I thank everyone for attending, and thank Mr. Speaker's Office for ensuring that we get off to a good start after the recess with this rigorous 90-minute debate. It is particularly timely because the European Commission is soon to produce proposals, which are based on the requests of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, for reforms to the transport of animals across the European Union. In addition—and not, I think, entirely coincidentally—we have before us the RSPCA's report on the 39 steps that it believes must be taken if improvements are to be made within the trade.

I acknowledge the invaluable help that I have received from the RSPCA in preparing for the debate, as well as the help that I have received over the years from Compassion in World Farming. I declare an interest, as I am a long-standing member of that organisation.

First, I should like to consider whether the problem is worthy of our attention, because Parliament has a tendency to address any and every issue, regardless of whether parliamentary action is needed. In Westminster Hall debates, in particular, it is important to establish what priority should be given to an issue.

I shall refer to a recent study, made by the "Animal Angels" team associated with the RSPCA, of a journey from Spain to Italy that was made in July 2002, in which 300 sheep were transported. The journey lasted 220 hours, which is roughly 10 days. The route plan required under European regulations was systematically flouted. When the driver got to Venice, the RSPCA intervened because the animals had been on the road without being unloaded for 75 hours. After 85 hours, they were finally unloaded at Prosecco on the Italian-Slovenian border, but only after the RSPCA intervened and reported the driver to the police.

At that point, the sheep had been without food for more than four days. For more than three days they had been unable to rest. They were showing clear signs of physical and mental stress: they were frothing at the mouth, and showed other signs of stress that would be obvious to a veterinarian. One sheep was lying in agony, with its legs sticking out from the side of the lorry, where it had fallen, because it had been packed in so tightly. Many of the sheep had not been milked, and showed clear signs of mastitis.

The water supplies in Venice were empty, so it was not clear how long the animals had gone without water in temperatures of up to 40 deg centigrade, but they were desperate for water when they were seen. If the vehicle had not been stopped, the driver would have put his loaded vehicle on the ferry to Greece. That would have added a further 36 hours without water to the journey. At that time, we could see one dead sheep; it was likely that by the end of the journey there would have been many more. The death of animals during transport is a not-infrequent occurrence that worries the farming industry as much as anyone else. That driver drives every week, and one might ask what happened when the infringements were detected: the driver was taken to court and given a fine, and the sheep were allowed to continue their journey to Greece.

At the Italian port, the same crew overloaded two trucks with sheep on three tiers. The majority were not sheared and many were pregnant. They were in bad condition and breathing heavily with wide-open mouths. No vets were present at the port.

The temperature on the ferry was about 36 deg. Vets were present when the sheep arrived in Greece. They admitted that the trucks were overcrowded but the vehicles proceeded anyway because there was nowhere to unload the sheep. There was inadequate ventilation and a defective water system. Animals were dragged by their heads, horns, legs, tails and fleeces and there was severe overcrowding.

It might be said that that is an individual case and that hard cases make bad law. In practice, however, teams from the RSPCA and other organisations have made the same type of observations again and again.

The industry's scale is significant—5 million animals are transported every year. Until recently, live exports from Britain had been stopped because of the foot and mouth epidemic, and some of us felt that that was the only positive aspect to come from the epidemic. However, the exports have resumed, albeit on a smaller scale. Under the Government's interpretation of international law, it appears that it is not possible to ban them altogether. I think that the British public in general believe that maximum precautionary regulations and, indeed, a degree of excessive bureaucracy would be welcome. Ideally, every trip would have to be documented in a 100-page document in Serbo-Croat and submitted personally in the Falkland Islands. If that is not possible, we should at least attempt to ensure that every health and safety and welfare consideration is addressed and documented before any export takes place.

We agree with the hon. Gentleman about the highest possible standards for exports. Does he agree that his broader point—that we must find ways of limiting the quantity of exports or, to use his words, abolishing it—would fall foul of two things? First, it would fall foul of the European free market. The whole point of being in the European Union is that we must trade with each other without restriction. Does he not understand that 1 million sheep and a quantity of other animals are exported from this country every year? If that were not the case, the domestic market would collapse and farmers who are already having a disastrous time would have an even worse time. Surely he understands the effect that any ban or restriction would have on the domestic market.

In the real world, we can reach consensus. A ban is not possible in practice because of international trade law. We might disagree on the desirability of a ban but it will not happen. On the other hand, export conditions must be of the highest defensible welfare standards so that we can sleep easy in our beds about the trade. I accept the hon. Gentlemen's point that these matters are significant.

I was struck by my hon. Friend's point that the farming industry wishes to observe the highest standards. Does he accept that organisations such as the National Farmers Union have a preference for the export of meat rather than livestock, which brings back added value to the farmer, as a primary producer, and to this country's meat industry? The way forward is to try to ensure that a level playing field throughout Europe brings the standards of animal welfare throughout Europe to the levels for which we, in this country, have pressed.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. What he said is entirely correct.

I welcome the National Farmers Union's stance on this point, particularly with regard to pig farming. It is generally accepted that several aspects of pig farming in Britain have a higher standard of welfare than is prevalent in other European countries. Therefore, it would be in the interests of the British farming industry—as well as of the animals concerned—if we were to level up standards across Europe, rather than level them down.

Parts of the NFU's response to the European Commission's scientific committee were a bit depressing. It justified practices as diverse as the use of electric prods and, on commercial grounds, insurance to compensate transport firms that allow animals to die en route. The NFU should recognise that the public expect a balance to be struck on such matters. Nobody wishes to drive farmers out of business, and everybody accepts that our practices cannot be too different from those on the continent because of the competitive issue, but the British public are not prepared to support certain practices, such as the use of electric prods, even in the interests of smooth commercial operations. It is important for an industry not to become too separate from its consumers on such issues because, if that happens, the medium-term commercial backlash can be significant.

There is a widespread consensus on this issue in Britain. Most of us continue to eat meat but we do not wish it to be produced in grossly inhumane conditions, and most people accept that the implication of that is that the price of meat will be slightly higher. The longterm interests of the industry require that that consensus be respected.

That consensus is reflected in many other European Union countries, and it is important not to generalise too much about it. In the test votes in the Council of Ministers, there was a majority in favour of an eight-hour travel limit, but it was not a qualified majority. That majority consisted largely of what we think of as the northern tier of countries, with the exception of France and Ireland. However, there is also significant public concern in other European countries, and I understand that some of the countries that opposed a strict eight-hour limit will be open to discussion about a modified approach to the matter.

I wish to concentrate on three aspects of this issue: first, whether there should be any time limit at all on travel; secondly, whether conditions should be improved during travel; and thirdly, whether enforcements and penalties for infringements need to be toughened up. It is essential to distinguish between those three aspects of the debate, because if we were to blur them together by talking about enforcement while we are talking about the eight-hour limit, it would be easy to end up without any clear statement of what we want to achieve.

On the time limit, the European Commission obtained a report from the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare—which we call SCAHAW—on the welfare of animals during transport, with details for horses, pigs, sheep and cattle. That was adopted on 11 March. It is a weighty document. The committee was chaired by Professor Donald Broom, who is a distinguished British scientist. The report has received a widespread—although not a universal—welcome as a serious document that addresses in detail the welfare issues for each species.

Despite the generous time allowed for this debate, It is not possible to summarise the entire report. However, on time limits, the report recommends inspection, food, watering and a six-hour pause after a journey of eight to 12 hours—depending on species—followed by a maximum of one further eight to 12-hour stretch. That does not go as far as the majority on the Council of Ministers would have liked. It was hoping for an eight-hour limit, as was the European Parliament, and such a limit was also strongly endorsed by the RSPCA among its recommendations.

In the real world, we must recognise that negotiations take place in the Council of Ministers and that we will not achieve everything that we wish for. However, given the wish of the majority of Council members and the strong views expressed in the European Parliament, I hope that the Minister will assure us that Britain will be among the countries pressing for a reasonable limit within the eight to 12-hour range for the great majority of animals. We must rely on the Minister's famous negotiating skills to get the best possible deal, but I hope that this debate will reflect a consensus among hon. Members that our starting position should be the eight-hour limit advocated in the original Council of Ministers debate.

On the question of conditions during travel, the European Commission published a report in December 2000 that openly admitted the failure of the present transport directive to protect the welfare of animals, and the Commission agrees the need for new regulation. The first recommendation in the RSPCA report is that the definition of journey time should be from when the first animal is loaded to when the last animal is unloaded. The SCAHAW report endorses that definition because, should we adopt a less precise one, less scrupulous operators may take longer to transport animals in practice.

Secondly, the RSPCA recommends a maximum journey time of eight hours for farm animals intended for slaughter and that all farm animals must be slaughtered as close as possible to where they were reared. We are all aware of the problem surrounding the closure of small slaughterhouses, and have discussed reasons for the closures in several parliamentary debates. In discussions about common agricultural policy reform, there should be encouragements set out for farms and slaughterhouses in the form of subsidies. Subsidies that are currently available for intensive production should be available instead to encourage a high degree of animal welfare on farms and in processing procedures. We must recreate the market for local slaughterhouses to encourage their return. We are beyond the point at which the Government can direct that local slaughterhouses be reopened, but we must reach the point at which it is commercially sensible to do so with defensible animal welfare standards.

One slaughterhouse closes every 10 days under Labour. Most of the reason for that is nothing to do with the market. There is plenty of market, and farmers would take their animals to local slaughterhouses. They are closing because they cannot face the heavy burden of regulation that weighs on them and the cost of implementing it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should lighten the regulation on local slaughterhouses if they want them to continue?

No. The regulation that we are discussing has not been imposed frivolously or randomly, but partly on welfare grounds and partly to discourage the spread of disease. The way forward is not to say that small slaughterhouses do not have to fulfil the conditions that large slaughterhouses do. That would be a market-distorting mechanism and would be deeply resented by other sections of the industry.

What is needed is support. The CAP negotiations may offer a basis for support for small slaughterhouses so that they can reach the standards that we want them to attain. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would not endorse the concept that small slaughterhouses should have lower standards than large ones. We could discuss whether each regulation was ideal, but that might go beyond our debate. He surely accepts the principle that small and large slaughterhouses should both have high standards.

Of course I accept that. My point was that both types of slaughterhouse are heavily over-regulated by the Government. For example, what does the hon. Gentleman think about the pith regulations?

The hon. Gentleman goes beyond my knowledge of detailed slaughterhouse regulation, and beyond our debate. I shall restrict myself to arguing the general principle that small slaughterhouses should have the same high welfare and commercial standards as large ones.

Another significant problem is the attitude of the main retail or wholesale purchasers. Some of the large retail chains and supermarkets insist on the use of slaughterhouses that may be in different parts of the country from the farms. That is an anti-competitive practice, and it would help if the Government considered ways to discourage it. It has contributed significantly to a decline in small slaughterhouses.

I shall return to the recommendations of the RSPCA. The third reads:

"A maximum total journey time of eight hours must be imposed for farm animals intended for further fattening. It should not be necessary for animals to travel long distances merely to complete the finishing stage of production. 'Further fattening animals' must be specifically defined within the Directive in a way that will avoid abuse of the system."

It is widely recognised that it is easy for transporters to maintain that animals are transported for one purpose, but for the animals then to be re-transported for another purpose when they arrive. An audit trail needs to be applied to ensure that the intention of the European Union and the Government on the issue is not subverted.

The fourth RSPCA recommendation reads:

"Breeding animals may travel for a total maximum journey time of over eight hours, but only if stringent on-board conditions…are maintained throughout the journey."

There is clearly potential for negotiations with some countries that opposed the eight-hour limit at the test votes at the Council of Ministers. I am grateful to the RSPCA for its brief on the position of each country in those discussions. Although some countries say that the regulations are fine, others concede that they may need to be improved; I hope that they will agree that if journey times for breeding animals are to be longer, the conditions should be right.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject in Westminster Hall. We are discussing the regulations and the opinions of various European countries. Does he have any idea of the views of those countries that are about to join the European Union? Now seems an ideal time to try to sort out such important matters.

I discussed that matter with the RSPCA, which has contacts throughout Europe—both inside and outside the European Union. Somewhat to my surprise, it reports that the attitude of many of the new countries planning to join the EU is quite positive on animal welfare in general, and particularly so on this subject. I say that I was surprised because Poland and Hungary have large farming interests and we might have expected them to be sceptical. I rely on the briefing that I have been given, but it seems that we will not be flying in the face of the wishes of the majority of applicant countries if we strengthen the rules.

The strongest resistance comes not from the applicant countries but from countries on the periphery of Europe that have significant trade with the rest of Europe. I think particularly of Italy, which says that a large part of its trade involves long-distance transport because the country is such a long way from its markets. That applies less to Poland, which has substantial exports to Germany and would hope greatly to increase them but which would not have a problem in meeting an eight-hour limit. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is one of numerous issues that we should try to sort out before we have 25 countries attempting to reach agreement.

The RSPCA next proposes that animals should not start a new journey without a standstill period long enough to ensure effective disease control—both to reduce the risk of spreading disease and for welfare reasons. The report of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare—the SCAHAW report—recommends a 48-hour period between the end of one journey and the start of the next, during which time the animals should get rest and recuperation, and food and water. The RSPCA notes, however, that that would not be enough to act as an effective disease control measure.

The sixth recommendation in the "39 Steps" report is:

"Ways of encouraging and promoting the development and use of more local abattoirs and mobile slaughterhouses … in order to minimize journey times to slaughter. For example, the charges for meat hygiene inspections should be on a headage (throughput) basis rather than a set daily charge, to ensure smaller premises are not unfairly disadvantaged."

I believe that the Government could take action on that without having to wait for our European partners.

The seventh recommendation of the RSPCA report states:

"Forced mechanical ventilation must be compulsory in all vehicles authorized to transport farm animals over eight hours, so that adequate ventilation can be ensured when the vehicle is stationary, and under all conditions."

Indeed, it should be compulsory to use the ventilation when the vehicle is stationary. As the NFU pointed out, the problem is that existing vehicles may not meet such standards. As always, however, there is scope for negotiation on transitional arrangements to ensure that the industry is not unreasonably disadvantaged. There is a balance to be had in such matters. We hope that such regulations will be introduced within the next few years, because the average lifespan of a lorry is not normally more than five years, and it should be possible to introduce improved regulations for lorry design within that period.

The eighth recommendation reads:

"The SCAHAW report's recommended higher, more detailed space allowance figures must be implemented, and if travel beyond eight hours is permitted"—

for instance, for breeding animals—

"greater floor space allowances as given by the formula for longer journeys…must be provided to allow all animals access to feeders and drinkers during rest stops."

The SCAHAW report details the way in which various species react differently to long journeys. Animals such as cattle normally stand during journeys, but they will eventually sink to a vehicle's floor through exhaustion. That is an argument for shorter journeys, but it also means that in so far as we permit longer journeys we should allow for both standing and sitting postures, and ensure access to water.

The ninth recommendation reads:

"Increased headroom must be provided, as recommended by the SCAHAW report".

The NFU accepts that that is reasonable and should not lead to significant problems.

Recommendation 10, which is uncontroversial, states:

"Sufficient feed and water must be provided, to ensure all animals can eat and drink enough to prevent hunger and thirst in transit."

The SCAHAW report contains detailed recommendations on the amount of fasting that should take place before journeys to ensure that animals do not suffer travel sickness, and recommends that excessive fasting should be avoided because it may cause suffering.

Recommendation 11 states:

"Sufficient amounts of appropriate bedding must be provided, to allow the species in question to lie comfortably, and which remains dry on the surface for the duration of travel."

That would reduce the risk of injury if an animal were to fall in transit. I stress that we are talking about not only animal welfare but the quality of meat. It is well documented that meat quality is affected when animals are transported in unpleasant conditions, a case in which animal welfare and commercial interests are overlapping.

Recommendation 12, which relates to an earlier point, states that the

"Council should establish as a matter of urgency a common position on the Commission's proposal to improve the construction and design of livestock vehicles".

Recommendation 13 reads:

"It must be possible to carry out inspections of each individual animal during the journey and to take appropriate remedial action".

The NFU's response to the SCAHAW report makes the reasonable point that we need a precise definition of "inspection". Are we talking about peering through the slats on the side of a lorry or are we talking about examining every animal? Inspections need to be properly defined to inspire confidence in the process. It would be insufficient for a driver to say, "I had a look and everything seemed to be all right."

We need a defined process that haulage companies, which I do not want to demonise, must fulfil. We need to accept that the majority of them want to operate their businesses decently and require well-defined regulations that say what they mean. All of us who have worked in industry will be familiar with the dilemma that although one can attempt to fulfil every regulation in good faith, a campaign group can still attack a real or perceived violation of a regulation that was not clear, or was not there in the first place. We must define what we expect of haulage companies, enforce the rules and punish those who break them, but we should not demonise the companies themselves. Indeed, companies that try to comply with the terms of the regulations are being undermined by those who try to subvert them.

Recommendation 14 states:

"Ramps that animals use during loading and unloading must have non-slippery surfaces, including means of ensuring easy ascent/descent without slipping—for example foot battens at intervals appropriate to the age/species. They must also have solid sides and the maximum gradient of ramps must be suitable for the species concerned."

In principle, that is non-controversial, as long as a reasonable transition period is allowed so that new lorries can be introduced and the old ones phased out. We need to ensure that the rules are framed carefully, and unambiguously defined.

On a point of parliamentary procedure, I understand that there will be responses only from the Front Benches. However, if any Back Benchers present wish to intervene, I will be pleased if they restrain me.

Recommendation 15 reads:

"Very young animals should not be transported at all. Scientific evidence suggests calves under four weeks old should not be transported/marketed, due to the acute and chronic effects on their welfare, including health. Similar concerns apply to young animals of other species such as piglets and lambs under four weeks old. Therefore, if such animals are to be transported, special conditions—for example, a shorter journey time—must apply."

There will be particularly strong public support in Britain for that proposal. The principle that an animal is entitled to a few weeks of life before it is subjected to extreme stress is widely accepted and if, as appears to be the case, these young animals are more than others liable to respond badly to extensive travel, separate regulations are needed.

Recommendation 16 provides:

"Animals that have previously lived in different pens must not be mixed prior to transport, while on the transport vehicle, or while in pre-slaughter housing."

That is partly because of disease and partly to discourage fighting during the journey. The paragraph continues:

"Vehicles should have moveable pen dividers to adjust to pen size appropriately, so that … animals reared together are kept in contact with each other."

Animals reared separately should be kept separately. Many people will be surprised that it is necessary to make the proposals in recommendation 17, which states:

"During loading and unloading a twitch must not be used on horses or any other species, sheep must not be grasped or lifted by their wool, farm animals must not be beaten, poked with a stick or kicked, sticks must not be used on sensitive areas such as the eyes, mouth, ano-genital regions or belly; tails or ears must not be twisted; animals must not be dragged by limbs or other parts of the body and the use of electric goads must not be permitted."

Many people will be pretty shocked to hear that all those practices occur on a regular basis. The NFU's response is that while it has reservations about the electric goad, which it believes is necessary in some circumstances, it does not dispute that it is a widespread, although bad, practice to lift sheep by the fleece and that extensive education is needed to change farmers' habits in that respect in Britain and overseas.

I will return later to recommendation 18, which states:

"Journey time and rest periods must be properly enforced by the competent authorities."

Recommendation 19 reads:

"The so-called route plan for transporters must be improved and made easier to enforce, so transporters can complete the forms showing where they have departed from the plan—

which will sometimes happen—

"and why."

The Commission needs to impose meaningful sanctions on member states if the approved route plans do not provide the information that is required in the transport directive.

Recommendation 20 states:

"The Commission must encourage member states to harmonize their policies on penalties in the EU."

There is a slight tendency to smugness in northern Europe on this issue; we are not particularly exemplary in imposing our severe penalties.

Recommendation 21 provides:

"Member states must present a report at least every 12 months to the Commission on the inspections that they have carried out, indicating in particular the frequency of inspections, the nature of any shortcomings and … the action taken to rectify problems".

That is a fairly routine matter within the EU, which follows most directives.

Recommendation 22 states:

"The Commission must present a detailed annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the enforcement of the Directive."

In some instances we are treading on new territory. We must ensure that the directive is applied in practice and that unexpected problems, whether welfare or commercial, do not arise. It will be sensible to see a detailed annual report, certainly during the early years of implementation.

The RSPCA proposes in recommendation 23:

"The number of Food and Veterinary Office inspectors and inspections to verify implementations of the directive must be increased substantially."

I hope that the Minister will confirm that there is likely to be fairly broad consensus within the EU on that. It is clear from the debate that took place in the Council of Ministers that most countries accept that there are significant violations of even the current guidelines. That is indefensible.

As we know from debates on crime and other issues, a regulation or law that is not supervised or enforced is eventually treated with contempt. The farmers and the haulage companies that adhere to the regulations ultimately feel that they are mugs because they are undermined by those who get away with violating them. We have a duty to the commercial interests of the companies that fulfil regulations to ensure that those that do not are caught and penalised.

Recommendation 24 provides:

"The Commission must show a greater willingness to initiate and proceed with Treaty infringement proceedings against member states."

I predict that that point will not necessarily appear in the Council of Ministers recommendations, but I hope that the Commission will take note of it.

Recommendation 25 states:

"At places through which animals on long journeys regularly pass, member states of transit or destination must be required to adopt effective systems for checking they are being transported in accordance with route plans and the requirements of the Transport Directive."

I gave the example of transport from Spain to Greece with a stopover in Italy at a major ferry port to illustrate the problems that can arise if the recommendation is not fulfilled.

Recommendation 26 states:

"Member states must be legally obliged to provide suitable Border Inspection Posts…There must be a legal requirement that BIPS examine all route plans, rejecting any that are falsified."

Recommendation 27 reads:

"The Commission must require that any driver and staff of a livestock road vehicle holds a certificate of professional competence recognized by one of the member states, confirming that s/he has completed a training course for drivers of vehicles intended for the carriage of livestock—and been independently assessed for knowledge and competency."

That is important for reasons identified in the SCAHAW report. It notes that, although the most severe point of suffering is during the loading process, animals can suffer significantly during the journey if, for instance, the vehicle takes corners at high speed.

In practice, an inspectorate cannot enforce measures to deal with that. Unless every vehicle is followed as it travels, that cannot be done. We can only ensure that drivers have been properly trained, so that they know what is expected of them—the vast majority would prefer to adhere to regulations—and what they need to do to avoid causing suffering to animals being transported. We should not underestimate the role of ignorance. Many people want to do the right thing, but do not know what that is.

Ensuring that suffering in transit is limited is of great importance, but I know from my experience of travelling on the Good Shepherd—the boat that travels between the mainland of Shetland and Fair Isle—that sheep are extremely poor sailors. I do not know whether they are still transported on that boat, but is the hon. Gentleman aware of anything that can be done to alleviate problems while sheep are on board ship?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The question of transport over sea passages is particularly important for Britain and Ireland, and is dealt with by an RSPCA recommendation, to which I shall return.

Recommendation 28 provides:

"The EU should end the payment of export refunds in respect of live animals and seek the establishment of binding international guidelines governing the treatment of live animals during long-distance transport."

There is a significant export from the EU to non-EU countries in north Africa and elsewhere but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister stressed, we should be promoting the meat trade rather than the live animal trade. Given the general commitment to reform the CAP, however shaky that may sometimes seem, this is a good opportunity to refocus the support for exports on meat rather than live animals. It is also important that the EU seeks to establish international guidelines that go beyond the EU, so that the commercial interests of its farmers are not undermined by cheaper and lower-welfare practices outside the EU.

Recommendation 29 states:

"Livestock markets must ensure record keeping for animal movements in and out of such establishments is stringent and enforced and all animals are individually identifiable."

After the foot and mouth outbreak, we do not need to be told what the risk is if there is confusion about that, whether deliberate or accidental.

I hope that the industry and the Government will increasingly promote the use of electronic markets, so that the appropriate match between buyer and seller can be achieved without the cumbersome, as well as problematic, transport of animals around the country. In this electronic age, it should be increasingly possible—I do not say "universally possible"—to achieve commercial objectives without the physical transport of animals, just as it is possible to negotiate the buying and selling of other commercial property without moving it around the country.

Recommendation 30 relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). It states:

"The Commission must bring forward detailed proposals on the protection of animals during sea transport".

The RSPCA suggests that the sea crossing of animal transport vehicles on roll/on/roll/off ferries should not be permitted if winds of force 5 or above are likely, or if sea conditions are similar, for some other reason, to those produced by such winds. That SCAFAW recommendation was rejected by the NFU, which argues that the rule is too general, and that some boats can cope with high winds, but others cannot. There is therefore a need to consider boats individually. I am not sure that SCAFAW's suggestion does the ferry operators and transporters any favours: an individual assessment would have to be made each time, and it would not be certain from studying the weather forecast each morning that one would be allowed to travel. One could turn up at the ferry port and find that the ferry was of a particular construction unsuitable for force 5 winds. There is a strong case for a specific ruling, rather than leaving the area fuzzy and to the judgment of a port official.

Recommendation 31 is that the European Union should agree additional specific detailed measures for the protection of horses during transport. The SCAFAW report identifies significant issues that relate specifically to horses. These issues are widely accepted in Britain because of the transport of horses of very high quality for racing and other purposes such as—dare I say it—fox hunting.

Recommendation 32 is that an official veterinarian with appropriate additional training and understanding of their role must supervise the loading of all animals to be transported for more than eight hours. The principle is that it is especially important that the conditions are optimal if it is decided that some or all animals may be transported for longer periods. I was disappointed that the NFU resisted that point. It is intuitively clear that the degree of inspection and control can be less for a short journey than if a major journey is about to be undertaken.

Recommendation 33 is that the Commission must provide a new definition of "fitness to travel" that includes the provision that no animal is fit to travel unless it can stand unaided and vary the weight on each of its legs when walking.

Recommendation 34 is that additional species-specific rules have been provided for the transport of the thousands of non-human primates that are imported over long distances from overseas breeding centres for use in biomedical research. Currently, there are no maximum times for journeys. We also need maximum intervals between the times at which food and water are provided.

Recommendation 35 concerns the need for improved provisions for the transport of poultry. It follows the publication of a SCAFAW report on the welfare requirements of poultry, which are not addressed in detail in the current report.

Recommendation 36 states that specific provisions for companion animals, such as dogs and cats, should be provided at a future date.

Recommendation 37, which will also have widespread support among the British public, is that the transport of heavily pregnant animals should be avoided. It should never take place during a period at least equal to 10 per cent. of the gestation period before giving birth, nor for at least one week following birth.

Recommendation 38 is that it should be prohibited to insure farm animals transported for slaughter and further fattening against mortality because of injury or poor meat quality. That is a SCAFAW recommendation, because if it is possible to insure against the consequences of bad transport, it will be in the commercial interests of some companies in some instances to circumvent the regulations. We must do everything we can to ensure that it is against the commercial interests of companies to have poor welfare conditions.

The final RSPCA recommendation is that the EU must consider introducing a requirement for all livestock vehicles transporting animals for more than eight hours to be linked to Galileo—the navigation positioning system—to help to police and enforce the regulations.

That is all very well, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Galileo system has not been designed yet, that it will require the launch of several satellites and that it may not be introduced for 10 or 20 years? I hope that the rest of the RSPCA report is more accurately and sensibly based than that recommendation.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I believe that he exaggerates the difficulties with Galileo, but time will tell. Existing satellite systems run by the Americans can be used in the interim, and then Galileo will offer a more precise measurement, which I accept is perhaps not necessary in this instance. I accept his point that the system can be implemented only as it becomes technically feasible.

As I mentioned earlier, Britain is not as fine an example in enforcement and penalties as we might wish. In a case last year, JSR Healthbred Pigs and Chris Waite Hauliers admitted to providing false information on journey plans and violating the law deliberately. What happened to them? The pig farm was fined £1,500 costs and £500 for the offence, and the haulage company was fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 costs.

Those are derisory sums. As a business man, if I were not concerned with the issue, thought that the likelihood of being caught were not that high, and knew that, if I were caught I would have to pay perhaps only £1,000, I might be willing to take that risk. We need to avoid that situation and ensure that it is a severe commercial risk for a company to violate the regulations. It is a question of respect for the law, and there is no point in legislating unless the penalties are commensurate with the gravity of the offence, especially for deliberate falsification. Indeed, any deliberate conspiracy to circumvent the regulations should be a criminal offence.

Other campaigners and I are seeking some assurances from the Minister. First, will the Government give the strongest possible push in the European Council for the principle of a journey limit, even if compromises have to be made on the detail? Once the principle is established, we can make further progress, but we need to reach that bridgehead. The positive vote in the European Council gives us hope that it may be possible, with suitable compromises on detail, to achieve that principle.

Secondly, will the Minister commit to the strongest possible implementation of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare recommendations and the additional points in the RSPCA plan? Thirdly, will the Government work for the transfer of CAP subsidies from intensive farming to animal welfare? It should be possible to reassure countries that are concerned about their farming interests that we are seeking not to undermine their farms, but to reorient them to the standards that we expect in Britain. Fourthly, will the Government work for much stricter enforcement and, in particular, more commercially threatening penalties and criminal charges for active conspiracy to circumvent the law?

I am proud of Britain's record in supporting improvements, and I hope that we will join our allies in the European Union to lead the way forward. I apologise to hon. Members for taking so much time on the issue, which, despite today's light attendance, due to the scheduling of the debate, has widespread support throughout Britain. I hope that the Minister will press ahead with the policy.

I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) secured this debate and I welcome the RSPCA's report, which will help to continue the debate. We need to reduce and phase out live animal exports, but we must do so in a balanced way that will not harm the agricultural industry or the British economy.

There are many clear arguments for reducing live exports and increasing carcase exports. Many Liberal Democrats sympathise with and support good animal welfare, which the hon. Member for Broxtowe has pressed at great length, but the costs to industry are considerable. Exporting animals means a cost to the farmer, which would not apply to shorter distances; and transporting animals also has environmental costs. Generally, the shorter the distance, the less need for road haulage. Local slaughterhouses would benefit from a greater emphasis on carcase export. Evidence suggests that animals slaughtered after longer journeys produce a lower quality of meat on the shelves—a consumer issue. Finally, disease control is a factor. If the distance over which animals are transported is reduced, the likely spread of foot and mouth or other communicable diseases is further reduced—an issue fresh in our minds.

We should recognise that only about 10 to 15 per cent. of meat exports are live and that some export is not for slaughter. Export for restocking or breeding purposes is always a possibility. New methods are under consideration—in respect of breeding, the transportation of embryos or semen, for example—but we cannot escape the fact that for breeding purposes we shall have to transport animals at different times. Transport within the UK will always be a necessity: all parts of the country cannot be used to produce fat lambs or fat cattle, for example. The upland areas of Wales and the Welsh Marches classically produce light lambs and cattle, which are sold as store animals and are sent off to the midlands for fattening. We may not be talking about long journeys in that respect, but the need to transport live animals—and not only to the slaughterhouse—will always apply. The idea that we can do everything on one large farm and ship straight to the slaughterhouse will never be a practical possibility.

We must rule out the closure of livestock markets, which perform a necessary function in the sale of both slaughter and store animals.

That may be true, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the exchange of information by electronic means may in the longer term reduce the necessity to transport animals from market to market?

I accept that the need to transport animals to livestock markets may reduce, but I cannot imagine that there will ever be a time when livestock markets are not needed. We have to accept the permanent need for livestock markets. In the past year or two, some people have suggested that it would be possible to close all livestock markets. Frankly, that is not a possibility, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government understand that.

The hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in live exports. If we are to phase them out, we need Europe-wide action; action by the UK alone has clearly been ruled out. Reforming the CAP gives us an opportunity to move—entirely, I hope—from production-based subsidies to land management-based subsidies. Some of the incentives that the system provides for live exports would then disappear, which would be welcome, not least because we need to move to land management-based subsidies for other reasons.

I hope that the EU Commission will study and change the EU transport directive and implement some of the measures raised in the recent European Parliament report. I shall mention some of the specifics later.

Overall, there must be better policing at the European level. We cannot accept a situation in which standards are enforced in some countries but not in others. Steps must be taken at the European level; it would be counterproductive for our industry if Britain took unilateral action.

The number of local, smaller slaughterhouses has been declining since before the Labour Government's period in office. There are several reasons for that, and we have touched on regulation. Another reason is the buying methods of the bigger multiples, and no one has really got to grips with the impact of their purchasing arrangements. Unfortunately, market forces have also driven the problem.

Having more local slaughterhouses offers huge advantages, but restoring them will probably require direct support. Action will also be needed to reform the meat hygiene regulations and to put them on a headage basis rather than on a flat-rate basis, which clearly discriminates against small slaughterhouses. To restore some of those slaughterhouses, we may have to discriminate in favour of them rather than against them.

If we are to phase out live animal exports, we must consider the possibility of more UK-produced meat being consumed in the UK. The knock-on effect may be a reduction in the amount of meat imported into this country. If we are to seek higher standards in the movement of animals, we must ensure that imported livestock is reared and transported according to the standards that we expect in this country. I hope that the Minister will deal with that.

I want now to touch on some of the European Parliament's proposals, which, as we heard, relate to time. However, they also talk about a distance regulation, which is slightly odd, given that it is time that matters, not the distance that an animal is transported.

On the more specific issues, the National Farmers Union is genuinely concerned that the request for the continuous feeding of animals during journeys will probably never be achievable.

Another issue is labelling. At present, we label animals where they are slaughtered, not where they start. If there was progress on that issue, I think that we would see a reduction in the movement of animals.

Finally, many of the proposals do not differentiate between different species. More work must be done. The needs of cattle are different from those of sheep, but there is a tendency to treat all livestock identically; we should be more species specific.

I shall seek to be brief because I am keen to hear the Minister's response. Hon. Members often aim to be brief, but are not. I shall try to stick to my word, and if the Minister gives me a nod at the right moment, I shall happily curtail my remarks even if it means missing out some of the best bits.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on his well-balanced and sensible approach to an issue that can generate great passion on both side of the animal welfare debate. All good men and true in the United Kingdom are in agreement about the desirability of reducing distress to animals as much as possible, both during transport and when they are being slaughtered; they differ merely about how to do it.

I am not so happy with some of the terms used by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who seemed to suggest that it was desirable to move progressively towards the abolition of live animal exports. At one stage he even seemed to suggest the abolition or reduction of transport itself. That is not practical for two reasons.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sorry, but 1 do not have time.

The first is that the law is clear. The European Union would not allow the abolition of the export of live animals even if we wished it. Secondly, as I said earlier, we export 1 million sheep as well as many other animals, and were that to be outlawed, there would be severe consequences for our farmers. While that might seem like a good idea to the hon. Gentleman's more anthropomorphist constituents, it is not possible. In fact, we should avoid anthropomorphism in the debate. Animals are not like human beings. Of course, we would not want to be herded together in a lorry and carted around for eight, 12 or 24 hours. Equally, we would not like to be left in a field in the pouring rain to be milked twice a day and fed a lot of hay. Animals are different and it is reasonable to accept that. I suspect that some of the more extreme animal rights activists think that animals are the same as we are; of course, they are not.

The Opposition supported the Labour Government's Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 because it was a perfectly sensible means of laying down the conditions under which animals should be transported. Our problem is that the terms of that order are not satisfactorily reflected—certainly not policed—in the European Union and elsewhere. Can the Minister comment on how the Government intend to make sure that the high standards of transport that apply in this country will be applied across the European Union and beyond—for example, in the case of the occasional transport of live animals by sea to the middle east? We must be sure that our high standards will be applied, not least so that our hauliers and farmers are not put at a competitive disadvantage. That has happened in the pig industry—we apply hugely high standards in this country but they are not applied even as close as Calais, and the consequence of the difference is that our farmers are, absurdly, put out of business.

I should like the Minister to focus on the important matter of local abattoirs. We have lost 336, some 44 per cent. of the total, since the Government came to power. There are only 500 left in the United Kingdom, largely because of costs and regulations, some associated with foot and mouth disease. The Minister must find a way in which to cut both. Will he tell us when he will implement in full the proposals in the Maclean report of 2000, which will be of great help with regard to small local abattoirs?

Will the Minister also address briefly the matter of the export of live horses? The export from the UK of live horses for slaughter has been illegal for some time; it does not happen. Will he confirm that that will remain the case and that it will not interfere with the export of live horses for other purposes, as there are some important reasons for exporting horses—for example, for competitions and racing? Will he ensure that there is no increase in the export of live horses for slaughter? In particular, will he review the disgracefully interventionist and unnecessary provisions of the horse passport scheme, which will become compulsory from 31 December 2003? Will he confirm that the introduction of horse passports will not increase the amount of horseflesh from this country that goes for eating on the continent of Europe? If that were allowed to happen, there might be a presumption in favour of allowing the export of live horses for slaughter.

Had there been time, I should have liked to raise several other points, but the Opposition broadly welcome the regulations. Broadly speaking, we welcome the RSPCA's proposals, "39 Steps", which I read with interest and which were wonderfully described by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, but we do not accept all the proposals. I mentioned Galileo, for example—a daft proposal, which would not be possible. I should also like to know what is meant by beating. Of course, we do not want animals to be beaten to get them on to lorries, but anyone who has ever loaded an animal on to a lorry knows that a tap on the backside with a stick is perfectly sensible. We must not allow ourselves to be tempted down the politically correct avenue of saying that animals should not be treated in that way. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points, and I shall be happy to discuss the subject with him in more detail on another occasion.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on his well-informed and thoughtful contribution to the debate, as well as the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on their constructive contributions. My hon. Friend was right to focus on issues that go much wider than our responsibilities in the United Kingdom. He said that certain concerns were shared by the farming industry and animal welfare organisations, and following a conversation last night with one of the vice-presidents of the National Farmers Union I can confirm that that is the case.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has played a leading role in promoting animal health and welfare matters, is at the Agriculture Council today, but I took the opportunity of discussing this subject with him at the weekend, and I hope that, in my response, I can cover most of the points that have been raised, albeit briefly.

The transport of animals, especially over long distances, generates strong feelings. Over the years, hon. Members have helped to push the issue up the political agenda, as have organisations such as the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming. My hon. Friend focused on "39 Steps", which I recommend to hon. Members as essential reading, although unlike John Buchan's original, it may not grip the reader for hours into the night if selected as bedtime reading.

The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) rightly stressed the need for a balanced approach. We must deal with the issue in a practical way and ask what is necessary and useful in respect of practices that raise animal welfare concerns. The hon. Gentleman referred to the distance limit and stressed that time is more important. The proposal is eight hours or 500 km, which is an attempt to resolve the practical problems in remoter areas, where journeys by minor roads and greater distances extend journey times beyond those for producers who have easy access to motorways. It also addresses concerns about the uneven distribution of slaughterhouses.

The hon. Members for North Wiltshire and for Ludlow referred to the future of abattoirs. One of my first responsibilities as a city councillor in 1973 was as a member of the Cardiff abattoir working party, which included grappling with the impact of European requirements at that time, resulting from the decisions of a Conservative Government. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to pithing. Destroying an animal's brain by use of a pithing rod after a captive bolt stunning has taken place was widely used on cattle in this country, but the Food Standards Agency recently introduced legislation to ban that practice on human health and safety grounds. The industry must clearly adapt some of its operating practices, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to play fast and loose with public health issues.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Maclean task force, which was established to consider ways in which to reduce the impact on small and medium abattoirs of a move required by EU law to introduce full veterinary supervision in all abattoirs and cutting plants by 1 April 2001. It was clear that the move would result in substantial increases in costs in small and medium abattoirs and that, in consequence, some would be forced to close. As announced in the rural White Paper, the Departments responsible for agriculture in England, Wales and Scotland have provided the Food Standards Agency with £8.7 million for each of the next three years, from 2001–02 to 2003–04, to reduce the level of charges to small abattoirs. Since April 2000, the FSA has had responsibility for implementing European and domestic legislation on meat hygiene charges and other related matters.

We were pleased to award a grant to Humane Slaughter Services Ltd. to support the costs of a study of the feasibility of operating a mobile slaughter unit in central and southern England. That study has been completed and the company is now considering whether to go ahead with the development of a mobile unit.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the horse passport issue. I am happy to confirm that the move should not lead to an increase in exports of horses for slaughter. The exception is being made for the movement of horses involved in racing, for example. The horse passport proposals are widely supported by the industry.

I return to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, which are the main focus of the debate. The Government take his views seriously, and we have continued to state a preference for shorter journeys, but the United Kingdom cannot act alone in changing the rules for the transport of animals. All hon. Members who have participated in the debate have recognised that fact. We have acted in concert with other countries, because we are concerned about the bad practices leading to the cruelty to which my hon. Friend referred. In February, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary called for fewer live sheep exports and, in July, he called for the European Commission to introduce proposals to amend the current animal transport rules. In September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke at the Agriculture Council, urging discussion on a general eight-hour maximum for journeys within Europe.

As my hon. Friend said, there have been some appalling instances of abuse of animals on long journeys on the continent. Failures in the current rules and their enforcement have been the source of many concerns identified by the Commission's report on the experiences of member states since current rules were implemented. Our policy has been to enforce the rules in this country fully and consistently and to encourage those on the continent to do the same. We want a level playing field based on the highest possible standards—that is why, during the agriculture debate in September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called for better monitoring of animal transport within the European Union. That would make a difference, because the monitoring of journeys is at present the responsibility of the member state through which the journey is made, which can lead to the inconsistencies to which my hon. Friend referred.

The problems identified by the Commission have led other member states to agree with us that changes and improvements must be made. During the Agriculture Council debate in September it became clear that progress must be made before we achieve a consensus on the extent of changes required on the length of journeys. There is deep division between EU member states that support reduced journey times and those that oppose any change in the current controls. The issue will not be a simple one to resolve, and voluntary organisations need to step up the pressure and the process of education of citizens throughout Europe. The Government are on their side, but some Governments are not. However some, as my hon. Friend suggested, are in favour of change.

We were disappointed to see live exports resumed this summer after almost 18 months of no trade, but we must remember, as hon. Members said, that that trade is legal and our role is to apply the rules scrupulously. One way in which the UK does so is to refuse to issue route plans to the continent if sheep are likely to be transported when the temperature is anticipated to reach more than 30 deg.

As a result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak, the European Union introduced new measures to control the movement of sheep through assembly centres and staging posts to minimise disease risk. Minimum residency and standstill periods must now be met before fattening and breeding sheep are eligible for export. Under EU rules, all categories of sheep may be assembled for export only at approved assembly centres, which must meet strict conditions and be under veterinary supervision. EU animal health rules also limit the time between sheep leaving their holding of origin in one member state and arriving at their destination in another member state.

In addition to those EU controls, we have reviewed national legislation and procedures relating to assembly centres. Earlier this year we introduced measures requiring assembly centres to have in place an operational agreement covering all aspects of biosecurity.

My hon. Friend referred at length to the "39 Steps" report, which we largely welcome. It is in four sections. The first refers to journey times and the Government agree with the points made in that section. I have already referred to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took that forward at the September Agriculture Council.

The second section covers vehicle standards and is a little more complicated. We want to see the Commission's proposals for changes in the legislation before getting caught up in a lot of technical detail.

The third section covers enforcement. The UK already operates controls that are tighter in some cases than those proposed. For example, we require route plans to be returned within 15 days of completion of a journey. We can support measures to improve enforcement in particular if they can be brought forward by changes in procedures and without the need to change legislation.

The fourth section refers to miscellaneous items, the majority of which we support. One point of concern involves livestock markets, which are covered by UK legislation. That is something about which, as hon. Members suggested, we need to be careful because there are differences between practices in some continental countries and the UK. I hope that my hon. Friend will find it reassuring that we can, in general, respond positively to what is a useful document.

My hon. Friend referred to rough weather. The Government are concerned that livestock should not suffer by being transported by sea in conditions that may cause unnecessary suffering. The state veterinary service staff have accompanied sailings in a variety of conditions up to and including winds of force 7 and 8 and in rough seas. They observed that sheep did not suffer as a result of those conditions in the circumstances referred to. Transporters must not carry animals if they may be caused unnecessary suffering when force 7 or greater winds or rough or worse seas are forecast. Dover staff discuss any scheduled sailings with the master of the vessel to ensure that he has satisfied himself that he can comply. If staff believe that the master intends to sail in weather that may cause unnecessary suffering, a notice can be issued to prevent sailing. In fact, no notices have had to be issued so far, but several sailings have been cancelled by the operators because of conditions and that sort of discussion.

My hon. Friend also referred to the handling of animals. It is already an offence under current EU rules to lift or drag an animal by its head, horns, legs, tail or fleece and to use excessive force, sticks or electrical prods other than in limited circumstances. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to that. Improvements are a matter for training and enforcement and we have already touched on that.

While we support moves in Brussels to shorten journey times on animal welfare grounds, three matters must be borne in mind. First, short journeys do not automatically guarantee improved welfare. A short journey that is badly managed can be more harmful than a long journey that is properly planned and carried out. That point must be acknowledged. Secondly, the different requirements of the sport and breeding industry, where animals of high value are generally transported under excellent conditions, must be recognised. Thirdly, the impact of changes on livestock producers in remote areas such as the Scottish highlands and islands, and on farmers such as those in Wales who need to find outlets for light lambs, must be taken into account. I hope that I have managed to cover most of the points that have been raised. There is a need further to join up our work with that of local authorities—

Order.

May I take the opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) to his Front-Bench post? I no longer have to be quite so kind to him as he is no longer the pairing Whip, but it makes sense to spare a few kind words for his hard work, in several guises, for our party; he was vice-chairman, as well as occupying a senior post in the Whips' Office. I know that he will enjoy what is no doubt an exciting new portfolio for him.

I also have a word of welcome for the Minister for Rural Affairs, who is earning his corn this morning by dealing with two consecutive debates. Earlier, I spoke with his private office, and I want to say at the outset that the idea behind the debate is not to be overly party political, but to make constructive points about recycling. One of the few privileges of Back-Bench duty in this place is the occasional luxury of introducing a debate on a pet subject. I am not unrealistic about the likelihood of changing the law with my words today, but I hope that we raise the profile of the issue. The debate provides me with a platform to express my views and an opportunity to put on record my concerns in relation to recycling.

Recycling household waste is a key topic, and I make no apology for devoting time to discussing it. When I was growing up in the 1970s—not all that long ago—Britain was considered to be the sick man of Europe. A more accurate tag for Britain today, despite the Deputy Prime Minister's recent protestations to the contrary in his Johannesburg speech, is the dirty man of Europe. Nowhere is that more apparent than in our somewhat risible record on recycling household waste.

I represent the most central of the United Kingdom's inner-city seats—the very constituency in which the debate is taking place. I therefore appreciate that my constituents, the throng who visit London daily and, dare I say it, all of us in the House are responsible for a significant amount of litter that is disposed of in central London. Similarly, I appreciate that the built-up nature of the district means that we do not suffer the blight of either a local landfill site or an incinerator in our midst. My call rapidly to increase the rate of recycling is therefore not based on narrow, constituency self-interest.

The sheer magnitude of the garbage problem is characterised by the horrifying statistic that, every hour of the day, people in this country throw away enough litter to fill one of the great landmarks of my constituency, the Royal Albert hall. That amounts to 100 million tonnes of litter each year, the overwhelming majority of which finds itself in a landfill site or an incinerator.

It does not have to be that way. England is way behind most of its European Union partners in the household recycling league. A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) told me that Denmark has an innovative scheme, similar to the old deposits for bottles, that applies to plastics as well as glass whereby a small deposit can be retrieved for bottles taken to a supermarket and placed in a recycling mound. Such an approach, using a carrot rather than a stick, would be welcomed in many parts of Europe.

Some 46 per cent. of German household waste is composted or recycled. The figure is a miserly 9.5 per cent. in the UK, and only Ireland, Italy and Greece have marginally worse records on household recycling. The much-derided EU—on this side of the House at least—has produced some sensible household waste targets. In the 25 years up to 2020, beginning in 1995, we are expected to reduce the amount of biodegradable household waste being sent to landfill sites to about 35 per cent. of the 1995 level. The interim target is a 25 per cent. reduction between 1995 and 2010. We are roughly halfway through that period, and it is fair to say that we have made only a negligible impact in reducing waste during the past seven years. We have a lot of catching up to do in the next two thirds of a decade.

One thing that always strikes me is that we must try to bring the issue down from sustainability in the broader sense, which may excite many of the experts in this field, to a basic level that will appeal to our constituents. I always find it remarkable that after I buy a cup of coffee at a local coffee bar—a Starbucks or a Coffee Republic, of which there are many in my constituency, as anyone who walks around the streets of Cities of London and Westminster knows—the receptacle will be thrown away. Some may be recycled, but the great majority are not. The reality is that that polystyrene cup ends up in a landfill site where it will probably take about 1,000 to 2.000 years to disintegrate fully. That cannot be a sustainable way of dealing with our waste in the years and decades ahead.

Many experts are already talking about the destructive enzymes that are developing beneath the oceans as huge amounts of indestructible plastic and chemical waste are dumped at sea. Likewise, the prospect of landfills becoming full is a pressing concern that all local authorities and national politicians must address. In my constituency, commercial recycling is as key in the war on waste as the household initiatives that have developed in recent years. If ever local and individual considerations should be a guide—thankfully, that is often the case in politics—it is in the matter of recycling, which is personal. It requires the individual to make an effort and a choice.

Leadership from politicians and others in environmental matters is vital, but it still comes down to us as consumers and residents to consider our actions. My experience is that success in recycling connects very strongly with a sense of community and belonging in one's immediate environment. For that reason, our throwaway culture in central London and in Britain as a whole is so depressing.

In the business world, whether offices, shops or factories, there seems to be much less enthusiasm to separate paper, plastic and glass than there is in homes. In one sense that is understandable, but, equally, we shall all face a somewhat doom-laden future if we do not start taking responsibility for how our actions affect the planet.

In Westminster, great initiatives among residents have been introduced in recent years. They have prompted a tremendous response, which I have perceived in my 16 months as the constituency MP. However, because of a uniquely high turnover of residents—almost a quarter of the current population are not likely to be living here in 12 months—keeping everyone up to the mark is a continuous and thankless task. In the City of Westminster as a whole, and no matter how hard the environmental and cleansing departments work, all of us, as members of the public, could achieve much more by being considerate with our waste.

I am a great paper user—I am sure that this applies to many of my colleagues—and I tend to write letters and to deal with most of my personal correspondence predominantly by mail rather than by e-mail, which is much more environmentally friendly. It is my preferred way, and I do not apologise for it. However, my paper usage is minuscule, compared with just one document that may arrive from any of an array of public bodies that eulogise on hot topics.

To be honest, for many years I felt guilty about not recycling either my office or household waste, so I decided to take a small lead when I was elected a Member of Parliament in June 2001. Let us face it, having rubbish hanging around in our kitchen at home for a little longer than we would normally like is slightly inconvenient, but if we fail to take a lead now, how many more landfill sites will have to be dug in the countryside? How many more industrial incinerators will we need in the decades ahead?

When all is said and done, the acts or omissions of one individual make relatively little difference to the torrent of trash being generated by people and businesses in this country. If the idea of filling the Royal Albert hall on an hourly basis is difficult to grasp, we should consider the matter in this way: each and every one of this country's 58 million citizens—let us settle on that figure, although we in the House are battling over the number of residents because of the census report—throws away about 20 times their average body weight in garbage each year. What happens to that endless tide of glass, metal, plastic, polystyrene and cardboard? Sadly, while the extent of our waste problem is new, the solutions are devastatingly prehistoric. In simple terms, we dispose of about 90 per cent. of our household and commercial waste, irrespective of its pollution level, by burying it in the ground or by burning it off at an extremely high temperature.

For some time, scientists have noticed a strong link between polluted landfill sites—about 300 in England and Wales contain the most hazardous industrial waste—and an array of birth defects. Last August, the British Medical Journal published findings from Imperial college, London, which is in my headquarters area, that raised doubts about not only the most heavily polluted industrial waste sites, but all 2,300 landfill sites in the UK. Apparently, babies born within a couple of kilometres of such a site are more likely to suffer congenital abnormalities than those born further afield. Given that roughly three quarters of the British population live in such close proximity to their nearest landfill site, and in the aftermath of the great scares over BSE, CJD and foot and mouth disease, I fear that public confidence in the reassurances of any Government, of any political colour, has now reached an all-time low. Despite such medical evidence and increasing public awareness of the potential hazards of industrial burial, the vast majority of UK household waste continues to be sent directly to such sites.

It would be unfair to characterise any Government, of any political colour, as having simply sat on their hands as the landfill problem became ever more pressing. My party, the Conservatives, introduced the landfill tax—the UK's first environmental tax—in 1996, but the first few years of its operation, other than a very modest Treasury windfall, have had little impact on its target. Anyone who dumps waste in a licensed landfill site is taxed at about £12 per tonne of biodegradable waste and £2 per tonne of non-biodegradable. Most commentators admit that such penalties provide virtually no disincentive to using burial. Even setting the tax at such derisory levels has given rise to a culture of non-compliance—some three fifths of local authorities report that illegal fly-tipping has increased since the introduction of the tax and much of it occurs on farm land, which has blighted many people in rural constituencies.

In March 2001, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, in its paper "Delivering Sustainable Waste Management", attacked the inertia and low expectations that continue to characterise waste management in this country. It also criticised the Government's much-vaunted 2000 waste strategy as failing to provide real vision.

As ever, the crux of much of the new regulation is its enforcement. The hapless Environment Agency appears to be hopelessly overstretched and confesses that it is aware of cases in which illegal operators have opened sites, allegedly as construction sites, that are used for dumping contracted waste at levels below that of the landfill tax.

I understand that several leading lights in the waste disposal industry have been quoted as saying that millions of tonnes of material have been diverted in recent years to form the contours of golf courses, shopping complexes, sports grounds and housing estates. The Environment Agency seems to have little authority to license or inspect such sites, and we can hazard only a wild guess at the true level of such illegal operations. All too often, as I think the Minister can confirm, the regulations and disincentives in terms of fines are so derisory as to make little difference.

Does my hon. Friend agree that such activities could store up problems for the future? During the past generation, methane seeping from long-abandoned tips has caused fundamental problems in housing areas in several parts of the country, and the dangers that he describes as short-term have long-term implications as well.

I thank my hon. Friend, who is quite right. I shall come to future issues—this is a long-term problem on which we must make an impact collectively, as politicians and as citizens of this country.

The EU has shown itself to be something of a trailblazer on landfill and recycling, and the European landfill directive has been incorporated in national law in this country. That legislation is designed to minimise the environmental impact of landfill, particularly the gas emissions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). It also deals with surface and ground water pollution, and land contamination.

The most important domestic implication involves a ruling that the amount of biodegradable and municipal solid waste sent to landfill must be reduced in stages. That requires swift and decisive action if we are to meet our obligations. Effectively, we dispose of about only a fifth of the amount that Germany deals with through recycling rather than landfill or other means of disposal.

I am concerned that, all too often, the Labour Government's strategy for achieving landfill reductions can be described as somewhat cynical. Frequently, the claim is made that they are the greenest Government ever, but Britain ranks towards the bottom of the international recycling league among the developed nations and will continue to do so unless radical changes are made in the decades ahead. The Government seem to intend to fulfil their landfill requirement targets only by switching to the second most ecologically damaging option—incinerators. Not for nothing did the Select Committee, only 18 months ago, splutter at the lack of imagination, and planning without ambition, of the national waste strategy. Expert witnesses described the potentially catastrophic carcinogenic effect of large-scale incineration.

The Government have now revealed that they will fulfil their interim landfill directive targets by burning as much as a third of the country's rubbish in industrial incinerators, which will be the size of power stations by the end of the decade, but, between them, Ministers, civil servants and industry experts could not begin to agree how many large-scale incinerators would be needed to increase the number from 12, which we had up and running by the end of the 1990s. That augurs very badly for the battles ahead, not least with local interest groups, which are determined, perhaps understandably, to ensure that incinerators are not located in their back yards.

I understand that, only this summer, the Government were forced to admit that they were embroiled in longstanding legal and planning battles in a handful of the initial batch of new applications. Highly organised action groups in all corners of the country are determined to put paid to plan A for the Government's attempts to fulfil our international landfill obligations. The main trouble is that there is no plan B in place. I appreciate that, from the Government's perspective, they have something of a public relations disaster on their hands. In the past couple of years, there has been a shuffling of feet on the issue of incinerator sites, not least in view of the number of marginal Labour constituencies that would be directly affected by the outline proposals. In part, that may be an expression of the great electoral success of the Labour party rather than a direct criticism, but we need a more sensible strategy for siting incinerators.

It appears that the new strategy is not central Government's responsibility at all. In the perception and the reality of the localism that my party is trying to push forward, such matters must be devolved to the most local level, and the most local level is the individual consumer. I would like to see more power in the hands of local authorities and county councils in relation to recycling.

When all is said and done—a detailed disentanglement of the Government's complex statistics is required—it is clear that if there is to be any hope of meeting our 2010 targets, we shall have to burn on an enormous scale in the short term. Municipal incinerators are the size of power stations, and in addition to their bleak, rather menacing and overpowering presence, the real problem with large-scale incineration is the widely held misconception that if waste is burnt, it simply disappears. We all know that that is not the case, and mass incineration often produces enormous quantities of potentially harmful ash. It is not the kind of ash that comes from burning coal or wood—household waste can seldom be so pure, and burning it often releases toxic chemicals into the air.

In London as a whole, certainly north of the Thames, we rely on a giant incinerator in Edmonton, which handles the waste of no fewer than seven north London authorities. The most recent tests suggest that dioxin-contaminated ash has been used in road building and the manufacture of bricks and breeze blocks. The sheer extent of the problem in Edmonton has yet to be fully determined, but suffice to say that many houses in London—and, indeed, beyond—may already contain highly contaminated material that will not become apparent for some time. At the very worst, we shall run the risk of another asbestos-type scandal every time such houses are demolished or roads are dug up. Although it is argued that the next generation of incinerators will be considerably safer—most of those built in the past were closed following the acceptance of new emission standards in the 1990s—the safe level of dust particles and dioxins remains far from certain.

In many ways, we continue to pursue what is a contamination time bomb. It may be possible to clarify the true extent of the problems only if there are far higher incidence levels of respiratory carcinomas in the decades ahead. I speak on a personal level, as my father passed away some 11 years ago due to a carcinoma of the lung—not that I think it was directly related to such toxins. Medical evidence suggests that such complaints are becoming more widespread. Although that may not be due simply to dioxins in the air, one cannot ignore the fact that it may be a result of what has been happening. As ever, it is notoriously hard to quantify the precise health risks. No serious attempts have been made at clarification—understandably, because many such problems come to light only many decades on.

We cannot allow misinformation and bogus statistics to drive Government policy and there is a risk of nimbyism being involved in the siting of incinerators, but, amid a cloud of ignorance generated by such misinformation, it is unsurprising that many local residents, groups around the country are increasingly becoming alarmed by the prospect of an incinerator being located in their neighbourhood.

Some of the evidence is conflicting. The US Environmental Protection Agency has warned that dioxins may be considerably more toxic than previously thought. The very patchy statistical evidence surrounding incineration is inconclusive, but some preliminary studies on cleaner incinerators suggest that there is little additional health risk. A recent survey in The Sunday Times pointed out that incinerators tend to be inflicted on the poorer parts of town, where residents are less able to defend themselves than the better organised middle classes, and we cannot discount the possibility that such people would have poorer health irrespective of an incinerator. I accept that the figures are to some extent muddled, but I hope that the Minister takes on board the concerns that many leading lobbyists in the field will have expressed to him, perhaps rather more forcefully than I have.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that communities in many parts of the country faced with the threat of incinerators tend to fragment and fight each other over their siting instead of fighting a unified battle against the imposition of such facilities by central Government? Does he agree that it would be much more constructive if politicians, residents' groups and local authorities united to try to resist Government pressure instead of taking political advantage locally to fight a NIMBY campaign for electoral purposes?

I shall have to check the results in Epsom and Ewell, which may not be unconnected with those matters. Perhaps I am being a little unkind to my hon. Friend, who is right that this is a classic community issue that should not be a bandwagon to be jumped on by any political party or residents' group.

I trust that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell recognises that his remarks and those of his hon. Friend will be widely circulated after the debate and read in Hansard with great care by Labour Members.

One great benefit of representing my seat—not least, among a lot of others, is the high calibre of many local residents—is the fact that I do not have to worry about landfill sites or incinerators, unless the Minister is going to suggest putting one in Hyde park. He will have to speak to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport before doing so. I appreciate that other hon. Members may wish to speak, so I shall canter through my remaining comments.

More than two fifths of homes in England and Wales are served by segregated waste selection schemes, with separate boxes for paper, combustible materials and mixed rubbish. The effort and imagination of individuals is essential if such basic domestic recycling is to work. Interestingly, Friends of the Earth claims that the average net cost of providing a doorstep recycling and composting service is a mere £17 a household per year. That is about £375 million a year for England and Wales as a whole, which is less than one 2,000th of overall Government expenditure. The same environmental pressure group also claims that if the United Kingdom met its recycling target of 30 per cent., that alone could create 40,000 new jobs.

The responsibility for innovative thinking is now in the hands of the waste and resources action programme, which plans to encourage far greater recycling rates and to develop new products from reclaimed paper, glass, plastic and wood. Within a couple of years, it aims to increase the recycling rate for bottles and jars from about 28 per cent. to 35 per cent., and it has great plans for a wide range of new uses to which recycled products can be adapted. In view of the almost universal condemnation that the United States has received from environmental groups across the world, it is interesting that that nation has led the world in terms of much of the innovative thinking on adapting household waste. Many of the programme's proposals have already proved a great success on the other side of the Atlantic.

It might also come as a surprise to many that two inner-city Conservative local authorities have been among the leaders on recycling. In central London, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where I was a councillor for eight years until May, and my local authority, City of Westminster, have ambitious plans to beef up their already impressive recycling facilities. I am an inveterate walker in London, and I love walking across all parts of the city, especially areas such as Camden, Haringey and Sutton. It is fair to say that councils of both Labour and Liberal Democrat hue have also had great recycling successes, and I hope that we can build on them together.

I want to talk briefly about my other local authority, which has more profound difficulties. For obvious reasons relating to terrorism, the City of London has been prevented from undertaking large-scale recycling since the mid-1990s, when the IRA threat became stronger, and since 11 September last year. However, a trial of door-to-door recycling has proved so successful that I can announce today that it will be extended to the whole Barbican area in the next year or so. I hope that the City of London, which is right at the heart of the capital, plays its part to ensure that the city has improved recycling.

Some 70 per cent. of my Westminster residents whose front doors open on to the street are already served with door-to-door collection, although the city council's director of environment and leisure laments that only a third use that service. The city council also provides 70 micro-recycling centres, and insists that 47 of its 56 schools have an on-site recycling service. That is not always easy, given the space restrictions in central London. I hope that the other nine follow suit in the next five years.

There is little doubt that Westminster council is happy to put its money where its mouth is. Excluding salaries and overheads, about 1.1 million a year is spent on the recycling programme, and it has three full-time staff on the subject. The additional post of campaigns officer is being advertised.

I make a special plea, not least given the debate on local government finance that will take place later. It is depressing that, as part of the Government's 2002 comprehensive spending review, London local authorities of all political colours stand to suffer the most as a result of recalibration of the annual sum known as the environment, protection and cultural services basket. Although the local authority has complete discretion as to how it spends its money, City of Westminster council directs a significant proportion of its income from that source to waste and recycling services. Another unwarranted and unwanted byproduct of central Government's regional gerrymandering may be that local authorities in London are forced as a result to reduce—

I must be a little hard of hearing. I thought that the hon. Gentleman used the words "gerrymandering" and "Westminster city council" in the same sentence. Was that wise?

I think that we can safely say that the Minister was somewhat hard of hearing in that instance. The gerrymandering to which I was referring relates to the current spending review.

One great disadvantage of denuding London authorities of money is that they will be forced to reduce—or, at best, to hold stable—funding for recycling. That might mean cutting back grant for EPCS.

In the past financial year, the City of Westminster established five new projects to increase domestic waste recycling rates. Those projects include paper recycling bins at three underground and mainline stations, the first mixed glass recycling vehicle and the further extension of the doorstep recycling scheme.

Uniquely among the main political parties at the last election, the Conservatives made proposals for an active approach to recycling. I hope that the Government will think locally on the issue. They must provide personal and community incentives, and I hope that they use the carrot rather than the stick to encourage people down the recycling route. I hope that they will also encourage people in our cities to take responsibility for changing their lifestyle habits, which are, let us face it, unsustainable in terms of the future of the planet.

rose—

Order. I remind hon. Members that the convention is that winding-up speeches begin at midday.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has changed my understanding of what people mean when they talk about filling the Albert hall with rubbish. Previously, I thought that they were talking about a Barry Manilow concert, but the hon. Gentleman's imagery has caused me to think again.

The waste produced by households accounts for only 7 or perhaps 8 per cent. of all waste, but as the hon. Gentleman said, less household waste than other forms of waste is recycled. Some 40 per cent. of other forms of waste is recycled. The amount of household waste is growing by 3 per cent. a year, and not only is little of it recycled but the vast majority goes into landfill. That option has only a limited life because, as the hon. Gentleman said, the 1999 European Union landfill directive required European states radically to reduce the percentage of waste going into landfill. In any event, we are running out of holes in the ground into which to put rubbish.

The Government's response to the directive was to set local authorities statutory targets for diverting waste from landfill. Ideally, waste is to be moved mainly into compost and recycling, and the target is a 25 per cent. reduction in 1995 landfill levels by 2010. It is not clear what will happen to local authorities that miss the target. There are huge variations among local authorities in the status of recycling. The consortium of local authorities that make up the Hampshire waste project, in my part of the world, recycles 40 per cent. of household waste, but other local authorities recycle as little as 3 per cent. So it is clear that we shall have difficulty reaching the targets set in response to the directive.

So what instruments do we have, other than targets, to ensure that waste is diverted? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for individuals substantially to change their practices, and I thoroughly agree. A problem arises, however, as soon as we ask how that change might come about. At present, the main and almost the only clear instrument for diverting municipal waste from landfill is the landfill levy. That is a gate fee of £13 per tonne tipped, which is due to increase by an escalator of £1 per tonne per year. The escalator, which is a key instrument in assisting people to change their management of waste, is a problem because it affects local authorities. There is a substantial difference between the ways in which private companies and local authorities are able to respond to an escalator; perhaps that is why more non-municipal than municipal waste is recycled. Private contractors can change their practices in response to a direct financial instrument, whereas local authorities—because they have an indirect relationship with the people who produce household rubbish but a statutory responsibility to collect and dispose of it—do not have such a direct ability to change. Indeed, the only ability that local authorities have is to influence people to produce less rubbish and recycle more, and to introduce dual bin collections. It is fair to conclude that they do not have the direct ability enjoyed by private sector companies.

However, the landfill levy applies in the same way to local authorities and to the private sector. Therefore, local authorities have to pay the landfill levy as though they were directly able to change the amount of rubbish that they must collect and dispose of. Here is the rub. The local authority has to pay the landfill levy, and the escalator on it, out of the same funds that it uses to promote recycling. Thus, each year that the escalator increases, local authorities have to find the additional money for the landfill levy from their funds for collecting and disposing of rubbish. The more that local authorities pay, the less they are likely to invest in measures to promote recycling. For them, the levy is perverse.

In evidence to the Select Committee in 1999, Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth councils estimated that in 1999–2000 they would pay some £6.6 million in landfill levy—some 20 per cent. of their total waste disposal budget. That has now risen. Twenty percent. of the funds collected under the landfill levy scheme is repatriated for various schemes including schemes to promote recycling. By definition, local authorities are excluded from that. The money is in the hands of environmental trusts, which are often associated with the landfill companies, and the money goes to non-local authority projects only, although, in some instances, local authorities have partnership arrangements with such projects.

Under those difficult circumstances, how are local authorities trying to meet the targets? As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has said, by and large, they seem, increasingly, to be using incineration. I shall not go into whether incineration is safe nor the large quantities of CO₂ that are released into the atmosphere as a result of it. However, I should like to consider the logic of the mechanism so far as incineration is concerned. Given their limited up-front resources—I have already mentioned the problems of local authorities in dealing with their waste disposal funds many local authorities are signing up to joint arrangements with waste disposal companies which will invest in incinerators. Those companies logically want a return on their investment. The deals that local authorities are signing up to are in the order of 25 years so local authorities are effectively committing themselves to a programme of primacy for incineration over a 25-year period.

To make that investment work, the companies usually require local authority disposal authorities to guarantee a waste stream to the incinerators. Furthermore, to achieve economies of scale, the companies tend to build large incinerators. For example, it is estimated that a plant that incinerates 400,000 tonnes per annum costs only three times as much as one that incinerates 100,000 tonnes per annum. Operating plant now in existence processes on average 240,000 tonnes per annum and, of the 22 incinerators in the planning process, only four are scheduled to process less than 100,000 tonnes.

As a result, local authorities will be locked in a disposal strategy for 25 years—it may not be landfill but it is nevertheless a disposal strategy—and, secondly, the waste stream will have to go to the incinerators because of their size. Therefore, as recycling increases there will come a point at which it must be stopped in order to feed the incinerators, or the local authorities will pay the penalty under the agreements that they have entered into. Logically, it looks as though the United Kingdom may be locking itself into a programme that is the opposite of the waste hierarchy that the Government's waste plan requires: reduction, reuse, recyling and, only finally, disposal.

There is a great deal to commend in the Government's waste strategy. I very much welcome the £140 million that has gone into the waste minimisation fund, and the aim of introducing markets for recycled products, which are absolutely essential. Setting up the WRAP scheme—the waste and resources action programme—is a good example of that strategy.

There is much to commend in the work of local authorities in waste minimisation and waste diversion. I was pleased that putrescibles only were regarded recently as eligible for the renewables levy when considering whether energy from waste should be regarded as a renewable source of energy. That is logical because energy produced from incineration and nonputrescibles is not recycled, but merely a delay of one stage in the burning of fossil fuel. The logic of the instruments now in place and the local authority reaction to those instruments suggest that there is a glass ceiling on the long-term development of waste strategy.

It is a fantasy to suggest that incineration should disappear entirely, or that there never will be problems in respect of the placement of incinerators. Incineration, however, should be at the bottom of the hierarchy and only for material that cannot be recycled or dealt with in other ways. That suggests a need for small incinerators rather than the large incinerators programme upon which several local authorities are embarked at present.

Is there a way forward? I make these modest suggestions. First, if we are to drive towards a hierarchy, which is something we can all sign up to and is central to the Government's waste strategy, it is not logical in the long term simply to drive people from one form of disposal to another. There must be an incineration levy, which is also subject to an escalator, which progressively weans the UK off incineration, or, which is more likely, places incineration in its proper context—the final resort for material not otherwise capable of disposal. I was pleased that the Government indicated recently that they would keep under review the possibility of introducing an incineration levy to take us on to the next stage in waste management.

Secondly, the landfill tax must distinguish between the functions of the local authority and the private sector. Local authorities must either receive rebates or be substantially exempt from the effect of the tax if they are to make good progress in changing the way in which people dispose of their household waste.

Both taxes must be directed at the aim of the exercise—getting waste reduced, reused and recycled. That means funding the plant and the techniques to make that happen. That will create a virtuous circle rather than a vicious cycle, which I am afraid that we are in at the moment. The time scales have already been set out; we do not have long to do the work. We must do it sooner rather than later.

I want to speak briefly on one aspect, but I first congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing the debate. I represent a very different constituency from his. I have encountered the problems of fly-tipping, and I have had controversial discussions about landfill sites and incinerators.

My background is as a local councillor. I was proud to be involved in Local Agenda 21 and to do my part locally within the bigger global picture of achieving sustainability. However, I encountered great frustration, because as much as one pushes particular initiatives locally, there comes a point at which one cannot achieve any more success without sufficient national support. I want to emphasise that point today.

At one stage, my council was unable to cover the whole borough with kerbside recycling, as the cost of collection became too high compared with what was being saved on landfill tax. The market for paper fell dramatically, and my authority no longer collected cardboard. Such circumstances are tragic. It is hard for a council when a community is willing to recycle and people want kerbside recycling, but it, with its responsibility to the council tax payer, has to make difficult decisions. As such, I was pleased with the Government's initiative to introduce targets for local authorities, because it seemed to be a way for my authority, having been halted in its progress, to move forward again.

However, all the councils in my constituency now have an enormous concern. They have been successful and therefore were given relatively high recycling targets. That is good, but they are in difficulty because there does not seem to be sufficient money to meet the demands. Other authorities that have not recycled at such a great rate have been set lower targets and may be given greater help. In a way, recycling works like the law of diminishing returns: when a council is already recycling at a high level, it costs it more to improve its rates. My plea to the Minister is for some joined-up thinking. We are to have a local government finance debate tonight. The commitment and desire to meet the local recycling rates exists in my local councils, but we need the funds to match.

I have a letter from one of my county councillors, who writes:

"My local district council has already refused to fully implement its recycling plan unless they receive central funding, despite my pleading that if the government refused to provide the funds they should still proceed with the plan, but over a longer time scale to lessen the impact on the council tax payer."

Such is the talk in my constituency, which greatly concerns me.

All the councils have completed their recycling plans. I went to an exciting presentation by consultants at which members of the public were delighted to see that the targets could be achieved without considering incineration in the short run. The House can imagine that not having that potential conflict on the horizon made me and the members of the public feel very good. However, it was not long before someone put up their hand and said, "That is a wonderful plan, but how will it be paid for?"

Cost is a major issue for authorities such as mine, which appear to have what is described as a high council tax base. All the costs are continually pushed on to council tax payers, but people on fixed incomes will not take kindly to massive council tax increases to promote recycling when they feel that they have made their contribution and that there should be a big difference in their spending power month by month. I therefore urge the Minister to support councils. There is such a willingness out there to tackle this immense problem.

It does not matter how much scientific evidence is produced, people are worried about incineration. However, there is not only bad feeling about that, but huge concern about landfill sites. I recently supported residents who were fighting against one being created. Sadly, we lost that battle, but it must be remembered that locating landfill sites in certain areas has many environmental impacts, apart from the obvious ones.

If permission is granted, as in the case that I have mentioned, a facility will exist for a long time and have a private operator. Even if we are all successful at recycling—this point is similar to that made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead)—the pit will still have to be filled and lorries will come from even greater distances. That concerns me greatly. The location that I am talking about is in the heart of a tourism area, very near the coast that has just received an award for its outstanding beauty. Therefore, we have huge concerns, but also a willingness to recycle.

I also ask the Minister to consider the position of voluntary groups, which again reflects that willingness. If councils received only a little more money to pump prime, there could be amazing initiatives. A scout group in my ward collected waste paper for 15 years and thereby financed the building of a scout hall. Sadly, however, it abandoned collecting waste paper this year. What a tragedy. Young people and, indeed, the whole community were involved in that activity. Nevertheless, we must remain enthusiastic about recycling.

I shall end by talking about supporting the market for recyclables. I have always felt that we need Government action in that respect—my council could not afford to extend kerbside recycling. It might not cost much for the lorries to travel round, but the cost of disposing of what is collected is a real problem. The sooner there is urgent action to support the market for recyclables, the better.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and the other speakers. I do not have much time but, luckily, they have said most of what needs to be said, so I do not have to repeat it.

As we have heard, most people, individually and at local authority level, have a strong desire to help with recycling. In my local authority, Hillingdon, all parties work hard to try to improve their record, but that is not always easy. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said, people who have made an effort to recycle are sometimes disappointed to find that what they have collected just goes to another landfill site. They wonder what the point of it all is and conclude that the exercise is a bit of a sham. That must be considered.

There are various ways to encourage people to recycle. One method that I heard of recently is reducing the number of collections of non-recyclable household rubbish, but I have doubts about that. If we imagine the food waste that might accumulate over, say, two weeks in the summer, we can see that that method has inherent problems. It is also fair to say that there would be fly-tipping of household rubbish, so we must consider such methods carefully.

Having been in retailing for many years, I have noticed how much the use of wrapping and packaging has increased. Economic reasons are sometimes given for that, because it is easier to hang products on hooks and because consumers demand that goods arrive fully packaged, as they think that that protects them. My particular area was furniture. When I started, furniture would be delivered covered in a travelling rug. We would remove it before we went into the house, but increasingly people said that they wanted the furniture to be wrapped by the manufacturers. More shrink wrapping and cardboard is now used. There is a cultural problem with wrapping that we must consider. Of course, there are hygiene reasons for covering food, but as a part-time shopper in supermarkets, I have noticed that there is a tremendous amount of wrapping to get through before one gets to the food.

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's references to furniture, as my father was in that trade too. How often did people demand of the hon. Gentleman that items should have greater packaging? To what extent does consumer demand, as distinct from the retail trade's beliefs about it, provide the pressure?

Quite often, the consumer feels that if a product does not come packaged from the retailer it is shop soiled or has not been looked after properly. Sometimes they also want it to be checked beforehand. For example, consumers who buy a bed want the mattress to be inspected, but they also want it to be wrapped up again. I can understand that, but there is a consumer problem. There is also the problem of plastic bags. I know that my party is not in favour of levying taxes, but according to the anecdotal evidence the system in Ireland is working. Some of my colleagues in retail would probably not be too happy about such a scheme, but we must consider the problem.

Finally, the recycling collection points in our constituencies often become eyesores, so people do not want them outside their house or along their shopping parade. Perhaps we should study new designs and see how collection points may be made more attractive so that people would be happier to have them built nearby. The point has been made that that must become part of our culture—we must educate people more. Other hon. Members may have had similar experiences when visiting schools: the children are all very worried about the environment and recycling, yet one sees most litter outside schools.

Returning to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster made about deposits on lemonade and beer bottles, perhaps we should use a "carrot" approach. He mentioned the credit system in Denmark. The matter may not be as simple as handing over 10p or 3p for a plastic or glass bottle, but a small financial incentive, as well as the knowledge that they are helping the environment, might encourage children and young people to collect a lot of such litter. They must feel that the material will be recycled. As others have said, we must improve. This is a non-partisan subject that we must tackle quickly.

I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) for calling the debate. We debate rubbish quite often, but do not make much progress. I hope that we will make more progress today.

Several statistics show that in general we are missing our recycling targets and materials recovery targets. Rather than fill up all the time that we have available, I will simply quote a useful statistic from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs digest of environmental statistics. The proportion of municipal waste disposed of to landfill has been reduced from 84 per cent. in 1996 to 78 per cent. now—but municipal waste has grown by 14.6 per cent. from 24.6 million tonnes to 28.2 million tonnes.

We are going backwards, and our approach to recycling and household waste is pathetic and sad, especially when we consider what our colleagues in Europe do. We have modest targets, but we are about to fail in relation to several of them. We missed one target by 10 years, and reached only 40 per cent. recycling against current projections, according to a study by the Environmental Services Association.

We need to support local authorities. Hon. Members have mentioned how much support local authorities need. They are doing their best, but are struggling. Guildford, one of my local authorities, sends plastic bottles all the way to Stratford for recycling into underground pipes. That is good, but it costs the authority money. There is nothing to encourage householders to minimise waste, and we could do so much more with Government help and support. There are no tools. We are procrastinating while the waste increases. We want to reduce packaging, and the packaging waste directives are a useful tool for doing that, but we must also consider the waste that we generate. We must do much more. Councils need the tools to encourage people to sort waste at the kerbside. My council is issuing green cones to deal with food waste, and I hope that councils doing this pilot work will start to receive answers to their questions about how they can reduce collection but increase recycling.

Much more needs to be done to enable local councils to develop markets for recycling and waste products. I am talking about recycling, but the country's mindset still seems to be "burn and bury". What are we doing to stop the blight of landfill, which means living with smells, flies and vermin? The UK has one of the worst records of recycling in the western world. There is much that we can do. We need to encourage a reduction in waste.

The landfill tax, which has been mentioned several times, is a pathetically weak instrument. I am very much in favour of it, but it does little to reduce landfill. So much more could be done. The tax does not hurt the end user, and consumers do not feel much effect on their pockets. We must weigh up whether it might be better if they did. The tax could be increased substantially. Without an increase, little help will be given to local government to fund a sustainable waste strategy.

The pre-Budget report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended that landfill tax should be increased considerably, and that the Government should not wait until 2004 to increase it. However, the Government knew better; they continued to ignore what was happening and stuck to their very modest plans. We could do more to incentivise the recovery of waste. We could tax incineration by having a universal waste tax. We need to take modest steps even to meet the Government's very modest targets.

Understandably, every plan for incineration is met with protest. I was disappointed by the intervention by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). As a Surrey MP, he will know that before the last election the only approach to incineration among Members from his party who represent Surrey was to say, "We don't want incineration ourselves, but we agree with incineration in someone else's constituency." There was an unholy cycle of moving waste around but not working against incineration. I differed with my colleagues in that I refused to support incineration. We need a moratorium on all new incineration proposals.

The Government face a difficult problem. For all the reasons already outlined, people will not tolerate new incinerators. They have had enough, they are worried, and the Government should go in another direction.

We need a sustained national recycling programme. We have already talked about the problems with neighbouring authorities. If one authority gets tough, there will be fly-tipping in another authority. Such matters must be considered, not to detract from what local authorities do, but so that the Government can support them. We need a waste and recycling action programme, and perhaps some other ideas, such as zero waste. Two councils recently turned down proposals for zero waste because they wanted to know what it meant, and whether they could achieve it.

Zero waste is a mindset. It is about using resources that we would otherwise throw away as often as we can until they are rendered inert. We can then dispose of them, possibly through landfill, but in a way that would not generate all the problems we associate with landfill, such as flies, smell and leaching. Zero waste methods are growing across the world. New Zealand is a zero waste country. Nova Scotia is a zero waste province. Canberra in Australia and Toronto in Canada are zero waste cities. Bath and North East Somerset is a zero waste council. I would like to congratulate Milton Keynes, which has become a zero waste city since the change in the council, and has turned down the existing plans for an incinerator. Those ideas are taking hold in this country.

One can do an awful lot through the logic of zero waste. The idea is not so outlandish. If one keeps on recycling paper, one can reuse wood fibre six times over—but I agree with the concerns about the market for that. We need better product design, some of which will come through Europe, with the end of life vehicles directive and the electronics waste directive. The Government have not yet got to grips with simple things like sorting waste at the doorstep through kerbside collection.

Supporters of zero waste would say that the doorstep collection of dry recyclables should be extended to every home without delay. Home composting should be supported through the doorstep collection of organic waste. A network of local closed vessel compost plants should be established; there is no need to drive stuff all over the country. From 2006, landfilling with biological waste that has not been treated and neutralised should be banned. The thermal treatment—incineration—of mixed waste should also be ended, and disposal contracts should be limited to a maximum of 10 years. I agree with the concerns about what will feed incinerators over the years, because the contracts are so long. Landfill tax should be extended and become a disposal tax. It should be increased and used to fund zero waste programmes. Producer responsibility should be extended and waste planning opened up to greater public participation. A zero waste agency should be established. Those approaches are not very hard to achieve, and the Government should support them.

I heard with interest what was said about schools, tuck shops and rubbish. I had a lovely meeting at a local school, Boxgrove primary school, which has a school council. The children have representatives on it, from the reception class up, and they are asking what the school was doing about rubbish. They suggested that their tuck shop should sell fruit, and the orange peel could be recycled. They are not asking for crisps because they know that would cause a local problem—and they might actually eat their school lunch, which will delight parents. Those kids are saying many sensible things.

The idea of a tax on plastic bags is not rocket science; it is an excellent idea and we could use it. Many people worry about fly-tipping, but an Ernst and Young study of other countries found that although the figures initially go up when more taxes on waste are introduced, they then fall back. The income on plastic bags will go up, which will fund recycling initiatives. That will fall off later, but we may be recycling by then. I urge the Minister to consider some radical approaches to waste, because the way we are going is taking us backwards.

This has been a valuable, thoughtful and constructive debate, but it has also been a disturbing one. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on bringing it to the attention of the House. He has confirmed his reputation for having an interest in garbage, which was previously pure speculation. Rightly and seriously, he has highlighted important issues that cross party divides and are important both to his constituents and to everyone else in the country. A debate on such important matters is valuable, not least because, as several hon. Members have said, the European landfill directive adopted by the EC in 1999 has now been incorporated into national law. The UK will have to make enormous changes to the way in which it deals with waste if it is to comply with that directive.

When I was doing my research for the debate, I discovered that we create enough rubbish in a day to fill Trafalgar square to the height of Nelson's column. In simple-to-grasp terms, that gives us some feel for the volume of the problem confronting us.

Here is another interesting statistic: every hour, we fill the equivalent of the Albert hall with rubbish. I thought that that might add to my hon. Friend's rather recondite statistics.

I am reluctant to give any more examples, or the metaphor will become rather elaborate. I am sure that we could think of many landmarks around Britain, and in London in particular, that could be filled with waste—but perhaps I am inviting comments about filling the House of Commons with garbage, which might be unwise, and against both my interests and my aim of engaging the support of my colleagues in summarising the debate.

Clearly, the UK faces enormous challenges in meeting the directive. To put some flesh on the bones, I shall remind the House of some of its specifics. In 2002—this year—we face the prohibition of the use of landfill for specified waste, including liquid hazardous waste and clinical infectious waste. By 2004 landfill will be prohibited for hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, and by 2010 we shall need to reduce biodegradable household waste, first to 75 per cent. of the 1995 level, then to 50 per cent. and ultimately, in 2020, to 35 per cent. of that level. Those seem like ambitious targets when we examine Britain's performance thus far, but not when we consider the European experience. Measured by European standards, those targets look attainable and even, when we think about some countries—or colleagues, as they were described earlier—relatively modest. As Members throughout the Chamber have said, we have a lot of catching up to do.

The debate has been thoughtful as well as valuable. I was interested when my hon. Friend who introduced the debate said that the whole business of recycling had a key role in building community, reminding people of their responsibilities and encouraging them to collaborate for the common good. I do not want to become too philosophical in the short time available, but as a Conservative I believe that we inherit the environment and landscape features and have a responsibility to leave those as a legacy to future generations. In a sense, my hon. Friend referred to that when he talked about the feeling that this subject can generate within a community.

My hon. Friend also said that the issue was long-term and must be faced strategically, and that we could not go for quick-fix solutions. We need to build in a range of strategic measures to change attitudes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) talked about changing the culture. Such cultural change will require real commitment from a variety of agencies—a point to which I shall return in a moment.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made a thoughtful and well informed contribution, as always. I was particularly interested in his point about the patchy performance of local authorities on this issue. That is a matter of fact, and crosses the party divide. We have also heard something about Westminster and kerbside collection in that borough, but he will acknowledge—as, I am sure, will other hon. Members and the Minister—that Labour authorities are among the worst culprits. I do not think that this is a party political issue.

However, if we are to expect more of local authorities, which we must, it is important to resource and support them. That means not only money, but encouraging strategic partnerships between the public and private sectors, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to allow the private sector to do what it does best, but in cooperation with, rather than in contradiction of, what local authorities are expected and obliged to do to meet the directive. The issue is interesting, because a public-private partnership is a matter of necessity rather than choice.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) talked about the importance of getting young people to think about the issue. When she discussed recycling waste paper I could not help thinking about Focus leaflets, which was cruel.

Cruel but fair.

That comment was beneath me, and I should not have made it. The hon. Lady was as earnest as ever, and she made a helpful contribution about the importance of involving communities and including children. If we are to change our culture we have to start by getting children to think about waste, rubbish, litter and recycling, which must be done at community level.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge talked about producer responsibility, with which I shall deal in a moment, but first I shall consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster described as our "risible" performance. All hon. Members will be aware of the 2001 report by the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which attacked the

"continuing inertia and low level of expectation which characterise waste management in this country."

The Committee also attacked the Government's much vaunted waste strategy 2000, which is depressingly limited in its ambition and

"lets down those in the industry, and large numbers of citizens who are looking to offer something dramatically better than the status quo."

That is not a happy analysis by that robust and intelligent group of people, who were commissioned to examine those matters in detail.

The environmental sustainability index ranks the UK as just about the worst performer in the world in recycling waste. It has already been mentioned that the amount of municipal waste generated by households and businesses has been increasing by 3 to 5 per cent. each year, and about 80 per cent. of such waste is disposed of in landfill sites. The 11 per cent. UK household recycling rate is one of the lowest in Europe. Germany, Austria and Switzerland have recycling rates of about 50 per cent., and the targets are not ambitious when considered in that context. The targets are ambitious for us, but would not be particularly so for other countries further down the road.

I hope that the Minister will have time to address the particular problem of tyres. He will know that the landfill directive stipulates that by 2003 whole tyres must not be disposed of through landfill, and by 2006 there will be a ban on disposing of shredded tyres through landfill. The problem is massive, given the number of waste tyres generated by towns and cities in Britain, and not being able to dispose of them easily and conveniently will lead to a significant problem. Will the Minister address that issue when he sums up?

Every other country deals with waste disposal through local authorities, but when local authorities are asked to do the work they must be properly equipped and resourced. The Minister will say that extra money is available and that consultation has occurred, but some smaller local authorities will find it difficult to use the money in a planned way in order to target their spending effectively. One obvious solution involves encouraging businesses to invest in the necessary equipment through council tax incentives and tax breaks. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said, the commercial sector is a big generator of waste, but we have not got to grips with incentivising it to invest in the necessary equipment to dispose of waste as we all feel it should. The targets should not be contradictory and should encourage outcomes that are based on real capacity. Landfill tax revenues must be brought back into recycling. The Government have estimated that a third of them will be, but we need an indicative number and firm commitments.

More inter-agency work is required. The public sector is a massive generator of waste, and agencies must work together to ensure that their waste is dealt with properly. What incentives exist for commercial organisations to put in the necessary work with local authorities, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said? Why is there no tyre recycler on the used tyre taskforce, which produced its sixth report earlier in the year?

The key to the problem is establishing a hierarchy for the disposal and recycling of waste. The national waste policy should place a burden of proof on producers and manufacturers, so that we can achieve the targets that we all believe to be essential for our national well-being.

As parliamentarians, we hear rubbish talked about a wide variety of subjects, so it is good to hear a lot of sense uttered by Members on both sides of the Chamber in a debate about rubbish. I particularly welcome the recognition by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that things need to change and that we have a long way to go. It is wonderful how a spell in opposition can change attitudes. I am glad that he provided a reminder of the constraints that will be placed on the disposal of tyres, because people will have to plan ahead. Implementation of the European legislation on fly-tipping presents a problem that has already arisen in many parts of the country. Obviously, we want to maximise reuse. That is why the schemes that I shall discuss involve a great deal of activity concerning the potential uses of recycled tyres.

I congratulate the hon. Member for the quaintly named constituency of Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he introduced it. I agreed with a great deal of his constructive speech, but I must take issue with one or two points. He suggested that London is central, whereas Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield might have better claims. He claimed that he did not want to make party political points, but went on to say that not enough catching up has been done in the past seven years. It is curious that he should select that specific period, and fail to refer to the conspicuous failure of Conservative Governments to deal with the issue during the previous 18 years.

I experienced the frustration mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) when I chaired the finance committee of Cardiff city council in the 1980s. We were ambitious about improving waste disposal and recycling, but at that time much of the capacity of local government to take initiatives was being destroyed by the Thatcherite attack on local government. We should not forget the history of that period, because we need to learn from damage that it did. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who is condemned to silence in debates because of his role as my Parliamentary Private Secretary, reminded me that as a member of Westminster city council in the mid-1990s he proposed door-to-door categorised recycling collections, but the idea was rejected by the majority Conservative group. He also pointed out that some £32 million in profits from parking and fines meant that the council could have afforded to do a lot more—an opportunity that is not available to many local authorities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) welcomed several aspects of the Government's approach and of the work of local authorities, as well as describing some of the challenges that we face. Nimbyism is often a problem. As several hon. Members said, it is difficult to debate objectively on the basis of facts when dealing with local issues. However, it can be done, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole say that all hon. Members have a responsibility to promote a sensible debate based on facts and on the challenges faced in a particular area.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that local authorities had been given high targets. However, they have also been given significant help. She suggested that there was a danger of the law of diminishing returns applying in relation to improving recycling levels. That is true, but it can also be difficult to make a start. Once the population understand that their recycling efforts are being taken seriously, it is possible to get on to an escalator.

A topic dealt with in several contributions was the extent to which local authorities want central funding but also a reduction in ring fencing. They want to be able to use the resources available to them in a way appropriate to their area. There is always a tension between the wish for finances for this and other activities to be provided so as to give the maximum freedom to use them in a way that suits the local area, and the need to meet overall objectives.

The Government's waste strategy was published in May 2000. The vision is to change the way in which we manage waste and resources to improve our quality of life. To do that, we must tackle the amount of waste produced and break the link between economic growth and increased waste. When waste is produced, we must put it to good use through recycling, reuse and recovery. In short, we need to improve greatly the very low levels of recycling that have traditionally been achieved in England.

To ensure that we can achieve such aims, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs called together the key stakeholders for a waste summit last November. Since then, the Prime Minister's strategy unit has been considering what further steps, in addition to those already taken, must be taken to achieve the waste strategy 2000 objectives. The unit is assessing what extra instruments, changes to targets or regulations and/or additional funding may be required to ensure that the strategy is effectively delivered and that we can develop more sustainable waste management. The unit's report should be published shortly.

I referred to challenges. It is clear that the key issue for the review will be the need to make major strides on recycling. In 2000–01, we recycled or composted only 11 per cent. of our household waste in England. That was a small increase on previous years and progress looks slow, but this is in the period before statutory targets and extra Government funding have been put in place. I have been told that local authorities in England are roughly on track to meet the first target for 17 per cent. of household waste to be recycled or composted by 2003–04. However, as the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) pointed out, the growth in the amount of waste produced has continued to outstrip the increase in recycling, so the amount sent to landfill is still increasing. That cannot continue.

I particularly welcome the comments made in opening the debate by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that recycling is a responsibility not just of Government and local government but of individuals, families and communities. If we approach the matter in that way, we have a chance to make the sort of improvements that we want.

The EU landfill directive has set tough and binding targets to reduce and control the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste. To help achieve those obligations, we have set ourselves challenging national targets for recycling and composting household waste. Local government must double the amount of recycling over three years and triple it in the five years to 2005–06. We intend to see those targets delivered and have set every local authority individual statutory targets. If necessary, we will use the powers under the best value regime to intervene to support their delivery.

As for the comments of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, progress has been slow in Westminster, and we require every local authority to meet its targets. So far there has been a 1 per cent. increase in the rate of recycling to 7 per cent. over the 1998–1999 rate. However, I hope that the range of initiatives that Westminster currently has in place will improve its recycling performance and that the hon. Gentleman will encourage it in that direction. The recycling team offers many micro recycling centres as well as a door-to-door recycling collection service. I sincerely hope that it is now moving in the right direction and will meet its statutory targets of 12 per cent. for 2003–04 and 18 per cent. for 2005–06.

The City of London corporation must also take significant action to address its low household recycling rate. A recent estimate for 2001–02 placed the rate of recycling at 11 per cent., which is a marked improvement on the 1998–99 figure of less than 1 per cent., and I understand that the Barbican is currently achieving 25 per cent. The corporation has taken action to deliver its first statutory targets but it has probably done the easy bit. The challenge of reaching 18 per cent. for 2005–06 remains, and it will have to consider what further steps it needs to take to deliver on that target.

I am aware of the challenges to household recycling in that largely commercial area and there are security considerations, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but we need to make progress. We do not tell local authorities how to deliver their recycling because they are best placed to do that, taking account of local issues such as type of housing. I am interested to see some conversion to local government on the Opposition Benches. However, we recognise that local authorities cannot meet the statutory performance—

Order. We now come to the debate on child care workers.

Within an hour of Mr. Speaker granting me the opportunity to highlight concerns relating to vetting of child care workers, the Department of Health rang my office to ask what I would be saying and to find out whether the Department of Health or the Home Office would respond. In doing so, it unwittingly demonstrated the first major problem: who takes responsibility for vetting? If the Departments do not know, what hope is there further down the line of accountability?

Vetting should be multi-agency, of course, but there should be clear lines of accountability leading via Ministers to one Secretary of State. At present, there are at least three Secretaries of State involved—four including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I shall say more about that later.

I confirm that I told the Minister in writing prior to this debate the areas that I would be covering. I told him that the debate would cover the work of three Departments based on my tabled questions and ministerial answers over a three-year period, and would draw on written ministerial replies to me about vetting concerns from three Departments. Aided with that information, I trust that the Minister will be able to respond to my concerns about health, education and Home Office matters and the implications for Northern Ireland. Failure to do so would further indicate the limitations of the existing structure of accountability.

What is wrong with the vetting of child care workers? Gaps, a limited definition of child care workers—I know that because I was responsible for the definition—poor lines of accountability, a lot of buck-passing at local level and fudging at ministerial level. No one person ultimately takes responsibility at local level or Government level.

The report, "Safeguarding Children", which was published on Monday, contains a clear insight into the problems of child protection as it currently operates. Many of its observations about the

"ability of agencies and professionals to safeguard children"

being compromised could be applied to the various vetting processes. The report states that, first,

"The priority given to safeguarding had not been reflected firmly, coherently or consistently enough in service planning, resource allocation nationally or locally across all agencies".

That includes vetting.

Secondly, the report says:

"Local agencies interpreted their safeguarding responsibilities in different ways or with a different emphasis. Other priorities competing for attention had sometimes resulted in resources being diverted away from key safeguarding activity".

Thirdly, it says:

"The priority that senior staff said was given to safeguarding children was not reflected in many agencies' business plans".

The report continued:

"Many staff … were confused about their responsibilities and duties to share information about child care and welfare concerns with other agencies and were not confident about whether other agencies shared information with them".

Damningly, it also stated:

"Despite consistency in the findings of enquiries over past years about weaknesses and failings in information sharing, there were few formal"—

I emphasise the word "formal"—

"agreements between agencies about how"—

I also emphasise the word "how"—

"and when information should be shared".

This is certainly true with a view to vetting with organisations not covered by the Protection of Children Act 1999.

I would like the Minister to put on the record today his response to that specific point. He need not take up limited time by telling me what the working groups are doing or about interdepartmental ministerial meetings. I am well aware of that. I would like to know the outcome and what exactly is being done to ensure that the inspectors' criticism is being dealt with with a view to vetting—or does the Minister believe that the inspectors are wrong? I, for one, believe that they have been very moderate in their report.

For example, it has been brought to my attention that in the London borough of Southwark children are collected from school by drivers and escorts who are not known to the school. When challenged, they failed to produce photo identity as to who they are. Have those people, who have apparently been provided by various agencies, including International Aunties, been vetted? Who knows? Certainly not Southwark council.

I have been assured in writing by Southwark council that all the necessary procedures are in place, but those are empty words, because no recording system exists in the schools. If a driver or escort arrives to collect a child and says that he has forgotten his identification pass, the child is nevertheless sent off with him; the school does not take responsibility. If the case is brought to the attention of social services, they simply pass the buck by saying that procedures are in place; they will not take responsibility either.

Last week, I personally asked the chief executive of Southwark council to ensure that, at the very least, any driver or escort who is collecting a child, and who is unknown to the school, has his or her details, such as a driving licence, noted. I was flatly told by the chief executive that in boroughs such as Southwark, which has so many children in this position, operating such a system would be impossible. Clearly, he will not take responsibility for those children.

I also gave the chief executive the name of a girl about whom I had worries. I carefully spelled out her name, but his secretary had to ring me the next day because the chief executive had managed to take it down wrongly. A week later, having had no response, my office rang the chief executive's office to discover that the name had been passed on to social services—the very people who I had said were not on top of the case. The chief executive did not contact me at all.

I asked Romi Burns, the deputy director of social services for Southwark, for an update. She said that she had been asked to ring me but did not have my number. So, we are dealing with a social services deputy director who does not know how to ring the House of Commons. When questioned, she simply reiterated that drivers are properly checked and procedures adhered to. How did she know? Schools do not have to maintain records because, as the chief executive had explicitly stated, it would be impossible for them do so. The answer must be that she did not know. Advice being issued was good enough for her, but it is far from good enough for someone in so senior a position to be so complacent.

When I asked about the little girl who I had named to the chief executive, she said that she knew the name but had no information because the case was being dealt with by the education department. When we rang the head of education, we were told that they were "interrogating information". If that is an example of Southwark council dealing with an MP, what hope is there for concerned members of the public who attempt to blow the whistle to help safeguard children? What will the Minister do to ensure that such complacency and buck-passing is quickly brought to an end?

I now turn to the work of the Criminal Records Bureau. My Bill, which became the Protection of Children Act 1999, changed part 5 of the Police Act 1997 to facilitate the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau. I therefore followed with interest last week's exchange in the other place. When the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform—a Minister of State at the Home Office—was questioned about the CRB's poor performance he had no reply other than to reiterate what had happened. Perhaps the Minister in the Chamber today will be able to improve on that. To help him, I shall be specific.

My first point is that last February, I asked the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety—another Home Office Minister of State—in a written question, to list bodies registered with the CRB, and he refused. He stated:

"Since most had not given their specific consent, it would not be appropriate".

I must ask: why? What do they have to hide? He went on to say that the details of those who have given consent were available on the website www.disclosure.gov.uk. It had not occurred to that Home Office Minister in February that the fact that most organisations were not giving consent was a problem. What is the view of the Health Minister who is to answer the debate today?

Secondly, I was seriously shocked, when I questioned the CRB's chief executive, to discover that compliance checks do not mean, as I had hoped, that random checks are undertaken to ensure that an employer who has been informed that certain individuals are unsuitable for, or banned from, working with children is not employing such individuals. It seems that "compliance checks" mean that the CRB will check that the forms have been correctly filled in and that the prospective employee has given his or her permission for the check. That is a major loophole in the CRB system because paedophiles will knowingly employ other paedophiles, and the public rely on the fact that an individual has been checked if the organisation has the kudos of being registered with the CRB. How are the public to know whether the employee is suitable? We do not know, because the Minister of State says that we do not have to be told.

I raised those matters in writing last April with the same Minister. I can only say that he fudged the answers by explaining what had happened and finally stating that I was correct in my assessment. I do not want to be correct; I want Ministers to ensure that what the CRB has revealed is acted upon correctly. Does the Minister who is here today agree with me, and what will he do to facilitate that?

I also raised the problem of court records in relation to the CRB vetting process with the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform in April. In order for a vetting process to be up to date, court records need to be electronically communicated to the CRB immediately after sentencing. That administrative measure will be greatly welcomed by the CRB and the police. The Minister wrote to tell me that

"the principal database from which the CRB will draw its information is the Police National Computer".

Will the Minister who is to answer the debate please clarify today whether the PNC receives electronic information directly from the courts immediately after sentencing? Will he also update me on whether that information is now available to the CRB? On a wider point, will he address the issue of referrals of abusers?

In a letter that I received on 23 September from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), I was told:

"As you know, all non-regulated child care organisations are encouraged to refer names to the Secretary of State for possible inclusion on the Protection of Children Act list and to check against the list when proposing to appoint people to any childcare position".

That sounds okay; most parents, on receiving a letter like that, would assume that child care workers employed by agencies and organisations would have been vetted. They would be entirely wrong in that assumption. As the Back-Bench MP responsible for the Protection of Children Act 1999, I know that my definition of a child care worker is precise and very limited, and so, too, is the list of statutory bodies that are required to vet their workers. I also know that there is a massive difference between saying that an agency "must" vet a worker, and saying that it "may".

The same applies to the suspicion of abuse. Under my Act, statutory bodies are required to instigate investigation procedures and refer known abusers for listings. Other agencies and organisations are only encouraged to do so. For example, private tutors need not be vetted. What is more, prior to my Protection of Children Act, vetting procedures—apart from those relating to education List 99 for teachers—were almost impossible to carry out. They were at best piecemeal and at worst non-existent. That means that before my Act was passed, many people employed as child care workers were not vetted to discover whether they had ever physically or sexually harmed a child.

I took that matter up with the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform, and was appalled at his reply, which I received on 13 September. The Secretary of State, in effect, washed his hands of the whole business. The Minister wrote:

"As to existing employees…In general, it is a matter for employers to decide whether or not they wish to carry out checks on existing staff and whether they wish periodically to re-check their staff."

That reply is simply not good enough. A responsible employer might seek to carry out retrospective vetting now that the possibility exists, but it is the sloppy, the second-rate and the plain bad employers that should be required to vet. It is not good enough for that Minister to pass responsibility to the employer; he should be taking the lead himself. His failure to do so may have something to do with employment legislation, as in his letter he went on to say:

"Where employers wish to ask existing staff to undergo checks they need to pay due regard to the terms of the relevant contracts or conditions of employment. They may wish to seek professional advice".

That is a clear hint that retrospective vetting may be hampered by employment legislation. Unfortunately, the Minister concerned did not offer to look into the issue; he did not liaise with his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. As far as I am aware, he just let the matter drop.

A decent employer seeking to do the right thing and vet existing employees is on his or her own. That is not good enough, and I look to the Minister who will respond today to undertake to make good this serious legislative hurdle in the vetting process.

My Protection of Children Act 1999 does not cover Northern Ireland, but the Assembly was seeking to put its own expanded version of it on to the statute books. The Northern Ireland version would introduce a welcome extra dimension, that of accreditation, in clause 16. However, I wish the Minister to tell us today how the accreditation of voluntary organisations will be supported and promoted by all Government Departments. I also want him to comment on the vetting of those who cross the border from the south to work with children in the north. At present, there is no equivalent vetting process in the Republic of Ireland, which effectively creates a major loophole in our system when child care workers come over here from the island of Ireland. The Minister will undoubtedly have been made aware of my concerns, so what I am looking for today is a progress report.

Finally, I almost feel sorry for the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who has the task of replying today. I want to put on the record the fact that he did not make any of the ministerial replies that I have quoted; in every case, and with regard to every Department, the replies were made by Ministers of State. That raises the question of why my hon. Friend was considered to be the most appropriate Minister to respond today.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) for giving us this opportunity to debate these important matters. I know that she takes a passionate interest in helping to ensure that our children, who are the most vulnerable members of our society, are offered the best possible level of protection. That is very evident from what she has said today.

I should begin by saying that the Home Office is the Department that takes the lead on such issues, but it is clear that other Departments also have their respective responsibilities, and the Government think carefully about which of them should respond to specific Adjournment debates. I am pleased to respond to the debate today. I also refer my hon. Friend to the way in which she framed her debate; it is about social care workers. Therefore, as I am part of the Health team, it is appropriate for me to respond today.

We remain grateful to my hon. Friend for guiding her private Member's Bill through Parliament. That resulted in the Protection of Children Act 1999, which the Government implemented in October 2000, and it was that legislation which, for the first time, required Government to maintain a list of persons considered to be suitable to work with children, and to place specific requirements on child care organisations to carry out comprehensive vetting of the staff whom they intend to appoint to work with children. The legislation that was proposed by my hon. Friend was a vital first step towards achieving the Government's aim of establishing a framework of coherent cross-sector schemes for identifying people considered to be unsuitable to work with children, and to prevent such people from gaining access to children through their work.

I know what my Act did. It is not cohesive, extensive or anything else; it is very precise and limited. It also has lots of holes, which I regret, but I could not get the necessary changes through at the time. I do not want to sit here and listen to a description of what already exists—and, in particular, of what I have done. I want the Minister to address the questions that I have raised today.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments, but it is important that I put the history of the matter on the record, because it pertains to many of the points that she raised both today and when the Act was passing through Parliament.

I wish to make some progress now, so that I can get around to addressing my hon. Friend's points. As she has said, many of them have been addressed in correspondence with various Departments, but I will seek to write to her if I am unable to get around to dealing with all of them in this debate.

I know from what my hon. Friend has said today that she would like the elements in her legislation that require organisations to seek checks on their staff to be applied to all organisations that work with children, rather than only to the statutory sector. However, that would involve some intractable problems. It was recognised very early on in the life of the Protection of Children Act that a scheme that required all employers to check that Act's list would be impossible to monitor and enforce.

That issue goes to the heart of much of what has preoccupied my hon. Friend over the past two years—and, indeed, of what has been said today. For that reason, a requirement to undertake relevant checks was made for organisations that are regulated by statute—those who employ social workers, nursery staff and everyone who works in children's homes—while other organisations are encouraged to undertake such checks.

Indeed, the net is widely cast in relation to the type of person on whom a check might be sought. In past correspondence my hon. Friend asked about minicab drivers who drive children; for example, a minicab driver may offer to parents the service of driving unaccompanied children—

No, I did not. Will the Minister confirm that I did not raise that issue?

The issue raised related to taxis to school. My hon. Friend will know that, in London, as in other cities, a service is provided by taxis, minicabs and various other companies that transport children to school. Service providers are encouraged to vet their drivers, and it is right for the Government to encourage that. As important as the various checks are, however, it must remain paramount for all organisations entrusted with the care of children and other vulnerable people to carry out the full range of pre-employment checks to search for criminal backgrounds. That is only one part of a process that should include face-to-face interviews. Checking the referees and references of the various people is equally important. An applicant's employment history must be considered and employers must be satisfied that any gaps in details are adequately explained.

The Government quickly built on the foundations laid by my hon. Friend, and in January 2000 we implemented part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which, taken with the building blocks contained within the Protection of Children Act and the Education Acts of 1988 and 1996, complemented the integrated scheme to prevent unsuitable people working with children. The child protection measures in part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 created a new way for the courts to disqualify unsuitable people from working with children, in addition to the existing schemes for education and child care. Those who commit a serious offence against children can therefore be prevented from all such work by means of disqualification by a judge, as part of their sentence or the disposal of their case.

We also ensured that the Act provided for the disqualification to apply to persons included on the Protection of Children Act List and to those included on the list maintained by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—List 99—which, as my hon. Friend knows, contains the names of persons barred by the Secretary of State from working in educational establishments. The Act also provided strong criminal sanctions against those who breached the disqualification order, whether the new order was imposed by the courts or the person had been included on the Protection of Children Act list.

The Minister is treating me to a history lesson, using information of which I am extremely well aware—as I hoped I demonstrated when I was speaking earlier. He has seven minutes left, in which he should attempt to answer at least one of my questions. I would like him to answer some of the questions that I raised.

My hon. Friend raised several issues, including the taxiing of children, which I believe I have dealt with. She also raised the issue of the requirement of all organizations—

I did not mention the words, "taxiing of children". I never said "taxiing". I said that in some Southwark schools children are collected by drivers and escorts who are unknown to the schools, and that those people often fail to provide evidence of identity. The chief executive told me that the schools would find it an overwhelming task to record all the information. The question that I want answering has nothing to do with taxiing.

As my hon. Friend will have heard, I am setting out the obligations that rest on the relevant bodies, and those relate to the illustration that she provided. I am seeking to deal with it and I want to make progress. We can exchange views, but I cannot make progress unless my hon. Friend allows me to continue. I shall certainly write to her if I cannot reach a conclusion on the issues that she raised.

The complete framework of protection provided by the 2000 Act introduced a new definition of working with children, which formed the area to be covered by disqualification. Working with children in all sectors—including voluntary work and irrespective of whether that work is paid or unpaid—thus fell within the remit of the scheme. My hon. Friend posed questions about the definition of a child care worker, and her preferred wording is on the record. However, a clear definition is set out in section 36 of the 2000 Act.

I shall now move on to discuss the Criminal Records Bureau, which has an important role in preventing unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults. The Government are acutely aware of the problems experienced by the bureau, which have caused difficulties for the proper protection of children and other vulnerable groups, but it is important not to allow such problems to detract from the value of the initiative itself.

The CRB is designed to achieve several substantial improvements. First, it will enable information from police records to be made much more widely available to employers, voluntary organisations and others, primarily those working with the vulnerable. Secondly, in respect of working with children, it will be possible to search lists of unsuitable people, which are maintained by my Department and by the Department for Education and Skills. Thirdly, the level and speed of service will be higher than the police have been able to provide in the past. I do not disparage the past record of the police, but resourcing issues apply.

My hon. Friend mentioned the list of registered bodies under the Criminal Records Bureau. If lists were given without consent, it would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998. That is the Government's position, upheld by parliamentary counsel. Consent is a critical issue in a democratic context.

What does the Minister think of listed organisations that fail to give consent?

I pass no judgment on the many and varied reasons why organisations may not want their details passed on beyond the CRB, which is charged with that function, to other third parties—including my hon. Friend. The information relating to organisations that give consent is available for inspection on the website or a list can be provided.

My hon. Friend also spoke about compliance checks, but that is not the CRB's function and it is not equipped to carry out that task. The inspection bodies—Ofsted, the National Care Standards Council and other bodies whose inspection duties include compliance—should rightly take up that function.

The Minister used the word "should", so can he confirm that that is the case? Does it actually happen?

I am surprised to hear my hon. Friend ask that question. If she looked at the reports of Ofsted and other inspection bodies, she would see that compliance is examined when schools and hospitals are visited. That is where the duty lies. Action is being taken to address the bureau's operational problems. The bureau, in conjunction with its private sector partner, has put in place a service improvement plan that has already delivered several improvements, and continues to do so.

Action is being taken to address the bureau's operational problems. The bureau, in conjunction with its private sector partner, has put in place a service improvement plan that has already delivered several improvements, and continues to do so. One of the earliest—

Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

It is fitting that one of the first debates after the return of Parliament should highlight the unfair treatment of Devon schoolchildren in the educational funding that they receive from central Government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing the debate to take place.

The national average spending per pupil in England is £2,567, but a school child in Devon receives only £2,372, which represents a shortfall of £195 per pupil. Devon's 95,896 pupils are getting a raw deal, and the county is being deprived of £18 million per annum. If one multiplies £195 by 95,896, one gets a total of £18 million, so we are receiving £18 million less than the average county.

Last June, the Government issued a consultation paper on local government finance. Consultation on the document ended on 30 September. As part of the review, several options for change in education funding were proposed. The debate provides the opportunity to put the unfair and inequitable system of educational finance right once and for all.

The Government do not like discrimination, and neither do the Opposition. I do not like the postcode lottery in the health service or discrimination in education funding based on which county people live in. The current system for the funding of local education depends on a variety of factors. The Minister must excuse me if I am unclear on the matter—he may be an expert on it, but I am not. However, as I understand them, the factors are as follows: 26 per cent. relates to the number of pupils in schools within the local education authority area; 37 per cent. relates to the number of pupils in the catchment area; 10 per cent. relates to sparsity and reflects the added cost of school transport; and 27 per cent. is based on additional educational needs for deprived areas, which takes into account poor language skills and parents on income support.

The Government have proposed four options for the funding of education in the consultation paper. Regrettably, those options continue to discriminate against schools, pupils and teachers in Devon. Of the four options, only option 2 has a small financial advantage for Devon; the other three would make the funding gap considerably worse for Devon and would mean that the shortfall per pupil was even greater than £195. However, option 2 would result in £2 million of additional funding, which would translate to an additional £21 per annum per pupil. That would reduce the shortfall to £174—but there would still be a shortfall. The four options proposed by the Government still provide Devon with less money than the average county.

The consultation document introduces the concept of using the working families tax credit as a measure of deprivation. That is most welcome, as it recognises the effect of low pay on educational needs and the fact that the number of people on income support is not the only measure of financial deprivation in an area.

In conjunction with the F40 group of the lowest funded LEAs, I ask the Minister to consider a fifth option, which could be an improved version of option 2, and would achieve a fair financial settlement for Devon schoolchildren. The Government claim to be spending more money than ever on education since they came to power. Fine. Well done. I am all for it. However, option 5 would provide a more equitable funding system by shifting from the additional educational needs criteria towards a basic allowance per pupil. For those who say that that would be unfair, especially as the additional educational needs criteria deal with those who are more vulnerable, I would point out that there are real problems with the criteria.

An independent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that the average funding given to a school to support a child with additional educational needs is £1,150. However, some £550 of that can be provided through what is called unmet needs, which is neither defined nor subject to any scrutiny; it is simply a wish list that allows the local education authority to claim more money from the Government, whether the child needs it or not. That sounds like gobbledegook, and that is where the problem lies—the present criteria are gobbledegook. Additional educational needs funding should be made available entirely on a needs basis, set out and scrutinised by the Government. It should be excluded from the general education funding formula.

The consultation paper did not offer any solution or mention the problems of funding for school transport. Only 10 per cent. of the Government's block education grant is dedicated to that under the heading of sparsity. Yet Devon has more roads than Belgium, and less public transport than almost any other county. It spends over £16 million a year of its education budget on transportation to and from school. If it did not do that it would contravene the Education Act twice—first by not getting the children to their schools and secondly by not providing full-time education. The matter has been festering since 1944.

Option 5, backed by the F40 campaign, has the support of Devon's parents, governors, teachers and teaching union representatives and councillors, over 200 Members of Parliament and all Devon MPs, whatever their political affiliation. My postbag has been overflowing for the past few weeks with hundreds of letters from concerned parties, who are desperate for a change in what they recognise to be a totally unfair system. In July, a delegation of teachers and parents, led by the admirable Helen Nicholls, head teacher of South Brent primary school in my constituency, presented a 60,000-name petition to the Prime Minister, when he accidentally came out of the door of No. 10.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to mention the fact that it took less than a week to get those 60,000 names. Had we had slightly longer, the number would have doubled.

Well, we can put that right. If the Government feel that it would be helpful, I am sure that we can oblige. Miss Nicholls gained the Prime Minister's attention and he listened carefully to her explanation of the fact that the system of funding penalises Devon's children. The Government, like others, listen carefully; we hope that that listening will yield some productive and constructive results.

There are 95,896 pupils in primary and secondary schools in Devon. An increase of £195 per pupil, bringing them up to the national average, would result in a net increase of just over £18.5 million a year to the education budget. The practical difference that option 5 would make would be in the provision of funding to cover the immense burden faced by Devon in transporting pupils from home to school—some £16 million. For an average secondary school in Devon, that would mean an extra £250,000 that could be translated into 16 classroom assistants or eight teachers. That would be a godsend for Stephen Jones, the head teacher of King Edward VI community college—KEVICC—in Totnes, who is beside himself with concern as to how he will manage under the present financial arrangements. For an average primary school of around 200 pupils, with six or seven teachers, it would mean an increase of around £40,000 per annum. That money would pay for an extra teacher or two classroom assistants, dramatically reducing the pressure on the existing teachers. Dartington Church of England primary school has almost double the average number of students in Devon. Its head teacher, Annie Tempest, would be over the moon if extra money were to come her way each year.

In Devon, as I believe that the Minister knows, standard attainment test results in both primary and secondary schools, as well as GCSE results, are consistently higher than the national average. That is thanks to the dedication of the teachers and the quality of the students. I should also mention the outstanding contribution of that talented county councillor, John Hart, who, as executive portfolio holder for education, has put education above politics. All schools in Devon follow a national curriculum and national targets for pupil attainments. They work hard to meet national political expectations, employ staff on national pay scales and purchase additional resources from national educational companies, but Devon does not receive equal national funding. An increase in funding to the average level per pupil in England through option 5 would ensure that Devon schools could build on the excellent standards that they have achieved and make rapid progress. Conservative Members believe in excellence—in the highest common denominator—not in trying to level downwards to the lowest common denominator.

In a House of Commons debate on 26 April 1999, the present Secretary of State rightly stated that this Government are committed to fair funding for all schools and to a process of phasing out unfair funding. That is just what we wanted to hear, and no doubt the review will give her the opportunity to put things right.

Before we proceed, several hon. Members have made arrangements with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and with the Minister to make contributions. It may help them to gauge the length of their contributions if I say that it is desirable that the Minister be called to speak not later than 1.22 pm.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on the case that he made on behalf of Devon schools, which I completely endorse.

I want to pick up a couple of points. First, my hon. Friend rightly spelt out the critical situation of the Devon local education authorities in having to provide for school transport in a large rural county. A letter from the Department in August, in response to a chairman of governors in my constituency, stated:

"We know that pupils from poor backgrounds generally achieve worse results than those from more affluent backgrounds and that it costs more to educate them to the same level. So poverty is one of the pupil characteristics that we want to take into account in drawing up the new funding system."

I do not think anyone would disagree with that statement, but if one of the criteria for determining affluence and poverty is to be car ownership, I should tell the Minister that although car ownership in Tiverton and Honiton—my very rural and not very wealthy part of Devon—is one of the highest in the country, the two and three-car families mostly own old bangers, not new Mercedes, and so on. I hope that the Minister will analyse carefully the rather rigid criteria that determine affluence and poverty.

Secondly, there are schools with genuine problems that the Minister's Department would not determine as being in areas of poverty. Earlier in the year, I wrote to him about one such school, Uffculme, a school for 11-to-16 year olds, saying that it could not meet its statutory requirements now, never mind under the proposals for changes in the formula, but the Minister declined to meet my local education authority, the school and me. I raised the matter in the summer Adjournment debate and I hope that the Minister will reconsider my request, not least out of courtesy to a Member of Parliament. If good schools in areas not deemed to be of known poverty fail to meet their statutory requirements—we are not talking about a sink school, but about an excellent school—I hope that the Minister will take into account the difficulties they are suffering.

I shall limit my brief remarks to the issue of village schools, of which there are many scattered throughout the county of Devon. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on the points that they made.

I know the Minister to be a reasonable man who is probably very sympathetic to the cases being made today; however, it is not the Minister's Department but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that will decide on the new funding formula and I hope that the Minister will put our comments robustly to the Deputy Prime Minister.

By and large, educating children in small village schools in Devon is a success story, but the cost of so doing is significantly higher than educating children in urban areas. The cost of school transport has already been covered excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. The cost of maintaining old buildings is a serious issue and the cost of providing many local services—people have to travel large distances—can also be higher, yet the quality of education that many of Devon's primary school pupils receive is of the highest level. Our village schools produce not just excellent standards but young citizens who have a responsible, informed approach to society, most of whom will go on to become responsible adults and play an active role in this country.

Village schools hold local communities together. They are what parents want, and their existence is vital in maintaining those communities. However, they cost more, not less. That the children of Devon receive £195 a head less to maintain their education than children in other areas creates a huge problem.

I was part of the delegation—I believe that all colleagues from Devon were there—that handed the petition to the Prime Minister, who listened carefully to the points that Helen Nicholls made to him. That was on 16 July and, as far as I was aware just a few days ago, no reply has been received from Downing street three months later. It is one thing to listen carefully to the points made by responsible senior head teachers from Devon, but it is a pity that Downing street, with all its resources, cannot even find the time to write a letter in response. I hope that that does not sum up the extent to which the Government are listening to the very real concerns of those who live in the countryside.

The countryside has suffered greatly in recent years, as the Minister knows. Farming is in crisis, and we are still trying to recover from the foot and mouth crisis in Devon. It will be another body blow if the fair funding formula is not a vehicle for putting right the shortfall in education funding for the children of Devon. The message to the Minister today is simple: stop the discrimination, give us fair funding, and give us option 5.

I shall keep my comments brief, but I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for securing this debate so early. It is an extraordinarily important debate for all of us who represent constituencies in Devon. Since I have been a Member of this House—just over a year—I have never had so much correspondence on any other subject. I was part of that delegation on 16 July, and I heard the Prime Minister tell Helen Nicholls that he would study the situation carefully and get back to her. I suspect that all Members in the Chamber today overheard that, as did Alastair Campbell who was also there. He will therefore find it difficult to wriggle out of it.

As a fair man, I compare and contrast that lack of a response with a reply from the Minister, to whom I wrote on 30 September. He had the courtesy to reply to me by 6 October, for which I thank him. He gave some hope in that letter, saying that he was open to other ideas and that he would take on board our strong representations for option 5. I hope that that is the case, and that decisions have not already been made.

My constituency has one of the largest secondary colleges—Exmouth community college—in the country. It also has one of the best grammar schools—Colyton grammar school. Each school is affected by the new proposals in its own way, as are all the primary and secondary schools in the more rural areas. I have raised several times in the Chamber the question of rural sparsity and the incredibly high costs of transport in our part of the world. As we have heard, the bill is £17.5 million. In real terms, that means that more than 6 per cent. of our education budget is committed before a single child is taught. The Government currently provide £12.8 million towards that, which leaves a gap of £4.7 million. If the cost of school transport were fully funded centrally, that would mean an extra £50 for every pupil in Devon.

That is just one of the points that we seek to highlight. Other factors will be discussed later in this morning's debate. I earnestly hope that the Minister will take on board this cross-party alliance, which represents all primary and secondary school teachers in our part of the world. As David Birch, the principal of Sidmouth college, who now chairs the Devon Association of Secondary Headteachers said:

"We are not asking for special treatment. All we want is a fair deal."

Many congratulations to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this debate so early. I am happy to engage with him, as I did with one of his colleagues at our meeting last week. I will address the specific issues of sparsity and transport that were raised about the development of the new funding formula, but I also want to present a broader picture.

I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government's policy of increasing expenditure on schools. I hope that it will not bore him if I at least put that discussion into context by explaining the increased investment in education in Devon. I do not want to trespass into party political territory, but if the hon. Gentleman could also persuade some of his party's education spokesmen that increasing investment is a good idea, he would have not only my thanks but those of his constituents.

I was struck by the figures when they were produced for me. Since the local government reorganisation in 1998, Devon local education authority's expenditure has changed. Its standard spending assessment, which is the key part of local government spending, has increased by about £60 million over four years, which is about 25 per cent. Real-terms funding per pupil from that block has increased from £2,750 per pupil in 1998–99 to £3,220 this year, which is an increase of £470 or 17 per cent. Those figures are rather different from those that the hon. Gentleman gave. I hope that he will accept it if I ask my officials to write to him to explain the disparity so that we can proceed on the basis of similar figures.

Of course, the standard spending assessment is only part of the picture. The amount that Devon receives through the standards fund, which is a central allocation, has increased from £7.6 million in 1998 to more than £26.5 million this year. That money supports a range of features of school improvement.

Those moneys are not the only two categories of increased spending in Devon. Payments from the school standards grant, which is sometimes known as the Chancellor's grant, go directly to head teachers and are announced at the time of the Budget. The grant was introduced two years ago and more than doubled from £3.6 million in 2000–01 to more than £8 million this year. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased by the Chancellor's announcement in the spending review that a typical 250-pupil primary school will receive more than £10,000 more next year due to the increase in the schools standards grant, which is a rise from £40,000 to £50,000. A typical 1,000-pupil secondary school will receive £50,000 more, which is a rise from £115,000 to £165,000. There is much greater investment in Devon's schools.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will be keen to have it on the record that capital investment in Devon, which reached the shameful level of only £13.1 million a year in 1997, was £26.6 million last year and is more than £45 million this year. That includes a private finance initiative project—

We are interested in the present and the future rather than the past.

I understand that and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall respond to the points that were made. It is worth putting on the record that the rising spend is being given to every LEA throughout the country. We are discussing how that should be distributed—the spend has gone to Devon.

The main focus of the debate is the local government finance review. Hon. Members know that it is easier and more popular for a Government to announce a review than to announce a review's conclusions because a review gives hope throughout the country but its conclusions do not necessarily meet all expectations.

It is fair to point out that there are strong passions about the local government review throughout the country. The so-called F40 group has circulated many petitions, as have groups in other parts of the country that hold equally strong views. I am meeting representatives of each group and I met the F40 group on 25 September—a head teacher was present although I am not sure whether she was Ms Nicholls. There was a constructive exchange of views and I made it clear that the Government have not made decisions about the final outcome of the local government funding review and that we are listening seriously to consultation.

As the hon. Member for Totnes said, education is only part of the scene. There are four education options but I confirm that they were there for discussion and not simply for choice. We are happy to take representations on other options and I shall address his description of option 5 later.

We would all agree that the current system has problems—the hon. Gentleman said that that dated back to 1944. I hope that we can all agree that we want a fairer and clearer system that is based on clear elements.

Before the Minister moves on to the future, may I get his agreement because my figures were somewhat adrift from his? Does he accept that as things stand there is a difference of £195 per pupil between Devon and the average county? Can we at least get that clear?

Those figures are not in my notes. I think that the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred represent average spend across the primary and secondary sectors relating to other counties. It would not be wise for me to say that I recognise the figures when I have not seen them. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify what we are discussing. It is clear that Devon's funding is not above average.

A formula for the future that will command confidence and respect will include a basic entitlement, and will recognise additional educational needs—the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to poverty-related indicators—and the extra costs of running the education system in some parts of the country, including Devon.

The Department for Education and Skills has guaranteed that there will be no real-terms losses as a result of the process. Floors in the system will ensure a real-terms guarantee for LEAs. That is important. The consultation process began on 8 July, just after the presentation of the petition, and closed on 30 September. The options discussed today centre on deprivation and area costs.

I do not wish to breach confidentiality so I cannot announce the outcome of the review today, but let me give the Chamber some idea of the direction of our thinking. We are not limited by the options set out in the consultation paper, but we want to achieve a fairer match between needs—a word used by at least two, possibly three, Opposition Members—and spending. That is not the same as saying that we should set an artificial target for the funding gap between authorities. The F40 campaign's option 5, which is not a distinct option but asks for more of one option and less of another, adds up to taking money from the deprivation element of the formula and putting it into the basic entitlement. That obviously has significant implications for other authorities around the country, but we take seriously the case for a higher basic entitlement. However, Devon will benefit from some of the extra money allocated for additional educational needs.

I appreciate that some areas, such as Devon, have substantial areas of sparse population. That is why we propose that the new formula should contain a sparsity element to reflect the costs of home-to-school transport in rural areas and to help rural primary schools. Let me explain this carefully because the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) raised the subject previously.

Authorities with sparse populations want us to introduce a sparsity factor for secondary schools, too. We have examined the issue in some detail, but we found no evidence of a connection between secondary school size and sparsity. Small schools are as likely to be found in densely populated metropolitan authorities as in shires, such as Devon, but we recognise that secondary school pupils often have to travel further to get to schools in authorities with sparse populations. That is why we examined the transport expenditure of each LEA to assess the impact of sparsity. We estimate that, in the new formula, 60 per cent. of the transport element of the LEA block will be distributed through the sparsity index and 40 per cent. according to the number of pupils living in the authority.

Option 5 is supported by many counties, not just Derbyshire. I know that the Minister has received many representations, and he has told us today that he will consider all of them, but the tight timetable for implementation is causing concern. What consultation period will there be after the Government have put forward their final option, or will it be a matter of take it or leave it?

I give way to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to provide in the formula for primary and secondary school transport?

The consultation on the Government's final proposals will proceed in the usual way for a local government finance settlement in late November, early December. The transport indicator in the LEA block relates to both primary and secondary schools, but the schools block covers only the primary sector.

Finally, on the definition of deprivation, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the number of cars in a household. I do not know where she got that idea. We made it clear in the consultation paper that there are two options for measuring deprivation. The traditional income support measure includes people on incapacity benefit, so it is a measure of non-employment that targets a particular group of families. However, we flagged up in the consultation paper that we also want to recognise those children who live in working families on low wages. That is an issue in places such as Devon where many rural workers are on low wages. We take that seriously and want to recognise need in a proper not an arbitrary way.

To conclude, this has been a useful debate. I take seriously the points that have been made. However, I reiterate that spend is rising in all LEAs throughout the country. I hope that the Opposition will support us in that.

I shall split my speech into two parts. First, I shall briefly describe my experience on the parliamentary police placement scheme, which I am currently on. Secondly, I shall focus on the crime and disorder partnerships in Denbighshire, which are not working.

Earlier this year, colleagues and I formed a Labour group of north Wales Members of Parliament. The three issues on which we are concentrating are crime, attracting quality jobs to north Wales and improvements to the North Wales railway line. I took up the issue of crime in north Wales as a member of that group.

I am taking part in the parliamentary police placement scheme. The scheme lasts for 25 days, of which I have so far done 18. I have visited dog handlers and the North Wales police helicopter crew, which works with the health service and has saved hundreds of lives since it began. I have worked with the armed response unit and I have been on the firing range at Rhewl in Denbighshire, which is the eighth best in the world. The North Wales police force is very proactive and uses the range to create income for Denbighshire. Indeed, it is doing great things in Ireland and it has got the RUC and the Gardai using the firing range, so it is doing its bit for the peace process. I have also visited the police driving school in Colwyn Bay, in north Wales, which is one of the best in the country. It offers a rolling programme of three-week driving instruction courses for 900 officers, which will make the force's drivers the safest in the UK.

I have spent three days on the beat in Rhyl, in my constituency, three days on the beat in Llandudno, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), and one day on the Maesgeirchen council estate in Conwy. I have been very impressed by the dedication and commitment of the police officers that I have been with over the past five or six months. Perhaps I was deliberately placed with positive people, but I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I have not met one jaded police officer. In our consultations on issues such as "Justice for All", such police officers will act as a valuable source of information, ensuring that we achieve best practice and tilt the scales of justice away from the criminal and towards the victim.

My experience has helped me as a constituency MP, and I have visited some excellent schemes. The youth offending team in Wrexham is one of the best in Wales. Mobile CCTV cameras can be strapped to a lamppost centre wherever there is a problem in Conwy town, and images can be relayed to police headquarters. They can also be used around the whole of Conwy county. Although the traditional location for CCTV is in the high street, where it is used to look after property, I have also seen it installed on council estates such as the Maesgeirchen estate in Bangor, where crime levels have dropped as a result. There is only one road in, so the police know when a drug dealer comes in and they can identify him.

I have also been impressed by the Conwy houses in multiple occupation team, which takes a joint approach to fighting the problems presented by HMOs, involving not only environmental health officers but fire officers, the police, welfare rights units, social services and education. The whole team is involved, and landlords who do not perform properly or who short-change the county and their tenants will be made to pay, because the team will go through their affairs with a fine-toothed comb.

I believe that my experience will help me in parliamentary debate, which is one of the prime purposes of the scheme. Forty colleagues have been on the parliamentary police placement scheme, including my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy. Perhaps the best thing that I witnessed on the scheme was the Aquarius project, which is run by North Wales police. It is cutting edge stuff. There are 43 police authorities in the UK, and North Wales police are probably No. 1 at using technology and record management systems. They are piloting a Canadian model in north Wales, which I hope will be rolled out throughout the country when it proves successful. That is a Welsh solution to a Welsh problem, and a UK one.

I am sure it is a very worthy scheme, but while the hon. Gentleman was on that scheme was it explained to him why the number of specials in north Wales has declined from 388 to just 125, or why violent crime in north Wales has increased by 36 per cent. while detection rates have dropped to 28 per cent.?

I am aware of that fact, and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. That is a snapshot perhaps of the whole of Wales, but in certain parts of Wales—again I refer to Llandudno—there are specials who have been there for 11 years. I was out on a Saturday night at two o'clock in the morning with a special who had been there for 11 years. In areas such as Rhyl—my home town—the number of specials is just one or two. It is a patchwork across north Wales.

On the issue of crime detection and combating crime, I believe the following to be the solution. Within any police authority there are 26 separate silos of information. The Aquarius project will allow the computer to go through those silos and pick out all the relevant information on one household, individual or whatever, and convey that information to the palmtop computer of a police officer going to an incident. It can give a picture of that person. If the officer asks a person who he is, and he says John Jones, or whatever, and gives his name and address, the officer can say, "No you're not—that's John Jones." It is a fantastic system, which will cut down dramatically on bureaucracy. Police officers spend 43 per cent. of their time in the police station. Officers can do reports on their palmtops, which can be sent off to the 17 different points to which they need to be sent. That is a fantastic tool. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales to come to north Wales and judge that fantastic project for himself.

The next part of my speech concentrates on crime and disorder and it is not a positive tale. I have not got a positive story to tell on crime and disorder partnerships in my constituency in Denbighshire. The partnership is not effective, and it is having a devastating effect on my constituents, especially those in social housing. I would like to give some graphic details of how ordinary people are terrorised in their own homes, and left without any help or support. I give you the example of a young single mother in my constituency with a nine-year-old daughter, who lived in fear and terror of a local gang who victimised her. They actually urinated over her daughter. The woman went to the council for help, and it told her that she would have to stand up and be counted, go to court and get those people prosecuted. That council is not living in the real world.

I give another example. A family with children aged from five to 13 terrorised a whole street. Their activities went unchecked for two to three years. They drove out an elderly couple who had lived on that estate for 50 years. The house became vacant and the housing association bought it. It put in a single mother with an eleven-year-old son fleeing domestic violence. The antisocial family said that they were going to kill the 11-year-old son. She turned to the council for help. It said that she should stand up and be counted and go to court.

My hon. Friend has rightly raised antisocial behaviour as a crime, and a very serious one, which blights many of our communities. In my constituency there is a meeting in Sealand tonight to discuss what is happening at St. Andrew's church. That church is being targeted by young vandals, who are not only destroying the church but attacking the people who visit it, and putting them in a terrible state. We have antisocial behaviour orders. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should use them more than we are at the moment?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to the issue of antisocial behaviour orders in a moment.

After her 11-year-old son's life was threatened, the young mother left the house immediately. She had spent £1,500 on fixtures and fittings in her house, but she left it and had to go back to a violent relationship. She went to the council and asked it to rehouse her. It told her that there was nothing immediately available, and she had to wait for nine months before she was rehoused. When a council house in my constituency becomes empty, the council is prepared to spend vast sums of money on boarding up the house with steel frames, repairing the smashed porcelain and replacing the systems that have been taken out. According to figures supplied to me this morning, it spends £40,000 a year on one estate, on boarding up and repairing houses and on lost rents. I would say that that sum, for that one estate, would be better spent employing two or three dedicated officers with the job of combating crime. That £40,000 is a yearon-year cost, which, I believe, will escalate.

Figures supplied by the local county council this morning are inaccurate. They tell me that an average of four houses are boarded up on that estate, but there were 16 in June, and eight at 11.30 am today when I sent a councillor round to investigate. I am currently making inquiries about something that I have been told—that houses have been repaired and that young hooligans have then gone in and re-trashed them. That has happened on five occasions, and police were informed only on the fourth. That is not partnership in Denbighshire.

I have suggested to the council that if it knows that a council house is becoming empty, it should work around the current tenant and hand over the keys on the day on which the tenant moves out. If major work is needed, it should have workmen in there, working through the night if necessary and, again, hand the keys over. For the 2,000 people on the council house waiting list who are desperate for homes, that seems a sensible measure to cut down vandalism and the cost of repair, and to reinvest in the community.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major concerns in north Wales is the absence of police at night on the streets where rowdy behaviour and vandalism occur? I am thinking in particular of areas in Llandudno, Llandudno Junction, Conwy, Penmaenmawr and Llanfairfechan, which I know my hon. Friend has visited.

Absolutely. Police numbers are important, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in 1997 there were 1,300 officers in the North Wales police; there are now 1,500. We must ensure that the extra officers going in are frontline officers. I refer again to the Aquarius project, which I believe will help to achieve that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the money that councils such as Wrexham spend on youth offending teams to nip such behaviour by young people in the bud is much better spent than the money that he has described as being used for boarding up houses and so on?

Absolutely. I referred earlier to the excellent example of the youth offending team in Wrexham. That is a more positive, proactive measure and it saves money and, more importantly, communities.

Will the hon. Gentleman be interested, as I will be, to hear what the Minister has to say about how the causes of crime are being addressed? Much of what he says is about enforcement, but enforcement will cure only symptoms, not causes.

Yes. That is my point. It is no good sending police officers to those estates to chase young criminals round. The answer is a co-operative partnership approach involving the social services, education, housing, the police, the local community, the MP and the Welsh Assembly Member. The problem must be looked at in the round. I shall give a graphic example in a moment of how that has failed in my constituency.

I suggested four years ago that such a measure should take place—that houses should be repaired straight away to cut down on antisocial behaviour. The county council never took up the suggestion. It has a range of weapons in its armoury to combat antisocial behaviour. It can use strong tenancy agreements, rigorously implemented. There has been, I think, only one eviction due to antisocial behaviour in my constituency. Evictions should not simply take place in the first instance. We should give help and support to those vulnerable families, but if that fails, fails and fails again, eviction should be considered. I do not think that it has been used as a powerful weapon. Antisocial behaviour contracts and antisocial behaviour orders could be used. Not one single antisocial behaviour order has been used in my constituency.

I have highlighted the financial cost to the council, but a greater human cost is borne by people who live on the estates and watch their communities being torn apart through inaction. That inaction helps to breed current and future crime by failing to tackle boarded-up houses and burning houses and cars. The council is creating mini-adventure playgrounds within those estates, where kids—from five-year-olds to 15-year-olds—are able to get away with crime. With each burning, young children become emboldened, learn the tricks of the trade from older children and become toughened for a life of crime.

Two years ago, a serious incident occurred in the north of the county in which a police officer was hospitalised after she was set upon by young thugs. I called a meeting, and the county council responded positively. It was represented at the meeting, along with senior officers, and £20,000 was thrown into the pot to tackle the problem. A working group was set up, which met every three months and at which action minutes were taken and reported back on—I attended the last meeting in January—and local councillors thought that we were going forward. Then, in March this year, a letter was sent from the chief executive's department stating that because the initiative had been so successful and crime on the estate had fallen, the council had decided to end the partnership. That is not an example of a working partnership; there was no consultation with people involved in the group. Consequently, in June this year a house and two cars were set alight—not on the outskirts, but in the middle of the estate, so that black, swirling smoke circulated around it. What sort of message does that send out to that community? It says, "We don't care that you are by yourselves; as long as you are paying your rent, we're happy." That can no longer be tolerated.

The view that the partnership in Denbighshire is not working is shared not only by me and the majority of my constituents but by the Home Office. The Minister will be aware that the west ward of Rhyl is one of the five wards in the UK that has become a designated policing priority area. The main theme of the report on the policing priority area was that better partnership is needed, with commitment from the top and sufficient resources and staffing. Partnerships, especially at community level, must be supported—training and secretarial help is required. That is not happening, and some members of the local crime and disorder partnerships are tearing their hair out because of the lack of progress. When I contacted the police standards unit yesterday, I was told that meetings held with the Minister responsible for the police included senior representation from Denbighshire county council and the police. That was not the case when workshops on the nitty-gritty of the partnerships were held. Senior police officers attended, but council officials did not. Commitment is needed both at the strategic and the working levels. Three weeks ago, the police and the county council agreed to a joint operation to crack down on late night fast food outlets in Rhyl, where there is a great deal of associated violence, but on Thursday it was called off unilaterally by the council. That is not participation.

Modern crime strategies look to sport to create positive diversionary activities for young people. I am conducting surveys across my constituency, on council estates and beyond, and those communities are crying out for sports facilities so that youth can be diverted into positive activities away from a life of crime. I shall give an example from my county. For two years, I participated in a sports partnership to develop a £4.5 million bid for much-needed sporting facilities in Rhyl, the largest town in my constituency. We worked away, drew up outline plans and garnered facts and figures. In the middle of the summer recess of 2001, we received a letter saying that the bid had been cancelled because it did not have the county council's support—despite the fact that it would look after young people right next to the poorest ward in Wales. The council unilaterally pulled the plug on the first phase, and a £1.5 million lottery application was ended without any consultation with the partners. A similar story can be told in Prestatyn, where a tennis courts complex was lost to a neighbouring town.

Denbighshire council often claims that it does not have the finances for those initiatives, but £600,000 of "communities first" money set aside in Cardiff for the west and south-west wards of Rhyl has remained unclaimed for the past year. Those communities are crying out for that money to be used through crime and disorder partnerships to create sports facilities, but it has not been claimed. Rhyl West is the poorest of the 865 council wards in Wales, but it has not received one penny piece of the money because the council has not drawn it down. The situation is so serious that the Assembly Member for the Vale of Clwyd, Ann Jones, has raised the matter with the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities, Edwina Hart, who has had to intervene in the matter.

I have raised a local issue from a local perspective to show that crime and disorder partnerships are not working, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that they are properly monitored. Currently, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary looks at the input of the police while the district auditor looks at the input of the county council or local authority; they do not use common timetables, standards or formats. I ask him to take the issue back to the Home Office and the National Assembly for Wales in order for one team using a common format to look at crime and disorder partnerships in the round. That team's report should be readily understood by the public to allow them to identify which partnerships are working and which are not both in their local authority and between local authorities. If partnerships are not working, the public can then get involved in the democratic process and put pressure on the Assembly Member, the council, the police and me.

I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to visit North Wales to look at the Aquarius project and talk to people on estates in my county and constituency to find out how they feel about crime and disorder.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing the debate. The issue is important and it is good that it has been aired this afternoon.

At the outset of my remarks, it is important to make it clear that recorded crime in Wales is down by 16.4 per cent. since 1997. Although we can congratulate ourselves on that, there is no reason to be complacent. The Government will not be complacent because we are determined to reduce both crime and the fear of crime. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that the fear of crime is often a great problem, particularly among older people, and we have to be careful about the perceptions that we create. I recently took part in a BBC programme, which produced a poll that showed that 20 per cent. of people over the age of 55 were afraid to go out after dark. The fact that 80 per cent. of such people—four out of five—were not afraid was lost. The perception created by the discussion was that people over 55 were afraid to go out after dark.

Research consistently shows that a sensible approach using a variety of crime reduction methods is the most effective way in which to improve our communities. I know from my constituency experience that partnerships between the community, the police, the local authority and others are the most effective way of building more stable communities, reducing crime and engaging young people who are perhaps involved in criminal activities. Too often, there is a problem on a particular estate because kids are gathering and causing grief, nuisance and upset to local people, and along come the police who move them from one end of the village to the other. That does not cure the problem. The only way in which we are going to tackle it is to engage with young people by giving them ownership and finding solutions with them.

Police officers must, of course, be on the beat, and I take my hon. Friend's point that that is very important. Police numbers are now at a record high in Wales, with 7,193 officers, and, as he pointed out, North Wales in particular has had extra officers. We must ensure, however, that those officers are actually out on the beat. The planned introduction of 1,000 community support officers will help to raise the police's profile. Chief constables now have the power to accredit organisations' employees in the same way as community support officers in order to raise the visibility of policing. The use of civilians in police stations will also be of benefit because that will hopefully allow more officers to go out on the beat.

My hon. Friend made a number of points about the good practices and technologies that are being used in the Aquarius project in north Wales, but we must not get away from the fact that too much of police officers' time is spent on paperwork. The recent study "Diary of a police officer" clearly demonstrated that too much time was spent on paperwork and not enough out on the beat.

I welcome the point that my hon. Friend made about the introduction of information technology and palm computers. I know how successful palm computers have been, and I would be pleased to go up to north Wales at his invitation to see them, and also to talk about the crime reduction partnerships that cause him concern in Denbighshire. I am delighted that North Wales police are at the vanguard of investing in a general packet radio spectrum link, which means that information can be transferred from existing mobile communication systems four times faster than at present. Clearly, that is the sort of benefit that investment in new technology will bring.

Since the introduction of the crime reduction programme for England and Wales in 1999, £22 million has gone into crime and disorder reduction partnerships in Wales. The investment is important, but we must see outcomes if we are to make progress. I am aware that many such partnerships work well, but if there are difficulties in the one to which my hon. Friend referred, I will ensure that his comments are brought to the attention of my colleagues in the Home Office. Again, I accept his invitation to go to north Wales to discuss the matter with him.

The first set of statutory local crime and disorder reduction strategies have been reviewed, and new strategies will be put in place for 2005. Several other initiatives such as CCTV, neighbourhood watch schemes and anti-domestic violence projects also contribute to reducing crime and building more stable communities. Some £2.8 million will go into partnerships this year in the communities against drugs programme. In my hon. Friend's area, as in mine, there are no doubt serious problems with drug misuse, and we have to put in serious resources to tackle them.

Good partnerships have been funded in Ynys Môn, and £30,000 went towards a shopwatch scheme in Holyhead and Llangefni. Total bids submitted by Wales for the second round of funding under the scheme are around £772,000. The bids have been put in, and money will be forthcoming as we develop the schemes. We await further announcements on them.

It is also important that we consider some of the causes of anti-social behaviour and crime in our communities. Drug and alcohol misuse is a major factor. I have seen that in my constituency, as I am sure that my hon. Friend has in his. To tackle that, we need to work through strategies with agencies, the voluntary sector, local authorities and the police. I am pleased that the Wrexham community safety partnership has impressively led the way in Wales through its use of antisocial behaviour orders. The powers exist to impose ASBOs so ASBOs should be used, and far more frequently than at present.

Will the Minister also commend the initiative taken by the Communities First group in Wrexham? It works to involve young people who are not involved in crime in the planning of youth facilities in difficult areas in the town. The idea is to ensure that young people do not slip into crime, by providing adequate facilities for them to use before they become involved in it.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. All too often, we on the outside in government, the police or local authorities tend to think that we have to impose solutions on communities. We need to consider ideas from the communities themselves, so that they have ownership of the projects. That can provide much greater benefits, as I am sure he will agree.

Partnerships work well in sharing best practice in many parts of the country. It is important that we build on those good practices. Acceptable behaviour contracts can often be issued. They are a last chance before ASBOs, and sometimes they do the trick. They are another tool in the armoury of partnerships to tackle antisocial behaviour. Denbighshire local council has drawn up about 15 such contracts, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is aware. Their effectiveness will depend on the response from the wider community in support of the efforts of the police and partnerships.

When the Minister goes to north Wales, will he ask the chief constable, Richard Brunstrom, why he seems so intent on magnifying the number of speed cameras in north Wales? The Minister has rightly talked about the anti-social problems of violence, damage and muggings. Why is there not a huge concentration on that? Why has there been such a decline in detection rates in north Wales?

The police have made considerable effort in north Wales, but I take the point. [Interruption.] As one of my colleagues has just said, speed kills. It is important that we get that message across to those who have campaigned about speed cameras. Speed reduction in urban areas saves lives.

I have also been pleased about the on-the-spot fines that have been introduced in north Wales. The fines of £40 and £80 are working effectively, and are getting the right message across. I am aware of the project in the west ward of Rhyl to which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd referred. It has been greatly beneficial, and I would like to see it continue. It has widespread local support.

Many good initiatives have taken place in north Wales. We have to ensure that the partnership that we have put in place is properly reviewed and kept under scrutiny, and that it works effectively. If there are deficiencies such as those that my hon. Friend pointed out, we must get together to overcome them and put them right.