I went to my local railway station in Wokingham yesterday morning to prepare for this important debate today. I did so, yet again, more in hope than anything else, as I come from a part of the country where strikes are already badly affecting the service. I did not leave home as early as usual and arrived at the station car park at 9 o'clock. It was almost empty. I went through the usual routine of discovering that the car park ticket machine would not take my money. I had to go elsewhere to buy a ticket to make my car parking legal and I waited for a long time for a train that was delayed by nine minutes; one of the few services still running.

The station is a mess and needs reconstruction. There is no proper or secure parking, and it is difficult to get a bus in and out of the station. There is no proper transport interchange and, at the morning peaks—especially for an hour and a half after 7.40 am—there are only three trains to London from a place only 37 miles west of the capital. Many of us want to come to London, but when the trains are running, the services are crowded and difficult to get on.

If the Government were serious about wanting a better railway and transport system, Ministers would get on the trains and see what we all experience daily when we try to travel on the trains. They should start to spend the large amounts of money that they are talking about making available practically and positively to make a real difference.

I have proposed a plan for my local area that could be more widely used. The plan includes the improvement of traffic access to the station by a new link road to the main road; a mid-rise car park with security cameras and supervision; commercial development to help pay for the other property changes needed in the area; a bus interchange with bus services geared to the train times; and a new station. The current station does not have proper waiting facilities. One has to stand out in the rain, the cold and the wind that we often experience in winter. The plan would also include moving the station down the track, because it is too close to a principal road into the town. For safety reasons, the level crossing barriers must stay down much longer than would otherwise be needed. That increases the traffic jams in the town and makes it even more difficult to get to the station.

The Government say that they want an integrated transport policy. I am in favour of an integrated transport policy if that means simple things, such as being able to drive to a station, park, buy a ticket and get on a train in reasonable time. The Government seem to be fixated by how long it takes to carry out certain rail journeys once a passenger is on a train. My constituents and I are interested in point-to-point journey time from the place we start from to the point at which we want to arrive. That is not usually from station to station. While the Government are claiming that they want to try to sort out the mess on the railways, they and many Labour and Liberal Democrat councils throughout the country are making it visibly more difficult for people to use the trains by impeding road access to stations and by failing to make the connections between the motorist and the train that are needed if train usage is to build up in the way that we would like.

The Government would be well advised to look at capacity on the tracks and the trains. The commuter railways are the most likely railways to be successful; the railways are—or could be—the best at moving a large number of people at approximately the same time on busy and otherwise congested routes. The Government should ask why there is so little capacity on commuter railway links into London and the other big cities throughout the country. There are both short and medium-term answers to the current capacity constraint. Building new track is likely to be problematic in all but the most obvious bottlenecks. Interest groups will make the same objections to new train lines as are made to new motorways; often with good reason.

Now that the Government have taken control of so much of the railway system, they should examine options such as longer trains and platforms, double-decker trains—which will require some bridge-raising—or new technology that will enable more trains per hour to use the same piece of track. At the moment, using steel-on-steel technology creates a safety constraint because it necessitates long braking distances and long separation of train from train. During the morning peak time, if one flies over congested parts of the country in a light aircraft, one can see massive congestion on the roads, with buses, lorries, coaches and cars bumper to bumper because they can approach each other closely. However, railway tracks are largely empty. They are punctuated by a few trains, which are separated, for obvious safety reasons. The Minister needs to consider the technology used.

Following privatisation, one of the main successes was that more people and freight were travelling by rail. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the whole thrust of the Government's 10-year transport plan is in jeopardy because more than 50 per cent. of investment was to be private? That would have alleviated the problem of lack of capacity for commuter trains and freight. Where does he think that the Government will find the investment that the private sector would otherwise have made before the demise of Railtrack?.

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I was about to talk about money. We need massive sums of private investment throughout our transport system. When people are free to invest, they invest large sums of money. Last year was a record one for car purchases, which is a sure sign that people feel that they have to make their own transport provision. Of course, they cannot buy their own road space. They have a problem because the Government has a monopoly on road space and does not supply enough of it. People are willing to spend a lot of money on their own flexible transport system. As my hon. Friend says, we are about to undergo the same experience with the railways.

Investors would be happy to invest in decent means of conveyance along railway routes in and out of our major towns and cities, but that is currently blocked by indecision, or by wrong decisions taken by the Government. For example, my local train company would love to spend more on new trains, but agonising negotiations on its franchise renewal have taken far longer than they should have done. Investment has been put on ice by the Government's inability to cut through difficulties and conclude negotiations. That they have constantly changed policy and intervened directly and indirectly via the Strategic Rail Authority undoubtedly complicates the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the users are prepared to spend a lot of money on our railways? It is especially true of the commuters he mentions; commuters from Chippenham spend £3 million per year. In that context, would he support the activities of the largest commuter organisation ever known, the British Rail Advisory Group, run by my constituent, Mr. David da Costa? He has suggested a strike by rail users on 1 March. Only by withdrawing our support for the railways on 1 March can we make it plain to the Government what they would be losing if they did not have us.

My hon. Friend draws me down a dangerous road, or railway line. I sympathise with the aims of that worthy organisation. I hope that the Government and the railway companies would want high-level discussions with my hon. Friend's constituent and his group to avoid the need for direct action. I share the frustrations of his constituent and many of my own. I try to use the railways whenever possible, but I find it increasingly difficult to do so because of the problems that I have identified.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the Deputy Prime Minister saying almost five years ago that, within five years, this country would have a train system of which we would be proud? Bearing it in mind that we have 16 weeks to go until we reach the end of those magical five years, what chance does my right hon. Friend think the Deputy Prime Minister has of achieving his ambition?

My hon. Friend makes his point in a delightfully mischievous way. I share his fear that we will not see a transformation within the next 16 weeks; the record so far is of continuing decline and disastrous decisions. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister had to be taken off the case, and we read from authoritative sources that the current Secretary of State is about to go the same way. I note that, after his long holiday in India, he does not have the time to be with us this morning; that is a great pity, in view of the strong interest from a wide range of Members.

My right hon. Friend referred to the delay in taking decisions about refranchising. I draw his attention to the fact that it is now some 15 or 16 months since M40 Trains was selected as the preferred bidder for the Chiltern franchise, which everyone accepts is one of the best-run railway franchises. We still have not had a decision, which has added to the uncertainty and the delay in investment. Is it not time that we had some decisions from the Government?

My hon. Friend makes another effective point, with which I entirely sympathise. I hope that the Minister will try to lift some of the fog and gloom from railway policy. He could tell us his deadlines for the important franchises that are out for competition or negotiation and whether the franchise holders will be given a decent length of franchise to make long-term investment worth while. He could tell us whether the authoritative briefings in the press that the Government are seeking a major amalgamation of the train companies are correct. If those briefings are correct, how will they be carried out in relation to the existing pattern of franchise award and negotiations? Will the move be another cause of delay and disruption? How will the amalgamations be carried out against the strong competition policy? That is largely driven by often sensible rules from Brussels that mean that it would be difficult for the Government to do all the pro-monopoly and cartel work that they might like to do on this subject, as well as some others. It is time that we had some answers, because we need more investment by the train-operating companies.

More important, the Minister owes it to hon. Members to tell us about the Government's timetable for getting Railtrack back into operating shape and into the private sector, which I believe is their intention. The Minister speaks on behalf of a Government who say that they want a private sector Railtrack in the form of a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. Will he give us a timetable for when we will know more about that bid, when the documentation will be sent to potential bidders and when the deadline will be for interested parties and consortia to bid for such interesting and potentially valuable assets?

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only benefit that commuters in my area are seeing is the batch of splendid new trains that was ordered the week after Connex won the franchise under the previous Conservative Government; the one positive and immediate fruit of privatisation? The Deputy Prime Minister may have been thinking of the fact that it took five years to build those trains and others like them up and down the country when he promised a better railway system within five years. It is no good having the best trains in the world unless some of the concerns that my right hon. Friend has rightly set out about Railtrack are met. The trains need decent tracks to run on.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support and glad that he has given yet another example of how privatisation worked in its early years before this Government decided to do it enormous damage by the wrong kind of regulation and the wrong kind of bankruptcy. We now learn that the Government believe that £4.5 billion should be made available to the railway industry, on top of the £34 billion in their 10-year transport plan. Will the Minister confirm that and place on record for the first time how much of the 10-year plan money is destined for railway track, as opposed to other railway spending? Will he tell us how much money is destined for Railtrack and its successor-in-title in the next three years?

That is the minimum of information that we should expect in the House of Commons and that the Government will have to supply to their company limited by guarantee and any other bidder interested in Railtrack. I do not understand why it is such a secret. We all know that they will have to disclose that information. It is impossible for commercial interests to compile a sensible bid and come up with a decent view on whether Railtrack, in its current shape, has positive or negative value to them without knowing what the flow of Government subsidy into the organisation will be.

The decision to bankrupt Railtrack was taken by the Government who had it in their power to negotiate and do a deal with the Railtrack that was then in existence. We all know that that company was going to receive public money and that there was the negotiation over how much it needed in view of the regulatory constraints imposed upon it. I can guarantee that it will now be a lot dearer. The Government will have to put a lot more money into the successor-in-title to Railtrack than if they had done a sensible deal with Railtrack, instead of deciding to put it into receivership on 5 October.

We are now three months on from the receivership. We are no clearer about how much money is available and what sort of bidders might come forward. We know no more about how a not-for-profit company can raise private capital. It is quite an unusual concept to raise private capital without profit or dividends to distribute to reward the people who make the investment. One presumes that it will be bond-financed and that the short-term cost of capital of the company limited by guarantee will be higher than the cost of capital of a for-profit, equity-based company because bond finance is carried out at higher interest rates than equity finance raised at dividend yield. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's latest thoughts on those important issues.

It is also a great disappointment to many of us on the Conservative Benches that the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), the Deputy Chief Whip, is not here. We read in The Guardian—how could it possibly be wrong? —that the Deputy Chief Whip is now the main agent of running the railways. I refer, of course, to the Government Deputy Chief Whip; the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), is assiduous in his duties and understands the importance of railways. I can quite understand why the Government Deputy Chief Whip is not here. He is obviously embarrassed that his secret activities have found their way into The Guardian. Will the Minister confirm the 10 Downing street line; that The Guardian has made up this story and the Deputy Chief Whip is not attempting to fix the difficult industrial relations problems of the railway?

Given the severity of the problems he describes, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is pitiful that out of the more than 400 Labour MPs, just two are present for the debate?

It is noticeable that there are not many here. Many Labour Members are deeply embarrassed by the state of the railways and do not wish to have to hear again just how bad it is. Perhaps many of them have not been able to get here yet this morning because the trains are so appallingly bad. They are now taking to the inadequate roads.

My right hon. Friend is quite right to put that charitable interpretation on the matter. After all, yesterday's Evening Standard told us that out of 55 London Labour MPs, only one could be bothered to come to a debate on the tube. Perhaps the others were stuck on the tube.

Their embarrassment on this matter is understandable. However, I want to transcend party politics and make a plea to the Government; the money that is being put towards transport investment now should come forward rapidly but sensibly. It should be applied to making real improvements, which means buying the equipment needed to do the job. Nothing can really move on the railways at a satisfactory pace or in a satisfactory way until the Government make a series of decisions. They must decide how they will get Railtrack out of administration more quickly and into the private sector again, as they claim to want to do. They must decide how they will agree franchises of a suitable length with a reasonable number of train companies so that that uncertainty can be cleared away and they can get on with providing the private investment.

I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that nothing in the current structure of the SRA and the receivership would impede the plans that I have suggested, which seem to have been generally accepted in my area, for a new station, a transport interchange and all the rest. Much of that can be paid for out of private investment and development gain, but we need a favourable wind from the SRA, the Government and the receiver, as Railtrack has an interest in the development. The main mover will be South West Trains. I trust that its franchise will soon be sorted out and it will then be fully committed to the scheme.

Is the Government's stance, as of 10 o'clock today, to remain disengaged from the industrial disruption that we are witnessing which is spreading and getting worse? In view of the close friendships and links between certain rail unions and the Government, could the Government play a role through the Deputy Chief Whip or otherwise? It would be a great pity if our train system were further disrupted as a result of pressures and politics in one trade union. The travelling public deserve better and I hope that the Minister will respond in a similar spirit.

Many hon. Members want to join the debate, so I shall bring my remarks to a close. I could say much more about the lamentable state of our railways and our transport system, but I shall not burden the Minister with yet more questions. I just hope that he will provide greater certainty about the reprivatisation of Railtrack, the new private investment that could then flow and the franchise terms for many train-operating companies.

I shall start with a comment that will please the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I declare an interest, in that I have five non-profit-making £10 shares in the Keighley and Worth Valley Light Railway company. I am also president of that railway's society. I declare the interest because that railway's future could be badly affected if we do not keep a decent railway system running into platforms 1 and 2 at Keighley station.

I was surprised by and welcomed many of the ideas for improvements proposed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). However, it is disappointing that the Conservatives could have implemented many of those ideas in their 18 years in office, but did not. They lacked a commitment to our railway system, railway users and the men and women who run it. Proposing those ideas at this stage made the right hon. Gentleman's speech a little empty, although I enjoyed it because I am a rail enthusiast and I agree with much of what he said.

One of the biggest mistakes that my party made was probably to abandon our commitment to renationalise the rail network in the run-up to the 1997 general election. Had we stuck with that commitment, it might have deterred the Conservative Government from privatising the rail network. Preventing them from doing that would have been a good deal for us all. Unfortunately, we backed down, which in my view allowed that Government to go ahead with their rail privatisation policy.

Will the hon. Lady explain why, under British Rail, passenger numbers remained static or declined over a number of years, and why it was only after privatising the railways that we started to see a steady growth in the number of passengers.

The answer is extremely simple. The clogging up of car transport and the gridlock in our towns was such that people abandoned their cars in favour of railways. That is why there has been an increase in the number of train passengers. I am delighted that people are abandoning their cars and coming on to the railways. My worry is that the chaos on the east coast main line experienced by myself and by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) during the six months between late summer and last spring has put people off. Those living in Leeds started to get back into their cars for business trips down south.

Personally, I did not forsake the railways—I persisted—but I had a hard time. I had reached the point where I felt that we simply could not go on as we were with the existing Railtrack organisation. It was putting many of my constituents and myself into great difficulties.

This is the first time that I have heard a Labour Member saying that had Labour stuck to its views, privatisation would not have happened. However, if privatisation had not taken place, would we not have seen the entire rail network, rather than one section of it, brought to a standstill by unions over the past couple of days.

That has no bearing whatever. I said that it would have been good to persist with the threat of renationalisation because it might well have deterred the previous Government, whose plans could have been put to naught if we were elected. The Conservative Government would have thought twice and perhaps sought better solutions. They made a dog's dinner of privatisation, as even some Conservative Members would agree, and the travelling public are paying the price.

Hon. Members based above and beyond Leeds well know the problems experienced with Railtrack during the six months that I mentioned earlier. It started with Hatfield; who could fail to be critical of Railtrack about the happenings on that dreadful day? A whole train came off the track when the steel split. I should have been on that train. I do not often thank Robert Kilroy-Silk, but he invited me on his show that morning, so I went to Borehamwood and missed that particular train. I caught a later train at Stevenage.

I must give credit to GNER. Many people stood on that platform not knowing what on earth was going on. Eventually word came through about the derailment, though we did not know that the rail had split. We waited on the platform and a train came within three-quarters of an hour. After such a dreadful incident, it is a great credit to the men and women who operate the railways that another train was up and running in such a short time. That was the beginning of things going wrong last winter.

I remind the Chamber that I am a minor shareholder in Railtrack; I probably own a few more shares than the hon. Lady. She and I would agree that safety must be paramount on the railways. I share her concern about the broken rail, and the Select Committee investigated that further. Can the hon. Lady advise me? Is the dispute with the RMT about pay, or were two union members found to have seriously breached the safety code? If safety is paramount, should they not be disciplined for breaching the code?

I have no knowledge of the internal organisation of the RMT, so I know no more than the hon. Lady. Breaches of safety should be disciplined because the safety of the travelling public is paramount.

I shall continue with my list of moans about what affects the travelling public in the Leeds area. After Hatfield, things were getting a little better, but then we had the floods, which devastated part of my constituency and had a dreadful effect on the rail network. The train lines from Leeds are like a spider's web. The Airedale and Wharfdale lines serve my constituency, and many of my constituents depend on those lines to commute to Leeds or to London. Many of the problems that we experience are down to Railtrack. It was responsible for the Hatfield accident, and the floods.

Throughout all that, we had the Leeds First improvement project. The work went on and on; well past what we were told would be the final date. I welcomed that much-needed project. There are now 16 platforms at Leeds City station. We used to have total gridlock—unusual on the railways—at the west end of the station, and I experienced problems taking the Airedale or Wharfdale lines into Leeds. Trains coming in from the various commuter areas were held up for 10, 15 or 20 minutes, which often meant missing the connection to London. That happened to me several times; it still happens occasionally.

We must deal with all the problems on the railways, because it is important to keep the travelling public on the trains and not in their cars. Three of my six grandchildren suffer from asthma, which I am convinced is related to increased road traffic. Cars are getting cleaner, but that is not the total answer. We must get people out of their cars and on to the trains; even buses would be better.

Arriva has been short of drivers on the Wharfdale line to Ilkley and on the Airedale line, which goes through my constituency up to Skipton. That is another problem of privatisation. The company's drivers were poached by bigger companies. Train services have been cut; in fact, Arriva had to rewrite the timetable completely. It is getting on top of the problem and has done a deal with ASLEF, whereby pay for Arriva drivers will be improved. I am pleased by that development, which will lessen the potential for poaching by other railway companies.

People's lives are seriously affected by train problems in the Leeds area. I have received hundreds of letters from constituents complaining about their inability to get to Leeds or to London on the east coast main line. One of my constituents works in a bank in Leeds and has a child minder to look after her two children. She said that a few weeks ago she was unable to give the child minder an assurance about when she would be back to relieve her because she could not be sure that the train from Leeds to Silsden would be running. Such problems emanate from faulty privatisation and are the result of bigger companies poaching staff from smaller companies such as Arriva.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply to my points. We must achieve an even greater movement of people out of their cars and on to the railway network. I welcomed the comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham and look forward to improvements such as those he mentioned.

Shipley, the railway station nearest my house, is 220 miles from London. I believe that six trains run each way, every day, from that station to London. I cannot moan about that service, which is excellent. However, Shipley is a bit short of car-parking facilities, which creates difficulties. I am sometimes tempted to drive to Wakefield, where GNER provides ample parking. At Keighley, in my constituency, there is a shortage of car-parking spaces. Providing more car-parking spaces at stations or having linking bus services from villages to railway stations with a good turn round at stations—as happens in the Harrogate area—would encourage people to use the trains rather than their cars.

I, more than anyone, am aware of the tragedies resulting from car accidents. I want less dependence on cars for that reason, as well as their effect on air quality. However, if dependence on the car is to be reduced, trains must be reliable, safe and cheap. If those three essentials cannot be achieved, we will be on a hiding to nothing, whatever happens to Railtrack or its successor, and we will not succeed in providing a rail network to be proud of. I am proud of it now, but there are things going wrong. The Leeds area has had a rough deal for the past 18 months, although there has been some improvement and Leeds City station is becoming a wonderful place.

I want assurances from the Minister about some of the matters that I have raised this morning.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on securing the debate in such an apposite week. I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about the present dispute. First, will he condemn the RMT for the disruptive action that is causing so much trouble for the travelling public this week? Secondly, if these wholly unnecessary strikes continue, will the Minister and his party sever their ties with that union?

The dispute is only one element of the chaos surrounding the rail network. I suspect that the Minister will talk about the problems that privatisation and the mismanagement of Railtrack have caused, but the Government must take responsibility for the problems on the rail network that their actions have caused. They have got it wrong on several counts. First, they failed to respond quickly enough to post-privatisation growth on the network. In the past five years, there has been an unprecedented growth in the number of passengers, but no action by the Government. Virtually no major enhancements of the network have begun.

In five years' time, the Government will not be able to deliver significant expansion to capacity because they have not started work on projects that can deliver that expansion. The only projects on the stocks at present are phase 1 of the west coast main line, a small widening project on Chiltern, the Leeds City station project and phase 1 of the channel tunnel rail link. That is all. The lot of the travelling public will not improve as a result of those schemes alone.

The Government are determined to take control by over-regulation. They have imposed an increasingly complex regulatory structure that is characterised by hostility between Railtrack and the regulator. There is a huge number of new rules and regulations that the Minister listed in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). In the past few years, 19 new laws have been imposed on Railtrack.

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about regulations. Is he brave enough to agree with me that although Lord Cullen made some sensible recommendations about improving safety on the railways, his recommendation on safety regulations was not so successful, as it added complexity when what was needed was simplification?

The important point, to which I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), is that Lord Cullen's report specifically stated that, since privatisation, safety on the railways has improved, not worsened. We all deplore what happened at Hatfield and Ladbroke Grove, but we must not forget that safety is improving, not worsening.

It is clear that the Government's so-called 10-year plan is not a plan. It is a vague collection of wishes and desires that does not represent the clear strategy that the industry is looking for. The Minister and his Government must address that.

The Government's other mistake, which the Deputy Prime Minister has now admitted, was over-dependence on Railtrack to deliver an investment programme that was far beyond the scope of any public company to deliver. That is coming home to roost. The Government expected too much of one organisation, with the result that they were instrumental in putting the burden of pressure on to Railtrack's management, as we have seen in the past few months.

Turning to the events of last year, it is certain that the Secretary of State did not understand the situation in the industry and was shooting from the hip when he decided to force Railtrack into administration. That ill-thought-out decision has destroyed confidence inside the industry. Railtrack was not insolvent; it was taking on a huge investment programme that required it to continue to raise enormous amounts of capital. To enable it to do that, it needed the Government's confidence and support. The Secretary of State withdrew that confidence and made it impossible for Railtrack to continue to deliver its promises. The Government must accept that their own action was fundamentally responsible for bringing to a halt the investment programme in the railways that might have made a difference to the travelling public in the next few years.

It is also clear that, in making his decision, the Secretary of State talked to no one. The Select Committee heard that he did not speak to the Strategic Rail Authority or to the rail regulator. He did not talk in detail about his thoughts and ideas to anyone in the industry. He made his decision on the basis of consultations within his Department and in discussions with professional services firms and investment banks that would benefit financially from his decision. That decision was regrettable, as a result. The situation was made worse because the Secretary of State has been, at least, inconsistent in his stories about the chain of events leading to Railtrack's administration.

Why does all that matter? Why do we keep pressing the Minister on the situation, his decisions and his discussions? It matters because the Secretary of State made a decision without thinking it through, without taking proper advice and without having a clear idea of what was to happen next. The immediate consequence is that investment has dried up. I shall give an example from one of my two local franchises, South Central. The special-purpose vehicle that was designed to deliver important improvement for passengers is now on the shelf because of the uncertainty in the industry. The situation has had an enormously adverse effect on morale among the Railtrack work force. Does the Minister not understand that many of the shareholders who lost their savings are the same people he expects to deliver improvements over the next few years? It is extraordinary that the Government fail to understand that.

I keep hearing Conservative Members saying that we should support Railtrack, but they refuse to tell us how much more money they would provide to support Railtrack. Can the hon. Gentleman give us a figure today, for the record?

I simply return the question to the hon. Gentleman. Does he believe that confiscating the assets of railway workers is an appropriate way to encourage proper performance in the rail industry?

It is very clear that if we had given rather less than the Government are now giving to the administrator, Railtrack would have been over the moon.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that.

The other fundamentally flawed decision by the Secretary of State last year concerned the franchise round. Within four weeks of taking over his job, he intervened in a process that was close to delivering long-term franchises and a long-term commitment to companies such as GNER, which would then have been able to deliver investment of the kind that the hon. Member for Keighley seeks to improve the quality of the services that her constituents enjoy. The Secretary of State's decision to revert to two-year franchise renewals brought that process to a complete halt. I have been told by rolling stock companies and train operators that it has fundamentally damaged the process of investing in infrastructure and new rolling stock, and that is greatly to be lamented.

Now we see the Government scrambling around in all directions, trying to work out what happens next. On the funding front, I asked the Secretary of State a few weeks ago whether Railtrack's successor will operate within the same budget as that set out for Railtrack for control period 2 over the next five years. The answer was yes. Now we learn that that was not true. In fact, the rail industry will get an extra £4.5 billion that the Government denied to Railtrack, although Railtrack had told the Government that it would be necessary in order to bring the network up to a level of quality that would improve the lot of the passenger.

There is a singular lack of a strategy for the industry. We hope next week to see the Strategic Rail Authority's plan to implement the Government's ambitions. However, even that plan seems to be veiled in confusion. It was drawn up by the previous chief executive of the SRA, who was sacked when the new chairman took over in December. I am not sure whether the plan is Richard Bowker's or Mike Grant's. That may not matter anyway, because John Birt has now been brought in to draw up another plan for transport. It is interesting to note that this is the second time that the Government have brought in a senior television executive to try to sort out our transport infrastructure. It did not work last time, although Lord Macdonald is still a Minister, so why should it work this time? Have the Government considered bringing in experts on transport, rather than television, to help them to deliver their transport strategy?

We have no clear idea about what happens next in relation to Railtrack. There is no timetable. If we ask questions, Ministers flannel. We do not know if the next owner of Railtrack will be public or private. Ministers have been reluctant to be clear about that in Select Committee discussions. We have no idea who will repay the debt that the Government are running up with the Railtrack administrator under the commercial loan agreement. By the end of the administration period, the administrator will owe £2 billion or more to the Government, and there is no clear indication of where the money to repay that loan is to come from.

We are starting to hear wild rumours about services. Will there be a Beeching 2, whereby we lose rural lines to create extra capacity on the main network? Will there be fewer trains so as to make them all run on time? That would be disastrous for people who are already crammed into their morning suburban trains.

Where do we stand? What can the travelling public expect? On my local line, we were hoping fairly soon to get platform extensions and longer trains as part of the South West Trains plan for its franchise extension; but no, that is on the shelf. The company told me that, given the current hiatus, it is unlikely that the work can be done until 2007. Many other renewals around the network are running late.

Yesterday I asked the Minister a question about when South Central, Chiltern Railways and South West Trains can expect their franchise agreements to be completed. I was told that it would be unhelpful for the Government to speculate. Is it really unhelpful for us to know when our local train companies will get the security that they need to invest in the future of their passenger services? On large projects, it is now impossible for the Government to deliver major investment programmes that will be open in five years' time. It is too late; it cannot be done.

There are other flies in the ointment. The Government are committed over the next few years to implementing the advanced train protection system—ATP—at a substantial cost. Yet people in the industry tell me that it will not be possible to deliver major enhancements to the network at the same time as introducing ATP. What will the Government do? Will ATP come first or second?

During an Adjournment debate that I secured at the end of last year, the Minister had to correct himself and say that he did indeed envisage a role for the independent rail regulator. Can my hon. Friend press the Minister to clarify the role of independent regulation if Railtrack were to remain in private hands?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I hope that the Minister was listening to that question and will be able to answer it at the end of this debate.

During a meeting yesterday with one of the rolling stock companies, I was told that, in effect, orders for new trains have dried up because of the current chaos in the industry. As a result, there will be a hiatus before passengers see the next generation of trains that are crucial to the Government's aim of meeting the growth targets in their 10-year plan.

My hon. Friend and I represent constituencies with a very high proportion of commuters, and in many cases it is commuters who are bearing the brunt of what is becoming a second-rate service. My own constituency has witnessed a significant decline in commuter services since September. Is the same true of my hon. Friend's constituency?

I have a constituent who keeps a record—he and I joke about it—of the performance of the trains that he catches to and from work. I asked him that very question a couple of weeks ago, and he replied that services have definitely deteriorated since the shambles of Railtrack's being taken into administration.

When will there be a clear timetable for investment in the network? When will the current franchise replacement round be completed? Will the Minister make it clear whether ATP or infrastructure improvements will come first? Bearing in mind the comments of the chairman of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), in this week's edition of The Sunday Times, will the Minister explain clearly what progress is being made in getting Railtrack out of administration? By what date will that definitely happen? Will he confirm that the changes will not mean cuts in services in order to deliver better statistics for the Government?

If bringing Railtrack back into permanent private ownership is so important and the hon. Gentleman is so committed to it, does he also think that it would be a good idea for all of our roads to be privately owned? What is the view of the road hauliers, who are good friends of the Conservative party, and of some car users?

As I have said, what the industry needs is a strategy, rather than the current directionless shambles. We look to the Minister and his colleagues to deliver the sense of direction that is lacking at the moment. If the Government do not recognise their mistakes and begin to deliver such a strategy quickly, the travelling public will face a bleak future.

It is a very rare occasion for a Welsh nationalist to congratulate the former colonial governor of Wales—as the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), was once known—but I am delighted to do so, because the debate that he has instigated is timely. There was almost an even more amazing occurrence, in that he was tempted down the path of supporting a rail strike, albeit of a different kind. However, he did not quite reach that point, so we must be contented with the rare event of a Welsh nationalist supporting a Conservative-initiated debate.

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the boycott of the railways proposed by BRAG on 1 March. I should make it clear, however, that what is proposed is not a strike, but simply that people withhold their use of a particular service.

The withholding of one's labour or service does indeed constitute a strike; that is what I should want to call it.

I want to discuss the railway infrastructure in Wales, particularly mid-Wales, in the light of recent events such as Hatfield and the Government's takeover of Railtrack in October. The Cambrian line in mid-Wales is one of the most rural lines in the United Kingdom. Although there might be some hesitation, I could name every rural railway station on it without fear of repetition—aficionados of the panel game "Just a Minute" would recognise the style of Clement Freud—for more than one minute and still not reach Machynlleth. I want to impress on hon. Members that the Cambrian line is a rural line that is absolutely vital to mid-Wales.

I spent a Christmas in Machynlleth, which I understand had the last Welsh Parliament about 500 years ago. Is it possible that the reason why the area is now governed by those other than the Welsh is because nobody could find Machynlleth? It is too far away.

That may have been the last time we had a Welsh Parliament but it was not the last Welsh Parliament; we have one yet to come. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman looks forward to that.

The Cambrian line has a two-hourly service and three trains on a Sunday. There has been no freight for at least seven years since oil delivery to Aberystwyth was taken off the rails, to the annoyance of anyone who now drives there; people get stuck behind tankers delivering oil that was once carried on rail. The clear single-line track that goes from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and up the coast to Pwllheli cannot be improved or deliver more than a two-hourly service unless a number of signalling and loop improvements are introduced.

The plan exists for a £6.5 million investment to improve the line by introducing an hourly service and to improve punctuality. Currently, punctuality stands at 50 per cent. to 60 per cent., so hon. Members can imagine how many trains are missed at connections in Wolverhampton and Birmingham after leaving mid-Wales and how many trains are missed when returning. The number of times that I have caught taxis from Shrewsbury—of course, at the rail company's expense—is an uncomfortable thought. A meeting on Saturday with the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth rail passengers association gave me further anecdotal evidence of how often that happens and how poor punctuality has been.

The good news is that there is a Wales and Borders franchise in place and significant improvements to services have been made by Wales and Borders as the outline franchisee for the whole of Wales. That has been achieved under present arrangements. The difficulty is that without infrastructure improvements, we will never have an hourly service or a proper rail service that the tourism industry, students at Aberystwyth college, general business and the public need in rural Wales. Such an hourly service would sustain, over long distances, the fragile rural communities of Wales.

The money for the £6.5 million plan exists. Although the National Assembly for Wales need not do so, it has pledged a significant part of its transport infrastructure grant; some £2.5 million. The other £4 million has been agreed, in principle, by the Strategic Rail Authority, but has been put on hold since October. I wonder whether that date is significant. Since October, Railtrack has told us that it cannot progress with the Dyfi junction loop and improvements on the Cambrian line; not because it does not have the money but because it does not have the engineers.

The Minister seems to agree on that, but train-operating companies have told me that the engineers could be found in private companies. We have also been told that Railtrack is prioritising major systems such as the west coast and east coast main lines; I have major worries about that. These are important UK-wide strategies but the Government face a difficulty because they are now responsible for Railtrack. Should they abandon rural routes in favour of main lines, or maintain a UK-wide and Wales-wide railway system?

Abandoning the Cambrian line improvement project is dangerous because it is the foremost priority for transport in Wales, as the Welsh Assembly has said. If it is improved, we will have proper rural railway infrastructure in Wales. The Assembly said that it was prepared to put in £2.5 million and the SRA said that it would put in £4 million, but we have not had the reassurance that smaller projects such as the Cambrian line will be pushed ahead. The abandonment of that project represents the abandonment of everything that is happening in Wales at the moment.

I press the Minister to look again at what is being done on the Cambrian line in particular and in Wales in general. The 10-year plan from the Strategic Rail Authority is expected in two weeks' time, and it must contain improvements to the Cambrian line in addition to upgrades in other parts of Wales. If that does not happen, a difficult, but ultimately successful, partnership that has been built up between the private sector—the train-operating companies and Railtrack—and the National Assembly for Wales will be abandoned, resulting in the loss of a huge sum of money from our transport infrastructure. Given the money available—there is a question about certain engineering facilities—those improvements must be seen to go ahead.

There has been an 18-month hiatus already, but we still do not have the all-Wales franchise that we were promised. Now there is a further hiatus with regard to a project that was supposed to start in October. That is not the way to run a railway. The Government's announcements indicate that the money and resources are there, but the strategy and management are not.

It is traditional to begin a contribution by congratulating the hon. Member who has secured the debate on securing it, which has always struck me as odd. I should prefer to congratulate the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) not on securing the debate but on his contribution, which was helpful. I also congratulate him on his recent newspaper articles, although I did not agree with all of them. In particular, his article in The Independent was a useful contribution. Like the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), I am conscious that we are debating the state of the railways, and I agree with him that we do not need Lord Birt to tell us their current state; they are in a parlous state, as anybody who tries to use them knows.

The state of our railways has not been helped in recent days by the unnecessary strike action by the RMT, and I suspect that many Government and Opposition Members agree with me on that point. Frankly, the RMT's leaders are off their trolleys because the travelling public need further strikes like they need holes in the head. If disruption of the type that we have seen during the past few days continues, we will see large numbers of people beginning to drift away from our railways—passengers may protest on 1 March, by boycotting the railways—which will lead to the increased congestion and chaos on our roads to which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) referred.

We will see the railways moving into decline, and RMT members will start to lose their jobs. Their action was foolish because it created chaos for the travelling public. I am in favour of everyone, including RMT members, benefiting from a successful railway. However, we do not have a successful railway, and RMT members ought to be working as hard as everybody else to ensure that we get one. That said, the hon. Member for Keighley praised many people who work on the railways. I am conscious that morale in the railway system is low, and it is incumbent on all of us to keep saying how grateful we are to the many people who work on the railways who are doing a good job. If we have criticisms, they are of management, and not of those who work on the railways.

What is the state of the railways? The Secretary of State, who appeared on GMTV this morning, summed it up by stating, "It is simply unacceptable." He is absolutely right; it is unacceptable, but what will be done about it? To re-formulate the three words used by the hon. Member for Keighley, how are we going to create a safe, reliable and affordable railway? Our current railway system is none of those three things, and we can all cite figures to illustrate that point. One set of figures that I was working on overnight is for delays. They were announced recently as a result of parliamentary questions that I asked before Christmas. An analysis of those figures demonstrates that in the first eight months of last year, compared with the first eight months of the previous year, there was a 70 per cent. increase in delays of five minutes or more on our railways.

Calculated in terms of numbers of working days lost, the figures demonstrate that last year an amazing 3,400 years were lost from people's lives as a result of train delays. Of course, business, too, lost large sums of money because those people were not working. There are many other ways of illustrating the current problem, but what are we to do about it? The real problem is that the Government's solution, which we have heard time and again—the Secretary of State repeated it on television this morning—is the 10-year plan, which is somehow supposed to solve all our problems on the railway.

The 10-year plan is a smokescreen. An analysis of what the Government say that the 10-year plan will deliver shows that it will not deliver very much at all. We are told that it is £180 billion for transport, but if we look at that at a constant price base it is only £157 billion at current prices. If we take away the money that is already spent on public transport—the public resource expenditure, the local council's pay and so on—only £109 billion is for direct investment in the transport system. Of that, the vast majority is to come from the private sector, meaning that only £54.7 billion of public investment comes from the Government. Some of that will go on public transport and our road-building programme, so £54.7 billion becomes £32.2 billion for public investment in public transport and less than 40 per cent. of that will go to the railways.

That comes to a staggering £12.7 billion. So of the £180 billion that should solve all the problems, the Government are putting in a staggering £12 billion. That might seem a lot of money, but it is little more than the Conservative Government spent on our railways. Indeed, some analyses show that it is less than the Conservatives spent on our railways. The 10-year plan is not the solution. I want to suggest a five-point plan that the Government could put in place straight away.

First, they could take action to tackle excessive fares by including in the new franchise round a further tranche of fares within the regulatory mechanism. They could also take tougher action on punctuality. I hope that they do not continue with the perverse penalty system. Secondly, they should publish immediately the Health and Safety Commission report showing where we are in respect of the implementation of Professor Uff's and Lord Cullen's recommendations. Have the 41 out of 89 recommendations in Lord Cullen's report that were due to be implemented by 19 December 2001, including improvements to signalling in the Paddington area, been implemented? The Minister knows the answer. It is sitting on the Secretary of State's desk, and I hope that we will be told today whether it has happened. Thirdly, the Government could reduce fragmentation by announcing immediately their plans to reduce the number of train-operating companies. Fourthly, they could simplify the regulatory machinery, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said. Fifthly, they could reform the whole regime and create a simpler structure by putting the rail regulator and the safety regulator into the Strategic Rail Authority, along the lines of the Civil Aviation Authority structure.

The Government could act on those five positive proposals to start reducing the chaos on our railways by sorting out the structure and allowing the experts to come in, and to start to manage the railway service so that it becomes safe, reliable and affordable.

I did not have the pleasure of hearing the Secretary of State on television this morning. He is especially beleaguered at the moment and it is as if he can do nothing right. I do not want hon. Members to think that we do not agree with some of his actions. I put the Opposition behind the Secretary of State in agreeing with his analysis of the railways. When he was asked on "Newsnight" on 20 December whether the railways had got better since the Labour party came to power, he said courageously, "Of course not. They have become worse."

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on securing the debate and on what we all seem to agree was a thoughtful and telling contribution. He got to the heart of the problem when he talked about the need, and the inability, to increase capacity. He also made some telling points about loading gauge and, implicitly, the need for continuation of the west coast upgrade. The Minister raised his eyebrows when my right hon. Friend talked about trying to get trains closer together. However, that is common practice on the continent, and in the channel tunnel Euro 3 signalling is used. As my right hon. Friend knows, the most important thing that we can do to increase capacity is to introduce such signalling on the entire network. At the thick end, that could cost approximately £8 billion to install, and shows why private investment is so important. It also shows the great loss of private investment from the Government's 10-year plans as a result of the Secretary of State's actions.

It was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I was in Keighley before Christmas and bumped into someone from the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society who spoke glowingly about the hon. Lady's contribution as a vice-president of that august organisation. It came as a surprise that she could write off a 25 per cent. increase in passengers and blame Railtrack for floods and pestilence. Her most telling comment was about Arriva and its desire for additional drivers. Arriva offered more money to drivers, and that is why there is a strike.

The strike is all about differentials. I never thought that we would return to the time of differentials. If we do not like the colour of our waistcoats, we go on strike. If we are not happy that a couple of our union officials have been disciplined because they have been careless with health and safety, we go on strike. We are now striking about differentials. The last time that there was a strike on the railways about differentials, Abba were at the peak of their powers, flared trousers were common, and Ministers used to go around secretly meeting trade union officials. It sounds as if we might be right to return to differentials, because that appears to be the current situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) talked a lot of sense about the strike. I would like to make a contribution. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is here. His constituent is forming a strike—for want of a better word, and it seems to me that the Labour party should show some solidarity. Those hon. Members who are sponsored by the trade unions and railways should return a day's subscription as a way of showing some solidarity with commuters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell was right to point out the £4 billion extra that the Government are having to fork out because of Railtrack. When Labour Members start to tease and ask what the Conservative party would do, they should remember that the Government are putting out more money than Railtrack was asking for. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) talked about the number of taxis that he has had to take from Shrewsbury. At least he can show some solidarity with and understanding for Lord Birt, who is a considerable expert in matters of taxis.

It is now three months since Railtrack went into administration. I remind the Minister that the Secretary of State said at the time that it would be out within three to six months. The Minister responsible in another place said yesterday that it would take many months. What is the real position? We know that the Secretary of State's decision is likely to be subject to two court cases — one concerning the shareholders, the other concerning Railtrack. We know that costs are beginning to spiral out of control due to problems linked to administration and that taxpayers are having to foot the bill. The administration is already costing the taxpayer £1 million a day, while fees for advisers are costing an additional £500,000 a day.

On top of that, there are many official and unofficial Government advisers. It may interest hon. Members to know that I have been making a tally of the number of people who are advising either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. The latest appointment for the Prime Minister has been made today, with Mr. Matthew Elson from McKinsey joining up. Other advisers include Wendy Thomson from the Audit Commission, Geoff Mulgan, who is working on a report on social exclusion and transport, Adair Turner from the CBI, Penny Hughes from Coca-Cola, Nick Lovegrove from McKinsey, and Arnab Banerji from F&C Management Ltd. This is almost like the middle years of Brezhnev, when each secret policeman had another secret policeman watching him.

There is an old joke about succession in Communist regimes and preparing three envelopes. I shall not bore hon. Members with it, but the final envelope contains the name of the predecessor. It seems that the Secretary of State is holding the third envelope, because today The Daily Telegraph quotes a Government source as saying:

"Unlike David Blunkett, who bought time at the Home Office by dumping on what Jack Straw had done, Steve hasn't taken the knife to Prescott's legacy— and that is maybe what he should do. It is all Prescott's legacy. Steve has been Transport Secretary for six months and the problem is over four years."

Never let it be said that I was not the first to announce a new Government strategy in the Chamber.

There are several questions to which we need answers. In particular, we need clear ideas on how the proposed new company limited by guarantee will be funded. We need to know the level of subsidy because we must ensure open competition in the running of that company, and other companies that may want to bid for the Railtrack business. We need to know where its responsibilities begin and end, and how it will be regulated.

The Secretary of State ran a coach and horses through the regulatory regime when he decided to put Railtrack into administration. When will Railtrack come out of administration, and who will decide where that business will go? Will the European regulations on competition be implemented? We must be sure that our railways recover from the disaster of the past three months.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on securing the debate on an important and topical matter. I am happy to deal with the points that he and his hon. Friends have made. I read with interest his article in The Independent on 2 January, entitled:

"We can solve all our rail problems by taking a more rational approach."

Nothing that I have heard from the Opposition today would lead me to believe that they had a rational approach.

I was interested to see that the right hon. Member for Wokingham seated himself next to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the Opposition transport spokesman. Who is the authentic voice of the Tories on transport? The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar points at the right hon. Member for Wokingham, confirming that the right hon. Gentleman is the authentic voice

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) asked about the Chiltern line. The SRA has briefed my officials on the shape of the emerging franchise. The position is being finalised and I expect a formal request for approval shortly, which will be good news for many people

The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) said that there were only two Labour Members present. I counted five at that time; there were as many Labour Members as Conservatives. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman is not here to hear that; he might read Hansard later, or his hon. Friends may tell him what I have said.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of the current strikes. The Government believes that disagreements over pay should not lead to strikes, especially in vital public services, because they cause great inconvenience to the public and will not contribute to railway recovery. I hope that both sides will get round the table and resolve those matters very soon. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) was advocating militancy and strikes. I look forward to hearing about him sorting out those problems with beer and sandwiches in the North Wiltshire Tory headquarters.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not give way because I want to respond to several points. The right hon. Member for Wokingham made a point about the £4.5 billion provided for the SRA, alleging that that was extra funding. All the elements of that so-called extra funding have been previously announced and have been public knowledge for some time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) spoke with great clarity and graphically outlined some of the difficulties and the strengths of the rail system in her area. She recognised that many improvements had taken place, and spoke about the integration of buses, road and rail. I can say to her and to the right hon. Member for Wokingham that local authorities have received substantial sums of money for local transport integration. My hon. Friend mentioned staff being poached from one company to another; an issue also mentioned obliquely when the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) spoke about the shortage of staff to carry out necessary work. The Department for Education and Skills has its framework skills strategy and the Strategic Rail Authority has its concept of a national rail academy, both of which should help to address the serious skills shortages.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion spoke about the line from Shrewsbury through to Machynlleth, which is vital to the future economic success of Wales, to the university of Aberystwyth and to tourism. The Government want progress made on that line as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman articulated the problem; it is a matter not of funding, but of finding people with the right skills to carry out the work. One reason why people may have been pulled away from such projects—only temporarily, I hope—is the massive underinvestment in other parts of the railway system, which has drawn some of the requisite expertise elsewhere.

Does the right hon. Member for Wokingham recognise this scenario:

We have gridlock. The rush hour begins at 6 a.m. and is still in full flow after three hours. In many parts of the south-east the traffic queue from one junction runs to the queue to the next"?

indicated assent.

I see that he does. So he should, as he made those comments in another article in 1996. There was no Labour Government then; he was talking, after 17 years of Tory government, about a lack of investment. To hear Conservative Members today, one would think that the rail industry was in a state of terminal decline. We heard Mr. Doom, Mr. Gloom and others from the Conservative side.

It would be helpful to hear an alternative viewpoint, so let me remind Conservative Members of some facts, however unpalatable they may find them. In the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01, total investment in the railways increased by 29 per cent. Over the past four years, the total length of the railway network increased by 20 per cent. In the four weeks before Christmas last year, record passenger numbers were registered.

One reason why more people are on the railways, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling), is that a million more people are working in this country, leading to more economic activity and greater use of the railways.

Equipping trains with the train protection warning system is proceeding apace, with 33 per cent. of trains already fitted. It is expected to rise to 75 per cent. by the end of the year, with the remainder completed by 2003. Numerous station improvements are also in progress or have already been carried out.

On 19 December, the Strategic Rail Authority set out its revised franchising programme to deliver short and long-term improvements to passengers. It is realistic, reflects the experience of users and strikes a balance between securing early gains for passengers that will make a real difference and longer-term investment. Last spring, the franchising programme was bogged down by delay, inactivity and lack of focus; today it is back on track. The rail industry welcomes the initiative and we now look to the train-operating companies to co-operate with the SRA to deliver improvements and restore public confidence.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham might like to hear what Michael Holden, the Railtrack southern regional director, wrote in a recent article.

"We might complain that it is politicians that have brought us to this, but I believe we should be concerned at the way in which our own organisations are delivering and as professionals staff actually sorting it out."

In the dark, cold days of the new year, we look for a little light relief, levity or even uplift, but I never thought that I would read about levitating trains, which the right hon. Gentleman's article mentions. In a breathtaking analysis, he says that steel wheels are heavy, hard and pummel the rails and that there are too many gradients and bends on our rails. With that clear, critical and intellectual analysis, I can see why the Opposition are in such a muddle—

Order. Time is up. I ask all hon. Members who are not staying for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly.

I am delighted to have secured this debate at the beginning of autism awareness year 2002. My initiating it is particularly appropriate because Ivan and Charika Corea, whose initiative autism awareness year is, are my constituents. They live in Buckhurst Hill, Essex, in the London borough of Redbridge with their five-year-old son, Charin, on whose behalf they have fought to access the services that he needs as a child with an autistic spectrum disorder.

Autism is a lifelong developmental disability. This complex condition affects the ability to communicate and socialise with others. Charin is one of an estimated 520,000 individuals in the United Kingdom with autism—60 per 10,000 children under eight, according to the Medical Research Council's "Review of Autism Research: Epidemiology and Causes", which was published last month. It says that

"the prevalence of autism in the adult population is not known."

Charin was born on 3 February 1996 at the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel by emergency caesarean, because he was suffering from foetal distress. By the age of 21 months, Charin had changed from an active animated baby into a withdrawn child who was unable to speak, made no eye contact and lived in a world of his own.

The diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder began a time of frustration, anger, desperation and exasperation for Ivan and Charika as they battled for appropriate care for Charin. Ivan wrote to me, other Members of Parliament, voluntary organisations, business people and celebrities. I stand here today introducing this debate for autism awareness year 2002 because of his persistence and commitment. There are many calls on an MP's time, as hon. Members well know, and there are many appeals to lobby for more resources for this underfunded service and that worthwhile cause. Before I met Ivan, I was involved with and supported many health campaigns, but my interest and involvement in autism is almost entirely due to Ivan, Charika and their fight for Charin

Autism awareness year 2002 began, Ivan told me, as

"a small acorn of an idea in our lounge".

It is now the largest ever autism movement in the UK, involving nearly 300 organisations as partners, including the British Institute for Brain Injured Children, the Disabilities Trust, the National Autistic Society, Parents Autism Campaign for Education and Autism London.

One of many pleas made by Ivan for support for the year found its target with the British Institute for Brain Injured Children, which took up the challenge to declare the year with the assistance of the Disabilities Trust. They set up a partners meeting for organisations expressing an interest, at the end of which they had an impressive ribbon to mark the year, which I am wearing, from an organisation called Allergy Induced Autism and an invitation to apply for a grant from the Shirley Foundation. It also supports the all-party group on autism

. I must acknowledge the excellent work of that group, which was formed nearly two years ago and is inspirationally led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). We have 145 Members from both Houses, including Ministers and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, and our meetings are interesting, informative and well attended

Autism awareness year 2002 is supported by 153 Members of Parliament who signed early-day motion 103 just before the general election last year. As a result of the campaign, the Scottish Parliament held a debate on 6 December 2001 on issues surrounding autism and a website to publicise the events and links of the year was launched by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), at the Labour party conference last October.

The year's events started this week with Autism Sunday on 6 January. January has been designated the month of prayer for autism, and members of churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples will pray together for autists throughout the UK.

On 11 February, the Patrick Gunawardena 2002 Education Awards UK will be held in the House to thank MPs, peers, parent groups, carers, charities and the media for supporting the autistic community. Patrick Gunawardena was a distinguished educationist from South Asia who also taught in the UK. On 14 February, an inaugural conference is scheduled to be held by the prestigious London health charity the King's Fund, followed by nine regional seminars

What is autism awareness year 2002 all about? The mission statement is to raise awareness through partnerships on the issues surrounding autism and to influence and inspire to action those individuals in key positions to facilitate the changes needed. The aims and objectives are to target the political, educational, health and social care decision and policy makers and primary budget holders; to improve awareness in the relevant statutory sectors, giving them much-needed knowledge of what autism is, its effect on the individual concerned and what can be done to bring about improvement; to inspire local authorities to take a long, hard look at autism and to develop and implement clearly defined strategies to deal with the increase in this condition; to influence the Government to ensure equity and equality for autistic individuals; to achieve for parents with children who are autistic the ultimate benefit of being able to gain access to needed services in their local community; to work towards inclusion of those with autism at all levels; and to raise public awareness beyond the myths

Why is it important to have a year-long campaign? When referring to Charin at the beginning of my speech, I said that estimates of people with ASD in the UK are at about the half million mark, but many who work in the autism field believe that that figure could be doubled, as many people are undiagnosed and unknown to the authorities. That is why I strongly support the all-party group's call for clear data gathering by the Government, so that proper planning and provision can be made for the services that ASD people need.

Other important issues relating to autism are illustrated by the following statistics and facts: 33 per cent. of adults with autism have no social involvement; only 12 per cent. of those diagnosed with autism are able to work; ASD often falls into the gap between mental health and learning disabilities; only 38 per cent. Of people with autism or Asperger's have a community care assessment, and of those only 16 percent. Were offered one; only 45 per cent. of those assessed received the services specified in the assessment; 49 per cent. of adults with autism or Asperger's are still at home with their parents; the average lifetime cost of supporting an autistic person is estimated to be £2.9 million, excluding the loss to the economy of autistic people who cannot live independently or earn their own living. The total cost to the economy is about £1 billion a year.

The British Institute for Brain Injured Children tells me that the Government are already spending a great deal on autism indirectly, for example on tribunals. A survey by Parents Autism Campaign for Education found that a quarter of its sample had to resort to special educational needs tribunals to get the support they need in several examples: administration and specialist time while the duplication of assessments continues; during transition with accommodation costs and mentoring for adults diagnosed late; meeting the cost of mental health problems caused as a result of late or misdiagnosis and family mental health problems; the prosecution through the criminal justice system of undiagnosed adults and adolescents and those with inadequate support in the community; and excluded children. Above all, autism awareness year is a golden opportunity for families, carers and all those working for people with ASD to shout loudly about autists' needs.

The courses of action identified by groups and individuals who have contacted me include an urgent need for routine screening of young children before going to school and throughout their education; more investment in research into the causes of autism with ring-fenced funding to ensure that it is given the priority it deserves; more investment in schools, specialist units, early intervention and support services including residential and respite care, again with designated funds; increasing awareness of accompanying physical problems, including food allergies and bowel disorders; the need for a diagnostic one-day one-stop shop to prevent concerned families from being passed to a succession of different professionals to secure a clear diagnosis; establishing a clear pathway from diagnosis to intervention to give families proper support; an initiative to promote autism awareness and skills training for all who work with people with autism; recognition of and provision for adult autists; access to appropriate education from pre-school onwards; consistency and equity in funding allocation—the PACE survey found that over a third of parents of autistic children reported difficulties in obtaining LEA funding and a fifth of over-fives received no funding at all; budget pooling by local agencies; the need for autism to have its own classification and not be categorised as a learning difficulty; and increasing the availability of qualified experts including specialist teachers, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, which has been a particular problem in my area for some time. A number of worried families have contacted me and I have raised their concerns with the local health and education authorities and in the House

Redbridge primary care trust has arranged a series of meetings for parents and carers, including one tomorrow. Furthermore, Ivan and Charika have heard that there is a local education panel meeting tomorrow to discuss the future of Charin's specialist speech therapy and educational support. They, like so many other parents and carers, feel that they should not have to keep battling for their child's rights. I agree with them.

I pay tribute to the work of local groups that have provided me with information and whose members are tireless in their support for others as well as coping with their own children's needs—some have several ASD children themselves. Redbridge Parents in Partnership, with which I have a long association dating back to my time as a local councillor, celebrates its 10th anniversary in May and I must acknowledge the work of Redbridge Autistic Families Together, Parents of Autistic Children Together and the Autism Professional Interest Group, which are compiling a Redbridge guide to social and communication difficulties services.

In particular, I acknowledge the assistance given to me for the debate by Fiona Loynes, the policy researcher for the all-party autism group; Pam Brooks from the British Institute for Brain Injured Children; and Milena Inzani from Autism London. I leave almost the last word to my constituent, Ivan Corea, whose dream for autism awareness year 2002 has been realised:

"I am really excited by it all. I have worked so hard to raise awareness of the condition as a result of the stress and trauma we went through regarding Charin. It's been so exhausting, but it's worth it. It's wonderful to see it all happening."

I know that the Government and the Minister are prepared to listen and that progress has been made in the past few years on several concerns of those who work to improve the lives of autistic people. I hope that autism awareness year 2002 will act as a springboard for real and sustained advances in the treatment and understanding of those with autistic spectrum disorders, so that those special individuals can achieve their true potential

First, I declare a non-remunerated position as a special councillor on the national council of the National Autistic Society. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham). In bringing the debate to the Chamber, she does a service to us all, particularly people with autism and their parents.

Autism is now almost a mainstream issue in the Houses of Parliament. A huge amount of progress has been made, and I congratulate the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who chairs the all-party group, on their role in ensuring that when MPs receive constituency casework, as we all do, they not only have a better understanding of autism, but are able to stand shoulder to shoulder with their constituents, as the hon. Lady has done this morning. We must ensure that the support that we give our constituents helps to improve their lives.

Autism is a complex condition, primarily because it covers such a wide spectrum. That in itself can cause difficulties. I shall concentrate on the aspects that I believe should be given priority during autism awareness year to ensure that awareness is translated into appropriate action and support.

It is sometimes said that autism is a rare condition, yet it is estimated that autistic spectrum disorders are approximately four times more common than cerebral palsy and 17 times more common than Down's syndrome. Autism touches the lives of 500,000 families in the UK, and many health, education, social services and other professionals routinely come across people with autism. Problems arise if the professionals do not recognise or suspect autism. If they disregard the significance of the symptoms presented to them or, even worse, make an inappropriate referral or treat the child or adult for something other than autism, that can lead to a downward spiral for the patient. That is the worst-case scenario.

In autism awareness year, we must ensure that the general public are more aware and we need them to be more tolerant when they come across someone with an autistic spectrum disorder. Prejudice in any form is to be abhorred, and it prevents true integration for those with autism. Bullying at school and unkind remarks are still severe problems for children with autism.

Autistic children grow into autistic adults, and a difficulty is that what most people might consider to be odd behaviour—I am always cautious about the use of language and I hope that I have chosen the right words—is sometimes thought rather threatening. Adults will tolerate inappropriate behaviour in a young child, but they are less sympathetic to a strapping young lad in his late teens or an adult in his 20s. They may see the behaviour as threatening, but those of us who deal with autism in our daily lives know that it is just normal autistic behaviour. The general public must develop a much wider tolerance and understanding of people with autism.

I shall touch on professionals and the role that they can play in autism awareness year. It is disheartening when parents take their child to a GP or a hospital specialist and their knowledge of the child is dismissed. Professionals sometimes think that parents become over-emotional, but parents are emotional about their children—I become emotional about my 32-year-old—and that never changes, even when they are 50. Parents may be able to make an important contribution to a diagnosis, and that should not be dismissed because they are emotional about their child. Living with autistic children is not easy and it is not surprising that their parents are sometimes emotional. The professionals should be open minded when parents attend a GP's surgery or a hospital with a child who may be autistic.

We rightly demand of medical professionals that they err on the side of caution if they are unsure and refer the child or adult—late diagnosis is not uncommon—to someone with experience of working with and diagnosing autism. It is different from many other conditions, so a degree of specialism from the medical profession is required to ensure that the diagnosis is accurate and to obtain a clear picture of where the sufferer is on the autism spectrum. That is important in drawing up a programme to help sufferers and their parents or carers. I hope that autism awareness year is recognised by all professionals and the medical profession in particular

During an Adjournment debate on Asperger syndrome, I flagged up a matter of great concern and I hope that you will indulge me, Mr. McWilliam, if I do so again. Adult sufferers, particularly those at the more able end of the spectrum, often develop mental health problems on top of the autistic condition. The hon. Member for Ilford, North referred to that. When such people come under the remit of mental health professionals, the autism may not be recognised. If there is a misdiagnosis, the patient may be sectioned under the Mental Health Acts or be given inappropriate drug treatment for a condition other than autism.

It is important that mental health specialists—there are very few who specialise in autism—are able to look through the mental health problems to what we would describe as normal autistic behaviour. The two are often confused and if sufferers get into a downward spiral of mental health treatment with drugs and in-patient stays—it is traumatic for people with autism to go into any hospital, particularly a mental health hospital—their problems are compounded. I say to the health, social services and education professionals, "Autism awareness year is your year as well." It is a year for professionals to make appropriate referrals and to understand that providing the best educational opportunities—many sufferers have huge potential—requires more than just a little more one-to-one attention. It requires understanding, case by case, of the way in which the condition manifests itself and best practice in maximising each child's potential.

The hon. Member for Ilford, North made two comments that rang a bell with me. First, she rightly said that services are patchy. Where someone lives should not affect whether they have access to appropriate services, and standards must be raised uniformly throughout the country. Secondly, she referred to the experience of her constituents in the case of Charin, using the words "fought" and "battled". As Members of Parliament and hardened politicians, we are used to fighting our corner and fighting battles, but far too often weary parents have to fight too great a battle. They are frequently at a loss over how best to deal with a child and serve its best interests. It should not be that way, and I hope that by the end of this year the battle will have been fought and won.

It is an honour to speak in this timely debate at the beginning of autism awareness year, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on securing it. I also congratulate her on many aspects of her contribution. Seldom have I heard such a good summary of the conditions that affect autistic people and the patchiness of service provision in this country.

It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who is a constant battler on behalf of autistic people. As she said, today's contribution is not her first in such debates, and it will not be her last. My hon. Friend and the hon. Lady were kind enough to say good things about the all-party group on autism, which I have the honour to chair, and they also said some nice things about me, although I should point out that the group's successes are ours, not mine.

In the two years since the group was set up, my admiration for fellow Members of the House has grown tremendously. Not once has anyone attempted to use this issue or the group for party advantage. Everyone has worked together closely, criticism of the Government has been constructive, praise has been given where due and everyone has offered both criticism and praise. In turn, the Government have responded in the way that we would like Governments to respond always. They have been open, taken up some of our ideas, been prepared to discuss matters with us and helped to move the agenda forward.

The success of the all-party autism group also owes a great deal to the steering group and those outside the House who support us and work with us to ensure that we have information. Thanks to the readiness with which the Government have accepted our ideas in the past two years, we have, in effect, been pushing at an open door, and they should be congratulated on that. A huge task remains ahead of us, however.

I pay tribute to Ivan, Charika and Charin Corea, who have fought hard in the past few months to establish autism awareness year, and it is wonderful that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North has secured this debate, given that she is their Member of Parliament. This year is also the 40th anniversary of the National Autistic Society, and I hope that the events associated with that celebration and with autism awareness year enable us to do a great service for autistic people by raising awareness of autism to new levels by the end of the year, not just in the House and among the Government, but throughout the whole country. I also congratulate The Times, which ran its Christmas appeal in aid of the National Autistic Society. In the past month, it has published a series of excellent and informative articles on autism, and it has done a great deal to raise awareness of the issue in the run-up to autism awareness year.

What is important, however, is not how we start the year, but how we end it. We should judge the year on whether we have moved the agenda forward, got more resources into helping autistic people and put an end to the patchy services throughout the country. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is responding to the debate, as I believe that she has the ear of a man at the Treasury who has the ear of an even bigger man at the Treasury. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said, autism has an economic dimension. It costs £1 billion a year and has a lifetime cost that is pocket change short of £3 million per autistic person. Those costs can be reduced, but only by putting resources in early.

The all-party group has found that assessment in schools is far from adequate or uniform. All children should be assessed as toddlers to discover whether they have autistic tendencies, and as soon as those are picked up, resources must be put in to help. The more we intervene early and the more resources we put in, as day follows night we will get better outcomes. People will need less support later in life and will be able to make a bigger and more viable contribution to supporting themselves and to the country. We must put money up front to save it at the end. That will eventually involve joined-up thinking between social services, health and education authorities, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that everyone works together to create a uniform service.

I want briefly to tell hon. Members the story of a constituent of mine who introduced me to the problems of autistic people, but I am afraid that it does not have a happy ending. About four years ago, two mums and a dad came to see me. All had recently found that their children were autistic as toddlers and decided that they wanted their child to have a therapy called the Lovaas technique. However, they were denied that therapy by the local education authority.

The parents decided that one of them would take a test case to the SEN tribunal, and they came to see me about a week before to tell me what was going on. After hearing the case, the tribunal decided that the LEA was within its rights to deny Lovaas therapy, because it was not proven to be better than any other therapy that might be available.

Having won the case, the LEA decided to be generous. It gave Lovaas therapy to two of the families, but not to the one that brought the test case, because that case had been rejected. Those parents had to provide Lovass therapy from their own financial resources. As a result, the family was brought to the brink of financial ruin. A few months ago, the grandmother approached me to update me on the situation. She said that the child had made great progress over the past few years through Lovaas therapy, entirely financed by the family, and they had concluded that it might be possible for the child to have a mainstream school place. That would have been impossible without that privately provided intensive therapy.

I contacted the local education authority and received a letter in December saying that it had identified a mainstream school place for the child and would hold a multi-agency meeting, which takes place next week, to discuss how to support the child's return to mainstream school. The fact that the child can return to school is entirely due to the family's independent private financing of Lovaas therapy, at no expense to the LEA. Having sent the letter to the parents, I found that they knew nothing about the meeting. The LEA had not even told them that discussions were going on or that the meeting was to take place next week—all that was done without their involvement. Nevertheless, they were delighted.

Unfortunately, this week the father telephoned me to say that their marriage has finally broken up. The strain and financial consequences of providing the care proved to be too much of a struggle. That is the result of lack of support for a family that we, through the local education authority and the state, should provide. Consequently, the child will not make progress, the costs to the nation will be higher and the personal costs to the family are enormous. At the end of autism awareness year, we must be in a position whereby such families get the support that they need from the moment that they are identified as having an autistic child right through to their education and throughout adulthood.

Let us not forget the plight of autistic adults in this country. For example, 60 per cent. of autistic adults do not find out that they are autistic until they are 16. By that time, they have been through school and they have lost the opportunity to get the support that they need. They become more dependent on the state after that, and we must deal with the problem

I conclude with this brief analogy, which I have used several times, including at the all-party group's last meeting. Every Member of Parliament knows the syndrome represented by what I call the shopping bag lady. She comes to an MP's surgery with a plastic shopping bag full of letters. In my experience, such people are either involved in a court case that they have taken through every court in the land— nobody can understand it, but they think that their MP can help—or they are mums with autistic children, which means that the shopping bag is full of letters that they have had to write over the years in an attempt to get either recognition for the problems that they face or the right sort of support or to get their doctors to recognise the condition. Some have to struggle to get the child's dad to recognise the condition, as mum often spots it before dad.

For many months, such a woman will be told by her GP that she is "a silly worrying mother", which means that mum must battle with the GP to get recognition. Having obtained recognition from the GP, she must battle with the education authority and the health authority. Eventually, when the child gets older, she will battle with the Benefits Agency on his or her behalf. Those plastic bags are full of letters that such women have to write to get services that ought to be automatic and available everywhere. If we start to change the way that agencies provide support for autistic people so that fewer shopping bag ladies have to attend our surgeries, autism awareness year will have done its job.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on introducing the debate. I also congratulate her and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), on raising parliamentary awareness of autism.

As Members of Parliament, we have all touched the lives of the families of those who have the condition known as autism. There are common denominators in every case with which I have dealt. There is always a high level of frustration centring on diagnosis, as well as wrangling or battling—a common theme this morning—about responsibility and funding between different statutory bodies and about the appropriateness and quality of support. I deal with parents, carers, professionals and people with the condition who come into my surgery. That experience was described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton reminded me of a recent case involving a young person who has Asperger's syndrome whose social worker had gone off on long-term sick leave and not been replaced. I intervened, and another social worker was appointed. I had cause to speak to the new social worker, who had a specialism in disability. When I asked, "What do you know about Asperger's syndrome?" she looked me in the eye and said, "I'll be quite honest, absolutely nothing." She knew about other disabilities, but not AS, so I handed her a copy of the Adjournment debate introduced by the hon. Lady, because it set out so well not only the symptoms but the difficulties faced by young people with AS.

I pay tribute to the tremendous work by the National Autistic Society. Its interrelationship with the work being done in Westminster has been vital to moving the agenda on. Members of Parliament, professionals, and—to a degree—the public are now more aware of the condition of autism, but awareness must be further raised, so this year is important.

Many statistics and much information about autism have been provided by the previous three speakers, and I fully endorse everything that they said. I decided that from the outset I would concentrate on the specific disability of Asperger's syndrome. AS often baffles parents, carers, professionals and colleagues—if the individual is lucky enough to be in work—more than other disabilities on the autistic spectrum because it is high functioning autism. Many people with AS have qualifications and good language skills, so without spending some time with them and going beneath the surface, it is not necessarily possible to pick up the fact that there is a problem or disability. It is so easy to assume that such individuals are functioning, but so wrong to do so.

The behaviour of people with AS is characterised by huge difficulties with social interaction and by rigid thought patterns. They find it immensely hard to read social cues and they display obsessive behaviour. When they reach adult life, they have tremendous difficulty integrating. Life is much harder as an adult: as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, a young person or child is allowed certain quirks or oddities, but allowances or tolerance for such behaviour disappear for adults. People with AS have great difficulty in holding down a job: as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said, only 12 per cent. are in full-time employment and almost 25 per cent. of adults with AS do nothing at all. They are often housebound because they do not possess the confidence or social skills to go out, make contacts, have friendships and establish emotional relationships

In effect, AS puts individuals betwixt and between because they display no apparent physical difficulties and are coherent on the surface. The intolerance of other adults towards adults with AS is hurtful to those with the condition. They are often ridiculed, shunned and bullied. Life is cruel to them. Their intelligence, which is often average or above average, enables them to compare themselves with their siblings and peer group more effectively than other young people with autism. They know that they are unable to achieve the rites of passage of their peers and siblings, and they can predict what life holds in store for them with a fair degree of certainty. They know that they will be lonely, that they will not establish friendships, and that they will not be able to form a long-lasting relationship or marry

It is hardly surprising that such people have low self-esteem, and that they are often clinically depressed and have mental health problems. It is also unsurprising that about 8 per cent. of this group commit suicide. I would be interested to know whether Government statistics state how many suicides are committed by young people with AS. I suspect that the number is high.

The hon. Lady will recall that I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), to examine that question in my Adjournment debate on Asperger's syndrome. I hope that the Department of Health will consider it. A suicide or attempted suicide rate of 8 per cent. among that group is unacceptable. As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members know well, many such incidents are preventable.

I agree. That harks back to my point that the clarity of thought of young people with AS and the way in which they are able clearly to assess their life chances drive them to such a desperate state.

Such people have the right to have their needs assessed by local authorities, but only 38 per cent. receive a community care assessment, only 16 per cent. are offered one as of right—the rest must fight to get one—and only 50 per cent. receive appropriate services. For young people with Asperger's syndrome, a key stage of life comes at the age of 18, marking the transition from adolescence to adulthood. However, only slightly more than half had a transition plan in place at that stage, and 65 per cent. of adults had no community care plan. Parents are confused and do not know which statutory service is responsible—indeed, the responsibility often falls between agencies, and because no lead agency is identified, people constantly fall into the gap between mental health and learning disability services.

The Government have made significant progress in their work for people with autism and Asperger syndrome. The White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" does not preclude those with AS from benefiting from such services if that is the best way to meet their needs. Prominent in the guidance is the fact that young people with AS may require an assessment of their social functioning to establish their level of need. That principle is sound, but everything is dependent on practice

I would like to explore the statistic that only 12 per cent. of young autists are in work. Attention must be and is beginning to be paid to access opportunities for employment and to continuous support for young people in employment. Local authorities have just produced the first of three annual investment plans on welfare to work for disabled people, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

I dealt recently with two cases involving young people with Asperger's syndrome. They came under the remit of the Employment Service disability team and the Interwork scheme. One should be entering the scheme in the next few days, albeit after a long haul. The other is currently in the scheme, but problems have developed and that young person cannot contact the Remploy Interwork job coach. He is depressed about certain events at work, but his job coach is inaccessible. I am sure that the scheme works well for many young people, but it must work well for them all. The case illustrates the fact that greater rigour is needed in the systems to support those young people

I acknowledge that there is good practice on the ground, but I smiled when other hon. Members used the same words—"patchy" and "battling"—as I had written when preparing my speech. Such words are typical of the cases that Members of Parliament deal with. Without a coherent strategy, I am not convinced that people with autism and Asperger's will get appropriate services. The key is Government guidance to local authorities, health authorities and other statutory bodies to clear up the confusion surrounding the appropriate support services and their responsibilities. People need unified support packages, but those are not currently being assembled consistently.

Life can be better for those young people when, rather than the current squabbling, there is adequate awareness, good training, unified support packages, clear lines of responsibility for funding and action and an identifiable gateway to services. Many parents do not know where to start and there must be a clear gateway of access. There is an absolute need for a transition plan from adolescence to adulthood, when continuous support is needed. The key is resources and the rigorous monitoring of the system, so that we know where it works, where there is good practice and where there are gaps.

Every young person with AS whom I have met has a great deal to give to their local community and to society. Their talents are being wasted and they are being consigned to loneliness and despair. That cannot and should not be tolerated. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet said, autistic awareness being so high on the agenda this year gives us a golden opportunity to make progress on the issues raised in this debate.

I did not intend to speak, but I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on securing the debate and to recount my experience of autism.

One learns a great deal when one becomes a Member of Parliament—that is what is great about the job. I was a teacher before I became an MP. When I started teaching in 1979, one lad in my class was described as autistic. Fortunately, he had full-time support in the class, but I had little opportunity to speak to his assistant and little knowledge of the condition, as I was given no background information about it. It was not until two or three years ago when I became a parliamentary candidate and constituents came to see me that I began to understand what autism is. That was 18 years after spending seven or eight years as a teacher and many more in the education profession. That is a frightening deficit—I hope that it is not so bad for teachers now. In retrospect, I realise how gaping was the void of my knowledge of the condition.

I learned more about the condition because people came to me for help. I pay tribute to Claire Franklin: she works tirelessly not only for her own child, but for others by attending special educational needs tribunals on their behalf, although she is less able to do so now because she fears the way in which the LEA will treat her child as a consequence. That is frightening. Jimmy Spence, who was a councillor on the Isle of Wight, first raised the issue with me. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who visited the island two or three years ago and met a large group of people, mainly mothers with children who suffer from autistic spectrum disorder.

My great interest is education, so I shall confine my remarks to how we can treat children better in the education system. I will also lean heavily on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who pointed to the need for a single gateway. As a former teacher and someone who has worked for an LEA in London, I see a great problem with the special educational needs legislation. The education service is required to take action, but other services "may" do so—"may" is a word that appears all too frequently in the legislation.

What goes on in the classroom and the school is only a small part of the education that the child needs. Especially in the case of a child who suffers from an autism spectrum disorder, it is no good to concentrate only on what goes on in the classroom. All too often, the SEN statement sets out only what the LEA must provide in the classroom and the school. It may refer to what the health authority or the social services authority do, but the LEA has no obligation to provide those services. The statement seldom provides for what goes on before and after school, or even on the way to school, and it almost certainly will not refer to the child's needs in the holidays, let alone to the needs of parents or of siblings, who often come second to the child with the greatest need.

I have a suggestion: in respect of SEN statements, the education service should take a leading role and accept the responsibility for meeting the financial needs of a child with an autistic spectrum disorder, whether that provision is made through education, the health service or social services. If a child needs language support, it is no good the health service saying —as happens all too Frequently—that it does not have the money and cannot provide the service. That would not be acceptable for the education service, and should not be acceptable for the health service. If parents need social services support in the holidays to provide respite care, or care for their other children, it should not be acceptable for the social services authority to say that it cannot afford that, any more than such an explanation is acceptable for the education authority. I hope that that single suggestion gives the Minister food for thought.

The debate has been considered and issues relating to autism have been carefully analysed. The hon. Members for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made eloquent cases and gave moving personal examples from their experience of people with autism.

Autism is a condition that has been fully recognised and brought to the attention of professionals and politicians only in recent years. That is due to the efforts of parents and families of those with autism, and they deserve praise. Those families and self-help groups have much in common with those who are fighting to raise awareness of other issues such as attention deficit disorder or endometriosis, which have not had medical and professional recognition until recently.

Before the election in June, I spent 22 years as a secondary school teacher, when I gradually became aware of the condition of autism. I taught several children with autistic syndromes in an 11–18 school, and last year I taught a girl in year 7 who had fragile X syndrome. My experience mirrors the research findings of the groups involved in raising awareness of autism: according to them, 70 per cent. of teachers have taught children with autism. During my career, I taught four who had clear diagnoses of autism and several others whose autism was suspected but whose parents were struggling to prove it.

The research shows that during teacher training only 5 per cent. of teachers have been taught how to recognise and deal with the syndrome—when I trained, 22 years ago, I received no special needs education training—and that a further 5 per cent. have been on a training day linked to autism at some point in their careers. I was one of the 90 per cent. who did not receive any basic training in autism awareness. The teaching profession needs to address that issue. We did receive training from the special needs department, which circulated information when children with the syndrome arrived, but that is no substitute for proper training.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful that he raises the question of teacher awareness. The National Autistic Society documented the story of a little girl with an autistic spectrum disorder who was disruptive during literacy hours when the children sat in a circle. An autistic-aware teacher, who had received training, realised that putting a coloured carpet tile in the same place each day for the girl to sit on was all that was needed to solve the problem, which went away.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that example. I taught a child who was regarded as "a problem child" because of his behaviour. He was very intelligent, but his behaviour was getting in the way of his education and that of his class. After three years, it was recognised that he might be autistic. As a result of that awareness and subsequent staff training, he completed his A-levels successfully and went on to university.

Increasing early awareness by screening at nursery school would make a huge difference to children's life experience. Integration in mainstream schools can work, as it does in so many areas of special educational needs. One eloquent example of that was featured in the question and answer session on The Times website on 4 December. A family posted this statement:

"My daughter, Beatrice, is timid, obsessional and falls very clearly within the autistic spectrum. She has been educated at our local primary and secondary school with the full-time support of an LSA. Despite initial reluctance from some members of staff, she integrated very well and took part as fully as she could in school activities. The other children became aware of how to relate to someone whose social interaction was different from theirs and gradually relished the responsibility that this brought. The staff appreciated that teaching styles could be adjusted in a way that was beneficial to the rest of the class … I strongly believe that this approach is what charity is all about. Far too often people feel genuinely that all they need to do is to sign a cheque or put their hands in their pockets and that will be enough. It is not.

Autistic people need their different behaviours to be recognised so that they are not left in complete isolation. This requires a willingness to re-evaluate attitudes and adopt a positive approach to those who do not conform to normal social codes. If The Times Christmas Appeal can get this message across I am sure autistic families will be extremely grateful."

Working and learning alongside people who are "different" is rewarding for both adults and children. Integration can work, but it carries a bill. That example involved a full-time learning support assistant, and a cost was attached to that.

In the new year and beyond, we must raise awareness of autism and deal with the funding of relevant professionals, the educational process and support in adult life. We also need more research into the causes of autism, which remain uncertain. Recently, controversy has raged over a potential link with measles, mumps, rubella vaccination. The Government, working with the medical profession, should fund further research into the causes. Important research is due to be published later this year. We need effective screening of young children even before they start formal schooling. Pilot schemes have provided good examples: CHAT, the checklist for autism in toddlers, is an excellent guide. Good practice should be adopted nationally. We need a clear diagnostic definition of the symptoms of autism so that people can recognise it. It is often a long time before autism is recognised, and parents often have to battle to convince health and educational professionals that autism is indeed the problem.

The Centre for Social and Communication Disorders piloted the diagnostic one-stop shop, which has been shown to work. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the pilot justifies rolling the scheme out across the country. What measures will the Government undertake as a result of increased awareness of autism? Funding remains important, and ring-fenced funding has been proposed to ensure that the money is not lost in the wider morass of social services funding.

This has been an excellent debate in which we have heard many well-informed contributions from people with experience and pedigree. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on securing this timely debate at the beginning of the year. Autism is topical for the wrong reasons—the recent publicity about the MMR vaccination has sidelined the real problems of autism, whatever its causes.

I am particularly interested in this subject in my roles as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on health and vice-chairman of the all-party group on autism. I join the general love-in by paying tribute to the group's chairman, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who showed such effort and determination in setting the group up. He has achieved much in promoting understanding of autism. I also congratulate the National Autistic Society, which has distributed little ribbons today, albeit not yet to me. In its 40th year, I congratulate the society on promoting awareness of autism, establishing educational centres and providing support to families and local authorities, setting up help lines, producing literature, training and encouraging research. It provides a huge amount of help.

In common with other hon. Members, I became more aware of autism and Asperger's when desperate cases came to light at my constituency surgery. I realised that the problem was more prevalent than I had believed. It is estimated that every constituency in England has an average of 848 people with an autism spectrum disorder. Autism affects perhaps 500,000 families in this country at a cost of more than £1 billion. It remains too little understood, though the position is improving.

Autism still suffers from the "naughty child on the bus" syndrome. Unlike a child who cannot walk, for example, a child with autism may have no physical signs of any disability. Autistic children often play up, as ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), but the problem is often dismissed as mothers being unable to keep their children under control. We must educate people that there is more to autism. We must understand that is it not just bad behaviour simply because we cannot see a physical disability.

The hon. Member for South Thanet mentioned The Times Christmas appeal. The articles were exceedingly helpful, in that they gave real-life examples of what it means to look after an autistic child growing into adulthood. It is difficult to determine whether the prevalence of autism is increasing or whether diagnosis is improving, but it is clear that early diagnosis is vital and that long-term pathways for treatment and care must be identified at an early stage. Only then can we provide the appropriate support that people desperately need and ensure that problems are noticed before they worsen.

We heard the statistics about lifetime extra costs and emotional strain on families. Joined-up provision is the vital key. PACE refers to the responsibility vacuum between the resources required and what is on offer from local education and health authorities. A common constituency problem we encounter is that of parents of autistic children who have no clear gateways—as the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) said, they do not know to whom they should go. The polite term is "ambiguity around responsibility", but the real term is buck passing.

Often, there is a vicious triangle. How many times have we dealt with the local education authority first, then the local council's social services department and, finally, the primary care trust within the national health service? The need might be for speech therapists, social workers, or extra support in the classroom. It is so difficult to obtain one third of the funding from each of three bodies; in some cases, it requires a great deal of work, and the effort, time and money wasted in getting to that point is intolerable. That is the battle—the word on everyone's lips—in which we politicians have to engage.

Disaster can result if such efforts are not successful: the police may become involved, or mental health problems may arise. I know one mother who had her autistic son arrested for stealing the family car, simply to jolt the local authority into providing her with the help that she desperately needed. Children or adults with extreme cases of Asperger's may be sectioned under the Mental Health Acts or given inappropriate medication, which may trigger a downward spiral. The hon. Member for Ilford, North gave us the statistics: people with autism disorders are five times more likely to commit suicide, one in 30 people with autism has felt suicidal, and one third of autistic adults suffer from depression.

Autism awareness year is important. A whole year is a good step up from the autism awareness week of previous years. Many events are planned. I pay tribute to the BIBIC for taking on the campaign and acting as facilitator, as well as to the Corea family—I am not sure how many times the hon. Lady mentioned her constituents—for the great determination that they have shown on behalf of their child. I am sure that the year will be successful and will bring enormous benefits for many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of families who have children with autistic disorders.

We parliamentarians can also take some credit, not only for the work of the all-party group, but for the 153 MPs who signed the early-day motion and for the support that we have had in the House of Lords. With the NAS and the 250 organisations that have added their support to autism awareness year, we can take some credit for raising the profile of the issue. Much else is happening besides the King's Fund conference on 14 February. The success of the year will be judged not by the number of people who turn up at individual events, but by its legacy of awareness among professionals and the public at large. That is what is important.

We must concentrate on five areas. The first is assessing the problem's extent, because we do not have up-to-date prevalence figures. There are too many differentials between counties'—let alone countries'—experiences, perhaps owing to different expertise and provision in different counties and their ability to assess the scale of the problem. We must have much better data and better ways of collecting and assessing data. There are different impacts at different ages in a child's development.

Secondly, we need to do more research into causes and to have a greater public awareness campaign. As the hon. Member for Ilford, North said, we need to dispel the myths. Unique among her colleagues, the Minister has been exceedingly wise and brave in indicating what she was prepared to do in terms of ensuring that her children have the MMR vaccination. Vaccination in parts of the country is down to 72 per cent., which may have an enormous impact. Measles is a killer. I have a 41-year-old constituent who suffered severe brain damage as a result of contracting measles at an early age. We need to educate the public much more, not merely flag up a possible link between autism and MMR. There is much more to it.

Thirdly, we need to do much better on early diagnosis. The average age for diagnosis of autism is six, four years after most parents seek help. We must treat early and provide suitable support to avoid regression into severe autistic behaviour. That is not necessarily difficult. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) mentioned the CHAT technique, developed at Cambridge university, which should be more extensively available.

Who takes the lead in spotting the signs of autism early? That is the problem. Is it the health visitor, the GP, other health or education officials or the specialist teacher when the child starts nursery or school? Often a family friend who knows a little about the subject notices something. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton: for goodness' sake, listen to parents—they know quite a lot, however emotional they may be when they turn up at a GP's surgery. In addition, it would be much more helpful if diagnosis were regarded as a signpost, not a label.

Fourthly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) illustrated so clearly from his experience, there should be much better support at school, both in the classroom and on the way to and from it. The problem is that autism is a broad spectrum with a high diversity of need. Inadequate statements are often given, which lead to long wrangles through tribunals. Learning difficulty tags often apply only to people with IQs of less than 70, but we have heard that many people with Asperger's have higher and often above average intelligence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton says, autism is an iceberg condition: at least two thirds is below the surface. We must tackle the enormous divergence in the experiences of LEAs and the availability of specialist teachers, particularly specialist speech therapists. We need many more special autism awareness units in mainstream schools, and we must strengthen the SEN code of practice.

Finally, we must provide support for the extended families and carers who deal with people with autism and who face the enormous emotional impact of doing so. The hon. Member for South Thanet talked about marriage breakdown; I have seen in my constituency how common that is, because of all the pressures. Furthermore, the economic consequences are severe. It is much more difficult to diagnose autism and Asperger's in adults than in children, because there are fewer contexts in which identification might occur, but only after diagnosis can suitable treatment be made available.

It is vital to support parents. The Sussex Autistic Society, with which I do some work, has get-togethers for parents and professionals. The children can be taken off their hands and entertained in specialist light and sound rooms, while the adults share their experiences. Training should be available for parents, and respite care is essential to give them a break from the constant pressure. We do not value carers enough, but we should make their job as easy as possible because they take so much of the burden off the state.

Today's debate and the work that will be done throughout the year are important to getting the message across to the public and increasing awareness of autism; only then will we be able to secure a co-ordinated approach. We must increase awareness among health and education officials and social services, and reflect the issue in employment policies. We need to reveal much more of the iceberg and to cut down the number of shopping bag ladies. Only after that has been done will we be able to have a debate that does not feature words such as "battling" and "patchy". The campaign has got off to an excellent start and I wish it well.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on securing a debate on this important issue in autism awareness year, and on voicing her constituents' concerns so powerfully. We have heard some passionate speeches from Members on both sides of the Chamber. They have extensive experience and expertise and they are right to feel very strongly about the issue. I also pay tribute to the all-party group: we often underestimate the influence and achievements of such groups. The all-party group on breast cancer, for example, has done a great deal to raise awareness of that condition.

As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, autism has, in effect, been mainstreamed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and we need to do the same throughout society. Too little is known about autism, not only in society in general but among professionals and experts. During this debate, many important points have been made extremely well, and they should be followed up. The key themes that have emerged are the need for more and better research; improved diagnosis and early intervention; improved medical and professional recognition and understanding of autism; better partnership working among the various agencies that provide support for those with autism and their families; ways to tackle the patchiness of services; better support for and greater involvement of parents; and recognition of the individual needs of those with autism and their families.

It is important that we acknowledge that autism is a complex condition that affects not only the individuals with the condition, but their families, siblings, parents, carers, teachers and school mates. It is not a simple problem to which there are simple solutions. The Government warmly welcome autism awareness year. I pay tribute to the efforts of the Corea family, who are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, in getting it under way. I also pay tribute to the extensive work done for many years by the National Autistic Society in raising awareness and expertise.

Progress is already being made in respect of many of the themes that have been identified, such as improved multi-agency working, improved partnerships and research, and increased emphasis on early diagnosis. I shall mention a few of the measures that are already contributing to improving the situation of those with autism and their families, and highlight some of the next steps and key opportunities arising from autism awareness year, especially the development of the national service framework for children. In responding to some of the points raised by hon. Members, I shall point out the steps that are already being taken and the areas in which we need to go further.

Research was mentioned by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), among others. It is clear that we need to know more about the causes and prevalence of autism. That is why last year the Government asked the Medical Research Council to undertake a major and detailed review of current knowledge about autism, and to suggest possible areas of further research. NAS and PACE were involved in that work and I thank them for their contribution.

The MRC published the report of its detailed review on 13 December last year. It provides a clear, authoritative picture of the latest state of scientific research, and reflects acceptance of the fact that autism is not as rare as was previously thought, although it notes that the apparent increase in the prevalence of autism is likely to have resulted from better diagnosis and clearer definition, as well as from increased awareness. The report suggests that many factors play a role in causing autism, and that the strongest evidence to date is that there is a major genetic component. In line with other independent expert reviews, the MRC group confirmed that the evidence does not support a causal link between MMR vaccination and autism.

The fact that the MRC carried out the review considerably strengthens the case for fresh autism research, as does establishing a highlighting notice relating to autism and mapping out the key areas for the most fruitful research. I hope that strong research proposals will emerge in many of the areas that the MRC identified.

Many hon. Members concentrated on services for those with autism. An important first step is diagnosis. We heard about the need for one-stop shops and a single gateway to improve diagnosis and early intervention, and that must be the way forward. We must make it much easier for parents to navigate an often complex network of consultations surrounding diagnosis. In many areas that is done successfully, and one of the challenges is to ensure that best practice in those areas is adopted across the board.

We are taking a close interest in an independent initiative, the national initiative on autism, which is chaired by Professor Ann Le Couteur and is investigating screening, diagnosis and early intervention. It is expected to report this year and we will take its conclusions extremely seriously. The Department of Health commissioned Tony Holland to produce a report on Asperger's syndrome. That report includes recommendations on professional groups increasing their awareness, the need for health and social services to work together, and the need for population-based studies in adults and children to establish prevalence. Work is under way to implement "Valuing People" and to provide services for people with a learning disability, concentrating on improving co-ordination between agencies to supply the focused and individual services that people with learning disabilities, including autism, may need.

Improvements are taking place in education. The revised SEN code of practice has been in place since 1 January, and the guidance on assessing the different areas of children's SEN specifically highlights autistic spectrum disorders. In 2002, the Department for Education and Skills autism working group will publish its good practice guidance, which will be important to raising awareness across education and improving best practice. The quality protects programme is also making a contribution.

Will the Minister give way?

I am short of time, so I cannot.

The area that I want to focus on in the short time that I have left—I apologise for rushing through the issues—is the national service framework for children, which is just beginning its work and will consider not only health, but partnerships between health and social services and between health and education.

The framework will deal with every aspect of children's health; it will not be able to single out every condition and disease for detailed attention. However, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and I have decided that autism is particularly important and we want to use it as an example of the way in which services should be provided. We want to make autism an exemplar under the national service framework, so that when the framework is concluded people will be able to see how services should be provided—usually through partnerships and covering many of the aspects that we have discussed today, including early diagnosis—to provide the best quality services for those with autism.

I strongly urge hon. Members with an interest in this issue to become involved in the debate on the national service framework for children. I have a strong regard for the national service framework because it is having a powerful impact on improving services and setting national standards throughout the NHS. It provides a great opportunity for those with an interest in autism.

I apologise for not being able to cover many of the matters raised, including issues relating to adulthood.

Time is up. We must move on to the next debate.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the standard spending assessment for Somerset. This seems to be a dreary ritual that we must go through each year. I seem to have been making precisely the same arguments for more than 17 years and I know that the Minister shares my background in local government, so he has probably been making the same arguments, on both sides of the fence, for an equal period. The sad fact is that, until the apportionment of local government finance is right, or at least approximately right, we must continue to make the case for the areas that we represent, and I certainly make no apology for speaking for Somerset.

It is good to see in the Chamber a full house of my colleagues who represent Somerset constituencies: my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger). I hope that our arguments are the same, because we are speaking for the communities that we represent.

I am familiar with the recitals that we must make on these occasions, and I shall not dwell on the structural problems with the present formula, because we are all familiar with them. Somerset is a rural county in the south-west and its local authority shares with many others the difficulty that additional costs in the county are not properly met by the formula—for example, the cost of providing a large number of small schools in a rural county, the cost of transport and the cost of providing for a dispersed population. We have more minor roads per person in the county than almost any other authority.

As the Minister and I are familiar with local government, let us not dwell on the more formulaic versions of this debate. I assure him that I am not about to wave shrouds or bleeding stumps at him, and I ask him to do me the favour of not insulting the intelligence of Somerset people by saying that everything in the formula is perfect and that Somerset has a good deal. We all know that that is not so.

I want to raise key matters, including social services, education, the Somerset levels and the problem of flooding and the cost of flood defence. I shall then refer briefly to district councils and the effect of council tax on those living in the county.

I start with social services, which cause enormous concern in Somerset. I was lucky to secure an Adjournment debate on 16 October 2001 when I drew attention to what is reasonably described as a crisis in the provision of long-term care in the county. I know that Somerset is not alone in experiencing that problem, but I also know that it is a matter of considerable concern to the director of social services and his staff and to many people who have relatives in long-term care or who require those services themselves. Care homes throughout the county have been closed, with devastating effects on people. Many businesses that provide care home facilities are precarious to the point of going under and there are real difficulties in providing domiciliary care to the standard required because of recruitment problems.

During my Adjournment debate, I received assurances from Ministers that were largely couched in the view that significant extra money was to be provided by the Government to help relieve what was recognised to be a serious situation for social services. They implied that it would make a significant difference to Somerset, which is, according to reputation and history, one of the best social services authorities. Independent assessments from the inspectorate and the Audit Commission have proved that the care provided by Somerset is of a high order; it was also one of the pioneers of effective co-operation between health authorities and the private sector.

The promise of cash has turned out to be illusory. There has been an increase of an extra £3 million in the base budget, but against that an almost equivalent loss has occurred—some £2.6 million—in the form of specific grants.

I shall draw the Minister's attention to three main points. The first concerns what are termed preserved rights, which relate to the income support that was available to residents before 1993 and is supposed to have been provided for in the settlement. The difficulty is that the figure has been calculated on the basis of the case load in December 2000 and multiplied by a factor based on the iniquitous area cost adjustment. That has resulted in a substantial shortfall between what is provided for by the formula and what is needed for dealing with real people in real communities who need real help. A figure need not be plucked out of the air because we have evidence, from information provided by the Benefits Agency, of how many people should receive the preserved rights money. The agency's figures, which are up to date and genuine, tell us that Somerset's allocation should be £6.3 million. However, under the formula that the Government have chosen to use, the figure is £5.5 million, which creates a shortfall of £800,000.

The second issue relates to residential allowances, which is the money that should be transferred to the county council to meet the cost of care packages when residential care allowances stop at the end of the financial year. In a 2001 paper from the Department of Health, the Government state that, if the formula is based on equity, Somerset should receive £1.29 million to meet the costs of that new responsibility. Instead, however, the Govt have used a formula based on the extraordinary machinations of the SSA and the area cost adjustment, which means that Somerset will be allocated only £850,000, creating a shortfall of £440,000. Perhaps the reason for the shortfall is that Somerset makes heavy use of independent sector placements. For heaven's sake, that is what the Government asked local authorities to do. It is part of the great partnership between the public and private sectors that the Government advocate. Somerset puts that policy into action and does what the Government want it to do even before they have thought of it, but it is penalised as a result, which cannot be right.

Promoting independence grants are the third element within social services. Recurrent expenditure should be continued because of winter pressures and because partnership and prevention grants are being put together. It has, however, been reduced for the inelegantly named winter PIGs—promoting independence grants for winter months—and the result is a shortfall of £1.4 million. The money that the Government claim to provide for social services with one hand is being taken away with the other, to the detriment of social services in Somerset and the dismay of people who rely on those services. The big question is why the Government do not use the actual cost of services for their calculation. Given that the services are available and that they are provided from their sources, why are they not used in the formulation?

The hon. Gentleman is putting the case for Somerset very well, and I strongly support his view that Somerset is badly treated in several respects. The Government have admitted that in past years, and we are looking for action. Does he agree that our case would be strengthened if we were to ensure that we were economical in our expenditure on functions such as the procurement of purchasing, which was recently the subject of an Audit Commission report, and on regional bodies and assemblies that have little public support and can absorb too much public money, which ought to be channelled into the areas that he is ably illuminating?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is important that the county council prioritises the areas in which it spends its money, and that it maintains the reputation that it has always had for frugality and care with public finances. The county council will make its own decisions about how to spend its money, and it is wrong for us to try to pre-empt those decisions. Nevertheless, it is essential that the county council retains its position, which it has held over many years and under varying administrations, of prioritising those areas that are most important to people in the county.

The area that has consumed the majority of funds available to Somerset over many years—way beyond the SSA allocation—is education, which brings us to a fundamental difference of opinion with the Government. I cannot accept, and I suspect that other hon. Members cannot accept, that the SSA per pupil in Somerset is so far out of kilter with that elsewhere in the country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence on this issue and his success in securing today's debate. Does he recall that at the beginning of the previous Parliament he received an acknowledgement from an Education Minister that Somerset has too low an SSA, which is unjustifiable? Will he press the Minister on the need to address that issue in the upcoming review of the education SSA so that the deficit in Somerset as set against the national average of about £200 per primary and secondary pupil can be dealt with as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister to which he referred, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), is now prominent in the education field because she is the current Secretary of State for Education and Skills. In the previous Parliament what was almost a repertory company assembled for Adjournment debates on the imbalance in the SSA, in which she admitted that the Government had got the education SSA for Somerset wrong. That was also recognised by the previous Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who used to talk about the Somerset factor, which was the factor of unfairness in the formula.

My children attend schools in Frome which receive £1,500 per year per child less than children in a leafy London borough such as Hillingdon. I am not obsessed with Hillingdon, but it is the borough in which the Prime Minister sends his children to school. There is a differential that cannot be papered over by reference to the extra costs of education because the SSA does not take into account the unit costs of a rural county. The result is a distorting effect on the other services that the council provides. Although the council rightly sees education as a priority and is prepared to spend massively over SSA provision, that squeezes all the other services that people expect the council to provide.

I must now be brief on my other points, as I want to leave the Minister time to reply.

Everyone knows about the issues of flood defence in Somerset. Half my constituency is under water during the winter months; the same applies to the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends. It is a massive problem. Somerset is dealing effectively with the problem this year, and the flood defence committee has put up its precept by 30 per cent. to carry out some of the work that the Government want. However, the Government have not given a single extra penny this year to help with those additional costs of £1.5 million.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing the debate.

It is not even a question of the Government providing the same amount as last year; they have given less money. Will the hon. Gentleman join us in asking the Government for at least matching revenues to put towards flood defence?

The hon. Gentleman is right, and if we want to take the issue seriously—it is becoming more serious as the years pass—we need the Government to agree that, if the defences are being put in place this year, the money should come from the Government this year, not some years in the future. It is no good for them to run away from the issue.

Most of my comments have concerned the county council, because it controls the majority of the council tax and expenditure in the county, but my next point concerns South Somerset district council. It made the valuable point to me that, although its settlement looks good on paper, it is not. It looks as if it has extra money, and it should have received additional money from the housing transfer in a Government grant. However, the capping procedure brought in by the Government means that the good citizens of south Somerset will not benefit from that; indeed, they will be put in a worse position, which is wrong.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way briefly and for the last time.

I believe that the whole of Somerset can be included in this point. The situation with foot and mouth on Exmoor gave rise to the same problem. The council spent £250,000, but did not receive any help from the Government. That is exactly the same situation as in south Somerset.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not know the situation in west Somerset, but I am sure that we would hear exactly the same points from people in Mendip, Sedgemore and Taunton Deane. There is no time to list every problem.

What is the result? I fear that we will have substantial increases in council tax again this year, not because Somerset or any district council, whatever political party controls it, has been profligate in its use of funds, but because of Government policy. That will be replicated in county and district councils throughout the south-west peninsula, and it is likely that the norm for south-west counties will be a council tax increase that goes into double figures. The Government will downplay the situation and say that the increases are likely to be only 5 or 6 per cent., or whatever figure they come up with. They try the same trick every year and then say that the councils must have overspent. We know the facts, and it will be an unsupportable increase. The impact on individuals will be disastrous, as they will have to find extra funds, often out of fixed incomes, without receiving any benefit: they get worse rather than better services, which cannot be right. I do not have time to go into the iniquities of the uniform business rate, but I could speak for another half hour about its effect on businesses in the county.

South-west authorities are treated badly by the current formula. The SSA per capita in the south-west is £876. It is £1,265 in London, £1,043 in the north-east, and £1,027 in the north-west. The England average is £995. Some time, some Government will have to get this right for the west country, because we are losing patience with a system that delivers so badly for our region and provides us with so little benefit. There are many factors—partly the SSA formula, which is to be reviewed next year, and partly the iniquitous area cost adjustment, which is unsupportable to anybody other than those who receive it, who obviously would like it to be maintained. The Government cannot constantly retreat behind the need for consensus with local authorities. They will not achieve it, as the winners will never give up what they have, and the losers will always want more.

I fervently wish that the Minister would provide some answers on the future design of local government finance and say how the effects that I have described can be mitigated. Nothing would please me more than never to have such a debate again, because I am bored stiff producing a litany of despair from Somerset and the west country each year about the way the area is treated by consecutive Governments. That will happen only when we get a fair deal from the Government, and I believe that we are a long way from that.

I join the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in bemoaning the fact that we do not have sufficient time adequately to address the detail of the issues that he has raised.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate on this important issue. He told me that he would not go into the arcane details and the highways and byways of the SSA system, and I shall attempt not to do so. He outlined how the SSA system relates to local authorities and how it decides grant outcomes and produces, over time, problems for those local authorities. That applies not only to Somerset but to local government more widely. I shall speak about the issue generally, although I shall attempt to address the hon. Gentleman's points about Somerset, too.

Next year's finance settlement is, by any measure, good for local government. It demonstrates our continued commitment to investing in local government. The settlement should in general allow councils to improve their services while keeping to reasonable increases in council tax. I underline what I said about the SSA system. Despite the considerable investment that we have provided each year since taking office, some authorities still face pressures. I acknowledge that, and understand where those pressures come from and how they impact on local authorities. We shall consider those matters with local government as we consider the spending plans for 2003–04 onwards in the context of the upcoming spending review.

We were able to increase provision for local government in the spending review 2000. Next year's proposed settlement benefits from the plans laid at that time. The proposals currently under consultation provide that Government grants and business rates support will be £47.3 billion in the next financial year. That is an increase of £3.3 billion, or 7.4 per cent.

Overall spending on education will rise by £2.1 billion, or 8.7 per cent. Personal social services will increase by £684 million or 6.5 per cent. Those figures relate to the national settlement. The hon. Gentleman will take limited comfort from that overall statement, although it was important to make it to answer some of his points about Somerset.

If we consider the comparative figures, we can see that Somerset will receive a good settlement this year. The council has benefited from the extra investment that we have made in local government. For the four years before 1998–99, Somerset received an increase in SSA of only 2.1 per cent. each year. Since then, the county has received an average increase of 5 per cent. Under our proposals for next year, Somerset will get a general grant increase of 6.1 per cent., or £14 million, which is more than three times the rate of inflation. That compares favourably with a number of other local authorities in England.

The hon. Gentleman made specific points about circumstances in Somerset which relate to the operation of the standard spending assessment, including social services expenditure. The Government well understand the pressures on social services authorities, especially in relation to care packages and long-term care for people in their homes or in residential care establishments. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that yesterday the Government announced the figures for the so-called bed-blocking initiative, which will provide £726,000 for Somerset for the next year and at least that amount for the year after that. It will go a considerable way to assist Somerset with high-maintenance care packages for people in care homes.

The wider issue in respect of care homes, especially in southern England, is the continuing provision of such homes, the cost of packages and property, and the temptation that some care homes face to cash up when substantial amounts of money come their way for the land on which they stand. The resulting distortion in the number of places available and the question of how to deal with that problem in the long term are matters of great concern which the Government understand.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the allocation of residential allowance by SSA, rather than by past patterns of expenditure. The residential allowance transfer is for new cases, that is, for people placed in care after 1 April 2002. The SSA calculation on the basis of need is right, but it is true that past patterns penalised councils that chose to use their own homes for those arrangements, and we wanted to get rid of that unfairness.

I am aware of the strength of feeling about the education funding formula for Somerset. I will not go into details about what has been provided for education funding; the figures show that Somerset children will get a substantial increase in the amount made available for their education in the coming year.

The hon. Gentleman raised deeper questions about how the SSA formula works in relation to education, social services and other functions and I shall say a few words about it in the brief time available. The Government are committed to a fundamental reform of the SSA formula. As I have a background in local government, I recognise that a formula that attempts to achieve equity of outcome by providing an indicator for everything and a weight to that indicator on occasions, using Byzantine formulae, sometimes has the opposite effect. I was not alone among local authority leaders in thinking that I had been a good boy in a particular year only to find that the outcome of the formula showed that I had not been a good boy, and had had no apparent effect in the real world.

The SSA formula as it stands tends to penalise those authorities that had relatively low levels of expenditure in the early 1990s when it was introduced. It relates to a world that is different from the real world in respect of the costs of the indicators used. For example, the SSA formula assumes that the average band D council level is about £700, when that is increasingly drifting away from reality. A formula that allocates changes in grants according to indicators that do not relate closely to reality will inevitably produce distortions. Consequently, we are committed to making changes. I issue a challenge to local government, which I hope will discuss the changes positively. Do we want a simpler formula that is easier to understand, but which causes problems with equity, or do we want to increase equity? I suggest that we need a more simple, straightforward and understandable formula, based on reality. The Government are committed to finding such a formula.

Order. Time is up.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce a debate on the drugs trade in Afghanistan, a problem that has gained in international prominence as the world has focused on that region. The debate is being held at a crucial time, given that there is a new Government in that country who seem more determined than their predecessors to take such an issue seriously.

A new drug crop is now growing in Afghanistan and international attention is focusing more than ever on that country and the problems that it faces. At present, there is a debate in the press and elsewhere about the role of the British Government in foreign affairs. The drugs problem is an international issue as well as an important domestic one, and it is impossible to distinguish between the two. Those who suggest that we should pay less attention to such issues are wrong, and we should not ignore the problem in the international context or the domestic consequences of the trade.

It has been well recorded that 90 per cent. of all heroin used in the United Kingdom comes from Afghanistan. Tragically, in the past year, more than 1,000 people have lost their lives to drug overdoses. More than 100 people lost their lives because of drugs in my city of Glasgow, and more than 70 of them lost their lives to one drug— heroin. When 70 people in one city die from heroin overdoses and 90 per cent. of the heroin in that city comes from Afghanistan, no one can tell me or the families of those who died that this is not important.

There is a financial issue, but I want to advance it as being of secondary importance in the debate. The Home Office estimates that the cost of law and order in respect of the drug problem in this country is £1.2 billion per annum. The drug has caused enormous human and financial cost. It is an enormous pull on the criminal justice system, not to mention a drain on resources in our health service. That is why, in advance of today's debate, I produced a 10-point plan that will go some way towards alleviating the problems internationally.

I want to mention my support for Iran and other nations in their border security. I do not usually support Iran. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), and I have discussed Iran in other contexts and I have been a staunch opponent of much of its regime not only domestically, but internationally. However, it deserves our support on the drugs issue. I understand that 80 per cent. of all heroin seized in the world is captured by Iranian border control and security forces. We cannot expect it to carry out such action without our support, given that large amounts of the drug are bound for our communities. If we expect our communities to be protected from drugs, we must defend our front line, and that is often achieved by border controls.

We must find ways to help Afghan addicts. There is dispute about the extent of drug addiction in Afghanistan, but some estimates put it as high as one in 10 people, with specific problems among refugee populations. There is only one treatment centre in the country and the Afghan Government and population face an enormous domestic problem.

We must invest and research to find naturally growing fungi that attack the opium poppy in the fields, which would deal with the problem at source. If we are to clamp down on the supply from Afghanistan, we must ensure that it is not simply displaced and sourced to another region or nation, such as Burma or countries in that area.

I have several specific suggestions, and I would welcome the Minister's comments on those or on other matters that relate to the Government's attitude to the issue. The United Nations estimates that the Taliban had a stockpile of 300 tonnes of heroin. The almost 300,000 heroin users in the United Kingdom consume about 30 tonnes of heroin annually. Therefore, 10 years of heroin supply for the UK is sitting in the stockpiles built up by the Taliban and, no doubt, the Northern Alliance when it was in opposition.

What is the Government's attitude to that and what action is being taken? I found that difficult to ascertain as the international conflict developed and the entirely justifiable military action got under way. I demanded of the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence that the stockpiles of heroin be considered a legitimate target to be bombed and destroyed. I ask for guidance—if it is not available today then at a later date—on the status of the stockpile that the Taliban were keen to offload on the international market. Do we know where it is and its status? What action is being taken to deal with it?

What is the international community's attitude to those who previously prospered and profited from the heroin trade? I advocate that those who were involved centrally should not be allowed to hold Government office. People who continue to try to profit from the heroin should not be allowed to hold promoted posts in the new Afghan armed forces.

I am not ignorant of the role of heroin in Afghanistan's economy and the power politics of Afghanistan. However, we must end that nation's addiction to it and the reliance on it of Afghanistan's Government and warlord power brokers. Will the Minister tell us the international coalition's attitude to those whose hands are dirty with the profits of the heroin trade?

I shall now deal with tying aspects of aid to an agreed programme of reducing drug trafficking and drug production. I have heard people say that it would be heartless to impose such conditions on the Afghan population. If the scheme were handled properly, that would not be the case. We already, rightly, attach humanitarian conditions to humanitarian aid. I take a keen interest in southern Africa, and I grew up in South Africa. I support efforts to ensure that aid is tied to poverty eradication, the promotion of numeracy and literacy, the provision of primary education and clean water, health provision, and to investment in the masses rather than the elites. All those conditions are welcome. The third world and international development campaign groups who opposed them were well intentioned but wrong.

We should seek to provide enormous aid in some way. We are already committed to some aid, but more is needed, some of which should be tied to an agreed drug reduction programme, even to certain regions of Afghanistan. The less that drugs are sent to the United Kingdom, the more aid will be sent to Afghanistan. Some aid should be unconditional and we should give generous support for redevelopment, the creation of an economy, and the building of schools that are so necessary, especially for young girls. However, I seek a way in which aid can be even more generous if drugs and the drugs trade are removed from that nation. I believe that the intention behind that initiative would be widely welcomed.

I am keen to press, and will continue to campaign, for an amnesty for opium farmers in Afghanistan, and for the international community to destroy the processed crop in Afghanistan before it can leave the country. I do not propose the methods—military activity or weapons—that I advocated during the international bombing, but suggest an agreed way with the new Afghan Government so that farmers are compensated for handing over their crops and are free from prosecution that year only. Prosecution has not been as commonplace in Afghanistan as it should have been, but I hope that under the new Government, Government agencies will take a dim view of those who grow the poppy seeds.

I hope that we use this historic opportunity and act on the proposal. It would be a one-off initiative that would not be repeated. Farmers would be compensated and free from prosecution. They would have an amnesty, but those who continued to grow and profit from the drugs trade would, hopefully, be prosecuted in future years. Some might say that that is a waste of money and that the Government have more pressing concerns and greater demands on their expenditure. However, when we consider the enormous loss of life caused by the drugs trade and the huge demand on law and order and health resources, the amnesty is a small price to pay.

There is some debate about the exact cost, which depends on how much we believe is growing in Afghanistan and how much is still stockpiled. The estimates range up to a maximum of £150 million, but a more reliable figure of £40 million is advanced. Regardless of the cost, the international coalition, with Britain at its core, should be playing a leading role in trying to ensure that farmers are compensated for the destruction of their crops.

Of course, we believe that those crops should not have been grown, and in an ideal world, those people would be prosecuted here and now. However, we live not in that world, but in one where the Taliban and the Northern Alliance have turned a blind eye and in some ways encouraged the growth of those crops. We are dealing with a world in which we can only prevent the crop from being processed and imported into our communities and into the lives of so many of our citizens by compensating the farmers and destroying the crops through an agreed programme with the Afghan Government, or under the auspices of the United Nations. It should be done in a way that would remove that enormous export market in heroin from Afghanistan. According to the Home Office, a heroin user will steal, on average, up to £20,000 a year to feed their habit, and considering that there are nearly 300,000 heroin users in this country, that would be a small price to pay. It could deal with the problem in an international context as long as the supply chain was not simply displaced to other nations.

Before 11 September, Afghanistan was regarded as an exporter of two major products: training in terror—as is all too tragically apparent—and heroin. We have rightly and properly begun to deal with the threat of terror, and it is now time that we turned with equal determination to the problem of heroin. I look forward in the coming weeks and months—but hopefully not years—to campaigning for the Government to lead the way in an amnesty and compensation scheme that will destroy a crop that has, through drug overdoses, destroyed all too many of my constituents and those of the Minister.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) for proposing this debate on combating the drugs trade in Afghanistan. This serious subject is of huge significance to the United Kingdom. Around 90 per cent. of the 20 to 30 tonnes of heroin used on our streets annually originates as opium poppy in Afghanistan. My hon. Friend succinctly and successfully outlined the devastating social and economic costs of that on the streets of our towns and cities, including those of his own constituency. He also recognised that combating the drugs trade in Afghanistan will be no easy task.

Many of the countries that produce drugs have several things in common: poverty, conflict, poor or no governance, and weak law enforcement. Afghanistan is a prime example, allowing drug production not simply to go unchallenged but to be actively encouraged. Those issues cannot be addressed overnight.

Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest countries. It has been host to conflict for over 20 years, governance has been weak or non-existent and the rule of law is virtually unknown. The majority of opium poppy farmers in Afghanistan are not wealthy. They grow opium poppy as part of their livelihood strategy. It is a durable crop—opium can be stored for several years—which is a desirable quality in a country where the infrastructure is so poor that perishable produce is extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive to get to market. Opium has a relatively high cash value. Most farm plots are so small that insufficient food can be grown on them to feed a farmer's family, so growing opium poppy is often the only means of survival.

Because opium is one of the few commodities in Afghanistan that has a guaranteed market, loans can be secured against a future crop. That is often the only source of credit available to the rural poor. Those factors, combined with the lack of alternative off-farm income opportunities and the existence of a large number of underemployed labourers who are available for the time-consuming task of harvesting opium, have entrenched opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan's economy.

Under the Taliban regime, opium production in Afghanistan doubled. That is no coincidence. That regime was deeply involved in the drugs trade, deriving a significant proportion of its income from it. In July 2000, Mullah Omar issued an edict banning opium poppy cultivation as un-Islamic. However, we believe that there were other motives for the ban: an attempt to consolidate the market and increase opium prices, and international pressure. In any event it was highly effective, but surplus production in previous years led to the creation of large stockpiles of opium. We have no figures that are absolutely reliable. Perhaps as my hon. Friend has said, the stockpiles are enough to last for several years.

Those stockpiles continued to be traded, trafficked and controlled by the Taliban regime, despite the ban on cultivation. As a result, the price of opium increased tenfold, allowing the Taliban to reap the benefit. During the recent opium poppy planting season—September to December—it is probable that widespread cultivation resumed. That is the result of high opium prices, encouragement by traffickers and a lack of alternative means of income for farmers. While the Taliban regime has gone, many of the trafficking networks remain intact and the circumstances that allow the drugs trade to flourish still prevail.

The drugs trade in Afghanistan is a complex issue, and there is no simple or immediate solution. However, the installation of the new interim Administration presents us with a unique opportunity to combat the problem once and for all. The first step has already been taken. At the Bonn conference it was agreed that the interim Administration would co-operate with the international community in the fight against drugs. The issue of tackling illicit drugs features prominently in the UN-led political process for Afghanistan and is mentioned specifically in the proposed organisational structure of the future UN assistance mission in Afghanistan.

It will be essential therefore for central and regional authorities, based on the rule of law and operating under agreed good governance practices, to be fully engaged in any efforts to eradicate the drugs problem in Afghanistan. It will also be essential to continue efforts to attack traffickers. If they can be removed from the equation, or have their activities significantly disrupted in the short term, there will be less of a market for the crop currently in the ground, and less incentive for farmers to invest in the labour to harvest it.

On behalf of the Scottish National party, I welcome the Minister to this important debate. May I suggest one partial solution? As he outlined, there is a strong demand not just for illegal, but for legal opium. One potential solution would be to secure legal pharmaceutical production from opium-producing sources in Afghanistan to unlink them from illegal heroin sales. Should that not also go hand in hand with efforts by the UK and other international coalition Governments to establish an effective, secure strategy of enforcement to ensure that there is movement away from the illegal trade to a legal, sustainable basis for the poor farming population in Afghanistan?

I must slightly correct the hon. Gentleman. There is a legitimate demand for legal pharmaceutical opium production, but it is tiny in global terms. It is miniscule compared with the illegal trade. The legal production that takes place in other parts of the world, including India, already provides enough for legitimate medicinal needs. I am not sure that that suggestion is an answer to our problems.

In the medium and longer term, breaking the dependence of small farmers on poppy cultivation will be the key to successful drug control. Credit from traffickers secured against future poppy cultivation results in higher levels of poppy growing than would otherwise necessarily be attractive to farmers. So alternative sources of credit may be needed. It may also be necessary to tackle the accumulated poppy debt from previous years. Drug control should be integrated into long-term development programmes—diversifying rural livelihoods away from poppy cultivation.

On an official visit to Thailand just before Christmas I had the privilege to observe some of the very good work there. I flew over some of the northern area of Thailand on the border with Burma, which in the past has been a real problem for opium poppy cultivation. The cultivation there has been almost completely eradicated through an eradication programme, combined with a crop substitution programmes. I also visited a village that had previously been completely dependent on growing opium poppy and was now growing fruit and vegetables and sending them to Bangkok to be sold. Those involved were making five times more than they were making from the sale of opium poppy.

Successful crop substitution programmes are possible. As my hon. Friend knows, many parts of Afghanistan that currently grow opium poppy are highly fertile and were once successful exporters of fruit such as pomegranates. The best pomegranates in the world come from the Kandahar. There are alternatives to which we could move back.

My hon. Friend made a number of specific suggestions, and I thank him for his 10-point plan. I will certainly give his suggestions careful consideration. There are no plans to buy the current opium crop. There are some disagreements about the cost. Figures ranging from $50 million to $150 million have been mentioned, but regardless of the cost, there are disadvantages to that approach. It would deal only with this year's crop, and it could reinforce the perception that opium can be traded for financial assistance. It could prompt other Afghan farmers, who are not currently involved, to start cultivating the opium poppy. It also might encourage something that my hon. Friend said that he wanted to avoid—opium producers in other countries trying to increase production in the hope that their crop might be subject to a similar buy-out. However, we shall examine that proposal more carefully.

My hon. Friend also called for research into the development of an environmentally friendly biological agent, which would destroy the opium poppy. We support research that could provide such a breakthrough. He also rightly outlined the importance of the help that we are giving to the neighbouring states—Iran especially—in the central Asian republics. He may be interested to know that Iran is the biggest single recipient of UK money aid for tackling drug trafficking problems. Although he mentioned the devastating impact of opium production in Afghanistan in relation to drug addiction, he may also like to know that in the past 20 years, 3,500 Iranian border officials have been killed while carrying out their duties to try to stem the flow of heroin from Iran over the border. That has a devastating impact, and I am extremely pleased that he supports measures that Iran, supported by Britain and other countries, is taking, and has taken during recent years, to try to solve the problem. Since 1998, the UK has spent £3.9 million on Iran and we also give a great deal of help to Pakistan and the central Asian republics.

It is essential, not just for the region, which has suffered grievously from the failed state status of Afghanistan and consequent opium production, but because of the devastating social and economic impact, especially on constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend, that we help Afghanistan to break its dependence on the drugs trade and the influence exerted by traffickers. Together with the international community, we will provide every assistance to Afghanistan's new Administration to combat this evil trade and its underlying causes. Effective drug control cuts across many issues, encompassing poverty reduction, security and development. Progress must be maintained on all those fronts for a sustained period. With the help of the international community, Afghanistan and its people, and my hon. Friend's constituents, can look forward to a much brighter future.

I shall focus on west Norfolk's roads, but I also want to touch on various road schemes that cover Norfolk as a whole.

King's Lynn, which is at the heart of my constituency, is an important sub-regional centre. King's Lynn and its hinterland has a population of about 30,000 and a thriving industrial base that comprises several large firms, such as Campbell's, Bespak, Foster's and DOW Chemicals. The region's industrial base has traditionally been founded on food processing, but it is now more diverse, and there are also many smaller businesses. King's Lynn also has the Queen Elizabeth hospital, a busy general hospital that employs hundreds of people. The town is the headquarters of the local borough council for King's Lynn and west Norfolk, and many national agencies have local offices there. It is, therefore, a busy, thriving, provincial market town.

However, the Achilles' heel of King's Lynn and west Norfolk has always been the area's poor road and transport network. Firms want to come to King's Lynn, and, when they arrive, they want to stay and expand. They like west Norfolk; they appreciate its hardworking people and its beautiful environment. However, their First concern is the poor trunk road and main road links. To be fair, we now have an electrified railway system that connects King's Lynn, through Cambridge, to London. We have an excellent dual stretch of road west of King's Lynn, on the A47, between King's Lynn and Wisbech, which was opened under the previous Conservative Government, in 1994.

Perhaps the key scheme in west Norfolk, however, is the Hardwick flyover, and I want to refer to it in detail. The Hardwick roundabout is the junction of the A47, the A10 and the A149, and it consistently experiences heavy congestion—all that is required to create long tailbacks is a vehicle breaking down, or an accident—and in the summer, when holiday traffic heads up to the Norfolk coast and towns such as Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, the delays become longer. The Hardwick flyover has acquired symbolic status in our campaign for better communications for west Norfolk. This morning, on Radio Norfolk, Peter Bridgham, the director general of our local chamber of commerce, said that King's Lynn is becoming better known for the Hardwick scheme than for anything else.

I will give a brief history of the Hardwick scheme, because it is important to be aware of its full context. The South Lynn bypass was built towards the end of the 1970s, and the embankments and the flyovers at the Hardwick and Saddlebow roundabouts were also constructed at that time. Therefore, we have had a constant and tantalising reminder of a missed opportunity to complete the project. In 1978, the Hardwick flyover could have been built for a fraction of the current cost, and Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler, then the Member of Parliament for the area, pushed the Labour Government hard to build it. I took over from him, and lobbied successive Ministers. A breakthrough was achieved in 1989 with Paul Channon, now Lord Channon. The "Trunk Roads to Prosperity" White Paper included the Hardwick flyover as part of the A10 West Winch bypass scheme. However, after a few years, it became clear that the scheme was going to be complicated and that it would take a long time to be realised, so I lobbied hard to have the Hardwick flyover detached from it.

The Transport Secretary in 1992, Malcolm Rifkind, now Sir Malcolm, detached the flyover from the West Winch bypass scheme, and announced it as a scheme in its own right—as a simple dual carriageway flyover scheme, costing £7 million. Matters proceeded, and the scheme had passed through all of its various planning processes by spring 1996. In February 1997, the then Minister of State, John Watts, gave it a firm starting date of spring 1999, and a costing of about £11.5 million.

However, an election intervened in May 1997. The Labour party won, and the right hon. Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) took an axe to the trunk roads programme. There was local outrage, and an effective campaign was organised by the local media—particularly the Eastern Daily Press and the Lynn News—to put pressure on the Government. That was backed by my immediate predecessor as Member of Parliament for the area, Dr. George Turner. Eventually the Hardwick flyover was reinstated into the programme. That was announced in 1999, and in 2000 the then Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Lord Whitty, said that work would start in November 2001. The date was then put back a few months to February 2002. There is a snag, however. Unfortunately, the new flyover scheme is a scaled-down version of the 1996 scheme. A single-carriageway flyover will connect the existing A47 dual carriageway on the west side to a new roundabout that will connect to the A47 on the east side. The existing Hardwick roundabout will be converted into two linked roundabouts.

In many ways, the scheme is a bit of a pig's ear. In fact, Dick Broughton, a local councillor in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and a prominent member of the National Farmers Union—he represents it in a local roads and transport partnership called "Shaping the Future"—described it as unsightly and resembling a disgusting wart. On the other hand, we must not be churlish. We must temper our disappointment at the new, scaled-down scheme with relief at the fact that something, at least, is going to happen. The general feeling was that if we pushed too hard to persuade the Minister and the Highways Agency to revert to the dual carriageway scheme planned by the previous Conservative Administration, there might be yet further delays.

Of course, we were not expecting the bombshell that was dropped on 6 November, when the Highways Agency announced a further delay of seven months. Unfortunately, it gave a very weak excuse for the delay. In a letter to Norfolk county council's portfolio holder for transport, Adrian Gunson, it said:

"I can assure you that at our meeting with officers from the County Council on 12 October…it was still our intention to start work in February 2002. Subsequent to that meeting, Brown and Root were appointed as our new design consultants for the scheme. They carried out an initial review of the design work previously carried out on the scheme and identified a number of…areas which needed to be revisited or where improvements could be made."

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that there is grave concern locally that Ministers and the Highways Agency are ignoring west Norfolk and giving up on us.

Unsurprisingly, Norfolk county council is very angry indeed, not least because on 10 September it initiated work on a £1 million resurfacing scheme for the A10, through North Runcton and West Winch to the Hardwick roundabout. Last May, the A10 was detrunked, and the county council decided to spend a substantial amount of money on resurfacing. To be fair, the work was carried out to a very high standard by Lafarge Aggregates, and I should also pay tribute to the county council's engineer, Chris Mitchell, and to Quentin Brogdale, the resident engineer.

However, to expedite the resurfacing contract the road was closed for eight weeks, and a great deal of inconvenience was thereby caused to local residents and businesses. The local garage in West Winch closed temporarily during that period. Two pubs, The Cock and The Sportsman, suffered a significant loss of passing trade, and the village post office also suffered. In Setchey, the local garage and numerous other businesses on the industrial estate lost passing trade. In Tottenhill, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), the Andel hotel suffered financially, as did Brundall's garage. Indeed, all those businesses suffered financially as a result of the A10's closure. Perhaps the Minister could say whether there is any chance of their receiving compensation.

The point is that, if Norfolk county council had known of the new start date for the Hardwick flyover scheme, it would almost certainly have decided not to close the A10. This is an example of incompetence and non-joined-up government. I am pleased that the Minister is here to reply to this debate, because I am looking for a firm guarantee from him that there will be no further delays. People in west Norfolk and King's Lynn are fed up with being pushed to the bottom of the pile. We are fed up with a Government who treat King's Lynn and west Norfolk as East Anglia's poor relations who can quietly be forgotten about. I want firm commitments from the Minister.

There are other priorities in Norfolk and as we are discussing road schemes in the county as a whole, I shall outline six of them. The A47 west of King's Lynn has one important stretch of dual carriageway between King's Lynn and Wisbech, but the rest of the road is single carriageway, although it is a very busy link from King's Lynn and the whole of Norfolk to Peterborough and the midlands. It is a vital stretch of road with a crucial need for a dual carriageway bypass round Thorney and other stretches of dual carriageway. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

The A 17 between King's Lynn and Newark particularly affects my constituency and is the main link from King's Lynn and the rest of Norfolk to the A1 and the north. The only stretch of dual carriageway on the A17 between King's Lynn and Newark is the Sleaford bypass. The rest of the road is single carriageway and is very busy.

Dual carriageway trunk and main roads are so much safer than single carriageways and journey times can be planned with some reliability. They improve people's perception of Norfolk's towns because they imply that the Government and the Highways Agency treat the town, region or sub-region seriously. That is why dualling is so important.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

In a moment, but first I want to refer briefly to two important schemes that are a priority for us.

The A47 going east of King's Lynn has only two stretches of dual carriageway between King's Lynn and Norwich: the Swaffham bypass is dualled along its whole length and part of the Dereham bypass is dualled. We need more dual carriageway between King's Lynn and Norwich. We also badly need an entire length of the A47 between King's Lynn and Yarmouth to be dualled. The Acle straight has suffered too long as a single carriageway and badly needs to be dualled. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, Yarmouth and Lowestoft are peripheral and suffer high unemployment; they are the least accessible and most vulnerable of East Anglia's sub-regions. That stretch of road must be dualled.

I happily rise in support of my hon. Friend. The two issues are road safety and, as I am sure the Minister will understand, the stop-go travelling between Great Yarmouth and King's Lynn, which is detrimental to economic investment. Large parts of my constituency are desperate for the A47 to be dualled.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He endorses the point that dual carriageway roads are safer. It is frustrating when travelling through his constituency from King's Lynn to Norwich because, although one hits dual carriageway around Swaffham, there is then a poor stretch of road until a short length of dual carriageway round Dereham. The road to Norwich is then all single carriageway.

Safety, reliability of journey times and perception are important. Norfolk has a number of world-class businesses and organisations such as the national construction college in my constituency—the construction industry training board is its governing body—the Norwich Union and so on. It is vital that those organisations are able to plan for the future with some certainty that our road communications will improve.

The A11 connects the M11 and the national motorway network through to Norwich. Quite a lot of the A11 is now dualled, thank goodness, which has made a huge difference when travelling to Norwich by car. I often go by train, but I sometimes drive and in the past it used to take at least three and a half hours from London to Norwich, allowing for various delays on the A11. One can now get to Norwich by car much more quickly because a great deal of the A11 has been dualled. However, there are still two stretches of the road that have not been dualled. There is a particularly bad stretch between Thetford and Roudham Heath, and it is vital that that is dualled as soon as possible. The A11 is the key artery linking Norwich to the motorway network. It is a long stretch of road, and even small parts that remain single carriageway will have a detrimental effect.

I turn to a matter of which my hon. Friend is fully apprised because it has been a big controversy locally. There is no link road between the A47 Norwich southern bypass and the new £229 million Norfolk and Norwich hospital at Colney. That is a serious problem. The hospital has on several occasions been described by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health as a flagship. It was built under the previous Government's private finance initiative scheme. It is an excellent hospital, and everyone agrees that it is an important facility for the whole of Norfolk. It is crazy that there is no link road between the southern bypass and the hospital. Direct access is essential not only for road safety, but so that ambulances can get to the hospital more quickly. As things stand, there is a hotchpotch of plans, which do not stack up very well, for improving roads to the hospital.

Norwich is represented by two influential Labour MPs—the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is chairman of the Labour party, and the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who is a distinguished professor. It is a pity that they, working alongside other MPs, have not yet been able to persuade the Government and the Highways Agency to take the link seriously. That is a missed opportunity. What sort of signal does it send to the professionals who work in the hospital? Doctors, nurses and other professionals go there day in, day out. Members of the public who want to use the hospital come along the southern bypass and can see, 200 yd away, the new hospital complex, yet they have to go miles around, possibly facing substantial delays. Even if the Minister cannot give a specific commitment owing to planning or costing problems, a firm steer from him would be welcome in Norfolk.

I want to give the Minister plenty of time to reply. I am grateful for his attendance, and await his reply with great interest.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this important debate.

The hon. Gentleman explained how important transport is to his area. Although we hear that about every part of the country, it is true that traditionally transport links have not been good in Norfolk. However, I must chide him a little for saying that the Government are giving up on Norfolk as if it is a poor relation. I assure him that that is not so, and to suggest otherwise is somewhat insulting to the excellent lobbying on local road and rail systems that has been done by some of his colleagues, as well as by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) and many others.

Despite having a wide brief that covers not only roads but other aspects of transport, I visited the area to see for myself. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman was unable to be there on that occasion. However, I had a long discussion with one of his hon. Friends about the value of the new bypasses that we were opening and some of the extra funding for Norfolk which will help with local solutions. If there is time, I shall return to that point.

I am particularly happy at the start of a new year to be given an opportunity to report on the progress that we are making in the planning, design and construction of Norfolk's trunk roads. Let me begin by setting out the background to what we are trying to achieve. In July 1998, the Government published "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". This set out several key objectives including the establishment of a core network of nationally important routes, comprising some 60 per cent. of the trunk road network, and our priorities for tackling some of the most serious and pressing problems through carefully targeted programmes of improvements, which are known colloquially as TPI. The other 40 per cent. of the network was earmarked for de-trunking roads.

In splitting the trunk road network, our aim was to place responsibility for routes with the authority best placed to make decisions about their future. We have been consulting the local authorities about transferring to them the non-core routes so that the management and improvement of those roads could be fully integrated with local transport and land use strategies.

In Norfolk, responsibility for the A10 and A134 was transferred to the county council on 1 May 2001, and responsibility for the A140 was transferred on 1 June 2001. We are currently in the process of transferring responsibility for the A17. I am sure that that will be good news to the hon. Gentleman who now knows that decisions over those particular roads will be made locally. The other good news for him, although he did not have time in his speech to mention it, was the Government's allocation in local transport plans for those roads, and other roads and schemes. They probably include the scheme that he mentioned concerning access to the hospital, and I accept that his point about that is important.

The quantity of funding that has been given to Norfolk is substantial. I was trawling through the figures, and I would be hard pressed to find a local authority that received a greater increase in its funding for local transport plans than Norfolk. In the financial year 2000–01, Norfolk received £4 million for integrated transport. In the same year, it received £5.2 million for maintenance and bridges. In the current financial year those figures are £10 million and £19.25 million respectively. The funding for maintenance and bridges is almost four times higher. I realise that the hon. Gentleman's speech was limited by time, and that he did not have time to mention those huge rises, but we can knock on the head the idea that the Government have given up on Norfolk because it is receiving substantial sums of money to carry out essential work.

The county's transport responsibilities were recognised in this year's local transport capital settlement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will examine it closely and perhaps discuss with councillors and others on the local authority how they can best make use of it for the important matters that he raised.

I am sure that the county will make the most of its opportunities. It carried out major maintenance work on the A10 south of the Hardwick roundabout last autumn, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. I understand that there was local concern about this because it required a long section of the A10 to be closed for some time. I sympathise with those affected by the disruption but I am advised that the road was too narrow to allow one-way traffic safely to pass while major maintenance works were being carried out.

Transferring responsibility for those roads does not mean that we are neglecting the county. Far from it, the TPI includes a number of schemes to improve access to Norfolk. We plan to improve the A11 trunk road, a major strategic route into Norfolk, by upgrading it fully to dual carriageway standard between the M11 at junction 9 and the Norwich bypass.

Construction began last May on a £42 million scheme to provide a dual carriageway and junction improvements between Roundham Heath and Attleborough and we expect that to be completed in Spring 2003. I was delighted recently to be in discussion with the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) in Attleborough town hall—she gave everyone a good reception with a fine plate of sandwiches. Had the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk been there, he would have seen the pleasure and delight on the faces of the people there at the amount that the Government are investing in that part of Norfolk. I heard praise from people of all political parties, and particularly from those of his party, for the extra funding that had been included in the Government's commitment. One councillor said that it was the first time since he had been in office that there had been a recognition by any Government of the finance and road improvements required.

Proposals for the A11 Fiveways to Thetford improvement and the A11 Attleborough bypass improvement were added to the TPI in March 2000, following appraisal and support given by the regional planning conference. Together, they will provide a dual carriageway for the A11 between the Fiveways roundabout at Barton Mills in Suffolk and the Thetford bypass and the existing single carriageway Attleborough bypass. The Fiveways to Thetford improvements are mainly on line except at the village of Elveden where a bypass will be provided to the north of the village. The sensitive nature of the Breckland sites near the existing road are fully recognised and will be taken into account in the development of the scheme. Those schemes were given overwhelming support at public consultations held in February and March 2001, and I recently announced the preferred routes in Attleborough town hall. Subject to the completion of the statutory procedures, work can start in 2005 with completion in 2007.

Following consideration by the regional planning conference, a scheme to bypass Thorney was added to the TPI in March 2000. Thorney, on the A47 to the east of Peterborough, suffers from a large volume of through traffic including a high proportion of heavy lorries. A bypass will bring safety and environmental benefits to the local community and remove a bottleneck. Strong local support exists for its early construction. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I announced a preferred route for a 5 km northern bypass for Thorney last November. I assure him that that is also a dual carriageway and, had he been at that town hall meeting, he would have heard the warm applause in response to my remarks. Detailed proposals are being developed and we hope to start the necessary statutory process later this year. I have asked the Highways Agency to speed up delivery of this locally popular scheme without compromising the statutory process, so that work can start in 2004 and be completed in 2006. The construction of the scheme will enhance the trunk network and accessibility into Norfolk.

Improving the road network is not just about building bypasses. We want to make the best use of what already exists. An example of that, as already mentioned, is the Hardwick roundabout at the eastern end of the A47 King's Lynn southern bypass. That roundabout has an important confluence of local traffic and that from the tourist trade. The scheme to improve the roundabout is important to local people and we aim to seek tenders for construction of the scheme this March. That is a few months later than originally planned, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the delay, but it was necessary to allow time for additional design work in many areas. I share his disappointment about that, and hope that people will recognise the importance of ensuring that the scheme is designed and constructed to the highest safety standards.

Sadly, I have had only 11 minutes to respond so I have not been able to cover all the hon. Gentleman's points. If he cares to drop me a short note I will happily respond in writing. He has raised important points, but I hope that he accepts that the Government have in no way neglected the needs of Norfolk; they have been recognised more strongly than ever before.