per cent. and remained in double figures for four years. Mortgage rates averaged 11 per cent. between 1979 and 1997.

Hon. Members should consider the difference since 1 May 1997. Economic growth has averaged 2.7 per cent. Employment has increased by more than 1 million in the United Kingdom generally and by over 100,000 in Scotland. That makes a difference to families. Youth unemployment has decreased by 78 per cent., which means that 31,500 more people are in work, thanks to the new deal. Long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) mentioned mortgage rates; they are down to 6.75 per cent. or lower. The average mortgage paid is £1,200 less since 1997. All that has a profound impact on families. Jobs, low inflation and low mortgage repayments make families more secure and more likely to stay together. We shall have a full debate on poverty tomorrow.

On top of those measures, we have introduced the national minimum wage—which has helped many people, particularly women—and the working families tax credit. Of course, there is more to do, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) knows that there is only one Government, of one party, who will do more in that direction. I hope that he remembers that and votes Labour. He and all my other colleagues will be pleased that the Government have made a pledge on full employment. We did not achieve it under previous Labour Governments, but this Government are totally committed to it.

The Green Paper recently launched by the Prime Minister, "Full Employment in a Modern Society", discusses the next steps towards full employment: dealing with drug addicts; advisory and outreach services for lone parents; further help for lone parents to move into self-employment; and greater training flexibility. Those are substantial steps forward in dealing with disadvantaged or hard to place people who are out of work.

Work-life balance is crucial, and we are helping people to cope with the competing demands of work and family life. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is here today to underline the importance of the debate. She copes with the demands of home and work, as do most parents.

The nature of work is changing. The new economy, based on skills and knowledge, brings new challenges. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) raised the issue of child care, which is vital to help women, in particular, to continue work. That is a devolved matter. However, in 1979-80, under the previous Government, fewer than 32,000 children were in local authority nurseries. By June 2000, more than 98,000 children were in publicly funded child care. That is a step-change that makes a difference for working families and that the Labour party can be proud of. The working families tax credit, another significant move towards helping working families, is worth an extra £20 million a year in Scotland.

In order to recognise the importance of work-life balance, the Government introduced the work-life balance challenge fund. I am delighted to announce that another Scottish company will benefit from that fund, which encourages businesses to help their staff achieve a sensible balance between work and home life. Cigna Healthcare, based in Greenock, has secured a share of the £10.5 million challenge fund, which will allow it to access expert help and advice about the development and introduction of diverse an d flexible working patterns. Cigna joins previous Scottish winners of the challenge fund that are at the forefront in modernising working life in Scotland, such as Standard Life, Scottish Coal, Perth and Kinross council and Renfrewshire and Inverclyde Primary Care NHS trust. We have made a further £5 million available. I urge my colleagues to spread the word and to urge other Scottish organisations to bid for a share and explore ways of introducing flexible working patterns for the benefit of all.

On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I wish to take this opportunity, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who has announced that he will leave Westminster at the next election. He is planning to leave Holyrood as well. On a day that we discuss social justice in Scotland, it is fitting that we recognise his commitment to social justice, which is well documented. He left a distinguished career in medicine and entered politics in 1987 because he wanted to ensure that others have the same opportunities that he enjoyed. He has made a lasting contribution through ministerial office in Westminster and in Holyrood. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing him a long, happy and fulfilling retirement.

I wish to discuss the partnership between the Government and the Scottish Executive; if I had time, I could go into great detail about it. That partnership is essential to our work on social justice. As a result of our economic strength, more money has been provided to the Scottish Executive for health. education and social justice. However, I cannot go into greater detail because of contributions other hon. Members wish to make. Thankfully, there will be many other debates this week and next week in which I will have that opportunity.

In conclusion, the Government have made clear their total commitment to the family. We have restructured the tax and benefit system to provide more generous help to families. The new children's tax credit provides extra income for 400,000 families in Scotland, and the working families tax credit ensures that 108,000 families in Scotland are better off. There is support for new mothers and fathers. There is also help to make work pay for 120,000 Scots, and for families, through the introduction of the minimum wage. The new deal for lone parents in Scotland helps more than 7,000 people. The Labour Government are building a fairer, more inclusive society.

After that gallop by the Minister, we will move on to the next debate.

I shall try to emulate the Minister of State, Scotland Office in the previous debate by galloping through what I recognise is a very local problem. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), for his presence. I understand that the brief was a late one; he had to take over from his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Home Office. I am also grateful that Mr. David Winnick-

Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is present and would like to contribute. I am sure that that is agreeable to the Minister.

As the Minister knows, the West Midlands fire service, with the approval of the West Midlands fire authority, is seeking approval for a proposal to close the single-engine fire stations at Bloxwich and Aldridge and to replace them, under a private finance initiative, with a two-engine community fire station, in a location that is more central to the combined areas of their responsibilities. The local authority advises me that the single-pump Aldridge fire station covers a population of 59,271 and the single-pump Bloxwich fire station a population of 49,814. As the population of Walsall is 259,488, that total of 109,488 represents 42 per cent. of the borough's population. As the new location means that more people will be further away from the new station than at present, the public has, understandably, widely expressed opposition to the proposal. At present, Bloxwich attends an annual average of 1,277 incidents in its station area and, as the fire service document "A Better Way?" states, is busier than most one-pump stations.

The station also undertakes community fire safety work aimed at the local community. The fire service document tells us that the average figure for Aldridge is 662 incidents and that the fire station also undertakes a small amount of community fire safety work. None of those figures has been put in context. It is not clear whether Bloxwich is the first, second or third busiest one-pump station in the west midlands, or whether Aldridge is at the bottom of the scale or very nearly so. It is also not clear whether fire stations in the region are more immediately in need of upgrading or replacing with a new community fire station.

Aldridge fire station opened in 1968 and comprised a four-bay appliance room with a covered wash-down area adjoining a two-storey block which formed the operational and administrative side of the station, with offices, lecture room, and stores on the ground floor and recreational, dining and sleeping facilities on the second floor. A training wing, including two lecture rooms and living and sleeping accommodation for 16 students, was attached to the station but was closed when the West Midlands brigade training centre in Smethwick opened. The station has served the separate communities that comprise Aldridge-Brownhills well throughout the intervening years.

On 23 May 2000 I received a letter from Mr. K. J. Knight, the chief fire officer of the West Midlands fire service, advising me that he was proposing to develop a community fire station for the Aldridge and Bloxwich areas. The two-pump community fire station would be built, financed and operated by a private sector partner, allowing the West Midlands fire service to deliver what he claimed would be an improved service to the community. Mr. Knight went on:

"The project will result in the provision of a newly constructed community fire station which will enable the West Midlands Fire Service to deliver an improved service to the surrounding community from a strategically placed site. The facility will provide accommodation and training facilities for two pumping appliances and personnel with an integral, purpose-built safety education facility through which community safety education programmes can be delivered. The estimated capital cost of the project would be £3.5 million to £4 million."

Mr. Knight promised to keep me in touch with the public consultation process. The initial public response to the proposals was not favourable. When the West Midlands fire service published its proposal under the title "A Better Way?" the facts about the proposed north-east Walsall community fire station, with an accompanying glossy brochure sharing that title and containing a precis of the larger document, were studied with interest by many local residents.

The fire service set out various options for Aldridge fire station, which it described as a one-fire-engine station staffed 24 hours a day by four full-time watches whose annual number of incidents over the past three years was 662, in addition to which it undertakes a small amount of community fire safety work. The running costs, not including central overhead costs, are £755,251.

The three options were to do nothing, to refurbish or to rebuild on site. It is claimed that to rebuild a new fire station on the existing site to current standards would cost £2.2 million. At no point did the fire service mention that there had also been a training wing of two lecture rooms and living and sleeping accommodation for 16 students, nor was there an explanation of what the current standard or whether it is a statutory requirement.

I sought an explanation when I wrote to the chief fire officer on 27 November, raising among other things my concerns about the admission on page 4 that a second fire engine consistently fails to reach fires in Aldridge within the time recommended by the Home Office. The response was a deafening silence. I did not receive a reply to my letter and when I wrote again on 19 January, Mr. Knight responded only to my questions on response times. I still do not know what the current standard is, or whether it is a statutory requirement.

Similarly, despite writing on 6 March, I have failed to establish what is the projected response time from the fire service's "optimum location", which is widely believed to be in Pelsall, to Streetly, or whether any test runs have been carried out to confirm the reliability of the computer-generated times that the fire service quoted to me.

The refurbishment options costed have been estimated for comparative purposes. Many facilities that would be required to achieve a minimum acceptable standard of accommodation for future needs cannot be achieved within the confines of existing buildings. The need to achieve satisfactory provision for women fire fighters, access for the disabled, satisfactory storage provision for personal protective equipment and so on are all essential enhancements within the short term. The station training facilities consist of a drill tower that requires upgrading. That is the burden of the arguments advanced, understandably, by the fire service.

Building condition surveys identify substantial repair and maintenance costs in the next four or five years. There are no community fire safety facilities on the site. In view of those factors, the Bloxwich station is considered a high priority for replacement. Refurbishment of the existing station would cost approximately £637,000. I shall not go through the options, as the documents are readily available to the Home Office.

Many of my constituents feel that the best-value criterion is impossible to assess without reference to the state of the stock across the region. They are also puzzled by Mr. Knight's comment that there is a potential for over-provision at Bloxwich, when that pump station is one of the busiest ilk the west midlands. The over-provision is presumably a reflection of the capacity of the two-pump Walsall fire station to meet some of the present responsibilities Bloxwich. That is what prompted the fire service's response at the public consultation meeting at Bloxwich, where it was argued that it makes more sense to relocate Bloxwich further into its area. The widely leaked preferred location in Pelsall Villa football ground at Bush grove off Walsall road, Pelsall, would be outside Bloxwich's current area and close to Walsall fire station. It would create a greater bunching of fire stations towards the centre of Walsall.

Mr. Knight also told the meeting that

"it is true that if you live in Aldridge then response times will be worse under this proposal."

That is cited from page 56 of the annexe that was given to the fire authority. The point made by Mr. Knight has been apparent to many people in Aldridge-Brownhills and it has fuelled our concern that response times might become longer for the majority of people in the present Aldridge fire station area.

As a local resident, the statutory consultation process was directed at me, and I carefully followed its progress. I and other residents noted that the consultation period co-incided with the Christmas period, and that it was deemed to have started on 21 November 2000, one day after the West Midlands fire authority had agreed to proceed with a consultation. The chairman, Councillor Peter Bilson, said:

We took a positive decision in the light of material for the consultation being ready for commencement to bring forward the start date".

The press was notified of that, and Mr. Knight wrote to me on 20 November 2000, which was proper, as he had previously written to inform me that the consultation period would probably start early in December. On that point, I had misled many constituents who had written to me about rumours concerning the future of Aldridge fire station.

In any event, the public consultation leaflet was not distributed until the end of the month—and even then, I am told, only patchily. Some residents of Streetly, who receive the Sutton Coldfield Observer rather than the Walsall Advertiser, said that they were not sent the leaflet, even though they live in the Aldridge area. As the fire service has a statutory duty to consult, I and many of my constituents are greatly concerned about those matters.

In politics, it is generally thought that Christmas and August are the worst times to conduct an effective consultation. Mr. Dale Hall, the project design and report author of Opinion Research Services Ltd., which is based at the university of Wales in Swansea, agreed with me that the timing of the consultation process was "not ideal". However, Mr. Knight told me that he had been advised that it was one of the best times to consult, as people were on holiday and at home and therefore had more time to consider the proposals. That has not been my experience of what has now become, for increasing numbers of families, a major holiday period.

None the less, the process commenced. Four public meetings were held, and six people's panels were convened. As I had attended meetings—including one that had been arranged by the Fire Brigades Union prior to the public consultation—I made a point of attending the one that the fire service organised on Saturday 13 January. At that meeting, a petition against the proposals was presented to the chairman of the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority, Councillor Peter Bilson, by the leader of Walsall council, Mike Bird. It was claimed that it contained 22,000 names.

On 26 February, I received a report on the public consultation by Opinion Research Services Ltd., entitled "Community Fire Safety Strategy". It summarised the conclusions of the six people's panels, each of which comprised between eight and 10 members, and the four public meetings. The report revealed that membership of the people's panels was restricted to people aged between 21 and 55. That is of great concern, as Aldridge-Brownhills has the highest proportion of residents aged between 40 and pensionable age in the country. Despite the age restriction, four out of the six panels decided against the proposals, and two were in favour.

With regard to the panels' discussions, the report states that

"it would be wrong to treat the study as some kind of referendum or statistical estimate of the balance of opinion in the community".

However, it also states:

We believe the findings are reliably indicative of public opinion in Walsall".

The report accepts that four of the public meetings "resoundingly and overwhelmingly" rejected the proposals. The accounts of the meetings contain several references to the presence of serving fire officers. My experience of the Streetly meeting was that, of the 50 people present, 19 were dressed in fire service uniforms, helping to promote the consultation process. The report implies that serving fire officers who were dressed in mufti, rather than those who were in uniform, were trying to protect their interests. That is unfair. Serving fire officers have been assured that their jobs are safe. Mr. Knight has stated:

There are no proposals for job losses".

Councillor Bilson has said:

There will be no job losses: that is recorded. There will also be no loss of fire engines. It is up to the chief how the fire fighters are deployed. All the laws and standards need to be met."

We all accept that. All the fire officers whom I have met have been principally concerned about their ability to meet the Home Office response times for the new fire station, wherever it is located. Clearly, without a specific location it is difficult to assess whether that is true.

The Fire Brigades Union's report for the fire authority meeting on 19 February simulates, by way of example, journey times from the prospective Pelsall site. The times given are for the time it takes to travel the distance and do not include times for mobilising, traffic, speed humps or restrictions. For example, on that basis, Pelsall to Freeth road, Brownhills—a travelling distance of 3.8 miles—would take 11 minutes. Clearly, travelling to the nursing home in Hednesford road, Brownhills would take some minutes longer. On the same basis the travel time to Anchor road, Aldridge is 10 minutes. Therefore, points further to the east and in Streetly, such as Foley road, Hardwick road and Blackwood road, would take longer.

The report was incorporated in a much larger one prepared for the West Midlands fire authority's consideration. I understand from a member of the authority that, unfortunately, it was not made available to members until a few hours before their meeting on 9 February 2001, at which they were asked to approve the proposals, which they did. The report contains several press cuttings indicating that 2,000 letters were presented to the fire service, yet annexe H of the report records only 1,612 letters having been received, although, according to page 172 of the report, 1,267 were discounted as being outside the time of the consultation. Annexe J relates to Walsall council and reports the views of council committees, including the policy and resources committee, the Walsall area planning committee, the highways and transportation committee and various other area planning committees.

While Aldridge, South area planning committee resolved to receive and note the proposals, Brownhills and Aldridge, North area planning committee recorded that it

"does not support the closure of the Fire Station at Aldridge. The cover provided by the Fire Station is effective and efficient and, in the interests of public safety, the Committee supports its retention".

Bloxwich area planning committee resolved that

"consideration should be given to the modernisation or rebuilding of Bloxwich Fire Station at a location within the Bloxwich area."

Darlaston area planning committee resolved that

"this Committee opposes any proposals to close existing fire stations on safety grounds as the extra time taken to reach a fire from a centralised location could lead to loss of life".

Willenhall area planning committee resolved that it

"notes the Report in respect of its own area and supports its colleagues in other areas which could be affected by this detrimental move".

As far as I can find out, the fire authority has organised no visit to the fire stations affected by the proposal.

The chief executive of Walsall council listed the points raised by councillors at a members' seminar. They raised the question of the required response time and whether a new station serving a larger area could achieve that. They also raised the issue of the replacement or enhancement of tilt two existing stations at Aldridge and Bloxwich as an alternative to the development of a new site. Another of the issues raised was whether the present proposals should be viewed in a wider context, for the division or the service as a whole, and with specific reference to neighbouring stations such as Sutton Coldfield ant Fallings Park. Concerns were also expressed about the proposal in respect of local traffic patterns and the bui1d-up of traffic on local roads year by year.

Before I call the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I should inform hon. Members that, as is traditional with the half-hour Adjournment debate, he has notified me, the initiator of the debate and the Minister of his interest in participating.

I shall take up very little time, to allow as much time as possible for the Minister. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for allowing me a couple of minutes. As has been pointed out, the amalgamation affects Bloxwich fire station in my constituency. There is significant concern about that, and I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, for whom I have great deal of time and respect, that that should also be taken into consideration.

Bloxwich is a densely populated residential and business area of the borough, and, according to the West Midlands fire authority, Bloxwich fire station is one of the busiest of the one-pump stations. I first wrote to the Minister on 27 September 2000, stating that there was a good deal of understandable anxiety about the matter. Since then, I have been in correspondence with Ministers and the chair of the fire service, as well as with the chief fire officer. On the whole, I am not happy with the response that I received. It may be that, regardless of today's debate and I he consultations to which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred, the issue is clear cut and will go ahead, but I must emphasise that there is a feeling that the amalgamation should not proceed.

Obviously, I cannot speak for Aldridge or Pelsall, but in Bloxwich worry continues and it is shared by a number of residents and elected local representatives. In those circumstances, I hope that today's debate means that the matter is looked at again. I do not expect the Minister to say that it is off, but I urge that the amalgamation of the fire stations in that part of the borough be reviewed. I hope that that will be possible.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on securing the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for his intervention on behalf of his constituency. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State cannot be here today, unfortunately, owing to a late governmental commitment. I am happy to stand in for him and I shall pass the full text of the debate to him for his attention.

I understand the concern that has been expressed about the proposal by the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority to replace the two fire stations at Aldridge and Bloxwich with a new fire station serving both areas. Before dealing with specific points, I shall make a few background remarks. The fire service as a whole in this country consistently achieves high standards of performance, often in difficult and hazardous circumstances. Its high level of performance in responding to fire calls has been confirmed year after year by the Audit Commission. According to the latest figures for 1999-2000, the fire service nationally met attendance standards in responding to fire calls on 96 per cent. of occasions. In the west midlands, standards were met on 95.3 per cent. of occasions. Obviously, we shall strive to raise those levels, but that shows a good level of performance.

The fire service is also to be commanded for the range of community-based initiatives that it undertakes throughout the country to promote fire safety in the home. We want such progress to be measured against the commitment to prevention as the first line of defence against fire, and we want to develop a more clear vision and strategy for the service. I welcome particularly the excellent programme of community fire safety work being implemented by the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority. Throughout that process, we have established the principle of best value and the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills s said, is defined as a best value authority under the Local Government Act 1999. Under that duty of best value, authorities are required to secure continual improvement in the exercise of their functions, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It is their duty to do that, and the statutory responsibility for achieving it lies with the fire authority. It is for the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority to keep its fire cover provision under review and, in particular, to provide a service that meets the national standards of fire cover.

I turn now to the Aldridge and Bloxwich fire stations. In January last year, the authority submitted a bid for support under the private finance initiative to replace single-appliance fire stations at Aldridge and Bloxwich with a new two-appliance fire station within the Walsall metropolitan borough council area. In April, it was selected as one of the bids to go forward to the next stage. The authority is in the process of developing its outline business case, at which point we shall wish to consider, in consultation with professional advisers, the scope of the scheme, whether PFI requirements are met and, in particular, whether the scheme represents value for money.

The private finance initiative has been mentioned at various points in the debate, and I well understand the controversy that arises about that method of financing public sector investment. I have the largest PFI hospital in the country in my constituency and there has been much controversy about that. In fact, the building work is many months ahead of schedule; and such a method has been efficient, but strong worries persist. The Department for Education and Employment has recently announced a £90 million PFI initiative for improving schools in eastern Norfolk. Head teachers have expressed concerns, and I understand the anxieties about that method of financing—it can give rise to doubts—but, ultimately, Government policy is right.

If the Government approve in principle the allocation of PFI credits and the scheme is endorsed by the interdepartmental project review group, it would be open to the authority to put the project out to competitive tender, select a preferred bidder and develop its final business case. At that stage, the project would be closely examined to ensure that PFI requirements continued to be met.

I now come to the nub of the debate, and I emphasise as strongly as possible that considerations relevant to a PFI project are different from those that come into play when the closure of fire stations is under consideration. A separate statutory process applies. Approval of any PFI scheme does not of itself imply that other consents will necessarily be forthcoming. I shall describe in a few moments the procedures relevant to closing fire stations.

Several points were made about public consultation, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must take into account when examining any application. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has put on the record the weaknesses that he believes are inherent in the process. His views can be taken into account both by the relevant authorities and by my right hon. Friend when matters reach him.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to correspondence with the chief fire officer. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, on a couple of occasions, he was invited to a meeting to discuss his concerns? I know that he was unable to attend the fire authority meeting to which he referred. I urge him to enter into correspondence and discuss directly with the chief fire officer the concerns that he raised. That form of communication is important for resolving the issues.

I understand that the authority expects to submit its outline business case to the Home Office next month. Section 19(4) of the Fire Services Act 1947 applies and it is separate from the PFI process. A fire authority cannot, under that statute, reduce the number of fire stations, fire appliances and fire-fighting posts without the express consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The authority's proposed closure of Aldridge and Bloxwich fire stations when the new station is operational would require an application under section 19. To date, the Government have received no such application from the fire authority.

How will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deal with those applications when they arrive? His role is specific and he can grant approval only if he is satisfied that three conditions have been met. First, the proposals must have been sufficiently widely publicised in appropriate detail and with adequate time to enable interested parties to make representations. That is the nub of my response to the hon. Gentleman's many questions. My right hon. Friend will have to consider various matters at that stage. The age of panels, the timing over Christmas and so forth can be raised legitimately when my right hon. Friend is considering those questions. Secondly, my right hon. Friend must be satisfied that the representations have been properly considered by the authority and, thirdly, Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services must advise that national standards of fire cover will be maintained.

My right hon. Friend must ensure that those three important conditions are met, and he can assess them only after an application under section 19 has been made. I repeat that no such application has yet been received, which makes it difficult for me to comment in detail, except to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills have raised important issues for the record. I can give the assurance that if an application is received, we shall also take other representations—for example, from whoever may be the Member of Parliament at the time—into account. I can give the further assurance that no proposal will be approved unless we are entirely satisfied that national fire cover standards are being maintained—a critical question for the Government and for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

To conclude, I repeat that I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. The authority will have to consult and will know about the issues raised in our debate. If an application is made under section 19, it will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Consultation, national fire cover and the question whether the authority has considered the issue properly will be matters of concern to my right hon. Friend, and it will be entirely appropriate for any Member of Parliament to address those matters at that stage.

I have tried to respond to the points that were made, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to have this debate.

At full complement during the 1980s and early 1990s, the Health and Safety Executive office in Hull had eight inspectors, covering the full range of local industry with the exception of specific control of major accident hazards sites. In recent years, the office has been systematically run down to its present complement of three operational inspectors, with the intention of closing it later this rear. That will reduce the number of inspections in the region by some 600 contacts per annum, and will result in inferior health and safety cover for many thousands of workers. It will probably lead to a great increase in accidents, and will prove less cost effective.

There are three main arguments for maintaining the HSE office in Hull: the industrial profile of the Humber region, the region's geographical isolation, and value for taxpayers' money. The Hull office is part of the Yorkshire and north-east region of the HSE, which also has offices in Newcastle, Leeds and Sheffield. Inspectors from Hull will be relocated, and future health and safety in the Humber region will be enforced from the Leeds and Sheffield offices both of which are more than 60 miles from Hull, yet we are asked to believe that there will be no detrimental effect on the service in the region.

A similar proposal to close the HSE office in Poole an area not renowned as a hive of industrial activity—has recently been reversed. The Hull office is low-cost and more cost-effective than its Sheffield and Leeds counterparts. Its closure will leave a city that is one of the largest in England, and which has particularly high-risk industries, more than 60 miles away from the nearest HSE office—an unprecedented situation. Moreover, in the opinion of trade unions and others involved in the Hull exercise, the procedures that led to the decision to close the office were underhand, misleading and inconsistent with the Government's declared policy on the HSE.

The Humber sub-region has a unique economic structure. Measured by tonnage, the Humberside ports account for more than 20 per cent. of all import and export trade in the United Kingdom. They are busy ports that are not only vital to our island economy, but extremely dangerous places in which to work. They need regular and expert attention, and ample accident statistics reveal what happens when the systems fail. Given that Sheffield is some 70 miles inland, there can be no logic or rationale in moving HSE inspectors who cover such coastal activity from Hull to Sheffield.

Agriculture, which is another dominant feature of the Humber region's economy, also accounts for a high percentage of fatal accidents year on year. Yet the enforcing authority for this rural activity will be based at the heart of the urban manufacturing and commercial institutions of Leeds—miles away from where it is needed, and in some of the most expensive office accommodation in the north. Humberside is also the international centre of caravan construction, which is another industry renowned for heavy work, fast production and accidents. Construction is a risky business. Work situations can change daily and require a quick response. With the closure of the Hull office, there will be no such quick response in Humberside.

Grimsby, which is on the south bank of the Humber, is the undisputed food capital of Europe. I should mention that in making this case I have the support of my hon. Friends the Members f or Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). The food industry employs many thousands of people, and has an accident rate that is higher than that of most other industries. Its workers are even further from the protective services of the HSE.

Twenty-six top-tier control of major accident hazards sites are located across Humber side, including oil refineries and petrochemical sites. They represent the most serious potential for disaster and are situated on the coast, for obvious reasons. It would make sense to locate the COMAH inspectorate the same area, so that visits can be frequent and thorough. Instead, it is to be based in Sheffield, although there are only six COMAH sites in the whole of South Yorkshire. Let us not forget that the dark shadow of the Flixborough disaster in 1974 still hovers over Humberside-although the site of that disaster would now be regarded as minuscule compared with the big COMAH sites that are now in the region. We still live with the memories and lessons of that tragedy on Humberside.

The HSE policy for Yorkshire and the north-east appears deliberately to distance inspectors from the industries and sites for which they are responsible. A typical day's work for a docks inspector travelling from Sheffield will involve driving a round trip of 150 miles, which in today's traffic could take up to four hours—and that is a conservative estimate. That reduces the working day by half, is paid for at great expense to the taxpayer and results in the loss of a great deal of expertise. Under the new proposals, the estimated annual mileage per inspector will be an incredible 26,500 miles. Every hour spent driving is one hour less inspecting; every mile driven is a drain on the financial resources of the HSE and on the physical and emotional resources of the inspectors involved.

It makes no sense for HSE inspectors to spend half their working days as highly qualified taxi drivers. That is why the decision to close the HSE office in Poole was reversed. Over a full year, the aggregate driving time is up to 66 working days per inspector. If the full quota of eight inspectors work out of Leeds and Sheffield, a total of 528 inspection days per annum will be lost due to unnecessary travel. That will more than double the cost of travel and subsistence claims per inspector, and will lose them valuable inspection time. Moreover, it is unlikely that improvement and prohibition notices will be followed up as vigorously as they would be if they were issued locally. If those notices are not followed up, they will be ignored, as happened in Hull last year. A prohibition notice was ignored a demolition site, leading to the deaths of three people, one of whom was a constituent of mine.

As the quantity and quality or cover declines, the service inevitably becomes reactive instead of proactive—investigating accidents instead of preventing them. That is already becoming apparent in Humberside. Accident statistics reveal that over the past two years, as the Hull office has been run down, there has been a significant increase in loss of life, with 19 fatal accidents and almost 1,500 major Injuries in the region. All that suffering and heartbreak is being caused to save the princely sum of £2,428 a year.

It is not known exactly when the decision to close the Hull office was made, but it was taken without reference to the users of the service: employers, workers, trade union officials and local councils were consulted. The Government produced a document entitled "Revitalising Health and Safety", in which they promised to improve consultation and to extend promotional activities, working closely with local communities. Whoever wrote the document failed to draw it to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive officials in the Yorkshire region. No local group supported the decision to close the whole office. Indeed, the only good thing to arise from the exercise is that it has united all parties with a vested interest in health and safety in their opposition to the closure and the crass way in which that foolhardy decision was made.

The total absence of consultation is serious. When I asked a parliamentary question about the consultation process, I was told that a meeting had taken place between Mr. Bill Callaghan, chair of the Health and Safety Commission, Mr. Chris Willby, regional director of the HSE and local union officials. I want to set the record straight and stop the deceit—it is not clear exactly when the decision to close the HSE office in Hull was made, but it was certainly made before Christmas 1998. That meeting arose only because of representations made by local constituents and trade unions to the three local Members of Parliament and took place on 15 May 2000, more than 18 months after the decision to close the Hull office had been made and after the matter had been put in the local domain, drip by drip. There has been no consultation.

At that meeting, Chris Willby told trade union officers—Bill Callaghan was a witness to his statement—that the closure was necessary because the HSE was unable to recruit to the Hull office. Six weeks later, in reply to a series of written questions, I was informed that the HSE had not tried to recruit to Hull since 1997, so why was it stated that there was no possibility of obtaining candidates for important positions in Hull? I was told that the meeting on 15 May 2000 constituted the due consultation process prior to the decision being made, but no such meeting would have taken place without the insistence of local Members of Parliament. The decision to close was made at some time during 1998.

Another of my questions concerned the environmental impact of the closure. It is a legal requirement for organisations to undertake environmental impact assessments of their activities. It seems that no such assessment was made, and there was certainly no reference to any environmental impact assessment in the replies that I received. Subsequently, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to place a copy of the Sykes report, with its appendices, in the Library, but a different document was put there. The title of the Sykes report that I wanted to see was "Accommodation Review—Future of the Hull Office" dated 22 March 1999. It shows the total savings from closing the Hull office as £2,428 per annum, albeit at a cost of 600 annual contacts. It states that the only reason for closing the office is a problem of remote management. 1 believe that 19 deaths and 1,500 major accidents show how remote the HSE management in Yorkshire and the north-east region is, and it will be even more remote at the end of the month.

Moreover, the reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was carefully drafted. The Department did not provide the report that I wanted, but instead provided the report entitled, "Accommodation Review:Yorkshire and north-east region business needs". However, even that was revealing. It gives the criteria necessary to meet the HSE's policy. First on the list is the need to be able to reach 90 per cent. of all premises within a travel time of one and a half hours. With current traffic patterns, it is not usual to travel from Leeds or Sheffield to Hull or Grimsby in less than an hour and a half. At peak times, one would be lucky to complete the journey in two or two and a half hours. Anyone who thought that those criteria could apply in that area must either have driven when there was no traffic on the motorway or have significantly broken the speed limit. Journeys are longer still for the many people coming to Humberside who live south or west of Sheffield.

Close consideration of the review would support the closure of the Sheffield office and an increase in the Humberside contingent. At peak times, it takes an hour to travel between Sheffield and Leeds, which are within 30 miles of each other. Hull is between 60 and 70 miles from those cities. The Sheffield area, moreover, has a lower death rate—15 in the past two years—and has only six COMAH sites, less than a quarter of the 26 in Humberside.

The whole process is littered with failure. There has been failure to consult, and failure to comply with Government policy as stated in the document "Revitalising Health and Safety". There has been failure to comply with the HSE's policies of working with the community and of holding environmental assessments, and failure to meet HSE criteria on target compliance. There has been failure to provide adequate answers to a Member of Parliament, and failure to provide effective health and safety cover for the people of Humberside.

Mr. Sykes made an insulting offer to representatives of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union on 13 February. He said that, if we are very lucky, premises in Hull will be used for a monthly surgery, where people can go to have their cases examined. Presumably, somebody will put the Saltend oil refinery in his haversack, dump it on the surgery table and point out its problems. If there is excessive demand, the surgery might be opened even more than once a month. How very nice. How generous. How insulting.

Great questions remain. Why has deceit been used and misleading answers given? Why has there been no proper consultation process? Why was an environmental assessment not properly carried out? Why is the HSE office in Hull being closed, despite the substantial loss in efficiency that will result? Why have 19 people been killed and 1,500 seriously injured? Those people deserved the same protection as workers elsewhere in the country. Those figures are likely to rise, and all for a paltry saving of less than £2,500

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing the debate. I have listened carefully to his points about the Health and Safety Executive's decision to close the Hull local office at the end of this year. I understand his concern, which he has every right to express in this Chamber, but I do not share his view that the standard of service in Humberside that the HSE provides will be adversely affected by the decision.

It is not fair to make the link, as my hon. Friend did, between the reduction of inspectors at Hull and what he claims as increases in deaths. I acknowledge that there have been a number of deaths. I concur with my hon. Friend's last point—as would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and members of the HSE and the Health and Safety Commission—that people in Humberside deserve the same protection as in the rest of the country. The HSE's decision about deployment of resources does not diminish its commitment to the people of Humberside, which is equal to its commitment to people elsewhere.

The proposals are, intended to improve overall service delivery as part of the restructuring of the HSE, over several years, to which my hon. Friend referred. There is a centralised telephone contact for information and, from 1 April, there will be centralised telephone, e-mail and internet reporting of incidents. Staff in Sheffield already handle telephone and postal complaints, and almost all meetings are held at the premises of duty holders.

Those changes date back to 1976, when the HSE reorganised its field force from one based on numerous small offices and small districts to a national structure based on fewer largo offices. The introduction of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 increased its, responsibilities. It had to become flexible and keep abreast of developments in industry, which required a different organisational base if it was to meet the increased demands and keep up with developments. Those and subsequent changes have allowed inspectors to develop a deeper expertise—which is a safer way for the organisation to operate—by concentrating on a smaller range of industries and delivering more focused plans of work.

Further changes took place in 1995, when the HSE reorganised its field operations directorate to a regionally based structure. That included the formation of the Yorkshire and north-east division with its main offices in Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle upon Tyne. Most small district offices had closed, but some were retained as outstations; the Hull office had only four inspectors at that time.

Although Hull was retained as an outstation, much of the inspection activity in the area was carried out from the Sheffield and Leeds offices. Following the formation of the area structure in 1976, the chemical industry and most construction work on Humberside were inspected from Sheffield because of the need to keep staff together to develop their expertise, knowledge and experience. In 1995, inspection of the engineering industry transferred to Sheffield, with agriculture and the services sector, including the docks, being inspected by inspectors based in Leeds and Sheffield respectively. Those changes have not affected the coverage or standard of inspection. The people of Hull have not noticed the gradual switch from inspectors based in Humberside to inspectors based in the Sheffield and Leeds offices. The HSE inspects the same premises, investigates the same accidents and participates in the same events, as it would have done if the Hull office had not been reduced. However, the range of inspector resources and expertise available in the Yorkshire and north-east region cannot be delivered by only three or four inspectors.

It is not only the HSE that has recognised the need to deploy its resources differently, and to enable its staff to work together to develop the expertise and depth of experience that they need. Several trade unions have also closed their offices as they rationalise their structures to provide a more effective regional service, so the HSE is not out of step with other organisations.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the efficacy and efficiency of the service is more important than the location of individual small offices The HSE must use its resources as efficiently and effectively as possible. It must therefore have staff resources that can be deployed in a planned manner to meet strategic demands. That is an important part of the Government's revitalising health and safety strategy.

Inspection and investigation policies are set by the HSE nationally on the basis of risks arising from work activities, irrespective of location. Decisions to investigate accidents, incidents and reported ill-health are determined by their nature and severity, not by location. The HSE puts considerable effort into ensuring that its approach and standard of service is the same across the country irrespective of distance from the office. That applies as much to Humberside as to any other part of the UK.

Resources need to be flexible so that inspectors can be redeployed, often at short notice, to respond to changing priorities. Having small numbers of inspectors in small offices does not aid flexible deployment. I understand why the closure of small offices, such as that in Hull, might cause concern but I reassure hon. Members that the decision was not taken lightly. It followed a thorough UK-wide review that considered the needs in the region and those in Humberside. The restructuring changes are in line with changes in the service industry and in other agencies.

When coming to its decision to close the office, the HSE also considered the need for a local office to serve the people of Hull. However, the office receives few personal callers and, as I have said, telephone and postal complaints are already handled by Sheffield staff. There is also soon to be a centralised telephone contact for the reporting of incidents. I think that the conclusion that there was a limited need for an office physically located in Hull was rational. The main need is for liaison and joint participation with local organisations to continue as before.

The HSE will continue to service the needs of those areas. In general, the same staff will continue to participate in local meetings and liaise with trade unions, local authorities and employers organisations. Where possible, the HSE will maintain and increase contacts with local organisations, in line with revitalising the health and safety strategy. It will continue to develop partnerships as it does in other areas of Yorkshire and the north-east division. The HSE also proposes to acquire premises in Hull in which to host meetings with employers, local officials and the public. My hon. Friend derided the notion of surgeries, but they are a more responsive way of linking with local stakeholders and meeting their changing demands. I am sorry that he derided that offer, because I think that that approach is very important. It could be a way of developing services in the future.

Staff considerations have been an important factor in the decision. At present, there is only one inspector in the Hull office, who is due to retire in June, and an administrative officer. Two operational managers remain in Hull, but the staff that they manage are in Leeds and Sheffield.

Staff development has also been an important consideration. The HSE has a large number of trainee and relatively inexperienced inspectors. To develop their careers, inspectors must be able to move posts to gain experience—in a larger office that would be possible. The pooling of expertise and experience is an important ingredient in encouraging and enabling staff to develop. For that reason, inspectors are increasingly reluctant to join a small office and, as a responsible employer, the HSE is reluctant to move staff against their will.

My hon. Friend mentioned consultation and referred to the meeting with trade union representatives in May 2000. The amount of work already being carried out from Leeds and Sheffield came as a surprise to the representatives at the meeting. The reasons behind the decision were discussed and understood, if not accepted.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the Sykes report, about which there seems to have been some misunderstanding. The report referred to by my hon. Friend "Accommodation Review-Future of the Hull Office" was not the Sykes report. It is a different report, produced by the HSE estate management team about the financial implications. I will ensure that a copy of that report, if that is the one that he wants to examine, is placed in the Library.

In conclusion, the decision to close the Hull office should not be seen merely as a local decision. The centralisation of HSE offices resulted, in the first instance, from the increasingly complex demands placed on HSE, and a desire to maintain safe and equal standards across the country.

There are five stations in the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed, all on the east coast main line, although only Berwick and Alnmouth are served by long-distance trains. Berwick serves the whole of the eastern borders, and Alnmouth serves the whole of mid-Northumberland. In the case of Berwick, the train is vital to communication. It is a much quicker way of getting to central London than travelling by either air or car, because the town is a long way from the nearest airport. The train is unusually important in the economic life of the town.

Acklington, Widdrington and Chathill stations are served only by a minimal Northern Spirit service, which also stops at Alnmouth. Alnmouth station is operated by Northern Spirit, despite the fact that most of its passengers actually use GNER services. I hope that, in the longer term, the smaller stations will get an improved service from local trains. The service could run from Newcastle to Edinburgh. The trains could be electric, as they would run on the main line, stopping also at existing and reopened stations between Berwick and Edinburgh. Some stations have been reopened, and there are plans to open one or two more.

My main, immediate concerns are the east coast main line services, which have been badly affected by the Hatfield crash and its aftermath, and the unnecessary obstruction of the building of a platform at Belford for local services. I have said that GNER is the main operator on the east coast main line, but I should also mention Virgin Cross Country, which provides daily services to the west country and the south coast. Nobody I know wants Virgin to get the east coast main line franchise. The company would have a monopoly on Anglo-Scottish rail travel, and GNER has shown that it is worthy of the franchise. We all hope that that will be tied up soon, giving GNER the opportunity and encouragement to invest further in its services. Any other outcome would be greeted with absolute horror from end to end of the east coast main line.

However, the Virgin Cross Country service is extremely useful. When it goes wrong, it tends to do so pretty disastrously, because it intersects with so many other lines as it works its way from Dundee to Penzance or from Edinburgh to Bournemouth. It provides connections right into the midlands, into south Yorkshire and other areas for passengers from Edinburgh, Berwick, Newcastle and further south. Standards on the Virgin services have never been as good as those on GNER, nor is Virgin as good as GNER at looking after passengers when something goes wrong, and I have considerable experience of that. Nevertheless, it is an important service.

One problem caused by the services being divided among three train operators is that they frequently fail to give adequate information on one other's services. If there is a limited service, another operator's train may be a vital link in one's journey. I also receive many complaints from constituents about the complexities of ticket pricing. There are some good offers, but if they do not fit with people's journeys, if people do not know about them, or if they are not told about them because they ask a particular company whereas it is another company's offer, they are left with a very high standard fare to pay.

GNER's standard of service prior to Hatfield was generally very high—both speed of journey and on-train service. I feel sorry for the GNER staff, given all they have been through in recent months. I admire the way in which they have coped, not least with the terrible trauma of the Selby crash, in which regular passengers, whom they knew well, and rail worker colleagues lost their lives. Journeys in this period, especially during the floods, have sometimes been a nightmare, but GNER has made great efforts to help passengers to get through it. Thanks to Railtrack's restrictions, and Railtrack's failure to meet targets, journey times are not back to pre-Hatfield levels, and they will not be back to that level by the promised date of Easter.

We heard yesterday that the Rail Regulator has had to place an enforcement notice on Railtrack. Will GNER be able to return to full, normal services by 21 May, the new dare set by Mr. Winsor in that notice? Before Hatfield, the journey from Berwick to London on GNER took as little as 3 hours 35 minutes, which is pretty good timing for a 350-mile journey; but that journey now takes another 40 minutes. The quality of service has been reduced, and the full timetable has not been restored. For example, the 7 pm train to Edinburgh from King's Cross station has not been restored to the timetable, and there are other gaps. The total capacity of train spaces available is not what is was before Hatfield.

In recent years, GNER has added stops at Berwick and Alnmouth stations. Alnmouth has a much more limited service than Berwick, but the service meets people's needs verb well. I hope that GNER will continue to be sensitive to local demand and consider making additional stops, as it has in the past, if it can attract additional business. All three companies should realise that normal fare structures do not always take account of the benefits of charging a reasonable fare for commuting and shopping trips to Newcastle and Edinburgh, especially as it can cut road traffic to both cities. Berwick provides a striking example of the extent to which people use the long-distance train to take major shopping trips to Newcastle and Edinburgh. It is quick and it takes them directly to the shopping centres. Reasonable fares are important because they will encourage such journeys.

Early every morning, a train leaves Belford station for Newcastle. Every evening, it returns to Belford. It would be an ideal train for commuters—people with jobs in Newcastle or people who want jobs in places on that route such as Cramlington—and students going to college. It would take traffic off the Al, and would be much better than going by bus, which sometimes involves two or three changes. However, no one can get on the train. The station was closed years ago, and there is no platform in the siding where the train now waits twice a day.

A group of local people, the Belford rail users group, has set out to put that right. People from that group made sure that everyone in the country knew about the closure of the Belford branch of Barclays bank. They are among the most energetic of campaigners. They have set their minds on getting the rail service at Belford restored, and rightly so. They secured a design for a platform that could have been built in eight days and craned on to the site overnight, and no track or signalling alterations would have been necessary.

Northern Spirit, the company that runs the train service, showed interest and has been supportive. The group secured funding commitments from Berwick borough council, Northumberland county council, the Countryside Agency, Belford parish council and the Johnny Johnson trust. The Strategic Rail Authority indicated that funds could be made available and fast-tracked, because the project would have cost less than £100,000. The Department the Environment, Transport and the Regions, represented by the Minister, seemed encouraging, and the project fitted well with the Government's policy on rail development and their rural transport initiatives.

The next step was for Northern Spirit to carry out a risk assessment. Suddenly, obstacles started to appear. Railtrack told Northern Spirit that a short platform proposal would not be acceptable. I wrote to Railtrack and Northern Spirit on 5 February, and the group drew the attention of those companies to the fact that the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), had opened a station with a short platform at Beauly in January 2001.

On that day, the Strategic Rail Authority issued a press release stating that Beauly had a short, 10 m platform and was

a good example for the further development of integrated transport in the rural communities in Scotland and, indeed, in the United Kingdom as a whole."

However, Northern Spirit wrote to me on 19 February, saying that the Belford project

"is unfortunately prevented at present by an HMRI"

Her Majesty's railway inspectorate—

"restriction on construction of 'short' stations on safety grounds".

Northern Spirit enclosed a further letter referring to the Beauly case, in which it said that Railtrack had said that

"safety approval would not be forthcoming for a new facility at Belford, permission for the development at Beauly having been secured under a previous regime."

What is that previous regime? There has been no change of Government during that time, and there has been no change of railway inspector. No one, least of all the railway inspectorate, could under stand to what that referred. Indeed, Her Majesty's chief inspector of railways is a little puzzled—possibly even a bit annoyed—to find someone else representing his views before he has uttered them. Mr. Coleman wrote to me:

"I am able to inform you that the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) has not vetoed the opening of Belford station on any grounds."

He then set out earlier correspondence in which the inspectorate had pointed out what procedure needed to be followed—it had indeed been most helpful and constructive.

Railtrack is claiming an objection from the railways inspector when no such objection I has been entered, and using that non-existent objection to tell Northern Spirit not to proceed in the matter. If Railtrack's advice had been followed, it would have required a full-scale platform 51 m long that would h the cost £250,000 to build. That would have been completely over the top, quite out of scale and definitely not the solution followed at Beauly. A perfectly acceptable procedure currently operates at more than 150 stations for single- door operation at short platforms. The Northern Spirit trains, which provide the service, are equipped for single-door operation. If Railtrack stopped being obstructive, Northern Spirit could submit a risk assessment in terms that the inspector would be likely to accept on the same basis as the Beauly platform.

I am also told that Railtrack is now saying that any station project must be submitted by Northumberland county council. No one said that previously, and that was not the advice of the railways inspector. That may be possible, but it adds an unnecessary complication, and is another moving of the goalposts, such as happens at every stage. Railtrack must now put its weight behind the proposals and take a positive approach. I appeal to the Minister to do whatever he can to remind Railtrack that it is Government policy that a flexible approach should be taken to such matters.

While I am on the subject of Railtrack's approach, I add a further plea for it to take a more positive attitude to the Aln valley railway project, which is a scheme to reopen the line between Alnmouth and Alnwick. It is a widely supported scheme with major tourist potential that has secured big funding pledges from many sources. It would adjoin the east coast main line at or near Alnmouth station on derelict land, but with no direct connection currently proposed with the main line. Again, Railtrack constantly produces objections rather than looking for solutions. That scheme is an opportunity for Railtrack, not a problem. It would greatly increase the use of Alnmouth station. I gather that a meeting is scheduled for 27 March to try to sort out Railtrack's latest concerns about the lease needed, and I very much hope that it will approach that meeting in a positive spirit, and that someone will attend who will have the power to make a decision and get things moving.

Railtrack should get on with it—get the east coast main line back in a condition that will enable GNER to run fast and frequent services once more and cope with rising demand; get on with it by enabling Belford passengers to use the train that already runs to Belford twice a day; and get on with it by dealing with the Aln valley railway project. The three rail operating companies should recognise that there is a local market of people who will use trains if their services, fares, information and promotion take account of what people need from the railway. When companies have done so, it has shown to be effective. I want the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to use every effort to get Railtrack to deliver, to secure a more positive attitude by the company to new facilities, in line with Government policy, and to encourage traffic on to the railways.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on securing this debate, giving the Chamber the opportunity to discuss the east coast main line rail services in his constituency.

In the aftermath of Hatfield, most services were disrupted due to speed restrictions imposed by Railtrack for safety reasons. Further disruption was caused by the adverse weather conditions over Christmas and the new year. Virgin west coast services were severely disrupted by problems associated with modernisation work at Willesden and in the Euston area. The disruptions have shown how important the railway is to its customers and to the economy. Much of the network is now operating reasonably consistently, although several long-distance services on the main Great Western and west coast main lines will continue to be affected beyond Easter. The east coast main line should resume normal service in May. The hon. Gentleman referred to what the Rail Regulator said yesterday about getting the service back to normal as soon as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman specifically referred to the performance of Virgin CrossCountry. While a revised timetable remains in place, the service is becoming more stable by the week. I am pleased to say that improvements are in the pipeline, and Railtrack and the regulator agree that services should be back to normal by the start of the summer timetable on 20 May.

New rolling stock is to be introduced from next year and, by 2003, that will facilitate an improved timetable with faster journey times, a clock face timetable, a doubling of train mileage and new services on new routes.

The Strategic Rail Authority has considered the proposals put forward by Virgin Stagecoach and GNER for a replacement east coast main line intercity franchise. An initial recommendation has been made to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, which is being considered. The authority has been criticised for the time it has taken in awarding some of the new franchises. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, when awarding franchises for up to 20 years, it is imperative not only to secure the best possible deal for passengers, but to ensure that the preferred counter-party has the capacity to deliver the proposals. Franchise replacement aims to secure a sustained improvement in performance and a step change in customer service through increased investment. The authority is currently replacing those franchises that are due to expire in 2004.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to improve and increase the frequency of local services, including services from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Alnmouth. The authority will not specify particular improvements to services and make them a condition of acceptance of franchise bids, but will expect bidders to propose improvements where they see merit in doing so, having consulted local stakeholders, local authorities, rail passenger committees and rail user groups.

Services currently run by Northern Spirit and First North Western will be combined to provide a coherent network of local services throughout the north of England. That will exclude fast inter-urban services, which will be provided under a separate new trans-Pennine express franchise. The northern franchise will focus on working with the passenger executive committees, with a separate business unit in each area.

I understand that the Belford rail users group is pursuing proposals for extended platforms at Belford station with Northern Spirit. That is the most appropriate way forward pending replacement of the Northern Spirit franchise. Funding for that proposal, as well as for the Alnwick proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman also referred, may be available from the rail passenger partnership scheme, which is administered by the Strategic Rail Authority.

The rail passenger partnership scheme was set up by the Government with £105 million of new public funding to encourage local rail initiatives. The fund offers support for new investment proposals that produce significantly wider benefits for both integration and modal shift. To take forward a rail passenger partnership bid for Belford, a business case will need to be prepared to satisfy the authority's planning criteria. Bids must demonstrate value for money and the delivery of the scheme.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke at some length about what he considered to be the obstruction of the proposals for Belford station. I am told that the Belford proposals will be considered under a regime similar to the one that applied to the facility that was agreed in the constituency of the right on. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). No new regime is to be imposed on the Belford proposals. The right hon. Gentleman may have been told that it will, but it is not true. The Belford proposals will be treated similarly to those in the example that he gave.

I am told that the reason for the current delay is that we are awaiting further submissions from the Belford rail users group. If, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, that is not now the reason, we need to ensure that progress is made. My information is that a submission will be needed. It will be necessary to know, for example, what types of trains will be used at Belford station, how many services will stop there and what passenger numbers are likely. Attention will need to be paid to control of the situation and, with respect to a guard, establishing that there is only a single-door operating system. If the relevant matters are dealt with, there is no reason for a block on the proposal.

The Minister is being very helpful, but perhaps he should be told that three of those four points are well known to all the parties concerned. The train is a known feature; it is the same one that arrives every day. Its facilities and requirements are all known. However, new submissions keep being required. Nevertheless, I know that the campaigners will urgently provide all the information that is required, as long as the goalposts do not keep moving. I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that there is a basis on which to proceed.

The right hon. Gentleman's account was clearly not in line with the information that I am giving. We need to establish whether my information is correct and, and if it is not, we should get to the bottom of it and understand the hold-up.

I now want to mention the east coast main line upgrade. The east coast main line is the high-speed link carrying Britain's fastest train service between London, Yorkshire, the north-east and Edinburgh, and linking into Scotland's prime routes to Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness. It also handles cross-country, commuter and local passenger services, and carries considerable freight and mail traffic. The route is primarily a two-track railway, with four tracks in certain sections—mainly at the southern end. Speeds over the northern third of the route between Newcastle and Edinburgh range between 80 and 125 mph. On an average day there are 1,900 passenger trains carrying 200,000 passengers, and 250 freight services with a loading of around 200,000 tonnes. The route is therefore vital to the economic health of many regions of Great Britain.

It has long been accepted by all parties that the upgrading of the east coast main line is a necessity and a priority. It would provide additional capacity for both passenger and freight demand while improving the network, enabling train operators significantly to improve the quality and reliability of their services as their customers expect. Railtrack has had a substantial design team working on the scheme for nearly three years to enable the route to carry more passenger trains, faster trains and more freight services. The creation of a four-track railway for much of the route is also a fundamental part of the scheme. The authority was informed by Railtrack in early February of an increase in its cost estimates for the upgrade, and they have recently examined the details of the increases together. As a result, there has been a temporary pause in the franchise replacement process for the east coast main line inter-city services. As I have mentioned, it is important to get the franchise right, even if it means waiting a little longer. It is hoped that there will soon be an announcement about the way forward.

Earlier this year, the authority announced the prospect of a new, purpose-built railway, capable of running trains at 200 to 225 mph. Such a line would provide the necessary capacity and make possible journeys between major cities that were dramatically faster as well as more convenient, comfortable and reliable. Depending on the route, journey times from London to Manchester or Leeds could be reduced to less than one hour 30 minutes; journey to Newcastle could be reduced to around two hours and those to Scotland could take less than three hours.

The authority's preliminary work has enabled it to develop a better understanding of the potential costs and the benefits of a dedicated high-speed line running from London to the north. The authority is now inviting consultants to bid to develop the case for a new line with the aim of determining the best concept by the end of March 2002. Including destinations and corridor options, this stage of the study will need to assess the environmental issues relating to a high-speed line, together with the implications for the existing rail network and franchises, which are unlikely to cope with the demand expected in 10 or 20 years. The high-speed line is a project for the second decade of the 21st century, if the case for it is acceptable. For that reason, the need remains to press on with the planned upgrade of the east coast main line and the replacement of the franchise so that journey times and capacity can be improved as early as possible.

We want to deliver a bigger, better and safer railway, with improved punctuality and reliability, reduced journey times and higher standards of customer service. Our intentions are clear and our 10-year plan provides the mechanism to achieve our aim of 50 per cent. more passengers and 80 per cent. more freight over the next decade.

The £180 billion investment programme of public and private money will include £60 billion to improve the national rail network with new track. signalling, stations and rolling stock. I have already stressed the importance of franchise replacement, which the Strategic Rail Authority will take forward, as well as working closely with other transport providers and promoting integration of different modes of transport.

The authority published its strategic agenda on 13 March. That sets out the course that it will follow to achieve improvements for passengers and freight, and the way that the infrastructure will be enhanced. The agenda reflects considerable consultation and discussion with the industry and other bodies. It describes progress with franchise replacement and sets out clearly the next steps, including details of how the remaining franchises will be replaced.

Freight development will be based on encouraging competition and innovation, increasing capacity and providing more terminals and providing financial support to get the freight off the road and on to the railway. Infrastructure enhancement recognises Railtrack's two distinct businesses—operations and maintenance, and major projects. The agenda sets out how, assisted by the rail modernisation fund, the authority will work to deliver the biggest public-private partnerships in Europe. It also focuses on necessary developments in other areas—including better training and development of staff and building project management skills—as well as more research, new equipment and information systems for passengers.

The authority intends to publish a more detailed strategic plan in the autumn. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is encouraged by the planned improvements that will benefit passengers using services from Berwick-upon-Tweed. We expect the privatised train operating companies and Railtrack to work in partnership with one another and the authority to turn the vision of the 10-year plan into a reality. With the amount of public money that is being invested in the railways, we expect the industry to deliver the goods. With sustained Government investment and determination, we shall get Britain moving and give people a transport system on which they can rely.