I am pleased to debate housing needs in London. I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on her appointment as the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and I look forward to her reply. I realise that she does not represent a London constituency, but she is a former leader of a London borough and must be acutely aware of the housing problems and other issues that Londoners face. Her background knowledge will be invaluable in persuading her Department, and perhaps reluctant colleagues, of the need for housing investment in London. I am sure that she will bring her skills to the problem.

Housing in London is a huge problem. During the election campaign, Londoners raised individual problems on the doorstep with candidates from all parties. Tragically, however, those problems did not surface in the reporting of the election. Indeed, most of the media reported the reporting of the election rather than the issues raised by the electorate, which was regrettable. It was also regrettable that London's media, with some honourable exceptions, seemed to deal almost exclusively with the private sector market and house prices. They continually wrote about the gains that people could make by selling their property rather than the desperate housing situation that many people face.

One does not have to travel far on the London underground to realise that there is an enormous and growing gap between the haves in London—those who are on the property boom ladder—and the have-nots. That problem is compounded by a new practice among building societies: they are offering huge mortgages for houses for private rent, which drives up the private rented market and house prices, and leads to an even greater gap between the haves and the have-nots in London.

Matters are not much different outside London. Much of the south-east suffers the same problem, with booming house prices and a shortage of affordable rented housing. However, the midlands and the north of England, and to some extent Scotland and Wales, suffer another problem: under-occupation of estates and the related question of housing management. That was brought home to me when I visited the May day rally at Burnley. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who spoke extremely well, said that the Government needed to sort out Burnley's housing problem: there are 5,000 empty properties in Burnley. That enormous problem leads to massive deprivation, vandalism and social exclusion. Clearly, it must be addressed. London, however, does not have that problem. London's problem is one of huge shortages. That is what I want to draw to hon. Members' attention this morning.

My borough of Islington has the same problems as most inner-London boroughs. My hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) both represent London areas with acute housing stress. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate has areas of enormous wealth and of enormous poverty. Less than half a mile—in some cases, only a few hundred yards—separate them.

My borough suffers from much the same problem. There is an image problem. Parts of the borough are extremely wealthy. Everyone there eats in expensive restaurants every night and their only concern is whether to eat Indian, Chinese or French food; nothing else bothers them. In reality, my borough is the eighth most deprived in London. Unemployment is as high or higher than in many northern towns. The borough has massive housing problems, most of which I am told about at my advice surgery every week. Over the years, Islington, like other London boroughs, has developed comprehensive housing strategies. During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a great building programme, but I am glad to say that few tower blocks were constructed in my borough—it was mostly houses set on a traditional street pattern with gardens. In the 1970s, when my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities was the chair of its housing committee, the council adopted a policy of purchasing within the private sector. She expertly developed the policy, which meant that many families were moved out of the few high-rise blocks in the area and given houses with gardens—something to which we should all aspire, especially for families with young children.

Following the Thatcherite counter-revolution in the 1980s, for a while, London boroughs managed to borrow their way out of the Government's policies and continued expanding their affordable rented housing stock. Eventually, however, the policy became impossible to continue. The supply of new affordable accommodation dried up. The constant cuts in local authority expenditure meant that borough after borough tried to save money each year by not investing in housing repairs or capital improvements; they did not have the money to do it. My borough was no different. By 1997, when the Labour Government came to office, there was a £500 million repair backlog. Massive repairs had to be carried out. The Government had inherited a difficult problem.

At the start of this Parliament, I tabled several questions about the construction of dwellings in each London borough. I shall not weary hon. Members with all the details that I received, but just quote a few figures. In my borough in 1996–97, private enterprise constructed 49 new properties; registered social landlords constructed 17 and the local authority constructed none. In 2000–01, private enterprise constructed 213; registered social landlords constructed 44 and the local authority constructed none. The list that was provided in response to my question shows that the number of properties built for affordable rent is low.

The London borough of Waltham Forest seems to have one of the best records. Almost uniquely among London boroughs last year, private enterprise constructed 216 dwellings, registered social landlords constructed 257 and the local authority constructed 260. I have not checked all the details yet, but I believe that Waltham Forest was the only borough that constructed more properties—they were aimed at people in need of affordable rented housing—than the private sector. Other boroughs had similar or worse results than Islington.

The consequences of either councils or housing associations not building sufficient properties for affordable rent are enormous. It is expensive, in both financial and social terms. People who visit my advice surgery live in grossly over-crowded accommodation, as do my friends. Let us imagine the social tensions of bringing up six children in a two-bedroomed flat, with one child wanting to play music, one child wanting to do homework and another child wanting to sleep. It is difficult to match those three activities in one room. We must bear in mind those tensions, as we must family break-ups, the lack of achievement by children at school, and youth vandalism and disinterest in society. Young teenagers often want to go out, but they also want to be able to return home when they want. If they can go home only to a flat that has one child sleeping in a corner, or to a bedroom that they must share with other siblings, they will prefer to hang about the streets at night instead.

I invite hon. Members to visit hostel or bed-and-breakfast accommodation, some of which is appalling. London's children are living in abominable conditions: 40,000 families are living in temporary or bed-and-breakfast accommodation without proper washing or cooking facilities. That is disgraceful. Such accommodation is also expensive—local authorities pay hundreds of pounds per week through the housing benefit system straight into the pockets of bed-and-breakfast landlords. In addition to the financial cost of such accommodation, there is the high cost in social terms—the under-achievement of school children and ill health.

The local authority could decide that the only solution to the problem of family X living in overcrowded accommodation is to move them out of the borough, which sounds good. There are empty properties in Lincoln, Coventry and Newcastle, to which they could be sent. However, life is not so simple and I do not believe that we live in a centralised state in which local authorities or the Government can order people to move to designated areas.

One family showed me their offer of accommodation 150 miles away from London, which, at one level, was attractive—it was a reasonable property with a bedroom for each child. However, what would happen to the grandmother living down the road, the family's jobs and the children's education? Why should a family be uprooted from the area in which they have grown up and that they love, merely because we as a society are not prepared to recognise the housing needs of such families? I hope that the Government understand those concerns.

The alternative to renting affordable accommodation—buying housing in the private sector—is not realistic in London because of the high cost involved. We must consider the consequences for all of us of the housing shortage in London. Towards the end of the previous Parliament, the Government proposed a scheme to provide specialist housing, initially for teachers, police officers and nurses. I understand the Government's reasons for doing that. We are all acutely aware of the shortage of teachers, especially in inner-London schools, the difficulty of retaining such teachers and the consequences of high teacher turnover. Similar problems affect the recruitment of police officers and nurses—at high cost to the national health service, which is forced to employ agency nurses because of the impossibility of employing permanent staff, who cannot find affordable local housing.

The offer of specialist housing may be an attractive proposition for a teacher, but, in some parts of London, there is a shortage of postal workers and, in other parts, a shortage of hospital cleaners, road sweepers, plumbers or carpenters. There will be shortages of all sorts of people if we allow such a massive imbalance in housing provision to continue. I urge that we look rationally at the matter and ensure that a greater proportion of new dwellings in London is in the affordable rented sector. I hope that the Minister will offer some hope that that will happen.

Research has been conducted into the problem. There is a mass of books and glossy and not so glossy reports, of which I have a few, including the Government's Green Paper and the excellent report from the Mayor's Housing Commission, chaired by Chris Holmes of Shelter, entitled "Homes for a World City". Many people who are actively involved in housing were members of the commission. Another good document is the Association of London Government's "A housing strategy for London" which is a good summary. In the preface to that document, Tony Newman, chair of housing on the ALG, talks of the challenges in improving the quality of housing stock in London:

"These challenges are a consequence of under-investment in London's housing over the last twenty years. We must respond to those in the most acute housing need as well as helping a much wider group of Londoners who cannot afford to rent or buy property in the capital including key workers who are essential to keep London running and to serve as a basis for…long-term sustainability"

of the city. We have inherited problems in London such as the poor quality of housing stock and management, and the huge level of repairs required. There are 48,000 households in temporary accommodation in London, of which 6,000 live in B and Bs. One hundred thousand households need permanent housing in London. There is clearly a need to deal with that. Additionally, 31,000 new households come to London every year, of which a proportion—perhaps a third—will be in need of affordable rented housing.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on the problem of the sale of existing council properties and the demolition of some parts of estates to create a better quality of life. I support the latter policy because it is possible to make a deeply unattractive housing estate much better by selective demolition of parts of it to create more open and communal space and to develop community facilities. That can turn a community around. However, there is a cost: the loss of some housing stock that must be replaced elsewhere.

On the sale of council houses, I realise that the Conservatives' campaign in 1979 was largely based on offering £10 notes for a fiver to tenants on housing estates—buy the property and all will be well. Sadly, some people bought property in very poor condition and, as a result, are paying high repair bills, service charges and all that goes with that. Other people bought street properties that were later sold. It is sometimes galling to go to an area where the council formerly owned many street properties for people in housing need. Those houses were sold to tenants who later sold them in the private market. They are now inhabited by extremely wealthy people, or rented to people on housing benefit, which means that we the public pay housing benefit of £200 or £300 a week, rather than £70 or £80 a week on exactly the same property. The only difference is that the money is paid to a private landlord rather than to the local authority.

Again, that is a hidden cost to the public. The strategy of the sale of council properties has led to a huge reduction in affordable rented stock, which seldom, if ever, comes back to the public sector. Perhaps initially, we could give local authorities the opportunity to buy back properties that have been sold. Homelessness costs are rising because of that problem, but we must examine the way out. We must build and purchase more properties in London.

The land supply issue in London is huge. It is not possible to build our way completely out of the housing crisis, although by planning and examining every vacant site it is possible to do a lot. Indeed, "A housing strategy for London" suggests that in the next 15 years it will be possible to construct a further 381,000 properties in Greater London. I do not know what proportion of those houses will end up as affordably rented, but it is clearly possible to make a big dent in the problem.

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Does he support the proposal in the Mayor's spatial development plan that, in all private developments of more than 15 houses, 35 per cent. must be social housing and a further 15 per cent. must be intermediate housing? Does he think that that will increase housing in those categories?

I support the principle behind the Mayor's spatial development strategy, although I feel that he has set the figure rather too low; I suggest that such housing should make up half of the development site and that the threshold should be lower than 15. In my borough, few sites are large enough to come under the spatial development strategy because most sites are very small.

When intervening on the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions yesterday, I made the point that I would like the opportunity to intervene on planning decisions to force half of developments to go to affordable rented housing and that the threshold should be lower than 15 houses—seven or eight even. Most of the developments in inner London are very small and we miss out as a result. Indeed, the figures that I cited earlier show that last year only 8 per cent. of new property in Islington was for affordable rent. The council could do little about that because of the law. I support the principle behind the Mayor's proposal, but the figure should be lower.

The other stark issue that we must consider is house prices in the private sector. As I said, the opportunity for people to buy their way out of the housing crisis in London is extremely limited. People in my borough and, I suspect, in Camden and neighbouring boroughs who are on quite good incomes find it impossible to buy anywhere to live. The cheapest property available in my borough costs about £100,000: that would, with luck, buy a one-bedroomed flat above a shop on a main road. A two or three-bedroomed property or a house with a garden in inner London would cost about £300,000 or £400,000, and in some parts even more. Unless they have inherited income or lottery winnings, for example, a couple buying such a home—an ordinary property in London—must have a joint income of more than £100,000 a year. Average incomes in London are slightly higher than in the rest of the country, but not that much higher. The housing opportunity gap is much greater in London than in other parts of the country.

Before I conclude with a few policy thoughts, I bring to hon. Members' attention a grim statistic relating to the supply of housing for affordable rent, whether council or housing association. As a result of council house sales and the demolition of parts of badly designed estates, in the next 20 years, there will be a net loss of about 130,000 properties in Greater London. The issue is not, therefore, that current building is insufficient, but that current building does not even begin to meet the gap created by demolitions and loss. A radical agenda is necessary to make a genuine dent in London's housing needs, which I hope the new Government will be able to do.

I should like the Minister to consider three policy issues. I hope that this is not the only time that we debate housing in London. I suspect that we shall return to it time and again. I intend to keep returning to it, because I can no longer stand being in advice surgeries week after week with families coming to me with sick, under-achieving and badly behaved children because they simply can no longer cope. They and the community as a whole deserve better.

The post-war Labour Government managed, despite shortages and financial turmoil, to build much good-quality housing for rent that radically improved the lives of many Londoners, such as the wonderful London county council cottage-type estates that were built after the war. I realise that times have moved on, that supply of land is not what it was and that we cannot necessarily achieve that. However, local authorities developed imaginative solutions in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s for good-quality housing—high density but on a street pattern—and changed the lives of a lot of people. I look to this Labour Government to achieve similar results, so that we may reverse what happened in the 18 years when the previous Government missed those opportunities.

I should like the Minister to comment on three policy issues. The first is estate transfers in London—an issue that is deeply controversial and about which many tenants are extremely worried. It is hardly a level playing field when tenants are offered a ballot that essentially states that they can transfer their estate if they want to do so, and that if they go to a housing company or association they will receive money for improvements and development and if they stay with the local authority they will not. That is hardly fair. The documents that were presented to the Labour party conference and the national policy forum made it clear that an awful lot of people felt that we should offer a level playing field in decision making. A level playing field means that all the options are open and that public investment is the same, whether the transfer takes place or responsibility remains with the local authority.

My second point relates to the growth of housing companies and registered social landlords. Last week, I asked a parliamentary question, which the Minister answered, concerning the structure, democracy and running of housing associations—or registered social landlords, as they are now more commonly known. Although I accept that there is tenant representation on their boards and that, usually, there is local authority representation and some independent representation, we need to look again at the issue of democracy with regard to the running of housing associations. Although they often started out as small enterprises, many of them are now major landlords that are involved in massive financial dealings, and they have a huge impact on people's lives. They also eat up large sums of public money through various forms of subsidy, and they use that as an accelerator to borrow even larger sums from the private sector. Democracy and accountability with regard to housing associations must be addressed: we must ensure that they are well run and properly account for their money, and that tenants have a far greater influence over what happens within them.

My third point concerns housing benefit and its administration. In Camden, which is ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, it has been demonstrated that it is possible for housing benefit to be well run in-house by public employees in the public sector, so that the people who deserve benefit, receive it—and those who do not, do not. It is not rocket science; it is about getting money in, and then giving it to the right people. Unfortunately, the boroughs that have gone down the road of outsourcing to a private contractor—my borough has outsourced to a company called ITNET and there are many other such companies in the area—face unbelievable chaos, which causes terrible stress to the tenants concerned. If contractors fall down on the job, we should say bluntly to the local authorities concerned that they should terminate the contracts, bring them back in-house and ensure that they are run properly. It is appalling that people should be subjected to such high levels of stress as a result of the bad administration of what is, after all, not a local benefit, but a national benefit—although for some bizarre reason, in 1981, the then Prime Minister decided that it should be handled by local authorities. I thought that her decision to make them responsible for a new benefit that they did not want to administrate was her perverse way of saying that she disliked local government.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is possible to get rid of a private sector administrator of housing benefit. Unfortunately, in Kingston, a company called EDS—Electronic Data Systems—administered our housing benefit. After two years of chaos, the council eventually acceded to my demand and that of a local Labour councillor to get rid of EDS. Now the service is back in-house and is working very well.

I am relieved to hear that, and I am sure that the people of Kingston are even more pleased about it. After the debate, would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to make a telephone call to the Liberal Democrat leader of Islington council to tell him that, on 19 July, he has an opportunity to end, rather than extend, the contract with ITNET? If the hon. Gentleman is free on that evening, perhaps he will join me on a demonstration outside Islington town hall calling for the end of the ITNET contract. I will accompany him on the train to Islington, if he thinks that he might have difficulty in finding his way there.

With regard to the wider issue of housing benefit, figures from the past 10 years or so demonstrate that public investment in bricks and mortar as a proportion of total housing expenditure has more or less halved, and public investment in housing benefit has roughly doubled. I am, of course, not asking that we abandon the principle of supporting people in housing need by assisting them with their rent, but we should take a hard look at a strategy that creates millionaires by putting so much housing benefit into the pockets of private and bed-and-breakfast landlords. It seems that we are moving in the wrong direction. We should perhaps be investing in bricks and mortar to provide affordable rented properties in our society.

This is the first debate on London's housing in the new Parliament, and we will frequently return to the issue, but I want to repeat the points that I have made—and that many others will, I am sure, keep on making—over the coming years. London's children deserve something better than the quality of accommodation that so many of them live in. If we invest in good-quality housing, we will give them a good start in life, which in turn solves other problems. If we continue down the expensive road we have taken so far and do not provide good-quality accommodation, we will reap a social whirlwind as a result. I hope that the Minister, with all her experience of London government, will recognise that these problems, difficult as they are, are not intractable or impossible. However, central Government need to take a determined approach to bring about the solution to London's housing problems that London Members so desperately want.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. He is a determined and expert advocate on behalf of those in housing need. I also congratulate the Minister on her promotion, which brings with it her new responsibilities for housing. I am especially delighted to welcome her as a former London council leader. Members of Parliament and the general public often complain that Ministers do not understand what it is like on the ground. I know for a fact that this Minister does. The downside for her of that understanding is that even greater expectations will be placed on her to deliver. She has had to deal with the frustration, devastation and sheer hopelessness of so many who wait on housing lists throughout London, hoping for the chance to have a decent roof over their heads. I know that she will do her best to move housing up the agenda.

It is no coincidence that my first speech following the general election should be on housing. No other single issue affects my constituents more than poor-quality housing. During the election campaign, I was accosted—although that word may not exactly convey what I mean—by hundreds of people in Tower Hamlets, who said, "Please do something about housing. Come into our houses and see how we're living." I never want to sound rude to any of my constituents, because I am horrified by the conditions in which so many live, but such invitations happen so often that I have to say, "No, I'm sorry, I can't come to see the 12 members of your family living in two bedrooms. I know that there are six of you to a bedroom, that you have a mattress in the bath and that some of you are sleeping on the floor. I know that your children are sick, that they have asthma, that their education is suffering and that your life is being ruined by the lack of proper housing." Even when I say that, my constituents still want me to visit. They cannot believe that in this day and age such things can be happening to them and that no ambulance is arriving, siren blaring, and that no one is coming with a solution to their problems.

The problems go back a long way. Council housing began in the east end before anywhere else in Britain, because historically the area has the worst housing in Britain. The Boundary estate was built exactly 100 years ago on the edge of the City of London, on a site that was a notorious slum in the 19th century. It was known as the "Old Nichol" and immortalised by Arthur Morrison in his book, "Child of the Jago" and reflected in James Thomson's "City of Dreadful Night". Unfortunately, London remains a city of dreadful night for many people who do not get a decent night's sleep in their houses. The Prince of Wales opened the Boundary estate in 1901. The design was groundbreaking and an architectural vision of the future, but if a week is a long time in politics, a century is virtually a millennium in terms of social housing. Residents would not call the Boundary estate an architectural vision of the future—they regularly tell me that it is a vision of hell.

Will the Minister examine what makes life on the Boundary and so many other estates in Tower Hamlets such hell? There are two aspects to the problem. One, as we all know, is the lack of repairs. When the Labour party took office after the Tories, there was a £19 billion repair backlog. The other aspect is overcrowding. Families often have to wait on the housing register for five, 10 and 15 years. Someone even came to me who had been on the waiting list for 19 years. While waiting, families often live in situations of terrible overcrowding, such as those that I described.

Will the Minister be good enough to undertake to visit Tower Hamlets to see the worst overcrowding in the United Kingdom? Tower Hamlets has the highest density of poverty in the country, which is obviously reflected in the housing. Will she also consider the rules that govern statutory overcrowding to see whether there is any way of reducing levels of overcrowding?

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North dealt very well with another issue that causes my constituents great distress. Their children do not have a hope in hell of being able to afford a house in east London or to stay in the area in which they were brought up unless they earn more than £50,000 a year. That is the figure for a couple. The average house price in London is £150,000. To get a mortgage for a very small house, a single person would have to earn a Member of Parliament's salary. That is truly disgraceful. The need for more affordable housing runs through this entire debate. If we cannot create a greater stock of affordable housing, we shall be unable to solve the problem.

Another part of the problem is the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which I know that the Minister discussed yesterday. I am pleased that, in response to concerns about the growing use of such accommodation and to the Adjournment debate that I secured in the previous Parliament, Ministers have set up a bed-and-breakfast taskforce. I am especially glad that it is to consider setting targets for local authorities to reduce the use of such accommodation. However, I hope that Ministers will give it a strong steer by acknowledging today, or when the Homelessness Bill is in Committee in the near future, that the use of bed and breakfast for anything other than a reduced four-week initial assessment period is simply unacceptable.

I know that the Minister is well aware of the recent papers by Shelter and the National Housing Federation, which set out clear methods for reducing the use of bed and breakfast. The problem is that that will always involve additional investment, but I trust that she recognises that it is a much more sensible approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North outlined in some detail how much money we are wasting. Nowhere is that more evident than in the extortionate rents charged by many owners of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is no wonder that landlords are amenable to the rich pickings that can be made at the taxpayer's expense.

The problems would be eased if we could guarantee the level of investment required to tackle housing need in London. I am pleased that the Government started by concentrating their efforts on tackling street homelessness and people with priority need, but we must tackle the even deeper problem of hidden homelessness, which accounts for so much of the overcrowding that I described. We must do much more to help those trying to raise young families in single rooms, and we need to build more family-sized accommodation for those who live in overcrowded one-bedroomed and two-bedroomed flats.

I was encouraged that extra funding was identified in last summer's comprehensive spending review. Although that Government money far outstrips anything that the Conservatives ever invested in social housing, it is not enough. We need more. Only in the final year of the comprehensive spending review will we even begin to approach the levels of funding needed.

We are not yet planning to build new homes in the numbers needed to reduce the waiting lists in London, which in itself forces more and more families to approach the local homeless persons unit. The London Housing Commission estimates that 43,000 homes will be needed in London in addition to the 57,000 planned in each of the next 10 years. The majority of those homes must have an affordable rent. I hope that the Government will consider again the number of new homes that are planned, and increase further the advance development programme funding available to the Housing Corporation. In turn, I naturally have to say that I hope that the Housing Corporation will ensure that the area currently ranked in greatest need in terms of housing—Tower Hamlets—is given more money, so that it can add to its stock of affordable housing.

The other issues that I would like to raise centre on the fact that the way in which the system deals with the homeless and housing problem in London wastes money. I want to see the Government's commitment to improving public sector services broadened to cover housing. The country is debating the need to improve public sector services, and the Prime Minister is specifically considering health, education, crime and transport. The first three of those problems are directly affected by poor housing.

Without decent housing, the costs on the national health service increase incredibly. Think of the cost alone of nebulisers to treat children with asthma. Nebulisers are handed out by doctors who have told me that they want to prescribe a decent home for their patients, rather than a short-term measure that does not deal with the root of the problem. Similarly, how can people attain what they ought to in education without anywhere to study, without any peace and quiet and without things that middle-class children take for granted?

Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of health, I should like to say that I have been an inner-city Member of Parliament for 14 years, and I am sure that she will have seen, as I have, many women come into advice sessions and burst into tears. Those women are suffering from acute depression because of having to put up with overcrowded and damp housing conditions and the family problems that ensue. Depression among working-class women on our estates is an important issue.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising mental health issues, which are critical. One cannot escape such issues when one holds a surgery. It seems that 90 per cent. of the people who come for help have their prescriptions in tow and are desperately depressed. The problem is especially acute in ethnic minority communities.

Housing should be at the top of the agenda. For that reason, I ask the Minister to arrange a meeting with Lord Macdonald, who will be heading the delivery unit, or with the other organisations that have been set up by the Prime Minister to help the Government deliver on public services, such as the Office of Public Service Reform.

The other issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, such as stock transfer, are very important and should be examined in the same way that the Institute for Public Policy Research has been examining the relative costs and benefits of public and private sector involvement in our public services. I would like a similar amount of thought and energy to be given to housing.

I hope that the Minister will be able to find the time to come to see the reality on the ground in Tower Hamlets.

I welcome the Minister to her position and congratulate her. I am glad to hear from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) that the Minister has experience of London's housing problems. That is welcome news, and I hope that when she replies to the debate she can give hon. Members good news about her approach to the problems.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). He has a strong record of raising housing issues in the House. He has been a persistent challenger of all Governments on the issue and has raised it in his usual forceful manner today.

The hon. Gentleman was right to stress the extent and nature of the problem in London, and how it has changed over the years. Clearly, it was very different just after the second world war, when hundreds of thousands of houses had been destroyed and many damaged. The housing challenge for Government during the post-war period was different. The population was lower and land was less scarce.

The environment now is different even from that 10 years ago. The population of London is growing relentlessly; in the recent past, it has grown faster than it did 10 or 20 years ago. Those population growth trends look as though they will continue, so the pressure on London housing stock and on land for the building of affordable housing will be ever greater.

The challenge that we face today in London is completely different from the challenge that we have faced in the past, so we need a different response. Unless we tackle the housing problem, it will put a brake on the London economy. Private sector employers are already experiencing shortages of labour for key undertakings across the diverse economy of Greater London. Wage inflation is picking up in London because of the shortage of housing. Children are affected because many now have to travel much further to school than they used to, and so is the public sector. The Greater London Assembly report, the Mayor's report and the Assembly reports on the problem of housing for key public sector workers are important contributions to the debate. I hope that the Minister will reflect on them.

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow was right to link the debate on public service reform to housing: they are inextricably linked. In my constituency and, I am sure, in other London constituencies, housing problems are at the root of difficulties in recruiting and retaining quality staff for schools, hospitals, the police force and the wider public services. Until we tackle that problem, we shall not be able to improve our public services. In London. probably more than anywhere else in the country, housing is fundamental to the Government's agenda. If they do not tackle housing, they will not solve the problem.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that the Minister should talk to the new Office of Public Service Reform. I also recommend that she speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is undertaking the latest comprehensive spending review, which is to report in June 2002. A recent written answer from the Treasury set out the remits of that review, and of the cross-departmental reviews that it will encompass. One—I think that it was the second listed—included a look at the overall labour market in the public sector and its recruitment and retention requirements. We as London Members and the Minister with that responsibility need to feed into the cross-departmental review to ensure that the housing needs of public sector workers in the capital are reflected in the cash and policy innovations that result from that review.

I should like to highlight a Liberal Democrat recommendation that was picked up in the Assembly's report on key public sector workers and housing needs in London. It concerned the need for a London weighting—an independent index of how much it costs people to work in London, identifying extra housing costs. There used to be one under the Labour Government in the early 1970s. Not surprisingly, it was one of the things that Baroness Thatcher got rid of when she was Prime Minister. She did not like it because it told her that she might need to spend more money in the capital. It needs to be resurrected; it will strengthen our argument with colleagues in other parts of the country and with the Treasury. If we want a higher level of public service, we must ensure that the London weightings for key public sector workers are larger than they are now, so that such workers can afford to live in Greater London.

It is important to arm ourselves with statistics about the grants to London councils to tackle some of their problems. Let us be honest: we have heard rumours that such grants are under threat. We need to ensure that the Government recognise the greater cost of providing services in London. An index should be published—it may be available somewhere, but if it is, it has been given no prominence—to show the post-tax, post-housing cost incomes of Londoners. If we compared the incomes of Londoners, after deducting tax and housing costs, with those of people living in other parts of the country, I bet that our incomes would be substantially lower at almost all levels, even before adjusting for quality of housing. Until we have such figures and indices in our armoury, we shall not be able to win the argument.

That is a very important point, and I shall take it further. The take-up of the working families tax credit, one of the flagship poverty alleviation measures of the Labour Administration, is lower in London because the inflated housing costs there result in its having become not worth claiming.

The hon. Lady makes a good point. The reform of housing benefit was part of the unfinished business of the previous Parliament. Some of her colleagues have told me that they are worried that housing benefit is too complicated. That is a worry because it is most relevant to the needs of Londoners. People on low incomes need help with their housing costs, and housing benefit is not meeting that need.

I shall be slightly parochial for a moment and return to my constituency of Kingston and Surbiton. I am the first Member for an outer-London constituency to speak in this debate. It would be dishonest of me to say that the housing problems in my constituency are as severe as those in the constituencies of the hon. Members who have already spoken; of course, they are not. However, housing problems in some parts of my constituency are nearly as bad.

Kingston is sometimes thought to be a leafy borough. It was given that label by the Deputy Prime Minister in his first local government grant settlement speech in the previous Parliament. That did not go down well in the housing estates of Kingston. The borough is not homogenously wealthy and prosperous. It has pockets of severe deprivation. On the Jarman index, the Norbiton ward is the most severely deprived ward in outer London. My constituency has pockets of severe poverty. When I visit those estates—I recently delivered quite a few leaflets there—and when I hold advice sessions, it is obvious that Kingston has some severe housing problems. I recognise some of the descriptions that have been given, and I strongly support some of the solutions.

Some of Kingston's problems are parochial. The cash that Kingston council receives for dealing with its housing problems has been restricted in recent years. The cap on housing benefit has made life particularly difficult for those of my constituents trying to rent in the private sector, because the rents are sky high and housing benefit covers only a portion of those rents. They have been priced out of the private rented sector as a result. Although the local government grant settlement made some changes to the way in which the housing benefit regulations operate, it did not go far enough.

I refer again to my exchange with the hon. Member for Islington, North about the administration of housing benefit. I shall pass on to the leader of the Liberal Democrat administration in Islington our experiences in Kingston, although they may be different from Islington's. To meet its internal financial targets, EDS, the private sector firm that managed that contract, slashed the number of people dealing with administration. It claimed that, by introducing net technology, it would be able to overcome that reduction in labour.

The reality is that housing benefit claimants often need help to fill in forms and to follow up their claims; they need a high level of customer service, which the computer is not able to give. Unfortunately, EDS and possibly other private sector suppliers did not realise that. That is an example that the Government should take on board: an example of private sector involvement not providing a better service. It helped to reduce costs in the short term, but in the longer term it massively increased them. In an outstanding court case, Kingston is trying to extract compensation from EDS, so I shall not say more about that. However, it shows that messing up the administration of housing benefit can have knock-on effects on the provision of social housing.

Even though EDS has been long gone, the problem that the people of Kingston are still living with is that private sector landlords will no longer rent to housing benefit claimants. They did before EDS came on the scene, but because they were fed up with the bungling, the delays, the incompetence and the downright rudeness of EDS, they decided not to rent to housing benefit claimants. Winning back their confidence and trust will be a long job. Unfortunately, in some cases, it will be impossible.

The landlords became so fed up that they took the capital gains that were available to them and sold up. That was much less hassle than obtaining the rent by way of housing benefit from the council. Our problems in Kingston were exacerbated because of that experience. From the looks and nods that I have been receiving from hon. Members, it seems that they are aware of the problem.

I was one of the hon. Members who nodded vehemently at the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, I was nodding on behalf of my borough, which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) defined as excellent in delivering housing benefit in-house. Putting housing benefit services into the private sector has had a knock-on effect throughout London. That is increasingly so because private sector landlords have heard the horror stories and will not consider taking on a tenant who pays his rent via housing benefit, even in a borough such as mine where the administration of that benefit is extremely good.

I am disturbed by the hon. Lady's remark. It shows the extent of the problem. When the Government are digesting the recommendations of the Institute for Public Policy Research and some of their other advisers, they should be careful how they introduce the private sector to such matters. I am not saying that it does not have a major role to play in solving such difficulties. In terms of public-private partnerships for capital spending and investment, the private sector is the key to London's housing problems. The challenge for the Government is to know how to use and to work with the private sector. If they get that right, such a partnership can be fruitful.

Planning is the answer to some of London's housing problems and several of the Mayor's recommendations are heading in the right direction. A much greater proportion of affordable housing needs to be set down in planning agreements. The under-15 rule needs to be scrapped. We must consider allowing section 106 conditions to apply to smaller developments. We also need greater flexibility. We must not examine only one application, but a whole group. Councils must have the powers to examine applications more widely—to examine what is happening in their boroughs as a whole.

I look forward to the Minister's remarks about how to change planning powers in London. Some private sector builders are worried at the prospect of a higher proportion of affordable housing being attached to planning applications. They are saying that they would not build if such a rule were introduced. I do not believe them. Many private sector builders would still be keen to build. There are still many opportunities for profit. It is in the community's interest to demand a share from those developers. Let us remember that, without the key workers—those who clean the roads, teach the children and police the streets—private sector properties will be devalued. I hope that the Minister will bring her experience to bear on the issue and regard it not only as an isolated matter, but as one that impacts on all the lives of those who live in London.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on relieving me of the burden of having to detail some of the housing realities of many of my constituents. I shall not go over that ground again—my hon. Friends have given graphic accounts of stories that could have come from any inner-London borough. They also detailed reasons why so many people in this great capital city live in the most appalling housing conditions. The question is not why the situation is as it is, but how we can ensure a better future for our constituents.

It is interesting that the debate is entitled "Housing (London)". The London boroughs, the Mayor, the Greater London Assembly and, perhaps more importantly, the Government, should examine London's housing problems with a pan-London vision. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow urged the Minister to meet her, her constituents and members of the Government who have been given the clear responsibility to improve public services. She made the extremely strong point that there is no more important public service in London than affordable social housing.

If the Government are not moved by the human tragedies that the appalling lack of affordable social housing lays on too many people in London, I make a side point. This city has always been presented—as indeed it is—as one of the greatest, most powerful, richest and interesting cities in the world. What is detailed less often is that within London we have the largest number of deprived wards in the United Kingdom. Unemployment rates are higher than in the north-east of the country and. regrettably, London lost out during the first comprehensive spending review due to the lack of money that the Government are affording London's budgets. Labour Members know and applaud the Government's reason for making that shift, which was that they were putting much-needed money into coalfield communities. The Government argue for equality of opportunity, tackling child poverty and eradicating poor health, which I strongly endorse. However, there is little point in that if they do not take on board the fact that a contributory factor to all those demerits in our constituencies can be laid clearly and succinctly at the door of poor housing.

Equally, I ask the Minister to endorse other of my hon. Friend's comments. When the meeting between the great and good of the Government is arranged, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be present, as should the Mayor and other representatives of the Greater London Authority. London needs more money—it is as simple as that. The better delivery of public services will rightly place greater burdens on local authorities. However, it is not enough to get agreement from leaders, chief executives, and directors of various departments. There must be money to retrain, co- ordinate and modernise many local authority services to ensure that we, the public on the ground, see the benefit of such public services. There is no sector in which that is more important than housing.

The point that I initially attempted to make before I was carried away by my own eloquence was that, if the Government are not prepared to accept what we as London Members see as the overwhelming human case for more money to be pumped into London, will they acknowledge the economic case? The Chancellor has rightly said that the London is the dynamo for the national economy. For every job that is created in London, two jobs are created in the greater hinterland of the United Kingdom. However, we will not be able to maintain London's primacy, attract inward investment and be the great financial centre, in or out of the euro—however the country decides on that matter—if London's infrastructure does not function, and it will not function if key public workers cannot afford to live in this city.

All accept that the headline key public workers are teachers, nurses and policemen. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North rightly made the case for another group of key public workers in this great city, and they are the people who clean the streets. Without them, will we be able to attract people to the city? The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) mentioned leafy streets. If leaves are not swept up in the autumn, elderly people may, as has happened in the past, slip on compacted wet leaves and injure themselves. We are a great nation of dog lovers. If dog faeces are not cleaned up and pavements and roads are not properly maintained, will we be able to attract people? The houses might be nice, but if the surrounding environment is lousy, people will not want to live in London.

The same applies to transport. The Government are pouring more into public transport than ever before, but doing so will do no good if, because they simply cannot afford to live in their city, there are no drivers for the buses and tubes or wardens to give tickets to people who are parked illegally.

Many of those involved were born in this city, as were their parents and grandparents. If we cannot tackle the issue quickly, we shall, as my hon. Friends said, create even greater resentment that will cost us more as a nation because it will create social imbalances and possibly, in some instances, disaffection that will express itself physically or verbally on the ground. As constituency Members of Parliament, we want no more constituents with unbelievable stories about the harassment that they are experiencing as a result of a neighbour-from-hell scenario.

We are running short of time, and I shall conclude my remarks. I strongly urge the Minister to take up the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow of a high-level meeting between the Chancellor, members of the Government who are responsible for the improvement of public services, and representatives of the tier of London government that the Government—much to our credit—introduced to ensure a pan-London approach to some of the most essential and complicated difficulties that beset this great city. Housing should certainly be at the top of the agenda, and the issues can be thrashed out.

In the interim—or, rather, as an addendum—will the Minister ensure that the bed-and-breakfast taskforce imposes what we would consider acceptable standards for the facilities provided in bed-and-breakfast establishments? I also urge her to speak to our right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for the benefit system. We have spent a great deal of time this morning discussing the inequities of the housing benefit system, which often result from the privatisation of benefits. Equally, the Government have imposed on the system enormous complexities that have a serious impact, especially on the voluntary sector that delivers services to homeless people and rough sleepers in London. I urge the Minister to argue with our right hon. and hon. Friends that, rather than housing benefit taking a decade to improve, it too can be improved in an infinitely shorter period.

I welcome the Government's commitment that they, like all Labour Members, believe in the benefits of affordable social housing. The Homelessness Bill, which received its Second Reading on the Floor of the House last night, is a step in the right direction. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the importance of tackling quickly the issue of socially affordable housing in London.

I welcome many of the measures that the Government have introduced, in particular starter packs. However, that was simply throwing good money after bad, as all that it did was further inflate rents. We shall tackle the issue only by building. People are available to effect the plans, and the ideas and creativity are there, as London has experienced the problem for many years, but we shall not achieve anything in the time scale that is essential without more money from the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow will make that point when she arranges a meeting with those who are responsible for improving public services and our right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. We have covered a lot of useful ground and I cannot possibly say all that I want to in the six minutes remaining to me. I shall give the Minister, whom I also congratulate, her full 10 minutes—because that is only right with a new Minister.

I congratulate, too, the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). Although there are great ideological differences between us, I found myself agreeing with much of what they said.

I hope that we can move on from the point often made in debates that we have had in the past, that everything the private sector does is bad and everything the public sector does is good. In fact, there is good and bad in both. As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, we should harness what is best in the private sector to solve the dreadful housing problems, not only in London but in all our constituencies, although London's problems are probably worse than those in most of the rest of the country.

I accept that bad housing causes personal misery, as graphically illustrated by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. It leads to family breakdown, mental health problems, crime, antisocial neighbours and all the other problems that we desperately want to solve.

I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North about voluntary large-scale transfers to housing associations. There has been such a transfer in my constituency. Housing association tenants do not have enough say in how associations are run; that is something that the Government should be able to tackle. We should also engender greater competition between housing associations because, in my experience, there are good and bad associations and the difference between the worst and the best is enormous. By better auditing techniques, initiatives and targets, we could encourage the worst housing associations to rise to the standards of the best.

I should put one or two statistics on the record. At a housing conference on 5 March 1996, the Prime Minister promised that Labour would do everything in its power

"to end the scandal of homelessness, to tackle the spectacle of people sleeping rough on the streets and to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation."

We would all say "Amen" to that, but we must judge the Prime Minister on his record, which tells us that homelessness has risen by 8,000 in the past three years, from 102,410 to 110,790. The gap between the rich and poor has risen since 1997. The Government's statistics show that 700,000 more people live in poverty now than in 1997. The number of empty houses has risen since 1997 by 7 per cent., from 81,200 to 87,186. Many of the key indicators from the past three years suggest that things are going the wrong way.

I make those points in a genuine spirit of wanting to improve the lot of Londoners—and it is a genuine spirit, because the task of all of us in politics should be to improve the lot of all our constituents, especially those in the country's capital. I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate that London is the country's economic driver and that we must ensure that London operates better than anywhere else.

One or two common misconceptions arose in the debate, especially in the points made about housing benefit. I was on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which considered housing benefit many times. The essence of benefits is to keep them simple. We have had 85 changes of regulation in housing benefit—one for every fortnight that the Labour party has been in power, and such tinkering makes it difficult for the council or a contracted-out service to deliver a housing benefit service with efficiency. We must shrink things to the lowest common denominator instead of trying to alter regulations to cover every possible eventuality.

In the little time available, I wish to be constructive about what a Conservative Government would do. We would allow local authorities greater discretion over where houses are built instead of dictating everything from the centre, which has led to many disadvantages. We would create new regeneration companies. It is especially important that we see more money being levered in by the private sector. The sort of development that I was thinking about when I intervened on the hon. Member for Islington, North is the monolithic diktat from the Mayor that all housing developments over 15 houses must contain 50 per cent. social and intermediate housing, which will lead to less development by the private sector. If the hon. Member for Islington, North and his friends really want to increase development in London, they should stop that sort of monolithic approach and examine each proposal on a case-by-case basis. We should determine how much a private developer can afford in a particular development and make him meet set targets and raise or lower them depending on the case. It is not sensible to adopt a monolithic approach.

I promised to leave the Minister 10 minutes, but she has only nine. Suffice it to say that I sympathise with the problems in London, but I have the same problems in my constituency, albeit to a far lesser degree. Nevertheless, the Government need to tackle those problems and I look forward to the Government doing better in this second term than they did in the first.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate on this important issue. From the contributions that have been made, it is clear that the debate will continue and that people have extremely strong and clear feelings about the matter.

Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was council leader in one of the most deprived areas of inner London. I was probably responsible for some of the worst housing in the country.

I think that my hon. Friend should rephrase that.

No, because that was the way in which I saw the problem. Whatever party is in government, one cannot duck local responsibilities. I still believe that to solve London's housing problems we need a partnership between local and national Government and the various housing agencies. There is no way to escape that.

A Conservative Government were in power throughout the time that I was council leader. We should expect nothing from the Conservatives, just as people in London could not. I will take no lectures from Conservative Members on the subject.

Two issues were raised: first, the quantity of housing and the amount of money that goes in; and, secondly, the quality of housing and what is delivered on the ground. In terms of quantity, the problems in London are well recognised by the Government and substantial extra funding has been put in. Between 1997–98 and 2001–02, allocations of housing investment for local authorities and registered social landlords in London amounted to some £31.8 billion, £1.3 billion of which was extra resources made available by the Government. That represented almost 30 per cent. of total national extra resources and reflected the Government's concern at the high level of deprivation and need that exists in the capital.

We have put in extra money through the new major repairs allowance. We expect authorities in areas of high demand such as London to use some of that extra money to fund new affordable housing where it is a high priority. Clearly, if we are to solve some of the quantity issues, we must look at extra funding streams—hence the emphasis on stock transfers and on partnership arrangements to ensure that we get the maximum return in terms of quantity for the amount of money that the public sector can put in. However, there are profound issues concerning quality.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) asked whether analysis would be conducted of how stock transfers have worked. Hackney has undertaken more stock transfers than any other London borough, and our experience has been unsatisfactory. We want some analysis before the policy is further promoted.

I am sure that everyone will look at the lessons of stock transfers. However, there are many ways to attract different funding streams to provide social housing in London and throughout the country. If we are serious about increasing the amount of housing, we must look at all those options, and deal with issues concerning quality.

The particular issue that I want to deal with is overcrowding, which has been raised repeatedly. One of my first impressions of housing in London was how overcrowded it was; it formed part of my case load as a councillor. The overcrowding regulations are very outdated, and I share the concerns that were expressed about them by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). I undertake to review them, although I do not undertake to prejudge the outcome of that review. However, they need to be reviewed. It is unacceptable that families in overcrowded conditions have to resort to, for example, converting airing cupboards into bedrooms. Some parents have to sleep in their cars. The general curse of an overcrowded household must be addressed: not only its health implications, but the difficulties that face children doing normal things such as homework.

Issues about the extension of rights, particularly the extension of housing rights to young people, have been raised. They were debated at length last night. As we set about recognising the housing needs of a wider range of people—including, in particular, 16 and 17-year-olds—it is quite likely that extra pressure will be put on the housing stock, at least for a time. We must be clear that, if we are going to recognise housing need and to deal with equality issues, we must look carefully at the consequences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North raised issues about the problems of reducing stock, and what then happens to housing densities. He rightly said that, if property should be demolished because of its inadequate condition, that must be done. However, we must bear in mind that that reduces the overall stock. If we are going to increase the densities and the stock, we must be more careful about where we build the new housing. There are some innovative ideas about increasing it around, for example, shopping areas and transport nodes. I am sure that we can take such matters forward, while bearing in mind that the composition of households differs greatly.

Several hon. Members raised issues about bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The Government are conscious of the increasing use by some London authorities of bed-and-breakfast hotels as temporary accommodation for homeless families with children. We believe that people have a right to decent accommodation, and Government policy is clear that such accommodation should be used only as a last resort. In May 2001, a new taskforce was established to work with the worst affected authorities. The unit will help to develop solutions and disseminate good practice to assist authorities to avoid or reduce their use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Several hon. Members asked for assurances about that. In taking an interest and following through the work of that taskforce, I shall certainly try to ensure that we reduce its use as far as possible, especially for families with children, as for them it is clearly undesirable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow asked whether I would visit her area and consider some of its problems. We are not supposed to give such assurances, but I would be happy to pay such a visit.

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise a matter of pressing—indeed searing—importance to my constituency. I welcome the Minister, who is making his debut for DEFRA, which I am told is Welsh for "wake up", or something like that. I am not sure how good his Welsh is, but perhaps he will clarify that in due course.

Let me clarify for the right hon. Gentleman, as my Welsh is perfectly adequate to the task, that the spelling is different but that "deffra" means "awake!". The Department for Environment, Food and Regional Affairs is certainly wide awake.

In the next quarter of an hour we may find out just how wide awake the Department is, as that is the purpose of the debate.

Since the election was called, in Craven, which is within the area of North Yorkshire that I represent, and in the neighbouring parts of Lancashire—notably but not exclusively the Ribble Valley—there have been 86 confirmed cases of foot and mouth, nine cases of slaughter on suspicion and 345 premises culled out as part of a contiguous cull. About 39,000 cattle and 219,000 sheep and lambs have been slaughtered since the election was called.

First, I want to praise Dr. Steve Hunter, who is the director of operations in Yorkshire, for his handling of the matter. However, in doing so, I also give thanks to all those who have worked to tackle the disease and who have not been thanked enough, including the secretaries in what was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the administrators, the Army, the vets and those in local authorities who worked hard to contain the outbreak and find a way through it.

The key fact is that businesses in my constituency, including farming, were closed down long before the first outbreak of foot and mouth there. The outbreaks in Hawes, in Wensleydale in North Yorkshire, in Lancashire, to some extent in Cumbria and in Bradford had frozen all normal activity in my constituency for weeks before an outbreak occurred within its boundaries. The shutdown had enormously wide ramifications even before the disease affected the constituency itself. Because foot and mouth arrived there relatively late and intensely—in Craven, the intensity of the disease rivals that in Cumbria—for many businesses, especially in the tourist trade, the summer has been shot through already. Businesses in Malham Dale, Grassington and Three Peaks—indeed, all those in north Craven and the Pennine dales—live largely off tourism, especially but not exclusively during the summer months. For many of them, the real crisis will be winter survival. Even when the last case of foot and mouth is dealt with and the last farm premises have been cleansed and can look forward to restocking, the business crisis will be only beginning for some businesses and will be in full torrent for many of them.

The problem is that the Government's assistance for areas affected by foot and mouth was allocated before the outbreak hit my area and the neighbouring constituencies. The Government announced business rate relief for three months, with Government participation of 95 per cent. for businesses below £12,000 rateable value and 75 per cent. in an on-going programme for those above £12,000. However, that scheme ended two days ago. Craven district council sent out 579 applications for relief. Of the 198 applications that have come back, 24 had a rateable value of more than £12,000. There have been 87 awards, but the scheme has ended.

The Government made allocations under the rural recovery programme via the rural development agencies. In Yorkshire and the Humberside area, the money—£2.5 million—was allocated when foot and mouth was confined largely to the Wensleydale outbreak. Cumbria received £11.8 million. I am sure that my colleagues from Lancashire will point out the similar discrepancy between the sums that Lancashire constituencies will get and the sum for the whole northwest. Both allocations pre-date the incidents in Craven and most Lancashire constituencies.

We must also consider the Government's scheme to match funds raised by charity. In Craven on Wednesday, the Craven Trust was launched with a target of raising £1 million. People are generous, have lived near the crisis and have seen its searing effects closely, so I think that that money will be forthcoming. The Government promised to match such money, but the scheme ended two days ago.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also note that the same problem has arisen in the west country? The Western Morning News launched an excellent "green wellie appeal", but it seems that the Government are again backsliding on their original promise to match funding.

I merely wish to point out what is happening in my constituency and its neighbouring areas, because the epidemic started much later there. That does not mean that the problem does not exist in many other parts of the United Kingdom.

On aid for tourism, I am in favour of trying to encourage overseas visitors back to the United Kingdom. I merely point out that in the Yorkshire dales, for example, 90 per cent. of our visitors are national rather than international, and that of that 90 per cent., 80 per cent. are regional. We want to attract people back from Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield and Sheffield.

I have raised the subject on four previous occasions. I have seen the Minister, and was one of the first Members of Parliament to meet the new Secretary of State, to whom I am grateful for responding so rapidly to my request to meet her. I raised it in the Queen's Speech debate and following the foot and mouth statement. Each time, Ministers told me that I had an excellent point and that they were reviewing matters and taking them seriously. I thank them for the sympathy, but that will not put any people back in business and keep them there. I do not want sympathy; I want Ministers to do something about the problem now.

My next theme is agriculture and the recovery programme. The people worst affected in my constituency are farmers in heavily infected areas whose farms are not themselves infected. One could argue that it would be in the farmers' economic interest for their farms to become infected. By common consent, the valuations are relatively generous. Most farmers opt not for the standard scale but for individual valuations. Although the money paid for what is in effect a compulsory purchase is relatively generous, I do not claim that it in any way takes away the trauma that farmers suffer, or that it is preferable to being able to carry on business. I merely state that funding has been made available, sensibly in this regard. Those farmers can do nothing. They are practically frozen, and are in the worst situation possible. It is the same situation as for many businesses, but perhaps without the hope of being able to recover as quickly.

There is also a problem of bottlenecks in cleansing and disinfecting. It is fair to say that, in my constituency, most people regard the operation up to slaughter, culling and transport to have been carried out not merely efficiently, but with great sensitivity. Recently there has been much more controversy, because certain things went wrong with a cull that happened close to Skipton, as such incidents always seem to, so it was much more public than the others. Since then, some groups of people have been desperate to find anything that has gone wrong and any little incident has been magnified into fiction worthy of Harry Potter, of whom I am a devotee. Myth has run riot, partly because little proper information was issued at the beginning. Now, the smallest fragments of circumstantial evidence are woven into tremendous horror stories.

Once a cull is over, the animals have been carted off and the sheeted lorries have disappeared, the real problems begin. There have been problems with people not being allocated a case officer for long enough, and with the rotation of case officers. It is rather like when a relative dies: everyone is busy until after the funeral. The busyness keeps them occupied, but then they have to cope with what follows. People have not been given adequate information about what follows. Different case officers are involved, so the information that farmers get about what they can do—whether they can make hay or store it—has differed from farmer to farmer and from place to place. The timetables have differed. There has been no consistency.

I draw hon. Members' attention to my connections with farming, which are set out in the Register of Members' Interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who have lost their stock need the Government to give a lead on the role of British agriculture? If we are to get such people back into agriculture, they must make important economic decisions after the six-month quarantine period. They will have to buy expensive stock, which will take time to reach peak production. They are wondering whether it is worth going back into agriculture, and we need a lead from the Government to get them back.

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, that point will form the content of some of my concluding remarks.

If negligence and non-observance of the rules in the agricultural industry have contributed to the spread of the disease, let us hear about it and see the evidence. If there are to be prosecutions, let us have them. Far too many stories have attributed the spread of the disease to such things, but none has been given substance. Nothing is more anguishing for farming communities than to be told that they are somehow responsible, but that no one will ever bring a case. I know that obtaining evidence is difficult, but if cases are to be brought, let us knock off the non-attributable stories about how the farming community has contributed to its own crisis.

I also draw the Minister's attention to the circumstances of children in my constituency who have come from farms where culling has been taking place to sit public exams. There is evidence that the cull in my constituency coincided precisely with the period of public or internal examinations and of standard assessment tests. Will the Minister ensure that examination boards understand that individual children might have been under great pressure when taking exams?

I want now to deal with the farm crisis that is looming in the autumn. I said that the business crisis will continue well after the cull and when the disease has, I hope, been eradicated. The end of the epidemic does not mean that farming will escape. We already know that the new premium is at an historic low because of the price on the continent. Even after the cull and welfare disposal, which will take care of 3 million to 3.5 million lambs that would have gone into consumption, there will still be a surplus of 1.5 million to 2 million on the home market because of the closure of the export market, which would normally take 6 million lambs a year. Many of those would have been the lighter lambs. The Government need to consider their response. There is a case for aid to private storage, and there might also be a case for a Government scheme to remove some of the lighter lambs. Otherwise, we shall have immensely low prices and we shall simply move from the present crisis to the resumption of the economic crisis that was a four or five-year constant for agriculture before foot and mouth hit.

I want to talk a little about the aftermath of the crisis. Some farmers who have lost all their stock might be able to quit the industry. To be frank, they might be better off economically than they would have been if they had quit before the epidemic struck. Others might be able to stay, and the process of restocking could accelerate the development of scrapie resistance in breeding flocks, which would be a small gain. Those people might also think a little about the management of their systems. I have been struck by the fact that many farmers are so busy running their farms that they can no longer think about how they manage them. They are run off their feet: they have shed all their labour and pared things down to the bone and they work every hour that God gives simply to keep things moving from day to day.

It is also true that the industry, particularly the sheep industry, will emerge smaller but perhaps fitter from the crisis. We all acknowledge that there was a significant surplus of as many as 3 million sheep. That fact has given rise to the great myth that somehow the foot and mouth epidemic was a vast, planned economic cull to scale the industry down to size. However, it is none the less true that, following the crisis, we are able to examine factors such as stocking densities and management systems.

There are some reflections for the Department that I would like to bring to the Minister's attention. It is true to say, although I say it with some caution, that the Department—MAFF as was—has become rather disconnected from the industry that it is supposed to be supervising. It was a tremendous shock for it to discover that in my constituency farms did not all sit in nice, compact holdings. They were scattered over many different locations and were fragmented. Had that sunk in sooner, perhaps some of the movement permissions that were granted earlier would not have been granted, in recognition of the risks involved.

The Department has lost knowledge of the industry. That is partly because ADAS—the old Agricultural Development Advisory Service—has been floated off, and partly because the staff of the Department largely fulfil a gendarme role in policing the giving of grants. The issue is serious and needs to be addressed.

It is a myth that we need more vets. We need many more people at the technical level, such as animal health officers, because vets are doing many jobs that they should not do. We need far more competent people at the level below vets. They would have helped a great deal with the crisis. Vets should be integrated fully into the mainstream administration of the Department. It does not make sense for the vets to be in separate hierarchies, parallel to the main administrative organisation. That has been a real problem in the handling of the epidemic. Vets are not supposed to be managers and it is much more effective if they are integrated into the management system.

In my experience, the Department has been reasonably good at giving statistics. I have no complaint about the statistics, once the indigestion caused by data protection legislation had been overcome, although we need to examine the effective workings of that legislation.

The Department is not good at communicating issues. Halfway through the epidemic, the word "biosecurity" suddenly appeared and the concept was treated as if it was an eternal truth that everybody had taken in with their mother's milk. I did not have the faintest idea what biosecurity was—I thought it was an organic washing powder. Suddenly, farms were being told that they were breaching the rules of biosecurity, but it is only in the past few days that a video has been produced to tell farmers what biosecurity is. They can hardly be reproached if they are suddenly told that management systems that have operated for generations are somehow dangerous.

There is still no piece of paper setting out for farmers the route from cull to restocking. We know that it is difficult and complex, but a timetable is necessary, setting out the steps and showing who does what and who approves what. To have in one's hands a piece of paper that sets that out clearly is important. The problem partly arises because of the Department's reliance on the wretched internet. In my constituency, most farmers are not connected to the internet and old-fashioned bits of paper are of a great deal more use to many people than a constant reliance on electronic communications, which are irrelevant to many farmers. Perhaps that will change.

We must reflect on media handling. Department officials have been thrust into the cauldron. I attended a meeting 10 days ago—a sort of anti-cull protest—to which people had come from all over the country. It was not violent, but it was extremely rowdy. It was an outdoor meeting of about 400 people. It is the sort of thing a politician has to do—it is good training, and when one has finished one is glad to have dealt with it.

A few days later Steve Hunter had to deal with a similar meeting, but it is not the job of officials to be in that political forum. Ministers ought to do that job. We need to think hard about where the role of officials ends and that of Ministers begins. The crisis has placed officials in front of the media more and more, taking the flak. They are inevitably asked to respond to political questions. All that they can say is, "Sorry, I carry out the orders." However, people shout and scream from the audience that they should denounce those orders. There should be a sensible review of that matter.

We need to look again at co-operation between Departments. It is an old story, but the epidemic has shown yet again the problems that arise if there is no proper coterminosity. In addition, we need to reflect on the circumstances in which vaccination might have a role. It is simplistic to say that there is a clear choice: that we should either kill or vaccinate. We all know that it is a great deal more complex than that, but the sooner that is spelled out, so that the argument can be conducted on sensible scientific territory, the better.

Finally, I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). We must avoid saying that because foot and mouth disease and BSE have happened, agriculture is heading for a radical departure. I do not believe in radical departures, and in any case such matters have to be agreed at European level. BSE has probably had a greater impact on the continental way of thinking than foot and mouth, which will simply push us further in the direction in which we were already going. That is not a bad thing. We must think much harder about what we want from farmers and about what public good farming is delivering. We must then crystallise our thoughts about what we are willing to pay for that public good, especially in terms of food production—higher quality and going upstream in food production—of recreation and of the environment.

People want a better balance between the broad economic sectors in the countryside, and between the ecology and the industrial activity there. This debate gives us a chance to set that out in an intelligent fashion, bringing people with us, rather than giving the impression that everything that went before foot and mouth was somehow a culmination and a preparation for the epidemic and that we will now go back to a new annus mirabilis—some anno domini in which everything will change. The world is not as simple as that. A sensible evolution is not only imperative: it is inevitable. The more signposts that we can put along that roadway, the better it will be for everybody.

I am grateful for the Minister's attention, and look forward to his reply— particularly his reply to the first part of my remarks, so that my concern about those schemes having come to an end may shortly be abated. Then we shall know that he has really woken up.

I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who spoke with real feeling and practical knowledge of the difficulties that affect his constituents. He sketched out some of the longer-term issues that face rural communities. Before I come to those, I should like to point out to those in Parliament and elsewhere who try to run a divide between rural communities and urban ones that the foot and mouth outbreak has implications for the urban community. There are two examples in my constituency. A maggot farm in Clipstone that sells angling equipment has had difficulties because people from urban areas have not been able to go out to the countryside. For the same reason, a textile company in Hucknall in Nottinghamshire that makes high-quality visible protective clothing has seen its sales drop and the business is in peril.

Of course, there are real problems in the countryside. The significant lesson of the foot and mouth outbreak is the importance of tourism to the countryside. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wants to get people from Leeds and Sheffield back into the countryside. In the Peak district we must get people from Derby, Nottingham and Leicester back. It is all very well for colleagues from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to go abroad and promote our countryside in Europe and America, but the reality is that we must get local people back. One of the dangerous political divides that have arisen in recent years is that between urban and rural areas. We must recognise that the two interrelate. However, I have been impressed by the importance to the countryside of walkers, climbers, anglers, canoeists and birdwatchers. It is clear that pubs and bed-and-breakfast places have faced real difficulties. The significance of closing the rights of way network throughout the country has only just been realised.

I was tempted to read some of the research undertaken on the subject, and came across a helpful paper written by Peter Midmore, professor of rural studies at the university of Wales, on the economic value of walking in rural Wales. His conclusions were striking. He found that, each year, walking and climbing bring £77 million into Wales and contribute to 4,250 jobs. He compared the cost to the public purse of the subsidies for farming and agriculture and for the tourist industry. The public cost for climbing and walking—the leisure business—was £433 a job, whereas that of supporting jobs in agriculture in Wales was almost 10 times higher, at £4,279.

I was also struck by the Scottish natural history survey of 1998, which showed that open air recreation accounted for 29,000 jobs in Scotland—almost the same as farming. The Countryside Agency in England has not been slow to follow that: it found that on arty given weekend more than 7 million people visited the British countryside, that the main source of transport was by foot and that the majority of visitors lived less than 30 miles from the places visited.

The implications for rural communities, following the closures caused by the foot and mouth epidemic, are significant. It is bizarre that some local authorities still deny it. Lincolnshire county council has done little to reopen its footpaths. East Yorkshire, another county with tremendous tourist potential, has done little, as has Hertfordshire. Some county councils—including Kent, which made a good start in opening up its footpaths—are now slowly coming off the accelerator. I know that the Minister has been looking closely at whether to remove the blanket ban and I will be interested to hear what he has to say on the matter.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has walked extensively in Cornwall. He will be glad to know that, as from 9 am today, virtually all footpaths in the county are open.

I am aware that bodies such as the National Trust have been quick to enter into the discussion and that beaches and coves were opened early. Tourism and outdoor recreation are indeed important.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Dartmoor national park has been closed for far longer than necessary, and that when national parks are closed people do not visit the area? Does he agree that the Government should give special help to tourist attractions in the national park areas and to hoteliers who are on the verge of bankruptcy?

We need to examine the measures that have been put in place to help rural businesses. One of the questions that will arise at the end of the crisis is how successful those measures have been. I suspect that they will not be as successful as was thought at the outset. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that it is vital to reopen Dartmoor as soon as possible. Again, I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister to say something on the subject.

People visit the countryside because of the landscape. There is a symmetry between what farmers and landowners do and what tourists want from the countryside. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, the outbreak will lead to an acceleration of thinking on the subject. Like him, I do not think that it will lead to anything radical: I believe that the bones of a new approach are already in place.

In Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, many farmers and landowners are looking for alternative businesses. We must reconsider how the planning system works in rural areas. There is much evidence to suggest that there is a black economy of industry that brings wealth into the area, taking place with no planning permission in farm buildings throughout the country. That is of little detriment to the countryside and I hope that we will take the opportunity to ease planning conditions.

In the longer term, there will be a move away from the manner in which we support agriculture. The common agricultural policy will face radical reform that will be driven by the enlargement of the European Union, not by the current crisis. As new countries such as Poland and Hungary enter the EU, it is inconceivable that the CAP will not have to change. Change is driven by foot and mouth and the other crises of the past four or five years: BSE, low commodity prices and overproduction. The strength of the pound against the euro has also been a factor.

The English rural development programme has set the path on which we must go. We must switch from a system that rewards production to one that brings other benefits into the area. I have mentioned changing the planning system to bring new business into the area, but as I said, it is the landscape and environment that bring tourists in. Increasingly, we will pay farmers and landowners more green premiums to develop and look after the countryside and to introduce new planting, walls and hedges to make it more attractive to visit. That process will not be painless—it will be extremely painful. It will be timetabled over a number of years. It is clear that, however much is done with organics, local marketing and the development of a market in energy crops, commercial farming faces real difficulties and big challenges. That is why I tell the Minister that whatever the difficulties—I know that there are real difficulties with colleagues in the Treasury about retirement and outgoer schemes—we must give farmers whose capital, livelihood and family are tied up with their farmstead a chance to leave with dignity and some money in their hands. The problem is one of new entrants and substitution and we must work hard to develop a system to allow change in the countryside.

Many people, and particularly incomers to the countryside, want a countryside that is preserved in aspic and does not change. I had hoped to go to the Yorkshire dales this coming weekend—I am a Yorkshire lad from the urban textile town of Halifax. One of my favourite walks is to the top of Buckden Pike. I used to take my children there, and as we looked down over Upper Wharfedale the kids would say, "Nothing's ever changed." However, in Upper Wharfedale, everything had changed, from a land that was soggy and woodland to one that was intensively used. The challenge is to make and plan such change

I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that all the voices in the countryside, not only landowners and farmers, are crying out for change. We do not have long to act. I welcome the suggestion of an independent commission. We must move quickly. The sign of DEFRA's success will not be a change of nameplate on the door of Nobel house, but a change that creates a new and living countryside—a countryside that is in stark contrast to the barren fields and desolation that we see in many parts of England and Wales at present.

There is a widespread belief in many rural communities that the Government do not understand the depth of the crisis and how it has affected so many different businesses and people. The Prime Minister has said that we are on the home straight, however bumpy it is. Perhaps we are over the worst, yet many businesses are entering what should be their more lucrative period with much trepidation.

We hope that hotels and small businesses connected with tourism in Devon and Cornwall are now facing good weather and many visitors. It has been estimated that 97 per cent. of them have been affected in some way by foot and mouth. Small businesses—sometimes even micro-businesses comprising one or two people—that always live to a certain extent on the precipice are now clearly faced with possible disaster. That such businesses would not be readily connected with farming has been a difficult problem for some district councils considering applications for relief. For example, the boat storage business in my constituency is not connected with agriculture or foot and mouth, but it has been affected significantly. Even the fancy dress hire business is looking bleak because it has not had the advantage of young farmers club events or mystery evenings put on by hotels and so on. Such tiny businesses have missed out significantly and can ill afford to lose what is literally a few thousand pounds.

Large agricultural shows such as the Royal Bath and West show and the Devon and Cornwall show are the shop windows for many small businesses, which market themselves and take a huge number of orders during the few days of the show. The orders keep them going for the rest of the year. They have other opportunities to market their products, but the shows are key. A further problem is the temporary closure of an enormous number of National Trust houses and attractions. They have their own problems with admission fees, but what about their ice-cream suppliers and so on, which are often micro-businesses?

We want the Government to understand the depth of the crisis and how it has affected small businesses in rural areas. It has been dealt with principally by the provision of hardship rate relief. As has already been said, that has now ceased, but many businesses are still suffering considerably as a result of the foot and mouth crisis. We want an extension of that relief. When it was introduced, it was intimated that the Government would review the position before the end of the three-month period to determine whether it would, in fact, be extended. The case has been made, and I hope that an announcement will be made that the scheme will be further extended for a minimum of three months.

The scheme does not deal with all businesses that have a rateable value of up to £12,000. I understand that about 3,500 applications have been made nationally. We were told that a £12,000 limit would include 75 per cent. of all businesses that might be affected. If only 3,500 have made applications, something is seriously amiss. Consideration should be given, perhaps during the extension of the three-month period, to raising that limit to, say, £50,000, so that businesses that are affected can obtain some relief.

Apart from agriculture, tourism is probably the economic activity that has been most affected. In many tourist areas, there is a feeling that England has missed out considerably in terms of Government support for tourism compared with Scotland and Wales. Many of the hardest hit areas of tourism are in England. A significant increase in marketing support and promotional activity is necessary to benefit tourism.

One of the other aspects that we should consider is why we did not learn enough from the 1967 outbreak and the 1969 report. Although many comparisons made are erroneous, as the 2001 FMD outbreak is significantly different from that of 1967, comparisons can be made about the effects and how the disease can be controlled.

I hope that the Government will agree to hold a full, open and independent public inquiry. Many people—not only those involved in foot and mouth but the entire country—want to understand how the Government handled the matter. Indeed, in my area, a telephone poll—they are not always entirely accurate—taken by the local daily newspaper, the Western Morning News, asking people whether they would like a public inquiry, showed more than 2,200 in favour and only 61 against. The impression from that relatively small number of people, who nevertheless come from the entire south-west, show, the Government how important it is to have such a full and independent public inquiry.

We need to do more, and quickly. Many lessons can be learned in the absence of an inquiry, such as how farmers' and local markets can be encouraged in local towns. The Government are putting public money into the regeneration of small market towns, but is it not nonsense to continue to allow planning applications for out-of-town shopping centres at the same time as we are trying to regenerate towns? Joined-up thinking is necessary to reap the benefits of both. Larger out-of-town shopping centres have benefits, but they should not undermine local town centres. We need planning permission that avoids one competing with the other and public money ultimately having to be put into town centres.

Long discussion on food and farming policy is necessary. Many of us have been calling for that for some time. Before the commencement of foot and mouth disease, it had become apparent that the common agricultural policy and other factors had had an impact on farming. We have been producing more and more and creating surpluses, there has been a reduction in world prices, and farm incomes have rapidly disappeared. If there can be an advantage to a crisis such as this, it may he that it will concentrate minds and create real change.

People sometimes say that everything that happened before foot and mouth was bad and that everything after it will be all right. Although there is a place and a niche market for the smaller, local, organic farm supplying produce for the local town and its restaurants and shops, and such farms may produce local cheeses and meats, they can never supply the need for wider food production. The larger agribusinesses will continue to thrive, operating on a national and international scale, supplying large supermarkets and food processing businesses.

Surely, however, a place must remain for the less intensive, more traditional food production farming units, which even now comprise the vast majority of farming enterprises throughout the country. They still provide a significant amount of the food that we want, including an enormous amount of food for processing. Day by day, week by week, year by year, they continue to trade and to be profitable in their own right—if we discount the problems of FMD for the moment. They have been looking after, enhancing and producing the very countryside from which tourism and the whole country benefit. Somehow, however, despite being a significant number, they have been excluded from the debate.

We need to incorporate such farms in any future policy decisions. Yes, we want to move away from more intensive farming and promote organics as a niche, but we will never reduce significantly the large number of farming enterprises that fall between, not being hugely intensive or totally organic, but provide much of the food that we eat. We should not neglect them, because they also provide the countryside that is so important to us. If we tried to change that, we would change significantly the whole way in which the rural economy operated.

I hope that one of the effects of foot and mouth will be that we take a good look at how we produce our food, and at how the rural economy could fit together to include all types of business. However, let us not forget that an enormous number of farms—often family farms—that have operated quite satisfactorily for a long period, may feel alienated by a policy that considers only agribusinesses and smaller, organic businesses.

rose—

Order. I intend to call the Opposition spokesman at 12.10. Before that, at least three people want to speak. With a little self-discipline, they may all be able to do so.

I shall do my best to follow that advice, Mr. O'Hara. The debate is not an opportunity for a long discourse on the origins of foot and mouth in relation to the current crisis. I want to focus on the implications that the outbreak has for the way in which the Government deliver services to the farming community and, specifically, to the culture and performance of former MAFF services that are now the responsibility of DEFRA.

This crisis has demonstrated a number of things to which those of us who have been close to farming and to MAFF have frequently drawn attention. First, this is a Ministry that does not naturally develop strategies for the delivery of its services, or for the future of the industry that it seeks to guard and help. Several speakers have made lucid arguments concerning the fact that a strategy has been lacking for some time, and have pointed out that a rural strategy that encompasses the role of farming in the future is desperately needed.

Secondly, the Ministry has never had a good track record with regard to contingency planning or preparedness for dealing with major crises. As I said in the House a few days ago, a major outbreak of foot and mouth disease was not an unknown possibility, as it has happened before. However, although it is an eventuality on which much administrative time was spent in the 1960s, there is plenty of evidence that the Ministry had little in place to guide it on how to deal with an outbreak on this scale. It lacks preparedness and long-term thinking for dealing with such major biological crises.

Thirdly, the Ministry has had an introverted and defensive culture, which has made it peculiarly hard for it to engage with other parts of the public service or with other groups that may be able to assist it in dealing with such crises. That is evidenced by how slow it was to engage with scientific expertise to give guidance on the mapping of the crisis and how it would spread across the country. The issue of the engagement of the Army in logistical tasks also provides evidence to support that opinion. I recognise that this is a politically sensitive matter, but it was apparent to me at an early stage that the Army's help was required, because the Ministry was ill-equipped to deal with the scale of the task facing it in some parts of the country, and yet it went into denial for a critical few days before recognising that that was necessary.

However, it should also be pointed out that MAFF officials are tremendously nice people. Reports from my constituency, where there were eight cases of foot and mouth disease, support that point: there was positive feedback on the ground concerning how the officials did their work. They were sensitive: they recognised that the tasks that they had to perform were awful and that they were working on other people's property and destroying their livelihoods. They conducted themselves with a degree of sensitivity and tact that must not be lost. Although I will talk about some of the things that must be lost if MAFF is to change into a Department that serves rural areas far better than before, that local feel was present, and it was appreciated by people who were going through the worst experiences of their lives. It is only fair to point that out.

However, a painful—and, occasionally inconceivable—amount of bureaucracy was sometimes imposed. I handled cases in which, to apply for a local movement, a form had to be completed that had to be sent to Nottingham, from where it was transmitted to Cambridge, before being routed back through the process. The apparent reason for that was that it did not seem possible for MAFF to devise a one-stop process for dealing with the matter. To resolve it, two regional service centres had to be involved.

Similar problems arose with regard to the welfare scheme. Some cases in my constituency had to go through an appalling process. It has been remarked that often the worst-hit farmers did not have foot and mouth disease on their farms but were restricted in their movements and activities. There were some awful welfare cases, and sorting some of them out took up a significant amount of my time. That the wrong rates were set for the welfare scheme was not helpful. Most of us who know a reasonable amount about the subject would have said straight away that the rates were too generous. They produced a secondary marketplace into which everyone immediately dived, thereby overloading the bureaucracy. That could have been spotted immediately.

The paperchase process was then imposed on people seeking to go through the welfare scheme. I have local examples of that, one of which is someone who did not have lifting gear available to deal with carcases, and was told by one person that it was his responsibility to provide it, but by another that the Ministry could do so. The muddled communication was bad news for local farmers.

The compensation payment arrangements also provided plenty of room for complaint. They were often slow. They were sometimes unfair in certain respects, and I have taken up such cases separately with the Department. In one critical area—the payment for previously redundant farm workers to carry out certain cleansing tasks—the arrangements in my constituency were so woefully slow that people who lived on little money in the first place were often denied any income for six to eight weeks. First, someone would check off the payment in Stafford, move it to London to be authorised again, and then to Alnwick, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), for someone finally to pay it off. I cannot understand how we can tolerate such jobsworth bureaucracy when dealing with a crisis.

The blood tests, which were critical in finally clearing up the cases in my area, were slow. Someone made another mistake and missed a critical farm, which delayed the process, so restrictions were in place for far longer than necessary. The people might be nice, but what a painfully bureaucratic muddle there was. To call the operation byzantine would seem only a mild criticism.

Communications were awful. The example given earlier on vaccination was right, as the explanation of what vaccination meant was muddled. Various meanings of that word never got through to some farmers, although most farmers in my area grasped the issue reasonably clearly. To the public and the media, the dichotomy was clear between vaccination, as a way to save animals, and the alternative, to kill them. As most of us know, that is a woefully simplistic view of a complex subject.

I hope that, as a result of the change of nameplate on Nobel house, there is a powerful change in the culture, management style and key management personnel in the Department that delivers such key services. We cannot accept that such a level of bureaucracy should be applied to a critical sector that needs regeneration, new thinking and new strategies. I find it hard to conceive that some of those involved will be able to deliver such powerful change in the future.

My key message is that we must change the culture and performance of the key services as a direct outcome of the crisis. If one positive change can come out of the crisis, I hope that that is it.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on initiating the debate, as the issue has had an enormous impact on my constituency, not only on the blighted farmers and those who have been directly affected in terms of tourism and agriculture but on people in the towns and villages who are related to or know those farmers. A dark cloud hangs over the areas that have been directly affected by the disease.

My right hon. Friend was right to say that when there is a withdrawal of information, the rumour mill can and does take over. I have heard daily rumours on how the disease has spread and where it will go next. We need to fill the vacuum to ensure that the rumour mill is displaced.

It is impossible to overestimate the impact of foot and mouth in my area. As I said, its impact has been felt not only by those directly affected: the contiguous culls sometimes affect 16 other farms. We can only imagine how many animals are taken out with each outbreak.

It has been said that the vast majority of culls have been carried out sensitively, and I thank those involved for that. However, that is sometimes not the case. I have had a letter from John Barber of the Lancashire Rural Stress Network telling me of a cull that took place in West Bradford. There were not many animals, and they belonged to the lady who runs the post office. The road was not closed, and passers-by who had become attached to the animals—including some children—saw the cull taking place and were affected by what they saw. I ask the Minister to ensure that it is stressed yet again to those who take part in the culls that they deal sensitively with the people who live in the area and with those who are directly affected.

Compensation has been mentioned, and I pay tribute again to the charities for the role that they have played during the outbreak. I should like to think that the Minister will today announce new initiatives to support those affected by foot and mouth, rather than withdrawing the initiatives that have already been announced, some of which were inadequate in the first place. I hope that he can reassure us that some of the schemes that have been started will continue and that some of the problems that can be more clearly seen now that we are way down the line can be properly tackled.

Hon. Members have mentioned the future and the fact that it might be six months before those who are affected by foot and mouth can restock. I want to know about the long-term future. I also want to know about the long-term future of those who get compensation. I heard today of someone whose animals were culled virtually at the start of the outbreak, but who still has had no money, while others, whose animals were killed a month ago, have had theirs. There might be difficulties in that regard.

Are farmers supposed to live on the compensation until they can restock? If they have to eat into money that is earmarked for the replenishment of stocks, there will be so much less when they finally get round to restocking. We must reconsider exactly what the money will be used for. We have heard about new entrants, but we should talk about the old entrants who want to stay in farming. We must ensure that they are properly compensated and can support themselves during this difficult time. It has been stressed that it would, ironically, be better for some people if their stock got the disease. People who are not involved in dairying have been unable to move their animals and have had no income since the outbreak of the disease. We need to reconsider what compensation and support can be given to such people.

I ask the Minister yet again to restate that the Government will hold a public inquiry into the disease so that farmers and those involved in the industry can give evidence. People want to know how the epidemic started and spread. There are rumours that helicopters were involved and about foot and mouth living on the beaks of birds and being spread by vermin. Indeed, there was a suspicion that MAFF officials were spreading the disease by not properly disinfecting premises—not deliberately, of course.

I was delighted when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Gisburn in my constituency, which houses the DEFRA headquarters for the outbreak in my area. She also met several people involved in tourism, and we need to see what more can be done in that regard. Absurdly, the tourism industries are often those that diversified out of farming in the first place because there was no money in it. Now, they have been clobbered because there is no money in tourism that is related to farming, as agriculture has been blighted.

I ask the Minister to re-examine cases where businesses can prove that their income and turnover have gone down by a considerable percentage, and to give them special relief. Conservative Members have suggested one scheme and I am sure that the Government can come up with another. Labour Members have expressed sympathy today, but farmers and the tourism industry cannot bank sympathy. We need something far more tangible, and I hope that we will hear it from him today.

rose—

Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I intend to call Mr. Paice at 12.10.

I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for ensuring that we share the last few minutes of the debate between our two constituencies, both of which have been seriously affected—mine from end to end—by the foot and mouth outbreak. The few areas that have remained clean throughout the outbreak are of course affected by the secondary effects that have spread into the towns as well. In the limited time available to me, I would like to list some of the serious problems, some of which are less obvious to the outside world than they are to those of us in the area.

Many businesses other than farming are adversely affected. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) mentioned agricultural shows. From now until the beginning of October, there is one every Saturday in my constituency—but not this year. All the businesses that exhibit at the shows will lose out badly as a consequence. A sweet seller told me that 95 per cent. of his business was at those shows. He has no source of income this year.

Many other businesses serve and provide for agriculture, and investment and even day-to-day spending are no longer taking place in those businesses, because the income is not there to provide for it. Some of those businesses are medium-sized rather than small, employing quite a few people, and have therefore not been significantly helped by the schemes that the Government have announced so far. People employed in such businesses who have been laid off, such as drivers and mart workers, have had no source of employment throughout this year and have no prospect of it in the near future.

Tourism businesses of many kinds have been affected, but especially those dependent on hill walking, canoeing, pony trekking, and other activities that have been restricted. That has particularly affected the Wooler area in my constituency.

Outdoor clothing sellers and manufacturers have had a terrible year. One famous national firm has taken to selling outdoor clothing in the car park of my local supermarket, because all its normal business outlets at the shows have disappeared. I do not suppose that it can begin to replace the business, because people do not buy clothes for activities that they do not engage in.

There are other, quite surprising victims. Specialist cheese producers have been prevented from using unpasteurised milk by foot and mouth restrictions, even though the scientific basis for this decision seems very doubtful indeed. Their cheese entirely depends on the use of unpasteurised milk.

Farmers and others who let grass parks have not been able to let them at all this year. That includes a variety of organisations, including in one case a church in my constituency, a substantial part of whose income comes from letting grass parks that have been gifted to it by previous generations.

Some in the farming industry are affected by movement restrictions. People who want to move clean cattle are not able to sell before the animals reach 30 months, because of movement restrictions, and lose financially if they have to go into the over-30-months scheme. The Minister has written letters saying that the Government are trying to find a solution. What is the solution, and will it deal with the substantial losses that the restrictions are causing farming businesses?

Farmers are prevented from moving cattle to the Ayr abattoir for slaughter because of restrictions placed at the Scottish border by the Scottish Executive. I have taken up that matter with the Scottish Executive, who have been helpful in changing and relaxing some restrictions. Cattle from an infected area exactly identical to one just over the border are not able to go to the nearest available slaughterhouse in Ayr, just because they are on the wrong side of the border. There is no scientific or veterinary difference—there is simply a national boundary. Suddenly, cattle from clean areas are not allowed to cross the border. According to the Scottish Executive, this is because there has been an outbreak in North Yorkshire—which is much further away than the abattoir is from my constituency—and they must maintain a restriction at the border. That is an unfair and unreasonable decision. Farmers wanting to move grain and oilseed rape from contiguously culled farms are not able to carry on their business.

In my constituency, there have been disposal problems. About 130,000 carcases have been buried at Widdrington, with a number of errors made in the way in which it was first done. About 3,000 carcases were burned and the ashes now have to be taken away from the sand dunes where the burning took place, because they cannot safely be left. The areas around Widdrington deserve compensation—for communities and even for households.

The Government should start a national scheme to reduce the council tax for those communities. That would provide direct help to those households that suffered from the burning and the fumes—and from anxiety about the health risks that they were exposed to when the massive burials were taking place. Previous Ministers have met my constituents. The Prime Minister met them, as did the Minister's colleague, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who was then a MAFF Minister, and the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). They expressed sympathy and said that there would be some kind of Government help for the communities affected by that disposal activity—help in the form of Government investment and so on.

I welcome the new Minister, but people expect a lot from him. They regard all those promises and commitments as binding on successor Ministers. New evidence has strengthened their case for help for the businesses affected and for the communities that suffered so greatly from the disposal operations. We look to him to do everything that he can to help those communities.

I welcome the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) in his latest incarnation as Minister for Rural Affairs. He comes with the support not only of his own party, but of the Opposition. I was interested to read recently that, in his time in the Welsh Assembly, he was highly regarded by Welsh farmers. I hope that he manages to extend that regard in England.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on securing the debate and on the way in which he introduced it. He brings a wealth of knowledge, not only because his constituency is seriously affected but because of his experience as a former Minister in the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; he has many years' expertise on agri-policies and the like.

As my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said, the sorry saga of foot and mouth continues. My right hon. Friend listed the impact that it has had on his area since the Prime Minister said that we were on the home straight. Tens of thousands of farms—and families—are still affected by the crisis and, as so many hon. Members have said, many other businesses are affected. I shall not repeat the list, but it is generally understood that the disease has implications far beyond farming. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, they go beyond rural areas, and are now affecting urban areas.

I join my right hon. Friend in thanking the many people who have been involved, who are widely respected by the real sufferers, including MAFF staff and others. They have treated with sensitivity what has been a dreadful scenario for the farmers concerned.

The first issue of substance is the present fluctuating situation, and I hope that the Minister can explain it to us. We had no new cases on Sunday and four yesterday. It has been like that for some time, and we expect it to continue for some time. People want to know the truth about the outbreaks. Questions are being asked about dangerous contacts that have been slaughtered but not tested because no one knows whether they would be confirmed cases. Indeed, as happened on a farm in Wiltshire last week, some slaughtered animals have not appeared in any statistics. We do not know why they were slaughtered. Can the Minister shed some light on that? As my right hon. Friend said, wherever it happens, myth starts to run riot if people do not know why animals have been slaughtered. People start to make up their own stories about why it might have happened.

Next is the cause of new outbreaks. The Secretary of State said that last week that there was no evidence of walkers having transmitted foot and mouth disease. She is probably right, but there is no evidence—one cannot prove a negative—that they did not do it. As my right hon. Friend said, the same applies to all comments, including those of the Secretary of State, about farmers and farm contractors and machinery spreading the disease. We need to be clear whether there is evidence of it happening or whether it is just supposition, otherwise we give the impression that farmers are bring blamed for their own problems. As my right hon. Friend said, if some individuals have behaved badly and caused outbreaks, we should jump on them hard, because they have let down the entire industry.

Will the Minister speak about the serological testing that we understand is going on in many parts of the country? To what extent is it taking place? What findings are beginning to emerge as to how endemic the problem is, especially in the sheep flock? I was concerned to read the latest information this morning, which is that Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs, says that the recent cases of foot and mouth in the Brecon area mean that it has been there for "several weeks". That is worrying, and I would welcome the Minister's comments on it.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) touched on the first point I wanted to make on unrecoverable losses. On 27 February, the Opposition highlighted the problem of cattle going over the 30 months and the immediate devaluation that it created. It is somewhat regret table that the Government have even now done no more to deal with that than make sympathetic noises. There is an issue about cattle on the over-30-months scheme, which have not generally been moved off farms. Using pre-outbreak statistics, my estimate is that there must be about 200,000 such animals awaiting disposal.

There are other unrecoverable losses. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said the other day, he wrote to MAFF in April listing our proposals for compensation for unrecoverable losses, and there is still no prospect of any positive response.

I also want to ask the Minister about the disposal and methods of marketing of store stock. We are now beginning to approach the period—August, September and October—when hundreds of thousands of store lambs and store cattle are brought off the hills and traditionally sold in large store-market arrangements, often in a temporary purpose-built fairground, so to speak. They are sold to lowland farmers for onward growing and finishing. What thinking has the Department done on how it can help in the disposal of these hundreds of thousands of animals, especially sheep? They have to be sold, as there is no facility to keep them on, so how can that be accommodated?

I stand to be corrected, but I understand that farmers have an option to restock with what are described as sentinel cattle. If the cattle catch the disease, it proves that it is still around, and if they do not, it means that it is not. Farmers also have the option of not keeping stock on the farm for four months after disinfection. Problems arise—they have done so in Scotland—when two adjoining farms take different routes, and the farmer who opts for the four-month clearance period finds that his neighbour has sent in sentinel cattle. If those cattle go down with foot and mouth, the consequences for the farmer who opted for the alternative are serious. Some rationale must be established.

No one suggests that there be a full inquiry until the disease is resolved. Every effort must be concentrated on that first, but there must be a full inquiry afterwards. The Secretary of State has refused to accept that it would be a public inquiry, as she says that that would have legal connotations and cause delay. That is not necessarily the case. It is critical that an inquiry have the powers to interview everyone involved or with a view on the subject. That includes former Ministers and former civil servants who may have left the civil service by the time that an inquiry takes place. A Select Committee does not have such powers, and nor do internal requirements.

We need to know what took place. If it takes a little longer but we get to the bottom of the matter, that is how it should be handled. A programme tomorrow night on Channel 4 will examine the background to the period, especially March, when the disease was clearly out of control, despite what the then Minister was saying. It was not until the meeting on 21 March that the Government accepted advice to aim for a target of slaughter within 24 hours of diagnosis. The Government then took more than a month to achieve that target.

Many questions have arisen for the Minister to deal with and I will not encroach upon his time, so I conclude by saying that some of this morning's debate has concerned wider issues of the countryside and DEFRA, which are important. I have not spoken about them because of the lack of time, but I hope that the Minister will persuade his colleagues in charge of parliamentary business of the genuine interest in this matter. Perhaps a full-scale parliamentary debate on the future of the countryside, even on the Adjournment, would be appropriate.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on securing this debate and on the constructive manner in which he introduced it, which set the tone. That tone was reflected in the final remarks of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), speaking for the Opposition. We need constructive and searching debate on this issue. One of the strengths of Westminster Hall is to introduce that sort of atmosphere to the debate.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman started by paying tribute to all those who worked hard—and continue to do so—to eradicate the disease and to respond to many of the problems that have arisen. Last Wednesday, I visited the west midlands, where I saw officials returning from an exhausting and demanding period on the front line dealing with foot and mouth disease, and then immediately beginning the work of trying to give urgently needed advice and help to farmers and businesses. For them, the immediate future is as demanding as the period that they have just gone through. The impact of foot and mouth disease on rural areas has been complex and wide-ranging as well as devastating. All three of those characteristics were reflected in the debate.

I welcome the opportunity for the debate, but the time is too tight to cover the myriad issues raised. I undertake to write to colleagues, especially on specific and detailed points, and copy those remarks to others who have taken part.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the nature of the business crisis. I am committed, as are the Secretary of State and my other colleagues, to delivering action, not words. He was also right to say that at present, relief schemes are limited to the end of June. We are assessing the needs in the light of pressures and developments, and will comment on that more fully shortly.

In relation to the Government matching charity funds, which was an issue raised by some hon. Members, that reflects the Government and the public showing generosity. The money donated is used with a flexibility that only the voluntary sector can provide in practice. The steps generally taken by the Government to encourage giving, such as the tax relief provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other such incentives, also assist in making that money as effective as possible.

On rate relief, applications are not excluded because they are not yet dealt with or they are still coming in. They can be back-dated to April, with relief given until 30 June.

The right hon. Gentleman said something important when he urged people not to jump on everything that goes wrong, or to help with the spreading of unfounded rumours. I share his liking for Harry Potter and agree that myth is fine in its place, but is not helpful to decision making at a time of crisis, or to those trying to decide their way forward in difficult times.

For a Welshman such as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to ask the Government to get rid of the rumour mill is a triumph of hope over experience, but I agree with the sentiment and I hope that all hon. Members, individuals and organisations concerned will help. Should there be concerns or worries, it would be best if the facts or rumours are provided to us and my colleagues and I will try to look as quickly as possible into any problems that arise. An example is the reference made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to a case in Wiltshire. I understand that testing and analysis has taken some time to complete. As soon as we have the facts, I will write to give them to the hon. Gentleman and others.

Similarly, in relation to Brecon, I understand that it is true that disease has been identified on farms at the bottom of the hill. Testing of the sheep that have moved on to the beacons is still being carried out and results will be available shortly. My officials are in contact with officials at the Welsh Assembly because, of course, we are all in this together. I undertake to provide that information when it is known. If we are given concerns, we will do our best to get to the bottom of them rapidly and to provide information. However, I appeal to everybody not to treat rumour as fact and confound the situation.

The hon. Gentleman is right that one cannot prove a negative. However, on both sides of positives and negatives, we must work with the available evidence. We should not be like the individual who throws paper balls in the air and says that that scares off the elephants. When it is pointed out that there are no elephants in the air, it is said that that proves that the practice is effective. I am trying to make the serious point that it is more difficult to prove a negative, but we should not allow impressions to develop if there is no scientific and evidential basis.

In his introduction, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon also referred to prosecutions. He will appreciate that it is difficult to provide evidence when rules have been breached. It is for the local authority to investigate whether there have been breaches of the law or regulations, and we will want prosecutions to occur in those circumstances. I agree that we should not talk up situations or beliefs unless there is evidence. It would be wrong of me to give a blanket assurance to stop prosecutions—he will agree that the matter is not that simple. We should try to be as clear as possible and not allow false impressions to develop.

The hon. Members for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and for Ribble Valley asked for assurances that there would be an inquiry to get to the bottom of events. We have repeatedly given such an assurance, but it would be irresponsible to bandy about words, such as public inquiry, which have specific meanings. The use of such terminology is not casual and the worst possible outcome would be to end up with a long-delayed and bureaucratic inquiry. We must deal with the emergency, eradicate the disease, bring business back into action and do the things that are currently putting pressures on officials, and then have an inquiry that gets at the facts quickly and clearly, and genuinely gets to the bottom of events. That is the approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but we must be clear about the sort of inquiry that will best serve the public interest and the interest of those affected by the disease.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the video about biosecurity. We have tried to give out clear and crisp messages in the light of events surrounding foot and mouth disease—in some cases, messages that we thought were clearly understood by those directly involved. The video was issued because the message needed to be clarified.

The right hon. Gentleman was also right to underline the choices for farmers who have been directly affected and who must decide about compensation—whether to restock or to change direction. That is not for the Government to dictate, and I have talked to officials about how to ensure that that advice is available. A survey in the west midlands that I saw last week highlighted the impact on farmers and other businesses. It also showed that 80 per cent. of the businesses had not sought advice and that 60 per cent. had made no change to the way in which they carried out their business or marketing and had no plans to do so. That shows that we have a big job to do.

I have tried to deal primarily with the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I shall write to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the matters to which he referred. The issues are complex and 10 minutes is an extremely short time in which to respond o what has been a first-rate debate. I agree that we need plenty of time in which to debate such matters and I hope that Conservative and Labour Members can agree on a mechanism to allow such a debate to take place.

I shall explain briefly why I asked for this debate. Like many large cities, Birmingham has areas where street prostitution and kerb crawling occur. Two such areas, one off Pershore road and near Balsall Heath and one off Hagley road in the Rotten park area, are mainly in my constituency. Prostitution takes place in many different establishments, such as so-called massage parlours, saunas, brothels, hotels, and sometimes in private dwellings. It has been with us for centuries and it will never be completely eradicated.

I believe that prostitution is ultimately exploitative and can—and often does— involve the very young and vulnerable. However, for the purposes of today's debate, I shall concentrate on street prostitution in residential areas. Why is it a special problem that deserves the attention of the Chamber? I shall quote a resident who came to one of my advice surgeries. She said:

"I find it totally unacceptable for me to come out of the house in the morning and find used condoms and needles in my front garden. I find it totally unacceptable for my 8-year-old daughter to grow up in an environment where she thinks it is normal for women to stand on the roadside and be picked up by men for money. And I find it totally unacceptable that I can't walk up to the papershop in the morning or evening without being accosted by some punter who wants to know whether I am doing business."

To be frank, I had little to say to my constituent other than that I agreed with her. She was almost kind about the problem in not mentioning a matter that she could have legitimately raised—that street prostitution is associated invariably with drug abuse. When street prostitution takes place in residential areas, there are inevitably drug dealers. Street prostitution is often a means by which people finance their drug habit. Associated with such a public nuisance is increased criminality closely connected with drug abuse.

Such problems are not new. In the past 10 years, the problem has sometimes been dealt with better than at other times in Birmingham. Sometimes we have seen sudden surges of activity. The argument arises about whether prostitution is a matter of displacement—about whether the minute it is dealt with in one part of the city, it moves to another part. Last year, Birmingham city council set up a panel composed of councillors and community representatives, including the police. I pay tribute to its work. The panel considered a variety of factors and it will report to the full council in due course. It considered environmental aspects such as street lighting, road configuration and litter collection. I visited some areas where different street lighting had been installed. It no longer provided the anonymity of darkness and began to reduce the problem. Similarly, the blocking of some roads prevented rat runs for kerb crawlers.

Such changes can, however, cause inconvenience to ambulance drivers, for example, who have difficulty in reaching certain places quickly. The panel considered housing and inter-agency arrangements to deal with information exchange. A big problem is tenancy agreement violations and the use of professional witnesses. However, some progress is being made in that area. The panel also considered children and young people. It agreed to work with Barnardos and the police to identify and target vulnerable young men and women. The Barnardos Girlspace project, which was established in late 1998, has been successful, and I hope that the council can find money to extend it.

An often overlooked aspect is public health. In Birmingham, the Safe project encourages street prostitutes to ask for health advice and distributes free condoms. It is an extremely valuable project in terms of public health. However, the anger and resentment generated among local residents is easy to underestimate. They feel that people handing out free condoms makes their residential area an attraction. However, in relation to Birmingham's HIV infection rate, it seems to have been successful. There is no one answer to the problem. It involves living with the reality of something that we would all rather did not happen and dealing with it safely and acceptably.

The panel considered possible legislative changes. Since entering the House, I have campaigned for kerb crawling to be an arrestable offence. It currently results only in a summons. I am extremely pleased that the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 made the necessary changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a point to which I shall return.

Consideration was given to extending provisions for naming and shaming. The panel took evidence from the West Yorkshire police kerb crawlers rehabilitation programme, which I should like extended. The programme has been disbanded as insufficient referrals were made, but the principle behind it was that a kerb crawler stopped by the police was given a simple option. He could either appear before magistrates and possibly face a fine, or he could attend a day's rehabilitation programme and face up to the consequences of his actions, which included meeting local residents, who would ask, "What do you think it feels like, living here with people like you crawling along kerbs and stopping women?" Those men also had to meet prostitutes who had stopped working on the streets and face up to the unpleasant reality that most street prostitution is not an adult's choice of life style. It is not a question of an adult making the choice, saying, "I wish to earn my living by selling my body." Prostitution usually involves young, vulnerable people caught in dependent relationships or drug abuse, and is sometimes simply a form of child abuse. Initially, the programme seemed successful, but insufficient referrals were made. I hope that we shall consider it more closely. Ultimately, only if we stop kerb crawlers will we stop the associated problems.

Although there are many aspects of the report that I welcome and on which we need to build, one aspect caused me great concern. It seemed to suggest that, should the law on soliciting be changed, a multi-agency panel in Birmingham should actively consider a safety zone, or zone of tolerance, in a non-residential area, where the practice would cause the least alarm, nuisance and distress to residents, although the report was mindful of the physical safety of the female prostitutes who work within it. That sounds tempting as a solution to the problem, but I and agencies such as the police do not believe that it is. Where would the wonderful zone of tolerance be? I challenge any councillor to go to a Birmingham ward meeting, look in ward members' eyes and say, "We have now decided that your back yard is the area in which we will tolerate it." We would have to move to areas with no residential element, which would mean industrial areas of the city. Part of what kerb crawlers look for is anonymity, which residential areas provide. They would therefore not go to those industrial areas; it would be blatantly obvious why they would do so.

In one project in my constituency, the car numbers of men reported kerb crawling were analysed. An amazing number of those cars were registered in women's names. The men did not want to use their company car for kerb crawling, so they used the family car, which was often registered in the wife's name. Anonymity is important to the kerb crawler. Zones of tolerance in industrial areas would not provide that anonymity. To put it in the crudest terms, parallel markets would evolve and street prostitution would increase in residential areas.

There is an argument that the zones would be safer because the police would be able to enforce the law more selectively in relation to drug abuse and pimps. I would not want to accept any system in which the law was enforced selectively in some well-established areas. That would put an unacceptable onus on the police.

The final point that is often cited is that the zones work in Europe, but I do not think that they do. First, they do not create the ideal situation that people like to claim. Secondly, people on the continent have very different attitudes to sex. Zones of tolerance on the continent are usually made in agreement with the prostitutes and the local authority, because the system of pimps does not exist there to the extent that it does here. The zones on the continent operate without the involvement of pimps, but that would not happen here, so there is no analogy between the two situations.

Will the Minister tell us about the Home Office's attitude to zones of tolerance? Are there plans to change the legislation? I was interested to hear that, last year, some £500,000 was made available to cities bidding for projects in relation to street prostitution. The bidding criteria specifically excluded plans for setting up zones of tolerance. In Birmingham, local elections will be held every year for the next three years, and the question will rear its head. It would be useful to have a Government statement on the matter.

What should be done as regards prostitution? I pay tribute to the work by the West Midlands police force in the past few years in tackling a difficult situation. The force has set up microbeat offices, so there is much closer association between individual officers and problem areas. After a slow start, the force has succeeded in proceeding with some 21 antisocial behaviour orders, 15 of them against prostitutes. So far, only one of them has been breached, which resulted in a custodial sentence. The police and local authorities, as well as housing associations, have recently issued eviction orders when drug dealing was taking place alongside suspected prostitution in private dwellings. The police continue to report kerb crawlers for summonses.

I welcome the Criminal Justice and Police Act, which makes kerb crawling an arrestable offence, but I understand that the commencement order has not yet been laid. Will the Minister tell the Chamber when the measure will be introduced and whether it could be brought forward more speedily? West Midlands police tell me that they would welcome it as soon as possible.

One group that is often overlooked is the local residents. In both the areas that I have mentioned, there is an active street watch. In one street watch, which is well established and goes back some seven or eight years, the dedication of the local residents is exemplary. The beginning was difficult: the project arose from the anger of local residents, so they were accused of being vigilantes. However, now they work with the local police. In the past month alone, some 50 letters have been sent to drivers as a result of reports from street watch. Although it is usually not a good idea to single out individuals, I want to put on the record a tribute to the efforts of Raja Amin. Over the years, he has been involved with the local street watch and he has continually given his time and effort, as have many of his helpers.

Finally, I ask the Minister whether he and the Home Office will give special consideration to applications for closed circuit television in locations where property crimes and drug offences are particularly connected with street prostitution, and whether further thought has been given to the idea that I raised some years ago—although for a variety of reasons I could not pursue it—of putting penalty points on driving licences for kerb crawling. It would be a good disincentive if kerb crawlers were to lose their licences when they had accumulated a certain number of penalty points, as is the case with speeding.

As I have said, street prostitution raises a number of moral and ethical issues. However, in this debate, I am particularly concerned with its public nuisance effect. Although it is tempting to say that the introduction of zones of tolerance is a way forward, I do not agree. I think that it is a misguided idea and would not work. Rather, local authorities, police and residents should continue to work together within a legislative framework that allows them to deal with the problem.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this important debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to many of the points that she has raised.

The Home Office is keenly aware of the nuisance associated with the activities of prostitutes and kerb crawlers—and, in particular, the considerable distress that is caused to local residents, which my hon. Friend has so graphically described. I want to add my words of tribute to local residents who participate in schemes such as the street watch scheme in Birmingham that she mentioned.

The power of arrest for kerb crawling that is contained in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 will be of great benefit to the police in tackling the crime. It is an important and long-awaited reform, and I am delighted that it is now on the statute book. The measure will be implemented on 1 October 2001. We recognise that providing the police with an extra measure to tackle kerb crawling is a priority. When a new power of arrest is introduced, it is important that police forces are properly informed. It is customary to delay implementation of such provisions while guidance is produced, and we shall issue a circular to police forces that informs them of the change and gives them time to consider how best to use the power in their regions.

The stigma attached to kerb crawling is a powerful disincentive, and I hope that the threat of being arrested may deter some potential perpetrators from engaging in this destructive activity. For that reason, I do not consider that the introduction of fixed penalties for kerb crawling would be useful. If an offender does not face the prospect of appearing in court and the publicity that may result from that, he might not be dissuaded from such behaviour.

The Act also contains measures to tackle another form of nuisance associated with prostitution—prostitutes' cards in telephone kiosks. From 1 September 2001, it will be an offence to place advertisements relating to prostitution in public telephone kiosks. Such cards are an increasing nuisance in our cities, and they often carry explicit images. I know Birmingham well, as I was born there, and the measure will improve the quality of life for the residents of affected areas, whom my hon. Friend mentioned, and for visitors. At present, the problem is mainly confined to London and Brighton, but the new offence will cover all areas, so it will help to prevent the spread of this nuisance.

The Act also contains an order-making power to extend the measure, by affirmative resolution of the House, to other public structures. The power is available for use should the cards be placed in other structures, such as bus shelters. The nuisance and misery that street prostitution can cause to communities is evident from what we have heard in the debate. It is important that the police use the powers available to them, in consultation with residents, to tackle the problems. The allocation and deployment of officers, and the arrangements for the day-to-day policing of an area, are, obviously, the operational responsibility of the chief officer of the local force. He or she is responsible for investigating any acts of crime and disorder in the area and to enforce the legislation available.

My hon. Friend mentioned the policy development panel in Birmingham, and I reiterate her praise for it. Such multi-agency groups also have a role to play in considering local solutions to the problems faced by local communities.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government do not think that zones of tolerance will assist in dealing with the problems that we are debating. The Association of Chief Police Officers is also opposed to zones of tolerance, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Kerb crawling and soliciting are criminal offences, and we have no plans to relax the law in that regard. It would also be extremely difficult for communities to agree on the location of zones of tolerance. It is important that difficult problems, such as those associated with prostitution, are given careful consideration and not simply shifted from one area to another. More importantly, we are concerned that any such scheme might encourage demand for the services of prostitutes and put children at risk of becoming involved in prostitution. One primary concern is to prevent the exploitation of children through prostitution. Children involved in prostitution are primary victims, and those who buy their sexual services are sex offenders. That position is the subject of the guidance document "Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution", which was published last year and has been widely welcomed by agencies involved in the protection of children.

We are also concerned about the growing trade in trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. By its nature, trafficking is organised and often part of a major international crime. It is important that measures that are taken to deal with the nuisance associated with prostitution do not create an environment in which trafficking can flourish. Trafficking treats people as commodities and targets the vulnerable. We are determined to tackle this crime and have been actively negotiating the final text of a European Union framework decision to combat trafficking in human beings. The report of the sex offences review also recommends a new offence of trafficking for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation. We are now considering the responses to that recommendation.

Our other priority is to tackle the crime and disorder associated with prostitution. That is why we are funding 11 projects as part of the crime reduction programme to find out what works in combating the problems associated with prostitution. Such multi-agency projects involve measures to reduce the nuisance caused to residents, as well as longer-term strategies to assist those who want to exit prostitution to do so. Each project will be evaluated independently so that we can learn which strategies are effective and should be implemented elsewhere.

I regret that the bid from Birmingham did not meet our selection criteria. One reason was that any interventions would depend on the decisions of the policy development panel, which had not been made at the time of the bidding process. The funding is available only until March next year and the selection panel considered that other bids were better able to deliver measurable outcomes in the short time available.

Whether or not an area has a project selected for funding, we strongly believe that the funding will be of great benefit to all areas that are affected by the crime and disorder associated with prostitution. Projects should provide some ideas about good practice and help to demonstrate what works in tackling prostitution and, equally importantly, what does not work. I look forward to seeing the results and I am sure that Birmingham will be able to learn from the pilot schemes and implement good practice.

The projects focus on the effects of prostitution, but we are also committed to tackling antisocial behaviour in general. The police or the local authority may apply to the magistrates courts for an antisocial behaviour order to prohibit an individual from specific antisocial activities that are likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress. The breach of an order is a criminal offence, and the fact that no more than one in 10 antisocial behaviour orders is breached shows that they are effective in themselves. More than 200 antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in England and Wales since 1 April 1999. They have been used successfully in a variety of cases, including those tackling harassment to residents caused by prostitutes and their clients.

I understand that antisocial behaviour orders have been used against 15 prostitutes in Birmingham, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend. The breach of one of those orders resulted in a 12-week prison sentence. I look forward to hearing about the effectiveness of other orders when that information becomes available. Birmingham is one of many centres of good practice in using this method of tackling disorder. Those who have still to use antisocial behaviour orders should note other successes and follow their example.

Local authorities and the police are required to get together with other agencies to form crime and disorder partnerships responsible for developing and implementing strategies for reducing crime and disorder in their areas. We have written to crime and disorder partnerships reminding them that they should include antisocial behaviour orders as a separate element of their strategy, and that they should monitor such behaviour in their areas.

I understand that the policy development panel in Birmingham is in favour of a further review of the law on prostitution, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Although street offences were beyond its terms of reference, the report of the sex offences review, "Setting the Boundaries", recommends that there should be a further review of the law on prostitution. That is a recommendation to Ministers and it will be considered in the light of the responses to the consultation exercise. The period of consultation ended in March 2001and we received more than 650 good responses to the document, which we are considering in detail.

"Setting the Boundaries" also recognises the need for effective legislation to deal with those who exploit others for the purpose of prostitution. It recommends separate offences to cover the exploitation of adults and children, to set an unambiguous standard that the sexual exploitation of children is wrong. It is important that we tackle both the problems to which prostitution can give rise—exploitation by pimps and the nuisance that the activity of sex workers and their clients can cause especially in residential areas—as my hon. Friend has clearly recognised. The Government are therefore undertaking a comprehensive review of all the legislation in that area. This debate has enabled us to focus on some of the areas that my hon. Friend rightly identified. However, I am sure that she will recognise that these are complex issues, and that we need to be clear on the broad direction in which to tackle them.

Recent changes in legislation have made a real improvement in the lives of residents in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere in the country. However, she will realise that legislation is only part of the solution. Local initiatives and the involvement of communities in tackling such issues are vital if we are to find good practice. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has highlighted the good work that is going on in Birmingham, the good practices that are being established and the work that has been done by residents involved in the new initiatives. I am sure that, working with the local authority and with my hon. Friend, residents will try to ensure that everyone living in areas blighted by this problem will have a better quality of life. I look forward to seeing some results in the coming months.

I welcome the opportunity to introduce a short Adjournment debate on the future of Heathrow, a subject that is topical in south and west London and in the counties surrounding Heathrow.

I welcome the new Minister and congratulate him on his job. I do not know whether he likes controversial appointments, but I am sure that he realises that he is at the centre of what could be one of the biggest decisions that the Government will make during the next few years.

To state where I am coming from, I represent one of many constituencies that have a dual interest in this problem. There is a major preoccupation in my constituency with aircraft noise and pollution and air traffic safety concerns, but I also have a significant number of constituents who work at the airport and who value their employment there, and a significant number who use it for business travel. There is clearly a trade off to be made between those different interests. Personally, I emphasise the environmental aspects—that is the centre of gravity of public opinion in my constituency—but I realise that there are two sides to all the arguments about airport development.

I have secured this debate for two reasons. First, I want to register some concern about the way in which the public debate is evolving. I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for speculation in the press. However, in the past few weeks a debate that has been conducted for several years on the future of terminal 5 has suddenly broadened out into the possibility of a third runway. Again, this is pure speculation, and I would not expect the Minister to be able to give any definitive comment on it, but it is none the less a worrying matter for those of us who have airport-related constituencies.

I hope that the Minister can help us. I should like him to give us some reassurance that the airport-related questions will be looked at in a holistic, coherent way, and that there will be a properly managed national debate. The interconnected issues of terminal 5, a prospective third runway, a new system of regulation using market mechanisms for slot allocation—which even the Chancellor of the Exchequer endorses—and flight capping should be examined together and in a consistent way.

I realise that the Minister is circumscribed because of the dual role of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions in setting policy and as a last source of planning appeal. I recognise his difficulty and do not expect too much from him. However, I should like him to give us some indication of the Government's thinking on flight capping and the level of flights. That is not a land use issue; it is quite specifically an aviation policy issue. The Government have direct say in the area. The Government's decision on future acceptable legally binding flight limits sets the framework within which the planning issues will be pursued.

That is where I am coming from, and that is why I have raised this subject for debate. Within that broad context I should like to touch on several specific issues. I do not want to make a speech on terminal 5—I am sure that there will be a statement soon, probably from the Secretary of State, and we will all have an opportunity to comment on that. The arguments have been endlessly rehearsed.

I want to raise the way in which the process has been managed during the past six months, since when, I understand, the Vandermeer report has been in the hands of the Government. People who seem to know what they are talking about—although I cannot verify it—tell me that large-scale works are being carried out on the site of terminal 5. I am told that an underground road is being constructed, the sewage farm is being cleared and major capital investments are being undertaken. I find it difficult to believe that a public limited company would be risking its shareholders' money on a purely speculative venture, unless it had a pretty clear indication of what was happening.

There are only two explanations for those stories, with which I think all the Members who represent constituencies in our part of London are familiar. One is that they are complete fabrication—it may well be that nothing is happening, and that this is entirely incorrect information. Somebody may be scaremongering and putting around rumours that are untrue. The other explanation, which is equally worrying, is that the British Airports Authority, the developer, is confident that it knows what the outcome of the inquiry will be and is acting on that assumption.

I do not expect the Minister to give an answer today. I simply hope that when the statement is made we will receive assurances that the process has been properly honoured and that there has been no premature action on the planning inquiry report. It is a simple matter of fact as to whether the gun has been jumped or not. That is the only point that I wish to make about terminal 5.

The second issue that I want to talk about is a more important issue of substance: the resurfacing of the debate about a third runway at Heathrow, which for some years has been in abeyance. The British Airports Authority, as the developer of terminal 5, always made it clear that it did not see a third runway as necessary to the logic of its project; indeed, it specifically asked the inquiry to rule it out as unnecessary. In the past few months, we have heard more persistent reports that a third runway is being considered. I shall read the Minister some quotes with which I am sure that he is familiar. The first in the series appeared on 1 April, and we might have thought that it had something to do with April Fools' day. An article in The Observer said:

"The Government is `evaluating' a new full-length runway at Heathrow to increase capacity".

The speculation then died back, but on 25 June, after the election, there were detailed reports in two newspapers that are not normally given to extreme speculation. One was The Independent. The key passage stated:

"Secret plans for another runway at Heathrow are expected to be approved by the Government…Airlines have submitted the plan for an extra runway…as their main solution to increasing demand for air travel…Ministers are expected to favour the Heathrow project and announce their approval next year, but wanted the storm over Terminal 5 to die down first."

On the same day, a different reporter in a different newspaper stated:

"Ministers are seriously considering building a third runway at Heathrow".

So, someone is talking out of turn.

Has it crossed the hon. Gentleman's mind that the source of those stories might be the anti-T5 brigade, which is desperately trying to wreck the future of my constituency by opposing T5 and putting pressure on the Government to do something other than what I hope they will do?

There are all sorts of possible sources for the reports, and one is indeed the protest movement. Another is the company that would have an interest in the matter, and still another is the Department, although I hope that that is not the case. Clearly, however, there is a lot of what seems to be informed speculation that the process is under consideration.

I am well aware that, as I am sure the Minister will point out, the south-east regional airport study by the Department is considering a variety of runway options. Hitherto, we had assumed that that would preclude a third runway at Heathrow, but it might well now include one. I shall simply say in passing why many residents consider that to be a worrying development. First, it will be wholly contrary to people's assumptions and to the assurances that we have been given in the past few years, particularly by BAA. Furthermore, I am concerned that it comes at the same time as the Government's announcement of a new approach to planning. We have yet to see the details of the legislation, but the Government have made it clear that they want a much more truncated and permissive approach to large planning projects. Indeed, one of the Minister's colleagues has responsibility for introducing new powers to ensure that that happens. Under such new powers, it would be much easier for a Government who were so minded to introduce a runway project without the planning difficulties that have occurred in the past.

Clearly, I cannot expect the Minister to say yes or no in response to questions about what is happening, but I wanted to bring up the concern, wherever it comes from, about the possibility that Heathrow expansion is going ahead far faster and on a far bigger scale than we had hitherto thought likely.

That leads me to the third issue, on which I hope that the Minister will be able to comment, which is flight capping—the level of flights that should be permitted into Heathrow. That is the key factor, which affects the environment and the balance between it and economic development. As I am sure that the Minister knows, BAA assumed, in the various projections made for future demand for flights, that the level of flights into and out of Heathrow around 2015 would be about 453,000 a year. On another set of assumptions, I think that the final figure was 470,000. The striking fact is that that level has already been reached. That raises questions about how committed the Government are to managing demand. Do they believe that it is the task of the Government to provide infrastructure to meet whatever level of demand exists? Are they willing to manage it and insist that it be managed? At what approximate level of flights should the cap apply? Should the cap be legally binding? How should any legal bind apply in practice, considering that it has not been effective in the past?

Although I cannot expect the Minister to comment on the planning inquiry or prospective planning inquiries about a runway, I hope that he will suggest how he sees this key area of aviation policy, for which he is responsible. I also hope that he will suggest something on one dimension of the broad issue of flight capping. He will know that protesters from the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise have taken the issue of night flights to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Government have been asked to provide evidence to that inquiry to demonstrate whether a national interest justifies the intrusion into family life arising from early morning and late night flights, which is considerable if one is under the flight path. I hope that the Minister will suggest how that evidence will be provided. Will it be published, if so, when, and what form will it take? The night flights issue and the capping of night flights have disproportionate importance in terms of the wider debate.

I want to touch on how Government thinking is evolving on regulation of airports, as it applies to Heathrow. There is some common ground between the objectors to and the supporters of further development at Heathrow, which is that one cannot operate indefinitely on the basis of predict and provide. There must be some management of demand. Hitherto, the market for landing at Heathrow has been highly distorted. The landing charges are low by comparison with other major international airports and landing slots are provided free of charge because there is no optioning of slots.

I convened a debate on the subject almost exactly a year ago, which was answered by the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill). He gave a helpful and forward-looking approach, which suggested that the Government had an open mind on revisiting the regulatory problems and reopening the issue—the rules were set in the mid-1980s—about how the airport should be regulated. It suggested that the Government were willing to consider adapting landing charges and licensing slots. The Chancellor has taken that fully on board. In his Mansion House speech, referring to the economic reform agenda, he included:

"air liberalisation, with reforms to the allocation of take-off and landing slots that introduce market mechanisms to allocate scarce capacity."

The Chancellor, who is clearly a very big fish in the Government, sees the need for reform on the issue.

I mention the matter not simply because it makes for an interesting academic debate, but because if the system of charging is radically changed—if airlines have to pay substantially more to land at Heathrow, which is the implication of the reform—the demand will be considerably less. I want some suggestion from the Minister as to how the new approach to regulation will affect expectations about demand for Heathrow flights. How will the two elements of the exercise be knitted together coherently?

I shall bring my remarks to a close to give the Minister plenty of time to reply and to give those hon. Members who represent other constituencies near Heathrow to intervene if they wish. I reiterate the two central points. First, I am concerned about how the debate on people's fears and anxieties about the third runway has evolved. Secondly, I ask the Minister to reassure us on the dangers of over-development and to say what is the Government's view of flight capping.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this important debate. This is my first aviation debate since taking up my post as Minister, although plenty of debates seem to arise on other transport matters, and I am sure that it will not be the last.

It is important that the Government respond to such debates as fully as possible; I realise that hon. Members are raising important matters on behalf of their constituents. I appreciate, too, that the matters raised today are of considerable importance to the hon. Gentleman and to those whom he represents. I know that he has been assiduous, as other hon. Members here today have been, on the matters raised today, and I assure hon. Members that they are being considered most carefully. However, just as there is an imperative on me to answer as many questions as I can, the hon. Gentleman will know from answers to previous questions that, to a large extent, Ministers are restricted in what they can say about the enlargement of and the other major proposed changes to the airport. I know that the hon. Gentleman is thoughtful, and that he appreciates the limits within which I speak today. Notwithstanding that, I shall attempt to answer many of his questions. I shall put them in a more general framework, and he may be able to draw out some of the answers to the specific questions that he was right to ask.

The hon. Gentleman asked about recent press speculation on Heathrow, but it is not for me to speculate on that speculation. However, I assure him that the underground road that is being constructed stands entirely remote from any other decisions that may be made at Heathrow. I can also tell him that the Perry Oak sludge works is being decommissioned and will be replaced. Again, that is not relevant to other issues raised today.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, I state clearly that I will not be answering questions on any issues that concern the planning application or the inquiry into the fifth terminal at Heathrow. To do so could prejudice the Secretary of State's consideration of the inspector's report, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the reasons for that. I also recognise, as did the hon. Gentleman, the strategic and national importance of Heathrow and the contribution that it makes to the local and the national economy. Its contribution to the United Kingdom should not be underestimated.

We all understand that the Minister is restricted in the comments that he can make on terminal 5, but I wish to raise a matter that he may wish to pass back to the Department and perhaps to the Leader of the House. The statement on terminal 5 should be made on the Floor of the House and it should be given adequate time for debate. It should not be part of a grubby process one day before a recess. All Members should have the opportunity to address the long-term implications of the new terminal.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I am sure that what he says will be carefully noted.

The trade handled at Heathrow makes it Britain's largest port and it is a major employer in the area. Indeed, 68,000 people are directly employed there, a proportion of whom live in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham. It is estimated that as many as 250,000 jobs nationwide are related to the airport. It is recognised as a key asset in the promotion of London as a world city. I also recognise, as the hon. Gentleman said, that Heathrow has a substantial impact on the environment and on a great many of the people who live in its immediate vicinity. Far more people suffer from aircraft noise caused by Heathrow than by any other airport in the United Kingdom.

There has, however, been a substantial improvement in the noise climate around the airport during the past 20 years. I restate our policy: the Government will continue to do everything practical further to improve the noise climate. We are well aware that the role of Heathrow in the future pro vision of air travel in the UK is central to our aviation and airport policies. We said in the Labour party manifesto that our plans for aviation and airports in the next 30 years would be produced next year; and so they will.

Heathrow handles more international passengers than any other airport in the world and, in 1999, the overall number of passengers made it the fourth busiest, trailing only behind Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles. However, other European airports are catching up.

The previous national airports policy statement was published in 1985, so a new one is long overdue. The aviation world has changed dramatically since 1985; UK airports now handle more than double the number of passengers. Our forecasts show that demand for air travel in the UK might almost double during the next 15 years from approximately 170 million a year to about 340 million passengers by 2015.

The Government are aware that some of our major airports, particularly in the south-east, are already working close to their capacity. The demand for air travel for business and for leisure is rising inexorably—and from both UK residents and foreign visitors. We need urgently to decide how to respond to the problem, and that is what we shall do.

Our drive to review national airports policies was established in the 1998 "New Deal for Transport" White Paper, which announced our intention to prepare a UK airports policy that would lay down the framework for the sustainable development of UK airports for the next 30 years. Those policies will be brought together in a new air transport White Paper, which will assess the social and—most importantly—the environmental and economic impacts of airports and of aviation.

I am concerned about the delay suggested by the Minister. I am not being party political; successive Governments have dithered. The Minister referred to what is happening elsewhere in Europe and the fact that other airports are catching up. Does he accept that it is crucial that Heathrow remain Europe's No.1 hub? If it does not, the impact on the jobs in my constituency will be catastrophic.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are mindful of the need to carry out these policies in due time. However, many other matters, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham, have to be balanced in our discussions.

The Government are aware of the uncertainty that surrounds airport development and we are conscious of the need to put policies in place as early as possible. However, before we prepare the White Paper we need to consider carefully the options for the development of airports, to appraise thoroughly their impact, and to consult all those who have an interest. I hope that that answers some of the hon. Gentleman's points.

There are three main building blocks to the formation of the new White Paper. First, in December 2000 we published the "Future of Aviation" consultation document, which is concerned with national policies and does not deal with specific airports. The deadline for responses passed in April, and we received more than 500 responses. That is encouraging and shows the level of interest in aviation in the UK. There are many detailed and constructive comments and we shall make a summary available.

The other two building blocks are consultation on options for the development of regional airports and consultation on options for south-east airports. That is probably of interest to the hon. Member for Twickenham and is related to his arguments today. We plan to issue those documents around the turn of the year. The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study is examining a wide range of options at existing airports and new sites in the south-east. Options for the future development of Heathrow are clearly key considerations in this work.

I must stress and make it patently clear that, contrary to recent press speculation, Ministers have not seen and do not know what options are being considered in the SERAS study. Consultants carrying out the work on the Government's behalf have identified a large number of options at all the south-east airports, and I understand that the number of options runs into three figures.

Some of the options being evaluated would provide additional terminal capacity to make the maximum use of existing runways; other options would provide additional terminal and runway capacity. Obviously, it would be impractical to carry out detailed appraisal of all the options. However, I understand that officials will shortly ask Ministers to decide on a much shorter list of options, which will go forward for full and detailed appraisal in the next stage of the study.

It has sometimes been suggested that we should release details of the options that have been eliminated and those that have been taken forward. We do not agree with that approach. We understand that it might reduce the anxiety of some people. However, even when we have narrowed down the number of options, there will still be a substantial number in the frame, and to publish them would do far more harm than good. It would be premature, would spread unnecessary blight and anxiety and would not enable meaningful public consultation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will therefore understand my lack of references in this debate to Heathrow.

Following Ministers' decisions, the next stage of the SERAS study will involve more detailed analysis of options. Once this work has been undertaken, we will then decide on a shortlist of options for public consultation. I should make it clear that the study does not include projects for which planning applications have been made or are imminent, as we do not want to be studying those at the same time as they are being considered in the planning system. That would lead to duplication and delay.

Although we are keen to retain and promote the contribution airports make to the economy—nationally, regionally and locally—we also acknowledge that there are strong environmental and social concerns associated with airport development, both at Heathrow and at other airports. That is why in the SERAS study we have devised a full and rigorous appraisal framework, which will be a crucial tool to assist Ministers to reach the right decisions on where and how airports are allowed to develop.

The appraisal framework seeks to be comprehensive and evaluate all issues relevant to expanding existing airports and creating new airports. It also seeks to ensure that proposals brought forward to meet or restrain demand can be compared on a consistent basis. The issues covered are grouped under four main headings— economic effects, environmental impacts, accessibility and integration.

Indicators for each of the issues will be set out in appraisal summary tables. They will highlight the tradeoffs between the various options. In addition to the south-east airports study, work is continuing on options for our regional airports. As I have said, we aim to consult on those around the turn of the year.

Airports affect all our lives and there are many conflicting views about what action the Government should take towards airport development and some of those have been reflected in the contributions to today's debate. I am sure that, when our policies emerge, we will not please everyone. However, in establishing our policies we will consult widely with all organisations and individuals who have an interest in airport issues and we will consider their views carefully.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issues again and for the way in which he raised them. If he feels that I have not done justice to some matters in the short time that I have had, and if he brings them to my attention, I shall happily ask my Department to write to him.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important matter on behalf of many of my constituents. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment, as I have not had a chance to do so before. I raised the closure of the Ravenhead Glass plant in an earlier Adjournment debate, but I should like to spend some time explaining the background to the problem and how it affects my constituents.

Ravenhead Glass went into administration in December after a long history of producing first-class tableware in St. Helens, where the factory had been for more than 150 years. In its heyday, it employed more than 5,000 people, but when it closed in December, it had fewer than 350 employees. Nevertheless, that is a significant number of jobs in my constituency.

Those 350 Ravenhead employees are not numbers but people, such as Dave Rotherham, a constituent of mine who worked at the plant for 30 years. His father had previously worked in the plant for 50 years. Dave Rotherham has lost his job and now found that he has a 20 per cent. shortfall in his pension. In a matter of months, his life has been turned upside down.

Ravenhead Glass was not a two-bit operation. It was owned by Durabor, which was owned by the Belgian regional government. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) and I have already contacted the Department of Trade and Industry and the Belgian Government about the closure and how the pension scheme was managed, and we await a DTI report on the issue. We have also met Belgian Ministers, who have promised to consider a claim for compensation for the 20 per cent. shortfall in pensions. We will continue to put pressure on the DTI and the Belgian regional government to see how we can help our constituents.

Most of the Ravenhead workers had worked there for 25 to 30 years and intended to retire from the company in the next 10 years. They would have hoped for gold watches and presentations after 25 years' service, good pensions and the opportunity to finish their working lives with good pay and working conditions. That was not to be the case, so they want answers to some questions. They want to know why the company was placed into receivership and what happened to their pension scheme. Why did the company take the decision to have a contributions holiday, and why was it allowed to do so? How was the company pension scheme managed?

I want to thank the DTI Ministers for the help and assistance that they have given so far. However, after a series of disasters in the pension world, I am concerned that things still do not seem to be right. I understand that the Government have initiated Paul Myners' report, which is about changing the legislation on protection for employment pension schemes. I welcome that review. It important that the pensions of loyal workers who have worked in companies for 25 to 30 years be protected. The Government should give them statutory protection.

British workers need better protection in employment and pensions, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of that review to consider the Ravenhead scheme and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) also wants to raise issues that affect some of his constituents. I hope that we will take the opportunity to change the system for the better. The Maxwell scandal and the situation at Ravenhead Glass are merely two examples of what can go wrong.

The review seems to have been dominated by the Treasury and the pension industry, and I understand the need for both to take a view on the issues. However, they may have been driven by the need to improve economic performance and to maximise long-term support for the markets. While those two matters are important, the No. 1 priority of any review should be to ensure that employees' pensions are protected in the future.

I should like the Minister to answer a number of questions that my constituents have raised during the course of their problems with Ravenhead. I am aware that some of the questions are technical and complex and if the Minister does not feel that they can be answered today, I shall be happy for her to write to me later to clarify her and the Government's view.

Do the Government believe, as the Trades Union Congress does, that defined benefit schemes offer the best deal for working people? If so, what action will they take within the review to encourage employees to move along that road? I believe that those schemes offer the best protection and value for money to employees. I should like the Government to widen the scope of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority so that pension protection plans can be assessed. That would allow pension plans to be examined and ensure that protection plans that are put forward by the pension schemes give adequate protection to employees.

Will the Government consider setting up a pension protection fund, so that the liabilities from pension schemes that are discontinued would pass to a mutual company that would protect the funds of affected pensioners? There is an argument for ensuring that all pension schemes have a mutual insurance scheme, so that they all protect the liabilities of each other and ensure that employees are also protected.

Is the Minister considering examining whether pension schemes should be allowed to take contribution holidays? Employers should not be allowed to take a contribution holiday until a buffer zone has been built into the pension scheme and there are enough resources in the scheme to cover any deficit that might occur between valuations.

Is it right that company trustees should play a role in pension schemes? I can see no reason why companies should have representatives as trustees. Once the agreement has been made on a pension scheme, the company should be removed from the trustees' reviews. I should also like annual appraisals of pension schemes. Some pension schemes appraise annually, but many leave it for three or four years. The movement of the markets—as in my case—can make such a difference to a pension scheme that it may move from a surplus to a deficit.

I am aware that the Labour Government have done a great deal in recent years to strengthen pension and employee protection. However, the cases of Ravenhead and others, demonstrate that there is a lot more to do.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) for allowing me to encroach on some of his time and make complementary points to his, which have been raised by my constituents and cause them concern. I also thank the Minister for agreeing to allow me to make the points to her at immensely short notice and I fulsomely congratulate her on her well-deserved appointment. I also thank you, Mr. Benton, for allowing me to catch your eye.

My hon. Friend made his points particularly, although not exclusively, in the context of Ravenhead Glass. It may be thought from the presence of hon. Members today that this is exclusively a Merseyside issue, but it goes wider than that. My constituents have expressed many concerns about employee pension schemes and occupational schemes. They do not believe that the balance of interest between the employee and the fund is right.

There have been concerns about the absence, as my constituents see it, of sufficient constraints on the way in which trustees may act. Pension schemes may, for example, contain discretionary provisions that are exercised exclusively by the trustees. Moreover, those of my constituents who have corresponded with me—of which there are many—consider that the representation of pensioners on trustee boards can be inadequate. They do not believe that, because employers provide occupational pension schemes, it is up to them alone to decide the nature of the scheme and its benefits. They do not consider that that in itself is enough to secure the common good.

My constituents are not content that members are not always obliged to consent when their accrued pension rights are transferred when, for example, employers are taken over, merge or restructure their pension provision. There are particular concerns, for example, that occupational schemes are not required to provide pension benefits before the normal retirement age in cases of ill health. When such provision does exist, it is discretionary and in the hands of the trustees, and there is no reason to provide reasons for refusal.

There are also worries about how pension funds handle grievances and the fact that the first stage of a complaint is handled entirely unilaterally by one of the parties to the scheme. My constituents are concerned about the way in which pension schemes can appear to be administered secretively. They do not believe that it is equitable that schemes seem to be administered as though the funds have been contributed by one party alone. As in the case of Ravenhead Glass, to which my hon. Friend referred, pensioners contribute much over many years and must find a life after the demise of the company. In some cases, the pension scheme has disappeared. They also worry about the management of funds that can cost the pensioner money. There are well-publicised examples, but a constituent of mine, who is a clergy pensioner, believes that he has also suffered in that regard. Another constituent believes that his union pension fund was transferred because it was regarded as voluntary, so his rights were not protected.

There are a range of other issues, but I shall not bore the Chamber with all of them. However, one fund removed the corporate trustee without consultation apparently simply to streamline expense and reduce administration, and one of my constituents feels, rightly or wrongly, that such action removed some of his protection. Overall, my constituents believe that trustees should not act without prior notice to members and that there is insufficient consultation and a lack of independent scrutiny. There is a limit to what the Government can do. It may be a notion of big government, but we must look at the provision of occupational pension schemes to see what, if any, role the Government can have. The worries that have been expressed to me seem to be sufficiently widespread to require some consideration. I hope that that will happen. I merely wanted to raise certain points. I do not seek an answer to them from the Minister today, but I hope that, in the fullness of time, such matters can be examined.

It is a pleasure to be replying to my first Westminster Hall debate with you in the Chair, Mr. Benton, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) on initiating the debate. As a fellow Merseyside Member of Parliament, I am aware of the matter that he has raised. He has raised it before in the House, and I have particular sympathy with those of his constituents who have found themselves in the position that they do as a result of the insolvency of Ravenhead Glass. St. Helens has long been identified with glassmaking and it was a blow to the town's morale for such a closure to occur.

The firm itself is of long standing and has been in existence for more than 150 years, as my hon. Friend reminded us. Many of those affected are long-standing employees of more than 30 years who will suffer the double blow of not only losing their jobs and being reduced to statutory redundancy pay, but finding a hole in the pensions in a defined benefits scheme that they had every right to expect would provide them with a well known, fixed amount when they retired. It is a double blow for them and for the town, and I understand why my hon. Friend has brought the matter to the attention of the House.

If time allows, I shall respond to some of my hon. Friend's points. I am grateful to him for giving me some notice of them. Doing so always helps me give hon. Members clearer answers. I shall respond to his points in the context of the more general law. Pensions law is tremendously complex, and issues that might seem to hon. Members, outsiders and members of pension schemes to be relatively straightforward and simple can be devilishly complex because of the law and how the schemes work. I shall explain the background before dealing with my hon. Friend's points.

The Government want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the nation's rising prosperity. We are determined to protect the long-term security of pensioners and other pension scheme members in occupational pension schemes. We all know that that security will be guaranteed not simply by the basic state pension but in large part by occupational schemes and funded arrangements. It is therefore in the interests of us all to ensure that they are as secure as possible.

We want to ensure that schemes are properly run, that contributions are properly paid in a timely fashion and that schemes are adequately funded. We believe that schemes should have investment policies that are appropriate to the circumstances of the employer providing them and that if something goes wrong measures should be in place to protect members.

Private pensions should be attractive to members and scheme providers. We must bear in mind that employers do not have to provide pension schemes but do so voluntarily. We need to ensure that as many of them as possible do so. We are taking steps to simplify the private pensions system while safeguarding the security of scheme members.

The vast majority of United Kingdom pension schemes are set up under trust law, which is at the heart of pension law. It is often said that trustees are secretive. Trustees have an exacting legal obligation to beneficiaries to ensure that they behave properly, and we must consider how to deal with trustees and pension schemes in the light of trust law. The duty to run a pension scheme lies with the trustees rather than the employer. Although employers may have members who are trustees, they have the same obligations to beneficiaries regardless of their status. They must ensure that the rules of the pension scheme are followed and comply with the law. They hold the scheme's financial assets for the benefit of members and have a fundamental duty to act prudently, conscientiously and honestly.

The framework of trust law was reinforced by the Pensions Act 1995, which introduced measures to protect members of pension schemes. It placed extra duties on trustees and established the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. As my hon. Friend said, we have been actively monitoring and reviewing the provisions of the Pensions Act to build on and improve existing measures.

OPRA is the independent pensions regulator. It investigates complaints about occupational pension schemes not complying with the 1995 Act. It has powers to impose financial penalties, bring criminal prosecutions, disqualify trustees if they do not fulfil their obligations, and refer cases to the police or the special fraud office. However, OPR A's role has limitations. It can investigate only matters relating to the Pensions Act 1995. Many schemes were established under previous legislation.

Professionals such as actuaries have a duty to the scheme. Anybody can report a pension scheme to OPRA if they think that it is not being run properly, but the scheme's auditor and actuary have a statutory duty to blow the whistle when they have reasonable cause to believe that the Pensions Act 1995 is not being complied with. Therefore, there are some safeguards.

The Pensions Act 1995 also introduced legislation to give scheme members the opportunity to have member-nominated trustees. Members' trustees help to give trustee boards a better balance of outlooks and experience; they also help to give members confidence, and they encourage schemes to look carefully at how they are run. While I was listening to the points that were raised by both of my hon. Friends, I was struck by the fact that many of them arise out of suspicion that the trustees are acting secretively and are not acting for the benefit of members, and I think that getting more member-nominated trustees would go a long way towards reassuring members of schemes that are well run that they are well run, and towards ensuring that schemes that are beginning to be badly run, or are beginning to fall short of the law or their obligations, can be pulled up more quickly. Therefore, member-nominated trustees are a good way forward with regard to trying to reassure members of occupational schemes.

The presence of member trustees would help avoid some of the difficulties that have been raised and which are faced by some well publicised schemes that have gone wrong. That is why the Government want every scheme to have member-nominated trustees on the trust board. We will introduce measures to ensure that it is compulsory for schemes to appoint member-nominated trustees, and to simplify the procedure under which that is done. We have already taken the power in primary legislation—in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000—and we will consult regarding a package of regulations before the end of the summer, so that we can start to introduce the new requirements before the end of the year. The intention is to ensure that a third of all trustees are member nominated. That would be a step forward.

One of the central features of the Pensions Act 1995 was the introduction of the minimum funding requirement. It was designed to promote security for scheme members. It requires defined benefit schemes to hold the minimum level of assets to meet their liabilities. The aim of the minimum funding requirement is to ensure that a scheme that is funded to at least the level of that requirement will, in the event of the employer becoming insolvent, be able to provide pensions. It is also intended to provide younger members with a fair value of their accrued rights, which they can then transfer to another occupational pension scheme, or to a personal pension.

The minimum funding requirement came into effect in April 1997. If a scheme is underfunded on a minimum funding requirement basis—I understand that that was the case with regard to the Ravenhead pension plan—it must make good any underfunding within time scales laid down in regulations.

The matter of contributions was also raised by my hon. Friend, and they should be paid promptly and at the correct level. Under the minimum funding requirement rules, there must be a schedule of contributions, so that the difficulties of trying to find out if and when contributions were paid never have to be faced. Schedules show the contributions that must be paid by the employee and the employer, and the dates by which they must be paid. They will also include any additional contributions required to meet any shortfall in funding. Schedules must also be certified by actuaries, who should be content that they are sufficient to maintain the funding level of the schemes, or to restore them to the recommended levels, if they have fallen below that level. Trustees monitor the payment of contributions on the scheme's payment schedule and must tell OPRA and scheme members when contributions have been paid late, or not at all.

With regard to the Ravenhead Glass case, I understand that pension contributions were paid on time until two months before the company's insolvency. I also understand that that has been reported to OPRA, and that an independent trustee has made a claim for the outstanding contributions to the DTI's redundancy payment fund. When an employer becomes insolvent, the legislation requires that an independent trustee be appointed, and I understand that that has happened. The role of the independent trustee is to ensure that the interests of the members are represented in insolvency proceedings, and to make any necessary decisions about winding up the scheme. In this case, I understand that Berry, Birch and Noble Trustees Ltd. is the independent trustee that has been appointed by the administrators to deal with the issues that have arisen out of the case in my hon. Friend's constituency.

It is right that measures should be in place to protect the interests of members of a scheme whose funding has gone wrong. If a scheme is not fully funded on a minimum funding requirement basis when it winds up—which has happened in this case—the outstanding amount becomes a debt on the employer, and the independent trustee is responsible for pursuing recovery. The debts amount to the sum required to bring the scheme back to full funding on the minimum funding requirement basis. That is all very well if the employer is solvent, but it does not help if the employer is insolvent, as in the case under discussion. The provisions will not guarantee that the money owing to the scheme can be recovered. They are directed a fairly long way down the list of creditors as are the other obligations that the firm may have had.

The redundancy payments scheme was set up to protect members who were victims of their employer's insolvency, as happened in the Ravenhead case. When an insolvent employer has failed to pay contributions into the scheme, the scheme may be able to recover some of the missing contributions from the national insurance fund via the scheme. The contributions that may be recoverable are the employer's contributions as well as employee contributions that the employer has deducted from wages, but not paid over to the scheme. A claim has been submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry's redundancy payment fund for the contributions that were outstanding to the Ravenhead company pension trustees and I see no reason why they should not be fully recoverable.

Scheme members should be protected as far as possible if there is fraud or dishonesty, but it is not possible to say at this stage whether any such actions were involved in the case under discussion. Provisions for financial compensation were introduced under the Pensions Act 1995 and those provisions are administered by the Pensions Compensation Board. The board pays compensation to an occupational pension scheme if it has suffered a reduction in its assets because of dishonesty and if the sponsoring employer were insolvent. We introduced improvements to the pensions compensation scheme under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 and they came into effect in April. Schemes will now be able to claim compensation if their assets fall below a new protection level.

I understand that the trustees of the Ravenhead pension scheme decided to trigger the winding up of the scheme with effect from the end of April this year. I am aware that several concerns have been expressed about the length of time that it can take to finalise arrangements when a scheme winds up. That is often not a matter of bureaucracy, but of trying to trace some members of the scheme with deferred benefits. It is not always as easy as it looks to find out where everyone is and to make sure that they receive the fair value of their contributions.

We shall shortly be consulting on a package of measures aimed at speeding up the winding up of occupational pension schemes. OPRA will have a more proactive role in facilitating the winding up of schemes and supporting the trustees. The new rules will make those involved in the day-to-day administration of the scheme more accountable for unreasonable delays, but, as I said, delays are not always unreasonable. When the provisions become law and have had time to bed in, members of the scheme in wind-up should receive their benefit entitlements more quickly.

We are constantly reviewing the pensions regulatory framework and on 3 March this year we published the paper entitled "Security for Occupational Pensions". My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) may have read it. If he has not, I suggest that he does and that he takes part in furthering the Government's work in that regard.

I cannot deal with all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North, so I shall write to him about them, and that applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, too. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North asked if the Government would consider giving powers to OPRA to assess pension plans. We are placing a statutory duty on the scheme actuary directly to the scheme members. Currently, he has an obligation to the trustees, but it is important that he also sees his obligation to the members. That may help him in clarifying and enhancing his whistleblowing role—a statutory role if something goes wrong.

My hon. Friend also asked if I would consider setting up a pension protection fund that could take on the liabilities of discontinued pension schemes. When we consulted on such an issue, it received little support although my hon. Friend was right in that many of those who responded to the consultation were from the industry. There is nothing to stop anyone else answering the consultation and letting us know their views. The difficulty with such an approach is that often good occupational pension schemes do not become insolvent, but provide good benefits to their members. We must bear in mind the difficulty of good schemes having to pay up for bad schemes. There is a matter of balance to be considered, although I understand my hon. Friend's concern in that regard.

My hon. Friend asked whether I would consider requiring all pension schemes to take out a form of mutual insurance that was financed by a levy. The same balance of views must also be considered. If we have to put costs on the good schemes to support the bad schemes, we must take fully on board the implications for pension levels under the good schemes before saying that such action will be taken.

My hon. Friend asked me for an assurance that no pension scheme would be allowed to take a contribution holiday until there was a buffer zone. The current situation is that contribution holidays can be taken only if the scheme has a statutory surplus. I am sure that he will understand that transparency and member-nominated trustees may help to provide information to the members about contributions payments. I am conscious that I am running out of time. I shall, of course, write to my hon. Friend about the other matters that he raised.