I have called this debate because, like the Football Foundation, I believe that football clubs belong in their local communities. I believe also that the foundation may have a role to play in helping my local team, Wimbledon FC, come home to my local community of Wimbledon.

Since it was launched in July 2000, the Football Foundation has helped clubs and communities across Britain to improve their grass-roots facilities, purchase new equipment and develop a broader base for their activities. The foundation is the United Kingdom's largest sports charity. Its annual budget of £53 million is made available by the Government, Sport England, the Premier League and the Football Association itself. The foundation is responsible also for the football stadia improvement fund, an independent funding body that is continuing the stadium development work of the Football Trust.

In 2001, the foundation gave grants that ranged from £2,000 to help a football in the community scheme achieve charitable status in Walsall, to £221,151 to establish a youth development programme at West Bromwich Albion. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich Albion, East (Mr. Watson) is here today. He will be able to tell us a little more about that excellent scheme.

Grants as large as £2 million and loans of as much as £800,000 may be available through the football stadia improvement fund to build a new stadium for Wimbledon FC. By itself, even £2.8 million would not be enough to build a new stadium there, but it would certainly help. The money would be a massive public subsidy to the owners of the club. It would represent the premium to be paid for bringing the Dons back home, instead of allowing them to sever their links with the local community. I believe that such an investment by the Football Foundation could tip the balance towards building a new stadium in Merton and away from the club moving to Milton Keynes.

Over the past few months, the plight of Wimbledon FC has become something of a cause célèbre. For instance, 105 Members of Parliament have signed early-day motion 570, including the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who speaks for the Opposition. I tabled the motion in protest at the club's refusal to accept a Football League decision not to allow it to move to Milton Keynes. While preparing for the debate, I looked through the last 250 or so early-day motions, and only those relating to the tension between India and Pakistan raised a similar level of interest and concern.

The motion has the full support of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen), who is chairman of the all-party football group. I take this opportunity to thank him publicly for his courtesy in inviting the officers of the Wimbledon independent supporters association to put their case against the relocation of the club to the all-party football group. The parliamentary campaign that we have been building together has complemented and built upon the groundswell of support for Wimbledon's cause among football fans across the country. More than 80 clubs were represented at a Fans United day that Wimbledon independent supporters association organised at Selhurst park in November. The passion, energy and sheer resilience that Wimbledon fans have shown week in, week out are a credit to the game. Under the chairmanship of Kris Stewart, they continue to fight a remarkable campaign to stop the move to Milton Keynes. They produce their own quality alternative programme each match day and have drawn up plans for a new stadium. On 10 February, they will set up a new supporters trust—the Dons Trust—to promote the club's return to Wimbledon. They have been ground down by the club's campaign to move to Milton Keynes, but they will not be worn out, and the fight will go on.

Football lovers everywhere understand that allowing clubs to move to areas beyond their traditional fan-base creates a dangerous precedent.

My hon. Friend may be aware that many famous clubs have moved. The logic of his argument is that Arsenal should return to Woolwich and—God forbid!—that Manchester United should return to Manchester.

I am sure that we shall have many variations on that theme during the debate.

Wimbledon is a wonderful club, and everyone understands why people would want it in their community. In today's circumstances, the link between football clubs and their local communities is more important than ever. We have limited influence over clubs' plans and decision-making processes, but we should do everything that we can to influence decisions through the Government and organisations such as the Football Foundation. We should promote the return of football clubs to their traditional fan-bases, their local and historic homes and their local communities.

Allowing clubs to move could lead to football franchising. Teams would be hawked around the country to the highest bidder, with scant regard to supporters' interests or clubs' long-term well-being. In a statement issued yesterday, the Football Supporters Association said that it hoped that the Football League would remain as implacably opposed to franchise football as it has been up until now.

A striking number of parliamentary colleagues lent their signatures to the early-day motion, even though they had no direct interest in football. They did so because they understood that football clubs belong in their respective local communities, whose identity is often inextricably linked to the memory of a club, to its history and traditions and to the role that it played in the area.

Wimbledon's FA cup triumph over Liverpool in 1988—I look cautiously around the Room to see whether any Liverpool supporters are present—is still as fresh as a rose in the minds of local people. It represents an unrivalled high point in our civic and community life in recent years. It is difficult to talk about the history of my constituency without mentioning the ups and downs in the life of Wimbledon FC, and I am sure that many parliamentary colleagues with football clubs in their constituencies will feel the same.

Wimbledon FC has strong roots in the local community and has one of the most extensive community programmes in the Football League. It recently won a prestigious sports match award for its outstanding work over many years with young people across south-west London. I always enjoy my discussions with the Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), about who has the best "football in the community" scheme.

The argument about clubs and their local communities resonates strongly with the Football Foundation, which was set up to promote that link. That argument should also resonate strongly with the Government. After all, it was the Government who set up the Football Trust and, later, the Football Foundation to strengthen the links between football clubs and their local communities.

The Government's football taskforce, which was chaired by David Mellor, recommended in paragraph 1.9 of its report that there was a need to balance the interests of all those in or touched by football, and for the game to promote to as wide a community as possible its sporting aims and key values. On whether football clubs could be run like any other business, the report said that the essential premise of the taskforce was that football, and indeed sport, was different from other business sectors. As a business, the club belongs to its shareholders and owners, but in a powerful sense the club belongs to the supporters and local communities too.

I am sorry if my argument does not chime with that of my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I hope that the Milton Keynes football club, Milton Keynes City, will hear of the debate and realise that the Football Foundation and the Government are on the side of football in the community, whether the clubs are large or small.

I simply want to point out that Milton Keynes City wholly supports the move of Wimbledon FC to Milton Keynes. It sees the move as extremely advantageous to all existing football teams in the town, and wants to work with a professional club.

I have received no representations from Milton Keynes City. I have tried to contact it, but I am delighted, and not surprised, that my hon. Friend is in touch with the club. Some members of that club may want, in the great snakes and ladders of competitive football, to advance suddenly from the Conference into the Nationwide first division. They should recall the proud tradition, history, struggle and achievements of a club such as Wimbledon. More than 20 years ago, outside support, investment and encouragement set Wimbledon FC on the road that took it to Wembley and more than 10 years in the Premiership as a top-flight club. That was not an easy road, but every club can still try to take it, including Milton Keynes City.

Yesterday, an arbitration panel referred the decision about the future of Wimbledon FC back to the Football League. That decision will add to the agony of Wimbledon supporters who have campaigned against the move, and I hope that the Football League will now move swiftly to solve the problem once and for all. I tend to take a positive view of what happened yesterday because, with that decision, we have won a period of respite. We have an opportunity to regroup the parties interested in bringing Wimbledon FC back home to Wimbledon where it belongs, and to find a solution to the problem.

It is important that all those who want the club to return to its local community use the time properly while the Football League reconsiders the matter. The community, Merton borough council—and its leader, Andrew Judge—Wimbledon fans and, perhaps, new investors should come together to find a way for each to contribute to bringing the Dons back home. If a suitable site can be found in or near Merton, I am sure that the Football Foundation will want to help. Such a site does exist. It is the site in Plough lane, where the Dons had their original stadium.

Wimbledon has an extraordinary history, rising from the Southern League to lift the FA cup at Wembley and to gain promotion to the Premiership. It caught the imagination and the hearts of millions of football lovers, and millions of people across the land who did not follow or know too much about football. Throughout its meteoric rise, Wimbledon football club played at its modest Plough lane stadium, a site that was bought for the club's use as long ago as 1948 by the then Wimbledon borough council before it became Merton borough council.

In order to comply with the recommendations of the Taylor report, it was necessary to upgrade the stadium. There were inconclusive negotiations with Merton council about alternatives. Sam Hamman, the previous owner and the inspiration for the club's successes, moved Wimbledon football club out of Plough lane; the last game was played there on 4 May 1991. That led to years of inconclusive ground sharing with Crystal Palace at Selhurst park. It is difficult to assess the prospects for the club to return to the borough because the current owners seem so set against such a move.

However, the context is changing. From my perspective—not yet, sadly, from that of the club—it seems that, in some respects, the prospects for a return have never been so good. First, the Plough lane site is back on the market, following a series of unsuccessful planning applications by the present owners, Safeway, to build a supermarket there. Secondly, Merton council is being very supportive and enthusiastic, although that has found little favour with the club. It is worth remembering that, with the changes that have been proposed to local government financing, it will be open to Merton council in the future to invest directly in such a project and to shoulder a proportion of the risk. Thirdly, there might be scope for the Government, acting through the Football Foundation, to offer the campaign to bring the Dons back home some practical and financial support.

Those of us who wish to see the club return to Wimbledon should be looking to the foundation for five things: short-term financial support to run, as a matter of urgency, an independent feasibility study on the Plough lane site; help with the establishment of Wimbledon FC's planned football academy to develop home-grown talent on the Prince George's playing fields in Raynes Park; assistance in developing further the club's football in the community scheme in local schools; and providing funding—either as a grant or as a loan, or as both—to move the electricity pylon that currently makes the Plough lane site unfeasible, because it overshadows the place where the intended centre circle should be, off the field and out of sight. That would cost around £500,000, but it is not an insurmountable objection in the context of the total amount of money that would be invested in the stadium.

Lastly, and possibly most importantly, we should be finding out how to apply for the £2 million that has been set aside since the Taylor report for Wimbledon FC to upgrade its stadium; that money could be invested in a new stadium site. Of all the clubs for whom such grants were set aside, Wimbledon is the only one that has not spent the money, for the simple reason that, since that time, it has been without a home.

As Members of Parliament, we should examine critically, as we are doing today, the public interest arguments that relate to the award of public money for football clubs, through the foundation and through the football stadiums improvement scheme. It is right that we should ask what the criteria are for allocating such grants, how the grants are followed up and how the decisions are made about where the money is spent. Those criteria are, and must be seen to be, fair and objective. It is not the case, nor is it my purpose in introducing today's debate, that he or she who shouts loudest should be heard. Through their support of the Football Foundation and of the football stadiums improvement scheme, the Government are recognising that football can be a powerful force for good in our society, and looking to harness that power by strengthening and supporting the bond between football clubs and the communities where they belong.

In the case of Wimbledon football club, that will not be achieved by moving the club from south-west London to south-west Milton Keynes. Such a move would not be in the long-term interests of football either. Nor do I believe that it would be in the public interest, and it certainly should not be eligible for Football Foundation support. By contrast, there is a strong case for seeking funding from the foundation to pursue the aim of returning the club to a stadium in or near Merton. The foundation is currently carrying out an audit of football stadiums, pitches and facilities across the country with the aim of compiling a register. No site is too big or too small to be included in the register, which will even include Old Trafford. I want to make sure that the old site of Wimbledon football club, where we could build a stadium in the future, is included on that register.

As I have said, I hope that the register will include Plough lane, and that the strength of feeling among the fans and in the local community for a return to Plough lane will be taken into account. When I pass the site at Plough lane, I am reminded of a photograph of a jet plane that was once shown to me by a psychologist from the Royal Air Force. He said that the only thing wrong with the plane was that it did not have a pilot. Because of some psychological flaw, the pilot had lost his will and pulled the lever of the ejector seat, with the result that the plane had crashed. So I ask Mr. Koppel and the owners of Wimbledon FC not to pull the lever and not to take Wimbledon FC away from Wimbledon. I ask them to reconsider the situation because there are plenty of avenues worth exploring and plenty of organisations and individuals, including myself, who will support them if they try to bring the club back home.

This is a timely debate, as it occurs on the day after the arbitration panel announced its decision. I hope that it will be possible to use the debate as a springboard to launch new initiatives to save the club. I look forward to meeting the Minister later this week, or early next week, to discuss possible options. I shall also arrange a meeting next week for all interested parties with Lord Pendry, the chairman of the Football Foundation. We in Wimbledon have waited far too long for our local club, which has covered itself in so much pain and glory and which remains so much a part of our community, proudly to come back home. It has been left out in the cold for far too long. It is time for the club to come back to Wimbledon, where it belongs.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on his speech, which typifies his efforts to help his local community. As I wrote my speech between 9.27 am and 9.30 am, I shall not take up too much time. As we are talking about football funding generally, I want to compliment the Football Foundation, which, under the chairmanship of Lord Pendry, allocates its funds with understanding of, and care for, the game that it supports.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and the Wimbledon independent supporters association, whose members I have met on several occasions. I am impressed by the professionalism of that association. My hon. Friend mentioned the programme that it produces, which is one of the best that I have ever seen. It outsells the official programme 2:1. It is not a fanzine but a programme, in which fans of visiting clubs provide details about their teams. The association understands the football business very well. I look forward to it being able to help to run Wimbledon at Plough lane.

One of the first political thoughts that I ever had as a teenager came to me when I visited my beloved Ayresome park, where Middlesbrough used to play. I saw the hoardings that read "Middlesbrough Football and Athletic Company Limited" and I could not get home fast enough to ask my mother what that meant. I thought that it must be wrong, but she explained that I did not own the club. I knew that I had equal ownership of the recreation ground where I spent most of my time playing football and cricket, but I was absolutely shocked to find that the club was owned by shareholders. I thought that those people with whom I went to cheer on my club every Saturday and me owned the club equally. That was probably my first political thought.

It is strange that I should have become a Member of Parliament, only to find out what a mistake it was for clubs to be owned by shareholders and not on a one member, one vote basis. As a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, I understand that. It was probably that visit to Ayresome park that day that made me seek sponsorship by the Co-operative Movement.

I have a special memory of Wimbledon; I must be getting on if I can go back many years, although this memory dates from only 25 years ago. I worked for Middlesbrough then, spying on the opposition as a part-time job. I sat on a bench at Plough lane on 8 January 1977, next to Jack Charlton, when we played Wimbledon, then a non-league side, in the third round of the FA Cup. As we did this year, we scraped a draw in the first game and managed to scrape a win in the replay. That happened at Plough lane, where the Wimbledon fans would like the club to return now.

If the owners of Wimbledon want to have a professional football side in Milton Keynes—I would support them in that—they should fund the creation of a non-league side. I understand that they are billionaires in Norway. They should put money into Milton Keynes and help the people of that town to have their own side. They would find that the supporters of the new club would have much more of a tie to it and would support it to the death, as most of us do our own sides. If it were their own side that came from nothing—as Wimbledon did when it won the FA cup—they would get so much satisfaction.

My hon. Friend mentioned Kris Stewart, the chairman of the Wimbledon independent supporters association. Kris and his colleagues are doing a great job and my hon. Friend is giving them every support. I wish them luck in the future.

I have been to Milton Keynes, once. Many people have never been. About 20 years ago, there was a wonderful series of radio programmes on a weekday afternoon—probably after "Woman's Hour"—called "A Geordie in MK". I am not a Geordie, but viewing Middlesbrough from Milton Keynes, people might think that I am. Other hon. Members present probably think that I am a Geordie. I was impressed by that programme and I have had a special affection for Milton Keynes ever since. I would like to offer my support to the town's efforts to get a football league team. However, in doing so, it should not take an existing club away from the people who care most about it; Wimbledon's local supporters.

Progress is being made everywhere. I am sure that hon. Members will hear about York City football club, which is emerging from its recent trauma. There was a Brentford independent supporters meeting in my local pub recently, 20 yd from where I live. Ron Noades, the owner of Brentford club, was also there. The club is only 50 yd from my house. I believe that the chairman of the independent supporters association has been offered a place on the board, effective immediately. Ron Noades is ready to hand the club over to be run in a democratic way by local people. All those involved have my full support. However, we are here to talk about Wimbledon. I wish the fans well and I thank my hon. Friend for all the support that he has given them.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing yet another debate on his football club. I did suspect, despite the title that I read in the Order Paper, that the debate would really be about the proposed move of Wimbledon FC to Milton Keynes.

If Wimbledon could have found a base within its own borough during the past 10 years, nobody would have been happier than those of us in Milton Keynes. We are not trying to poach Wimbledon. Milton Keynes is offering a solution to the problem that has faced Wimbledon for the past 10 years and which is highly unlikely to be solved in the next 10—the fact that the club does not operate from its home borough. Not surprisingly, on behalf of my constituents—and with the support, on the whole, of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White)—I take a different view of Wimbledon FC's move to Milton Keynes from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. The issue is, as he said, back with the Football League following the ruling by the arbitration panel that the league was wrong to dismiss Wimbledon's proposal to move in the first place and that it should reconsider the proposal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has made much play of his early-day motion 570. It contains many misleading statements, with little evidence to support them. The move would not establish a precedent. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has already referred to Arsenal, and a more recent precedent is the move of Meadowbank Thistle to Livingston, since Livingston is, like Milton Keynes, a new town. Neither instance established a wholesale move to franchising, and it is wrong to suggest in the early-day motion that a move to Milton Keynes would do so.

The early-day motion contains much about the historic links between football clubs and their communities, and the jeopardising of opportunities for young people. I remind hon. Members of the needs of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend. We, too, need football in our community and the current structures of the Football League—which dictate the structures of funding by the Football Foundation and by Football in the Community—effectively exclude our constituents from the public money and help that goes into building links between Football in the Community and football clubs.

I hope that all hon. Members who are present will agree about the positive role that professional football can play in communities. It clearly encourages young people, both girls and boys, to participate in football. It provides role models for them. It can provide a focus for community identity and, at its best—not always, unfortunately —it can provide a route for ethnic minority communities to participate in and feel part of a corporate community identity. My constituents in Milton Keynes want to share in those positive roles of professional football.

The role of the Football Foundation is important in providing funding for modern football facilities at all levels and strengthening links between football and the community. However, the problem with Football Foundation funding, as with the rest of the Football League structure, is that it is based on history; on the status quo. The rules are designed for established towns and cities and take no account of movements of population. In particular, they effectively exclude from help places such as Milton Keynes. As hon. Members will know, Milton Keynes is a completely new community; it is not an extension of an existing town or city, and was created virtually from scratch in the past 30 years. That huge population movement is ignored by the structures of professional football and the accompanying funding structures.

My hon. Friend has explained why any community would want a football club, but she seems to be taking a "Blue Peter" approach to football. She wants to offer a community a football club that was made somewhere else. Would not it be better to grow the club from the community, as Wimbledon has shown can happen, and, of course, to look for support for that from the Football Foundation? I believe that hon. Members present today, and probably hon. Members throughout the House, would support that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to educate me in the ways of football, but he talks about what happened 25 years ago and ignores the fact that the rules and structures of the Football League have altered. When the Football League was formed, for example, teams were brought straight into it in a way that is not possible now. The rules that pertain now are much stricter; the pyramidal structure of promotion from non-football league into football league is much more difficult, and it would be impossible for Wimbledon to do now what it did 25 years ago. It is ridiculous for my hon. Friend to skate over that and suggest that everything is now as it was, because everything is now much more difficult, and militates against new communities and in favour of established communities. That is the whole point.

My hon. Friend's community is on the upside of the structure and is favoured by it, while our community is heavily disfavoured by the structure. It is insulting for him to suggest that the route that was available for his club 25 years ago is available for us now. Indeed, the rules of the Football League are in the process of being reviewed and changed, which will make it even more difficult for non-league clubs to get into the league than it has been heretofore. The route for currently excluded clubs is becoming even more difficult.

I want to talk about the community that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and I serve. Milton Keynes will soon have the largest urban population in the south-east of England outside London, and the largest urban population in Europe without a professional football team. Some 70 per cent. of the population of Milton Keynes have migrated there from elsewhere, and 70 per cent. of that 70 per cent. are from London, including Wimbledon.

When hon. Members talk about the link between football clubs and their communities, they seem to think that communities are set in aspic and that nobody moves anywhere. When they talk about communities, are they talking about places or people? They are not the same thing. Many people in Milton Keynes have contributed to football clubs in London in the past. Is that community contribution to be ignored, and can we take into account the community contribution of only those who currently live within the area of existing football teams? I do not understand why, if populations move, football clubs cannot also move.

Participation in football in Milton Keynes is strong, despite the severe disadvantages from which we suffer. We are a young city, with 40,000 school-age children, and a new school is built every year. Some 46 per cent. of our 250,000 population are under 30 years old. We have 375 youth football teams, with more than 16,500 people participating, either as players, officials or spectators. We have an active Bangladeshi football association, which organises an annual national Asian seven-a-side tournament that it occasionally wins. However, the route for talented youngsters to progress is extremely difficult; the nearest Premiership club is 50 miles away, and the nearest league football team is 20 miles away. Talented youngsters from Milton Keynes travel to eight different league clubs for professional coaching, and only those whose parents can transport them and support them can participate. A large number of young people in Milton Keynes are excluded by distance from progressing in their football careers.

Football Foundation funding can do little to help people in Milton Keynes. They are also unable to access Football in the Community funding or FA-approved academy funding, because of the lack of a football league team. Since the inception of the Milton Keynes development corporation, it has made provision for a professional football stadium in the development plan, because it foresaw that professional football was one of the facilities that a city would want.

In 1978, the then Football League general secretary made it clear that the Football League recognised Milton Keynes as a special case and had no objection to any club moving there, provided that a suitable stadium was available. It is wrong to represent that idea as a precedent for widespread franchising. I referred to the move, in 1995, of Meadowbank Thistle to Livingston, which is a new town. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East referred to the move made by Arsenal, when it faced economic extinction, from Woolwich to north London in 1913.

The reality is that Wimbledon has not been operating from its borough for the past 10 years. It has made it clear that it needs its own stadium or it will go out of existence financially. It is losing £20,000 a day. Milton Keynes has provided a solution and the club has made it clear that it will continue to provide training in the community within Wimbledon, even after a move. It will also provide such facilities in Milton Keynes. There would be an improvement, not a diminution, in the way in which the club participates in community football development.

The Football Foundation has a valuable role to play in encouraging wider participation in football and facilitating the links between youth football teams and professional football. However, it cannot do that effectively if it and the Football Association refuse to acknowledge the needs of communities such as Milton Keynes and remain frozen in past population patterns.

Order. I have no power to impose a time limit on speeches, but four hon. Members wish to speak, in addition to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the official Opposition spokesman and the Minister. My intention is that the Opposition spokesman's winding-up speech should start at 10.40 am. That leaves each hon. Member who wants to speak about five minutes each.

I welcome the opportunity, here in Westminster Hall, to debate football. I only wish that we were not playing to the referee's whistle and that we had a first half and second half to discuss it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing the debate. The Order Paper refers to Football Foundation funding for football clubs, and the matters that have been raised in the debate show what many of us knew already.

We have great difficulties in raising issues concerning football outside the Premiership. Given the way in which finance and broadcasting are determining how the game is progressing, many clubs—not only Wimbledon—are facing financial extinction. I am pleased to see the Minister for Sport in the Chamber, and I pay tribute to him for his work, particularly for the fact that he visited Stoke-on-Trent not all that long ago. While I have the opportunity, I should remind him that we are serious about making a bid for a sport action zone, which, if successful, will aid us with grass-roots football.

Many Football League clubs face either financial extinction or crisis. York and Swansea, for example, have had problems. Football clubs throughout the league face difficulties. Port Vale FC in my constituency is seeking a new buyer, and the club has been on the market for a considerable time. Members of Parliament must work alongside the football authorities to ensure that there is a future for all our football clubs. We should extend league club status to those new towns and areas that do not have it at present. Such issues should be examined. My right hon. Friend the Minister should apply criteria that are equivalent to listed building status to football clubs, so that we do not lose them. They are so much a part and parcel of the local community. Perhaps he could extend the work of Supporters Direct and the ideas of mutuality to which my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) referred and ensure the viability of clubs at all levels.

My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the reasons why Northampton Town was able to survive was that the local council took ownership of the ground and was active in ensuring that the interests of supporters and the town were paramount in the club's decisions.

I absolutely agree. Supporters have a great contribution to make, along with local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, who introduced the debate, mentioned the new powers that local authorities have to help football clubs.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has a background in urban regeneration. If we can get football right, we can achieve much in urban regeneration. I urge him to move in that direction.

I do not want to participate in a debate about Wimbledon FC, although there is a connection between my constituency and Wimbledon. The scorer of what is possibly Jamaica's most famous goal, who played for Wimbledon, is now a well-known broadcaster. He was originally a constituent of mine who played for Port Vale and, most importantly for this debate, he came up through an organisation called Lads and Dads, which was founded by the late Dougie Brown, who sadly died last week. I mention Lads and Dads because a debate about the Football Foundation is about grass-roots football. A debate about how football stadiums are funded should be about the football stadiums improvement scheme that is part of the Football Foundation, but it is also a separate entity; I understand that the Football Foundation cannot give grants to private companies. We should examine how we fund grass-roots football outside the Football League.

In my five minutes of extra time, I shall give the Chamber more information about the need for investment from the Football Foundation. I, too, pay tribute to the outstanding work that that organisation, and, previously, the Football Trust, has done under the chairmanship of Lord Pendry and the leadership of its chief executive, Peter Lee.

By 15 March last year, 2,838 league games in grass-roots football had been played in my constituency. The leagues involved are the Potteries and District league, the County Minor league, the City Traders league, the Springbank Vending league, the Staffordshire County league, the Lycett, Burslem and Newcastle District league, the Cheadle league, the Marston's Sunday league and the Lads and Dads under-16s league. As of 15 March, 5,480 matches had still not been played because of a lack of pitches and bad drainage on the pitches that have been created. Many of these are not sustainable, having been created out of former coalmining tips. That figure does not even include cup matches. How can people play, between 15 March and the end of the season, an outstanding 5,480 matches?

That is why I have set up a partnership in my constituency that has resulted in applications to the Football Foundation in respect of the Bradeley pitches. I am pleased to say that that is well under way. We are involved in further applications relating to pitches, such as that at Packmore and in other parts of my constituency, that cannot be played on. There are many examples of social exclusion where people cannot play on pitches because the pitches are not fit for the purpose. That is why the work of the Football Foundation is so important.

In Stoke-on-Trent, we have a partnership with the Groundwork Trust that involves the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. I want a rolling programme of money that is funded with the Football Foundation's support. I pay tribute to the two chairmen of the groups that provide that money, because money is needed for proper drainage and football facilities. That is the nuts and bolts of the work of the Football Foundation, although it receives little publicity.

In the final minute of play, I ask the Minister to address our worries about league clubs and clubs that belong to their communities. He could also examine the £60 million funding for the Football Foundation, of which £20 million comes from broadcasting, £20 million from the FA and the remaining £20 million from the Government.

I do not want to repeat the situation of a previous Parliament, when I wrote to every football chairman in the country to urge them to put pressure on the then Government to give money through the pools duty to ensure that the gap in Football Trust funding could be met to allow clubs such as Port Vale to improve their stadiums. I do not want to see a £4 million shortfall from the Government in terms of their funding for the Football Foundation.

I hope that smaller clubs throughout the country that are outside the Premiership and do not have access to funding may find a way to survive. That should be linked to local grass-roots football and adequate support for the Football Foundation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on raising this important issue. Wimbledon FC's nomadic existence, and the draining effect of that on its supporters, is a real warning for York City football club's supporters, because we face the possibility that we will lose our ground and, therefore, face similar problems.

York City FC has a long and honourable history. The club was founded in 1922, and elected to the Football League in 1929, where it has been ever since. Like all clubs, it has had its ups and downs, but it has enjoyed notable high points. In the 1995–96 season, we beat Manchester United in the Worthington cup and we beat Everton the following year.

Now, York City FC faces its greatest challenge; a fight for survival following the directors' decision to put the club and ground on the market. The people of York rallied to support the club. Plans are going well to establish a supporters' trust to work with the club, and that will be launched on Friday at York's Barbican centre. I shall be there to show my commitment.

On Saturday 2 February—the 10th anniversary of the tragic death on the pitch of the York City player, David Longhurst—there will be a Fans United day for the home game against Lincoln City. That club, incidentally, is managed by a supporters' trust, which shows what supporters can do.

I pay tribute to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the role that has been played by Supporters Direct, which is funded by the Government through the Football Foundation. I pay particular tribute to the work of Dave Boyle from Supporters Direct over recent weeks in helping to create and build York's supporters' trust. I also pay tribute to the City of York council, which provided office premises for that work and has been in contact with the various consortia that have made bids for the club.

Of course, York City FC is a business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) said. However, it is not a business like any other. York has many important businesses such as GNER, Nestle Rowntree and Portakabin. All those companies are important to the city and its economy. However, they do not get thousands of people turning up to support them week after week. A football club is different; it is a business, but a business that has had its assets built up by supporters over decades. Those assets should not be taken away from a club.

There is a long-established tradition in football that directors are the guardians of their clubs. They play a privileged role, and any profits ought to be ploughed back into the clubs. I hope that that will happen in the York City case.

The Football Association always had a rule that, when a club is wound up, its profits are given to a sports charity. The point of that rule was to deter asset stripping. However, in 1999, York City FC hived off its assets—its ground—to a holding company, which is now up for sale. When the holding company was established, the directors stated that its creation was to safeguard the future of the club. If the ground is sold, the assets must be used for that purpose.

That important issue raises a matter of football policy that I wish the Minister to consider. I hope that he will get in touch with Adam Crozier, the chief executive of the Football Association, to ask him to examine its rules, because they should be strengthened. When supporters have built up assets over decades, those assets should remain with the club; they should not be hived off and sold in a property deal. I hope that that will not happen in York, but the Football Association should have rules to prevent that from happening to any football club.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) for securing this debate on the Football Foundation. Following a century of under-investment and neglect, grass-roots football is being kicked into the 21st century by the foundation's regeneration work. Where once there were jumpers in the park, now there are goalposts, good-quality training and decent kits, thanks to the foundation's work.

West Bromwich Albion plays an important role in the community that I represent, and I thank the club for that. It has been enjoying not only a good cup run, but a good run of victories in the league. It also deserves credit for its work with schools and kids across my constituency, and beyond.

This month, its long-standing Football in the Community programme received a welcome cash boost of £221,000 from the foundation. The grant will allow the community programme to fund the Sandwell six towns project. That involves thousands of children in 60 schools across the borough; it helps them to develop teamwork, leadership and communication skills.

That grant will make a real difference in West Bromwich, as such money has made a difference to many of the grass-roots and community projects that hon. Members have mentioned. By encouraging kids to take an active part in football, we give them positive opportunities, and take them away from the temptations of crime and drugs. It is essential that we continue to recognise the foundation's role with regard to that.

Another project in my constituency, the Greets Green ABC club, has recently set up a football team called the Scorpions. It is a mixed club, which works with local kids. Next month, it will play its first away game, in London, against a team from Camden. I hope to welcome the players at the House for their victory celebrations. Dot Jones organises the club, which provides a classic example of grass-roots football at its best. It began when she started taking the kids out on to the local green to kick a ball around, and a good-quality project has developed from that.

The Football Foundation is all about such projects. Investment must be secured over the long term if we are to discover the David Beckhams of the future, the players for whom every club searches. The foundation is putting something back into the game.

The foundation is also widening access to the game. The National Association of Disabled Supporters has long needed a stronger voice in football. It has received a grant of £23,000 from the foundation, and it is now auditing all of the facilities in the country, so that, with regard to facilities for the disabled, the good clubs will provide a shining example to the poorer clubs.

Most of the current innovative projects in football are linked to the foundation. Its work with the homeless provides a good example of that. It runs the street football league, in partnership with the Rough Sleepers Unit. Football for the homeless has not only been fun, but has helped hundreds of kids off the streets and has given them self-esteem and confidence. There are also training and referee courses to get them on to that first step on the ladder and back into the real world. In my view, sport goes hand in hand with education as a tool for social inclusion.

Top-flight football is all too often criticised for being more concerned with the balance sheet than the score sheet, as today's debate has so amply highlighted. However, we should give credit to the Premiership. It is often knocked because of the way that football is going, but let us not forget that it puts £20 million a year into the foundation. We should also pay tribute to the chairman and the chief executive of the Premiership, who play an active role on the board of the foundation. It is right that some of the big bucks in the game should be channelled into making sure that grass-roots football is revived and improved.

After little more than a year, the foundation is already accessing more than 350 applications from clubs and community schemes, to the tune of £52 million. It is planning for the future and compiling the first register of football facilities in England. That database will enable us to make the first accurate audit of the estimated 70,000 football pitches in England. I hope that the stakeholders, including the Government, will continue to recognise the invaluable work of the Football Foundation, and will keep on providing adequate funding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) mentioned that Wimbledon FC was elected to the league in 1977. That would not happen now; the team would have to win promotion. A team can now win automatic promotion from the Conference, as did my side, the mighty Kidderminster Harriers—once, in 1994, when its ground was not up to scratch, and once under the leadership of big Jan Molby two years ago. It is now in the third division, and could well go up into the second division. There is hope for Milton Keynes. I am sure that if the move does not go the right way, we could always move Milton Keynes.

Would my hon. Friend explain why, if promotion to the league has not happened in the 30 years of Milton Keynes's existence, it is likely to happen in the next 30?

I cannot comment on the quality of Milton Keynes's football teams, but if my hon. Friend wants to come to Kidderminster or West Bromwich, we can give her a few coaching tips, which she can take back to her side.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing the debate, which is important because, for many people in football, Wimbledon FC embodies the dream factor. For fans everywhere, it is the epitome of the club that can go right to the top and win silverware. As an Evertonian, I have fond memories of 1988 and Lawrie Sanchez's header. Many fellow fans will share my hon. Friend's fondness for Plough lane. I remember being in the open-air away end, and seeing John Fashanu rampaging through our defence.

I support what my hon. Friend is trying to do and I pay tribute to the work that he has done to support and protect his club. I also pay tribute to Lord Falconer, who has helped him. I have nothing against Milton Keynes, and I listened to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). I, too, would like football to flourish there. We need to help new communities, but I do not think that we should do so by giving them another community's history and heritage. This is a test case. We are discussing whether a temporary owner can uproot a club that was nurtured and nourished by one community and plant it in another.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) made an interesting speech, full of knowledge and conviction. He talked about FA rules being changed. The point is not so much that rules are being changed; rule 34 is in the FA's rulebook, and we want the FA to enforce its rules to prevent clubs from selling their grounds and moving away from their communities. That is what rule 34 is about.

On the York case, it is wrong that the chairman of York City, who sold the club's assets and put them into a holding company, was one of the very people sitting on the tribunal yesterday that ruled that the Football League decision regarding Wimbledon FC should be reconsidered by the Football League. That is wrong, and it needs to be looked at. I support the foundation's action in helping Wimbledon FC rebuild its home in south London. I also support it buying back Portuguese right-backs from Liverpool, but I suspect that that will not be on the cards.

My main point is about the foundation, which is not about the wealth at the top of the game. It is about the grass roots, about which my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) spoke eloquently and passionately. I am probably one of the few Members of Parliament who still plays Sunday morning football. It can be an extremely depressing trotting out at Haydock rec on a Sunday morning in the drizzle and having to avoid the dog excrement that is invariably left all over the pitch.

It is no surprise that we are struggling for players. Throughout the Warrington Sunday league, many teams are struggling for players and for referees, which is a problem that afflicts the whole of football. There is a shortage of referees from the bottom of the game to the top. I posit a very simple reason for that. The facilities provided for amateur footballers in this country are absolutely pitiful and depressing. In Britain, in the year 2002, Sunday morning footballers still have to change in shipping containers. Often, there is no hot or cold water, or toilets. Such a lack of facilities is standard. It is what we expect when we play football on Sunday mornings, and it is unacceptable.

The problem has much to do with local authority funding. I do not want to inject a partisan note into the debate, but local authorities were starved of funding in the 1980s and 1990s and, as a result, our civic fabric, our parks, and our sports facilities have declined.

Throughout my work with the football taskforce and, subsequently, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I was closely involved with the setting up of the Football Foundation. Its philosophy was to take some of the new-found wealth at the top of the game and plough it back into the public game at the bottom. Professional football has always redistributed money within the game, from the top to the bottom of the league. The foundation did something important. It went a stage further and took funding from professional football down into the public sphere at the grass roots and to schools and parks.

The Office of Fair Trading challenged the foundation, but the foundation argued that because football acts together and sells its rights collectively, it can make a collective decision to invest its money for the wider public good. That is a crucial element of collective television bargaining that has been under threat both in this country and abroad.

The European Commission is yet again looking at the collective deals of the English Premiership and the Football League. I know that the Minister for Sport understands the issues and is passionate about them, and I urge him to resist moves by the competition authorities to break up the collective bargaining arrangements in football and in sport generally. Such arrangements allow football authorities to put enormous sums into the Football Foundation. Without them, the bigger clubs would simply break away. Smaller clubs would be looking after themselves and the wider game would be left to fend for itself.

People have asked why football is getting all the attention, but the point about the Football Foundation—

Order. I must advise the hon. Gentleman and others that if they do not recognise the constraints imposed upon them by the Chair, the Chair is likely to be less lenient in future.

I was under the impression that I was the last speaker, but I will be brief. The collective television deal is extremely important and it is helping football to be self-sufficient, possibly reducing the amount of lottery funding that it receives from the public purse.

There are two final points that I ask the Minister to consider. Will he look at the role of Supporters Direct and whether the foundation is able to give it more support and work more closely with it to help some of the struggling Football League clubs? I believe that supporters' trusts are the answer to some of the problems in the game. Finally, will my right hon. Friend also consider diverting more lottery funding to the foundation? That would ensure that there was one funding pot for one strategy—created by the register of facilities—and would enable the foundation to create stability and health in football from the bottom of the pyramid right up to the top.

Clearly, 90 minutes is not enough for such an important debate. I regret that the seven speakers from the Government Benches have not played as a team. I will do my best in the minute that is left to me.

I am no fan of Wimbledon FC because it once knocked Colchester United out of the FA Cup when Wimbledon was a non-league side. However, I stand foursquare with Wimbledon and, hopefully, the Football Foundation and others in supporting community-based clubs. If Milton Keynes wishes to have a Football League side, it need do no more than follow the excellent example in the past decade or so of clubs such as Kidderminster Harriers, Wycombe Wanderers, Rushden and Diamonds, Macclesfield Town and Cheltenham Town, or teams as diverse as Halifax Town, Lincoln City, Darlington and Colchester United—which I have supported for the past 46 years—all of which won their places in the Football League by merit.

It is easier than ever for a professional football club to rise to the highest level and it is nonsense to suggest that a club must move around the country, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) did. Milton Keynes is an important location and I strongly recommend that any football club can aspire to membership of the league from its own resources.

Clubs may legally belong to the shareholders or to an individual owner, but their hearts and souls belong to their fans, whether they are in the nearby community or have travelled with the club. Good luck to York City and Wimbledon FC, and to Milton Keynes in trying to win its place in the Football League the correct way.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colchester for his patience and generosity.

In recognition of the generosity of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), I remind hon. Members of the power of football. Last spring, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—the then Minister for Sport—publicly declared that, for the irregularities of which it was guilty, Chesterfield FC should have had more than nine points deducted. The result was that the Liberal Democrats won Chesterfield from Labour in the general election.

I remind the Committee of my interest. I have been president of York City football club since 1988, and probably watch approximately 20 York City matches every season. I have no executive responsibility and it is difficult to say precisely what is happening about the club's future. I spoke to one of the potential new owners, Mr. John Batchelor, who was at the match last Saturday, and I have high hopes that he will become the future owner.

I am also lending active support to the embryonic supporters' trust, which I will help to launch at the York Barbican centre on Friday; I am glad that the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) will be there. By virtue of events elsewhere and with the help of Supporters Direct, many supporter trusts have been established, and I am convinced that they have played a vital role in helping clubs in financial difficulty to re-establish their base, although many are not yet out of the woods.

We play Lincoln City on Saturday, which is Fans United day, as the hon. Member for City of York mentioned. I was in the directors' box at York City on the day 10 years ago when David Longhurst collapsed and died of a severe heart condition that nobody knew he had. As president of the club, I chaired the appeal, which, with the help of the Football Foundation's predecessor, the Football Trust, put a roof over the Shipton street end of the ground. We called it the David Longhurst stand.

I remember the night we formally opened the stand. Sadly, the public address system packed up and I had to use a loudhailer, but I said then—enough people heard it—that I regarded it as one of the proudest achievements of my life to have been able to raise the money against the odds. We face much the same situation now.

York does not get the attendances that our performances on the pitch deserve, even though we are 23rd in the third division. We are one place from relegation, although we won last night. There is a contradiction. People say that we must save the club, and we had terrific attendances at our two recent cup games, although the cup run is now at an end for us. At the same time, however, people do not come through the turnstiles regularly enough to provide support for the club. That has to change.

In some respects, my next point about change will go to the heart of what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was trying to say. The facilities at many grounds are not up to the job of attracting fans, and are incapable of being used seven days a week, 365 days a year. York race course has 15 race days a year, yet it is busy every night with banquets, and every day with conferences and weddings. We have to make other use of the facilities.

The Conservative party strongly supports the creation of the Football Foundation, which has a big role to play in ensuring that football is adequately funded. It has several tasks to fulfil, but it has huge experience and expertise because, effectively, it was the Football Trust. During the past 10 years, the Football Trust was probably one of the most successful initiatives in British sport. Without it, our Premiership and first division grounds, and even some grounds lower down the league, would not have such fabulous new stadiums to which people are thronging.

That is only part of the role of the Football Foundation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on his ingenuity in being able to discuss the future of Wimbledon FC in a debate on the subject of football club funding and the Football Foundation. He was right to say that there would be a limit of £2 million on any grant from the foundation, but that is because its budget is not the £60 million target that was announced. Only 12.5 per cent. of the money—£7.5 million—is available for the football stadia improvement fund. People say that that cannot be enough, given the state of some grounds in the second and third division, but those clubs cannot afford even to think about redevelopment because they effectively face bankruptcy.

The most important element of the funding of the foundation comes from the Premiership. We do not know whether the television money amounts to 5 per cent., although we can argue about that another day, but that money is welcome. Cricket and lawn tennis give 11 per cent. of television money to grass-roots sport, and I hope that the Premiership will in time provide a greater resource.

What politicians can do about the future of football is limited at present. The Government do not own football and can only help to set a framework. I have watched football for 50 years, and many colleagues present have a similar love of the sport. Although I am president of York, I am a fanatical Arsenal fan, and I see what is happening at both extremes. The balance is not right. It is an old saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but that is precisely what is happening. It is happening to York City and to many other clubs, such as Port Vale, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) mentioned. I go to boardrooms on a Saturday at away matches, and precisely know the financial restrictions faced.

What is happening to those clubs is a prelude to a serious collapse of the second and third divisions in the foreseeable future. We cannot, in the time available, find a solution today, but I hope that what has been said will have tweaked the minds of those in football who have responsibility for the future.

One of the most heartening things to see during Saturday's game against Fulham was the banner held by Fulham fans that said "Save York City Football Club". I believe that we can save the club, but we must remember that the work of the Football Foundation is to support the grass roots of the game. Another debate on the subject would be useful, because my notes contain a lot about how we should invigorate the grass roots. The foundation has made a good start, but it needs to do more.

Unless we encourage youngsters and give them proper coaching, we can kiss goodbye to our dreams of winning World cups or European championships in years to come. We have seen what coaching on the continent has achieved. The Football Foundation is a vehicle for funding and has the experience to coach our youngsters and give them proper facilities, but it has to be given the resources.

This has not been a partisan debate, except when we have been talking about where Wimbledon FC should go. I, as the shadow Minister, and my party will do all that we can to help. What we are seeing now is the development of many things that were started by the Conservative Government. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon on securing the debate. If nothing else, it has provided us with an opportunity to say a little about what is going on in football, and I hope that those in high places will hear what has been said.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing the debate. It was an innovatory way of getting Wimbledon FC on to the agenda. I went to see last night's derby match where Sheffield United, my team, and Sheffield Wednesday had a no-score draw. After getting up at 5 o'clock this morning to return here, I have to say that listed buildings and club relocation take on a new meaning.

The Football Foundation's achievements since July 2000 have been substantial. I shall deal specifically with the question of relocation of Wimbledon to Milton Keynes. Powerful arguments have been made by both sides but, as I have said on a number of occasions— especially in connection with the early-day motion— the Government do not have a major role to play. I have said to the fans, to the club and to my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that it is a matter for the Football League. Indeed, yesterday's development clearly puts the matter back in the league's hands. I was able to speak about that to David Burns at last night's match, and the league will take seriously the referral from the Football Association.

The question facing the Football League is whether a club should be permitted to relocate away from a historic location. That is something for the FA to decide, but it is important that it is taken in the context of today's debate. The guidance that is given to the Football League says that it should consider the community interest when deciding the location of a club.

In four or five weeks' time, many of the questions raised today can be taken up with the new independent football commission. Unfortunately, it has taken a little while to get under way. Professor Fraser will be heading that commission, and I hope that some of the questions about ownership and the role of football— and the questions asked directly by supporters— will be taken in a wider context by the commission; that is why it was set up. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen), the chairman of the all-party group on football, may facilitate that debate because that subject was not properly aired in this morning's 90-minute debate.

There is clearly a lot of concern about ownership, and my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) mentioned York City football club. The club is close to my town of Sheffield and to Chesterfield, where Supporters Direct played an active role in setting up a trust. The independent football commission could usefully take up the fundamental issues of the ownership of football clubs' assets and the role that clubs play in the community. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Burnham) will become the chairman of Supporters Direct in the near future, and I wish him well. I hope that Supporters Direct can meet the new independent football commission to work through some of the major problems— they are opportunities, too— that football faces.

I welcome the work of the Football Foundation. Only last week, I had the opportunity to participate in a major conference that was called by local authorities and those interested in football in the north-east, including representatives of the Sunday leagues. Many of the problems that have been raised today were raised there. A new corporate governance is emerging at grass-roots level, aided and abetted by professional football. Clubs are setting up academies and working with the foundation, which suggests that they realise that the fans and the indigenous development of the game are important for its long-term health. That is what the Government and the Opposition believe, and the foundation plays a significant role in that regard. It is putting resources into the grass roots to ensure that we build social inclusion and tackle many of the issues that we encounter in the more difficult areas and estates. Football is a great conduit for bringing people back into society, and I know that those in the game take that role seriously.

It has taken the Football Foundation 12 months to bed down, but it is now moving in the right direction, and hon. Members have given many statistics to illustrate the role that it plays. As an aside, I might mention that I went to the opening of the new ground of the Sheffield club, the first football club in the world. The foundation helped to secure that new location and to renovate the old ground, which is now an excellent park in which to play football. Beyond that, the foundation's activities will help football in general.

As regards Wimbledon, we shall watch this space with interest to see what comes out of the Football League's deliberations. The wider issue of ownership should be taken up with the independent commission, and I hope that Fans Direct can get the debate going and that we can then bring the matter back into this arena. From time to time, the independent football commission will report to the Government on the debate, so it is a serious matter. All the major actors— the FA and others— are on the stage, so I am hopeful that we shall have a thorough debate, without taking a partisan position. We can probably come up with a formula that will lead to football being seen and owned by the communities in which clubs operate so that the game can move from strength to strength.

I congratulate the foundation, with which I work closely, and I hope that we can ensure that progress is made.

Will my right hon. Friend and the Treasury be looking closely at the gap in the Government's contributions to the Football Foundation?

I am looking closely at the issue with the Treasury. One must look at sport in the round. There are 130-odd sports in the UK, and I am bound to say that football, although very important, gets more than its fair share of the contributions. That is not to say that there is not a dialogue going on with the foundation; there is, and I shall take it up in the next two weeks with the noble Lord Pendry. Let us keep a sense of proportion about all sports in this country.

There are two fundamental questions: first, is the congestion charge a good thing or a bad thing; secondly, if we reach the conclusion that it is a bad thing, what can the Government do about it? An ancillary point is what the Labour party said that it was going to do about it and whether it has misled the people of London.

What is the point of the congestion charge? The Mayor of London is telling the people of London that the centre of the city is congested, which is not in London's interests. Accordingly, he will use his powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and impose a road user charge in a small, defined area in the centre. He argues that that will remove the congestion and improve the environment. Let us put aside the alternatives for a second. In my judgment, it is a classic piece of anti-car socialist envy— Red Ken in his finest colours. His true purpose is to tax a certain group of Londoners and raise money to subsidise the underground because the Government are slowly but surely letting it slide into chaos. The congestion charge is a policy that I oppose and I am pleased that the Conservative party opposes it too. It is a policy supported by the Liberal Democrats.

The hon. Gentleman will remember that I, like other London Members, was involved in the Greater London Authority Bill. Does he accept that, whether he or I support or oppose congestion charges, it is a proper matter for the regional authority to decide— in this case, the Mayor and the Greater London Authority— or is it his position that the Conservative party should not allow it, even if, at a less than national level, it is considered appropriate?

Central Government should intervene and I shall argue that they have the powers to do so. Since the hon. Gentleman and I served on the GLA Bill, then the longest Bill in Parliament, with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), I have gone to the Opposition Back Benches. I do not speak for the Front Bench, so he will have to put the question—

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that congestion charging was proposed during the election campaign for the Mayor of London in May 2000, but only on the basis that there would be a manifest improvement in public transport before such a charge was introduced? Everyone in London would agree that such an improvement has not been manifest. On that basis, is it not important that we in Parliament, while recognising the importance of devolved London government, have some voice to ensure that an inequitable tax is not foisted upon members of our constituencies and beyond?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I shall dwell at some length on the positions of the parties at the time of the mayoral election and the general election. At the time, the Labour party simply said that it was against.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when his party was in government, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), went on record as advocating a form of congestion charging? The issue is not clear-cut. Some people in all parties are against the issue in principle and some are against the specifics of the current proposals—

I think that the hon. Gentleman has the wrong Minister. That idea was floated in a Green Paper. It did not surface in a White Paper. After consultation, it was rejected and certainly never appeared in a manifesto.

As I was saying before I was interrupted, the Conservative party opposes the policy although the Liberal Democrats support it. The Labour party introduced the power to charge, then said that it opposed it, then supported it and now is not sure. That is not so much the third way as all three ways at the same time. Congestion charging would cause chaos. It would hinder rather than help London's economic development. It would tax those who cannot afford it. It would have no beneficial impact on the environment, but might worsen it.

The Government legislated to provide general powers for the introduction of congestion charging inside and outside London. Their current line is that they are waiting to see how the proposed charging works in London before they introduce other schemes. The Government have given themselves powers to veto the introduction of congestion charges outside London, but claim that they do not have such a power in respect of charging in London— the Prime Minister pointed that out at Prime Minister's questions two weeks ago. I shall challenge that stance but, before I do so, it would be helpful to evaluate the merits of congestion charges.

The Mayor says that traffic in London is getting worse, spoiling the environment and must be curtailed. That statement completely ignores the fact that traffic growth in central London in the past 20 years has fallen by 2 per cent. The real growth is occurring in outer London boroughs, where traffic has increased by more than 50 per cent. in the past 20 years. Mercifully, there are no proposals to introduce congestion charging in those boroughs. However, there is an additional factor— the plethora of traffic-calming measures introduced by the Government since 1997 and, more recently, by the GLA. Protection of pedestrians and cyclists is essential but we should accept that such measures will have certain consequences. Traffic in my constituency has been visibly slowed. The zebra crossing has been replaced by the pedestrian light, which often stops traffic for longer than necessary.

We all want less congestion. Those who want clear roads are usually those who simply want to be able to drive down them without frustration. Traffic jams are a regulatory mechanism. Virtually everyone in a traffic jam is there because he or she wants to be. If a road is clear of traffic, more motorists use it, which causes a traffic jam, and so the process continues. The Mayor says that he wants to break that circle and eliminate congestion through taxation. In my judgment, for such a tax to succeed, it must pass three tests. It must be fair, have a purpose and be efficient. The congestion charge is none of those.

On fairness, who will be hit hardest by the charge? Not the fat cat City boss driving his car to the City, who will not be deterred in the slightest because he will add the charge to his office expenses. It is the little man who will be hit hardest— the poorest in society. That will include the evening shift worker who comes into town in the afternoon so that he can drive home late in the evening, the mother on the school run who has no alternative but to pay the charge, the pensioner who wants to go to the shops, and charities. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates that the additional cost will be £5,000 a year.

Even the Mayor's agencies are complaining. The Metropolitan police authority is concerned that the charge will have an impact on recruitment and retention of police officers. Small businesses, such as newsagents, will be affected. The London fire and emergency planning authority estimates that 70 per cent. of its staff drive to work. Those people will be hit hardest.

The puzzling feature of the proposals is that the present incumbent of the mayoralty has always argued for the poorest in society. The measure is a regressive tax and it will affect the poorest in society hardest. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that motorists in the poorest fifth of the population commit up to 24 per cent. of their total expenditure to running their cars. Low wage earners must be flexible about where they find work. People on low incomes already find it tough enough to find work in the capital and hon. Members of all parties constantly refer to the lack of low-cost housing. To take another £1,250 a year out of income, after taxation, is equivalent to another £25,000 on a mortgage. That will be the impact.

The proposals fail the first test, as the tax will be regressive, and will hit hardest those on the lowest incomes. It is not a fair tax, but a poll tax on wheels. Even more extraordinary is the existence of an alternative. Section 296 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 allows the Mayor to impose a workplace parking levy, which would hit the highest earners in our society, not the lowest. It would be easy to implement and would almost certainly raise a high level of revenue, yet I have heard no one in the Labour or Liberal Democrat parties recommend it. I strongly suspect that the Mayor has a touch of the Prime Minister's radicalism— one can be tough on something, as long as there will be no fighting back. The workplace parking levy would affect big business, which the Mayor is keen to suck up to. The working classes will give him much less trouble.

The second test is whether the charge has a purpose. The claimed purpose is to improve the quality of the environment and to meet the obligation, under section 30 of the 1999 Act, that the Mayor cannot introduce such a measure unless it promotes an improvement of the environment in Greater London. Is the traffic of central London causing pollution? If so, is the congestion charge needed to remove it? The Mayor's proposals pay little attention to technological progress in the production of the clean car. The average car now produces only 5 per cent. of the toxic emissions that it produced 20 years ago. Technology is in the pipeline to lower that figure even more. Hydrogen-fuelled cars are becoming a reality and before long an environmentally clean car will be possible.

Ironically, research has shown that the most polluted street in London is Oxford street, the only one where cars are not permitted. The only vehicles going down it are buses and taxis and we all know the difficulties that they have with their emissions. The irony is that they, the most polluting vehicles in London, will be exempt from the congestion charge. So how effective will the charge be in reducing pollution?

I agree that great technological advances are being made that affect the cleanness of cars, but however clean a car is, will it not create the same amount of congestion?

Two cars are needed for a traffic jam, but I think I get the drift of the question, which raises an important point. Is a traffic jam pollution? The inference to be drawn from the intervention is that it is.

Whether a traffic jam created by zero-emission cars produces pollution is debatable, but it is not debatable that traffic jams have a clear and heavy impact on businesses, which must bear the costs of the slowing down of the movement of their goods.

The centre of London seems to be doing all right at the moment without the congestion charge, but with the introduction of the charge the businesses the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be affected. In fact, congestion outside the zone may worsen. Helpfully, Labour-controlled Croydon council issued a press release last week entitled, "Ensuring congestion charge avoiders don't harm Croydon", which says that the Government have given the council £41,000 to carry out a consultation exercise. Multiplied over the 32 London boroughs, that comes to £1.3 million.

Bureaucracy seems to be good business under Labour. The Government introduce a tax and then give moneys to authorities to work out how to avoid its impact. The press release says it all. A congestion-charging zone cannot exist in isolation, as there is bound to be a knock-on effect. For example, plenty of traffic transits London using the Embankment. It would be forced south or north of the charging zone area. The City of London has expressed concern about the environmental impact on Tower bridge, which is just outside the zone and will become a focal artery for traffic trying to avoid it. The bridge is regularly raised, which will hardly ease congestion, as the area will be packed with vehicles avoiding the charge. Congestion outside the area will grow. To make matters worse, the Mayor is introducing no-car lanes on key routes such as the A40 to discourage traffic outside the zone.

The absolute chaos that will follow the introduction of the zone does not bear thinking about. The shambles will be total and gridlock complete. As the Mayor knows from his days in the Greater London council, one needs to shut only the odd key road to have a huge impact on London's traffic. He shut one lane of the A4 in Kensington and the tailback stretched back to Heathrow. To cut off a whole swathe of London to traffic will lead to absolute chaos.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, just before the 1999 Act allowed local government powers to introduce congestion charges, Westminster city council distributed to every household a copy of Westminster Reporter, which said that the time had come to introduce congestion charging and that the only barrier was the fact that the Government would not allow the council to do it?

I have absolutely no idea, but perhaps the hon. Lady would like to take the matter up with Westminster council. I take it from that intervention that she is in favour of the congestion charge.

The only purpose of the proposals is to raise revenue; they will do nothing to improve the flow of traffic, so the tax fails the second test.

The third test is whether the tax is efficient. The Mayor has made no secret of the fact that he hopes to impose the charge to subsidise the London underground. That is an obsession with the Mayor— he did that when he ran the GLC and, now that the Government have given him powers to raise extra taxes, the temptation to do it again is irresistible. However, the sums raised for the funding of the underground will be risible and will barely scratch the surface of the extra funding that is needed.

In August 2000, Transport for London estimated that the scheme would raise £200 million a year to give to public transport projects— which is code for the London underground. However, it is now expected that the scheme will raise only £628 million in the first five years of its operation and that, as the budget is revised, projected costs will rise and revenues fall. Although an extra £100 million for the underground will always be welcome, it will not make that much difference. Yesterday's Evening Standard said that the Government had cut funding for the underground. People are concerned that, for every pound raised by the charge, the Government will cut their subsidy by £1.

Congestion taxes require significant mitigation measures and a network of cameras and monitoring equipment. Transport for London admits that the total cost of implementing the scheme in London will be up to £560 million in the first year. Roland Berger, the international transport strategy consultants, warned last November that the system had already been rejected as dated by almost every other world capital and that rushing into a system of levying one basic charge over a rigidly defined area would simply push congestion from the centre to other parts of the capital. Will it even reduce congestion inside the zone?

In Singapore, the technology is sophisticated and fine-tuned to control traffic flows. The half a dozen arteries into the city centre have different rates at different times of day. There is one rate for entering during the rush hour. Half an hour later, the sum is reduced. That system is effective and evens out the traffic flows. Technology is actually making a difference. In Singapore, drivers pay every time they enter the zone. Here, the technology will be limited, or virtually nonexistent, and the use of season tickets may well encourage more traffic. Here, once drivers have paid their annual fee, they might as well get their money's worth by going in and out at will. Accordingly, I argue that the charge fails the third test. It is an inefficient tax. The sums raised are not worth the chaos that it will cause.

Those are the three tests. The question now is what the Government should do about it. Will the Government intervene to prevent the disaster that will happen? I do not know why I should try to help them out, as the chaos that will result from the proposal is likely to happen just before the next general election. I shall then point out, with some relish, which party introduced the measure. However, I put London first and I would like to give the Minister some advice on the way out of the minefield into which the Government are walking.

Until now, the Government have said that it is a matter for the Mayor. The Prime Minister made that point to me at Prime Minister's questions two weeks ago. They have been saying that they can only tinker with the proceeds of the scheme— that they do not have the power to block it. The tinkering comes under paragraph 16 of schedule 23 of the 1999 Act, and I am sure that the Minister will use his powers with diligence when it becomes necessary. Section 143 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Mayor to change his transport strategy if he considers it to be inconsistent with national policy and likely to have an adverse effect outside London. Personally, I think that gridlock in the capital will have a dramatic effect outside London, and the only astonishing thing is that the Government fail to recognise that fact.

The real power for the Minister, however, is contained in section 30 of the 1999 Act, which relates to the general powers of the authority. The Act says that the authority should have the power to do anything that it considers will further any of its principal purposes. It goes on to define those purposes as

"promoting economic development and wealth creation in Greater London;…promoting social development in Greater London; …and promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London."

Although the Act gives the Mayor the power to introduce road user charging, he can do so only if it promotes economic development, wealth creation and social development and improves the environment. In my judgment, the proposals fail on all three counts. Having a zone in the centre of London where traffic is slightly reduced, but with chaos in the surrounding areas, will not promote the economic development of London. It will harm it and it will stifle the process of wealth creation, as investors run a mile. As it is a regressive tax, which will hit those on the lowest income hardest, it will hardly promote social development in London. It seems that it will barely affect the environment. At Mayor's question time last May, the Mayor said:

"We expect there to be no significant improvement in air quality directly as a result of congestion charging."

It is arguable that, in a city full of grid-locked traffic, the environment may deteriorate.

The proposal breaches the general powers of the authority. The good news for the Minister is that section 30(7) gives the Secretary of State powers to issue guidance to the authority concerning the exercise by the GLA of its powers. That power is unfettered and can be used widely. It is clear that the Government have the power and the grounds to intervene. The only question remaining is whether they have the guts. Frankly, I am not sure that they have. This horrendous issue will have a profound effect on the capital and they are sitting like a rabbit caught in the headlights of an oncoming bus.

During the London mayoral election in May 2000, everyone's positions were clear. The Liberal Democrats were in favour of congestion charging and have remained so. The independent Mayor was in favour of it. The Conservative party was implacably opposed, and we thought that the Labour party was too. It campaigned on a manifesto that said, "New Labour, New London", and "no congestion charges". The Prime Minister endorsed that manifesto— it had his picture on page one and his signature. On 13 April 2000, during the campaign, the Prime Minister made his move. An article in The Times of that day stated:

"Making his long-awaited intervention into the mayoral contest in support of Frank Dobson, Labour's candidate, Mr. Blair drew back from repeating his previous personal attacks against Mr. Livingstone. Instead, he targeted the Brent East MP's policies, insisting they were wrong for the capital, and highlighting transport in particular. Mr. Blair said that Mr. Livingstone's plans to charge drivers entering central London would be costly, and that his pledge to fund improvements to the Tube by issuing bonds would saddle Londoners with debt. However, the impact of the warning was blunted when Mr. Blair suggested that even if Mr. Livingstone were elected, his bond issue would never happen."

That is an interesting aside as the Government still wrestle with proposed public-private partnership and the possible bond issue.

That was the position of the Prime Minister and the Government. Not wishing to fall out with their leader, Assembly candidates fell over themselves to agree. Trevor Philips, leader of the Labour group on the Assembly, and Deputy Mayor, said that he would not support the congestion charge until improvements were made to the underground. It will be a long time before that is put to the test. The Mayor got his mandate. He had been clear, and the electorate responded accordingly. However, he did not have an unfettered right. The London Assembly has the power to overturn the Mayor's budget if there is a 70 per cent. majority against it. It was a good election for the Conservative party, and we came out the biggest party in the London Assembly. Labour were not far behind, and it came second. That meant that the 70 per cent. needed to prevent the congestion charge was present. Ever resourceful, the Conservative party took the words out of the Labour party manifesto, incorporated them into a motion and invited the Labour party to support it just three weeks after the election.

The high-flying rhetoric of opposition to the congestion charge proved to be nothing but deceit. Labour Assembly Members voted against the motion— hypocrisy of the highest level. They wanted the congestion charge after all. However, Ministers are more wary than naive Assembly Members. They know that troubled waters lie ahead and they distance themselves, saying that it is not their responsibility. Nevertheless, the powers to intervene exist.

Unless there are substantial improvements in London's public transport, a congestion charge will exacerbate current problems. The right way to make progress is to hold a public inquiry. In about three years, Edinburgh intends to implement a congestion charge, but after a public inquiry. The full impact of the charge should be assessed and the views of boroughs such as Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea should be incorporated.

Using central London as a pilot scheme will pose a significant risk to its social, economic and environmental well-being. Of all the places in the United Kingdom, the centre of London is the last place where a pilot scheme of this nature should be held. As the Brett report, commissioned by Westminster council, concludes:

"The scheme has a number of significant drawbacks which means that a public inquiry would be the most appropriate way of tackling the substantive concerns over the congestion charge."

I agree. The only question is whether the Minister, who is the only one with the power to do anything about it, will do something.

rose—

Order. Four hon. Members have indicated in writing that they want to participate in the debate and a further three are standing. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the Opposition spokesman and the Minister must also speak. I therefore prevail on hon. Members to keep remarks brief to allow the maximum number to participate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on securing the debate. I, too, tried to secure such a debate. He obviously has better luck than I have had.

I do not think that congestion charging will work. I accept that the Mayor decided that he had a mandate to go ahead with it and is determined to have it, but until we improve our public transport, people will not accept that it is fair.

I want to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the zone. I should like the whole proposal to be dropped and I urge the Minister seriously to consider holding a public inquiry if he has the powers to do so, because real and necessary consultation that allows people to understand what it will mean and how unfair it will be has not yet taken place.

Although there have been exemptions— we welcome those that the Mayor has added after consultation— anomalies will make the situation more expensive for some public services. I draw particular attention to my local hospital, Guy's and St. Thomas's. Staff have recently written to Transport for London pointing out that they were

"disappointed that more has not been done to ameliorate the effects of the charge on the national health service, its staff and patients. As proposed, large numbers of our staff who use their cars to come to and from work will remain liable for the charge because they will not be using their cars for the very specific, and limited, reasons set out in the scheme order. Examples include staff on-call from home…who have to come…out of hours and return home within the charging hours; staff who bring their children into the hospital's nursery facilities."

There is a shortage of staff, they are often dependent on accessing nursery places, and they will be liable to the charge. Many of the staff working in my local hospital have great difficulty in getting to work by public transport. The trust will have to reimburse much of the costs of charges, which will be a considerable extra burden to the national health service. The alternative is not to do that and face the loss of staff and greater recruitment and retention problems.

(Hampstead and Highgate): Is my hon. Friend aware that one exemption that the Mayor proposes is for those who, as Transport for London says, make a

"contribution to wider social or environmental objectives for example, NHS staff providing a essential services"?

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. The problem is that the hospital has found that if that exemption is taken literally, it can say that everyone working in the hospital is exempt, which is clearly not going to be the case. That is why the hospital has drawn up the areas that will be affected by the proposals. Importantly, Transport for London has chosen to operate a reimbursement scheme for staff who will not be entitled to a discount, rather than an exemption scheme. The time and costs associated with the reimbursement scheme, not to mention delays and errors that could occur, could add extra cost for the hospital.

My understanding is that it is a case of while they are at work, not while getting to work. We could be looking at a £25 million bill a year for hospitals.

I have not gone into the detailed costs, I just know that the hospital would not put its serious concerns in writing if it did not feel that the proposal would have a bad effect on it and its services. There is also the question of exemption for dependent patients and their carers. A range of issues is involved. Until the scheme is working we shall be unable to work everything out, and we shall be faced with huge problems afterwards.

When the scheme was proposed and looked as though it would happen, I thought that it would affect central London. However, the boundary has been drawn through the centre of my constituency in Kennington— through the heart of a conservation area and a community that has suffered a huge amount over the years but has managed to keep together and maintain its community feel. Congestion charging would cover Kennington, while Harrods, which in my view is in the centre of London, would not be covered.

I recently attended a meeting of 400 people in Kennington. People are only beginning to realise what charging will mean, which is why we need a public inquiry. When people discover that the powers that be are treating Kennington as central London, but not Harrods, they will think it nonsense. Splitting my community in half will mean that people living on one side of the road will have to pay while others will not. Businesses will also be affected, which will be a big blow to part of my constituency that I am not prepared to accept.

If there is a need for congestion charging, which I dispute, it should have begun with a small pilot scheme in the core of central London. If we were all to draw maps of central London, the scheme should be piloted in the middle of them.

As the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, lights have replaced pedestrian crossings in the past year or two. Cars therefore stop for longer when nobody is crossing the road, which causes pollution that affects people waiting at bus stops for buses that do not come because we have not improved public transport. There is a vendetta against the car. Having a car was something that gave me independence. Many women will not get out of their cars no matter how much public transport improves. Some may use their cars less if public transport improves, but until we see an improvement we shall not force people out of their cars. All that will happen is that people will be prepared to sit for longer.

As the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, charging will not affect people who are rich, who own businesses or who are Members of Parliament because they will pay and continue to use their cars. The people who will suffer will be those in my constituency who have got a job and saved up to buy a car, even if it is a second-hand banger, which they see as an important part of their lifestyle. They will suffer and it is wrong that we are allowing this to happen without a public inquiry.

The Government have the power to intervene and I urge them to do so with reference to my residential constituency— huge numbers of Members of Parliament live there, but I know that that will not influence the Minister, who also lives in the area. We must examine the scheme and stop it before we damage the Mayor's role.

It is a great pleasure to follow the common-sense words of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I must apologise to the Minister because I must leave slightly early to attend a constituency engagement, but I shall read Hansard in great detail tomorrow. I shall be brief because I know that several other hon. Members want to speak.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said. Devolution of power to the regions has led to some momentous decisions, which on face value mean that other matters are outside the remit of the House. Although many Conservative Members were not in favour of a London Mayor, we must now work with that position as it is clearly here to stay, and we must ensure that we put the interests of Londoners first.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) made an interesting and thoughtful contribution that covered many of the most important points. I want to touch on a few issues that have not been discussed in great detail.

Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall, I believe that the exemptions issue is a can of worms and entirely arbitrary. Given that London is the economic powerhouse of the country, every last accountant, banker and solicitor going into central London is a key worker. Therefore, the concept of restricting key workers according to some arbitrary lobbying of Ken Livingstone is entirely wrong. It is clear that the key worker concept is open to abuse and uncertainty.

I am also concerned about the financial viability of the proposal. It is agreed that there must be radical improvements to London's infrastructure, and in particular its transport infrastructure, before a road charge can be considered. That applies to the underground system too. As Bob Kylie has made clear, it will take at least 10 years to make any fundamental improvements to the underground system. From the moment when the decision is made on how the investment will work, the tube will get worse for the next three or four years before it gets better. That decision will simply be the first part of the problem.

The Mayor has placed great reliance on London buses, and endless advertisements on the television, radio and billboards talk about the importance of buses. Although there are improvements, they will not make anything like the difference required to ensure that the problems with the congestion charge will not come home to roost.

The proposed scheme was intended to raise about £200 million a year. It now seems clear from all the statistical analysis that the maximum amount will be around £125 million a year. It is difficult to see how that will improve London's public transport. There will also be vast implementation costs. In the past week, there has been the revelation that Ken Livingstone has had to sign a number of preliminary contracts, which means that, even if he decides tomorrow to do away with the scheme, there will inevitably be a cost of about £20 million to London's taxpayers. As there are now 53 weeks until the scheme is due to be implemented, a massive amount of infrastructure work needs to be done. Even if the scheme got the green light, it would not be operational by the beginning of next February, so the congestion charge could become something of a shambles.

I know that I speak for myself; I am not sure that I speak for my party, but I shall allow my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) to make the party view clear. I speak as the Member of Parliament for the constituency most directly affected by the congestion charge, if it is brought into play. It is incumbent on us to put the interests of Londoners first. I shall support the Minister if he now takes the initiative and holds a full public inquiry.

The Government can rest assured that they will have the support of London Conservative Members if the interests of Londoners are put first. I am greatly concerned that the Mayor of London does not want to incur the wrath of environmentalists by cancelling the charge himself, although my hunch is that, given the political situation, he is as keen as anybody to ensure that he does not have a congestion charge nightmare on his hands during his re-election campaign in the run-up to May 2004.

I, too, applied for a debate on this subject and I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on his success in securing this timely debate. Like him, I speak as an outer-London Member but, unlike the two previous speakers, the scheme does not include my constituency. My assessment on behalf of my constituents in Ilford and Redbridge, which include many underground and railway stations, is that they will gain nothing from implementation of the scheme. The wrong scheme is being introduced at the wrong time in the wrong way.

There has recently been controversy about a residents' parking scheme in Seven Kings. My constituents will be charged £5 to enter central London, but under the Mayor's strategy they will be entitled to a 15 per cent. reduction on journeys in, which will have to be taken by other forms of transport. There is no way in which the 86 bus can go all the way from Romford to central London in anything like the time that it takes on the tube or suburban rail lines. My constituents will use the Central or District lines or the suburban lines from Liverpool street to Southend or from Fenchurch street to the east. Those lines are already jam-packed at rush hour, and it is unbelievably unpleasant to get on a Central line train at any time between 8 am and 9.30 am. It is the same in the afternoon.

My constituents will either pay the £5 charge to drive into central London every day, or they will have an even more unpleasant journey on public transport. When they get home from work, they will see outside their houses and all around cars owned by county commuters from Hertfordshire and Essex who have come in and found a tube or suburban line station near which to park to enable them to get to work. The whole of outer London will become a car park for county commuters. There will be no benefit to my constituents whatever.

I raised these concerns during the original consultation but, needless to say, my views were completely disregarded. I expected nothing else, because the Mayor is obsessed with getting the scheme through before his next election. His timetable is unrealistic; he wants the scheme to be introduced in February next year and he is using technology that is untested and unproven.

An interesting article in The Guardian on 14 July 2001 referred to the general problem of new technology for Governments and said:

"'The lesson that government departments have been forced to learn is that the big bang approach is a recipe for disaster' said Tony Collins, executive editor of Computer Weekly magazine. 'There have been so many projects which have sounded so simple on paper. But it is only by running a test in a certain area for at least six months that you can find out whether it will work.'"

Perhaps there will be a test and we shall be the guinea pigs. The first six months will be interesting.

With a mayoral election in spring 2004, I am tempted to let the Mayor get on with it and suffer the political consequences of introducing such a disastrous scheme. However, that will not be good for my constituents or anyone else in London, whether within the central zone or outside it. It is in the public interest that those of us who are worried about the matter speak out now. If the scheme goes ahead regardless, we will at least be able to say that Labour politicians were not responsible because the Mayor is anti-Labour, was elected as an independent and introduced this policy in a pig-headed way without listening to the voices that said it would not work in the interests of our constituents. Many other people should be speaking out. For my constituents, and many others in outer London, there is no tangible benefit whatever from the scheme as it is proposed today.

I undertake to speak for a couple of minutes only. I have a direct constituency interest in the proposal because the boundary of the zone goes from Tower bridge on the northern edge of my constituency and cuts through the north-eastern part of Southwark until it joins the Lambeth border at the end of Newington Butts. Northeast Southwark is in the zone, the rest of the borough is out of it and the boundary goes through my constituency, in a similar way to that described by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) in relation to her constituency.

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have been consistent in the principle of their positions. We have supported in principle a congestion charge and the fact that London government should decide on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) will speak on behalf of our party on that general principle. I have made my views clear at both rounds of the submissions that have been called for by the Mayor and Transport for London and have put in submissions on both occasions, including earlier this month.

I want to raise some matters that I believe are important with the Minister. It is appropriate to bring to Ministers' attention matters that might influence their decisions about whether to intervene in the way in which the 1999 Act allows them. I have put the case for the boundary to be in a different place. It is nonsense for it to go through the middle of communities, boroughs and postal districts. IIIogically, that will break up natural patterns of movement and put people on either side of a boundary that they will have to cross regularly. I have asked for the boundary to be moved outwards, so that it naturally takes in the whole of communities in my borough and elsewhere.

I have put the case for a buffer zone, so that people who live just outside the zone but whose natural movements, for which they have to use private transport, come within it—taking the children to school, going to see an elderly relative, shopping, going to the doctor—can be covered without having to pay the £5 daily charge. I am surprised that that idea has not yet been accepted. I hope that Transport for London and the Mayor will accept it, but if they do not, it will be helpful to bring other pressure to bear in examining the issue. There is a strong view in my constituency that it would be right.

Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall and others, I think that although the exemption extensions made by the Mayor between rounds one and two are welcome, other categories have not been thought through. The hon. Lady and I share the Guy's and St. Thomas's hospital trust: Guy's is in my patch, St. Thomas's in her's. I think that there are only two other hospitals in the zone: Bart's and the Middlesex hospital. There is a real issue here for the major hospitals, about which we are all concerned. I hope that other exemptions, including those that would affect the life of hospitals, will be examined.

As my constituents have become aware of the issues, they are increasingly persuaded that the Mayor should use his power to hold a public inquiry. My judgment is that the scheme is a good idea in principle, but that it must be shown to work, stack up and be fair. That will provide public confidence in it. I hope that the Mayor and Transport for London will agree with my view.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on obtaining the debate and, in an era when Conservative policy seems to change from day to day, on staying true to what was Conservative policy during the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill. He was opposed to the measure then and is now; I supported it then and do now.

I shall set part of the argument in context, thanks to a helpful briefing from Transport for London about whether the proposals will actually go ahead. As we know, the Mayor has held a consultation period during the past 18 months, which, I believe, closed in January 2002. Transport for London is reviewing all the representations and I understand that the Mayor will issue a report, then make a decision later this year, on

"whether to accept the scheme unamended, to press ahead with an amended scheme, to order a public inquiry or to drop the scheme".

I point out to my hon. Friends that the idea of congestion charging was certainly Labour party policy. A Labour Government introduced the GLA Bill and a Labour Government afforded a major breakthrough in how to raise adequate funding for transport in London, namely by hypothecation. That issue was touched on only briefly this morning. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) suggested that £130 million a year might be raised from congestion charging. The figures presented to me by Transport for London show that it is actually £130 million a week. It has been estimated that traffic congestion costs London £2.5 million a week.

The arguments advanced by hon. Members who oppose the introduction of congestion charging in London are exactly the same as those that would have been advanced when residents' parking was first proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) spoke about county travellers coming in and using his constituency as free parking. That happened in my constituency. The problem was solved when my local authority introduced a residents' parking scheme. I have never heard anyone ask for such a scheme to be abolished. On the contrary, I get letters from constituents saying, "Please, when may we have a residents' parking scheme?"

The bottom line is that traffic must be managed. We must control it; it cannot control us. It destroys people's lives. Several hon. Members, quite properly, put forward the concerns of their constituents. I put forward the concerns of my constituents, many of whose lives are being destroyed by traffic from outside their borough. The owners of those cars do not inflate the local economy; they use the constituency simply as part of a process for getting from one side of London to the other. People are plagued not only by air pollution, but by noise pollution. Their children cannot play on the streets and they are worried about the rate of traffic accidents.

Those are the issues that must be tackled. It is absurd to argue that this is a sneak tax that is being imposed on the people of London. Where does the money for improvements in transport and the environment come from? It comes directly from income tax or it is raised from people who use the benefits of their cars and have to pay for the privilege. We accept that we have to pay for the privilege of parking. Our ability to park where we would ideally like is continually reducing. In inner and central London, methods of controlling traffic by making it more difficult or more expensive to park have reached their apotheosis. It is not possible to reduce traffic any further in that way. We have to use other ways of managing traffic and of ensuring that people who stay in their cars have to pay for the privilege.

The big plus about congestion charging is that all moneys raised can and must only be spent on improving transport in London.

Does my hon. Friend not think that it would be more sensible to improve public transport before introducing such a scheme so that the capacity is there to take the people who are giving up driving?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We are seeing improvements in public transport in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "For goodness' sake!"] Hon. Members may scoff, but improvements are under way near this place. There are changes in road routes, a greater preponderance of bus lanes with more cameras so that people who still insist on driving their cars down them will be fined, and more and better buses that are more accessible, clean and green. It is absurd to think that public transport in London can be transformed without the added money that will come via congestion charging and the other plans to introduce money into the public transport system.

I found it astonishing that the hon. Member for Croydon, South was suddenly a passionate advocate of the needs of the poorest people in London— this from a member of the party that fought tooth and nail against the introduction of a minimum wage. He also referred to housing. His Government absolutely decimated the building of public housing in London.

On the conversion of the Conservative party to the cause of the poorest, Westminster City council generates £88 million a year from its parking charges. The charge does not discriminate between rich and poor, neither are there exemptions for nurses, teachers or other public sector workers. It is extraordinary hypocrisy for Conservative Members to justify such income for that council but deny it as a means of raising money for investment in public transport.

Hear, hear! I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's powerful argument. The poorest people in London do not have cars; they do not even have old bangers.

It is the first thing that they buy.

It may be the first thing that they buy, but it is extremely difficult for them to maintain it. Old bangers make a sizeable contribution to pollution in London and, in many cases, are dangerous. However, some people are too poor to afford even an old banger. They are entirely dependent on public transport, particularly buses. Buses are the first target in the Mayor's plans to improve public transport in London. It is beginning to work: the number of people who use buses during the day in London has increased by 6 per cent. and the figure is even higher for night buses.

There will always be difficulties when we attempt to change the entirely erroneous belief of virtually everyone in this country— not just in London— that someone who owns a car has an absolute right to drive it where and when they like and park it where they like. We must not only improve the environment of London but ensure that its economy is sustainable. Traffic in London costs far too much. It must be properly managed and it must make a decent return to improve public transport.

My hon. Friend has talked a lot about the environment. Does she agree that it is ridiculous that there has not been an environmental audit of congestion charging? How will it affect communities and what will happen on each side of the boundary?

An environmental audit has been done in part, if not in totality. The mayoral advisory cabinet with responsibility for the environment in London will examine the matter in some detail. However, the basic principle stands. The Labour Government took a major step forward in breaking down the barrier against hypothecation that had precluded many advances for the common good. Congestion charging is hypothecation. The money raised must be spent only on improving public transport.

Improving transport in London improves transport for everyone. I supported the measure when I helped take the GLA Bill through the House and I support it now. The Mayor will consider the responses to the consultation and the boundaries may be amended. However, the basic principle is right and proper. The Mayor was elected and congestion charging was part of his manifesto. The most recent MORI polls show that 51 per cent. of the people of London support congestion charging, and I am one of them.

Order. I call Mr. Randall, who will be the last hon. Member to speak before the Minister.

A marker has been put down. We will have to return to the subject, because many people wish to speak on it. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) expressed a view that is contrary to the majority view. There is no point in rehearsing the arguments against the measure. I would not drive into London if public transport were improved, but would much prefer to come in on the Metropolitan line. However, I understand that it will not be modernised for at least 10 to 15 years. Until public transport is improved, many people will not find congestion charging a disincentive to coming in by car.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern and surprise that fire fighters are not designated as key workers? Many fire fighters who are stationed in the charging area live outside it and they cannot get an exemption for their home-to-work travel, as the Secretary of State refused it on request.

That shows, Mr. Winterton, why we need to discuss—

Order. The hon. Gentleman holds an important position in the House and should know that I am now a Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a delight to address you in the proper manner.

The impact on areas just outside the zone and in the suburbs will be huge. The scheme is impractical and will be expensive to implement and I urge the Government to use their power to give all Londoners a break. The scheme may be regarded as well intentioned— I give the Mayor that— but it is fatally flawed and we should not go ahead with it until we have thought it through properly and public transport is improved.

I wondered why we were to have this debate on the Government's policy on congestion charging in London, as that is a devolved matter. Of course, the Government need to consider the impact of congestion charging in areas where the Greater London Authority has boundaries, or if there are motorways, but hon. Members know that the Greater London Authority Act 1999 unequivocally gave the GLA those powers.

Any scheme requires the Secretary of State's approval.

I am aware of that, and I will ask the Minister only one question on that point. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, there is evidence of support for congestion charging, which hon. Members must remember. There will be concerns as the details of the scheme emerge, and the role of the Mayor and Transport for London is to address them.

I want to concentrate on the Conservative position on the issue in case any hon. Member is under the impression that the Conservatives are, and have always been, implacably opposed to congestion charges. In 1996, Lady Olga Maitland, who is no longer in the House, asked whether the Government had any plans to introduce road tolls in London. Steven Norris gave a long answer, in which he clearly did not say no. He could simply have said no, but he did not. At the end of his response, he said:

"The Government are rightly more sanguine and cautious."—[Official Report, 10 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 7]

There was no categorical denial of support for congestion charges in London. The section on road congestion in the Tory manifesto talks about introducing new regional traffic control centres, extending the use of variable speed limits, and

"ensuring that local authorities have the necessary powers to act."

Presumably, "necessary powers to act" could include congestion charges and workplace parking charges. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) seemed to advocate support for that system and for Singapore-style charging on entry. I can only anticipate his complaints if a scheme were introduced under which people had to pay a charge each time they went through a zone. The hon. Gentleman seems to be confused about whether he or his party supported that. He argues against the scheme that the Mayor proposes, but argues for the scheme in Singapore.

To save the hon. Gentleman wasting his time, I mentioned the Singapore proposal to show how the scheme could be run more efficiently if it were introduced. As I said at the outset, I am against the proposal, as is the Conservative party, and I voted against it in when we dealt with the GLA Bill in 1999.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification, but unfortunately it did not clarify the points that were made, for example, when Steven Norris replied to that question.

The Labour position is one of lukewarm endorsement. If one examines what the Labour spokesman has said in the Greater London Authority, one can see that he is urging the Mayor not to rush the introduction of road charging. The Labour party is in favour in principle, but does not want it done too quickly. The view being expressed in the GLA is not the same as the one being expressed by some Labour Members today.

The Liberal Democrat position has been consistent and clear. In principle, we believe that congestion charges would be helpful and would raise revenue, which is a point that hon. Members have not tackled. Many argued that London Underground is underfunded, including the hon. Member for Croydon, South, who then went on to say that the £100 million that would be raised would be insufficient. He did not take the next logical step, which would have been to explain from where the necessary additional funding would come to make up the shortfall. The charges could play a role, but equally we have made it clear that congestion charges will work only if the public transport improvements have been made and can be seen to have been made. In our submission, we made it clear that it has not been sufficiently improved.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sorry, but I will not because I must finish in the next 60 seconds, if possible.

The debate has shed some light on what some hon. Members do not want but, unfortunately, not on what they would want to be introduced instead. I will finish by asking the Minister one question. Will he confirm today that the Government will not interfere in congestion charging schemes other than in areas where there is an overlap with Government interest—the motorway network, for example—and in authorising the scheme and how revenues will be allocated, which is rightfully the Secretary of State's role?

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). In view of the shortness of time, I hope that he will forgive me for giving only simple congratulations, rather than saying the many magnificent things about his career that I would want. He laid down three clear tests, which were of fairness, purpose and efficiency, and demolished the proposals on every one. That clearly demonstrated that we are about to see a real mess in London.

It was notable that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), every hon. Member present completely opposed congestion charges.

What about the Liberals?

I will deal with them in a moment, because I thought that they were all over the place, as always. They were in favour, but against the detail. They think it is a wonderful idea, but do not like how it will work in practice.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) painted an unforgettable image of Harrods as an out-of-town shopping centre, but described Kennington as a community cut in two, saying how expensive it will be to take a sick child by car to visit the doctor. It may be just a few streets away, but it will cost £5 and her contribution was telling. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) spoke about key workers and said that if the Government wanted to bury the toll tax, the Conservatives would co-operate. That would be the case. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) rightly said that this was the wrong scheme in the wrong place at the wrong time. His comments on the No. 86 bus from Romford could work for almost every bus route in London.

I assumed that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate would be present to apologise for the mess created by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and for allowing the possibility of congestion charges. Her remarks on the issue have been refreshing. It is clear that the measure is about paying for the privilege of owning and using a car. We should forget the poor, because according to the hon. Lady they are not entitled to a car—they have to go by bus. I have seen correspondence that she sent to the Conservative group at the Greater London Assembly in which she said that the minimum wage was there to pay for things such as congestion charges and the toll tax. There are many reasons why the minimum wage was introduced, but I did not think that it was—

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore advise central London boroughs, such as Westminster and the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, that they should not be levying a combined total of some £130 million in parking charges on the very people whom he now claims to defend?

The hon. Lady should talk to her friends, because the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate says that these folk are not entitled to a car. How they managed to slip from Hampstead and Highgate into the centre of town despite being so poor, I have no idea.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) says that the Liberals are in favour of the measure. I think that there is consistency among the Liberals. Within London, by and large, they favour a congestion charge; it does not matter that, in the rest of the country, they are opposed to it. However, I shall make one prediction: the closer we get to congestion charges, the more we shall see Liberal "Focus" leaflets saying that the measure is not quite right, that they do not like it in a particular place and then that they are absolutely opposed. Indeed, we have had a taste of that today.

We can talk about whether the Mayor has already committed £20 million, whether or not we have congestion charging, whether he has signed up to two secret deals, and the fact that the date for introducing the measure jumps between the end of February and the end of March. We want to know who will pay for it. Will it be taxpayers or the poor people of London?

We airily say that we should introduce the measure when the infrastructure can support it and when there have been significant improvements in public transport in London. I know that the Minister never gives way when he is speaking, so I shall make my point now—[Interruption.] I have it on record. I recall asking the Minister's boss how often he had travelled by tube during peak times and he said, "Not for a long time." He had to think back to his school days for the last time that he had travelled at peak time. The Minister says that there have been improvements, but there have been no significant improvements. Most of the underground lines are operating at peak capacity and some of them are operating at 120 per cent. capacity.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South talked about the Central line, but it already moves about 8,000 people every 15 minutes, so where will the capacity come from? London Transport says that it will put 200 new buses on the line. When we ask whether they are new or replacement buses, it says that some are replacement buses but some are virtual buses. I bet that you do not know what a virtual bus is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you are probably the most intelligent person in the Chamber—we will not put that to a vote. A virtual bus is a bus that apparently travels faster. What will that achieve? The answer is an extra 7,000 passengers at peak times, but the Central line carries 8,000 every 15 minutes, so that will make no difference.

Even if the congestion charge is successful and manages to reduce by a small percentage—let us say 5 or 6 per cent.—the number of people coming into the city centre by car, those people will still have to come into the centre and there will be no room on public transport for them. Unless the Minister is about to say that white-gloved guards will be employed on the underground to push people on to the tube at peak times, we shall simply see more tube stations closed at those times. The measure will do nothing to reduce congestion and will not help the city. It will just be a way of trying to raise a relatively small sum, once one takes the amount needed to set up the infrastructure into account.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South said that there was a case for giving the Mayor plenty of rope with which to hang himself. That would be one of the most expensive lynchings ever. As an implacable opponent of capital punishment, I must say that this is a unique form of capital punishment, one that punishes our capital. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh dear!"] Well, it was a pun. I thought it was worth doing.

Finally, I should like to set the record straight. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has been looking through Hansard. I cannot remember whether he found something from 1996, 1896 or 1920. Occasionally in the distant past, the Conservative party briefly thought about congestion charges. We now realise that it is a stupid idea. It will not work. We are introducing new policies, so we cannot make any policy commitments, but this matter has been through our policy board and I can state categorically that the Conservative party is opposed in principle to congestion charging.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on securing and introducing this important debate. In the interests of clarity, I should declare an interest. I have a residential property inside the proposed zone. I also have an excellent Member of Parliament to represent me, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who is well thought of not just by me, but by many others in the area.

The debate became quite interesting. I thought at one stage that it would be a battle between Hampstead and Highgate and Vauxhall. A variety of views have been expressed. I should first like to put one important point on the record. The Government have no power to veto the proposed congestion charges. The decision on whether congestion charging should be introduced in central London is a matter for the Mayor. He has an obligation to listen to the views of hon. Members. I am sure that he will pick through Hansard tomorrow, going through most carefully the varying views that have been expressed.

If the hon. Member for Croydon, South will allow me, I shall answer briefly the question posed by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). Unusually, he asked just one question: normally he asks 51. He asked whether the Government would interfere with any plans for congestion or workplace charging outside London. The Government would never interfere in those plans. Outside London, the Government must approve the plans and will do so on their merits. We have no power to interfere with or veto the congestion charging that has been proposed in central London, but we have the power to look at the spending plans, which we believe will be available in the next few weeks. We will act appropriately on the basis of the power vested in us by the 1999 Act.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South performed some wonderful and intriguing intellectual gymnastics. He started off in his usual way by saying that this scheme was all based on socialist envy, as if the Mayor or the Government were going to be hard on better-off car owners. Curiously, he moved on to say that it would hit the poor and that it was a regressive tax. That is quite a departure. Perhaps that has been through the policy board too. Conservative Members are now advocates for the poor: I do not think so. Their record has never suggested that—[Interruption.] However much the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) chunters on, he will not convince me that it is the Conservative party that is fighting for the interests of the poor. It is interesting, too, that we heard no alternative from the hon. Member for Croydon, South, nor from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, from whom we heard only that the policy body said that it did not favour congestion charging—end of story.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South made an important point about other parts of the 1999 Act and asked whether the Government had a power of intervention, the answer to which is, alas, no. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we thought there was a need for direct revisions to the transport strategy; they are justified only when the strategy is manifestly counter to Government policy and would be detrimental to areas outside London. I hope that that is helpful. He also mentioned traffic-calming measures in parts of London, which he thought were somehow the Government's fault. I thought that they were introduced by local government.

You gave them the money.

We gave local authorities generous amounts of money for local transport plans, particularly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The democratically elected councillors in the areas, some of whom are Conservative party members, decided to introduce the measures; it is for local authorities to take such decisions on behalf of people in the area.

The hon. Gentleman thought that he was giving some clever quotes from the documents before him, but the Labour party view in the mayoral elections was clear: we were opposed to the introduction of congestion charging in the Mayor's first term. The document made it crystal clear—the hon. Gentleman quoted selectively—that we were not opposed to the principle. If we had been, we would not have introduced the GLA Act, which was steered through Parliament so capably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).

The Mayor won a mandate in his election and in 2004 he will have to go back to the good people of London, who will judge whether he has fulfilled his mandate.

The front cover of the manifesto says,

"New Labour, new London, no congestion charges."

Is the Minister saying that that is not what it means?

It meant no congestion charges in the Mayor's first term. If the hon. Gentleman reads the small print, he will see that that is what it says. I see that he has only got to the front page; he may be colouring the thing in, and not actually reading the words inside it. The mischievous expression on his face shows that the hon. Gentleman knows what it says inside and knew it before he spoke in the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall made a powerful speech in which she said that there should be a public inquiry. The Mayor will have listened to her view and that of other hon. Members. Under the 1999 Act, the Government have no power to do what my hon. Friend suggests, but the Mayor can call a public inquiry if he thinks it appropriate. Until my hon. Friend's speech, I had not realised that Harrods is outside the zone and that the Flipper fish bar in Kennington road, which does excellent fish and chips, is inside it. My hon. Friend said that women would be forced out of their cars. I see plenty of men and women on my regular journeys on the underground and the 159 bus.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), in a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents, said that the proposal had no tangible benefits. I hope that the Mayor will take careful note of what he said, because he always speaks well on these matters.

Will the Minister give way?

No. I want to refer to what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said. He asked whether we could step in, but the GLA Act does not give us any power or authority to do so on these matters.

In a powerful and impassioned speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate made the important point that many people do not have access to cars. About 40 per cent. of my constituents probably do not.

It has been an important debate and, as usual, I am allowed little time to deal with all the matters raised. If any hon. Member feels that I have not dealt with an issue in sufficient detail and would like to drop me a line, I will ensure that they receive a written response.

rose—

Order. I am going to use my discretion and say that time is up—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Order. Time is up. I am not taking a point of order. We move to our next debate, introduced by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), on the appropriate use of blood in the national health service.

The appropriate use of blood in the national health service is the subject of debate and I would first like to explain how I became interested in it. A newspaper article in October about the possible halving of blood supplies as a result of donors' fears about Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease testing alerted me to it. The article was about the position in Ireland, and it was clear from it and from subsequent research that there is a current problem with sustaining the supply of blood and that it could be jeopardised further.

The experience in Ireland was of crisis proportions. From a base of bad experience with other blood-related problems such as human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C, the confidence of donors in Ireland was already reduced, and effectively it crashed with the human variant CJD screening proposals. The net effect was the cancellation of surgery and the introduction of haemovigilance officers—the so-called "blood police"—into every hospital in Ireland in order to deal with the crisis caused by low supplies of an increasingly scarce and valuable commodity.

We know that in the coming year the United Kingdom will face an acute shortage of blood, which could be compounded if the problem is not properly tackled and the public given sufficient confidence to continue to donate blood. I am a blood donor and I will continue to donate my blood—and I encourage others to do so.

My concerns were heightened over Christmas when I sat at home in Wales listening to emergency radio appeals for donors because stocks were running out. I fear that when this shortage comes, non-emergency patients in the NHS—people with cancer, for example—will suffer most while the dwindling blood stocks are rightly used for life-saving procedures.

The National Blood Service is on record as saying that testing for vCJD will cause a donations crisis—perhaps as much as a 50 per cent. drop in supplies. I believe and I am glad that you, Minister, are planning for that eventuality. The appropriate use of the blood working group has been set up to

"ensure the most effective use of blood as an increasingly scarce resource"—

a recognition that blood will be a scarce resource.

In October last year the chief medical officer held a conference, at which our colleague, the Health Minister, Mr. Hutton, said:

"One of the important issues discussed was how to avoid the unnecessary use of blood in clinical practice in the face of decreasing supplies and numbers of blood donors".

The Government clearly recognise the problem, and it is being addressed. I have been attempting to ascertain exactly how those deliberations concluded. To date my replies from the Department have been disappointing—hence my initiation of the debate.

Before Christmas, stories flourished in the media of people who had been transfused with blood donated by donors who had since gone on to develop vCJD. Neither the Department nor the NBS has challenged the authenticity of these stories. One alarming story—it was not denied by the NBS or Professor Banner—was that in an attempt to control the spread of vCJD, the Department was considering banning everyone who has ever received a blood transfusion from donating blood or their organs. My research has shown that if such a decision were ever made, it would instantly reduce the blood donor base by 15 per cent. Will you give me an assurance today that neither your Department nor the NBS is considering preventing recipients of blood transfusions from donating blood again?

We know that blood donations in the UK are already in decline. According to the Minister's predecessor, John Denham, between 1994 and 1999 blood donations fell by 17 per cent. Last year the NBS tried to reverse the downturn with a high-profile celebrity campaign for donations. If the figures given by your colleague Yvette Cooper to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 14 January are correct—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should address Ministers by their constituency, not by their name.

I apologise. Mr. Deputy Speaker.

If the answer given on 14 January is correct, the campaign to which I refer is at best reducing the speed of decline. Last year saw another substantial reduction of 3.4 per cent. These figures led me to look at how blood is used. I am concerned both in terms of public responsibility and on a party political basis. As a party, we are trying to bring massive reform to the NHS. This is an area in which we are needlessly under attack.

According to the Department's figures, about 30 per cent of blood is used for cancer patients. I declare an interest; my constituency has one of the highest numbers of cancer patients in the UK. That is a significant problem that needs to be addressed by a step change. My information suggests that in practice 40 per cent. of blood is used for cancer patients, to overcome the debilitating effects of anaemia and related fatigue. Fatigue is consistently listed by cancer patients and patient groups as the worst side effect of treatment. Last year, more than 2,000 cancer patients responded to Cancer BACUP's advertisement on the subject of cancer-related fatigue. The International Myeloma Foundation said that it would like Government assurances that cancer patients would not suffer in the light of any future shortage of blood supplies.

I reinforce the IMF's sentiments and ask the Minister for an assurance that cancer patients will not suffer unnecessarily in the event of the NBS having to restrict blood supplies. To do otherwise would make a farce of the Government's cancer care plan. The Minister will recognise that the extensive additional resources given to the NHS to fight cancer are much needed and welcome. They will do a good deal to redress previous neglect. How we make a step forward change rather than mere incremental change to the health service is a political question that must be addressed. The plan was meant to help achieve that, but in terms of blood it could be undermined if we are not careful.

What options are there to the use of blood for cancer patients, I asked myself when examining the figures, to help to avoid the impending crisis? I was pleased to accept an offer from the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), to attend a meeting with officials, along with the NBS and other parts of the Department, to discuss what could be done. I thank them for brokering that meeting. I took along a leading haematologist, a Macmillan nurse who is a practitioner in the field, and a representative of the drug industry, to discuss options to using such a large proportion of the blood supply.

It became clear during the discussion that using the drug Erythropoietin to treat chronic fatigue in cancer patients could provide not only a better standard of care but also free up most of the 30 or 40 per cent. of the blood supply used in cancer treatment. Many leading specialists believe that transfusing blood to cancer patients is unnecessary. A leading haematologist, Dr. Ivor Cavill, says that

"the majority of cancer patients treated for anaemia are needlessly exposed to transfusions when there are better alternatives available".

At the meeting we heard the experience of the Macmillan nurses at Whipps Cross hospital in London, where they have adopted the practice of using Erythropoietin in place of transfusions, which is appropriate for 70 per cent. of their cancer patients.

There is a debate that drugs may have a curative as well as a palliative effect. I believe that they provide a better base for the other treatments to take effect. I am carrying out more research in that area and I will be pleased to supply information to the Department. I examined also comparisons with European countries. There has been much talk recently about developing our health service to European standards.

Currently, in France, a cancer patient is six times more likely to be treated in this modern way, rather than by receiving a blood transfusion. In Spain, that would be seven times more likely, and it would be eight times more likely in Italy. American patients are 100 times more likely to receive such treatment, rather than the one that we have used over the years.

European standards are important, and we could match them quickly. That is the sort of step change to which I referred, rather than an incremental change. In Europe, modern options are used as a matter of course. Other countries preserve their blood supplies for emergencies and surgery. A report in yesterday's Evening Standard mentioned the possibility of sending our cancer patients to Greece. If they went to Greece, their chances of being treated with the use of drugs would be greater than those in Great Britain, although I do not know the exact figures because I have not had a chance to undertake the research.

Economic factors are involved. Obviously, drugs cost money and the way in which blood is costed must be examined. My research, which is based on the Government's figures, shows that if modern blood options were used for cancer patients, 250,000 bed days a year would be freed up. I gave that information during the meeting on 5 December. The argument that the drugs would cost must be set against potentially massive savings in other areas. The use of drugs would also deal with the chronic problems of bed blocking and insufficient resources in the health service.

In a week during which we have been pilloried as a result of stories about people waiting on trolleys in emergency departments and unable to get beds, it is disappointing that I am still waiting for an answer about the information that I gave in December. I understood that the meeting's outcome was that the costs would be examined. The Department could not cost them properly and needed to find a way in which to do that. I have not received notification of any progress on the matter.

The Department was also to examine broadening people's involvement in the debate on blood policy. The issue of blood is about much more than transfusions; it must be examined in the round. Those who are involved with only transfusions may have a narrow perspective of the matter, and a broader perspective must be given.

I have received no recognition that things have moved forward. Obvious benefits would stem from the cancer plan and cancer patients' quality of life would be improved. Standards of care could be improved, and we could meet quickly European and international standards. We could move forward the reform agenda that is necessary for the NHS.

As a spending Ministry, the Department of Health must look to the Treasury. How can the Department demonstrate and account for the effective use of reformed resources, processes and procedures if it cannot answer questions such as mine about the effect and economic implications of changing procedures? The Department must address these matters quickly.

There would be benefits in moving to modern drug treatments for anaemia and fatigue-related treatment. The exposure of many people to transmission-related diseases would be reduced. The move would free up about 30 per cent. of the blood supply, and help to protect it. It would avoid a crisis in supplies and avoid also cancer patients being put in a position in which palliative care for them is penalised in order to allow emergencies to be dealt with. Better treatment standards would be available for cancer patients, and modern European standards could be adopted. It would free up quickly 250,000 bed days a year, and help with that crisis.

Such a change is not only possible, but would be effective and efficient for patient care and best practice. There is justification for it on grounds of both patients and economics.

The change would be politically advantageous. It is no secret that I must defend where I am and what I argue about the health service. We must make step changes. I will discuss how we can progress on the issues with my colleagues in Wales, because some involve devolved matters.

I remind the Minister of the assurances that I would like. I want confirmation that those who have given blood will be accepted as future donors, and an assurance that cancer patients will not suffer in the face of dwindling blood stocks. The economic case for using drugs and saving bed days, and ways of accounting for that, must be a priority for the Department of Health. Will the Minister consider broadening the involvement of the new transfusion committee, or using other methods to develop a consistent blood policy throughout the UK? That must be a matter of urgency.

I apologise for my indiscretion.

The House thanks the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) for his speech. The Minister to whom he referred two or three times is the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). I call the Minister to reply.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) on his success in having secured the debate. He has taken a special interest in the subject for some time, and from listening to his speech today, we can all appreciate the depth of his knowledge and expertise in a technical area about which I have had to learn a great deal recently. He raised some important issues in a clear analysis of how he believes that we can make progress in the national health service and in providing services to patients in need.

We should place on record that everyone in this country owes an enormous debt of gratitude to blood donors. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is himself a donor. Every year, about 2 million people take significant time out from busy lives to give blood. Having enough blood in the NHS is vital. As my hon. Friend said, the supply is not endless, and we must be careful to use blood efficiently and effectively.

I am pleased that the National Blood Service currently meets all NHS demands for blood. There are occasional media claims to the contrary, and we hear scare stories about blood just as we do about other matters. There have been no emergency appeals for blood in England for the past three years, so we have managed to keep a position of balance, which is important.

The blood service is itself constantly looking for ways in which to improve the way in which it operates to ensure that it has the maximum amount of blood possible. It is not complacent, and it does not feel that because it has been successful so far, it can relax. It is making huge efforts to anticipate and deal with possible health challenges, including the unknown risk from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which my hon. Friend mentioned.

There is a constant drive to maintain our blood stocks and to introduce new scientific developments to make blood safer and to provide options to the use of human blood. As science and technology develop, we are beginning to see some exciting alternatives. My officials told me about the possibility of bloodless surgery, an exciting prospect for the future that may become a reality.

The blood service is doing much to modernise the way in which it operates and to draw in as much blood as possible. In encouraging the public, it is trying to ensure that giving blood is not so time consuming, so that people do not have to wait for literally hours. When people go to give blood these days, they need to complete a fairly detailed questionnaire about their background. The blood service is trying to introduce a system of sending out the questionnaire to donors in advance so that they can complete it in advance. They can then give blood on arrival, perhaps in their lunch hour, and get back to work. That is an important improvement.

We must ensure that we seek blood donors in the places where they are and at the hours and places that suit them, after work if necessary, in shopping centres, or wherever possible, to try to maximise the supply of blood in the service. That is crucial.

We are trying to make the best use of available blood by encouraging clinicians to use it only when strictly necessary. That involves changing clinical attitudes and behaviour and putting the issue higher up the agenda. We are considering the increased use of safe, clinically appropriate and effective alternatives, which my hon. Friend highlighted. These are the criteria by which we judge almost everything in the health service—whether things are safe, clinically effective and appropriate, and cost-effective. Examples include Erythropoietin and the use of iron supplements for treating anaemia, and the use of synthetics such as recombinant clotting factors for treating haemophiliacs. Whenever we can develop new ways of working as part of our modernisation and reform agenda, as my hon. Friend emphasised, it is crucial that we do so. Making a step change in progress such as he outlined is important.

We are trying to develop plans to tackle a possible reduction in donors following the introduction of CJD screening tests. We believe that the tests may be introduced in three to five years' time, so we have a little time in which to plan for that contingency. However, we are aware that there could be a dramatic reduction in donors, and robust plans need to be in place to meet that contingency.

The safety of the United Kingdom blood supply is maintained through independent regulatory systems and through audit. However, there is an element of risk in every medical treatment or intervention that involves blood. The serious hazards of transfusion team has conducted four major studies, which have demonstrated that blood transfusion in the UK is safe. It is becoming safer, due to improving technology and clinical audit, but further improvements can be made. It is important to ensure that patients receive top-quality services, and that maximum safety is achieved. All hon. Members will be aware of the tragedies that have befallen people because of infected blood products, and of their families' feelings of devastation. Therefore, we must ensure that blood is as safe as possible.

We have taken precautionary measures against the theoretical risk that vCJD can be transmitted through blood. I stress that that is a theoretical risk at present. The white cells are removed from all transfused blood by a process called leucodepletion, because the experts consider that CJD is most likely to be transmitted through the white cells. We no longer use plasma from the UK in the manufacture of blood products, to ensure maximum safety. These precautions have been reviewed by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on several occasions, and it has concluded that no further precautionary measures are currently necessary to protect public health. However, we are continuing to look at other possible risk reduction measures with regard to CJD, in the light of new scientific developments and advice.

My hon. Friend asked whether everyone who has received donated blood will be disallowed from donating. A risk assessment is being conducted into that. No decisions have yet been made, but the Department has engaged an expert adviser to consider the risk assessment, and whether to exclude transfusion recipients from giving blood. If we were to decide to do that, it would be another precautionary measure, because we are dealing with a scientific area where we do not know what would be the case. However, we are guided by previous experience, and the last thing in the world that we want is for people to be affected by infected blood. I undertake to keep my hon. Friend informed about the outcome of that process.

We must make the best use of the blood that we have. A major conference, the better blood transfusion conference, was held in October 2001. Its goal was to set the priorities for making the best use of the resource.

Within the coming few months, we intend to issue an action plan for the NHS. It will adopt a patient-focused approach: we have tried to involve patients in the process, because it is important to consult those who receive blood, as well as clinicians and other professionals.

The action plan will probably include guidance for clinicians on assessing patients' treatment needs—including the use of their own blood—and information for patients about transfusion and its alternatives, so that they possess the knowledge to be able to make informed decisions. That is an important thread that runs through all of our reforms of the NHS. It is one of our priorities to try to empower patients by giving them sufficient information and skills to be able to have a mature partnership with clinicians in making decisions about what is best for them, with regard to their health care.

A new national blood transfusion committee has been established to study practice. My hon. Friend stated that he wanted the broadest possible cross-section of people to be involved in that committee, and I assure him that it has representation not only from the royal colleges, the scientific and professional bodies, clinicians and the National Blood Service, but from patients, but is directly linked to a network of regional committees and committees in hospital trusts, so it is informed by what is being practised in the NHS.

My hon. Friend has referred to his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health. Following that meeting and my hon. Friend's intervention, we have taken a fresh look at the remit of the committee, and we have made it explicit that it covers exploring and facilitating the implementation of methods to reduce the need for blood transfusions. We have made it clear that we are considering alternatives.

Three working parties are considering how we can ensure the most effective and efficient use of the blood that we have. They are considering the alternatives, too, including autologous transfusion, all forms of blood substitute therapies, and the feasibility of bloodless surgery units, as I mentioned. They are also working on contingency plans for prolonged periods of blood shortages. The groups are representative of a range of people, including surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, paediatric experts, haematologists and patients. The recommendations of the groups will be considered by the committee later this year and will be promulgated across the service.

On Erythropoietin or EPO, as I understand it is referred to colloquially, I am aware that evidence is growing that by maintaining the patient's haemoglobin at near-normal levels, EPO may improve some patients' response to treatment, especially radiotherapy. It can improve quality of life by making patients feel better and less tired. Tiredness is a problem for many patients with cancer. The drug is licensed for that purpose.

Clinicians are free to prescribe the drug when they think that it is beneficial to the patient. It is a core part of the NHS that clinicians should make appropriate decisions in the interests of their patients. There are on-going trials at the Christie and Royal Marsden hospitals on the use of EPO for cancer patients. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested in the results when they are available.

We in the Department of Health have considered the issue of using EPO more widely on cancer patients. We have tried to make some costings, as my hon. Friend has said. The costings put forward by those who would like EPO to be used more widely in the service include the number of bed days that could be saved as a result of patients being not transfused, but instead being injected with EPO. I urge caution on the subject because many patients who are occupying a bed for a transfusion are also receiving other services and treatments, and a direct substitution of EPO for a transfusion would then not necessarily result in saved bed days. Although my hon. Friend has raised an important issue, there would be no direct equation.

Cost is also an issue. Our estimate is that if all cancer patients—and EPO is not suitable for them all—received EPO, the cost would increase by four to eight times. That is an important issue for us to consider. I must say that the estimate makes some assumptions. There is limitation on existing data and there is no typical treatment regime for cancer patients, so there are some variables in the estimates.

Would the Minister make available that information, including what criteria were used and how that cost was calculated?

It is early days for costing such developments. I am happy to involve my hon. Friend in the discussions, but this is a new subject for us, and we should be conscious of the range of variables.

It is possible for patients to self-administer Erythropoietin. That might result in some saving, but the patients would probably need a couple of out-patient visits in order to be trained and assessed. That is a complex issue, but it is interesting to explore it, and we will continue to do so.

I hope that the initiatives that I have outlined for maximising the blood supply—making the best clinically effective use of the blood that we have—and considering scientific alternatives add up to a coherent approach. We are trying to ensure that we not only get the best deal for the NHS but, more importantly, provide the right services for patients who can take advantage of emerging technologies.

We still have an immense amount of work to do to make sure that we are providing the best quality services, but that work is in hand. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised such important issues, and we shall return to them. I am grateful to him for his vigorous analysis. The passion with which he has presented his argument shows how enthusiastic he is that the NHS should survive and prosper.

I thank the Minister for the Environment for attending the debate. His attendance shows the Government's concern about such issues. The right hon. Gentleman's response will be interesting, not only to hon. Members who represent constituencies in Devon, but to those with Cornish constituencies. Since 1992, on average more than 50 people have died each year of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Over the past three years, the number has crept up to about 80 people a year. In contrast, lung cancer causes about 37,000 deaths a year, of which 33,000 are attributable to smoking and 2,000 to 3,000 attributable to radon gas. That puts the matter into perspective.

Radon is a naturally occurring odourless and colourless gas that is formed by the radioactive decay of naturally occurring uranium. It travels through fissures in the subsoil where it usually disperses, but it can accumulate in buildings. Proper ventilation is the solution and, paradoxically, energy conservation measures often make matters worse by trapping the radon gas in buildings.

We receive never-ending advice about personal health and safety. We should eat less fat, more fruit and vegetables and strive towards a healthier lifestyle, yet the importance of reducing high radiation exposure for an estimated quarter of a million people living in homes with excessive radon levels may not have been given the attention that it deserves. There is a significant increase in the lifetime risk of lung cancer for such people.

Devon and Cornwall are particularly badly affected by radon and levels beyond 200 bq/cu m, which is the measurement for radon, are not unusual. At that concentration, the Government's advice is that remedial measures should be taken. Other European countries affected by radon have taken similar action at 200 bq/cu m. Fortunately, Westminster Members of Parliament are spared high radiation exposure, because our main debating Chamber and the extensive cellars, which have been tested, have extremely low exposure to radon. That is mirrored by areas around flood plains and rivers throughout Britain. The Chamber, I am glad to say, has an especially low level.

The risk of lung cancer from radon dramatically increases for smokers as against non-smokers. Analysis carried out by the World Health Organisation in 1996 revealed that, out of 1,000 cases of lung cancer victims who were exposed to radon, 20 were non-smokers, but 980 were smokers. There is a huge multiplier risk for those exposed to radon who smoke as against those who are exposed to radon who do not smoke. That should be distinguished from the additional or accumulative risk that we would expect. Smoking and radon gas multiply the risk to a dramatic degree.

People who spend a lifetime in their homes where radon concentration is more than 200 bq/cu m show lung cancer rates about 20 per cent. higher than those whose radon levels are 20 bq/cu m. Where the concentrations reach 400 bq/cu m, the estimated increase is 40 per cent. About 250,000 people are living in homes with radon levels above the level of 400 bq/cu m. Of course, the workplace is subject to special legislation and employers are liable to ensure safe levels of radon in factories and warehouses, but since those places are usually draughty and airy, there is little risk of a radon problem. In fact, I do not think that there has been a factory or a warehouse in which radon levels have been considered to be sufficiently high to take action.

There is no getting away from the fact that radiation exposure to the public from radon gas is more than 1,000 times greater than that from the entire nuclear industry. John Miles of the Nuclear Radiological Protection Board said:

"if there was a threshold dose beyond which all types of radiation was harmless and if such a threshold was as high as the doses that the public received from Radon then most of the expensive protection that the nuclear industry has to apply would be totally redundant."

The final piece of evidence that demonstrates the danger of radon is that there have been 1,850 more lung cancer deaths than expected among miners who were exposed to radon, compared with 480 excess deaths from all types of cancers from Japanese nuclear bomb survivors. Those statistics show the scale of the problem.

Areas affected by radon are those where more than 1 per cent. of the houses are likely to have concentrations of radon above the action level, which is 200 bq/cu m. In 1990, the NRPB recommended that the level should be 200 bq/cu m, averaged over a year. One bequerel is equal to one radioactive disintegration per second. That is 10 times the measured United Kingdom average radon exposure, which is 20 bq/cu m. Two hundred bq/cu m is the limit which is considered to be safe. Action is required over that level.

Based on the assumption that all doses of radiation present some risk of cancer, the action level represents a risk of one in 30 of lung cancer from radon gas over a lifetime. That is 10 times higher than the average UK risk of one in 300 from all natural sources of radiation and one in 20 from smoking. Where concentrations are above the action level, the NRPB recommends reduction of concentrations in existing buildings. Additionally, in certain localities in affected areas, the board recommends that preventive measures should be taken against radon entering new buildings.

Areas affected by radon are defined using maps based on radon concentrations measured in the 400,00 houses surveyed to date. Approximately 40,000 of those homes were found to have radon concentrations above the 200 bq/cu m limit. From the survey data, the NRPB has estimated that approximately 100,000 dwellings throughout Britain had radon concentrations above the action level. Most were in England, with Cornwall and Devon being the most significantly affected areas. For example, in the Truro postcode district, the NRPB found that 29 per cent. of dwellings had radon concentrations above the action level. I have mentioned that to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), who unfortunately could not be here today. In Plymouth, the figure was only 14 per cent.

The worrying factor is that only about 10 per cent. of people who have been told that the levels of radon in their homes is above the action level have taken any remedial action. It is as if people believe that their homes are impregnable to radon gas because they cannot see or hear it. Evidence suggests that there is little or no perception of risk and no recognition of the danger. Once the front door is bolted, people feel that nothing can touch them, even though radon gas could be seeping up through the floorboards.

Since 1998, 80,000 Devon homes have been tested. Of those, 85 per cent. are privately owned. Can the Minister tell me whether anything has been done to ensure the safety of people living in the 10 per cent. of homes that are run by local authorities and housing associations? Many tenants are not aware of the risk and many local authorities have not taken action. Statistically, people living in local authority housing and housing association property are more likely to be smokers.

How should the problem associated with radon gas best be tackled? Radon enters the building primarily from airflow from the underlying ground. Several measures can be taken to achieve protection for occupants and to reduce radon levels. The techniques for reducing radon exposure in new and existing dwellings include under-floor extraction, improved ventilation under suspended timber floors, positive ventilation and sealing cracks and gaps in solid concrete floors. The problem is that few builders will undertake that work because they do not have the skills or the training. If one can find a builder, the cost is more than £1,000, which is out of the reach of pensioners and low-income groups. I make that point because my constituency has the eighth highest proportion of elderly people in the country.

I am advised that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has not capped individual local authority budgets for radon testing, which is up to the discretion of each local authority. I should like to pay tribute to the excellent chief environmental health officer in South Hams district council, Peter Smith. I shall also mention the British Geographical Survey, which has been enormously helpful, and the splendid help that I have had from the House of Commons Library, and especially from Donna Gore of the science and environment section who wrote an excellent paper on radon in 1997 that has not been as widely read as it should have been. I mentioned South Hams district council because the environmental health officer told me that only six radon protection grants have been awarded in the district since 1989, and that only 40 per cent. of the district was surveyed for radon in the late 1980s.

The Government have halted free radon surveys, but the National Radiological Protection Board has unspent money for testing. In South Hams, 20 to 50 per cent. of the housing stock surveyed was above the 200 bq/cu m action level. As for my constituency, the areas affected are not, as I thought they would be, the granite outcrop around Dartmoor, but include Kingsbridge, Dartmouth, Salcombe, Thurlestone, Slapton, Stokenham, Stoke Fleming, Loddiswell and South Brent, where some of the highest figures have been recorded. Properties have been identified in those areas that are 10 to 30 per cent. above the 200 bq/cu m action level. South Hams is one of the worst affected areas in Devon, but only six radon grants have been made.

Radon levels and testing are especially relevant in buildings that are more than 10 years old. Since 1991, guidance on protective measures against radon has been included in building regulations, and in 1999 the Building Research Establishment and the former Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions have produced updated guidance on protective measures to reduce the risk to occupants of exposure to radon. That new guidance reflects the greater knowledge of radon-prone areas and the advances made in developing practical, cost-effective measures. That does not, however, apply to the majority of homes that are more than 10 years old. The Government have stated that 3.8 million new houses need to be built by 2011, although that will probably not happen. Of those houses, 700,000 will be in the south-west. Will the Minister confirm that all new houses built in the south-west will be obliged to have radon insulation? We are not discussing money, but raising public awareness. The task is getting home owners to respond to a threat that they can neither see nor smell. It has not been properly recognised as a health risk, but it has been exacerbated by legislation on energy efficiency.

The Government are aware of the problem, but their promotions and publicity have not had the intended effect. Perhaps the media hype about Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is caused by the fear that it is infectious, but 3,000 per cent. more people die from radon exposure than from CJD each year. Public understanding remains poor, although there have been successive local authority programmes since 1987, and a more detailed discussion on a three-year rolling programme announced by the Minister last July that involves more than 30 local authorities. That ends next year, and the question remains about the Government's plans to build on the programme in light of these dangers.

Before 1996, the Government offered free radon tests to all, but since then offers of free radon measurement have been by invitation only—I do not know anybody in my constituency who has had an invitation. The radon test is safe and extremely simple. A small plastic container about the size of a door knob is used, and it contains a piece of plastic that is sensitive to alpha particles, which are emitted by radon. The public can obtain the test through the post for about £35 from the NRPB at an address that I have, but I shall not give in this debate. The public take-up of the test has been disappointing. I have made a meal of the dangers of radon gas, and I do not want it to be construed as a scare story that many of us are breathing in carcinogenic particles as we sleep, but people in the west country, especially in Devon and Cornwall, need to be aware of the risks and the tests available.

For almost no cost, the Government could do much more to raise public awareness through publicity campaigns and encouraging local authority initiatives. We all know the risks of smoking, and we all erroneously believe that there are risks from nuclear energy, but few have comprehended the health risks from radon exposure and that the annual radiation dose can be dramatically increased by living in the wrong part of the country in well-insulated homes. I hope that now that I have raised the public health and safety issue, the media will take up the cudgels and that the Government will consider new initiatives and further action so that some 2,000 to 3,000 lives can be saved in this country each year.

The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) has sought the permission of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), the Minister and myself to make a brief contribution, and I am happy to call him.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will be brief. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). Perhaps I should call him my hon. Friend as we share so many interests, and often, as on this occasion, share the analysis.

The hon. Gentleman raised extremely important issues. I am keen to have clearer guidance on how local authorities in south Devon and elsewhere can help householders to reduce the risk posed by radon. In Cornwall, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of the six local authorities and one on the Isles of Scilly only one, Kerrier, is part of the Government's scheme on this. In Penwith in the west of Cornwall, 10,500 of 19,00 properties have a radon risk level of more than 30 per cent., which certainly requires action. The matter is of deep concern.

In a parliamentary answer given on 29 November, the hon. Gentleman was told that £705 million in housing capital grants is available for this year. However, it is not known exactly how much of that is to be directed towards addressing the problem of radon, which the hon. Gentleman has articulately put before us today. The Minister and the Department must ensure that the grants available are more targeted to address the serious and important issue.

I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on making a well-documented and serious case for greater focus on the problem of radon. He drew attention to the fact that far more people—I think that he said 3,000—die each year from radon poisoning than from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Although we know that the main cause of death from lung cancer is, overwhelmingly, smoking, a significant proportion of lung cancer deaths is nevertheless attributable to radon.

The hon. Gentleman made a powerful comparison between the risks associated with mining, or those affecting survivors of the Japanese A bomb, and the mortality risk from radon. That the issue is serious is not in dispute. I will try to answer his questions as precisely as I can in the time available.

In 1990, following advice from the National Radiological Protection Board, the Government set a radon action level of 200 bq/cu m, as the hon. Gentleman said. That is half the 1987 level. It was deliberately tightened on advice. It is about 10 times the average UK level of exposure and is the standard used. Where radon levels greater than that are found, householders are strongly advised to take action to reduce them. It is estimated that, at that level, there is a lifetime risk of 3 to 5 per cent. for the general population of contracting lung cancer. For non-smokers, the risk will be about 1 to 3 per cent., but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the risk is much greater for those who smoke: approximately 10 to 15 per cent.

Following research by the NRPB in the mid-1980s, which identified that radon was a problem in the UK, successive Governments have introduced measures to try to combat its effects. Initially, those centred on offering free measurement to the areas most affected. In England, that meant Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire. Later, following extensive mapping, the measurement programme was extended to include many other parts of the country in which high radon levels were found.

In 1998, we completed a programme to ensure that every household in England with a more than 5 per cent. probability of exceeding the radon action level had received the offer of a free measurement. Some 400,000 measurements have been made, at no cost to the householder, since the programme began in 1987, and about 40,000 homes—one in 10—were found to be above the action level. In relation to the number of measurements carried out in Devon, I know that the hon. Gentleman was given a figure of 80,000, but having updated the database we now think that it is just over 94,000. The large majority were paid for by the Government at an approximate cost of £2.5 million. In Devon, 7,100 homes were found to be above the action level. It is striking that the highest level found was 5,300 bq/cu m. High levels have been found in several areas of the county.

Where a home is found to be above the action level, the householder is faced with the problem of what to do next. The various courses of action are set out in booklets prepared by the Department, which provide general advice to householders about radon, specific guidance about the types of remedial measures that can be employed, and information for those who are buying or selling houses in radon-affected areas. Householders can obtain additional advice on remediation methods over the telephone from the Building Research Establishment, which runs a hotline under contract from the Department.

The costs of remedial action can vary markedly. Establishing better airflow under suspended floors may be all that is necessary for a home that is just a little above the action level. If the problem has been caused because airbricks have been overgrown by plants or blocked in other ways, it can be solved fairly easily at no monetary cost.

The most effective method of reducing radon levels, which is necessary for the highest levels, is the sump system. The sump is a small void about the size of a bucket that is dug under a solid ground floor and to which a pipe and a fan are attached. The fan gently draws the radon-laden air from underneath the floor and prevents it from entering the home. The cost of such a system varies depending on its exact method of installation, but it is typically between £600 and £1,000. Its installation is not beyond the ability of an experienced DIY enthusiast—in which case the cost would drop significantly—although one should be careful about that.

Some homeowners may wish to bury their information about radon gas because they think that if their levels are as high as 5,000, or anything above 400, that might affect the price of their freehold. Is there anything that the Minister can say or do about that?

The right way to deal with that is to have in place a system that draws off the radon and can be demonstrated to make the house effectively free of radon in the sense that any radon that is present is below the action level. No Government can offer subsidies for householders to maintain value, but we can and will ensure that the cause of any likelihood of reduced value is properly addressed at public cost.

Although radon remedial work can be expensive, it need not necessarily be so, and even the most expensive options are similar in price to other building works that householders may have to face to keep their properties in good condition.

There are provisions to help those least able to pay for radon remedial works. Local authorities have discretionary powers to award house renovation grants and home repair assistance to help with the cost of radon remedial work. Renovation grants have no upper limit and are not means-tested. Home repair assistance is limited to a maximum of £5,000 per application, which is reasonably generous. It is not means-tested, but the applicant must be 60 or more years old, or on a state benefit.

A regulatory reform order before the House will give local authorities the power to offer subsidised loans or an equity release scheme for home renovation, rather than grants, as is currently the case. Local authorities will be able to continue assisting radon remedial works under that general power, but will have the freedom to decide whether to fund the works through a grant or a loan and will not be obliged to apply a means test.

The hon. Gentleman asked about new build, and quoted a figure of 700,000 homes expected in the south-west, which I presume is accurate. Under the building regulations, guidance designed to prevent radon from becoming a problem in newly built homes was first issued in 1990, and covered Devon and Cornwall. Later, that guidance was extended to cover parts of Somerset, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire. The protective measures were updated, and the area covered was greatly increased in 1999, to take into account the latest research on building methods and the survey work carried out by the NRPB and the British Geological Survey. Basic protection, required under the regulation, comprises the modification of the damp-proof membrane so that it forms a radon-proof barrier that extends across the whole of the ground floor of the dwelling, including through the walls. In areas of higher radon potential, full radon protection may be required. That comprises the radon-proof barrier, supplemented by a sump in case it should be necessary to draw the radon-laden air from beneath the building.

When the radon programme first began 15 years ago, it was widely believed that householders whose homes were above the action level would take prompt action. Research in recent years has shown that that was correct only to a limited extent. Approximately 10 to 20 per cent. of such householders are thought to have taken action to reduce their radon levels, a figure that I find disappointing. However, the research discovered that many householders would be prepared to carry out remedial work if they were given greater support in the process from a source that they knew and trusted.

In 1998, we carried out pilot studies in partnership with Derbyshire Dales, Cherwell and Mendip district councils. The local authorities provided the public face of the initiative and ensured that it was responsive to local needs and knowledge. The Department provided resources to support the local authority. The pilot study showed that that approach worked well and could double the background remediation rate. That is helpful, but we still have a long way to go.

The support provided by the Department, largely using contractors, includes free radon measurements to identify homes above the action level, and to confirm that remedial action has worked. Expert NRPB advice was provided to local authorities, the local medical community and householders about the health effects of radon. Expert advice from the Building Research Establishment was supplied to the local authorities, local builders and housing professionals and householders about remediation methods. Locally branded publicity materials were provided to meet the local authority's needs, and consultants helped the local authorities draw up their action plans and handle logistics.

In 2000, following discussions with the local authorities, we rolled out a programme based on the lessons learned in the pilot studies. A good practice guide was prepared to disseminate the information. The areas of 78 local authorities were transected by areas with 5 per cent. or more probability that homes would be above the action level, and they were invited to participate. I am pleased to say that 33 authorities have volunteered to work with us. Three authorities in Devon are participating in a programme—South Hams district council, Torbay district council and West Devon borough council. Their plans have, unfortunately, been delayed because of foot and mouth disease, but we look forward now to working with those three authorities to re-activate their plans in the near future. We shall carry out a review of the roll-out programme when sufficient progress has been made to allow us to determine how successful it has been and I hope that that will be before the end of this year. We shall then make our judgment on the future direction of the Government's radon programme.

I am delighted to have secured this debate and to bring to the Government's attention the need to explore all avenues to promote the development of Dundee airport.

I have tried for some time following my contribution to the debate in this Chamber on regional aviation, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), to focus on what can be done to increase the use of the important economic and transportation feature that serves Dundee and the surrounding areas of north Tayside, Angus and north-east Fife. I am happy to acknowledge the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) to ensure that the services at Dundee airport, which is in his constituency, are enhanced and improved.

I made it clear during the earlier debate on this matter that the economic viability of peripheral areas of the United Kingdom, such as Dundee, must be sustained by the Government in the face of a limited supply of regional airlines, a serious dearth of runway capacity in London for regional airports, and the overwhelming commercial pressure exerted by the buying power of large carriers to force smaller, domestic and regional operators out of London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to these issues, which are vital if we are to ensure that regional aviation and airports such as Dundee have a viable future.

I am pleased to pay tribute to the staff of Dundee airport, the economic development department of the city council, which manages the council facility, and the major carrier at Dundee airport, ScotAirways, for their vital contribution to the successful establishment and smooth operation of Dundee's vital air link to London. I was heartened by recent press statements confirming ScotAirways' commitment to the vital Dundee transport connection, and hope that one of the outcomes of this debate will be the strengthening of this travel option.

I am not here to promote any commercial or business interest. My only motive in seeking the debate was to ensure the best interests of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. Mr. Winterton—

Order. The hon. Gentleman may address me as Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I should be honoured if he would do so.

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The topic of this debate is critical to the area that I represent. Dundee airport is a focal point for commuters who travel on business and for leisure from an area about 486 miles from the metropolis, which in European terms is on the periphery of Europe. It is part of an economic jigsaw that has been painstakingly put together to ensure the economic well-being and future prosperity of an area that suffered more than most from the recessions that ravaged the United Kingdom during the 1980s and 1990s.

The important economic role of all airports was emphasised by my right hon., Friend the Deputy Prime Minister during a speech in March 2000, when he identified airports as being vital to the economy and the key to the Government's integrated transport policy. He said that

"airports are more than just a means of getting from A to B. They are the key to the economic success of our regions and vital to our national economy."

As a Dundee Member, it is important to make the case—as I do at every opportunity—for more government assistance to recreate Dundee's industrial, commercial and service sector base. It is important also to ensure that these different areas of enterprise and employment are supported by a far better transport infrastructure than that in place to allow these activities to achieve the full potential that is open to them.

The airport that serves my area had, like so many others, humble grass-strip beginnings. It was fostered by the local authority for some time for the benefit of the community and now has an anchor of four daily flights from Dundee to London City. The growth of the airport has been fostered by funding from the European regional development fund, and grants previously provided by the then Scottish Office and the Government. We must review the money that has been spent on Dundee airport over the years—about £14 million at 2002 prices—to ensure that the investment begins to pay off.

Considerable progress has been made and, although the estimated 45,000 passengers using the airport this year—last year, it was 47,000—may be few compared with figures for other Scottish airports, it is impressive for the airport's size. Further, when set against the potential passengers travelling between the greater London area and the Dundee airport catchment area, the figure could be in excess of 250,000. There is therefore much to do. Estimated direct peak-time access to London could double the figure of 45,000 over a short period.

To achieve the best returns for the money provided by the Government and the European Union, we need to capitalise on our connections. We must achieve a breakthrough to gain more internal flights in the UK, and greater access to short and medium-haul direct flights to European destinations. Only thus will we ensure the airport's long-term viability. To attain that goal we need the help of the Government, and for them to become more involved,.

As figures show, the service has been performing well and has the potential to be developed, but since 11 September the number of people using the service has dropped. That was confirmed by the chairman of ScotAirways when my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West and I met him in Parliament last month to put the case for the expansion of services from Dundee. He said that now was a period for retrenchment, rather than expansion, and since then ScotAirways has cut proposed flights from Inverness and Aberdeen, and all flights from Glasgow to London City airport. We are consequently lucky to have managed to maintain our London services intact.

I hope to ensure from this debate that once we are over the worst effects of the downturn in air travel since 11 September we will be in a position to begin to build for the future. For Dundee airport, that means certain things, and one is to capture a prime-time slot at peak periods during morning and evening arrivals at London City airport. The Government must do all that they can to aid ScotAirways and Dundee airport to achieve that. Much play was made in the regional aviation debate, held on 31 October, of the use of PSOs—public service obligation orders—to gain prime access to London airports. Under EU regulations, only two criteria can be used by the Government to intervene and justify imposing such an order. The first is to secure a route to an airport serving a peripheral or development region if the route is considered vital for the economic development of that region. Although Dundee fits that criteria, because of the different elements that must be matched to gain access to the PSO, I do not believe that it would achieve such status through that route. A second route is one in which the Government can, where they feel it necessary, serve a PSO to maintain a service that would not otherwise exist.

No case has been made for the second criteria for any routes between a regional airport and London. Dundee's circumstances are heavily centred on a PSO being imposed by government to ensure a service at prime time, which would not otherwise exist. If it cannot fit that service, it will fit the next consideration that I shall address. I publicly call for a PSO to be served to secure a prime slot for Dundee airport, given its disadvantaged status.

Once we can increase the number of flights coming to London City airport, we must widen the UK flight options open to travellers from Dundee airport. Gaining access to a regional or London hub airport must be high on a joint development agenda to be created between government, local authorities and Members of Parliament.

Of the estimated 250,000 possible journeys that I mentioned, many will be made to west London via Heathrow. It is assumed that many passengers will want to progress to international destinations not available from other Scottish regional airports. The Minister might remember, or be aware of, the Manchester-Dundee flight, which operated until 1998 and carried about 10,000 passengers annually. It was a very useful connection that could have been developed. Unfortunately, it collapsed, and we wish that we could work with government to recreate that sort of link and to help to promote it.

A third and vital element in the game plan is for Dundee to gain access to short and medium-haul European destinations. Holiday charter flights to Spain and Jersey have operated in the past. Sadly, those no longer run, although they proved popular. Operation costs played against them. Currently, we are trying to gain access to Schipol airport in Amsterdam. For a small airport, that is a difficult agenda to achieve and maintain. That is the final goal that we need to work for, given that very soon Dundee will witness the completion of an international departure lounge, financed by the Government and the European Union. I hope that, working together, we can ensure that this new facility, the vital next stage in the development of Dundee airport, becomes a vibrant and much-used starting point for both business and leisure air travellers going abroad. Anything that the Minister, his Department and its officials can do to help will be extremely useful.

If the Minister is to repeat the well-publicised whistle-stop tour of regional airports that he conducted last October, will he take time out to travel to Dundee? He will be made very welcome. He will add to our passenger figures, which will also be very welcome, and will see at first hand the progress that we are making in the development of Dundee airport. I think that he will be surprised at the quality of service there, which could be replicated in the City.

I reiterate some of the points made by Dundee city council in its submission last year in response to the "Future of Aviation" consultation paper, which are pertinent to this debate. The council and the departments involved made the case for more direct access at appropriate times to London City airport in order to maximise the current service uptake and to ensure the health of Dundee's business, community and economy. I must stress the influence of the weather—during the storm on Monday, my arduous journey from Dundee to London took well in excess of 14 hours and involved trains, planes and buses. There is no viable surface alternative for business people trying to make vital connections.

Slot availability and slot pricing are hampering the development of our services. With the continued growth in slot demand and free market allocation of London slots, there is a long-term threat to our continued access to London if no Government action is taken. Protection of slots for London locally require a combination of regulations, as I have already said, and a carefully conceived and managed increase in the provision in the capital of runway capacity for regional access. Finally, the representations made by the council underlined the point made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in March 2000. The integrity of the UK economy requires the interests of the regional and national economies to be given priority over the maximisation of profits by airports and large airlines.

When the Minister replies to the debate and when he frames the aviation Bill, which will be introduced later this year, I hope that he will take on board the points raised by me, the city council and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. I also hope that you will find time in your busy schedule to meet us, officers from Dundee city council and, if possible, the management of Dundee airport, to take the agenda forward, whether in Dundee—you are always welcome to visit us there—or in London.

I am glad that I have had the opportunity of this debate to put the case for the fuller development of Dundee airport.

I know that I would be very welcome in Dundee, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was speaking to the Minister. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has properly and courteously sought the permission of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), the Minister and the occupant of the Chair to participate briefly in the debate, and I am happy to call him.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak for a couple of minutes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). When he arrived in the House, he replaced a very active Member of Parliament, who is now a Member of the Scottish Parliament. Since that time, he has displayed not only a determination to stamp his ideas on the House, but an admirable understanding of the problems that face Dundee. That awareness comes from his many years in local authority service and his responsibility for economic development during that period. I have been happy to support him.

I join my hon. Friend in hoping that my hon. Friend the Minister will go on an early jaunt—we shall try to make it a jaunt, although perhaps I should call it a visit—to Dundee. In any event, the Minister will certainly be welcome, and we shall take the opportunity to highlight the necessity and the benefits for Dundee of developing the airport.

Over the past 20 years, I have used every method of transport to get to this building, but the ScotAirways service to London City airport is by far and away the best. I leave my office in Portcullis house—with the Whip's permission, it must be said—at 10 to 3 on Thursday afternoon, and I am sitting having my tea in my front room, 426 miles away, at half-past 5. ScotAirways is to be congratulated on its remarkable service, which has changed my life and those of many people in Dundee.

The airport is also important because we are trying to develop Dundee as a biotechnology centre for Tayside. One can meet professors, academics and business people on the plane, and on one flight up from London City airport there was a woman who was anxious to get to Dundee because her daughter was having a baby in Ninewells hospital. Just as we flew over the hospital and approached Dundee, the pilot was happy to announce that the woman had become a granny. I am sure that she would much rather have been at the hospital, but that is just one example of the type of person that one meets on the flight.

It is important to compliment David Johnson, the airport manager, and his staff on their running of the airport. We are fortunate that ScotAirways has made it the engineering base and the ticket and reservation centre for the whole company, and we appreciate that. Doris and her team also do a marvellous job.

The flight is a pleasant experience, bearing in mind that it is such a small airline. One cabin supervisor, Kathy Milne, who was an experienced flight attendant, drummed the need to pay attention to detail into her successor, Vivian Harper, who drummed it into all the cabin staff. The flight is a really pleasant experience, which I hope that the Minister will soon enjoy.

I am delighted to ask the Minister to reply to a debate for the second time this morning.

I am delighted to be able to accept your invitation to respond to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing this important debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who has been a strong advocate for his local airport and constituents. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East is certainly making his mark as an advocate for the people in his area, and I congratulate him on the calm and sensible way in which he conducted the debate.

My hon. Friend made a strong case for air links to London, and no one could deny that they would help improve the economic fortune of the area. He also made a good case for prime slots into London. He almost suggested that the Government might be able to allocate slots into London, but we have no role in that allocation. Much as we might wish to allocate some favourable slots for the airline from Dundee into one of the major London airports, we cannot do so. In recent months, however, British Airways has relinquished a large number of slots at Gatwick, and other airlines are bidding for them and taking them on. My hon. Friend should encourage his airline to take that option. He will appreciate that it is not within the gift of the Government; the initiative must come from the airline.

My hon. Friend asked about the public service order being placed on the airline. Indeed, he almost declared that it was his wish for the process to be carried out. We often wish things on behalf of our constituents, but the request must be made by the local authority, Dundee city council, or the Scottish Executive. Should such a request be made, it would be considered in the same way as the one made by the Scottish Executive for Inverness airport, which we are considering carefully. The Government are not minded generally to ring-fence slots or protect them because we believe that the marketplace works well. Nevertheless, in some circumstances, we may reconsider that policy.

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned my well-publicised visit to regional airports. I was in Edinburgh yesterday and visited the fine airport there. I did not go to Dundee, but I would be happy to take what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West called a jaunt. If we rearranged the word slightly, we could call it a junket.

I am intrigued to discover that my hon. Friend leaves this place on Thursday at 10 to 3. I see that the Government Whip has entered the Chamber. Perhaps I can put in an application to get away early on Thursday. I assure my hon. Friend that after 7 pm on a Thursday, there is not much in the way of public transport to Plymouth, let alone an air link. I usually arrive home at between midnight and 1 am.

So that I do not get lynched when I leave the Chamber, I should say that it happened only once.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has put that on the record. From now on, I shall keep a careful note of his voting record on Thursday afternoons.

I recognise the importance of good regional air links between Dundee and London. They provide spin-offs not only for the local economy but for the social life of the city. I appreciate that certain regions of the United Kingdom are worried that their slots are being threatened by commercial pressures and because of pressure on airport capacity, although in recent months that pressure has been somewhat reduced, particularly at Gatwick. Airport slots at London airports are allocated by the slot allocator, Airport Coordination Ltd. ACL allocates slots on a neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory basis, and its decisions are binding. The Government have no role in that process.

The allocation of airport slots derives from a combination of European and international air transport guidelines. As my hon. Friend said, Dundee services use London City airport, which is a coordinated airport, and uses the International Air Transport Association guidelines for slot allocation. It is also a prior permission airport and is constrained by the number of airport stands that it has. However, I am sure that my hon. Friends will be encouraged, as I am, by the fact that there are currently four daily services between Dundee and London City, with some flights, at least, at peak times of the day. I was also delighted to be informed that a fifth service will start in February. At London City airport, airlines are offered permission to land if they flew the relevant service in the previous season. Dundee should, if the market exists and the airline wants to continue flying that route, retain the access.

I am glad to hear that announcement. Does my hon. Friend agree that it gives an added advantage? If he has the opportunity to come to Dundee, there is an extra flight available.

My hon. Friend has been extremely persuasive, and on my next tour of regional airports I shall be giving the strongest consideration to the idea of going to Dundee, where I shall, I am sure, be given a fine reception by my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dundee, West—if they can get off the Whip.

I want to say more about the protection of slots, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East rightly stressed. My Department is currently undertaking a policy review on options available for the protection of London airport slots for regional air services. We are examining the current mechanisms by which the Government could intervene to protect access for regional air services. Those, as my hon. Friend knows, will include ring fencing slots under European Regulation 95/93 and imposing a public service obligation under European regulation 2408/92. Those and a range of other options are being considered, and the review is now well under way. The work will subsequently feed into the preparation for the aviation White Paper that we expect towards the end of the year.

My hon. Friend pointed out that Dundee airport is linked to the prospects of airports in the south-east. The Government recognise that some major airports are close to the limits of their capacity. United Kingdom airports now handle more than double the number of passengers that they accommodated in 1985 when the previous national airports policy statement was published. The continually growing demand for both business and leisure air travel is increasing pressure on capacity at airports.

Nowhere is that pressure more evident than in the south-east of England. Three of the United Kingdom's four busiest airports are located in the region. All the major south-east airports are struggling to cope with the demands on their capacity. The Government are tackling the issue and we plan later in the year to publish an air transport White Paper to lay down the framework for the sustainable development of United Kingdom airports over the next 30 years.

There are three main building blocks to the preparation of the White Paper. This is probably important for my hon. Friend's constituency interests. First, we published in December 1999 a consultation document on the future of aviation. The other two building blocks are the two further consultation documents, one on the options for development at regional airports and the other about an option for airports in south-east England. We plan to issue those consultation documents in the spring.

As to airports in the south-east in particular, the south-east and east of England regional air services study has examined a wide range of options at existing airports and new sites. I am pleased to say that that study has now been completed. I am sure that when it is published it will be of considerable interest to the constituents of my hon. Friend and others with an interest in the matter.

As my hon. Friend will know, the 1998 White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" announced that the Government would prepare a statement of policy on airports, looking 30 years ahead. That paper made it clear that we need to make the best use of our regional airports, indicating our objective that they should meet local demand for air travel where that is consistent with sustainable development principles. We want to maximise their contribution to local and regional economies, relieve pressure on the congested London airports and reduce the need for long surface journeys to airports in the south-east. We are taking those policies forward through the regional airports and air services programme. If my hon. Friend carefully examines those studies, he will see that value can certainly be derived from them for his constituents.

This has been a valuable debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East on raising it and giving me, on behalf of the Government, an opportunity to answer some of his points. If there are any I have not answered, I should be delighted to write to him.