A colleague once accused me of asking for debates on obscure matters, because I led consecutive debates on inflation indices, hedonic pricing, volunteering and time banks. My colleague was spot on, if the lack of prior outside representation on those subjects was anything to go by. That charge cannot be made today, because the debate has sparked an almost alarming number of representations from external bodies. I thank them, and everyone who has provided me with helpful briefings; I do not think that I can do justice to them all.

I asked for the debate because many of my constituents are concerned about Kingston magistrates court. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman on London, I am aware that the issue is London wide, and I am not surprised that Members from all parties are here today to raise concerns about their constituencies, and the impact that the issues may have on the capital. The representations that I have received show the urgent need for debate on the future of London magistrates courts. Ministers must heed the representations because a political storm is brewing that may soon wash up on the shores of Whitehall.

The combination of recent Government policy initiatives and proposals could produce drastic changes in the bedrock of London's legal system, the magistracy. In a few years' time we could wake up to realise that we had undermined something precious because we did not realise its true value. I shall give a flavour of the changes that London magistrates courts face with three examples of recent initiatives and proposals. First, last April, the administration of London's 22 former magistrates courts was centralised under the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority. That was a major administrative change.

Secondly, GLMCA has introduced a wide-ranging consultation on London's 40 magistrates courthouses, which covers everything from which courthouses are to close, to whether the post of justices' clerk should be widely maintained. Thirdly, a recent review of the criminal courts of England and Wales by Lord Justice Auld proposed a unified criminal court system, including a new district division consisting of a district judge and two experienced magistrates. There are many other proposals that would have an impact on London's magistrates courts.

The GLMCA consultation is not yet complete, and the Auld review is not yet published, but if all such changes were combined, their extent would be huge. The changes exercise the minds of court staff, magistrates, lawyers and many others. Many worry about how the changes add up; they worry not just for themselves, but for the nature and quality of London's justice system, the prime task of which is to serve the people of London, our constituents. The democratic arm of government should focus on the scale of what could happen to the legislative arm of London. We must question such changes and demand explanations from the Government.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), to take careful stock of the changes, and proceed with considerable caution. Many of the changes should be prevented or altered before the political die is cast.

The GLMCA has been something of a success story. That may surprise hon. Members and those who read the report of the debate. Some people see the GLMCA as the cause of all their woes. However, some of what it has been doing is quite good and the administrative change has yielded dividends.

Hon. Members may have examples of the new authority's teething problems, but since its creation earlier this year, the GLMCA has done at least two things that bode well for the future. The authority provides a better focus for much-needed co-ordination of London's criminal justice system, bringing together the top management of the different arms of London's criminal justice system. The chief executive of the GLMCA now regularly meets senior managers from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service and others throughout London, and that is producing some good results. It has reduced delays in dealing with persistent young offenders, and has breathed new life into London's criminal justice board.

A range of cross-agency initiatives is under way to crack some of the perennial problems affecting London's criminal justice system. There are, for example, ideas for improving the enforcement and collection of fines, extending court hours, and, beyond that, for improving the co-ordination of spreading best practice. We should welcome those initiatives.

The GLMCA is already making better use of its capital assets before the conclusion of the widespread consultation on its document. Individual magistrates courts committees had squirreled away courts' assets in case they might need them. By taking a more strategic view, the GLMCA can decide not to buy a car park or a building that it does not need and that is not fundamental to the operation of the court, and to recycle the money instead.

Is it not the case that the people best placed to decide how a car park should be used are in the local courts, and not in a body that is a long way away and is insensitive to the local requirements?

It is possible that local people should have a role in such decisions, although I understand that the GLMCA is at least consulted. The hon. Gentleman would surely agree that sometimes court committees and local authorities have held on to capital assets unnecessarily. I stress that the assets in question are not fundamental to the operation of the magistrates courts and are not core to the function of the justice system. There is a case for better use of assets, and the GLMCA is making that case well.

I do not want to wax too lyrical about such achievements—these are early days—but they show that there are huge potential benefits from the relatively minor reform of establishing the GLMCA. Ministers should focus on that success and on the potential from that reform without proceeding too rapidly with some of the other ideas that are being proposed, about which I will be more critical.

The tome "Delivery of summary justice in Greater London: the GLMCA's strategy" was launched last June. It has provoked much sound and fury throughout the capital, which does not surprise me. I was taken aback when I read the executive summary—a thinner volume—as were the local magistrates in Kingston, mainly because some of the options included either a partial or even a full-scale massacre of the capital's courtrooms. The options would imply the total demolition of the idea of local justice in London. Local justice is important, and not for sentimental reasons, nor because that is the way we have always done it. Local justice means justice that is as accessible to low-income citizens as it is to the better off, and where local magistrates understand the local area.

The document's more extreme proposals, which attack the very notion of local justice, seem unlikely to go much further. Indeed, it seemed that at the time of publication—and certainly on reflection—some of those proposals were included as Aunt Sallies, intended to draw fire and tease out the arguments. My research has reinforced that impression. In debating the future of London's magistrates courts, we should not focus on that document. The situation has moved on significantly and most courthouses in the capital are likely to survive the exercise. That might be welcome news for some hon. Members.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department may be able to enlighten the House about the current state of play, although I expect that he is waiting until the GLMCA advances its conclusions later this year. The GLMCA is listening to many representations, and closures may prove to be more limited than some expect.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing the debate. He has obviously researched the subject carefully. Has he come to any preliminary conclusion about the number of courts that will remain in London when the reform process is over? Currently, there are 40 and, as I understand it, 29 may be closed, although it may be fewer. Does the hon. Gentleman have a figure in mind?

Unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a figure. The GLMCA will meet on 21 November for consultation in the light of Lord Justice Auld's report, so it has not yet reached a final decision. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to suggest a figure because no one knows of such a figure. It is certainly my view that the number of closures will be small.

The need for this debate follows on from what the hon. Gentleman said. We cannot be sure that my research is correct. It is possible that more courts may be closed than has been suggested to me, which is why I wanted to have the debate. The democratic arm of government should make it clear to the GLMCA and the Minister that we will strongly oppose a major closure programme. When the GLMCA makes its recommendations, I hope that it will take this debate into account. I hope that the GLMCA executive will ensure that all authority members receive a copy of the debate so that they can read what we, as elected representatives, have to say about London's justice system.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the uncertainty that he describes about the number of courts in London is not a good example of joined-up government? There are at least three initiatives: the Auld committee, the GLMCA and the proposals for fewer courts. That is exactly what we do not want in the provision of justice for London.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the combination of all those initiatives and proposals is causing huge uncertainty and great anxiety.

We must consider some of the details in the strategic consultation document. The argument for larger closure programmes is predicated on the idea that there is massive overcapacity in London's courtrooms. That is the basis of the policy consultation and many aspects of policy in the Lord Chancellor's Department. We must challenge the proposition that there is huge overcapacity. Currently, it is believed that there is 30 per cent. too much courtroom space in London, which is also a national average figure. The Lord Chancellor's Department is demanding that authorities such as the GLMCA cut that overcapacity by one third by the end of next year, which means selling off 10 per cent. of the estate by the end of 2002. That is worrying as we cannot be sure about that overcapacity, especially if one third is to be removed in one year. Let us remember that London performs well in not leaving courtrooms empty. In the capital, we use our courtrooms well, especially compared with other areas and the Crown courts. For example, in the last quarter, London was almost 16 per cent. above the national average in courtroom utilisation, and only three percentage points lower than the very best.

We must factor in the need for spare capacity. Sometimes courts are busier than at other times, and we need to ensure that peaks can be dealt with. We must also factor into the analysis that capacity should not be measured simply by courtrooms. What about interview rooms, custody suites and witness rooms, for example? They should be part of a capacity analysis.

We need to remember that we want to improve the quality of justice. We have initiatives such as the London magistrates court witness service, which is promoted by, among others, Victim Support for London and the Government. In trying to secure better courtroom facilities for witnesses, that new service is already absorbing some spare capacity, even before new training facilities and more refreshment facilities, for example, are considered. Some of that space could be absorbed in other ways.

We should also remember that a courtroom sometimes stands empty for reasons entirely outside the court's control. Perhaps the failure of the CPS is involved, perhaps a witness fails to turn up, or perhaps London's chronic shortage of probation officers means that proceedings cannot continue. Whatever the reason, the courtroom will be empty due to reasons beyond the court's control. Does that count as overcapacity? When consultants talk of overcapacity, I am reminded of what happened more than a decade ago in the national health service, when consultants' calculations told us that there were too many expensive beds throughout the NHS in London, and bed numbers were slashed. We have still not recovered from that.

I urge members of the GLMCA and the Minister to examine closely the figures for overcapacity. The Lord Chancellor's Department and those at Marylebone road should question the figures and data sources, ask for definitions and cross-check the findings. Those who take major decisions based on those figures should ensure that they analyse them properly.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intended to move on to this point. If spare capacity exists, could it not be used by other agencies? The court in my constituency lets out space to the Inland Revenue—I do not know for what purpose. It might be used for tribunals, for example.

I had not considered that. The hon. Lady makes a valid point. What she and I are saying boils down to the fact that the GLMCA should not be rushed into a massive closure programme and the Minister should give it directions to that effect.

There is another major reason why the GLMCA should be ultra cautious about proceeding with rationalisation. The Minister may want to provide some assurance on this, but as far as I know, the Government have given no public assurance that the GLMCA will be able to retain the financial savings derived from closing courtrooms. That is surprising, as surely only one sensible argument could support the sale of a courthouse given the inevitable negative effect on local justice in the area—the possibility that the funds could be recycled, freed up and ploughed back into other magistrates courts, to refurbish them and pay for a modernisation programme that raised the overall quality of justice for London. However, if we do not know that the GLMCA can keep the capital receipts, that argument does not get off the ground. Let us make no mistake: usual Treasury practice is to claw back such money in some way or other. Unless Ministers can guarantee publicly, preferably today, that the Treasury is not about to mount a smash-and-grab raid on London's public legal system, the GLMCA should not be conned.

I know that the Minister is widely regarded as helpful and accommodating on the matter, so I do not mean to slight his intentions. In many ways, my arguments focus on another Department. However, I hope that he understands the crucial point that, without a promise that 100 per cent. of realised capital can be retained for reinvestment, with no hidden penalties or grant regime, the GLMCA would, on financial grounds, be foolish to undertake more than a limited estate rationalisation. It would hardly be outrageous of the GLMCA to request that. This year, its budget represented a cash freeze, so it is hardly imposing extra costs on the Government. Frankly, it would be reasonable for the GLMCA to ask not only for such a guarantee, but for an above-inflation settlement in the new comprehensive spending review, at least for the early years, because it is often important to invest up-front in order to make savings down the line. I will listen closely to the Minister's remarks on that particular point, and I hope that he will reassure us.

I return to the details of the GLMCA's consultation document and, for a moment, I will be parochial and argue the case for Kingston's magistrates court. In the document, Kingston is one of 18 courthouses included for closure in option D, and is mentioned in option C as a possible additional closure within the so-called "moderate rationalisation" option.

The closure of Kingston's magistrates court would be a serious mistake. It would affect not only Kingston, but the wider London magistrates network. Kingston may have a relatively small court, but it is a good, efficient performer. I pay special tribute to the justices' clerk, Andrew Vickers, and his dedicated staff for their hard work over the years, which has been central to that excellent performance. I also mention the work of the chairman of the bench, Dr. Alan Vincent, and his fellow magistrates who have contributed to the performance.

Small can be beautiful, and can help to make justice more accessible. I have attended open days at the Kingston courts when schoolchildren are shown how the courts work and are shown mock trials. That may seem a minor example, but it is just one instance of how a locally minded bench can be proactive in its work with the local community. It can promote active citizenship and, in a roundabout way, contribute to crime prevention.

Kingston's case, however, is based on much more than efficiency. The court's location is in the centre of town, next to the police station. That is a real advantage. It is extremely easy for local people to access, and professionals are on hand, whether they are the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. Moreover, south-west London's probation service is just across the bridge. Therefore, the courtroom is more convenient than others.

Kingston's court is a unique case. Its closure would not yield capital receipt because the local council owns the courtrooms and the administration headquarters is leased. Yes, there would be savings on staff costs, but they would be small because the court is relatively small. Therefore, there is a weak financial case for closing Kingston's court. Moreover, there is room for expansion because the council has already designated a site immediately adjacent to the court's entrance. Building there could modernise the overall facilities and reduce total leasing costs.

Finally, the GLMCA must think of its public duty. The courts are in a grade 2 listed building, within the Kingston old town conservation area. They are in the basement of the Kingston guildhall, which is a neo-Georgian building that was built in 1954 and designed by Maurice Webb. The courts are in good condition and retain their original layout and fixtures. Our court building is of significant historical and architectural value. As the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) will recall from his days with English Heritage, that means that if the GLMCA closes the court, it will be extremely difficult for consent to be granted for the existing courtroom fittings to be stripped out, or even significantly altered. However, there is a much greater chance that permission would be granted for enhancements to the building that develop its historical usage.

Kingston council would be left with a costly white elephant that could, at best, serve as an expensive storeroom, and would require assistance from the Minister's colleagues in local government. Alternatively, and more cost-effectively, the GLMCA could include the historical courtrooms in its strategic plans. I urge the Minister and the GLMCA to examine Kingston's case, which is strong even before general points about local justice are considered.

Of course, there is a factor that could change all the calculations—for Kingston, London and throughout England and Wales. That is the Auld review. This is not the time for a full-scale analysis of Lord Justice Auld's review, not least because it goes far wider than London's magistracy. However, it is germane as there can be no doubt that some of its key recommendations would impact on the future of London's courts in a very big way.

The GLMCA has delayed final recommendation on its strategic consultation document pending the extraordinary meeting in November, to which I referred, for consideration of the impact of Auld. I know that the Minister has already told the authority that it should not wait for the Government's response to Auld before finalising and implementing a strategy. However, I am sure that he would agree that it would be imprudent for the authority not to be mindful of Auld, at the very least, in the timetabling of strategy implementation. It is well known that Auld's key recommendations of a unified criminal court with a Crown division, a magistrates division and a new district division could have major implications for the management structure of the courts and the courtroom needs of the criminal justice system.

Equally, if Auld and the Government get their way and abolish the automatic right to a jury trial, the whole work load of the lower two divisions could be significantly increased, with longer trials and more of them. That is not a change at the margin; it is a revolution at the core. The GLMCA and the Minister might wish to press on regardless, but it is a prudent and sensible body and the Minister is rightly well regarded, so Auld must be a consideration. It would be irresponsible madness to sell off any more than a tiny number of courtrooms given that reality. What is the Minister's public guidance, not just to the GLMCA, but to other court authorities? Would he advise them to go ahead with rationalisation utterly regardless, as if Auld did not exist? If not, what recognition of Auld should they build in to their strategies?

Before I conclude, I want to make a few final points about the magistracy in general. The Government's views on the matter are important for the capital. What are the Government's long-term plans for the lay magistracy? That might seem an odd question—the Government might think that it is a trick question—but it has been put to me by many justices of the peace. Magistrates are worried, and the more suspicious ones think that the Government want to get rid of them totally. I do not say that in jest: magistrates regard Auld's proposals for a district division as a stalking horse. They regard the proposal that lay magistrates should not be involved in decisions on matters of sentencing as deeply corrosive. If the district division proposal is implemented, and the district judge sits as the chair, the incentive for magistrates of chairing a bench and being authoritative in reaching conclusions will be taken away and the role of some of our senior magistrates will be reduced. Undermining the purpose and incentive to do the magistrate's job might undermine the whole magistracy.

Worse still, the more suspicious magistrates fear that the unified criminal court, and the Court Service that will manage it—although we know that those proposals are not finalised—will mean that the administrative side of the magistrates courts will disappear into the Court Service, and will therefore be accountable to the Lord Chancellor's Department. They fear what could be regarded as a wholesale takeover of the magistracy by the Crown courts. I am afraid to say that such fears were not calmed by the recent and pre-emptive decision by the Lord Chancellor's Department to transfer the head office magistrates courts service staff to the Court Service. That seemed like a lightning raid to take away the magistrates courts civil servants, and, before any decision had been taken, put them into the Crown court. That decision, which was almost presented as a fait accompli, annoyed a lot of people throughout the wider judiciary. As the Minister will know, it led to the granting of a judicial review application. I am told that, in the short term, the matter may be sorted out before that judicial review is heard. I welcome that, and I hope that the Minister will confirm it. I refer to that because magistrates have many reasons to be rather jittery, and I am not surprised that they are nervous.

Even those who are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt are nervous because they do not see them worrying about recruitment to the magistracy. Why is that? The Government should want to recruit more people, but magistrates do not see them making a big deal of telling employers, "Give your employees time off to serve as magistrates." The Government do not seem to understand that the magistracy is made up of volunteers who undertake 95 per cent. of the administration of justice and without whom the whole edifice would crumble. The Minister might accuse me of exaggerating those fears, but that is what people are telling me.

I want to end with a plea. The Government should put the brakes on and think. Do they really want to press ahead with their combined reforms and end up with a highly centralised, professional, lawyer-based legal system or do they want a system in which ordinary people are involved in the administration of justice as jurors and magistrates? I want to live in a society that makes it possible for citizens to get involved and to serve their communities. I want to encourage active citizens and healthy communities and, in respect of their other policies, the Government say that they do too. However, when it comes to their policy on magistrates, they do not seem to value the work of volunteers and do not encourage active citizens.

The Liberal Democrats believe that individuals can deal with responsibilities in the justice system and should be encouraged to do so for the good of their neighbours and communities. It is better that they should be involved in the magistracy. That is not a plea for the status quo—far from it. We can get better value for money, improve the service that we get from the courts and introduce a wider spread of lay person into the magistracy. However, let us make those changes by building on the strength of our existing institutions, not by undermining them.

I apologise that I will not be around for the Minister's winding-up speech, but I have a constituency arrangement. However, I want to say a few words as a London Member of Parliament.

I took on board the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), in particular the concerns that he expressed at the end of his speech about a centralised, lawyer-based legal system. I come from the legal fraternity and spent four years as a solicitor, although the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), is a more distinguished lawyer. None the less, volunteers play an active and important role in the legal system, particularly in the magistracy. There is also the role of justice of the peace, which goes back to the 13th century. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that people have serious concerns about the proposed changes, and several constituents have expressed them to me.

Above all, I am concerned about the fact that the rationalisation takes no account of several local factors. One must be careful to bear it in mind that any rationalisation will involve much special pleading. That is particularly true for the City of London, which has had its own magistrates court for as long as there have been justices of the peace. It will now be one of the 22 areas to be swallowed up into the single, Londonwide court, although I appreciate the fact that Westminster has been part of an inner-London bench for some time.

We should also consider the redundancies that are involved in the rationalisation. Everything seems to be up in the air in that regard. We are still at an early stage and have had only a small summary of a very large document, but I hope that we shall hear more detail today and in the coming period. Uncertainty about many of the changes is causing great concern.

It is somewhat curious that we are considering rationalisation at this juncture. As has been said, that is partly because of Auld's wholesale recommendations. Furthermore, in 1997 the Labour party promised to crack down on persistent young offenders. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 set out the fast-track provisions, which had been much heralded. I wonder whether some of the proposals, particularly for central London, will fly in the face of the Government's aim of securing a fast-track procedure, notwithstanding all the purported overcapacity in London as a whole.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was right to say that a political storm is brewing over the matter in question, and that the drastic changes proposed will upset the bedrock of the magistracy. Local justice is important. There is always a tendency to look on London as one large amorphous entity, but London Members know that it was, and is, a series of villages. In the Cities of London and Westminster, even a five-minute walk takes a person from one village to another: from Soho to Covent Garden, for example. That applies equally to the suburbs. For example, Kingston has a guildhall, which is part of its history. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) will know that there are several old London villages in her area.

Locality is of key importance. Dealing with London as a large, amorphous mass will remove some of the local links that are, and should be, the bedrock of the justice system.

My hon. Friend has touched on an important point. He will notice how many hon. Members are present whose constituencies cover parts of outer London such as Croydon, Barnet, Kingston and Surbiton, and Ilford. That is important. Bromley has a very new court, in contrast to that in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is five years old and was purpose-built at a cost of £10 million. That will be closed under the proposal.

I take that point on board. I am sorry that I do not know all the facts and figures about the London borough of Bromley; my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) will recall that Orpington was previously a district council in its own right, as part and parcel of Kent. Those loyalties and ties remain strong and, as far as possible, they should be encouraged.

I doubt whether the proposals will achieve the goal of improving the performance and consistency of court services. They seem to be in part an asset-stripping operation. According to the documents there is a 32 per cent. overcapacity across Greater London, yet we all know that the much-vaunted fast-track arrangements have not really become established. I am thinking particularly about youth justice. Much of the relevant activity in the City of London concerns the youth justice bench. I am well aware of concern about the current arrangements and the sense that there is massive overcapacity that could be rationalised. I am concerned that that will do less to help justice than it will to provide a one-off capital gain, and that the magistracy and legal system in London may never recover.

I ask for a complete rethink of the entire package. Above all, we know as politicians that all politics is local. We must realise that issues of locality are of keen importance in the dispensation of justice, even in what might seem to be a faceless capital city.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing the debate. I declare an interest at the outset, in that I have been a justice of the peace since 1990 and served as a magistrate in my area until I was selected as a parliamentary candidate. The Redbridge courthouse is in my constituency.

I appreciate the wide-ranging consultation process in which the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority is engaged. I understand and support its priorities, which I paraphrase from the strategic consultation document as follows: to ensure consistency across the criminal justice system in London; to deliver improved services to all court users in London with efficiency and effectiveness by joint working with other agencies; to fund investment and reinvestment opportunities and provide value for money; to respond to national policy priorities; to be a good employer providing job opportunities, training, development and flexibility, and to support magistrates in their work.

I also recognise the GLMCA's concerns about the costs of administering justice in London. However, by focusing on the courthouse in my own constituency, I hope to demonstrate that closing down many courthouses throughout the capital will not necessarily save money or achieve the strategic aims.

I pay tribute to the Justice for Redbridge campaign. Thanks to the efforts of the present chairman of the bench, Councillor Richard Hoskins, and the immediate past chairman, Ron Jeffries, a formidable case against closure has been presented. The campaign enlisted the support of all four local Members of Parliament, all the political groups on Redbridge council and the GLA member for Havering and Redbridge, the Metropolitan police, Victim Support, the secretary of the Legal Aid Board and local solicitors, the youth offending team, the citizens advice bureaux, the North East London mental health trust, the Redbridge Pensioners Action Association, the Redbridge trade union council, local school students who signed petitions, and readers of local newspapers, including 880 people who returned cut-out forms printed in the Ilford Recorder.

All those groups stressed the importance of local accessibility, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton also mentioned. That comes through time and again in the representations that I have received about rationalising the courthouse estate. They all concentrate on the potential loss of access to local justice for all court users.

I wrote to the chief executive of the GLMCA, Ashley Truluck, in September saying:

"I am particularly concerned at the threat to the delivery of local justice with the closure of a large number of court houses; accessibility for all court users will be seriously compromised and I believe will lead to more cases being delayed or adjourned because of travelling difficulties, including longer and more costly journeys for victims, witnesses, defendants, magistrates, advocates, court staff, police and other agencies. The clustering of court services at out-of-borough locations will severely damage local links with safer community partnerships, victim support and other groups and will affect police/probation liaison".

The Metropolitan police borough commander wrote to me:

"The Metropolitan Police service would seek to ensure that court hearings and services are accessible and the closure of local courts would involve additional travelling/time costs for both the MPS and private witnesses, which is not desirable. Additionally, the waiting time for police officers and witnesses could increase and this could impact on the availability and attendance rates of witnesses and possibly on witnesses' willingness to come forward in the first place. Therefore, I would seek to ensure that local accessibility remains a key consideration when the GLMCA makes its final decision."

The chairman of the youth court also makes points about the difficulties of transferring the youth court from our area into London. She mentions the fact that the youth offending team can produce the specific case worker within 10 to 15 minutes to the Barkingside courthouse. She states:

"Redbridge youth magistrates are concerned not to put further pressure on vulnerable victims, witnesses, defendants and their families. The thought of elderly victims who are already traumatized by the very need to attend court gives very real cause for concern. Increasingly, youth crime is directed at the elderly and vulnerable residents of this Borough. The thought of an 80-year-old lady who has had her handbag snatched in Ilford Town Centre and having to make the long journey by public transport into London to give evidence appals me. We cannot allow this to happen at the behest of so-called efficiency."

The question whether fewer courthouses would save money was addressed in the remarks of a long-serving local solicitor, David Diamond:

"So any savings they make on the use of one court full time will be off-set on paying solicitors and lawyers millions of pounds for waiting around. It is also going to cost more traveling—there are lots of hidden expenses and I don't think the government has taken account of this."

In a letter to me, a constituent who works for the Lord Chancellor's Department said succinctly:

"I hope the court will not close. It's not as if there are not enough local criminals to fill it."

My other main point concerns local contacts and networks, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned. A locally based courthouse with magistrates living in the area can build and maintain a range of links with the community that it serves. The courthouse in Redbridge is no exception. Indeed, it has taken a proactive role in spearheading local initiatives in some sectors.

The clerk to the justices is one of 12 members at chief executive level of the Redbridge safer communities partnership. He also chairs the steering group on racist crime. The court was proactive in setting up the Redbridge domestic violence forum, the town centre steering group—it tackled violence in clubs and pubs—and a group to deal with violence on buses, which worked with the route operators. Under the mentally disordered offenders diversion scheme, representatives of the mental health trust, social services, police, probation and the court monitor the work of the on-call court-designated community psychiatric nurse.

There is also the Redbridge court drug initiative. Following the Government's launch of borough-based drug action teams and drug reference groups, there is magistrate representation on both Redbridge bodies. With funding from the Government Office for London via the probation service, the court was one of the first to appoint a full-time court-based drug referral worker.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned open days for community groups and schools. My local court had a drug awareness day, which I was pleased to attend. Local courthouses build up many networks, which would he a great loss if they were closed.

On efficiency, Redbridge magistrates court performs far better than average compared with Greater London and nationally. Cases are heard at Redbridge 11 days faster than the Greater London average and 16 days faster than the national average. In fact, according to the latest performance indicators, which were released in the first week of October by the GLMCA, the court is so efficient that it is already meeting next year's targets. That places it second in the list of the 29 courts in London. It completes all types of cases, from first listing to sentencing or acquittal, in 17 days, against a Government target of 29 days.

The court is also well ahead on fines paid. Courtroom usage is 10 per cent. better than the national average, and user satisfaction is 14 per cent. higher than the Greater London average.

I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) speak about his local courthouse. We have had a modernisation programme in Redbridge. In recent years, well over £1 million in capital costs has been spent on projects to enhance facilities for victims, witnesses, legal representatives, criminal justice agencies, disabled court users and at-risk offenders. One project involved the installation of a lift for disabled magistrates.

It is important to bear in mind the Auld report, which has been mentioned. I am pleased that the chief executive of the GLMCA says in a letter to those who responded to the strategic consultation document that

"the original options have been redefined considerably".

That gives me some hope. It is important that the Government bear in mind the proposals in the Auld report when they consider the rationalisation of courthouses. Using the example of my local courthouse, I hope that I have shown that there is a case for not proceeding with the draconian rationalisation of the courthouse estate, as is set out in several of the options in the strategic consultation document. Once again I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on securing this timely debate, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that the importance of these issues is borne in mind by those who take the decisions.

rose—

We are hoping to start the wind-ups from the Front Benches shortly after 10.30 am. I therefore ask hon. Members to be as concise as they can.

Thank you for that advice, Mr. Cook. I can considerably shorten my contribution because many of the points have already been made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and I congratulate him on the timely manner in which he has raised the issue.

The Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority was set up in April this year. It replaces 22 magistrates courts. That authority is now the largest in England and Wales. It has a budget of £75 million, 1,800 staff, over 3,000 magistrates and 40 courthouses. That is centralisation of some magnitude. In their White Paper of December 1998 the Government rightly said that magistrates courts should provide local justice dispensed by local people. I would add "locally", and I find it significant that that word was left out.

We start from the basis of section 83 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which set up the GLMCA. I am worried about the strategy that that new authority recently published. It examines estate options ranging from no change and minimal rationalisation, to significant rationalisation and, at the far extreme, a central courthouse or courthouses. I make no apologies if this seems a parochial point, but even under the moderate rationalisation option, Barnet and Hendon courts would close and their caseload would move to Brent. Under the significant rationalisation option, 18 courts would close, including Harrow and Highgate, the next nearest to my constituents. Under the clustering system 29 would close and Brent court would effectively serve the whole of the north of outer London. I would find that quite unacceptable.

I should be grateful if the Minister could also deal with the effect that the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives effect to European Court of Human Rights decisions, will have on the design and costs of local courts, whether there are 40 or only 11. I take this opportunity to praise the work of lay magistrates. It has been an integral part of our justice system for hundreds of years. They give a considerable amount of their time and they are not paid. As the hon. Gentleman said, they deal with 95 per cent. of all court cases. Quite simply, if we are not to maintain the two existing courts in Barnet we must have at least one court in the borough even if that means closing those two courts after building a new one more centrally.

Finally, and I know the Minister will appreciate this, the public transport routes, and indeed the road networks, in London radiate out from the centre. It is difficult for those above the north circular road to get across London. That would be a particular problem for my constituents if they had to go to Brent court. That is a vital consideration.

Local accessibility is vital in the administration of justice and even more vital in the administration of local justice.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing the debate. I have sparred with him over many years on London matters and Treasury matters, and have worked with him on the issue, and it is a pleasure to meet him in debate again. I take his word for it that the absent ranks of Liberal Democrats support him on the issue. As a solicitor, I declare an interest: my wife is a magistrate and many of the points that we have heard today are often forcefully made to me over the breakfast table.

Magistrates make a huge contribution to the community. I hope that the Minister will take away from the debate the fact that the magistracy is a locally and community-based activity. If we are to support the community, which is the glue of society, the magistracy must remain local and we must have a local structure to support it. The proposals threaten and jeopardise that local structure. Justice must be dispensed locally. We cannot have the Croydon courts shut down, for example. Croydon is the largest borough in London and the Sutton courts could not cope if Croydon courts were shut down. There would be a gap between Kingston on the one hand and Bromley on the other—entire swathes of south London would have no courts. The thought of witnesses and magistrates having to travel 10 or 15 miles across London is terrible; it would destroy the local dispensation of justice. In rural areas, 10 or 15 miles is not much, but in London it is a huge distance. Magistrates, witnesses, police and all the officials would be in alien territory.

My second point is important and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will also make it. Justice cannot be finance-led. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly said that he was addressing a different Department on the issue. All Departments have to face the Treasury. Every hon. Member would like to scrum down behind the Minister in his battle for funding from the Treasury, but he has right on his side. The Treasury cannot decide how justice will be dispensed in this country. Justice, the jury and the magistracy are the cornerstones of our local democracy and of everything that we believe in. One cannot require that justice be tailor-made to fit a budget.

My next point is on the overcapacity of London courts. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton dealt with the point well by pointing out that London is outperforming the average. However, the magistracy is not responsible for empty courts. I am reliably informed that it is often the inability of the Crown Prosecution Service to have cases ready that is to blame. The magistrates are waiting, ready and willing, as is everyone else, but problems in the CPS mean that cases are not ready, so everyone sits around twiddling their thumbs. Such cases are entered on the records as vacant courts and overcapacity. It is not overcapacity. There is a tremendous backlog; some cases take six, seven or eight months to appear. Magistrates are ready and willing to dispense justice.

This is precisely the point that was made to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) when we recently visited Bromley magistrates court. The fact that courts are empty is a reflection of the competence not of the magistrates, but of the Crown Prosecution Service.

It is interesting that the experience of courts in my constituency is reflected elsewhere. Indeed, it is probably reflected by courts around London—the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) is nodding.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said earlier, we are suffering from initiative fatigue and uncertainty about the magistrates courts. For better or worse, we have the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority, and I am less keen on it than the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Schools and hospitals take devolved decisions about the maintenance of buildings; they get their priorities right and run things properly. To remove the management of the logistics of the magistrates courts to a London wide authority is anti-devolutionary; it takes away the responsibility that should properly be devolved down to the clerks and to people locally.

I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that there may be improvements in co-ordinating the collection of fines, which I welcome, but the use of assets has not been a great success, although it is early days and there may be teething problems. I ask the Minister to consider devolving management of the assets as far down as possible, which would be widely welcomed locally.

This is not the moment to debate the Auld report, but I hope that the Minister will persuade the Whips Office to allow a full debate on that important subject on the Floor of the House. The thrust of the report is welcome, although we will obviously find some nit-picking points when we read it more closely. The magistrates welcome it, and it provides for an enhanced role for them—I am pleased to see the Minister nodding in agreement—and enhanced powers when two magistrates are sitting with a judge, although I do not know what type of judge. Will it be a stipendiary? The magistrates welcome the recognition of the importance of their role. However, the question about the long-term future of the magistracy remains. If the Minister cannot spell out what it is today, we hope that he will do so in the future, as it is so important to the community.

We have had an extremely interesting debate, and we await the Minister's reply with interest. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing the debate.

I declare my interest as a solicitor. When I was appointed, one newspaper asked, "Is this man a lawyer?" The answer is yes, and he has been for a long time—since 1967. Hon. Members from every part of London and from all parties have made a powerful case, although it would have been desirable if even more hon. Members had been present.

The central theme of the debate has been the impact on the system of justice, especially in the London area, if the proposals go ahead. The present state of affairs could fairly be described as transitional, or a watershed. The GLMCA report stated that the authority was considering options, and had a problem because the Auld committee was about to report. It therefore put forward its views with some uncertainty, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, does not help in situations relating to justice.

We now have the Auld committee report, which deals with extremely important matters that will need to be considered. The debate is useful as a pointer to the future; it shows the necessity for a major review of the ideas generated by the GLMCA and the Auld report. Chapter 4 of the Auld report begins:

"No country in the world relies on lay magistrates as we do, sitting usually in panels of three, to administer the bulk of criminal justice … magistrates courts deal with 95% of all prosecuted crime. Lay magistrates—about 30,400 of them—handle 91% of that work."

That gives us a good idea of how important the system is.

Another issue mentioned in speech after speech was that of locality of justice. On that question, the observations—I would not call them recommendations—in the Auld report do not tend to point in a happy direction. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. For example, Auld quotes from a report by Messrs Seago, Walker and Wall that he states was seminal in compiling his compendious report. The quote is on page 108:

"And most controversial of all, in the absence of any practical need for, as opposed to abstract ideology of, localism, why is there a need for lay justices to reflect local connections?"

In paragraphs 36 and 37, Auld says:

"'Locality' of justice also has its downside in the wide inconsistencies to which it leads between MCC areas and between individual benches in their patterns of decision-making, particularly as to bail and sentencing.

Another disadvantage of 'locality' of justice, whether in the form of magistrates or a District Judge, is that the tribunal may, on occasion, know too much about accused persons, whose guilt or sentence they should determine only on the material put before them in court."

A consistent theme of the debate is that we want locality of justice. I believe in it profoundly and support hon. Members from all parties who have made that point. I hope that the Minister will consider some of the concerns that have now emerged.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that too much emphasis can be placed on consistency? One understands why the Government are concerned about it—rightly so. However, if one places too much stress on it and looks for solutions through centralisation alone, big mistakes will be made. Many centralised bodies in the public sector do not deliver consistency across their agencies. Furthermore, consistency can be achieved by many routes other than the centralised, professional approach that Auld proposed and towards which the Government seem to be inclined.

I am strongly in favour of the volunteer ethos that lies behind the magistracy. I would be deeply concerned if we ended up with an overly centralised and professional system, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, particularly in light of the statistics that I gave, the strong endorsement in some of the reports on which Auld relies as to the efficacy of the system and the lack of significant criticism about the quality of justice that comes out of his report. I think that that is another point to bear in mind.

I am slightly puzzled by some of the statistics about the weighted case loads in different areas as compared to annual budgets. This is directly relevant to what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said about whether the Government will seek to centralise and/or try to contain and/or reduce costs. For example, in the west midlands, to which my constituency of Stone is fairly near, the weighted case load is 703,000 with 89 courtrooms and an annual budget of £16 million. According to the Auld report, the GLMCA has a weighted case load of 1.58 million with 193 courtrooms and an annual budget of £77 million. The actual amount allocated to the Lord Chancellor's Department is £75 million, which I find curious because that is slightly less than the amount of money that was predicated in the consultation paper.

The significance of the example is that the west midlands has about half the case load but is nearly five times less expensive. That must be taken into account, but it worries me that it should be used to bolster the argument against locality of justice. Somehow the Government have got to find a means of maintaining the locality of justice and saving the courtrooms where they are at present, for the most part, while at the same time reducing costs.

There is another problem with regard to greater London, which has not been mentioned so far. An interesting article by Joshua Rosenberg on the question of unpaid fines, which appeared in the The Daily Telegraph in May points out:

"In greater London alone the figure for uncollected fines now stands at £116 million. Fines totalling £92 million were imposed in London last year; less than £42 million was collected."

According to Judge Fabyan Evans, chairman of the London criminal justice strategy committee, little more than one third of the fines imposed in inner London were paid last year. On the enforcement of fines, Joshua Rosenberg says:

"The situation is particularly bad in London. Until the end of March, fines and other penalties were enforced by civilians employed by the Metropolitan police. The police did not want this responsibility and began running down staffing levels".

The GLMCA's new authority has been given only £3.37 million for the enforcement of fines. The authority has told the Government that it needs another £1.23 million. According to a spokesman, it is considerably understaffed. These figures make it clear that the authority needs only an extra £1 million or so, added to the total budget for the London magistrates courts of £75 million, to deal with this problem.

The Government are attempting to centralise the courts, which—unless we hear to the contrary from the Minister—will deprive people of the local justice to which they are entitled, but they are not dealing with the problem at the hard end: collecting the fines. We are in considerable difficulty. I urge the Minister to have regard to the powerful arguments that have been made by Members from all parties and all parts of London and to put justice and locality of justice ahead of ideology and centralisation.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in what I hope we will all agree has been an informative and useful exchange on these matters.

Let there be no doubt about the fact that the Government attach as much importance to the lay magistracy as anyone else. It is significant that Sir Robin Auld also arrived at the view that the lay magistracy was centrally important to our system of justice. His independent report took a radical and far-reaching look at the criminal justice system—those who have read it will be aware of how independently minded he is. We have often made our views clear in the Chamber. I want again to stress the importance that we attach to the lay magistracy, for all the reasons that have been adduced today.

This is an important time for the criminal justice system. Over the past four years, there have been significant achievements; much is still to be done and we intend to do it. Sir Robin Auld's report is part of that process. The work of the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority also forms an important element. Before I deal with more general issues, I shall address some specific points. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton raised the matter of the judicial review proceedings; I am happy to tell him that they have now been withdrawn. He also asked about the relationship of the GLMCA to any funds that it realises by disposing of any part of its estate. The GLMCA owns its estate; any assets that it acquires through disposal of its estate are for it to use at it sees fit according to its remit.

The Minister's words will be partly reassuring to the GLMCA—he is right to say that the legal position is that the authority will be able to keep all its proceeds. However, before he moves away from the financial issue, will he give an assurance that there will be no change to the grant from the Lord Chancellor's Department as a result of capital realisation?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the allocation of grants is subject to a variety of factors that we negotiate with the Treasury. I can give no guarantee of what factors will be taken into account, but the straightforward position is that the estate is owned by the GLMCA, which can dispose of it and realise its assets. I will mention later how, over the past four years, we have secured increased funding for magistrates courts to improve the facilities that are offered to those who use them. We intend to ensure that funding continues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also recognise the increased funding have secured for the coming years.

I shall briefly deal with the point about the Human Rights Act 1998—a matter raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). With respect to him, and others who have raised the matter in the past, I must say that there is much misunderstanding about the impact of that Act. The Act leads to court closures only in exceptional circumstances, such as if the court were to rule that it was unacceptable for a court to be used at all, according to article 6 of the convention. For example, having no interview rooms would be a clear breach of article 6. We think that that is highly unlikely. The driving forces behind the process are modernisation and the aim of delivering an acceptable service to those who use courtrooms. I will return to that point shortly, although I am conscious of the time.

Several hon. Members have asked us to rethink and reconsider—something that I am always happy to do—but before one does that, a considered view must be reached. We are undergoing extensive consultation on the Auld report. The GLMCA is still consulting on its strategic plan, so it is a little premature to ask us to reconsider before we have reached a considered view.

Let me clarify another matter. Magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees as set out in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Each committee is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in its area, which means that in the case of the Greater London area we are talking about the GLMCA.

I recognise that we are undergoing a programme of considerable change, about which hon. Members will clearly have concerns. I hope that everybody here today recognises that these concerns, many of which are legitimate, are not an argument for doing nothing. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton pay graphic tribute to the achievements of both the GLMCA and his local courts. When I have visited courts I have noted the excellent work done by magistrates, and that has also been the experience of other hon. Members. I do not want there to be any doubt about that, but it is not an argument for doing nothing. We must make progress and ensure that everybody gets the service that they have a right to expect from their courts.

I do not intend to spend a great deal of time discussing the consultation document. There has already been a long discussion, which produced a strategic consultation on three management options and six estate options. It is a complex and wide-ranging plan that went out to consultation with all interested parties. The GLMCA is considering the responses that it has received, and it anticipates publishing its plan in December 2001.

The relationship between the plan and the Auld report, which is a matter for the GLMCA to decide, was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. The Auld report is under consultation, and its proposals may require further consideration after the consultation period, or legislation. While that process is going on, the authority remains responsible for providing an efficient and effective service across London, and it is expected to take the necessary action to achieve that.

The Minister mentioned the Auld report. I hope that he will discuss the Government's attitude to the remarks in the report regarding locality of justice.

I am happy to address that issue immediately. We shall of course make our views known on the Auld report, but only after we have completed the consultation process, which will continue until January next year. It is important that we hear the views of everybody concerned with this radical and wide-ranging report, which we have welcomed. Lord Justice Auld has done a remarkable job, but we must hear the views of everyone involved, and we shall do that before we make our views known. Furthermore, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall make our views known in the House.

There is a point that does not need review, consultation or consideration. Does the Minister support the principle of locality of justice?

The hon. Gentleman deftly anticipates my next point, which concerns the central question of local justice. There are many other matters on which I should like to touch, but we are running out of time.

Local justice is something that we can all happily sign up to because it is fundamentally important, but we must be clear about what we mean, because it will mean different things to different people. We must keep in mind that local justice is not only about providing justice through a particular courtroom in a particular locality and maintaining the status quo, come what may. That is not what we mean by local justice. It is about making sure that there is an effective and efficient service for all those who use it. Everything that I have heard today about the importance of local justice goes to that central point. How we achieve local justice will obviously vary from locality to locality. Greater London's needs will be completely different from, for example, the needs of Stone and Stafford or of rural areas in Shropshire and Cornwall. We must take account of those differences.

A criminal justice system must be effective at preventing offending and re-offending, efficient in the way in which it deals with cases, responsive to the needs of victims and the law-abiding community and accountable for its decisions; these are fundamental propositions. The locality of justice is, of course, an important element, but we must never lose sight of those core objectives. The criminal justice system must deliver justice for all, and it is not only local magistrates courts but all the criminal justice system agencies that are involved in delivering such justice. I pay tribute to the great amount of work that those two agencies have done to join up their work so that they function much more effectively as a single, coherent system. That was one of the reasons for establishing the GLMCA in the first place. If we are to have a system whereby all magistrates courts users get an efficient service delivered in well equipped and secure buildings, without the delays to which hon. Members have referred, we must consider—sometimes radically, sometimes in a way that inevitably involves local opposition—the system that we have inherited.

Most of the magistrates courts that have been closed were those that magistrates courts committees no longer felt able to justify keeping open because they lacked necessary facilities such as secure accommodation, separate waiting areas for victims and witnesses away from defendants, and access for disabled people. If courtrooms cannot manage to provide those basic standards of accommodation, which all court users expect from a modern 21st-century service, there must because for closure:

Any such improvements must be balanced against other factors such as local transport difficulties, which vary in different parts of the country. We must ensure that courtrooms are best suited to enable cases to be listed so as to achieve our aim of reducing delay in the criminal justice system. All users want their case to be heard on the day that it is listed, and it is in no one's interests—certainly not in the interests of local justice—for that not to happen. Transferring cases to better equipped centres is one way of modernising and improving the overall service provided by the GLMCA. It will have the local knowledge and be best placed to make judgments on how best to make use of all its resources, whether they be finance, buildings or staff. The Lord Chancellor becomes involved only if a decision is challenged by the paying authority.

I offer the Minister a practical example of the need to get right the balance between local justice and travelling to justice. It is important to enable witnesses and victims to be separated from defendants, but if they all have to travel to the courtroom—which may some distance away—by public transport, they may all end up queuing at the same bus stop or sitting in the same tube carriage. Making justice more remote may jeopardise an objective that has been achieved in the courthouse. The Minister must consider the practicalities of ensuring that the Government's policy hangs together coherently.

Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, which was well made. However, I ask him again to think about the matter in the round. The various factors must be balanced to provide an effective and efficient service. It is not in the interests of local justice for any part of it to be ineffective or inefficient or for cases to be delayed.

I shall use my last two minutes to talk briefly about funding. As I said, magistrates courts committees make the initial decisions, but central Government have a responsibility to ensure adequate funding. We are spending nearly £20 million in 2001–02 on improvements to magistrates courts, in addition to the on-going court-building programme procured under the private finance initiative. The amount that we spend on such improvements will more than double over the next two years.

Let me give some detail on the improvements that are under way in London. Since 1999–2000, the Department has provided capital funding amounting to just over £2.75 million to carry out more than 100 projects. Security has been improved in the custody areas at Richmond and Redbridge; other improvements include the introduction of archway metal detectors and handheld wands at the guildhall in Kingston and the Merton and Bexley courthouses. Works to improve disabled facilities have been approved in Kingston, Haringey, Barnet and Harrow.

I hope that I have made it clear that we are determined to continue our programme of modernisation, putting the interests of local justice at the forefront. We are engaged in an extensive programme of consultation on the Auld review, and I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by our commitment to funding the improvements that are necessary.

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the very important subject of regional air services. I also thank the many hon. Members present for the interest that they have shown in today's debate.

I want to touch on a number of issues. I want to define regional air services, to look at current issues and problems, to consider the debate held by the former Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, to analyse the role of Government not just here, but in the United States and in France, and in particular to examine the prospects for Government intervention. In my conclusion, I shall call for the ring fencing of vulnerable routes.

What are regional air services? They could be defined as routes from London in its broadest sense—Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, London City and Stansted—to domestic UK airports such as Inverness, Aberdeen, Newquay, Belfast, Plymouth, Dundee, Glasgow, Edinburgh and those on the Channel Islands. Of course, the two primary hubs in London are Gatwick and Heathrow. Journeys tend to be of two types: point-to-point or "interlined", by which I mean domestic flights that continue to international destinations. Heathrow is undoubtedly top of the interlining league, Gatwick is mid-table, and unfortunately, Stansted and City, to continue the football analogy, are very much in the relegation zone.

What current trends and problems are evident in UK regional services? Mr. Laurie Price, from Aviation and Travel Consultancy Ltd., analysed daily services from Heathrow to regional airports between 1986 and 2001. In 1986, 19 regional UK airports had direct flights to Heathrow, with an average of 106 flights daily. However, in the summer of this year only eight regional airports had direct flights to Heathrow, and the daily average of flights had fallen to 88. In 1986, 15 airports had direct flights to Gatwick and by 2001 that figure had fallen to 11. To be fair, Gatwick's daily flight average is now slightly higher, in part because of the transfer of domestic flights from Heathrow, including my own route. In 1997, we in Inverness lost our direct service to Heathrow.

Which airports have lost out? Heathrow services were slashed from Inverness and from Plymouth—which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister—in 1997, from Dundee and Carlisle in 1987, from Liverpool and East Midlands in 1992, from Birmingham in 1993, and from Norwich in 1990.

Why do such cuts occur? Air services in the UK are a free market, and in simplistic terms the profit per mile per passenger is better for intermediate and long-haul flights than for domestic UK routes. In effect, commercially viable daytime slots—take-off and landing times that are advertised by carriers and published in their schedules—at Heathrow and Gatwick are full. For example, this summer there was a 20 per cent. excess demand for slots at Gatwick. On a typical summer's day in August, demand exceeded capacity by as much as 22 per cent. every minute between 6 am and 8 pm. That, of course, is reflected at Heathrow as well.

Aviation has been badly affected by the tragic events of 11 September in Washington and New York. Airline costs have risen, there has been reduced growth and traffic has been down by 15 per cent. However, that traffic will return, and the Minister's Department predicts a 4.25 per cent. growth in passenger numbers every year. In London, there is no new capacity to take that growth. The last substantial runway built in the United Kingdom was in Manchester in the previous decade. In the competition for slots, therefore, regional air services will always lose out to their older and bigger brothers: international and transatlantic flights.

In 1998, the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs undertook an inquiry into regional air services because of a reduction in direct flights from regional airports to London, including the loss of my direct route from Inverness to Heathrow in 1997. The Committee made several recommendations to the Government. It argued for different categories of slots—domestic, intermediate and long-haul—so that swapping of slots could be controlled, as in the United States. It also suggested that, in the allocation of slots at domestic airports, priority be given to airlines bidding to operate domestic regional services. That would be similar to the US essential air service programme. The Committee recommended an end to airlines' own companies allocating slots at airports, as they do at Heathrow and Gatwick. It also argued for the development of public service obligations PSOs—at Heathrow for a specified minimum level of air services.

The current European slot allocation rules—European regulation EC 95/93—have been due for revision for some time, but we will not have a complete revision before 2002. They must be adapted to allow greater protection for vulnerable regional air routes. Otherwise, we will continue to see trade-offs between domestic routes and more lucrative international routes.

What role can the Government play? What examples of best practice can we see throughout the world? Under European regulation EC 95/93, member states can preserve slots in two situations: first, on a route to an airport serving a peripheral or development region, if that route is considered vital for the economic development of that region; secondly, on routes where the Government have imposed PSOs to maintain a service that would not otherwise exist.

There are demanding conditions for the first option. The slots concerned must have been used on that route when the regulations came into force in 1993. Only one carrier must operate the route, and the route must be unable to he covered substantially by any other mode of transport. The reservation ceases once a second carrier covers the service with the same frequency.

Only in France has the first option been used, at Paris, Orly airport. It is now using the second option of imposing PSOs, and I believe that some 30 per cent. of services at Orly airport have PSOs at the moment. I am not aware of any PSOs operating from London, but they have a long track record in Scotland, especially in island services—in areas such as the Western Isles. By and large, those are subsidy PSOs. I am not calling for subsidy PSOs today; they are not needed where routes are commercially viable.

In the United States, the essential air service programme has operated since deregulation in 1978, and was the price that Congress demanded for passing deregulation. Congress now spends $50 million per year on that very important programme, which services 75 cities. Most are in remote areas such as Alaska. At very congested airports, the United States Department of Transportation can demand that EAS status be given to certain routes. The Government have a strong power of intervention, in a country that is arguably the most unregulated in the industrial world. We should examine that closely, and perhaps copy it.

What are the prospects for Government intervention here? The bulk of the witnesses before the Select Committee inquiry to which I have referred argued that there was a case for public sector intervention to protect key vulnerable regional air services.

In my constituency, Highland council, the enterprise agency, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Inverness chamber of commerce and 90 per cent. of local businesses that I have surveyed during the past few weeks all argue strongly for a public service obligation on the Inverness to Gatwick route, which I use. The Minister may want to comment on the letter that his Department received from Sarah Boyack, Minister for Transport and the Environment in the Scottish Parliament, who proposed a draft PSO for his Department's consideration.

The Minister's Department stated in paragraph 93 of the evidence to the Select Committee that the United Kingdom would have a chance during revision of the European slot regulations to suggest amendments:

"Particularly if the Commission does seek to restrict the ability to ring-fence slots, one possibility might be to propose balancing that by giving greater priority to regional services in the…allocation of available slots."

British Midland criticised the new entrant rule in slot allocation and used the example of Heathrow, which has had 53 new entrants since 1991. There have been too many low-frequency long-haul services, which have frustrated prospects for domestic air services.

It is often said that politics is the art of the possible, but it is the art of the practical within a range of competing priorities. A simple solution to the problem is to build more runway capacity at Gatwick and Heathrow. However, that is not a suggestion that will win me much favour with my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent London seats. The lead-in time for planning, if Manchester airport is anything to judge by, would be at least 10 years because of the large number of likely objections.

There are technical solutions. The Cranford agreement covering Heathrow could be varied. It governs the speed and direction of take-off and landing times, and they could be varied to create more slots for regional air services. There are also creative solutions. Laurie Price, the aviation consultant to whom I referred earlier, argues that as 70 per cent. of aircraft using Heathrow and Gatwick use an 1,800 m runway, RAF Northolt, which has an 1,800 in runway, could be adapted as an overflow airport for Heathrow, and perhaps Redhill aerodrome, which is not too far from Gatwick, could be adapted for the same purpose.

The basic issue is to decide whether we want a regional policy. Transport is crucial for development of the regions, social inclusion, the economy, tourism and inward investment. The Government, Europe, the airlines, economic agencies, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly all have a role to play. We need to protect vulnerable peripheral routes by ring-fencing slots and routes. We need a published route development plan for Gatwick and Heathrow that takes account of the need for regional air travel and national priorities for airports. We need to create more London hub capacity, build more runways, adapt peripheral airports for increasing demand and approve terminal 5 at Heathrow, which has been long in the waiting.

We must encourage airlines that want to run domestic links to bid for more local services. We need to divide slots into domestic, intermediate and long-haul to stop the trading-off of Belfast with Bonn, Aberdeen with Athens and Plymouth with Paris. We need to create a regional policy for aviation that recognises the legitimate need of domestic airports such as Inverness to have access to at least one of the two primary hubs in London.

I call on the Minister to support a public service obligation on my own route. Regional services are not just for a day out in London. They play a crucial role in the development of peripheral areas. They are a lifeline for tourism, business and inward investment. I remember an old Lochaber crofter in my constituency who quoted from the Old Testament at every public meeting he attended. He used to say:

"old men shall dream dreams, and … young men shall see visions".

I look to the Minister to have the vision to transform aviation, to protect regional air services and, perhaps, bring a smile to the face of the old Lochaber crofter.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been creditably brief when introducing his topic. I thank him for that. I am concerned because I can spot six hon. Members who wish to catch my eye. It is conventional to commence the concluding Front-Bench speeches 30 minutes before the termination of time. Therefore, hon. Members will understand why I appeal for brief and concise speeches that are clear and to the point.

I heard what you said, Mr. Cook, and I will try to be as succinct as possible.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate. The matter is as crucial in his part of Scotland as it is in my area of Newcastle and the north-east. Both regions suffer from being peripheral, and air services, rail services and all transport links are essential for developing our economies. I agree with his comment that Heathrow airport's congestion problems are central to the matter.

Capacity lies at the heart of the argument. We require extra capacity at Heathrow airport no matter how that is brokered. In Newcastle, British Airways predominantly provides our routes to London, although I am glad that the cut-price airline Go has recently started services to London. That is welcome.

Sixty per cent. of passengers who fly from Newcastle to London will travel on to other international destinations, so the hubs—Gatwick and Heathrow— are crucial. People who, like me, fly regularly from Newcastle to London know the awful frustrations that are caused by delays at the terminals. If one has an onward plane to catch and suffers a delay of an hour or half an hour, that can cause chaos in travel plans. Air traffic control congestion and congestion on the ground at Heathrow airport cause that problem.

The solution to the problem is terminal 5. I am told that we can expect the announcement about terminal 5 in two or three weeks. If I were a betting man—which I am—I would say that it is bound to be approved. Terminal 5 was always going to be approved. It is a scandal of the planning process that such an important infrastructure project takes so long to plan. Even now, it will take years to complete. Without the terminal, congestion on the ground will get worse and passengers will experience more severe delays.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a further runway for Heathrow airport. Today is a good day to start a campaign for the third runway. Everyone has been quiet about that because we want terminal 5. However, in reality, a third runway is essential.

The most important factor for the UK is to have a successful and major airline. That airline will, inevitably, be British Airways. In future years, there will be a substantial move by world airlines into larger groups. We must ensure that British Airways can prosper. If it has its base at Heathrow and the airport becomes less efficient, it will be damaged when competing against global airlines and global airline alliances that have already been formed.

In Newcastle, there has been a substantial and rapid growth in the number of passengers who travel directly from the city to Amsterdam or Paris for onward connections. That is a welcome alternative for many people, but one sees the problem faced by British Airways. Charles de Gaulle airport appears to have unlimited expansion potential, as does Amsterdam. Frankfurt airport has had a third runway since the United States air force moved away. Gatwick has one runway and Heathrow has two. We must bite the bullet and campaign for a third runway in the area. I hope that if that happens we shall not experience the same protracted planning applications as we experienced with Manchester. In our fast moving world, to which transport is the key, we cannot have a planning infrastructure system that plods at the rate that it did for terminal 5.

Is my hon. Friend aware that an extra runway has recently been added at Schipol and that Charles de Gaulle is constructing another runway? Does that not add to his point that if we do not increase capacity in the United Kingdom, we shall lose international air traffic to those centres?

My hon. Friend has a detailed knowledge of the matter, and he is right. In the competitive world of international airlines, Air France, KLM and other airlines will all benefit from having a much more efficient hub than British Airways has with Heathrow.

Bearing in mind your strictures to be brief, Mr. Cook, I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber for introducing the debate, reiterate the vital importance of regional air services to his constituents and mine, and urge that the debate about extra capacity at Heathrow begin soon and in earnest.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on introducing the debate. I have enormous sympathy with his points about the need for his area to be able to access properly both the national airline service and, through that, international airlines, and his point that air traffic in the modern world is not simply a mode of transport but relates to how communities develop and connect with the outside world, and to regional economic viability. The debate is central to the sort of nation that we aspire to be. The role of Manchester airport has been fundamental in the city's economic success in recent years.

I gently suggest to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that his preoccupation with one airline and one regional set of airports is not healthy for the development of air transport throughout the country. I hope to persuade him that there are alternatives to the preoccupation with Heathrow and, to a lesser extent, Gatwick.

In a country of more than 50 million people, the development of alternative hubs to the London airport system can be envisaged. I do not wish to sound excessively parochial. Of course Heathrow is the dominant airport in the United Kingdom and will be indefinitely, and Gatwick is the second. However, Manchester is already a regional hub in its own right. Some 100 airlines fly in and out of Manchester to and from 175 destinations around the world. It makes sense economically and environmentally for services from places such as Inverness to use an airport such as Manchester. I would not want to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber that Manchester is the only choice that Inverness should have. I entirely agree with him that the concept of public service should determine slots at Heathrow, and the Minister should respond to that point this morning.

I make a plea to wean ourselves off the view that all Governments have had in the past that only Heathrow and only British Airways matter. That is simply not so. My constituents and people from the north-west, the north of England and a wider area are in some cases better served through Schipol, Frankfurt or Paris. That will always be so. Some services simply do not allow people from the north of England to access the London airport system easily. I therefore insist that we take a broader view of the development of air transport, which is about not the protection of airlines or, airports but the development of communities and the economy, which is a broader issue. In the European context, we must examine the role of national carriers, on some of which enormous pressure is already being placed. In the European framework, rationalisation may be necessary.

As a result of events following 11 September, air transport faces greater uncertainty than at any time in the recent past. Many of us assumed almost blithely that the industry would grow for ever. However, there will almost certainly be a period of retrenchment and contraction. Airlines such as British Airways, Virgin and British Midland are cutting jobs and services, which will have an impact on an airport such as Manchester. I recognise that the international carrier that goes first into Heathrow or Gatwick and then Manchester will withdraw the Manchester service before the Heathrow service. That is inevitable in economic terms. If the Government are tempted to look at support for the airline industry, whether in terms of security costs or, more generally, airport duty, I hope that they will recognise that the regional distribution of air services is vital. Support for airlines may be legitimate, but support for airports and the communities that depend on those airports is also important.

My hon. Friend raised the issue of slots. Under the present system, slots are determined by negotiation between the airlines and the slot controller, which allows carriers to dominate. The public interest goes beyond that of the airlines, and a slot allocation system must be developed that recognises the wider economic and social interest. We must at least recognise the role of airports for the wider community. In an airport such as Manchester, slots are available 24 hours, but some slots are much more commercially desirable. Under the present slot allocation process, enormous power is given to the new carrier to drive in, at the expense of services that may be more socially and economically desirable.

The Civil Aviation Authority will report on the regulatory framework for airports this week. Will the Minister make sure that the charges imposed on regulated airports are consistent with the increased demand for security in air transport? We cannot be locked into the economic bubble of decision making that applied before 11 September—the world has changed since then, at least in that aspect. I also urge the Minister to look carefully and sympathetically at the powers of local authority airports, which is an important issue for Manchester and other airports. I know that his Department has made sympathetic noises about that recently, and I urge him to consider carefully what direction to take.

Air transport is far too important to be seen as an issue for a particular industry. It matters enormously to communities, in social and economic terms. We should not be preoccupied with London; we should look across the board at the needs of the nation as a whole. Different parts of the nation will be served by different policies on open skies, liberalisation and regulation. If the Minister will reflect on that, and develop an airports and airlines policy that genuinely serves communities and regions, he will have moved this country a long way forward.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on having secured the debate. I shall concentrate my remarks on one of the issues that he introduced—the public service obligation for the Inverness to Gatwick link.

The constituencies of the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) cover about 11,000 square miles. That area of the highlands is served principally by Inverness, but also by Wick airport. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the application that the Scottish Executive have made to the Minister through Sarah Boyack for a public service obligation, and I urge him to support it as much as possible.

Transport is vital to successful commerce in any area, but particularly in peripheral areas like the highlands that are far from the centre. For many years, the highland economy was in a steady, slow decline, with depopulation and job losses. Over the past decade, that trend has been successfully reversed. In the past three years, 4,000 new jobs have come to the highlands. Transport links—in particular, the air transport link—have contributed greatly to the steady increase in jobs and prosperity. If we consider my constituency, especially the northern part, we find that inward investment has flowed steadily into Thurso and Wick. People who want to invest in the area have studied infrastructure such as schools and hospitals, but, first and foremost, they have considered the ability to travel to and from the area. Without transport links, we would have no investment and no development in the region, but the reverse—a return to steady decline.

We currently have an air service from Inverness, which British Airways provides through a subsidiary. BA has given assurances of its commitment to the route. However, when there is pressure for slots in the south, it is all too easy for operators to give away a slot for what is perceived to be a less lucrative route so that it can be used for more lucrative international destinations. Conditions will inevitably change back, that pressure will return and the Inverness slot will once again be vulnerable to cancellation or change. There is no such pressure now, and it is the right time to ensure that a public service obligation is placed on the route so that we can secure a vital transport link without which the highlands would not be a net contributor to the United Kingdom economy.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for raising this issue. On the face of it, the interests of the north midlands and the north of Scotland in such a debate do not appear to be the same, but they are.

The case has been clearly made as regards the congestion and capacity problems at London airports, and I will not repeat what has been said. The case on growth in demand has been made less succinctly. I am not one of those who believe that the current dip in demand will be permanent. There is an unseemly haste among many in the aircraft and airline industries to cut jobs as they chase tomorrow's share prices, rather than take a more rational view of the coming years. There has been a blip in capacity requirements this year, but I confidently expect the year-on-year growth that we have seen in the industry to continue from next year. The rationale for Government decision making should take account of demand and capacity needs.

We in the north midlands understand the economic case that has been made for Inverness and, indeed, for all of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have, or should have, one United Kingdom economy, not two or three. In examining the business case for a new airport, which is what we are doing through the current public inquiry on Finningley airport, the question of the balance between regional and international air services is fundamental to consideration of future demand.

The constant opposition to expansion in London—the fifth terminal and any proposed third runway—creates a peculiar impression, when the second largest runway in Britain is readily available to take some of the excess capacity and create more landing slots in London. We can take both long-haul and freight away from London and our airport is ready and waiting, subject to the public inquiry. I look forward to support from the Government after the inquiry, so that we can continue a development of regional airports, as part of the development of the overall United Kingdom economy. That is a fundamental issue.

On Finningley, I think that I shall break my embargo with respect to my local newspaper, the Worksop Guardian, for Friday, and mention that my opinion poll of people living immediately around the airport, in the direct flight path, was concluded today. I have surveyed everyone and have a response rate equivalent to general election voting rates, with 95 per cent. in favour and only 5 per cent. against. That shows demand, not just support, from people who are saying, to use a phrase I employed once before in the House, "Yes, in my backyard; we would like a regional airport as a contribution to growth."

I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response on how the Government intervene, but the principle is absolute. We need expansion of the regional airport network. We need expanded and strengthened regional airports as part of the long-term growth of this country.

I want to contribute to the debate on regional aviation because it is crucial to the area that I represent. Aviation and airports in the United Kingdom face two contrasting sets of circumstances. In the more populous areas, especially south-east England, strong growth and excess demand are causing capacity problems and raising environmental issues. Yet at the periphery of the United Kingdom, in parts of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the west country, the problem is the opposite. Their economies are handicapped by limited communications and for most of those regions, rail transport is not an option for business travel. They depend on air travel to provide day-return business travel to the main business centres of the UK, particularly London.

In the context of the overheated economy of southeast England, the Government need competitive economies throughout the regions of the UK to take development pressure away from the south-east. However, business location decisions are taken by executives who will not knowingly locate in regions that they perceive to be isolated. Thus, it is a fundamental requirement for a competitive regional economy to have direct access to a popular London airport at credible times, for day-return business travel.

Many regional economies can sustain viable air services, albeit often using modest-sized regional airliners. However, issues arise about the way in which services in peripheral areas of Britain, and elsewhere in Europe, are penalised by taxes and charges that were created to deal with congestion that occurs only in southern Britain and in the European core.

The biggest problems for aviation in the peripheral parts of the United Kingdom relate first to access to London, and secondly to the supply of regional airlines. The supply of runway capacity in the London area is seriously inadequate for growing demand from all parts of the world. As a result, services in small aircraft coming from the peripheral parts of the United Kingdom turn out to be competing for slots against the demands of major carriers operating much larger aircraft over longer distances. The bigger carriers almost always possess the ability to outbid any small regional carrier if airport slots and landing charges are subject to market pricing. The consequence is that the smaller regional services have been completely excluded from the main London airports and are even struggling to maintain peak period slots at the smaller London airports such as London City.

Dundee, which is more than six hours by train from London, has an air service to London City airport, with four flights a day. That service has done well, but its full potential has been suppressed by not having access to London City airport in morning or evening peak periods. To get a business-oriented morning flight, the first flight is obliged to leave Dundee at 6.15 am and arrive in London by 7.30 am. There appears to be no prospect of a slot becoming available between then and mid-morning. In the evening, northward departure slots are equally hard to obtain.

Such is the need for the service that it succeeds despite those timing penalties. However, it is equally evident that it would do a much better job for the economies of Dundee, Tayside and north Fife and be more financially robust if it was able to serve the capital at the frequencies and timings that business travellers would like. I am sure that that experience is mirrored by other regional services into London.

As the London airports have become private sector companies, their duty to their shareholders is to maximise profit. They will always take the high income available from the major airlines rather than the more modest income available from the small regional air services. Air travel from the periphery of the UK is essential for the integrity of the nation. All parts of the UK should have a right to easy and good access to the nation's capital. That is not happening, and the situation is bound to worsen if things are not done.

The Government must act to increase runway capacity in the south-east. The peripheral regions would probably welcome the creation of small airports in the south-east, based on the London City model, but perhaps not with quite such severe operating constraints as apply to that airport. City airports have the advantage of not being on a large site and of being more environmentally friendly than larger airports. Another advantage from the viewpoint of protecting air access from the periphery of the UK is that city airports are fair less vulnerable to predatory slot bidding by major airlines. City airports can be created on independent sites, but the Government should also consider adding short regional runways to the existing major London airports, restricted to regional air traffic.

If a substantial increase in runway capacity is not to be provided in the London area—and provided sooner rather than later—the Government must act to guarantee the quality and price of dedicated slots in London for the smaller, regional operators. If that is not done, the economies of the regions will be seriously damaged.

The second main problem for the development of air services in peripheral areas is the ever decreasing availability of airlines serving the regional sector. That has largely been due to the major airlines acquiring the regional carriers with a view to configuring them as feeder carriers for their global networks. It will not come as a surprise that servicing the remoter parts of the UK in modest-sized aircraft does not come within the strategic priorities of major airlines. The supply of "footloose" airlines has fallen sharply at the smaller end of the regional sector.

The Government should examine the ownership and control of regional airlines and the possibility of creating more favourable financial circumstances for airlines serving peripheral Britain. Financial encouragement for such service providers would greatly assist regional economies. Indeed, in some cases it might have the effect of reducing the need for public sector obligation payments for essential services to remote areas.

In summary, the viability of the peripheral parts of the UK must be sustained in the face of a limited supply of regional airlines, a serious dearth of airport capacity in London and the overwhelming commercial pressure to drive domestic regional aviation out of London. Those issues must be tackled to ensure that regional aviation has a viable future.

I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for initiating this morning's valuable discussions. They build on his work, on that of my predecessor Margaret Ewing, and of other hon. Members from neighbouring seats in the north of Scotland who have shown a great interest, particularly in the Inverness air route. I echo much that has been said by them, and also agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) about demand. Demand affects not only the north of Scotland but many other parts of the United Kingdom. Similarly, the Inverness air link is a pressing issue not only for my constituents but the rest of the UK.

The reasons for a change in regional airline services are clear, particularly the threat of a world economic downturn, and the downturn in tourism, which was described by a prominent Moray hotelier as being worse than at the height of the foot and mouth crisis. In my constituency and other parts of northern Scotland, that must be balanced with the fact that Inverness has city status, a growing population and some of the finest tourism potential in Europe. We have many leading industries; some 50 per cent. of Scotland's whisky distilleries are in Moray. They depend on first-class air services to bring in buyers and distributors to promote that vital industry. Such services are also of supreme importance to the many thousands of Royal Air Force personnel who are based at RAF Kinross and RAF Lossiemouth—two of the largest RAF bases in the UK—many of whom come from the south of England and have to travel back and forth regularly.

There seems to be a lack of vision and ambition. It is unfortunate that we need even to discuss maintaining and securing slots for Inverness. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber and I thank him and other hon. Members for signing my early-day motion, which called for a public service obligation order on the route between Inverness and Gatwick. I read the Hansard report of a 1997 Adjournment debate, and we seem to be going over ground that has been covered already. It is unfortunate that there has been so little progress to date. The level of global competition makes that situation particularly pressing. That applies especially to tourism. It is ironic that the north of Scotland is such an attractive tourist location yet has such an inadequate service. That must be seen in the context of competition, particularly from our closest neighbour, Ireland.

Ireland has made great strides in tourism with Bord Failte, and low-cost carriers have opened much of that country. In the past few days, a study outlined the growth in low-cost carriers in Ireland and the extent to which that had affected positively the tourism sector and flights in Ireland. That was compared and contrasted with the situation in Scotland. The study was compiled for the shadow tourism Minister in the Scottish Parliament, Kenny MacAskill, and I commend it to the Minister and would be happy to forward it to him.

In comparison with Inverness, low-cost carriers have flown into Prestwick, and it has seen a 550 per cent. increase in visitor numbers arriving by air. During the same period in Inverness, the increase was only 29 per cent. Efforts must be made to make it possible for low-cost carriers to improve services to Inverness. We should have more ambition and vision for Inverness airport, rather than seeing it as purely a regional airport. It should be a hub, a national airport for the north of Scotland, because it serves so many important and peripheral areas, and will continue to do so owing to the growth of the city.

Aviation policy is by and large a reserved matter. Therefore, much of my case impinges on the Government in Westminster. I have a query about a Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions study, which is a review of the access to regional airports. I have not seen it, and I do not know whether there is an intention to publish any of the review material. It is blindingly obvious when the train passes that there is no stop at Inverness airport. It is almost impossible to catch a bus from Inverness airport to the town. It is almost impossible to catch a bus from Inverness airport to the town. If there were more low-cost carriers, people would spend more on taxi fares to town than on their flight ticket to Inverness.

I echo the calls for a PSO to guarantee the slots, but even if that were granted, it would secure only the higher-cost airline routes, and that is not enough. Gatwick's future is uncertain in some repects, and we must have the ambition to increase flights to many airports. I appeal to the Westminster Government, the Scottish Executive and the European Commission to do all that they can to improve the situation.

I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter, which the events of 11 September have made topical. The hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) have clearly and eloquently explained why a PSO—public services obligation—would be appropriate. I do not intend to rehearse those arguments since both hon. Gentlemen are probably better informed than I am on the route from Inverness to London, but we must widen the debate to include more than that route.

I contacted, at random, Plymouth airport and spoke to its director, John Humphrey, to give him an opportunity to set out the concerns of regional air services and airports. I thank him for his input. Access to Heathrow airport is a major concern; Plymouth airport used to have access to Heathrow, but has been switched to Gatwick. That causes Plymouth anxiety, because many United States and Japanese companies are based in Plymouth and use the service, but they want connections from Plymouth airport to London and on to other destinations, such as the far east.

The switch to Gatwick is of serious concern because 70 per cent. of Plymouth airport's passengers board another flight from London. The problem will be further exacerbated if, as has been suggested, British Airways downsizes long-haul operations from Gatwick. What discussions has the Minister had with British Airways on the subject? Is BA considering downsizing, and has he opposed such proposals? Can the Minister confirm the likely time scale for the consideration of the PSO for Inverness? Could we use article 87(2) of the European Union treaty to supplement the PSO, and if so, in what way?

The director of Plymouth airport thinks that the way to secure regional air services is to provide guaranteed or ring-fenced slots. BAA plc should charge a suitable landing fee; the director of Plymouth airport was worried that landing fees might be inflated because smaller aircraft do not make as much money for BAA. We must also find an airline prepared to run regional services, although the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber did not think that that was an issue.

A final factor is the police cover that is being provided. Plymouth airport has police cover 24 hours a day, and there is concern that those costs might, at some point, be passed on to it and other regional airports in a way that would significantly affect their operation. Costs could also be passed on to airlines and would have a significant impact. Will the Minister say whether those policing arrangements will continue without charge for the foreseeable future, or whether, at some point, regional airports or airlines will have to pick up the cost?

I had a discussion with representatives of one of the major regional airlines and, again, the lack of access to Heathrow airport is a major irritant. At this difficult time, can the Minister reassure regional airlines that access to Heathrow will be improved? Alternatively, will he reassure them—as the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs recommended in 1997–98—that better access can be provided by improving significantly the links between Gatwick and Heathrow? The Select Committee's report included options such as a helicopter service or other transport measures. If Heathrow is to have no more slots for regional airports, a good, fast and reliable transport link between Gatwick and Heathrow could provide the relevant connections and ensure that efficient interlining from Gatwick is possible.

The regional airline representatives raised the issue of insurance. The Government made the welcome announcement that they would underwrite—or provide for—third-party insurance for war and terrorism for a 30-day period that began on 22 September, or thereabouts. The Select Committee's report said that the Government were at the point of charging commercial rates for that service. There are some blank looks from the Minister and his advisers. Will the Minister confirm that the process has moved on? If it has not moved on, and the Government are now charging commercial rates for the service, what feedback has the Minister received about those rates? Can he confirm that, although the rates that are being charged are commercial, the intention behind them is not to seek to profit from—or to exploit—what happened on 11 September?

I am sure that the Minister is aware of a newsletter that was leaked by the Association of Lloyd's Members, which said that the 11 September attacks were:

"an historic opportunity to make money".

That newsletter was circulated to Lloyd's names—the individuals who pledge their wealth to back insurance risks—and said that premiums:

"had shot up to a level where very large profits are possible".

The hon. Gentleman is probably wrong about that, as most Lloyd's names have had demands for huge sums of money since 11 September. That event has not been welcomed at all.

All I can say is that if I am wrong, the BBC news is wrong. I am sure that that is not the case, so I stand by my information. However, I will give the Minister an opportunity to confirm that the arrangements are working, and that the airlines consider them to be commercial but financially acceptable.

The final issue raised by the regional airline was decent, inter-modal access to Heathrow. Regional airlines are willing to see short-haul flights replaced by rail links, if those links are decent. If the travelling times by rail are three hours or less, it makes more sense from an environmental point of view for those journeys to be completed by rail. That would free up slots for flights coming from places further afield, such as Scotland and Northern Ireland. When does the Minister expect all major conurbations within 300 miles of Heathrow or Gatwick to have rail journey times of three hours or less to those airports, which would make rail a viable option and thereby greatly reduce the demand for internal short-haul flights?

A discussion of regional air services cannot take place without touching on the subject of terminal 5, which many hon. Members have already mentioned. Will the Minister confirm that we can expect a statement in the House on that subject? What assessment has been made of the impact of terminal 5, should it proceed, on regional air services? Would it improve or harm the prospects for regional air services? Terminal 5 is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy: one builds terminal 5; one attracts more international flights into that airport; all the airlines want to fly into there; nobody wants to fly into Gatwick; nobody wants to fly into other regional airports. What thought has gone into ensuring that that self-fulfilling prophecy does not come about? The current South East and East of England Regional Air Services study is dependent on the terminal 5 announcement. When does the Minister expect it to be published?

My comments have been brief because the Minister complained about the length at which I spoke yesterday, and in anticipation that he will be able to use the time that is left to respond to hon. Members' questions before launching into his prepared speech. I look forward to his response.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this timely and topical debate. There were some commendably brief speeches this morning, which allowed many hon. Members to contribute. That is an eminently sensible example of how this Chamber might operate.

I was particularly interested to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), but there were interesting speeches from the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) and for Moray (Angus Robertson). They all made the sensible point, in which they are right, that business development depends on the efficiency of regional airports. They all said that we must use the total capacity of the London airports to better effect, an issue to which I shall return later in my speech.

The UK aviation industry is one of Britain's great success stories. It is one of the most competitive and deregulated industries in the world. Today, Britain, as an aviation nation, is second only to the USA, and is pre-eminent in Europe. Aviation is also an industry with an unrivalled safety record. There is a great deal of potential, but if growth is to continue, the Government must resolve some key issues. This morning, many hon. Members have mentioned terminal 5. We are, of course, awaiting an announcement, which we expect shortly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made clear, however, it will take several years before it is built.

It may be worth examining the figures. In 1998, 160 million passengers travelled on aircraft. That figure is set to double in the next 10 to 12 years, and may, on some predictions, reach 500 million by 2030. That is a huge number of passengers, and we welcome that increase as part of the nation's development. As I made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, that figure is related to international competition. Unless we maintain efficient and well run airports in London and elsewhere, we shall start to lose capacity to other centres such as Charles de Gaulle and Schipol. It is disturbing that in Milan, for example, Alitalia is still given slot preference to other airlines, which have been told to use an airport 40 miles away.

We need a general increase in liberalisation throughout Europe. What does the Minister propose to do about the EU policy relating to slot ownership and distribution? The Government seem determined to allow the European Community to negotiate a policy, rather than to maintain a national one. I would also be interested to know what he proposes to do about international bilateral agreements, in which the EU seems to take an increasing interest. Is it true that the French have, in the past few days, concluded a bilateral agreement with the United States? For many years, we have tried for a bilateral agreement with the United States—even the Prime Minister intervened on the matter—and yet the parties have not been able to arrange one.

Before you call me to order, Mr. Winterton, to tell me that I am talking about international air policy, may I explain that that and slot capacity at Heathrow are integrally linked with the issues under debate? Every time an aircraft flies into Heathrow or Gatwick, it takes a slot that could be used by an international airline.

I want to return to the relationship between the London and regional airports. As it happens, I travelled a lot by air this summer—for example, I travelled to the airport in the constituency of the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber. I have been travelling to Scotland for many years and recently the intervention of airlines such as Go and easyJet has transformed the situation. The price of £55 for a ticket from Inverness to Luton has enabled air travel to reach people in many hon. Members' constituencies where air travel would never have been conceived previously.

We need to think about how air travel from regional airports impacts on London. As has been said many times this morning, Heathrow and Gatwick are effectively full for daily commercial flights. However, other airports in London, such as Luton and Stansted, need to be considered. Bearing in mind the environmental constraints, and the need to maintain everybody's way of life, we should examine how all London airports can be used to better effect.

Hon. Members have already mentioned Northolt and Redhill. Given the environmental constraints on those airports, it would be interesting to know what the proposals are for increasing their capacity and effectiveness. There seems to be a vacuum in Government thinking. We are still awaiting a White Paper on the matter—I would like to know when and if it will be published. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, we need to consider the transport infrastructure between all the main airports in London.

It would be more acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to fly from Newcastle to Luton, if Luton had a better infrastructure connecting it to the centre of London—the Thameslink train, which I used from Blackfriars to Luton, is pretty slow, unclean and inefficient. There should be a better link between Luton and the centre of London, and Luton and other major London airports. To get from Luton to Heathrow is virtually impossible: one has to use the Thameslink train or a bus into central London to get back out again to Heathrow. That makes no sense in a modern economy.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to improve interlinking between the different parts of the south-east airport system. However, environmental and economic issues also exist. Developing other potential hub airports—Manchester is already a hub, but other places can develop them—would be in the interests of the travelling public and the environment, and would do something about the excessive congestion in the south-east.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall return to it when I have finished my point.

The Government must seriously consider the transport infrastructure between London's main airports. It might then be easier for people to use regional airports such as Luton and Stansted, to the greater satisfaction of those who want to take international flights out of Heathrow and Gatwick. That involves the issue of motorway capacity, including bus lanes on the M25.

When I took my family on holiday to Spain this year, I flew out of Birmingham airport, which was very efficient. Travel operators must be encouraged to think increasingly about using the regional hubs for holidays, both for tourists leaving the country and for those coming in. In 1998, the Government allowed airports that were trading successfully to increase their borrowing. How effective has that relaxation been, and how has it affected the regional hubs? It is important to develop the role of local authorities and private companies that own the regional hubs.

This is not a matter of parochial pride, although that comes into it. We should not think of airports such as Manchester and the bigger Scottish airports simply as places where holiday carriers can fly from. Manchester already has a huge range of regular international services, which are fundamental to the development of the regional economy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wean himself off the idea that they are merely a bolt-on for when we wear our holiday hats and go off to Spain. They are about travelling for all manner of reasons all around the world.

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right, but he is picking holes in my argument. My example was intended to show how we can use the regional hubs to better effect, thereby reducing the number of flights out of Heathrow and Gatwick. We must use every method at our disposal. The Government should develop a holistic policy for the whole air travel sector that considers how to use the regional hubs, the London airports and the smaller local airports to better effect, thus benefiting both the travelling public and the development of the country's infrastructure.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall, although the hon. Lady has not been present and we are short of time.

I apologise for arriving late. I gave notice that I was interested in the debate, but I have been speaking at a conference.

The hon. Gentleman is asking the Minister to produce a holistic plan. Is he suggesting that the development of regional airports should not continue as it is? For example, Finningley in my constituency, from which four out of five people in Yorkshire fly, could provide international long-haul services that are not currently provided anywhere in the county.

I am delighted to welcome the hon. Lady to the debate, even at this late hour—I accept that she had to be somewhere else. She is picking holes in what I said. I made it clear that the purpose of a holistic policy is to determine how we can make better use not only of London's airports, but of regional hubs and small local airports.

I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said about his public survey of attitudes to an extra regional airport at Finningley. The fact that 90 per cent. of people were in favour is contrary to what one might expect. One of the problems in developing an airport strategy for London is how to take account of environmental issues, especially airport noise at antisocial times of the morning. When the Minister makes his decision about terminal 5, one of the matters that he will have to grapple with is the times at which to limit aircraft flying in and out of Heathrow. When Gatwick's second terminal was built, severe restrictions were imposed on the times of day that aircraft could fly in and out, and they have already been breached. The Minister will have to grapple with such issues if he is to come up with a sensible air policy for the United Kingdom.

I end where I began. We all want to improve the efficiency of airports, be they London, regional or smaller local airports. I have mentioned the need for regional airports to improve links with London through better infrastructure, and we also need better and more efficient checking in and baggage transfer. The speed link from Paddington to Heathrow offers an ideal example, but no such system links central London with, say, Luton. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington rightly alluded to the lack of an efficient transfer system from Gatwick to Heathrow. Those matters can be improved.

If the United Kingdom is to remain at the forefront of world travel, we must address those significant issues. Many hon. Members have called for the public service agreement for Inverness to he invoked to ensure that services are maintained. British Airways has briefed us that such an arrangement can work only if the Government are prepared to subsidise it. We must look at the issue in the round, and ensure that this tiny island's existing air capacity is used in the best way for all concerned. The Minister should tell us how he intends to meet that huge challenge.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this important debate. I congratulate him on arguing the case, not only for Inverness but for Scotland, well and with brevity. He is always persuasive. He has a quiet and compelling manner that makes one listen to him more than to those who speak loudly and boldly, and I assure him that I have indeed listened carefully to his comments. He has articulated a strong case for protecting air services in his region.

My hon. Friend asked me to support the public service obligation. The Minister for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), has written to Sarah Boyack, the Minister for Transport in Scotland. He said that the Department will now consider the request for the PSO against the criteria in European legislation. Officials of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions are meeting members of the Scottish Executive tomorrow to discuss that important matter. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members present who represent Scottish constituencies.

I should draw the Chamber's attention to today's statement from British Airways:

"British Airways fully intends to continue services between Inverness and Gatwick. It remains a viable route and there are no plans to withdraw flights. We have also no plans to change or reduce services from Gatwick to Plymouth and Newquay."

It is clear from his speech that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) takes a huge interest in Plymouth. I have heard the points that he made before—when I visited Plymouth airport some three or four weeks ago. We will be looking carefully at the British Airways statement, and will keep under review its commitment to those services.

I shall deal with a couple of important points made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He complained about EU involvement in slot allocation, but I should remind him that it was his party that agreed to such involvement, in 1993. It is true that France and the United States have signed a bilateral agreement on open skies, but we will sign a bilateral agreement only in the interests of the United Kingdom's airlines, not in the interests of the US aviation industry. That is perhaps another matter on which we differ from Conservative Members.

Will the Minister give way?

No. The hon. Gentleman had long enough and I want to respond to the points that others have made.

I have listened to those points with great care. It has been a good debate, with contributions from many hon. Members of different parties: the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson); my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who made compelling points in favour of regional airports; the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) who made a brief, sensible contribution, of which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington should perhaps take note, as it was very valuable; my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who made a very good contribution; my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), who was watched very carefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who takes enormous interest in such matters; my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), from whom we are always pleased to hear; and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I assure hon. Members that, although I may not have time to respond in detail to all points, I have listened to them carefully.

The Government recognise the significance of regional air services and their economic and social spin-offs, something referred to powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. Good direct flights to the capital and interlining opportunities to international flights attract inward investment and encourage the development of business and tourism in the regions. Therefore, I understand concerns that current air links between regional airports and London should be maintained. That point has been widely made in the debate.

I also appreciate underlying concerns about the future of regional air services, and why those concerns have come to the surface. In recent years, many regional airports have seen Heathrow and Gatwick services reduced or moved. Inevitably, such changes cause concern. I am well aware that certain UK regions are worried that commercial pressures are threatening services between their airports and Heathrow and Gatwick because of pressure on airport slots.

Hon. Members are probably aware that European law—EC regulation 95/93—governs the common rules for the allocation of slots at community airports. That is probably what the Conservative Government signed up to about 10 years ago. The regulation's key provision is for slot allocation at fully co-ordinated airports to be carried out by a slot co-ordinator. In the United Kingdom, the co-ordinator is Airport Co-ordination Ltd. It allocates slots according to specified criteria on a neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory basis. ACL's decisions are binding, and the Government currently have no role in the process. If the hon. Member for Cotswold thinks that that should change, perhaps his party might be interested in coming forward with proposals.

Will the Minister give way?

No.

The regulation is based on the key principle of historic precedence, also known as grandfather rights. That enables an air carrier that uses a slot in one season to have the first claim on it in the next, providing that it uses it for 80 per cent. of the time.

The scarcity of slots at Heathrow and, to a lesser extent, Gatwick encourages airlines to use slots to maximum commercial advantage. Hon. Members can appreciate that demand for slots increases pressure on slots used for less profitable routes. That is the thrust of what my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber said. Some airlines have developed more long-haul services as air travel has expanded. However, I am sure that hon. Members welcome, as I do, the expansion of regional air services to Luton, Stansted and London City airport provided by low-cost airlines, and the benefits that such competition can provide to customers.

I shall now try to address as fully as I can some of the issues raised in the debate. We must recognise that an airline is going to use slots at a congested airport such as Heathrow or Gatwick in a way that will maximise profits. If an airline thinks that, even taking into account the contributory revenue from connecting passengers, it can make more profit by switching slots from a thin regional service operated by small aircraft to a long-haul service operated by wide-body aircraft, it will do so. Obviously, airlines will not be considering the wider economic benefits of domestic regional air services. I think that this is the nub of the concerns of people in Inverness and Scotland.

We are aware of the difficulties that may arise from the conflict between market forces affecting the use of airport slots and the Government's regional interest. The Government are listening to the argument that wider external benefits should be taken into account in certain circumstances—for example, when one airline is operating on a route and the alternative forms of transport are inadequate. We have heard about six-hour journeys from parts of Scotland and that also applies to parts of Cornwall.

The market is seriously constrained by the infrastructure. The fundamental problem behind the lack of access at Heathrow and Gatwick is lack of adequate infrastructure—Heathrow has only two runways and Gatwick has only one. Demand for take-off and landing slots greatly exceeds the capacity at Heathrow and, to a lesser extent, at Gatwick. Most regions would like Heathrow connections, for obvious reasons, but might settle for assurances of a London link.

Concern has been expressed during the debate and at other times that airlines are free to choose how they use their slots. I have been raising the matter for many years, sometimes with Liberal Democrat Members and others in the south-west, so the subject is not new to me. Airlines must make profits, so many withdraw from marginally profitable services to use slots for more profitable routes. Under European legislation, they are entitled to do that. Slot allocation is not generally route specific. When slots have been allocated to airlines, it is for individual airlines to choose how to use their slots according to their assessment of market conditions. It is definitely not for the Government to interfere with the commercial decisions of airlines.

It is important to our discussion to explain the circumstances in which the Government can intervene and the constraints on that.

Will the Minister give way?

No. I want to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, because they are important.

There are currently two mechanisms available for the Government to intervene to protect access for regional services. Under the current regulation, the Government's ability to reserve or ring-fence slots for regional services is narrowly defined. They are permitted to reserve slots without a public service obligation provided that the slots were being used for the route before 1993, there is only one carrier on the route and there are no adequate links by alternative modes of transport. The Government have not so far ring-fenced slots without a PSO. They may also reserve slots when a PSO has been imposed on a route. I hope that that clarifies the avenues down which we may go.

Any move towards protecting air services for one region would be met with demands for similar treatment from other regions, and those may include regions that do not currently have London connections. Hon. Members should be aware that protecting all existing service levels would tie up many slots. That would be to the detriment of consumers generally, as well as United Kingdom carriers that would have to continue to operate some marginally profitable services or surrender the slot. If airlines were expected to forego the opportunity to make best use of the slots they hold, there would be a cost to the airline and loss of benefit for consumers. We need to balance the benefits and disbenefits of various options.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber referred to greater protection for regional air services through the other available mechanism—the public service obligation. The imposition of a public service obligation must be in accordance with EC regulation 2408/92, which is based on the presumption that the supply of air services should be left to a liberalised market to determine. It does, however, provide for the Government to intervene in certain circumstances. The regulation states that a member state may impose a public service obligation on a route to a peripheral or development region when the route is considered vital for the economic development of the region. It may do so to the extent necessary to

"ensure the adequate provision of scheduled air services satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing, which standard air carriers would not assume if they were solely considering their commercial interests".

The Government have interpreted the regulation very tightly indeed.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to some of the points made by hon. Members. If I have not answered hon. Members' questions to their satisfaction, perhaps they will drop me a note and I shall endeavour to give them a full response.

We are all grateful to the Minister for concluding within the time allotted for the debate.

If I seem distracted, it is because last night there was a major explosion at Newhaven in my constituency. I understand that many fire fighters are involved and the town is covered with billowing smoke, which reaches as far as Eastbourne. I want to put on record my gratitude to the fire services, to whom I spoke this morning, for their work in a dangerous situation where there are exploding acetylene cylinders and other hazards. We can all take comfort from the fire service's professionalism.

I hope that there has been no loss of life or serious injury, and that the hon. Gentleman will advise the House on the matter.

I am advised that there has been no loss of life and no major injuries, but details so far are sketchy.

Let me turn to the subject of the debate, which is of interest to other hon. Members who represent constituencies in East Sussex. I am delighted that the hon. Members for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) are present and I hope they will want to intervene.

There is much constituency correspondence on the subject in East Sussex. The debate is well timed, given the changes to the railway industry as a consequence of Railtrack being taken into administration. If the Minister has managed to recover from the previous debate, it would be useful if he could say something about how the post-Railtrack arrangements will affect the opportunity for investment in rail services in East Sussex, because hon. Members in all parties want better rail services.

The characteristics of rail travel locally are that it is reasonably reliable, notwithstanding the complaints that some of us receive. There is a quickish service to London from East Sussex. It is far better than travelling by car, as those of us who need to can work on the train—trying to work while driving is something that the Minister and others might regard as hazardous.

However, the rail services are expensive, the trains are dirty and the rolling stock is clapped out and dates from the time when the Beatles' "She Loves You" was number one. The peripheral arrangements for travelling by train, such as car parking at stations, are often far from perfect. Much needs to be done if there is to be a renaissance in rail travel, people are to be persuaded out of their cars and on to railways, and businesses are to be persuaded to use rail rather than road freight, which is the Government's policy. That aim is shared by all hon. Members. It has not happened because money spent on roads is called investment whereas money spent on railways is called subsidy. We need to change that mindset, which has plagued our railways for too long. It may well be, for environmental, social and economic reasons, that money put into railways provides a better return for the taxpayer than money spent on roads.

In the past 20 or 30 years, Governments have been good at picking up on road schemes throughout the country and building roads, although not always as many as some people want. They have not shown the same ability to create new railway lines or reopen existing ones, and to reopen stations. However, I am delighted that the Government's excellent initiative, the south-coast multi-modal study, is under way. It is the first time that a transport corridor—road, rail and short-sea shipping—has been considered, and it is the right way of doing things. I hope that the initiative will show that the best way to use the existing infrastructure is not to construct huge new roads costing £100 million-plus, which is what it would cost to have a dual carriageway from Lewes to Polegate; it would be far better to use the existing infrastructure.

We want a package of improvements in East Sussex, most notably the reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. Its closure was absurd. It was ordered not by Beeching but by the county council in 1969 to facilitate the building of a bridge over the river in Lewes. A look at the railway map demonstrates how ludicrous the situation is, with trains from London going all the way to Uckfield in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wealden—and taking about 10 minutes longer to get there than when the railway line opened around 1840.

There is a seven-mile gap between Lewes and Uckfield where the track has been largely retained. A ridiculously short section of rail is missing and a reinstatement could easily take place. There would be several advantages in that, not least of which is that it would provide an alternative route to London. As the Minister knows, there are huge capacity problems on the Brighton line. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion agrees with that. It is inconceivable that we could have another Balcombe tunnel and Balcombe viaduct; that would be too expensive and environmentally damaging. The new train operator, GoVia, is considering an improvement to the line at Littlehampton. A third alternative, which Connex was considering before it lost the franchise, is to reopen the Lewes-Uckfield line. Whatever the faults of Connex—it was far from perfect—it was prepared to look seriously at reopening that line. I very much hope that that opportunity will not be lost now under GoVia.

It would be tragic if the Lewes-Uckfield line were not reopened. We must pull together and find a way of achieving that; 32 years after its closure, there is a huge campaign, which spans all councils and all parties, for the line to be reopened. Whenever I or the hon. Member for Wealden try to achieve that, we are told to go and see the Strategic Rail Authority; the SRA tells us to see GoVia; GoVia tells us to see Railtrack, as it was; Railtrack tells us to see the county council; the county council tells us to see the Government, and the Government tell us to see the SRA. The Government need to produce a route map showing how we can reopen lines that should never have been closed in the first place and where there are obvious economic, environmental and social reasons for doing so. Will the Minister tell us how we can achieve that objective?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. Does he agree that the route to Brighton via Littlehampton is much longer than a reopened Wealden line would be? Before that line is reopened, it is essential that the existing line to Uckfield have dual tracking and be electrified. The current service to Uckfield is deeply inadequate.

I entirely agree. Littlehampton is not a satisfactory diversion route, as I imagine the constituents of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion would agree—and as those who get shunted there when there are rail works know. The Lewes-Uckfield line would be a reasonable diversion if there were problems on the Brighton line.

Another necessary improvement in infrastructure is the electrification of the Hastings-Ashford line. If one goes from Lewes to Brussels, as I have, it takes longer to go from Lewes to Ashford than from Ashford to Brussels. That is ludicrous. Getting off the super brand-new train that glides through the French countryside at about 100 mph at Ashford, believing that one is in the 21st century, one then has the surreal experience of transferring to a 1954 diesel train, which shunts along like Thomas the Tank Engine at about 10 mph from Ashford to Hastings. Business men and women in my constituency want to go to Ashford by train so that they can get to Brussels and back quickly. They tell me that it is simply impossible to do that because the Hastings-Ashford line is, at best, a Sunday outing; it is not a sensible rail line.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this important debate. Does he accept that my constituents are appalled not only by the transit time to Ashford but by the service to London? They would recognise the picture that he has painted of the quality of the rolling stock, but not the journey time. In fact, it takes one hour and 45 minutes to travel from Bexhill to London, which puts Bexhill further away from London than York. The journey takes longer now than it did in 1922. That state of affairs is simply unacceptable.

My constituents are also concerned about the impact of Railtrack's collapse on repairs in Bexhill, Cooden Beach and Etchingham. I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with that.

I agree with the point about journey time. I saw a map with circles that showed how long it took to get from a particular area to London: half an hour, an hour or an hour and a half. The circles were not concentric. The map showed a big blip in the Wealden area and the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Journey times from those areas were excessively long compared with those from, say, Brighton.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he, like me, welcome the fact that electrification of the Hastings-Ashford line is part of the commitment made by GoVia and South Central, now that they have taken over responsibility for that line? Does he agree that all those of us who are concerned with the economic vitality of the south coast need to put pressure on the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure the doubling of track on that line too? Electrification is only one part of what is required.

We in the south-east think of ourselves as living in a European region, particularly with the port at Newhaven—and the west pier, which leaves the English mainland and makes its way towards the continent. There is inconsistency.

I am happy to agree. The hon. Gentleman has long been a strong advocate of improved rail services in those areas. I hope that the Minister will note the cross-party unity on the need to secure improved services in East Sussex and on the reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield line.

I want to see other infrastructure improvements. Reinstating the loop between Polegate and Pevensey would enable Eastbourne to be bypassed, not by passenger traffic—the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) might object to that—but by freight traffic. That would facilitate the transfer of freight from road to rail.

We also need improvements at Keymer junction, where the Lewes line joins the Brighton line. As anyone who travels from Lewes, Bexhill or wherever knows, the trains inevitably wait there for three or four minutes, which causes a major problem.

We need a new station at Newhaven, because the current three stations are disgraceful and a terrible advert to people who arrive there from Dieppe. Dieppe has received a lot of investment whereas Newhaven stations do not even have a car park—they are that bad. A lot of money is going into Newhaven, where there is an opportunity for a big rail renaissance, with increased freight and passenger movements. The Government are keen on the public-private partnership in Newhaven, which is investing huge amounts of money in the area. Everyone agrees on the need for a single station. All parts of the railway industry say that that makes sense, but none is prepared to lead on the matter. Will the Minister knock some heads together to get things going?

We shall not see a renaissance of rail travel along the south coast—the situation in London is different—unless rail fares are cut. A peak-time return journey between Polegate and Lewes costs £6.50; a return journey from Seaford to Lewes—a distance of nine miles—costs £5. No one in their right mind will pay those fares.

Instead, we have a ludicrous situation in which the A26 and A27 are congested with traffic that does not move in the rush hour, while trains on the parallel railway lines sail gaily by, almost empty. I hope that the south coast multi-modal study will consider that. People in my constituency say that they do not use the trains because of the cost, not because they are dirty. Lower fares on those lines would therefore facilitate the transfer of passenger traffic from road to rail. That would obviate the need for the expensive road improvements being advocated by some. All those stations are in the middle of towns: Eastbourne, Polegate, Seaford, Newhaven and Lewes. There is a huge number of white collar workers in Lewes at the police headquarters, the county council, the district council, the health authority and the ambulance service.

The 12-car trains that GoVia runs from Eastbourne and Polegate to Lewes are substantially empty, but they then pick up huge numbers of people at Lewes and Haywards Heath. Why does not GoVia fill those trains with people who will get off at Lewes? It would not have to run any extra trains or carriages. There is spare capacity. All it has to do is cut fares. I have written to GoVia, the Minister and the Strategic Rail Authority about this. GoVia's response was very encouraging. It said:

"It may be that on that particular route we can look at creating an experimental fare to see if the idea works. If we did we would have to submit the proposal for the current fares round by no later than 16th November … If we were able to introduce this experiment we would probably envisage a three month trial period."

GoVia is prepared to cut fares to see whether that gets more people on to the trains, but it will need help. I want the Government to say that they are prepared to invest money to cut fares. Although that may be classed as a subsidy, it would be the best way to deal with the transport problem. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the SRA and the multimodal study will look at cutting fares as part of the solution to the transport problem. I spoke this morning to the district and county councils. They are prepared in principle to help advertise that experimental fare cut. If the train operating company and the county and district councils are prepared to help, will the Government ensure that the SRA also helps?

I am sorry that I have rattled through my speech quickly. I could go on for hours about railways in East Sussex, as I am sure hon. Members will appreciate. It is an important issue for our constituents and it deserves a full and helpful reply from the Minister, which I am sure will be forthcoming.

Before I call the Minister, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that he has been very generous to allow so many interventions to guarantee that there was an all-party approach?

I, too, was sorry to hear of the explosion in Lewes today. I hope that there has been no loss of life or serious injury. May I add my thoughts to yours, Mr. Winterton?

There is certainly cross-party interest in these matters. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) has been a doughty fighter for railway and other transport matters. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate and the clear way that he has presented his case.

At the risk of causing a rift in party unity on these matters, I refer the hon. Gentleman to an interesting debate that took place here yesterday—I seem to spend most of my time here these days. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who speaks on transport for the Liberal Democrats, was asked how much of the tax increase that the Liberal Democrats proposed at the last election would have been spent on improving public transport. He replied:

"I am sure that the hon. Lady is familiar with our tax plans, which were limited. They focused specifically on education."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 218WH.]

I make that point because the hon. Gentleman has given us the usual Liberal shopping list. Perhaps he will go back to his constituency and tell the people of Lewes that they will benefit from new Labour Government policies rather than from Liberal Democrat policies.

I am sorry that the Minister has started in that way. We have had cross-party consensus and that was an unnecessarily political point to make. As the Minister knows well, the tax plans were about the 1p on income tax for education. That is not to say that we would not put more into public transport. We would do so by redirecting money that is already in the relevant budget.

I am grateful for that clarification that the Liberal Democrats would find more funding. When the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was given the opportunity yesterday to say how much more funding the Liberal Democrats would put into transport he did not come up with any figure. These things are important. We often stand in this Chamber and hear demands for spending in individual constituencies. It is important that we do not just have demands, but we say how we will deliver them. That is probably the difference between us: we have to deliver.

Before I respond to the main points that the hon. Gentleman, quite properly, raised, I wish to address briefly some of the performance problems on the railways in the south-east. Several operators run services in and out of Brighton; however, I shall concentrate on South Central, as East Sussex is served predominantly by it.

The latest statistics published by the Strategic Rail Authority in July do not, alas, make good reading. It is clear that much must be done to improve performance and customer satisfaction. The figures show that between 27 May and 23 June, 82.6 per cent. of Connex South Central's trains arrived on time, with 81.6 per cent. arriving on time during peak periods. Services are deemed punctual if they arrive at their destination within five minutes of the time stated on the timetable. The spring 2001 national passenger survey indicated that only 65 per cent. of Connex South Central passengers were satisfied with the service that they received and only 37 per cent. thought that they were getting value for money.

The performance statistics and national survey results were undertaken before the franchise was transferred from Connex to GoVia on 26 August. The new arrangement is still in its early stages, so it is too early to make judgments about GoVia's performance. However, the incoming franchisee is taking service improvement seriously, and South Central Ltd is investing £5 million in measures to improve the quality and perception of customer services. It is intended that the first of the new vehicles to replace mark 1 slam-door rolling stock will be introduced from next year.

The hon. Member for Lewes referred to the approach to franchising. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the SRA to concentrate on negotiating improvements for passengers within existing franchises or, by negotiating short two-year extensions, to make early replacement of franchises the exception rather than the rule.

I know that the new South Central franchise is of interest to the hon. Member for Lewes. The SRA signed heads of terms with GoVia as the preferred counter-party for the replacement South Central franchise in October last year. On 26 August, a commercial agreement was reached between Connex Transport (UK) Ltd. and GoVia for the transfer of the remaining period of the current franchise. Negotiations will continue between the SRA and GoVia towards a new 20-year franchise agreement. A series of major enhancements are planned over the period of the franchise to boost capacity and improve service frequency and comfort. Total investment of £1.5 billion is planned to introduce new trains and upgrade track and stations in order to raise standards, improve train service performance and provide additional capacity.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes will welcome such improvements, as will the many passengers who experience overcrowding and the problems of old rolling stock on this intensively used and capacity-constrained commuter network. As I said, new vehicles will start coming on stream next year to replace the slam-door trains that are currently in service.

Another early benefit is the upgrading of infrastructure to provide greater capacity on the Brighton main line and the Arun valley line. Electrification of the lines between Hastings and Ashford will provide through services between Ashford International and the south coast, and electrification between Uckfield and Hurst Green will provide electric trains between London and Uckfield.

The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the south coast multi-modal study. I believe that he recently secured an early-day motion on rail fares to Lewes and congestion on parallel roads—I took careful note of it—and that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking for his proposals to be considered as part of the south coast multi-modal study.

The study commenced in March 2001, and a report is expected in spring or summer next year. The overall aim of the study is to investigate congestion, safety and environmental problems on the south coast between Southampton and Ramsgate, and to propose measures aimed at improving access to and between regeneration areas and other areas of economic activity along the south coast. While the south coast study will need to consider the outcomes and recommendations of the Hastings study, it is not intended to review them as part of its work. The Hastings study is concerned with access and regeneration issues, while the south coast study is more strategic. The hon. Member for Lewes will shortly receive a written response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It may be helpful, however, if I deal with two of the issues that he raised in his early-day motion and today.

One issue is the proposed reduced peak fares, particularly on the Eastbourne-Polegate-Lewes and Seaford-Newhaven-Lewes lines. The Strategic Rail Authority is reviewing its national fares policy, under which almost 40 per cent. of fare revenue available to train operators comes from regulated fares. The review, which is not expected to be completed until summer 2002, will be wide-ranging and nationwide. The SRA has stated that, before any fare increase can be justified, tangible improvements in performance and service should have come on stream. The hon. Gentleman's comments about the willingness of others to participate in the fare structure in his area will have been listened to carefully. I shall ensure that those points are passed on.

On the second issue, I am aware that several Members of Parliament and local authorities are campaigning for the reinstatement of the Uckfield-Lewes and the Eridge-Tunbridge Wells lines, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that others are opposed to those proposals. As part of its heads of terms, GoVia is procuring a feasibility study to test the reliability, affordability and value for money of reinstating the Uckfield-Lewes line. GoVia will support reinstatement, provided that its viability is demonstrated.

In consultations with the relevant local authorities, GoVia made it clear that it is willing to be convinced that reopening the Uckfield-Lewes line is good value for money. It suggested to local authority officers that developing residential property in the catchment area would strengthen the case for reinstatement. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman and other Members of Parliament in the area support increased residential development there, but that would create an extra market and a critical mass of customers prepared to use the rail services.

The Strategic Rail Authority has a duty to spend taxpayers' money appropriately and, before deciding whether to progress with reinstatement, it needs to be satisfied that the proposals are robust, affordable and represent good value for money. A feasibility study will be undertaken once the new franchise agreement has been concluded and it will be used to inform the SRA's decision.

The hon. Gentleman also proposes electrification of the Ashford-Hastings line and new modern rolling stock, which I have already dealt with. He would also like a new station at Newhaven to allow the development of a strategy for moving freight by rail from the port, and the reinstatement of a direct link between Polegate and Pevensey to facilitate freight movements. Neither of those proposals is in the SRA's strategic plans for freight. It is for operators to come forward with ideas for consideration, but improving performance on the existing network is the first priority.

Several hon. Members mentioned Railtrack administration. If we are to achieve a better quality rail network, we need a successful network operator. Much has been said about the Government's handling of Railtrack. In his statement of 15 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to some lengths to explain the Government's decision not to provide Railtrack with a blank cheque. Our priority now is to ensure that the company that takes over Railtrack plc's network responsibilities can help deliver the improvements that we all want.

I can reassure the House that Railtrack's being placed in administration will not impact on rail travel: passengers and freight trains will continue to run as normal. The administrators are working closely with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that, while in administration, Railtrack continues to meet the railway inspectorate's safety requirements.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for raising important matters today. I hope that he is not too worried by my introduction. He will appreciate that I often hear demands for extra services from hon. Members, but those who deliver the services—often those from their own parties—may not have the funding to provide them.

I thank the Minister for that quick gallop round some of our rail networks.

It is a great pleasure to speak on this subject given that the Data Protection Act 1998 came into force only a few days ago, on 24 October. I hope to show in my speech the clear conflict between the 1998 Act and Members' privileges. I thank the information commissioner, Elizabeth France, and her staff, the Library and the House authorities for providing me with some of the information that I am about to use.

I hope to show the need for a change to the law, because it is necessary to ease up on the 1998 Act. Members of Parliament are being placed in a straitjacket that is becoming more frustrating by the day. The Act places Members' privileges in question. More importantly, constituents, who have rights of representation, are being denied their rights. I am increasingly being asked to get constituents to sign waivers. They must be signed before I am able to obtain information, which hampers the representations that I can make on their behalf.

I shall give two examples. First, when I write to my local health board appending a letter from a constituent that states his problem clearly, the board takes it upon itself to write directly to my constituent asking for his approval to research the matter when it is obvious that that approval has been granted. The board might even visit my constituent to seek his approval. A complaint against a particular consultant could lead to a constituent's being called to see that consultant, all of which would be done without my involvement. In many ways, that is a slap in the face because, in the first instance, the constituent either wrote to me or came to see me. That process breaches the privileges of a Member of Parliament because it takes him or her out of the loop.

The second example is more extreme. The Scottish Prison Service has decided that, under the 1998 Act, it also needs a waiver. In this hypothetical case I shall call the constituent Jimmy, which is appropriate. Jimmy telephones me from prison and asks me to get him released for one day so that he can attend his aunt's funeral. I phone the prison governor and say, "Why won't you let Jimmy out?" The governor replies, "I am very sorry, but that is sensitive information. You must get him to fill in a waiver." I say to him, "You get that done." He replies, "No, you must do it."

To do that, I must send a letter. The post in the west of Scotland is not great, so it takes three days for the letter to arrive, three days for it to go through the prison service and another three days for it to get back to me, by which time the dear aunt with whom Jimmy stayed for 25 years has been buried. That frustrates my rights of representation on behalf of that individual, regardless of his position. Bureaucracy is denying my constituents proper representation, which was not the 1998 Act's intention.

The basic integrity of MPs has been challenged. I argue that the 1998 Act discriminates. MPs are all honourable ladies and gentleman, yet we are put in a position where organisations do not believe us. The only way that that will be addressed is by changing the law. On the other side of the equation, the public have rights, but I understood that the Data Protection Act was on the statue book simply to protect rights of access for members of the public. That aim is being frustrated and we are achieving the exact opposite of what was intended in the Act. Both public and private companies and organisations are questioning the authority of Members of Parliament.

My constituents are intelligent people, but they are not all university professors. They need protection, which is why they go to their MP in the first place. That is being denied by virtue of what I have outlined, giving just two examples from a great number of cases. Hon. Members' rights are being compromised at their very kernel, and a change in the law is required to—

Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who is making an extremely good case in which I am sure many people are interested, that an Adjournment debate is not the right forum in which to ask for a change in the law. He can ask for action and consideration of the current situation, but this is not the forum for seeking legislation to change the law.

I do not want to challenge the Chair, but I cleared the matter with the Clerk and was told that it would be all right.

Order. I must intervene. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has taken that action, but my understanding, from the Clerk sitting next to me, is that the position that I outlined is correct. The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent case, and clearly asking for consideration and action. If he does that, he is entirely in order.

I shall try to keep to that, Mr. Winterton. One Clerk says one thing and another says something else. Perhaps I should have done more to check the position before I called for the debate.

Other elements demonstrate that Members of Parliament are being discriminated against. Lawyers—I have checked this with several—are exempt from a considerable part of the Act, a fact that is outlined in the Act itself. That is down to what is known as legal professional privilege. I argue that MPs need something along those lines. I hope that, now that I have focused attention on the subject, the Government will consider some form of change.

When researching the problem, I came upon a report by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. It states:

"Parliamentary privilege consists of the rights and immunities which the two Houses of Parliament and their members and officers possess to enable them to carry out their parliamentary functions effectively. Without this protection members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duties, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished."

It goes on to say something even more interesting:

"Another aspect of Parliament's right to regulate its own internal affairs concerns the application of legislation to activities taking place within the Houses of Parliament."

The legislation taken not to apply to Parliament includes the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Data Protection Acts of 1984 and 1998. All we require, then, is an extension so that when we are outside the premises we remain outwith the law.

The problem for MPs is best explained by quoting two paragraphs from a letter—I believe that a copy has been sent to the Minister—that I received from Elizabeth France, the Information Commissioner, which illustrate the concerns expressed by those involved with the Act. She says:

"I understand why data controllers are being cautious. There was an express provision in the 1984 Act which allowed disclosure where the data user had reasonable grounds for believing that they were disclosing to someone acting on behalf of the data subject concerned. This applied even if the disclosures in question were not foreseen by the data subject. As there is no such specific provision in the 1998 Act many organisations are properly more circumspect."

That demonstrates that the provision should have been included when the House considered the 1998 Act, which came into force on 24 October.

The second paragraph emphasises the point:

"In many cases the consent of a data subject to the disclosure of personal data can reasonably be inferred, for example where a Member of Parliament writes to an organisation and the nature and content of the letter clearly indicates that the data subject involved has asked the Member of Parliament to represent him. However, this will not always be the case, and if a data controller has doubts it is reasonable for him to check with the data subject that consent has been given. Where the personal data are sensitive, or thought to be sensitive, the data controller will require explicit consent before disclosure to a third party. Normally this consent will be written. It is worth noting that the onus is on the data controller to ensure that they have the correct level of consent before disclosure of the personal data."

That is right for the average person in the street, who expects—and gets—protection, but such an approach proves frustrating where a Member of Parliament is trying to make best representations on behalf of a constituent. I am grateful for the chance to quote that letter, because it could not be more helpful in illustrating and reinforcing my argument.

Finally—and with emphasis—I should point out that the Act discriminates. If my reading of it is right, certain Ministers are exempt, and I have already mentioned the section of the Act that excludes lawyers. Although this may be a flippant point, it could be argued that the Act does not cover Scotland. It appears to remain silent on the question of convicting a person who is in breach of the Act on the basis that Scottish courts have been given no instructions in that regard.

I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to those points. In the light of the new era heralded by the Data Protection Act 1998, I want to know how I can best represent my constituents' views.

Order. Before I call the Minister to reply, and further to the matter that I raised earlier, I shall quote from page 327 of Erskine May. Sub-paragraph (b) states:

"In general, matters that would entail legislation must not be discussed on a motion for the adjournment; but under SO No. 30 Mr. Speaker may permit such incidental reference to legislative action as he may consider relevant to any matter of administration under debate on a motion for the adjournment when enforcement of the prohibition would, in his opinion, unduly restrict the discussion of the matter."

I hope that that is helpful to the Chamber. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) has raised an important matter and I have used my discretion. I hope that the Minister will now respond to it.

Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on securing an Adjournment debate on this important and, as we have heard, sensitive subject. I pay tribute to his evident hard work and concern for his constituents, which has been demonstrated in what we have heard.

I speak not as a Minister, but as a Member of Parliament I have come across these issues and know that they are extremely important. Fundamentally, all of us are here to serve our constituents. That often requires us to obtain personal information about individuals from third parties. It is right that we should have access to information so that we can carry out inquiries on behalf of our constituents, but I know that my hon. Friend recognises that we must do so in a way that respects society's concerns for the protection of personal information privacy. It affects us all. No matter how private we seek to be, we can be certain that somebody somewhere holds information about us.

With the rapid development of information and communication technology, it is essential that effective arrangements are in place to ensure that personal information is properly protected. That is not to say that impenetrable walls of secrecy must be built around our data. Information is a key commodity and modern society could not function if it could not be shared. However, we need a balanced approach and rules to safeguard our personal information when it is used by others. Equally, those rules must not prevent the legitimate and responsible use of information by those who need to see and hold it, and that includes all Members of the House of Commons. I know that that lies at the heart of my hon. Friend's concerns.

This new legislation has come into full force only in the last few days, so I draw the Chamber's attention to a helpful guide to the Data Protection Act 1998, which was issued by the House authorities in May 2000. It was prepared in consultation with the information commissioner and covers parts of the law that are relevant to constituency case work and House proceedings. It is a clear and reasonable guide to a complex area of law—I speak as someone who took no part in preparing it. As a constituency Member of Parliament I have cause to be grateful for the guidance. The chapter on constituency case work is particularly relevant.

I want to address the points raised by my hon. Friend. I cannot comment on the individual cases of the local health board and prison authorities to which he referred, and he would not expect me to. I hope that it is clearly understood that what I am about to say has no bearing on those cases.

Two points of principle seem to arise from my hon. Friend's comments. The first is the question of explicit consent. If it is clear to the organisation making the disclosure that the constituent has given consent— explicit consent in the case of sensitive data, such as that to do with health, ethnicity, religion—a disclosure can be made. However, he will appreciate that the circumstances have to be evaluated in each case and an element of interpretation will always exist over what is explicit consent. I hope that he is no doubt that that is the position. A disclosure can be made in certain areas if consent is explicit, but a question lies over the term "explicit consent". I hope that he understands that public bodies must be careful; they have an obligation placed on them by statute and it is important that they discharge it properly. I understand his concerns, but we must not do anything that encourages a public body to be too cavalier in its interpretation.

That leads me to my hon. Friend's second point, but I stress that I shall not comment on individual cases because I do not have enough information and it is not for me to do so. What I am about to say has no bearing on the individual case that he cited.

My hon. Friend referred to delay. Let me make it clear that we do not consider that the Data Protection Act 1998 should ever give rise to significant cause for delay by any public body in going about its proper tasks. The Act puts in place procedures for handling data properly and appropriately. It may require a change of culture in the way that organisations manage information and data, and that is for the best, but it should never be used as an excuse for public bodies not to do something that they should otherwise do in relation to their substantive duties, or for delay. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured. When new legislation is introduced, some organisations need time for bedding down, but the point remains that it should never be a reason for substantive delay. The legislation introduces new procedures and proper protection.

The question of privilege is important. My hon. Friend drew attention to some of the surrounding issues. The use of personal data in the course of parliamentary proceedings is exempt from data protection principles when the exemption is necessary to avoid infringing parliamentary principle. However, there are examples when parliamentary privilege does not apply, as in the case of letters from hon. Members to Ministers or public authorities about constituency matters, in which case the 1998 Act applies.

My hon. Friend said that it is not clear whether the 1998 Act applies to Scotland. In fact, it applies throughout the United Kingdom and the relevant statute is the Scotland Act 1998, which determines whether a matter is reserved or devolved. Schedule 5 of that Act provides that the subject matter of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the 1995 EC data protection directive are reserved matters, so they apply to Scotland.

Section 60(1) of the Data Protection Act states:

"No proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be instituted-

(a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland."

It does not refer to Scotland and the law is silent on that. I would argue that, given that silence, no one in Scotland could be prosecuted.

My hon. Friend has the advantage of having the statute in front of him. If I heard him correctly, he was referring to the institution of proceedings. I was referring to the application of the Act and it would be for the authorities in Scotland to take proceedings. Under schedule 5 of the Scotland Act, the Data Protection Act applies to Scotland.

The Minister now has a copy of the Act.

I have a copy, which refers to the institution of proceedings. I am delighted that I heard my hon. Friend correctly and I hope that I have covered his point.

I assure my hon. Friend that the purpose of data protection law is not to prevent Members of Parliament from doing their job properly and conscientiously, as he is doing. It does not prevent them from obtaining the information they need to pursue their constituents' concerns. It establishes a set of rules to ensure that there is appropriate protection for the personal information held about constituents and others. Members of Parliament are always acting on behalf of their constituents for the purpose of data protection legislation, but they may fall to be treated as third parties.

I think that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) is trying to get across is that when a constituent rings an MP's office wanting him or her to pursue a problem, the MP may have to write to or telephone the constituent to get written consent. Will the Minister confirm that?

That is the reality, and it is sometimes necessary. Constituents are not always explicit about what they want Members of Parliament to do on their behalf. Speaking personally, not as a Minister, I have taken up cases where a constituent has asked me to do something, then clarified it later in writing. In some cases, constituents have been unwilling for me to disclose their name to the authority that they want me to approach. They are usually clear and explicit about that from the beginning, but sometimes they do not make it clear until later on in the proceedings. A public body that receives a request for information from a Member of Parliament has statutory obligations to be clear about the basis on which it is handling the information on behalf of the individual to whom it pertains, and to treat it sensitively.

I accept that that is the case. However, where confusion arises, MPs must use judgment, discretion and interpretation.

Of course I accept that sensitive issues are involved. I am trying to explain the need for a balanced approach.

The information commissioner has an important role to play, and I welcome the fact that she has been helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South. I understand that she said that it may be necessary to review the range of disclosures that are permitted under schedule 3 and its associated order. It has always been the Government's view that the present arrangements are very much a starting point and that it may be necessary to consider further, in the light of experience of operating the new Act, whether additional processing gateways for sensitive personal data are needed. The directive to which the Act gives effect requires that any such gateways should be in the substantial public interest.

I will study carefully what my hon. Friends have said today to determine whether any amendment to the March 2000 order is necessary in this context. As they will understand, I cannot guarantee that that will produce the outcome that they might wish, but I shall write to them about it in due course. I hope that that gives them some comfort.

It is beyond dispute that Members of Parliament have a legitimate right to make representations on behalf of their constituents.

Will the Minister explain why lawyers have certain rights that Members of Parliament do not have?

They do not have certain privileges that we do not have; they have a certain qualified privilege. As this is a complex issue, I will write to my hon. Friend about it.

This important Act safeguards the rights of individuals in the crucial area of information and privacy. However, we accept that Members of Parliament have a proper interest in the matter, and I shall write to both my hon. Friends with the results of our deliberations on what they have said.

I am pleased to have the chance to raise important issues in relation to alcohol misuse. As both vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol misuse and vice-president of the specialist alcohol service covering my constituency, the Hertfordshire Alcohol Problems Advisory Service, I am all too aware of the health and social impact that alcohol has on communities. I am also acutely aware of the lack of measures to address alcohol misuse, particularly the absence of a strategic Government response to the issue, despite the large amount of evidence demonstrating the cost to society of alcohol misuse in its many forms.

Only a few months ago, the Royal College of Physicians put a figure on the burden of alcohol problems on the NHS, stating that they cost between 2 and 12 per cent. of NHS spend. Even at the lowest figure of 2 per cent., that amounts to about £500 million a year. Many of us would agree that there is much room for improvement in the waiting times experienced by patients requiring treatment for a range of conditions.

If the Government really want to address waiting times, the impact of alcohol problems cannot be ignored. At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol misuse, the reality of the impact of alcohol problems on the whole hospital system was brought to life by Dr. John Kemm, a consultant in public health who was a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party that produced the report "Alcohol—can the NHS afford it?"

In a graphic representation of a ward round in a busy city hospital, Dr. Kemm described patients in beds on the male medical and surgical wards. I have time to give only a flavour of that ward round. First, we had Mr. Smith, who drinks 40 units a week and has acute pancreatitis, more common in heavy drinkers and difficult to treat. Then we had Mr. Taylor, who had had a dense, right-sided stroke, which is unusual in someone so young—but the night before Mr. Taylor had had a binge on alcohol, which is recognised as increasing the risk of stroke. On the surgical ward, Mr. Carr had had a gall bladder operation; while the original problem was not due to his drinking, his slow and difficult recovery is due to the fact that he is a heavy drinker. His wound had become infected and he had to stay in hospital for an extra five days. Next we had Mr. Ponsonby who had fallen from his roof while doing DIY and broken his femur. Forty-eight hours after his operation he suddenly became agitated and disturbed with a case of delirium tremens, which meant that the hospital had to get in a specialist nurse for 24 hours to look after him. The role of alcohol in his fall should have been spotted and his alcohol dependence managed better. And so the ward round went on.

Dr. Kemm also described a Friday night in the casualty department, the type of cases seen—the majority alcohol-related—and the stresses that staff are put under. I was struck by one relating to a patient who had cut his head open. His X-ray showed no obvious problems but unfortunately he was extremely drunk. As the symptoms of being extremely drunk are very like those of a head injury, none of the doctors dared discharge him. Instead, he was kept in all night and had his blood pressure checked and his pupils tested every 15 minutes, taking up a bed and valuable staff time.

The position outlined by Dr. Kemm reflects what is happening in Hertfordshire. While the local primary care trust has recognised the need to address alcohol misuse within the hospital setting, the lack of specific funding and national targets, as well as of robust ways of measuring the role of alcohol, means that alcohol is not dealt with—for example, by screening all patients and having a specialist alcohol worker to take referrals from across the hospital, as recommended by the Royal College of Physicians.

Many of the alcohol-related problems seen in hospitals are preventable—accident and emergency staff see many injuries caused by alcohol-related accidents and alcohol-related violence. Research by the former Health Education Authority showed that one in six people who attended A and E departments for treatment had alcohol-related injuries or problems. That rose to eight in 10 people at peak times on Friday and Saturday evenings—a staggering number, which, not surprisingly, has a significant impact on hospital resources.

Has the Secretary of State for Health considered alcohol misuse within the context of the good practice guidance for A and E departments, which he announced only last week and which is aimed at reducing waiting times for patients? Waiting times for A and E departments and the whole hospital system could be significantly reduced in the long term if the Government made the investment required to implement a comprehensive strategy on alcohol misuse. The Government have been promising such a strategy for a long time—indeed, since the public health Green Paper was published in early 1998. So far, however, there is no sign of a strategy, despite the latest promise in the NHS plan that one would be implemented in 2004. The Government are missing an enormous opportunity to reduce the cost to not only the NHS, but society as a whole.

I stress that the examples that I have given of hospital patients blocking beds are not out of the ordinary. Much of the population has problems with alcohol, ranging from dependency to alcoholism. That impacts on not only people's health, but their relationships, families, finances and ability to hold down a job.

The new figures for alcohol dependence show that 7.4 per cent. of people aged 16 and over are alcohol dependent to varying degrees—mild, moderate and severe. That amounts to about 3 million people. The latest figures on hazardous drinking, which is defined as patterns of drinking with a high risk of damage to future health, show that almost one third of women aged 16 to 24 and more than half of young men drink at hazardous levels.

Deaths directly from alcohol-related causes remained steady in the early 1990s, but have increased by 43 per cent. since 1994. Significantly, the rate of liver sclerosis has shown as huge increase, mostly among men in their thirties. That could be a warning to us all not to ignore the growing problems and, in particular, the effects of starting to drink at an early age and of regular binge drinking.

I am not overstating the facts when I say that the problems that I have outlined lead to family break-up, divorce, unemployment and, in some cases, even homelessness. They also increase the burden on the NHS and social services. I am concerned, in particular, for the children of problem drinkers. Almost 1 million children live in homes where the drinking of one or both parents has reached risky levels. That impacts on children's lives, often in distressing ways. Some live in fear of what they will find each day when they return from school or are forgotten at the school gates. Many grow up quickly and must care for their brothers and sisters in the face of parental neglect due to drinking. They must do all that while trying to maintain a veneer of normality for the outside world.

Much good work is being undertaken in Hertfordshire with young carers of alcoholic parents, but it is rare and is not undertaken across the country. A national alcohol strategy could include such work as a target and ensure that good practice is shared.

Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned about the increased drinking that is evident among young people. I mentioned the high levels of hazardous drinking among 16 to 24-year-olds, but there has also been an increase in the frequency of drinking among schoolchildren and in the amount that they drink. The average weekly consumption by pupils who drink has risen from 5.3 units in 1990 to 10.4 units in 2000, which is equivalent to more than five pints of beer a week.

The United Kingdom also seems to hold the dubious honour of having one of the highest rates in Europe of binge drinking by 15 and 16-year-olds, as well as the highest number of members of that age group who have ever been drunk, according to a survey launched earlier this year under the sponsorship of the World Health Organisation. That is an inevitable part of the overall trend in this country, which, unless properly tackled by a Government strategy, will go unchecked.

Alcohol is at last being dealt with as a distinct and important issue in drug education, and I welcome the establishment of a specialist team in the national charity Alcohol Concern, supported by Government funding, to provide schools with guidance on alcohol. That has not yet, however, been translated into resources locally for specialist staff to work with young people.

The established role of drinking in society means that a more holistic approach is needed to change attitudes to drinking generally, rather than simply improving alcohol education for young people, although, of course, that is important. Alcohol is part of our culture, so it is important that adults and children should learn to drink without risk. To achieve that aim a strategy is required that would combine a raft of measures into one linked action plan, including community safety, safe drinking messages, education and support, and treatment for problem drinkers. I am aware that alcohol misuse is not an issue for just one Department, although one would expect the Department of Health to take the lead role.

The Home Office has highlighted the role of alcohol in violence, such as the 13,000 violent incidents reported to the police that take place in and around pubs and clubs every week. The Department of Trade and Industry should be concerned about the impact that employees' alcohol problems have on productivity, and about absenteeism. It should encourage employers to implement alcohol policies. That approach is low in bureaucracy and has a low cost; it is aimed at preventing acute problems from developing and at avoiding the cost of losing valuable staff.

The latest figures on drink driving from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions show an increase in the number of drink-drive deaths and injuries, despite the successes of the drink-drive publicity campaigns in past years. Why is there such an increase?

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has now taken responsibility for licensing and, worryingly, may end up taking decisions about more flexible licensing hours in isolation from Home Office concerns about alcohol-related violence. Any increase in licensing hours must be accompanied by an assessment of the additional measures that will be needed to prevent disorder and to ensure that people with an alcohol problem will be referred for help if they are arrested. I am informed by Hertfordshire Alcohol Problems Advisory Service that the local arrest referral scheme is for drugs only, yet more than half of those referred for help have serious alcohol problems. However, without a Government decision to make alcohol a priority, no funding is available to set up an equivalent alcohol scheme or to deal with those with alcohol problems who are inevitably identified by the drugs scheme.

Those examples highlight the need for a national strategy on alcohol misuse. None of the issues can be considered in isolation from the larger policy picture. The complexity of alcohol misuse and the fact that it occurs in so many different settings demonstrate the need for a rounded strategy with the input and support of all key Departments that have a role in relation to alcohol policies. Despite powerful evidence of the human and financial cost of alcohol problems, I am surprised and concerned that the Treasury has not yet been persuaded of the potential to reduce alcohol-related harm and its related costs through proper funding of a national alcohol strategy made up of preventive and remedial measures.

Lack of a national strategy means that, more often than not, alcohol misuse is not dealt with locally, as other issues are identified as national set priorities, with funding, and those issues are dealt with first. Without a national framework for action, no one has the task of taking the lead. Where localities take the initiative on alcohol issues, the quality of action varies. Experience and good practice is not shared. In addition, there is an unwelcome impact on specialist alcohol services across the country.

The promise of a Government strategy has led to a limbo period. Local commissioners for health and local authorities are waiting for national priorities to be set before deciding which services to fund, and to what level. That inevitably leads to the loss of skilled staff from alcohol services, exacerbating an already worrying situation in which insufficient funding is available to provide an adequate service to meet local needs. Although HAPAS provides a high-quality service, it struggles to meet the demand for counselling and treatment. Because funders are uncertain about what they ought to be funding, I ask the Minister to give me an assurance that alcohol counselling services, including early intervention, will be at the heart of the strategy.

I urge the Government to ensure that a properly funded alcohol strategy is produced as soon as possible. It must not merely focus on a limited number of non-contentious areas, but must seize the opportunity to bring about real change in our drinking culture by taking a fully rounded approach that tackles all aspects of alcohol misuse in one comprehensive strategy. Substantial action is required to make a real difference, which in the longer term will result in a healthier country and less strain on publicly funded services. It will also make our towns and communities more pleasant places to be.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on securing this debate. It gives us an excellent opportunity to bring the issues up to date. I would like to acknowledge her extensive personal experience on the all-party parliamentary group, which is underpinned by a great deal of local action in her constituency and area. It is particularly valuable for Members to bring to these debates not just a sense of overarching strategy but personal experience of services on the ground. We are all informed as a result.

We must acknowledge that alcohol is an enjoyable part of life for many people in this country. Some 92 per cent. of men and 86 per cent. of women in Great Britain drink alcohol, and the vast majority do so moderately and sensibly without harming themselves or others. However, some misuse alcohol, with potentially devastating consequences for them, their families and communities. The hon. Lady illustrated, in her wide-ranging speech, the breadth of the problems. They are not confined to matters of health, education, crime and disorder or employment. Once a situation of alcohol misuse has arisen in a society, all of those areas give cause for concern. We must bear that in mind when we develop ideas and strategies for tackling the problems.

There are a number of specific health risks in the misuse of alcohol. For example, roughly 30 per cent. of accidents are alcohol-related. I am told that between 25 and 50 per cent. of drownings are connected with alcohol. In 1999, there were 420 deaths from drink-driving and alcohol is a factor in about half of pedestrian deaths on the roads. The number of short-term health risks is huge, and there are long-term health risks as well. Some 3 per cent. of cancers can be attributed to alcohol. Alcohol misuse is the most common cause of liver disease. In 1999, there were 4,700 deaths from liver disease, and 39 per cent. of men and 8 per cent. of women who attempt suicide are chronic problem drinkers. A huge amount of despair is caused not just to the people involved but to their families.

As the hon. Lady outlined, all those problems place immense pressure on the national health service in terms of both hospital treatment and primary care. The hon. Lady also highlighted the pressure that alcohol misuse places on accident and emergency departments. I am conscious of those pressures. I have visited casualty departments on a Saturday evening, when I was involved in "casualty watch" in a previous incarnation, and I have seen for myself, at first hand, the terrible problems that staff face from people who have misused alcohol become violent and, been injured, and who are not susceptible to the most caring and compassionate treatment that is available.

I assure the hon. Lady that, as happens for people with mental health problems, there is no bar to putting workers in accident and emergency departments to try to ensure that people are treated appropriately and directed to other services, especially if the immediate presentation of alcohol may wear off but there is an underlying problem. Many A and E departments are putting such measures in place because they recognise that that reduces stress on staff and, in the long term, helps to stop the recurrence of problems, because the same people with the same problems present almost every weekend. Diverting such people into other services is part of reforming emergency care. That was mentioned in the strategy that we issued last week about streaming patients in A and E departments to give them the right care at the right time and in the right place. Extra funding is attached to that strategy: £118 million is being invested now to ensure that we relieve the pressure on A and E departments. Clearly, that is not all related to alcohol misuse, but a portion addresses the tremendous problems faced by staff in A and E departments, especially at weekends.

The hon. Lady rightly highlighted the Government's commitment to formulate and produce a national alcohol strategy. The original timescale was ambitious, and I acknowledge that the strategy has been slow to emerge. However, we must examine that in the context of the Government's specific clinical priorities for early action relating to coronary heart disease, mental health and cancer. Obviously, those matters compete for Government time and development by the Department of Health, and resources must be available in order to make a real impact. I reassure the hon. Lady that we said in the NHS plan that the alcohol strategy would be implemented by 2004. We are on track to meet that target and we shall develop a national strategy.

The hon. Lady highlighted the key issue of how we can draw in not only the Department of Health, but the Department for Education and Skills, the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that we have a joined-up strategy. It should be focused on health without ignoring the other crucial ways in which we can address the problems. It is all very well to have an excellent treatment centre, but if a person does not receive adequate housing, education or access to employment after being released from the centre, the problems that caused the person to misuse alcohol, because of a lack of social support, could kick back in and we could find ourselves in a similar position in subsequent months. Therefore, there must be a genuinely joined-up strategy—I do not say that in the Manner in which those words are currently abused.

I reassure the hon. Lady that the absence of a strategy does not mean that nothing happens. The strategy will focus, target and prioritise, and help to draw together ideas. However, many developments have taken place concerning alcohol and crime. The Government recently produced an action plan to tackle alcohol-related crime. The police have new powers to close premises that are the focus of disorderly behaviour. Hotspots are targeted and we have more "pubwatch" schemes. In my area of Greater Manchester, the practical step of persuading public houses to use plastic glasses has dramatically reduced the number of horrific and savage facial injuries caused by people misusing alcohol. We have simplified and strengthened local authorities' powers to control drinking in public places. All hon. Members, as constituency Members of Parliament, know the problems of inappropriate drinking in public places and the intimidation that that causes for ordinary people going about their business. Giving local authorities the powers of arrest and to confiscate alcohol addresses the problem.

Over the past three years, the Department for Education and Skills made £21 million available to support the training of teachers to deliver effective drug, alcohol and tobacco education policies. It is key for us to join up those issues. That funding is set to rise to £47.5 million over the next three years, which shows how seriously the Government take public education on the matter.

We have also issued new guidance and assistance to target young men and women in our action to reduce teenage pregnancy. There is clearly a connection between the misuse of alcohol and teenage pregnancy, and trying to ensure that we provide information and education to support young people in making informed choices about not only alcohol but the rest of their lives is important to us.

We have closed a loophole, through the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000, which created a new offence of proxy purchasing alcohol—buying alcohol on behalf of others aged under 18. That is a real step forward.

We have also taken action on housing. Rough sleeping has been reduced by about 62 per cent. over the past three years. Many people with alcohol problems fall into housing difficulties, perhaps not paying their rent, being evicted and finding themselves out on the streets. The rough sleepers programme to try to put people in hostels—off the streets and into supportive, caring environments—has been key to tackling some of the problems involved.

The hon. Lady is right to keep up the pressure on the Government to ensure that we produce a strategy and that, in doing so, we take into account the views of voluntary sector groups, user groups and people with hands-on experience of such services. We already have about 600 treatment services throughout the country. About 180 relate purely to alcohol, but many are combined drug and alcohol services, as the same issues apply in terms of detoxification, support and counselling, which, as she said, should be at the heart of the strategy.

We want to reduce the problems of alcohol misuse rather than simply treating them. We are talking as much about putting money into prevention and ensuring that people do not go down that road in the first place, as about providing high-quality treatment services for people already in difficulty. We need to be creative in examining prevention work and finding out what works. I have found that in health promotion we lack an evidence base on campaigns, whether for safe drinking, drugs education or sexual health education. No robust evidence exists to show us how a campaign affects people's behaviour and whether they stop drinking, drink less or stop taking drugs. We have a long way to go before we get to the heart of the matter, and we are doing an awful lot of work in all those services to ensure that when we spend money, we get value from it. We want to ensure that we do not embark on campaigns that are not robust and effective.

Funding is available in the health service for alcohol services. At the moment it is mainstream funding, and it is for local commissioners to decide what their local communities need in terms of alcohol support services.

The hon. Lady is right: developing a strategy will help give focus and priority to this important field. Ensuring that we in the Department of Health join it up with our work on drugs is important. Perhaps even more important are the issues that the hon. Lady highlighted. We must have a strategy that draws in all our partners in Government Departments, education, housing and employment, and involves local government, which delivers many of the services, the voluntary sector, which has been extremely active in devising innovative and imaginative schemes that work, and users of services, because that is how we shall achieve sustainable change and help reduce alcohol misuse.

As I said earlier, the vast majority of people enjoy alcohol in a safe and moderate way, but ensuring that people who are in difficulty, unable to cope and need support, help, treatment and counselling in order to ensure that they and their families can live with dignity and support is a top priority for us. I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the attention of the Chambers. It is important to continue to progress as quickly as possible and to ensure that we deliver a strategy that lives up to her expectations and the expectations of those involved in the field.

Question put and agreed to.Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.