Before I call the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I draw Members' attention to the fact that we have some problems with the sound system, so if it goes off, there is a contingency plan. I shall suspend the sitting for a very short time to enable the radio microphone to be brought in.

As we move into the 21st century, the inner cities of our country are falling under the shadow of gun crime. There is no single aspect of crime and criminality that causes so much fear and anxiety among ordinary people as the use of guns, including air guns. We have recently had the announcement of statistics that show the rise in gun crime nationally. I know that gun crime, including incidents involving air guns, is a big problem in many of our city centres. Some of my colleagues will speak to that fact.

The national figures mask a particularly steep rise in our inner cities. In London in 2000–01 gun crime incidents stood at 2,817, but in the past year gun crime incidents have gone up to 4,192—a rise of 49 per cent. In the Greater Manchester area in 2000–01 gun crime stood at 964, but in the most recent period for which statistics have been collected, it has gone up to 1,361—a rise of 41 per cent. In the west midlands, the site of the tragic shooting of those young girls that was in the papers over Christmas and new year, gun crimes went up from 887 in 2000–01 to 1,289—a rise of 45 per cent. Handguns were used last year in more than 5,871 incidents, the highest number ever recorded. That represents a 46 per cent. increase since the previous year. I remind the Chamber that in the whole of 1954—the year after I was born—there were only four armed robberies in the whole of London. Now, four armed robberies take place in London every single day.

Those are the statistical parameters of the problem, but as a Member of Parliament for the part of London—the Hackney and Tottenham area—which has the highest level of gun crime in the country, I need to draw to the attention of colleagues what it is like for people to live in an area, a residential area, much of it with high value residential housing, where they can wake up in the morning and find that there has been a shooting at the end of their road, where they can look out of the window and see a vehicle with a dead person in it, where people queuing at bus stops have been the victims of drive-by shootings, and where an innocent young person at a club or a party can get caught up in a gun crime incident.

This is not a type of criminality that affects only those who move in criminal circles. As the wave of gun crime engulfs our inner cities, more and more innocent people, just like those young women in Birmingham, are being caught up in it, and more and more innocent people are witnessing it on their doorstep, on their streets and in their communities, and feeling terrorised.

It is important to stress that gun crime is not just a black crime. It is certainly the case that 80 per cent. of the incidents reported to the Metropolitan police involve black-on-black crime, but we saw just before the new year a terrible outburst of gang shootings among the Kosovan community in Green lanes in Haringey, we are seeing increasing numbers of Asian-on-Asian gun crime incidents in west Yorkshire connected with the drug trade, and the Albanians are increasingly figuring in gun crime statistics. Where there are hard drugs and a particularly toxic mix of poverty and social alienation, we will find gun crime. We need not think, as a society, that it is confined to particular communities, and use that as an excuse to look away.

I first spoke in the House about gun crime more than a year ago. One of the points that I stressed was the extent to which gun crime in recent times had become almost a lifestyle crime. It is one thing to take out a gun to carry out an armed robbery and then take it home—that is utterly deplorable and very wrong—but what we have seen in recent years is a rise in gun crime as a lifestyle crime. It is worth drawing to the attention of the Chamber that the proportion of robberies involving firearms has remained steady at 4 to 5 per cent. over the past five years.

However, as I have said, there has been an explosion of gun crime as a lifestyle crime—people shooting people because of disputes over territory, people shooting people because of disputes over money owed, people shooting people because of petty squabbles in nightclubs, and people shooting people because of squabbles over girlfriends. In Hackney we have even had people shooting people because they believed that somebody had made a disrespectful remark about their clothes or their hairstyle. What is new about the phenomenon of gun crime as a lifestyle crime that is engulfing London, Moss Side and parts of Birmingham is when a section of young people—it may be a tiny section, but it is still a section—feel that they are not properly dressed for a night out unless they are carrying a gun. Unless we understand that, we cannot understand the importance of combating the problems underlying the phenomenon.

I shall touch briefly on what I believe to be the causes. I begin by saying what I do not think is the cause. With the greatest respect to Ministers, I do not believe that it is helpful to speak about rap music as the cause of gun crime. I find the lyrics of much rap music utterly deplorable. I dislike the misogyny, the glorification of violence, the hatred of homosexuals and so on. I find it all deeply shocking, but the music of young people has always been intended to shock middle-aged ladies like me. If it did not shock middle-aged ladies like me, young people would feel that something was seriously lacking in their culture. To say that we do not like the lyrics, that they are deeply shocking and that things were better when we were young is not the same as saying that that music is the cause of the gun crime. The music is a symptom of the youth culture. What we need to do as politicians is not to give people the benefit of our personal opinion on young people's music, but to identify the underlying causes and the law enforcement issues with which we need to engage.

I believe that the root causes of gun crime are related to an arms race between gangs and gangsters, to hard drugs, to the huge amounts of money to be made out of hard drugs, which incites people to use the ultimate weapon to protect their profits and their territory, and more broadly to social alienation. Hon. Members will forgive me if I say that I believe that in the long term, one of the underlying causes of the social alienation and the gun crime that we see in our inner cities is educational under-achievement among our young men, especially young black men. This is not a matter for Home Office Ministers, but I would not be doing the subject justice if I did not touch briefly on that.

Nationwide, 42 per cent. of young men aged 16 get five GCSEs at grades A to E, but in Hackney and many other inner-city boroughs, only 9 per cent. of black boys aged 16 get average grades in GCSE. What is happening to the other 90 per cent.? I have long argued that it is not good enough to lump in what is happening to black children with general figures and programmes applying to ethnic minorities. Some ethnic minorities in our inner-city areas are doing better than white children. In particular, however, it is Afro-Caribbean boys who are failing.

As I have said many times, we need to focus on the underlying causes of under-achievement. Those causes are complex and relate not only to young people's attitudes and parenting, but to factors in schools and teachers' expectations. Until the Government have a strategy for black under-achievement in schools that is similar to their strategy on literacy and numeracy, not only will we find it very hard to raise overall standards in inner cities, but social alienation, whose many negative aspects include gun crime, will continue.

I have followed the hon. Lady's argument carefully. I believe that educational under-achievement is an important aspect of the situation. However, will she enlighten the House as to which party has for many years been running the LEAs in most of the inner-city areas to which she is referring, where children have been mortally failed by the education system?

I am happy to enlighten hon. Members: most of those LEAs are run by Labour authorities, especially in London. The hon. Gentleman may not remember, however, that it was a Tory Government who dismantled the Inner London education authority. Londonwide policy issues such as the underachievement of black children have suffered ever since because of the lack of an overarching strategic focus.

It was inevitable that individual boroughs such as Hackney would struggle when they were left on their own to deal with multiple issues of social deprivation and their effect on education. I welcome the Government's appointment of a London commissioner for education, which may allow us to return to some of the best aspects of the Inner London education authority, which could stand back, consider the issues and support weaker boroughs. It is no good talking about the failings of an individual borough such as Hackney. I am no apologist for what is happening to black children in boroughs such as Hackney, but many of today's problems in the area date back to the abolition of the Inner London education authority. In my view and that of many Conservative Members at the time, that was a criminal act of educational vandalism.

Before I deal with Specific issues relating to gun crime, I want to mention a few related questions. I live in a borough that has a very high proportion of public authority housing, and one of the things that my constituents complain about bitterly is crack dens, which are sometimes situated on the same estate, floor or landing as their homes. I ask hon. Members to think about how it must feel to be a young woman struggling on her own to bring up decently two or three children and having every day to take her pushchair across a landing where a flat has been taken over as a crack den. Some local authorities, including Hackney, are doing a lot of work to try to close crack dens and they work closely with the police.

I ask the Government to consider the effectiveness of current legislation. I believe that we have legislation on the books that enables the police to close down the crack dens. When will it be activated? It is illegal to run an opium den, but as I understand it, it is not illegal to run a crack den as such. When the police raid the dens, people drop the crack on the floor and cannot be done for possession, and no individual can be done for running a crack den as such. I stand to be corrected if my understanding of the law is faulty, but that is how I have been briefed by local police. If the legislation is not on the books, we need to introduce it, but if it has not been activated, we need to ensure that it takes effect. In the 21st century, when we know about the menace of crack in our communities, which relates not only to gun crime, but to the robberies that people carry out to feed their habits, it is absurd that the law is not fully effective in helping the police to close down the crack dens.

Drug mules are tied to the same gangs that are using guns to enforce and protect their territory. Hon. Members will know that the largest group of foreign nationals in Holloway prison for women are Jamaican women who were drug mules. I have visited those women, whose situation is tragic. Those who act as drug mules swallow lots of bags of crack and come through customs. They are told that they will not go to prison if they are caught, but that if they do, British prisons are easy. Such women have often left their families in Jamaica, where there are no social services as we know them and they were in a desperate situation.

I know that the Government have acted against the drug mule trade and that the Jamaican Government are co-operating well. For instance, the British Government have helped the Jamaican Government to install special ion scanners to test whether people getting on to planes have handled cocaine. When I discussed the issue with Ministers last year, they told me that every single person boarding a plane in Kingston, whether it was a British Airways aircraft or a Jamaican one, would be tested for handling crack cocaine. I visited Jamaica last year, and although it was a private trip, I made a point of visiting the airport and meeting the Jamaican drug squad, British customs officers and Metropolitan police officers. I stood and watched them testing people as they boarded the planes, but they were doing so at random. We do not need to be criminal specialists or intelligence experts to understand how easy it is to subvert a testing regime that works on a random basis. Ministers told me last year that every single person was being tested, but I saw with my own eyes last May, when the system was introduced, that people were being tested at random.

I want to make a very simple point about drug mules: we must work with the Jamaican authorities and the airlines to ensure that every person who gets on a plane in Kingston, Jamaica, is tested for crack cocaine. That will benefit my constituents, who are suffering as a result of the crack trade, the reputation of the island of Jamaica and also the poor girls who act as drug mules and are the victims of the trade.

The hon. Lady is making an extraordinarily important point about the Jamaican drugs trade. Does she also accept that, even if the random nature of the search is not subverted—I think that was the word she used—the fact that not everybody is being tested means that the dealers and traders who are paying the women to be drug mules can build in a wastage factor? In other words, cannot they afford to lose some of the mules, because of all the others who will get through a random test?

Exactly. I have worked closely with Operation Trident officers on this issue, so I can describe the process. Heathrow has eight cells and the drug gangs know that that is the case. Early in the week, they send over a certain number of girls. Once they know that all those girls have been held, they flood the flights.

There are ways of closing down drug mule trafficking from Jamaica. They involve testing everybody and establishing more cells and more police activity at Heathrow. I want the practice to be stopped not only for my constituents, but for the island of Jamaica and the poor girls who get caught up in it.

I turn now to specific issues relating to guns. On arms traffickers, we need to consider action to curb the supply of illegal firearms into the UK from countries in the Balkans and central and eastern Europe. Those countries are also the main source of guns entering African war zones. As I said, although the majority of gun crime is black-on-black, other nationalities, notably the Albanians, are entering the market. If we do not act to check the flow of firearms from eastern Europe, we will reap a very bitter harvest.

Most black-on-black gun crime is performed using reactivated replica weapons, but the Albanians and other groups have access to top-class weaponry that is available in eastern Europe and the Balkans. Surely, it is better for Ministers to check the trade now than very shortly to see gangs settling their differences on the streets of London with AK47s and military-style weapons. We need to increase the funding that is given to the police and intelligence services to combat firearm tracking. I believe that the police have been under-resourced in that area.

I applaud the Government for taking steps to ban the possession of replica weapons, but we also need a ban on their sale, importation and manufacture. Action must also be taken against weapons that are not replica weapons as such, but that can be used as firearms. It is a fact that 80 per cent. of black-on-black gun crime is undertaken using replica weapons, and although I applaud the increased penalties for possession, we need to stop such weapons flooding the market; we need to ban their sale, importation and manufacture.

Perhaps the single most important issue that I want to raise with the Minister is witness protection. In respect of gun crime incidents in London, Birmingham and across the country, the police have a big problem—certainly initially—with community co-operation. The point about the type of gun crime that I am discussing is that it is no secret in the community as to who is committing these crimes. Somebody is washing their shirts and cooking their dinner, and they are boasting about their actions, so people know. The reason why they are not brought to book is not a failure of detective work, but the difficulty in getting people to be witnesses.

Some colleagues may find this point difficult or unacceptable, but in communities such as Hackney, we have to remember the context in which we are asking for community co-operation. Hackney is an east-end borough of London, and I should remind Members that people in the east end do not grass other people up. It is not a black thing—it is an attitude that has characterised the east end since the 18th century. In fact, as accounts of the time show, in the 18th century there was, if anything, a more visceral hatred of the forces of law and order in the east end.

In the recent past, stations such as Stoke Newington have had a very unfortunate record in terms of deaths in custody and assault. However, I give great credit to Stoke Newington's current leadership, and Chief Superintendent Benson in particular. In the 1990s, there was a very serious corruption scandal at Stoke Newington, which was investigated by the Met through Operation Jackpot. The essence of that operation's findings was that the police in Stoke Newington were running their own drug dealers on the street. If they confiscated £10 worth of drugs, they would book—l worth in at the station and give out £9 worth to their own drug dealers. This was not an assertion by the community; this was the conclusion of an investigation, and most of the police involved had to move on. That is the context—it is not an excuse—in which people are reluctant to come forward and give evidence. I am working locally with the black community to encourage them to come forward and work with the police. We need to be aware of that context, and the fact that similar contexts exist in some other inner-city areas.

The real problem is fear. Witnesses are frightened to come forward because they believe that the gunmen and their associates will come and get them. Only two weeks ago, I met a very nice, respectable, church-going, middle-aged black woman at one of my regular advice sessions. She had been one of a number of witnesses to a gun crime, and had gone to court. The guys concerned went down, and since then she has had to move five times out of fear of those gunmen. For someone who is a witness to a high-profile gangland crime, the Metropolitan police lay on a very good witness protection scheme. They can change such people's identity and move them around the country. However, the protection that is available to a witness to a regular gun incident or shooting is not adequate. This is a particular problem in London. In London, a witness to a gun crime who wants re-housing goes to their borough, which re-houses them within that borough. That means that, in boroughs such as Hackney, such a person is perhaps half a mile away from the gunmen and their associates.

The Home Office, in co-operation with other Departments, needs to consider an intermediate witness protection programme in London that is co-ordinated not at borough level, but, for example, by the Metropolitan Police Authority. Under it, registered social landlords would have to allocate to the authority a certain amount of housing every year. The police could nominate people for that programme, and they could get re-housed as a matter of priority into decent quality housing. We also need a package of counselling and support for witnesses after the trial is over. The same woman to whom I referred told me that, when she telephoned the police station to speak to the sergeant about her housing problem, threats and so on once the trial was over, he refused to come to the phone.

I understand why, once a crime is solved, policemen have to move on to solving the next one, but that example shows why we need a comprehensive witness protection programme. It could be a step down from what is offered to witnesses to major gangland killings, but people must be offered such protection. They are not going to come forward if they believe that, afterwards, they will be in fear of their lives. This practical step does not have massive resource implications. Until the Government do more about witness protection, things will continue to be very difficult for those, such as me, who are genuinely encouraging people in the community to co-operate further.

I welcome the steps that the Government have taken against replicas, and to increase the minimum penalty for the possession of firearms, but there is still further to go. With the support of other Members, I am setting up an all-party Back-Bench committee on gun crime. It will involve MPs from all the inner city areas in which this is an issue, and they will take evidence and make suggestions to Ministers later in the year.

In some ways, gun crime is an endemic and global issue that reflects the culture in which we live, and its materialism and brutality. The associated problems are deep-rooted, and will take a long time to solve, but the law and order elements need to be put in place now. The administration of the system, witness protection and action against drug traffickers can be done in the here and now. In the past, there may have been a sense among certain authorities that, because this was a crime confined to certain communities that involved criminals killing other criminals, they could perhaps afford not to give it their full attention. However, for a year or more some type of gun crime has taken place every weekend in areas such Hackney. I welcome what the Government have done, but there is great deal more to do. I urge Ministers to realise that if a Labour Government in the 21st century cannot guarantee all our communities freedom from fear, we will be failing in our responsibilities to them.

The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made a marvellous speech, and I am only sorry that more people were not here to hear it. I congratulate her on drawing our attention to this very important issue, but in a moment I want to talk about gun control, rather than just gun crime.

As the hon. Lady knows, I am also an inner-London Member of Parliament; indeed, I suspect that at the nearest point our constituencies are only two and a half or three miles apart. I do not wish to extol all the virtues of her constituency—she can doubtless do that—but I want to point out that, although many people will assume that Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is a horrible, inner-city hell-hole, nothing could be further from the truth. For example, one can take a walk along Stoke Newington's historical Church street. Some 400 years ago, when Stoke Newington was a village, much of the rest of the land between the City of London and that area was open fields. Likewise, even today, parts of Stamford Hill are very suburban in outlook. Like much of inner London, it is made up of people who work very hard to make their way in life

What the hon. Lady said, especially on witness protection, was very valuable. I wish I could articulate things in that way—I suspect that she has more knowledge of those matters—but I should like to reiterate my support for what she said, and I hope that the Home Office will pay close attention.

Hon. Members are perhaps lucky; we can go through our day-to-day life without that sense of fear. Perhaps things are even easier for me as a man; when I walk home at night from the House or, indeed, from a tube station in my constituency for five or six minutes in the middle of the night, I do not fear that I will be mugged or attacked in any way. Likewise, in our day-to-day life, there is no fear of who is living across the corridor or whether they might be trying to extort money from us or just making our lives a misery by playing music and causing disruption at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, but perhaps all Members of Parliament can appreciate those fears; it is certainly a state of affairs that many of our constituents are unfortunate enough to suffer.

What the hon. Lady said about witness protection, and the context in which she made her remarks, was also valuable. I suspect that those long-standing concerns are true in parts of my own constituency, as it includes parts of Bayswater and Pimlico that would not necessarily be typical in a relatively safe Conservative constituency. Having spoken to my constituents, I am aware that there are certainly some very real problems.

The hon. Lady rightly talked about the drugs problem. She said that drugs were very much at the forefront of gun crime, and she discussed the issue at some length. There seems little doubt—I entirely endorse what she said—that it is not simply a black-on black crime. In my constituency, we have found that gangs of eastern Europeans are fighting turf wars, particularly around Soho and in the vicinity of the Edgware road. It is easy to say that they are Kosovans or Albanians, but there is no doubt that a whole raft of people from eastern and central European ethnic groups have looked to gain in that area—in relation not just to drugs, but prostitution, protection rackets and a vast array of other problems—and they are using guns daily.

However, as I said, I want to say a few words about gun control. The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that the new year started with one of those very brutal acts that still has the capacity to shock the entire nation. The savage gunning down of two teenagers at a party in Birmingham by young men who were armed with automatic sub-machine-guns brought home to many people the growing violence that exists in parts of our inner cities—not just in London—and has already expanded into several of our city suburbs and now seems to be threatening, in a minor way, even some of our rural towns.

Since the Government declared a total ban on handguns some six years ago in the aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy, it has become clear that ever more guns are being used by criminals in our society. However much the police in Birmingham or, indeed, London try to make out that that new year incident was somehow an out-of-the-ordinary event, it is clear that it was only the gender of the victims that made it so startling. From speaking to local residents, councils and residents associations virtually every day, I am fully aware that, even on the streets of London, gangs of young men are involved in the illegal drugs trade, prostitution and protection rackets, and they think nothing of brandishing firearms to protect their patch.

I want to confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. Just like him, I feel that, tragically, that shooting got on to the front pages because girls were involved. That is very sad because, as he says, such things are happening all the time.

Drug dealers need to ensure a monopoly of supply in their own districts if they are to maximise their profits—I suspect that that is a basic rule of economics in the drugs trade—and the territory is fought over. Those gangsters have no fear of the police; their only equals are those in other gangs whom they know will be similarly armed. Until we support the police in their endeavours to enforce the law to diminish the power of those gangs, the use of firearms will increase.

Unfortunately, in the immediate aftermath of the new year incident in Birmingham, the response of many politicians and, indeed, many people in the media in Birmingham and beyond was predictable and somewhat illogical. The call for the existing handgun ban to be further enforced by handing out the new mandatory five-year jail sentence to anyone possessing a firearm seems to be just grandstanding. I appreciate that, for the first time, I diverge from the hon. Lady's path. Even a moment's reflection should have persuaded everyone that such a mandatory ban was neither a sensible nor a practical way forward. The police may find it impractical to enforce, and there may be legal problems because it is mandatory and discretion has not been left in the hands of the judiciary.

The fact is that the criminals on our streets are already refusing to obey the existing laws—the total ban on handguns—so there seems little point in passing even more new legislation for them to ignore with gay abandon. Until the current total ban on handguns is properly enforced in this country, we shall continue to see a greater increase in gun-related violence.

In the immediate aftermath of the new year incident, I discussed the entire issue of handgun control and gun crime with a good friend of mine who lives in leafy Hertfordshire. He told me, with an entirely straight face, that he is now so fearful of crime that, if he were living, rather than simply working, in London, he would seriously contemplate procuring a firearm for his family's self-defence, although he has never fired a gun before in his life.

My great concern is that I am not sure whether that response to such incidents is totally out of the ordinary in what has traditionally been a very gun-adverse society, in great contrast to the United States. We are now very much at a crossroads in public policy on the issue. Obviously, we in politics have to play a part, but it is important that such things are discussed with a cool head, especially in the light of what seems to be an escalating murder rate involving the use of firearms.

In a sense, the problem is straightforward. We have failed to enforce our current, already relatively strict gun laws. We should not stand by and wash our hands of the problem by passing yet more laws. The police already have sufficient powers, and all that is now required is the political and judicial will for them to use those powers properly.

I fear that, all too often in recent years, we have handcuffed our police by removing their ability to stop and search. I appreciate that political correctness considerations were part and parcel of that. In essence, no-go areas have been created in our inner cities, partly as a result of political correctness, but I reiterate that this is not just a matter of black-on-black crime; we are looking at those in a range of different ethnic groups in our society who are playing a part in using guns for the purposes of protection rackets and drugs and prostitution.

I therefore gained little pleasure from listening to community leaders who spoke about the Birmingham incident and said that the police had become too lenient in the area. It was very much an eye opener that a number of those community leaders felt that the police had simply turned a blind eye to a problem that they knew was getting ever worse. All too often, if a vacuum of social order is created, it will be filled by violence, anarchy and the indifferent destruction of human life.

In a way it is fortunate that we can still be stunned by the manner of the loss of those teenagers' lives in Birmingham, but I fear that in a few years' time—perhaps rather like in the United States of America—such things will no longer be headlines but will simply be small pieces on page 3 or 4 of the newspapers, rather than something that shocks the entire nation for days. Unless we reverse the anarchy and social disorder in parts of our nation—in particular, in our inner cities—I fear that such horrors are likely to recur.

I hope that the Minister will be able to take on board the points that have been made about witness protection, as that is very much the way forward in any attempt to address the problems that have already arisen, as well as ensuring that the police have the necessary support and are encouraged to enforce the laws that are already in place. The knee-jerk reaction of introducing a new array of laws does not seem to be a sensible way to try to counter the gun crime problem.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on initiating this debate. This issue is certainly of huge concern to many hon. Members, and I am pleased to be able to make my contribution to the debate. I share all the concerns that she raised and recognise the huge increase in gun crime that she described. Such crime is of immense concern to residents, and not only those in inner cities.

Swindon—only two hours outside London—is a prosperous town, but it contains areas of deprivation. We have had 280 reports of firearms incidents in the past year, mostly involving airguns and replica guns. However, because it is so hard to distinguish between airguns and replicas and the real thing, a significant number of those incidents have to be dealt with as though they involve real firearms. The police thus have to make a huge effort in terms of resources, risk assessments and so on. They have been called out 96 times in the past year to such incidents, resulting in 28 airguns, pistols and replica guns being recovered.

Animals have been injured in the town. People have been shot at, and one man was almost blinded by an airgun. Bus drivers have come to talk to me about their concerns because they have had guns fired at their buses. That is not only a danger to the people on the bus but a major issue for anybody around that bus, in the street, on the pavement or cycling past. It becomes a major issue of public concern and safety. Not only have bus drivers and residents come to me to raise their concerns but pet owners and wildlife carers—who have seen an increase in injuries to wildlife—say that more needs to be done to tackle this real problem.

I have been most concerned, however, about the police who have come to me regularly to raise their concern that they do not have enough powers to deal with the problem. I have met the police on several occasions to discuss not only proposals for what we can do in Swindon but proposals that we can put to the Government on action at a national level to improve the situation. For example, I have written to a number of local schools to raise with parents the problem of the wide and increasing availability of airguns, pointing out the dangers and encouraging parents to get them out of circulation because of the problems that they can potentially cause to everyone in our communities.

One of my overwhelming and worrying memories is of the police sitting down with me and saying that they have a real fear that, because of the wide availability of replica guns and airguns, one day they will end up having to shoot somebody because they could not tell the difference between an airgun, a replica gun and the real thing; the incident will turn out later to have been not so serious, but they will have had to take that action.

I was shown a video by the police in Brixton involving a young teenager who had what turned out to be a replica weapon. He pointed it at a policeman, who took a split-second decision and kicked the gun away. The policeman would have been within his rights, however, to shoot that youngster down.

That is absolutely right. I am sure that that is of concern to all right hon. and hon. Members, and it demonstrates the real need to address the problem of airguns and replica guns. The police brought to me a case of guns, replica guns and airguns. I looked at them and could not tell the difference between a genuine gun, a replica gun and an airgun. Even an expert would have had difficulty distinguishing between them when they were right in front of their eyes, let alone somebody looking at them from 10 m away. That is a real problem.

Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that we should consider a ban on the sale, import and manufacture of replica and imitation guns?

Yes. That is something that is supported by the Gun Control Network and by several members of the police to whom I have spoken in Swindon.

I have talked through with local police the Government's proposals for action so far. They certainly welcome the plans, and want to see them in place as soon as possible. I was not clear whether the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) was disagreeing with both the minimum five-year sentence and the legislation to ban replica and air weapons in public places. Perhaps he will clarify that.

Just the former.

Just the five-year sentence. Obviously, there will be exceptions if there has been a genuine misunderstanding about what was happening, and I would support that. The hon. Gentleman's argument against the proposal was that existing legislation needs to be enforced, and I agree. We need to make sure that existing legislation on handguns is enforced. The problem is that it is so difficult to distinguish between handguns, replica guns and so on, and we will make the job easier for the police if we ban all guns in public places without good reason. The police will therefore be able to stop people without having to assess what sort of gun they have.

Similarly, raising the age limit for using an air weapon will start to address some of the culture change that is needed to show this is not about toys. It is a serious and potentially lethal game, as some might describe it, in which people are getting involved. I am pleased that the Home Office is examining a ban on the sale, manufacture and import of tandem air cartridge systems, such as the Brocock, as they can so easily be converted to fire live ammunition. Those are all welcome initiatives, but I would push for even more to be done, as it is important that we get on top of the problem and that all areas of the country do not become as bad as the picture painted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. I appreciate her concerns. The level of crime with which she must deal in her constituency is far in excess of what I must deal with in South Swindon; nevertheless, the fact that it also exists in Swindon shows that it will affect all of us across the country unless further steps are taken.

The police made four further suggestions to me about what action should be taken. One proposal that seems attractive, and which I hope the Government will consider, is that all air rifles and air pistols should be kept only in clubs, which will be charged with keeping all the air guns and ammunition at their establishments, with all the necessary associated security. Club members would not therefore be able to take those weapons out of the clubs, and we could be secure in the knowledge that they were not in general circulation. Having corresponded with a local gun club, I know that they already keep some people's guns, so why should they not extend that as a general rule?

Another suggested measure is to tighten up on the sale of weapons by restricting sales to registered dealers. Internet sales are a problem, and banning those altogether would be good, but perhaps even they could be registered. If all the guns and ammunition were kept in gun clubs, only registered dealers could deliver those guns directly to the clubs. We could therefore be assured that we were keeping guns out of general circulation.

I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady's proposals. However, they seem to be based on the misunderstanding that all airgun users use them solely for target practice in clubs. Does she not understand that, in large parts of this country, airguns and air rifles in particular are used for pest control and other field sport activities, and are not used in recognised clubs or ranges but out in the open countryside, perfectly safely and often by very young people?

I recognise that, but such sporting activity could be organised only through clubs to keep control of the guns and ammunition. Clearly, pest control and more rare exceptions such as use in film making and theatres would have to be subject to exceptional procedure, licensing and so on to allow that to continue. The wish for sports to continue, however, must be balanced against the real needs of residents whose fear of guns and what can happen as a result of them is increasing daily.

I discussed with local police in particular the complicated existing legislation for firearms. I was shown one of the "easy-to-read" handbooks, which went on for page after page. The more complex the existing legislation, the harder it is for the police to use and implement it. There is a disincentive for them to use it as it becomes more complicated. Again I urge that we completely replace the legislation to make it easier and more streamlined. I know that the Government are keen to reduce bureaucracy in the police service, and this seems to be one area in which that can be done. For example, there is a discussion about whether airguns should be included as firearms, as some people could argue in court that they are not really lethal. Simplifying those issues could be very helpful to police officers whom we entrust to enforce the law.

The police are concerned that they are increasingly tracing the origin of weapons to people's houses and that when they visit those houses they find not just one or two weapons but whole walls covered with replica guns, antique guns and so on. The police ask whether in the face of such huge dangers to our community such displays should be allowed. Of course, some of those guns are, supposedly, decommissioned and the Home Office is reasonably sure that the most recent decommissioning rules allow people to have confidence that once weapons are decommissioned they cannot be brought back into use. However, what are we doing with guns decommissioned under previous rules? I am told that many of those weapons can easily be converted to take live ammunition. That is a huge concern.

My final concern is about the number of weapons on the market that look like pens or cigarette lighters. I realise that if they are actually guns, they are already outlawed, but is there any law to stop airguns, which cause the same fear as real guns, being marketed in that way? Perhaps the practice is already illegal, but many of my constituents express concern about it. There is no reason that people should have cigarette lighters that are guns of any sort and we should do what we can to ensure that they are not available.

I very much welcome this debate. The Government are right to take the steps that they have outlined. There is a real problem, not only in our cities but throughout the country. It is certainly clear to me that residents in my constituency, public servants and the police are increasingly concerned and that the problem must be addressed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety will tell us that we shall go even further than the existing proposals so that we can all go back to our constituents and assure them that everything possible will be done to reduce this real and growing fear that affects so many people in our country.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for bringing us back to the problem of gun crime, about which she and I have talked often. She has been up-front about confronting the direct issue of how we deal with guns. However, she also knows, because I have told her privately, that one of the most impressive events that I have attended in recent years was the conference that she organised at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, which addressed the educational underperformance of young black males. In reality, the two issues go together.

I want to be positive and optimistic. Of course we have to deal with the villains—the criminals and the adults who set bad examples—but if we do not at the same time deal with the youngsters and give them alternative routes to success, we shall never turn them from the directions about which we are so unhappy.

People who have had a formative influence on me include Lucy Cope, who is known to Ministers. She has lived in Southwark for many years and experienced the tragedy of losing two sons during the past few years. One son died a violent death, accidentally, at the hands of his brother. Last year, her second son was involved in a minor disagreement in Southwark one morning and, as a result, was shot and killed in the evening of the same day.

Lucy Cope and people like her who have been through such experiences are members of Mothers Against Guns. She is a white woman, married to a black husband, so the family is mixed race and she understands the background of both communities. We need to listen to such people—as the Government and others are increasingly doing—who have important lessons for us.

We also have to listen to the police. Like the hon. Lady, I, too, recently received an update from the people running Operation Trident, who have done extremely good work. Police forces throughout the country and the National Criminal Intelligence Service all have an important role to play and we must learn from their experience.

One positive result of the tragedy that occurred on new year's eve was that young people from the inner city wrote eloquent and relevant newspaper articles to communicate their experience. The next generation are telling us how it is and we need to listen to them. One of those articles was written for the New Nation by Akosa Annobil Dodoo, a 21-year-old woman. We should read the work of such people and listen to them. They are the neighbours, sisters, nieces and friends of people who suddenly find themselves caught up in something that they dislike and about which they are angry but which is often overpowering.

On the day after the tragic death of the detective constable in Manchester, which was not a gun crime, I was at a meeting at my local police station. Afterwards, I had an informal conversation with officers who had not attended the meeting; they were just changing shifts. We need to listen to them, too. They told me that we must be careful not to exaggerate the figures. Indeed, I try never to misrepresent figures.

The figures show that gun crime is a minute proportion of all crime, even though it is growing and unacceptable, but officers are increasingly worried about it. When they are called out to Southwark estates after reports that someone has been seen with a knife or a gun, they often never find the person or cannot identify them. That greater propensity to use weapons is not reported, so although there is significant growth in the number of gun crimes recorded, we must also realise that there is much more that the police cannot manage to tackle.

I want to read from two sets of figures. They are all in the public domain so it would not be helpful to read them ritualistically. According to last year's figures, 2001–02, firearms, including air weapons, were used in 0.4 per cent. of all recorded crimes and in 0.2 per cent. if air weapons are excluded. That gives us some perspective, but the recent growth must give us real cause for alarm. I shall give two figures. In 2001–02, there were nearly 10,000 recorded crimes in which firearms were used—up 35 per cent. from the previous year; and there were nearly 12,500 in which air weapons were used, which is the highest number ever recorded.

I want to share some of the Trident figures with Members as I hope that they will serve to disabuse some commentators of their myths, although it is true that the level of offending was serious in 2001–02. In London, gun-related murders rose from 15 to 24 and other shootings from 35 to 118. Some boroughs are especially badly affected. Sadly, Hackney has the worst problem, with 15 per cent. of gun incidents; 13 per cent. took place in Brent and 12 per cent. in my borough, Southwark. Of course, I am not trying to underplay the problems in places such as Westminster, Birmingham or Manchester.

Contrary to what is often thought, the highest number of gun incidents—18 per cent.—took place inside people's homes, according to the latest figures. The second largest group. 16 per cent., took place on the street and a further 16 per cent. were related to night clubs, bars or pubs. As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington pointed out, those crimes happen in social contexts where a disagreement or a word or jealousy spark something and people overreact.

The motive for such crime is unknown in the majority of cases. Where the motive is known, 16 per cent. of incidents were gang-related—the highest number; 14 per cent. were robbery-related; and 13 per cent. related to drug rip-offs or arguments about drug sales. In 11 per cent. of cases, the motive was disrespect—just an argument about status.

The nationality of Trident victims is important: 58 per cent. were British, 28 per cent. Jamaican, and 7 per cent. Nigerian. However, that is not the perception. We must get the figures clear, right and in the public domain. The figures show that most victims were British, followed by Jamaicans, and then, miles behind, come the other categories. According to Trident, the most common category of violence is British on British, with Jamaican on Jamaican further down the league table. We must be careful to get those messages across.

Saddest of all, if inevitable, is the age profile. The bottom end of the graph of gun crime victims shows 14-year-olds with 19 and 20-year-olds at the peak. That is often the age of people who get shot outside the pub or their house, or in the street. They are the flower of our youth, the next generation, the guys and girls—mainly guys— with energy, strength and ability. On victim injury rates, 45 per cent. of victims involved in such crimes were shot, while 33 per cent. were not.

One important issue that I have discussed with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and Home Office Ministers is that of getting people to say what happened. Of 174 offences reported last year, in 115 cases 67 per cent. of victims were willing to substantiate what had happened, but in 46 cases—26 per cent.—the victims were not willing to do so. Where people are willing to substantiate, the clear-up rate is nearly one in four, which is as good as anything in London—the average rate in London is 12.5 per cent.

The police statement of the criminal profile reveals deprived environments, school exclusion, social exclusion, and elder siblings involved in crime. The process starts at a young age, with 10 to 12-year-olds engaged in acquisitive crime, 13 to 17-year-olds beginning to get involved in robbery, "steaming", carjacking and running for drug dealers, then, by the age of 18 and above, gun crime and drugs.

We now have the information and the profiles and we understand the score. I agree with the hon. Lady. I am not trying to make a party political point, because the issue is much bigger than that, and we are all striving for the best solutions. First, we must deal with the dealers, the big guys, the criminals, the drug traffickers, the profiteers and the money launderers who are making money from exploiting other people and getting them involved on their side.

Secondly, the police want long-term initiatives. Trident is beginning to be really successful, but it has only been going for two or three years. I think that in Birmingham or Manchester, the police have just closed down a specialist gun initiative. The police say, "Please don't give us an initiative in January, another one in June, then another one in December." Dealing with this sort of crime is a long, steady process.

Thirdly, we have to be honest, as I have tried to be, about the colour, race groups and backgrounds of those involved in gun crime, because then we can target it. We have to make people understand that it is not exclusive to one group—there are predominant categories, characteristics and backgrounds.

Fourthly, there is a big glamour issue, but it is marginal. Every American film that I have seen since I was a kid has had guns and violence in it—guns are often part of their cultural background. There is a responsibility not to glamorise violence. The tragedy in Britain is that we have an increasingly violent society. Violence is more acceptable, but it should not be—we have to take it on and pull it down.

My only criticism of the Government is that, having done lots of preparatory work—I pay tribute to the Minister, to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and to their colleagues—they got into a terrible muddle over the new year. They announced that they were going to make proposals, then the five year minimum sentence, then that they were going to have a summit—which obviously should have come first—then backed off from the five-year mandatory sentence. I hope that that was a lesson in realising that it is less important to go for the soundbites and tough-sounding headlines than to get the policy right having spoken to the right people. I hope that we do not go down that road again.

Where do we go from here? An amnesty is a good idea. There should be a common border force involving much more effective Customs and Excise and police work on controlling guns coming into the country from eastern and southern Europe and elsewhere. At the moment, the situation is very poor. I have been told horror stories about how we are not catching people coming through the system. We need a national policing response through NCIS.

The age limit for airguns should be raised to 17. I share the view about replica guns—we should ban their sale through the internet and mail order so that they are available only through authorised outlets, and introduce an offence of possessing them without authority. At the moment, people do not know whether they are replicas and respond as if they are real.

There should be a presumption of custody for everybody caught on the streets with a gun or a knife without a lawful excuse, but I do not agree with the five-year mandatory sentence, because such sentences never work. There is a huge difference between a 16-year-old holding a gun for 10 seconds for his cousin and a person who is going out for the first time with a machine gun or other serious weapon, intending to use it. Once somebody has been sent to prison, there is no stronger response that can be made, and people do not normally come out of prison less likely to commit crime. That is not the experience of black or white young men, who normally come out more likely to commit crimes.

We need more police, and armed response vehicles in every command unit area in the inner city, so that the police can come quickly. Protective clothing must be worn on all occasions.

We need to encourage communities to speak out. Women will lead the way in that, and thank God that they are now doing so, because it is often up to them to make crime unacceptable to their male colleagues.

We must improve witness and victim protection. Above all, we have to encourage young people to have self-respect and take advantage of opportunities from the beginning.

There are ways forward—it is not a dire picture—but it is urgent to have a united response that learns the best of the lessons from all of us.

I am anxious that the Minister should have time to respond in depth, so I shall endeavour to keep my remarks brief.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) not only on attaining the debate—she knows the standard practice on these occasions—but on her whole speech. She showed a huge depth of knowledge and understanding of the issues. With one minor exception, to which I shall come in a moment, I agree with everything she said. She may recall, because I notified her beforehand, that I was in her constituency last week, at the Groundwork initiative. I would not pretend that it gave me a huge insight into her whole constituency, but suffice it to say that I realised that she is dealing with problems that are very different from those that I have to deal with in my constituency: it would be foolish to pretend otherwise.

The statistics on gun crime are well known, and I shall not detain hon. Members by repeating them. Such a statement is usually followed by a "but". I have a short "but", which is simply to reflect on the shift in the types of firearm that are being used.

I have statistics that go back a long way. In 1985, 27 per cent. of firearm-related robberies were committed with shotguns and rifles, although the latter have always constituted a minuscule proportion. That is well below 10 per cent. of firearms offences. However, there has been a compensatory increase in the use of handguns and, sadly, automatic weapons. The ground therefore periodically shifts, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is right about the development of gang culture—I shall not say the advent because gangs have always existed; we had them at school—on the fringes of criminality. Gangs often serve as a pseudo-family, especially in areas where family breakdown is rife.

We must reflect on what needs to be done. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made some suggestions but we need to keep it at the forefront of our minds that a gun lying in the middle of the Chamber would not cause problems until it reached somebody's hands. We should concentrate on ensuring that guns do not get into the wrong hands rather than worrying about all guns.

The Centre for Defence Studies at King's college clearly states:

"The apparent failure of the 1997 handgun legislation to have a positive impact on the use of handguns in firearm related robberies supports the argument that any future initiatives directed at firearm crimes must not rely on legislation designed to impose stricter controls on existing lawfully held firearms. Law enforcement agencies need to identify robust and imaginative initiatives that will positively identify current sources of illegal firearms and provide a defence against the continuation of the present level of firearm crimes".

That is important. The increase in handgun crimes, despite the reaction to the Dunblane tragedy, demonstrates beyond doubt that there is no direct link between removing legally owned handguns and reducing their illegal use for criminal purposes. We should learn that lesson to the extent of reversing the legislation on Olympic sports and thus end the absurd position whereby members of the British team have to go abroad to practise.

Most hon. Members referred to replica guns. As the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said, many replicas cannot be distinguished from a real gun. Whenever anyone has considered the matter—that includes Labour and Conservative Governments and the Home Affairs Committee—definition has caused a problem. A replica could be a cigarette lighter that happens to resemble a pistol, a child's pistol, an antique pistol, a starting pistol or an expensive, technical, state-of-the-art object that is impossible to distinguish from a real gun unless one tries to pull the trigger. Some replicas can be converted, as can the Brocock. However, I am worried by the suggestion that we should ban all replicas, their manufacture and import, and even prevent someone from having them on the wall. That is an overreaction. I do not especially want a collection of replica guns, but I understand that some people do. They do not cause a problem of themselves, but we have to ensure that they are not improperly used.

A similar point can be made about airguns. Those who use them illegally almost invariably own them illegally—the level of crime for which a person who legally possesses a gun is responsible is generally low, apart from an extreme tragedy such as Dunblane. That applies to airguns to a lesser extent. The statute book already contains a large number of criminal offences that apply to all sorts of guns. There are 28 criminal offences that involve prosecution for using an airgun. It is an offence for a person under 17 to have an air weapon in a public place, yet in the past few years there has been no change in the number of prosecutions or convictions for such offences. Indeed, a marginal decline has taken place.

That highlights the fact that we need not to create more crimes but to make more effort to find out who uses airguns, deal with the gang culture that instigates their use, and of course, education, about which the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington spoke so excellently. I shall not even try to repeat her words, which are rightly on the record.

A couple of weeks ago, I spoke to a retired black Metropolitan police superintendent. His view was similar to that of the hon. Lady—that the police know who holds many of the weapons, but even when the police know the identity of those who have guns they are impeded by a lack of witnesses. There is no doubt that the Macpherson report played a part, but so has general unwillingness to risk accusations of racism. The police therefore do not harass those who have guns. The superintendent said, "If you go to bed with a gun under your pillow, you should lie awake all night worrying that the police are going to bang on the door." However, that does not happen.

Much more effort needs to be made to discover the source of the guns. The important King's college report states:

"This research project has indicated in a compelling fashion that the UK law enforcement agencies and the relevant government ministries are woefully ill-equipped to monitor and analyse the extent to which the UK is becoming affected … by illegal arms trafficking. There is a clear lack of co-ordination between all parties involved in the collection and dissemination of data relating to illegal firearms".

The report continues:

"The inability of the UK law enforcement agencies and the associated government ministries to assess the threat to public safety posed by trends in the availability of illegal weapons highlights a serious failure to devise effective methodologies for data capture."

There is no central record of weapons in this country. Everyone who has a certificate for a firearm or a shotgun registers the weapon. The police have the serial numbers and all the necessary information, but that is where the matter ends.

First, we need to establish a national register of all firearms so that if any police force in any part of the country found a firearm that had been used in a crime, it could immediately undertake the necessary research to ascertain whether it had ever been legally owned in this country. I believe that the 1997 legislation provided for that. It would be a first step towards stamping out the supply. Not only the culture needs to be tackled—although that is a priority—but the supply of illegal weapons. We need to stop them getting into the hands of those who are inclined to use them.

We need to leave alone the very large number of people who use guns regularly for sporting purposes—field sports, target sports, clay pigeon shooting or whatever—who do not pose a risk to the public and who take as a huge offence the implication that they do and that they should be penalised for their own activity.

I hope that when the Government introduce their legislation in the next month or two they will bear that in mind. I also hope that before considering more legislation—I have not reflected today on the specific Government proposals—they will think much more carefully about what we can do to stamp out the supply of guns and alter the mindset of those who would use them.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on obtaining this debate. She made an excellent speech, which needs to be reread. I shall think about a number of the issues that she raised, even if I am not able to reply to them all today. I shall respond to as many points as I can.

My hon. Friend was probably the first Member to advocate the mandatory minimum sentence. She will be pleased that that campaign of hers has succeeded. As always, she is now moving on to new issues, which is quite right.

My hon. Friend graphically described the problems experienced in the community that she represents. She rightly stressed that although this has been predominantly a crime that has been seen as black on black it is by no means confined to the black community, and indeed is likely to spread if we are not successful in tackling it.

I agree with the stress that my hon. Friend laid on the long-term need to tackle educational under-achievement to raise aspirations and opportunities for success, in particular among Afro-Caribbean young men. That critical issue was raised at the gun crime summit in January. It was stressed in particular by Lee Jasper from the Mayor of London's office, and it is one that we must build into our long-term planning.

Under many of the initiatives, such as excellent schools, the behaviour improvement programme, extended schools and so on, the investment will be concentrated predominantly in inner-city areas and areas with the same type of deprivation. We must make sure that we reach those parts of the community in most need of success.

It has not been touched on a great deal in this debate, but what has also been stressed to us in all the work that we have been doing on this issue—by the police, local authorities and community organisations, and again at the gun crime summit—is the importance of supporting and working with members of local communities who want to stand up to and speak out against gun crime. We have some very good initiatives—the "Not another drop" campaign in Brent, which has significantly reduced gun crime in Harlesden, and the similar initiative being run in Haringey. But I do not think that we can say at present that we are running such campaigns in every community where we need to get across such a strong message.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the partnership against crime in my constituency, which has done a great deal of work in persuading some of the young people to move away from gangs and drugs back into the mainstream of society?

I am very pleased to do so. Indeed, I look forward to discussing this issue with my hon. Friend and members of the local community in his constituency next Tuesday, when I come to Birmingham to discuss these very matters.

We are also very keen to make sure that we can have a more strategic approach to working with local communities and supporting local community organisations, particularly local black organisations, which can work in partnership with the other agencies to tackle gun crime. The Home Office is, for example, looking at ways in which the expanded active communities unit can help us with that work. That is a very important part of the overall strategy to persuade those who are carrying guns at present not to do so.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), speaking for the Opposition, said that it was not the gun but the person who used it that was dangerous. I can see his point, although, had there been a gun on the floor and had the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spoken for much longer, I think that the risk presented by that gun would gradually have risen. This is a lighthearted way of making a very serious point. We must not only address the issue of those who carry guns but take very firm action to remove guns from those who might use them not in a planned or organised crime, but in all of the situations that have been described in the debate.

The reason why we have been persuaded of the case for introducing a mandatory minimum sentence for carrying a firearm is precisely to reduce the number of those who are carrying guns. We fully recognise that some of those who are going out with organised criminal intent carry guns. It has always been against the law and they have always faced penalties. Armed robbers and the like are likely to continue. We need to send a most powerful message through influential groups in the community to those who have only begun to carry guns in the recent past. We need to make it clear that it is not worth the cost.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) raised a point on which I disagree. He said that the issue was enforcement of the existing laws. When Operation Trident was established by the Metropolitan Police, I think the underlying analysis was that there would be a certain number of people in London carrying guns for criminal purposes, often associated with the drug trade, and that their removal from the scene by effective policing would on its own turn the rising tide of gun use.

The case that the Metropolitan Police has put to us and others is that Trident has been quite successful in the number of arrests and the number of individuals who have been targeted. It has been successful in increasing and improving detection rates, particularly for gun murders and so on. It is a real success, and we should never let the impression be given that nothing has been done. That action, targeted on the hard-core element within gun crime, needs to be supplemented by measures that will reduce the wider number of people carrying guns, which can lead to the type of tragedy that occurred in Birmingham. The two approaches—a mandatory minimum sentence plus the targeting of individuals—go together.

I want to concentrate now on the witness issue, which is very important. We have been working, for example, with Waltham Forest on what we regard as something of a model programme called SafetyNet—a partnership between the London borough of Waltham Forest, the housing association and the Metropolitan Police, to support vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. At the heart of that is the need for fast-track relocation for some witnesses at risk.

My hon. Friend asked whether we can go further than that. We have issued guidance to the police on tackling witness intimidation in the past. In May 2001 we urged the police to prosecute instances of witness intimidation wherever possible. We have also recommended that, in partnership with local authorities, community-based support schemes should be set up for witnesses.

My officials, in conjunction with the Association of Chief Police Officers and leading police practitioners engaged in the highly sensitive area of witness protection, are reviewing the existing arrangements. I do not want to go too much in public into details of what that might be, but I can say that we are planning a conference with chief constables to raise awareness of this issue and to examine ways forward.

My hon. Friend made some very important points about co-ordination and reciprocity between different housing organisations across a wider area. I shall take the opportunity, as part of the review, to ask my officials to look at those issues and see what further can be done, and also to see what can be done to strengthen community-based support and the lower level of support that is on offer—for example, the installation of panic alarms, the making available of mobile phones with a direct connection to a police support line, the regular use of police patrols and so on, so that we can increase the number of those willing to be witnesses in gun crime cases by having them feel the support that they deserve for being willing to come forward.

The question of guns from the Balkans was raised. There is no evidence of large-scale trafficking of guns, although there are criminals associated with that part of the world who are undoubtedly bringing guns in. We take this seriously, and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary hosted a conference in London in the autumn looking specifically at organised crime issues in the Balkans and their links with this country. It is an issue that we shall continue to work on.

Order. I ask Members not wishing to stay for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the implications of Strategic Rail Authority plans for Edinburgh. I am pleased that several hon. Members from the Edinburgh area and further afield are in the Chamber.

It has become clear in the past few weeks that financial pressures are starting to have an impact on some of the SRA's work. I am concerned about key projects in the Edinburgh area. I hope that the Minister will give assurances about those and, in a couple of cases, respond to my points at a later stage. I want the projects to go ahead and the Government to provide cash to the SRA and the railway industry to allow the necessary improvements to be undertaken.

The first project that concerns me is the long-awaited upgrading and modernisation of Waverley station. Anyone who uses the station can see that it needs a radical transformation. I am sure that you will have noticed that from your visits north of the border, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The upgrading is important not just for cosmetic reasons, but for the entire transport network of south-east Scotland. It will allow extra intercity trains to go north and to use the east and west coast main lines. Operators want to run those trains to meet the growing demand for services to Edinburgh.

The upgrade will also help to meet the need for suburban services in and around Edinburgh. That will allow areas such as the borders to benefit from Edinburgh's economic prosperity by enabling workers to get into Edinburgh quickly by train rather than by road. The redevelopment of Waverley is important for local transport plans and the community around the station. Most of the station is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but it is only 100 yd from the border of my constituency, so I have an interest in it. Delays in the upgrading and redevelopment of Waverley would have local implications as well as more far-flung implications for the transport system.

I am pleased that the Scottish Executive, the SRA and the Department for Transport are working together on plans to improve direct rail links to Edinburgh airport. That will be possible only if Waverley is improved to allow the trains to go somewhere on a regular basis. Everything links together and hangs on the early redevelopment of Waverley. Some people in Scotland, including Members of Opposition parties, have mischievously tried to suggest that the scheme is imperilled or will be delayed. I hope that the Minister reiterates the strong Government backing for the plan to put at rest the fears raised in some quarters.

rose—

I do not know whether the hon. Gentlemen is one of those who have been asking mischievous questions about the airport link, but I shall give way to him anyway.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the airport link should be constructed as a matter of urgency to avoid gridlock on the west side of the city?

I agree that the provision of direct rail services to Edinburgh airport is a priority. Another problem on the west side is the opening of the long-awaited Edinburgh Park railway station, which will affect the entire Edinburgh area.

The second project that concerns me is the improvement to the east coast main line. We expect the SRA to make an announcement any day now—perhaps as soon as tomorrow—about the upgrading of high-speed passenger services from Scotland to England. The word on the railway line is that the SRA will push for a major upgrade to the main line rail network between Scotland and England. That would be excellent news for the economy, tourism and the general leisure travel market.

Major improvements in the frequency of trains between Edinburgh and London will be possible with a new high-speed line, but Government cash will be needed if that is to happen. They must be prepared to put resources into the project. I want them to make it clear that in principle they will back a new high-speed line from Scotland to England. After all, if the French, Germans and Italians can have high-speed railways, why not us? Such an improvement would enable other parts of the country to benefit from the London to Dover channel tunnel extension when it is completed in a few years' time.

Does my hon. Friend accept that I welcome and support the fast-speed link between Scotland and England? Although we are talking about improvements in an Edinburgh context, many of us in north-east Scotland who have longer travel times to the south and abroad would argue that the improvement needs to be extended north of the city so that we all benefit from it.

My hon. Friend knows that I am anxious to reduce not only my travel time to London but his travel time to Edinburgh. I hope that the improvements he wants will made in due course.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate. We all agree that the journey time by train from Edinburgh to London is too long. Indeed, most journeys have got longer in recent years. I strongly support what he says about investment in the east coast main line and Waverley station. He will agree that it is vital to get investment in track and signalling because the whole development of the railway network is being held up. In particular, does he support the creation of Parkway station at Musselburgh? That is a major issue because of the new higher education establishment that is coming to the area shortly.

Absolutely. I am glad that my right hon. Friend referred to the fact that journey times between Edinburgh and London are not decreasing but increasing. The SRA's proposals for the future are welcome, but we should not forget that journey times may lengthen in the meantime. Those of us who use that route know that over the past five years or so, apart from the flagship service of four hours one minute, the average journey time has increased. City of Edinburgh council advised me this morning that it has been told that, as part of the SRA's consultation on changes to the passenger service requirement for GNER, it has been proposed that instead of 74 per cent. of Anglo-Scottish services achieving a journey time of 280 minutes or less, only 50 per cent. of them will have to meet that target between Edinburgh and London. That would mean that half the services would be allowed to take more than four hours and 40 minutes to get from Edinburgh to London. That would be unacceptable, because it would inconvenience existing passengers and make it much more difficult to attract passengers from the airways to the railway. If we had high-speed trains from Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland to London, we could relieve some of the pressure to build extra airport capacity. Unfortunately, we are going in the wrong direction to do that, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some assurances that train times from Edinburgh to London will reduce, not increase, and that we can return to journey times that were the norm before electrification.

Earlier in my speech I mentioned the need for TGV-style train services from Edinburgh to London. Some people may have understood me to mean that I wanted to see TGVs running from Edinburgh to France. That would be welcome—and indeed possible, through the channel tunnel—but I am concentrating today on domestic services from London to Scotland. I hope that the Minister will give a general welcome to the idea of an improved high-speed line from Edinburgh to London and also reassure us that the frequency and speed of the present services will not be adversely affected.

I have concerns about two further issues. First, I hope that the Government will take some action to encourage the SRA to restore the cuts in assistance for freight services that were recently announced. Although I understand that those cuts apply only to the SRA's programme in England and Wales and that support for freight facilities is a devolved matter in Scotland, freight trains do not just stop at the border. Their journeys continue. If the welcome expansion of freight facilities in recent years stops in England, freight from Scotland will be less able to travel to England by rail instead of by road. That is an issue of great local interest. I recently learned that the freight facilities provided at Leith—in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) and just across the border from my constituency—allow freight to be taken by rail instead of road from Edinburgh to another facility in Chatham, which is also supported by a freight facilities grant. The rail services are more economic than sending the freight by road and also take heavy lorries off the roads between Edinburgh and Chatham. We in Scotland will also suffer if support for freight facilities is reduced in the long term.

Secondly, I am concerned about the situation with the proposed Edinburgh Park railway station. Although it would be on the borders of the constituencies of my hon. and learned Friend the Advocate-General for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), but it would affect my constituency because tens of thousands of people work at Edinburgh Park and have to travel by bus or car through or from my constituency. We would certainly benefit from the proposed new station at Edinburgh Park.

Other hon. Members from Edinburgh will be aware of the long-running saga of attempts to establish that station. In October last year, the SRA announced a welcome grant of £2 million from the rail passenger partnership schemes. That is the final part of the funding package, but to make the new station possible the SRA still needs to confirm to the Scottish rail franchise the changes that have been agreed with ScotRail and the Strathclyde passenger executive. I was not able to give the Minister advance notice of this point, because it was brought to my notice only this morning, but I understand that confirmation from the SRA is still awaited. It is now critical, because Railtrack has advised that construction of the station foundations must take place in the winter months if the station is to open as envisaged. If the Minister cannot respond on that point now, I should be grateful if he would write to me with some indication that the SRA will provide the necessary confirmation of the changes as soon as possible. The rail franchise is a matter for the Executive, but SRA approval is required.

All that I have said today should not detract from the general welcome that I give to the extra resources that the Government have put into the rail system and the work that the SRA has done. Before I entered the House, I worked with my local authority to pilot through the reopening of rail services to Brunstane and Newcraighall from Edinburgh Waverley, thanks to a grant from the SRA. That body has now taken much-needed charge of the rail network, and I pay tribute to its current leadership and to the Department for Transport. I recognise that the decisions are difficult, given the funding available and the demands made on it, but the issues involved are important for my constituents, for Edinburgh and for south-east Scotland. I hope that the Minister can provide today some answers that will allay the concerns that hon. Members have raised in this debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing this debate on the SRA's forthcoming strategic plan and its implications for Edinburgh. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) suggested, it will also have implications for those further afield. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith for his comments about the progress that has already been made. I understand the need for him to make representations about further progress. The strategic plan is expected very soon and copies will be placed in the Library when it is published.

My hon. Friend raised several important issues in his speech and I wish to respond to them, but first I shall make some general comments about the railways. The railways and their customers—passengers and freight, both north and south of the border—have had a difficult time as we deal with the legacy of privatisation and the structural discontinuity it caused, and with the problems caused by decades of under-investment and delayed decisions. The Government are backing the rail agenda and putting in place a structure to ensure that the industry can deliver, and my hon. Friend kindly referred to the role of the SRA in that task.

Over 10 years, we will provide £33 billion of direct public sector investment, backed by £34 billion of private sector investment. The investment is now in place and, although we face short-term cost and budget pressures, and difficult decisions will have to be made, we can and will deliver a better quality rail service. It will be better managed, focused on delivery and will provide reliable and punctual passenger services. In short, it will be a railway that puts those who use it first.

The SRA is already getting a grip on projects such as the west coast main line and is taking a much-needed look at how to get the most out of the existing capacity on the railway. Network Rail has been set up to operate in the public's interest. It is getting to grips with the planning and management of projects and, as recent announcements have demonstrated, is taking a hands-on role in maintenance. I am sure that that is both deeply necessary and widely welcomed. The rail regulator is working on his review of access charges as an essential part of dealing with costs and as we move towards the spending review in 2004. Investment is beginning to deliver results. Since April 2001, stock worth more than £1 billion has been introduced and more than 2,000 vehicles are on order.

As my hon. Friend said, the SRA drives the strategic agenda for developing the national railway infrastructure of which the Scottish network is an integral part. Although responsibility for infrastructure and safety is reserved to Westminster, Scottish Ministers can and have issued directions and guidance to the SRA, which form the core of the Executive's agenda with the SRA. The Executive are responsible for funding the Scottish passenger franchise and work closely with the SRA towards the replacement of the current franchise in 2004. The Executive and Strathclyde passenger transport executive, which is responsible for services in the Strathclyde area, have set out what they want the franchise to deliver. A new Scot Rail franchise will allow the SRA and the Executive to make improvements to local and regional services in Scotland.

The competition for the replacement franchise was launched in October. In December, the SRA and the Executive announced a package of investment for Scottish services that will deliver new trains for the ScotRail fleet, and recruit and train additional drivers. The new trains will start to come on stream later this year. That will mean big improvements for passengers using the Scottish network.

The Executive also have power to invest by using funding from the public transport fund. The Executive are investing in several important projects in Scotland, including Waverley station, about which I shall say more in a minute. They are also playing a leading role in the feasibility study for possible new rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Yesterday, we debated the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, which will set up a new, independent railway accident investigation branch. Safety is a key priority and the Bill demonstrates our commitment to it.

The redevelopment of Waverley station is an important project for Edinburgh and the Scottish network as a whole. The station's geographical situation is difficult and means that there are physical constraints on any redevelopment. In railway terms, it is a bottleneck that needs to be unblocked. Current service aspirations exceed the existing capacity of the station, which will also soon need some structural and other renewal. Any redevelopment project for the site will need careful planning and consideration. Constraints on the delivery of new capacity include the proximity of other buildings on two sides of the site and the underground tunnels on the other two sides. An additional complication is that the station is a grade A listed building.

The SRA and the Scottish Executive, together with Network Rail, are considering several options for increasing track capacity to allow an increase in train frequencies for local and regional services. Outline development work was carried out for the Executive in 2002. Evaluation of the business cases and engineering requirements for several options for redevelopment will be completed early this year. Affordability constraints apply to Scotland as much as to the rest of the network, but I understand that the SRA remains committed to working with the Executive to make progress on that important project. Network Rail is also continuing with a project to upgrade the signalling network in and around Waverley. That is the largest rail network project being undertaken in Scotland and it will be completed in 2004. It includes the renewal of equipment in the main signal centre at Waverley, which controls the east coast main line.

My hon. Friend reminded the House that the east coast main line is a strategically important route. On an average day, it bears 1,900 passenger trains carrying 200,000 people and 250 freight services with a loading of 20,000 tonnes. Last year, the SRA negotiated a two-year extension to Great North Eastern Railway's current east coast franchise. That secured more than £100 million of private sector investment in the route, including more frequent services to Leeds, from which passengers to Edinburgh will benefit through reduced overcrowding on other services; reliability improvements to all the line's diesel high-speed trains and £20 million to improve the reliability of its electric trains; the replacement of five relatively old recovery locomotives by six new or rebuilt locomotives, to ensure more rapid recovery of failed trains and the swifter restoration of subsequent services; and an improved incentive regime requiring 81 per cent. of trains to be on time from April 2003, rising to 83 per cent. from April 2004. From 2003, the company will introduce passenger refunds of 50 per cent. for trains that are late by more than 45 minutes and full refunds for services that are late by 90 minutes or more. We hope that that will not cost the company too much because the improvements in service will have been achieved.

The primary objective of the proposed east coast main line upgrade is to provide for an increase in capacity. I summarised a moment ago how busy the line is. It is running out of capacity and finding it increasingly difficult to accommodate extra trains for both passenger and freight operators within the existing infrastructure. The SRA's work on capacity utilisation will help, but the longer term solution is likely to require infrastructure improvements. The SRA is continuing the upgrade work in close co-operation with Network Rail.

My hon. Friend mentioned the high-speed rail link. The SRA commissioned a study to compare a range of possible scenarios, including the need for, and viability of, a new high-speed line between London and the north of England and Scotland. The study will include an assessment of the proposal that such a north-south line should be connected to the channel tunnel rail link. Last week, I visited the channel tunnel rail link, which hopes to start running services in September. The project will be brought in on time and to budget, which is very encouraging.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the extension of a high-speed line from the channel tunnel should include areas north of Edinburgh, so that people who live there can experience the benefits?

Any improvements to the line between Edinburgh and London will benefit those who live further afield. I recognise the desire for further improvements, but we have to address the needs of all parts of the country and choose our priorities. We must also ensure that we obtain value for money from our present work. The right return from that work will free up resources to undertake further work. From my hon. Friend's intervention today and the debate that he has obtained on the issue, I am well aware of his strong campaign on behalf of Dundee and the need for improvements in its rail services.

The study will be used to inform strategic decisions to deal with potential long-term—after 2010—capacity constraints on services between London and Scotland. I ask my hon. Friends to be patient and to await the imminent publication of the SRA's strategic plan. The key findings of the study will be reported there and the SRA will give us more detail about the consultants' work. At this stage, I can give no more assurance other than to say that we will examine the study's findings carefully before deciding on the next step. However, I understand the arguments that have been made on the advantages of a north-south high-speed link.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith also mentioned the issue of freight. Next year, a further £40 million grant will go to rail freight. Increasing the amount of goods transported by rail remains one of our priorities, because of the environmental advantages and congestion relief. The SRA has to achieve a balance between different areas. but the resumption of discretionary grants will be considered a priority in the event that surplus resources become available to the Department for Transport.

I trust that I have responded to my hon. Friend's points. I hope that he is reassured that rail users in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland can look forward to better services.

Good afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The danger with debates about railways is that they can follow a familiar pattern: a series of weary travellers stand up and tell their favourite late train story; at the end, the Minister agrees that the situation is not all that it might be but adds that things are in hand and that the Government are spending records sums of money; then we all go away and nothing much changes. What I want to do today—although I will allow myself one late train story—is to avoid that familiar pattern.

I was prompted to try to secure this debate by the deterioration in services in recent weeks and months, especially on the First Great Western route. Although the topic of the debate is rail services between London and the south-west as a whole, I will focus my remarks on the London to Bristol routes. I want to challenge what I regard as the fatalism that has slipped into the Government's policy on the railways. I will give an example of what I mean by that. A couple of weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Transport was interviewed in The Observer, and this is what the newspaper wrote:

"Transport Secretary Alistair Darling admits today he cannot say when, if ever, Britain will have an efficient and reliable rail system."

As if reading that was not depressing enough, last Sunday a different journalist wrote in The Observer:

"Major multi-million pound improvements to the rail network have been abandoned amid plans to axe hundreds more services, promising fresh misery for passengers."

The article went on to say:

"High-profile schemes have succumbed to soaring maintenance bills in the wake of the Hatfield crash".

Then came the most chilling sentence:

"The £35 billion rail budget for the next decade is nearing exhaustion in the face of escalating cost."

I wanted to challenge the Minister today because the mood music is fatalistic, saying in effect that we do not know when, if ever, things will be sorted. Most of the money allocated for the next 10 years seems to be spoken for. It seems that we have overspent. Despite that, there seem to be few signs, even after the spending of that money, of real improvement for my constituents and those of the many west country Members of Parliament who are here.

What am I seeking today? I am seeking three things. I seek assurances from the Minister on funding for some specific infrastructure improvements on the routes between London and the west—I am thinking of particular things such as pinch points and areas that are known to be unreliable and to cause problems. I would like some commitments from him that the money will be found to tackle those problems.

The Strategic Rail Authority needs to show more urgency in responding to the ideas that have been put to it about improving the integration of services between London and the west. I am referring in particular to a proposal by First Great Western that went to the SRA last September. The proposal was to bring together the First Great Western and the Thames Trains services. The SRA has been sitting on the proposal for four months. The Minister seems to be saying that that is not so, but First Great Western says that the proposal went in last September. Those services could be running next year. I was going to say that, in train times, that is not very long, but I am sure that I should rephrase that. The company needs a prompt response to its proposal and it has not had one.

I want to pick up on my hon. Friend's point about the SRA. Does he agree that it would be a good move for the SRA to have a regional office in Bristol and to have regional directors, as the authority has promised?

That would be very welcome. The idea has been mooted and it is moving ahead in Scotland and Wales, but, as ever, the English regions are somehow second class. The sooner things move ahead here the better.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the proposal by First Great Western to have a wider franchise area. I think all hon. Members would agree that we have to reduce the number of train operating companies. Has the hon. Gentleman written to the Secretary of State and the Strategic Rail Authority, as I and many of my colleagues have done in support of the proposals of First Great Western? We are entitled to know where he stands on the issue.

I am clear where I stand on the issue. I fully support integration, and a letter has been written making that point. I welcome the potential for integration that would follow from, for example, Thames Trains not having an extension to its franchise after 2004 and its being able to integrate services better.

In the four weeks to 4 January 2003, the reliability of the service was 98 per cent. That means that one in 50 trains did not run. The punctuality rate was 72 per cent., which means that one in four trains was late. Those trains could have been 10 minutes, one hour or two hours late. All those figures give us is a crude head count measure of the number of trains that were more than 10 minutes late. One of my worries about the statistics is that they do not distinguish between a train that is 10 minutes late—which is not ideal, but liveable with in some circumstances—and trains that are severely late. There is a big difference between companies whose trains are always 10 minutes late and those whose trains are hours late on occasions. Can some thought be given to that?

I have an appropriate late-train story. When it became apparent that I had achieved time for this debate, I was telephoned by First Great Western, which wanted to talk to me before I spoke. I welcomed the call. I agreed to see its managing director and we thought that Paddington would not be a bad place to meet. It was arranged that I would leave Bristol Parkway at 7 o'clock on Monday evening and that I would meet the managing director at 8.30 pm at Paddington.

I arrived at Bristol Parkway at 6.35 pm. Within a few seconds of my arrival, the information screens went blank. I then received a pager message to ring the managing director of First Great Western—if only I always received a pager message whenever trains were to be late! He said that the Severn tunnel was shut, but that he hoped it would open in a few minutes. He asked me to ring him in 10 minutes and said that he would let me know the situation. Ten minutes went by. I overheard a conversation that the London train would be in soon and, sure enough, all was well.

I made it up to the platform at 7 o'clock to catch what turned out to be the 6 o'clock train. It was then agreed that the managing director would get on the train at Reading and travel with me to Paddington. That was fine, except for the fact that the train was stationary between Parkway and Swindon, and the managing director had to wait some time for it to arrive at Reading. Half an hour went by; we finally rendezvoused at Reading. I was tempted to tell everyone in the carriage who was about to get on the train.

The managing director told me enthusiastically about all the plans that First Great Western had for improving the service and, as we rolled into Paddington, someone announced through the Tannoy, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are now arriving at London Paddington two hours late. I apologise. I have run out of complaint forms, but if you go on to the concourse, you can have your money back." I could not help but remark on the contrast between the golden vision that had been set out on the train and reality. Of course, we experience bad journeys and that could have been a one-off, but statistics suggest that the problem is much more general.

Can my hon. Friend explain why my train is the one in four that is always late? He is making an important point about the general strategy, but will he consider a particular sub-text? The way in which the industry has been split up into so many different units means that information among different parts of the industry is now incredibly confused. I give as an illustration the fact that Exeter St. Davids, where I catch trains, often receives information from Swindon, which does not have a clue what is going on in Exeter, so the information on the screen is completely unreliable. Reliability of service is extremely important, but so is reliability of information.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Integration and co-ordination of rail services have suffered since the fragmentation that resulted from privatisation. However, I have good news for him. I have in my hand First Great Western's commitment to improving train performance, page 10 of which sets out the customer service disruption management strategy. In a first for the industry, First Great Western is developing a holistic approach to its service recovery. A system of green, amber and red alert statuses will be activated by pagers to trains and staff to ensure

"a consistent approach to service recovery".

Things will be improving, I hope, although I suspect that if a few of the management consultants were sacked, it would be even better.

Recently, the service has been especially bad. Sometimes it is wonderful, and at its best it is excellent. However, when signal failures affected all trains out of Paddington recently, the scenes there would have disgraced a third-world country. People were locked on trains in the station because it was physically impossible to force anyone else on. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) was locked on the train. [Interruption.] We were all there.

What were the problems? First Great Western prepared a brief for me, outlining all the problems that it had experienced since October. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that the list included high winds, heavy rain, flooding, derailments, signal failures, timetabling problems, and rolling stock and infrastructure failures—the usual things. What worries me is that many of the problems, such as strong winds and heavy rainfall, will not go away. When will we see the improvements for which we have been hoping?

I want to make it clear that my comments are not an attack on First Great Western, partly because I want to reflect the fact that many other train operating companies have had similar patterns of performance in recent months. I met Chris Kinchin-Smith. Let us be honest: he was decent enough to spend his Monday evening on a train going into London being nagged by me, even though he lives in Bath and had to get home to his family at 11 pm. He is committed and wants to get things done. This is not an attack on First Great Western and its staff. My point is that the infrastructure and the systems that are in operation are not delivering the quality of service that we have a right to expect.

My hon. Friend makes a vital point. Will he confirm that at least 50 per cent. of the delays on First Great Western trains are caused by problems with the track infrastructure, rather than by the operating company itself?

Absolutely. The figures that I have seen suggest that First Great Western is responsible for a quarter of the overall lost minutes. Clearly, the whole system needs to be sorted out, not one individual train operating company.

We are getting to the nub of the debate, which is not the performance of train operating companies but the infrastructure on which they run, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said. Does the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) acknowledge that in Reading, which I represent, the station causes a bottleneck? All hon. Members with a constituency interest in the south and south-west rail network should hope—and, I suggest, pray—that when the SRA announces its 10-year plan tomorrow, it will include a significant commitment to upgrading Reading station. The track infrastructure in Reading is capable of 50 per cent. more traffic than the station can cope with. Many problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and others in this debate could be solved by a straightforward upgrading of Reading station.

We can all say amen to that prayer.

Station infrastructure is certainly part of the story. Swindon station is acquiring a fourth platform, which will help. Such things are important. However, one cannot help being nervous about another 10-year plan. Obviously, such matters are long term, but we are already some years into a different 10-year plan for which the money may or may not have already run out. I wish to stress the urgency of these matters to the Minister rather than the defeatism that characterises the Government's approach.

How does the current performance compare with what happened in the past? I am sure you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that about a year after I first came to the House, I led a debate about rail services between London and the west country—within a year of being elected, I was complaining. At that time, I complained that reliability was 99.4 per cent. What would we not give for that now? Punctuality was 86.7 per cent. compared with 72 per cent. now. I was unhappy that the service had deteriorated but it is substantially worse now.

Nobody expects instant quick fixes, but we are in the sixth term—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Sorry, that was a Freudian slip. We are in the sixth year of a Labour Government. They will still have a 10-year plan after the sixth term. We are not expecting quick fixes, but things seem to be going backwards. We have not returned to the quality of service that was inherited.

I am worried that at the end of the debate the Minister will say, "We have a plan; there is all this money going in and things are heading in the right direction." I intend no disrespect to the Minister, but why should we believe a word of it? Six years have passed. We have had such assurances before and still we see the service getting worse. I hope that the Minister will give us some convincing reason why we should believe the kinds of assurances that we are likely to get.

What needs to be done? I shall raise some general matters relating to infrastructure work that is needed in respect of particular vulnerabilities and pressure points, but I shall start by raising two matters of local interest. First, will the Minister tell us what is the status of Filton junction? I understand that it still features in the SRA's proposals, but that there is some uncertainty about whether the money will be forthcoming. The status of that junction is important in our local area.

Secondly, the infamous Chipping Sodbury tunnel is a matter of particular interest to my constituents and to me. No sooner does it rain than the tunnel floods and trains are redirected or cancelled. I understand that it might be possible to pump water out of the tunnel on to part of the Badminton estate and create a permanent wetland environment. That is an intriguing and attractive idea. Is the Minister aware of that? If so, has he any thoughts about it? Has he considered what action should be taken to ensure that the tunnel is effectively pumped? When there is heavy rain the tunnel causes a permanent bottleneck.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that we need more co-ordination between different parts of the rail industry. I spoke to the managing director of First Great Western, who talked about his company setting up common control rooms with Network Rail and said, "We sit down and think about what we would do if we were part of an integrated rail system." They are trying to recreate how it once was and how it might be, but it is bizarre that different companies and organisations have to do that. There is a real chance that if things are co-ordinated they might be improved. Infrastructure is finite and long-term investment will inevitably take a while to have an effect. We must make the most of what we have—that means more co-ordination.

My hon. Friend is describing the deficiencies in the infrastructure that he recognises in his part of the world. We all recognise such things in our own constituencies. Does he agree that, in the overall picture, improvements to the west country's rail infrastructure are completely forgotten and that we are doing extremely badly in comparison with other parts of the country?

My hon. Friend has better eyesight than 1 thought, since he has anticipated my third point. I will return to that issue. It will, however, be no surprise to him that I agree on that point.

In respect of co-ordination, on which we have already touched, I would support a single operator for Paddington and I would welcome the merger of the Thames Trains and First Great Western franchises. We need an urgent response from the SRA about these ideas. Some of the proposals can be implemented during the period 2004 to 2006, and there is potential for more integration and improvements to the service beyond that date. The routes currently operated by Thames Trains need to be freed up in order to create better coordination on the existing track.

I welcome the fact that First Great Western is working with the SRA and that joint control rooms are being set up. We need more of that kind of thing and I hope that the Government will not delay matters. There seems to be a lot of dither and delay on the issue of refranchising and co-ordination, and I hope that that can be removed.

My final points, which were prefigured by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), refer to the sense, which many hon. Members in the Chamber will have, that the wider south-west is neglected in terms of transport infrastructure. The Minister shakes his head at that, but given where he is from he might nod his head were he wearing a different hat.

The south-west seems to be the poor relation in respect of the planned major rail infrastructure programmes. I am told that the SRA has not even been coming to recent meetings in the region that it might have been expected to attend. That is perhaps indicative of the attitude of the SRA and successive Governments to the needs of the south-west—there always seems to be a more high-profile region. I sometimes think that south-west MPs have failed to speak as a region. Some of our colleagues from other regions in the country, speak more effectively as a region than we do. I accept that, in that respect, we have a problem with our Cornish friends. Hon. Members from the south-west should perhaps speak rather more on behalf of their region.

My hon. Friend makes a critical point about the SRA not involving itself in the region. Sadly, on some occasions it does turn up for meetings. Recently it met with four local authorities in my area to discuss the future of Corsham station. The SRA representatives sat through deliberations on how to progress with plans for that station, and three days later it announced that the project was not going to go ahead. Presumably, the SRA had known that all along.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have not spoken at length about the withdrawal of Bristol to Oxford services, which is linked to the Corsham decision. The south-west often suffers when changes of this sort are made, and perhaps it is time that it stopped being the sleeping giant and demanded its fair share of infrastructure investment, and a decent infrastructure. The south-west area multi-modal study advocated particular infrastructure investment, but from what we have been told, there is no money for it.

We could all moan about the railways ad nauseam, and I am sure that the Minister hears a lot about the matter, but I do not apologise for that fact. Some constituents e-mail me on the subject. E-mail is wonderful, because commuters copy me in on First Great Western's reply to their complaints and on the dialogue between them. My constituents are getting angrier and angrier, because investment is not being made; we have been promised great things, but the train service is failing to deliver them. If anything, we are going backwards.

There is a certain fatalism about the Government's approach. They have given up on telling us when, if ever, we can expect a decent, high-quality, reliable rail service. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong, but I fear that I am not.

I am delighted to take part in the debate, and I apologise in advance for the fact that I have to attend a meeting of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this afternoon and shall not be able to listen to the summing up. However, I look forward to reading it in Hansard. I will try not to make this a rerun of the debate that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and I were involved in a couple of weeks ago; it became known as the Virgin debate, because most of us did not have much to say in favour of Virgin. However, one hopes that things have moved on.

I should like to concentrate on some of the plus points, as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has made a pretty damning indictment of some of the problems that have been experienced. Anyone who uses the trains regularly—and I think that all the Labour Members present are regular rail users—will know that there have been significant problems since November. The service did surprisingly well after the Paddington rail crash. Given all the problems that were bound to occur, it is disappointing that we should come out of a long tunnel only to find more problems. However, in the past few weeks, the service has been much better, and I hope that that is a sign of things to come.

It is pleasing that the fourth platform at Swindon is coming back into use because that will bring about a significant improvement in the passage of trains through the town. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) says that Reading is the centre point for problems, there are difficulties at either end of the line. There are problems at Paddington, which is clearly in need of major infrastructure development, and at Swindon, although the latter is being catered for, and that is good news. I am glad that we are in dialogue with the rail operating companies. To be fair to those companies, my spies in Network Rail can honestly say that nearly all the problems in recent months have been to do with infrastructure, rather than the companies themselves. That is not helped by the way in which the companies have to interlock with the infrastructure, but let us put the blame where it belongs, and let us hope that Network Rail is beginning to get to grips with that issue.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent announcement that Network Rail is taking back in-house responsibility for significant elements of track maintenance? Does he agree that one of the consequences of the disastrous privatisation of the railways is the pre-eminence of contractor culture in the British Rail network? Although many Labour Members would welcome the complete renationalisation of the track infrastructure, at least Network Rail's action is a move in the right direction.

My hon. Friend has always been provocative. I could talk about historical lessons, but I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said. Anyone who knows anything about railways knows that contractualisation has been a menace, but the situation is more serious than that. I know from talking to people in the industry that the real problem is that we do not have expertise in the industry any more because there are insufficient numbers of railway engineers. That is a safety issue; in our part of the world the number of people who are able to react to emergencies is sometimes pretty minimal.

May I endorse the point that was made by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter)? Neither he nor the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) were in the House when the Labour party was in opposition. I was then the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman and I stressed the need to prevent further fragmentation under the previous Government's privatisation proposals. I urged the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to make a firm statement that either or both parties would buy back Railtrack if they were in a position to do so following an election. That would have prevented the sale of Railtrack and the fragmentation to which the hon. Gentlemen referred. I know that, like many of us, they have suffered in recent weeks from the chaos in Slough caused by the lack of infrastructure and investment.

A benefit of not being around at that time is that I was not privy to such discussions. I hope that we are reaching a more sensible arrangement but there is a need for more co-ordination, which leads on to my next point.

Although we see the sense of refranchising and repackaging parts of our railways, that is causing short-term worries because we are not sure what decisions will result from the discussions. We desperately need to consider a more integrated service. I always make a plea for my own line—the Cheltenham to Swindon line—and we want to be included, which is why we are happy that First Great Western is putting on more trains. However, there was the bombshell of Virgin pulling out. We have lost Wales and West services so we have gone back to the Wessex Trains arrangements, but we are not sure where we fit into the great refranchising arrangement. Will the Minister get a move on and get decisions taken through the Strategic Rail Authority? Will he examine the best integrated outcome, because that will give certainty, which is what the rail system needs more than anything?

I could read out many statistics about the investment that is required. The figures relating to the south-west are fairly stark: 450 miles of track need refurbishing or replacing; many units for switches and crossing equipment need replacing; and many temporary speed limits are in operation. Those of us who travel on the railway know all about that.

The title of the debate gives away one of our rail system's problems. The hon. Member for Northavon is right to talk about the rail system between the southwest and London, but part of the problem is that, although it is not the sum total of the system, it completely dominates all decision making. That is why Virgin dropped out. It could not get places in Paddington and had to pull out all other services because of the knock-on effect. That shows short-term, contradictory thinking.

There are many ways in which we must start to rebuild our local network. I cannot speak from experience because I do not often travel to Bristol by train. We could re-establish local stations. We have examined carefully how that could be done and suggestions have been made about my line. I should declare an interest because I live nearby, but Stonehouse Bristol Road station, one of two stations in Stonehouse, could be reopened. That would allow people to travel from Gloucester to Bristol on a train that stops at several stations, making localised commuting possible. At present, a person who wants to go to London can commute, although it may be rather expensive—we could do something about that. However, anyone who wants to commute can travel nowhere apart from London.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right about new stations. One of the problems in Corsham in my constituency is that although there may be the money and the plans to open the station, there are no trains; there have to be trains. The recent announcement from the SRA makes the situation even more difficult.

I do not know much about Corsham, but that seems similar to what happens in my part of the world. One can get the infrastructure but not the trains, or one can get the trains but they cannot stop at the appropriate times. We need much more joined-up thinking. My plea is that we should think about how to use refranchising not only to reconstruct the system but to re-energise it. The situation could be improved by linking the trains and the bus network; in some cases, train operators also run bus franchises.

However, that is a local issue, and it does not affect people who commute to London. Although we need to improve the service to London—and in some cases to hold on to it—we must also consider genuine alternatives to the car, to enable people to move around locally. The SRA has many proposals to consider. I urge it to get on with the refranchising and to consider issues on their own merit rather than measuring everything according to its relevance for people travelling to London. I fear that by the time we have waited until Paddington is right, and then we have waited until Reading is right, some of us in the south-west will be able to get to London, but we will not be able to get anywhere else. That is not what the rail network should be about.

I should like to mention some matters that affect the railway further to the south-west than the areas mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). He rightly focused on the part of the track between Bristol and Swindon and then on to Reading. That has had an impact on my constituency in Devon, in particular, over the years, on Tiverton Parkway station. Parkway stations are good; this one services not only mid-Devon but north Devon and parts of Somerset. However, it has had problems.

Each year, when the timetables have been revised, trains going through to Paddington have been removed from the schedule. When I have inquired about that reduction in the stopping services at Tiverton Parkway, I have been told that it is because of congestion further up the track, between Bristol and Swindon. All indications are, as has been said, that putting the franchising agreements in place as soon as possible—particularly if there is to be a link between First Great Western and Thames Trains—will make a difference not only to those served by that part of the track but to us, further down.

It would be remiss of me not to remind the Minister, who does not need reminding as he hears from me regularly on the matter, about the parts of the line to the west of Bristol where there are still problems. One is the long-standing issue of the flooding of Stafford's bridge at Stoke Canon in my constituency which means that people have to be bussed from Tiverton Parkway to Exeter St. David's. Not only does that have a huge, detrimental effect on the local community, it does not augur well for businesses that want to locate in the further south-west or for our tourist industry. As we know, it occasionally rains in the summer as well as the winter. I know that work has been done on Stafford's bridge, and I am grateful for the information that I have received about the engineering work. However, we have not completely resolved the problem, and while it remains, it affects the main route from Penzance to London.

I should also like to flag up to the Minister the fact that I took a close interest in the south west area regional multi-modal study exercise last year. It looked at the overall strategic importance of rail, road and other interrelated links. He should take fright at it as much as I did, not least because he represents a Plymouth seat. The SWARMMS report concluded that one of the key problems was the lack of competitiveness of the rail link, particularly west of Exeter.

If there is ever any question of the railway's being deemed not important further west of Exeter, I am sure that both the Minister and I will champion the railway. That exercise was carried out for the SWARMMS report and overseen by the regional assembly. During that process, I, as a Member of Parliament, had the humiliation of being allowed to observe the deliberations, while others who had little knowledge of the locality made profound pronouncements. I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind not only that such comments are depressing for business, but that no hon. Member from the west of Exeter would countenance such events in future. I am sure that I have cross-party support on that point.

I am sure that the hon. Lady will remember, but I got the SWARMMS people to the House, because I thought that it was important that they had a dialogue with us. I hope that the Minister will take on board the idea that SWARMMS should work with hon. Members, not disregard them as seems to have happened.

I could not agree more. I was allowed to go and observe, but not to sit round the table and talk about the issues in my constituency, something that was difficult for me, as the Minister will appreciate.

If we are talking about rail links between the southwest and London, I must mention the Exeter to Waterloo line. That is not the issue that the hon. Member for Northavon raised initially, but it is equally important. The fact that the new franchises are being issued is important. Railtrack wrote to me in August 2001, further to my inquiries about dualling the track on the line. It said that various train operator bidders for the new Wessex franchise covering that area had considered the suggestions, taken them on board and anticipated that dualling certain parts of the track would feature in their proposals. There are huge problems with that line, but it should not be forgotten, because it is an important alternative to the main Paddington link. It is useful not only to my constituents but to those further up the track.

In conclusion, I realise that there are difficulties at the moment, because of what has happened recently to the structure of Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority. However, I should appreciate it if Ministers personally kept hon. Members informed on such matters, rather than leaving that to the train operators and those who obtain the franchises. Those briefings are useful, but I would be grateful if we could hear more regularly from Ministers about their thinking and their realistic expectations of timetabling for the strategic overview of rail transport in the south-west.

There are three subjects that most Englishmen like to talk or complain about: cricket, weather and the awfulness of the rail services. That has been the case under all regimes, from the very beginning of the railways. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on calling the debate, and wholeheartedly agree with most of his remarks about the general dreadfulness of the service. "Delays, discomfort and disgraceful cost" is a reasonable summary. It is not necessary for me to expand on that. Everyone present knows what the matter boils down to, and I stand with them in complaining to the Government, to First Great Western and to others.

I want to speak in this debate because of the announcement a few weeks ago of the withdrawal of the Bristol to Oxford service via my constituency. That announcement has an unintentional and regrettable consequence: the likely failure to reopen Corsham station. Corsham is a town of 10,000 or 15,000 people and is growing rapidly. The station has been planned in all but its final stages. There has been a slight hiccup recently over the cost involved, but the £2.5 million that was originally proposed seems to be enough. A consultant recently proposed that it would cost £2.5 million to reopen the station, and the trains from Bristol to Oxford were going to stop there.

Corsham is largely a commuter area, from which people tend to commute to Bath, Bristol, Chippenham, Reading and London. A survey carried out 10 years ago found that, of the 1,500 or so people commuting from Corsham, more than 1,000 were doing so in the local area and a total of only 48 commuted to London. The service that was offered from Corsham to Bath, Chippenham and Swindon would have been heavily used. In addition, a new development has been proposed in the Pockeridge lane to Peel circus site, which would create 595 new houses within a 100 yd or so of the new station. That development is being built not least because the new station was expected.

Following last week's announcement by the Strategic Rail Authority of the withdrawal of the Bristol-Oxford service, it now looks as if the rail passenger partnership will not be an option for Corsham station. The Corsham station programme may well collapse, in which case the station will not be reopened. Incidentally, that would mean that other projects for which we have been fighting, such as the Wootton Bassett station, are equally unlikely to occur. In these days of sustainable transport and all the brave words used by the Government about trying to persuade people off the roads and on to railways, it is extremely regrettable to see a project such as the one for Corsham station disappear.

I want to ask the Minister two things. First, is there a way in which he can delay the withdrawal of the Bristol-Oxford service? It has been announced that the service will be withdrawn in May, but if he could delay that until after refranchising, it is just possible that the new franchisee might find some way to run the present service or provide another service that will stop at Corsham station.

Even if the Minister cannot go that far, will he take an early opportunity—I have written to him on this matter—to welcome to his office representatives of a broad consensus, consisting presumably of those from Wiltshire county council and North Wiltshire district council, myself and Other interested persons? The civic society at Corsham is very active on the matter, as is Councillor Peter Davis, a Liberal Democrat who has been campaigning on the subject for 20 years, to whom I pay tribute. If the Minister would be so kind as to meet us to discuss the matter, I should like to find a way of allowing the project to go ahead.

I am listening carefully. There is a more general point. The Minister's influence in the matter would, of course, have been much greater had the industry not been fragmented by privatisation. Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he would have voted for that legislation had he been a Member at the time?

I am here to fight the corner of the people of North Wiltshire, including the people of Corsham. I am not interested in entering into petty party political dialogues of that sort. We are here to talk about Corsham station.

Another disadvantage that has resulted from the announcement is that the money earmarked to turn Chippenham station into a transport hub has been withdrawn. There was to be a bus link from Chippenham to west Wiltshire, especially to Devizes, Calne, Melksham and Trowbridge. That is to be cancelled. Both those developments are extremely regrettable.

I am grateful for the Minister's nod, which I understand to mean that he will welcome a delegation of the sort that I have described. I look forward to discussing the matter further with him in the privacy of his office.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate.

It may appear to an innocent observer that Members are making competing claims on the Minister, but I do not see it that way. All that we are saying is complementary in that we are trying to establish a viable and integrated rail infrastructure for the south-west. If we are serious about moving people from our overcrowded road system and the over-congested A303 and M4, we must have a rail network capable of meeting their needs. In order to meet those needs, the service must be economical, efficient and convenient for those who want to use it. At the moment, it is none of those things.

I have serious concerns about the level of investment in the west country, as I said during an intervention on my hon. Friend. We are losing out as a region, as we so often have on such a wide range of issues over the years. We do not speak sufficiently forcefully and we do not speak with one voice. I hope that we are beginning to rectify that omission today. Other infrastructure programmes, equally important in their own way, do nothing for the people whom we represent in the west country. The west coast main line seems to be gobbling up all the available cash at the moment.

At Transport questions yesterday there was a bizarre competition to offer to buy the Minister more and more drinks in order to secure his support for various rail schemes. The bidding for Somerset was left with a commitment from the Minister to come down to Yeovil junction to have a pint of cider with my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and me while discussing the Waterloo to Exeter line. I do not intend to enter that auction, today. I simply want to express my concerns about the three main lines and then deal with local services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon talked about the first main line—London to Bristol. It is the main link for many of my constituents in Frome and the surrounding area. As we have heard, there are huge deficiencies in that line at the moment. It is an essential arterial route, not only for the west of England but for Wales. I tend to badger the Secretary of State for Wales on the ground that sometimes I can put a question to him when I cannot put one to the Transport Minister. Our desire for an effective rail service should cross the Bristol channel.

The second main line is the service that runs out of Paddington through Westbury and Frome in my constituency. It does not stop at Frome, however, which is a longstanding grievance. Frome is the largest town in England with a mainline station where the trains do not stop. The line then runs through Castle Cary—a very important station—and down to Taunton and beyond. We are concerned about the level of investment in that track and in the rolling stock that is used on that line, and about the future of the line as a whole. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) spoke about that too.

The third main line is Waterloo to Exeter, near to what I rather archaically refer to as the Southern region line, which serves my constituency via Temple Combe. A programme to dual that track could be implemented but is now on hold. There is no sense in talking about improving the public transport infrastructure in the area without addressing that issue.

Would not dualling that old Southern region line and increasing the speed of journey times between London and the south-west open up the very competition between routes that privatisation was supposed to promise? It is the lack of investment in infrastructure that has turned it into such a disaster.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The biggest nonsense of all was when the dual-bed bridge at Temple Combe was taken up and replaced with a single-bed bridge. That was the height of myopia.

In the spirit of cross-party consensus on this issue, may I point out that the hon. Gentleman and I are hit by a double whammy? Not only will those involved not dual our railway line between Exeter and Waterloo, they will not dual our road—the A30/303—either.

The hon. Lady must not lead me down that route, because otherwise I would talk about the Sparkford to Ilchester section of the A303, which I hope is to be dualled in the very near future.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for many years there has been great concern about the Reading, Westbury, Taunton element of the track? Is he convinced that the SRA will help maintain the present level of services, or is he worried about what it has been doing in Corsham and elsewhere?

I would be extremely worried. There seems to be a blind spot about the major arterial route to the west country. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is right to say that one of the deficiencies is the bottleneck at Reading. That is outside our region, but affects all our people.

I shall say a few words about local services. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that it is no good having the best express trains in the world if there is no way of getting people from their localities to them. One way of achieving that is via parkway stations, which are suitable in some circumstances, but a better way is to have good, connecting local services. As a result of Dr. Beeching's policies many years ago, there are huge gaps in the services available on the line from Westbury to Taunton.

One of my long-term intentions—it really is long term, as I started discussing it in 1985 on the county council—is to see the reopening of local stations. Stations such as Langport and Somerton, Castle Cary, Bruton, Witham Friary Junction—in which I declare an interest, because I live there—and Frome, could provide a useful component of the local public transport infrastructure. The reopening of those stations was being considered as a feasibility scheme under Railtrack, but now that has disappeared. I cannot tell my constituents whether there is any possibility of the reawakening and reinvigoration of that very enlightened and sensible scheme. It is a great opportunity missed.

I do not understand why we in Somerset cannot have the same sort of infrastructure that is taken for granted in other parts of the country. Why do we always have to get into our battered cars and drive to places, rather than use the railway that runs past the end of our garden but speeds its way down to Cornwall or up to London without stopping? I make a plea to Ministers. Let us deal with the main thoroughfares—the trunk routes, as it were—of the railway system, but let us also recognise that railways could perform a very valuable local public transport function. In the west country, at present, they fail to do that.

I rise to speak in the debate without declaring an interest, as I am not a regular rail user. That is because the service between Cheltenham, Gloucester and London is appallingly bad. I support all hon. Members who have commented to that effect.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate. I know that his intentions are genuine, and that he would not have raised the subject had it not been so important.

What is wrong with the Cheltenham service? Cheltenham and Gloucester are a main town and city and therefore deserve much better rail services than they have. The frequency is poor and the reliability is poor.

The direct service between Cheltenham, Gloucester and London is limited. Many trains require passengers to change at Swindon and the quality and safety of the train that takes them from Cheltenham to Swindon is questionable. One would struggle to find a bus that was worse or more antiquated.

The length of the journey is another problem: it can take well over two hours, and it is easy to drive to London in that time. If one then adds in the length of time it takes to get to the initial station and the time to travel across London, that is at least another hour. That is why so many people drive, because they cannot depend on the trains to get them to London on time or even to get them there at all. Nor can they depend on having refreshments when they are on the train.

The whole service is a disaster, and I want to bring it to the attention of the Minister, if he is not aware of it already, and to the House. I am being far less polite and measured in my terms than the hon. Member for Northavon was, but that reinforces my point—the service is dreadful.

The situation has been made worse and possibly more frustrating by the fact that, some while ago, I attended a meeting with First Great Western, which runs the trains from Cheltenham to London, and was promised that better services were on the way. I cannot remember the exact date of that meeting, but it is long enough ago to suggest that there should be some difference by now. I am not, however, aware of any sign of a difference.

On top of that is the quality of the station at Cheltenham, which for a mainline station is appalling. Some time ago, we were promised an hourly service to London from a small station called Ashchurch, which is near Tewkesbury. I do not expect the Minister to be aware of that station or the situation, but I would appreciate it if he examined the matter and wrote to me about it. That promise was made to people in the area, and just before today's debate started, I spoke to the parish council, which is concerned about the station's current viability.

Time is short. I would like to say a lot more, but I cannot. I will say only that it is a cop-out to blame privatisation, as it avoids examining the real issue. We hear that fragmentation has been the cause of the problem, but I cannot think of a transport industry that is more fragmented that the airline industry. Not all airports are owned by the same company and there are goodness knows how many air operators, but the quality of the service is far better, and it is safer and more reliable.

The fragmentation argument is nonsense. If there is any problem in that regard, it is that there are not enough rail providers. We do not have the choice that privatisation perhaps should have brought, and competitive rail services would improve the situation. If we are saying that British Rail should be the model for every industry, it is no wonder that people have no faith in politicians.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this important debate, in which he has rightly raised the concerns of all rail users in the south-west. Indeed, he has gone further and challenged Members of Parliament of all parties from the south-west to work harder together to get a better deal for our rail users.

My hon. Friend raised several specific local issues, as have other hon. Members, and the Minister will have made his traditional list of the questions to answer. My hon. Friend asked about Filton junction and Chipping Sodbury tunnel. Other hon. Members have asked about station improvements at Reading, problems of flooding at Stafford's Bridge, the Chippenham transport huh and the dualing of the Exeter to Waterloo line or what my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) described as the Southern region line. Rightly. the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) raised the vital question of Corsham station, to which I will return in a few minutes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon also talked about how the region has been neglected and is seen as a poor relation. Sadly, it is worse than that, because for certain rail and transport purposes, the south-west region does not even exist. Hon. Members will be aware that in 1999 the Deputy Prime Minister announced a new all-singing, all-dancing public information system. It was to be a "Travel Direct" along the lines of NHS Direct. At a research seminar organised by the Institute of Public Policy Research in December 1999, he said:

"I see no reason why you should not in the future be able to buy a single ticket on the phone, allowing you to go long distance, door-to-door, with a cab picking you up at home and taking you to the train, and another cab or bus taking you right to the door at the other end. The service should also be available on the internet, giving you the chance to buy your ticket and plan your journey at home or the office. New technology, modern transport will offer a brand new service for passengers."

Knowing my hon. Friend lives in the beautiful village of Olveston, I decided to check out how good that service, which was established in 1999, was in 2003, and he will be delighted to know that the all-singing, all-dancing system that was supposed to help integrate transport does not operate in the south-west. When I entered the name "Olveston", the system said that no results were found and that it could find not find any places that matched the inquiry for Olveston. I was surprised, but thought that it was perhaps because Olveston was too small for the computer. I thought that I would try my own wonderful constituency of Bath and was more generous by putting in the name of my local authority, Bath and North-East Somerset council. Unfortunately, it said that there was no journey planner covering Bath or Bath and north-east Somerset. So much for taking note of the transport needs of the southwest. My hon. Friend is right; we have been neglected. He was right to draw attention to the fatalistic approach adopted by those who are supposedly in charge of our over-fragmented railway system.

Tomorrow, the Strategic Rail Authority will announce its new, updated, strategic plan, to which we look forward with great interest and, I fear, resignation. A year ago when the first plan was announced, the Secretary of State told us there was a line in the sand—there would be a new dawn for the railways, and at long last there was long-term planning for the future. Tomorrow, that plan will be torn up, and many of its exciting projects—the schemes that hon. Members on both sides have referred to—will not go ahead.

The south-west loses out in many respects. There are signalling problems in many parts of the region—from Castle Cary to Taunton, Totnes to Plymouth, and Bristol to Swindon—and problems resulting from the failure to install a dual track in many areas. We have discussed the Exeter to Waterloo line; my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) referred to the need for dualling in the Probus and Burngullow area in Cornwall.

There are overcrowded trains in many parts of the system, and even the new rolling stock is sometimes inappropriate. I am unhappy with the Adelante trains introduced by First Great Western, and many people who have to use Virgin services are concerned about the Voyager train. When there are cutbacks in train services it is crazy to run shorter trains, with less room for passengers, rather than longer ones. More space should be available on the overcrowded Virgin Voyager and the Adelante trains. I was surprised that the Minister yesterday in the Chamberߞat column 706 of Hansard— described the Virgin Voyager trains as "a considerable improvement". That view is not shared by many people.

There are all sorts of problems in my region. In common with everyone else, we suffer increasing delays and cancellations. Since the Government came to power, delays have increased by 100 per cent. and cancellations by 50 per cent. Services in the south-west are part of those statistics. That is not solely the fault of the train operating companies; much of the problem results from the failure, over many years, to invest in railway infrastructure and from the problems caused by the fragmentation introduced when the railway system was privatised.

The south-west loses out in other ways, even when the Government decide it is important to look at the overall system. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to the south west area regional multi-modal study. Many of us were unhappy about its proposals but the study at least made an effort to consider the integration of road and rail. But what happened? As soon it was presented we were told that the road schemes might go ahead but there was no funding for the rail projects.

The notion of integrated, joined-up thinking on transport seems to have gone out of the window. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire gave as an example the cuts to the Bristol Temple Meads to Oxford line and its implications for Corsham station. That will be a disaster for rail travellers, and it will put many more cars on the roads, which means more congestion. We are being offered jam tomorrow for our railways, but jams today on the roads.

I do not want to stem the hon. Gentleman's flow, but he talked about infrastructure improvements and listed several substantial improvements that he wanted. Would he tell the Chamber whether the Liberal Democrats plan to put more money into transport? If not, how will they bring about improvements?

Yes, it is, in part, about more money. If the hon. Gentleman will wait just a few more days, we will present a detailed alternative Budget. I ask him to be patient.

However, it is also a matter of making more effective use of money. We all accept that rail costs are massively over the top, but I raised questions a very long time ago about the way in which money was wasted on the railways. Even the Minister's Government accepted that part of the problem was that there were far too many contractors and subcontractors on the track, all taking a share of the profits. The former Secretary of State for Transport accepted that more than 12 months ago—action is long overdue.

There are far too many train operating companies, and there is a need to address the fragmented nature of the railway. Some developments are simply not affordable because everyone is concerned about the safety regime on the railway and thus not moving forward. If the Government were to take up suggestions as to how such problems might be managed, we would be able to make better use sooner of existing resources.

As the hon. Gentleman is talking about safety, would he comment on the fact that there are far more airline companies than there are train companies, yet the safety record in the air is infinitely better?

We had that debate in the Chamber only yesterday. Comparisons between a fragmented monopoly and a fragmented competitive situation are totally false. In reality, people have little choice about which trains they take, whereas they have the option of not flying on an unsafe plane. Competition can drive up safety in a way that a fragmented monopoly cannot.

Much can be done. It is regrettable that there will be significant reductions to the big schemes that were planned by the Strategic Rail Authority. The Minister heard from Members from all parties today, and will continue to hear from Members from the south-west and elsewhere, that many pinch-point problems can be resolved by relatively small, relatively low-cost schemes on different parts of the network. Bringing in a passing-loop line to allow a fast train to overtake a slow one and a bit of dualling here and there could make a huge difference. I urge him to review the rail passenger partnership programme, because it offers opportunities. Local people can suggest local solutions to how improvements can be made on the network.

Let me conclude by speaking briefly in support of what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said about the Oxford to Bristol Temple Meads line. I accept that it may be sensible to reduce the number of trains in some pinch-point areas to achieve improved reliability. I would not deny that for a minute and have said so publicly several times.

However, each service must be considered much more carefully than it has been to date. The impacts on other aspects of the transport network and on long-term future planning of the rail network must be considered in the round. The cancellation of the Oxford to Bristol Temple Meads train is an example of a bad mistake about to be made. It will mean not only more cars on our roads but almost certainly cancellation of the Corsham station plans. Frankly, that would be a disaster for the area.

I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will urge the Minister not only to meet a group of people with an interest in the matterߞthe affected area is much wider than the immediate north Wiltshire area because, as other hon. Members have said, an impact in one area can spread a very long way—but also to take a personal interest in the issue and try to delay the decision.

This has been a very important debate. We look forward to the response from the Minister but above all to his assurance that the south-west will not continue to lose out in the provision of a rail system.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on introducing the debate. We heard important contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). It is notable that, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate and his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has just replied from the Front Bench, the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is the only Liberal Democrat with the staying power to listen to the debate throughout. By coming into the Chamber to offer a sound bite and then disappearing, the Liberal Democrats quite typically show that they do not take the issues as seriously as they should. This matter needs more than a short contribution; it needs sustained involvement. That is why I am delighted that I have four of my hon. Friends with me.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not give way at the moment.

Nobody has dealt with a significant issue that affects the part of Dorset that includes Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole. The Strategic Rail Authority announced in December that it would reduce the number of trains a day on the line between Southampton and Bournemouth by no fewer than 30 with effect from May. It used the extraordinary justification that

"the purpose of these particular reductions is to make more productive use of capacity on an overcrowded network."

People in my constituency recognise that there is pressure on the network further to the east of Southampton, but there is not the pressure on the network between Bournemouth and Southampton to justify that enormous cut in service. That is another example of the SRA being rather disingenuous.

Another big issue for my constituents is the uncertainty generated by the delay in deciding on the new franchise for South West Trains. When South West Trains became the preferred bidder, it put its money where its mouth was and invested heavily in new rolling stock, which will come on stream in the next two or three years. In return, it has received delay and indecision from the Government, and the franchise, which expires next month, will be extended for a year while a new three-year deal is negotiated. One adverse consequence is that investment in infrastructure that South West Trains has been willing to commit to as part of a longer-term franchise will no longer be available. That money will be clawed back by the SRA, and we will not know until tomorrow's announcement whether the authority will invest in the infrastructure to the extent that South West Trains would have been willing to do, had it been given a longer franchise. We may find that the reduction in the lengths of the franchise will be to the detriment of the travelling public, particularly in Dorset.

Several hon. Members referred to the SRA's announcement. It is extraordinary to have a debate when there will be a major announcement on the following day, and it is extraordinary that we cannot have the debate the day after the announcement so that we can comment on it. There is plenty of scope there for conspiracy theorists. We are likely to hear tomorrow that there will be a substantial reduction in investment in railway infrastructure because of the extraordinary overspending and waste that has been identified. I hope that the independent rail regulator, who is still in office, Mr. Tom Winsor, will consider very carefully what the SRA intends to do and will see whether it will be evenhanded in its investment in various parts of the country.

I apologise for not having been here for the whole debate. I have been serving on an inquiry team, and I am sure that the House—particularly Liberal Democrat Members, because they are never here when such things are being said—will understand why I have not been here until now.

I do not understand why we cannot catch a train from Paddington to Plymouth without such a fuss. Anywhere else in Europe, people simply get on a train. I cannot believe that we are having a debate about the lines and the rolling stock. What is the problem with this country that means that we cannot just get on a train, get off it at the other end and arrive on time? What has gone wrong with Britain and our rail services?

My hon. Friend, as always, puts his finger on the core issue, which is that the people who are responsible for running the railways are not able to deliver the common-sense results that both he and I want. I feel strongly about rail travel between Cornwall and the south-east, particularly between Cornwall and my constituency. My mother lives in Cornwall and depends wholly on the railways when she wants to see her family. She is not alone in Cornwall in feeling isolated, and the Government's failure to deliver improved services on the railways, and on the roads to Cornwall, increases that feeling of isolation.

I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and others about the south west area regional multi-modal study. What a waste of time that was. We were suspicious when it was set up. We thought that it was a delaying tactic by the Government to get a lot of people chattering among themselves and becoming involved in enormously complicated evidence gathering, evidence giving and playing one group of people off against another. At the end of that elongated process, a report was produced, which made it clear-that if there is a west country voice on such matters, it should be that the railway line to the east of Exeter should be dualled.

How did the Government respond? They ignored the report and thereby insulted everyone who had been involved in its preparation. If he does nothing else this afternoon, the Minister should apologise to those people who, in good faith, embarked on that consultation exercise, only to have the Government press their faces into the mud.

I am pleased to follow the temperate remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate and making the points that he has done. I shall put on my south-west hat for a moment. He was right to say that there is considerable advantage in Members of Parliament and local authorities speaking with one voice. If I have a criticism of my region, it is perhaps that it has not spoken with a unified voice in the past, as some other regions have. Let us consider the lobbying of the Welsh or the Scots—not as regions, but separate nations—and of some parts of the north. Perhaps we have lost out in that respect.

Two years ago, we had a lively debate on the subject, occasioned by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. The hon. Member for Northavon also referred to a debate that he initiated in 1998 on the subject. He relayed the usual horror stories. There is no difficulty in finding such stories, and I accept that every one of them is an inconvenience to the people involved. However, I travel from London to the southwest and the majority of my journeys have been successful. The trains have been on time. They have not always been as clean as I would have liked, nevertheless my experience of the service generally has been very good. That has also been the case in trains that I have used when carrying out ministerial duties. The operators had not known beforehand that I would be using the trains. Not all journeys are bad. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are sufficient bad journeys to cause concern. However, to suggest that the whole service is poor paints a false picture. Although it is fraught with problems, there are also many successes in our rail system.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I want the rail service to improve. For years, under British Rail, the rail industry was widely regarded as being in gradual decline. There was never a golden age, some 50 years ago, when the rail service delivered everything that people today say that they would like. Then the industry was privatised. The emphasis was on reducing subsidy rather than on looking for growth or improving passenger and freight services. For the first time in generations, the industry started to grow—just as the private sector took over. An additional problem has been caused by there being considerably more people in employment: since 1997, 1.5 million more people have been travelling by train to work or for pleasure and leisure, putting additional strain on the system.

Following privatisation, there was no strategic leadership. The Strategic Rail Authority was therefore set up to provide that leadership and to take a new strategic approach to providing rail services. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to be fobbed off with references to the SRA. However, the authority's objectives, as set out by the Secretary of State, are to provide clear leadership and the co-ordination that the hon. Gentleman talked about, to improve performance across the network, and to provide a clear and focused approach to franchising. I think that the hon. Gentleman would welcome those objectives. If he thinks that 50 years of neglect can be turned around in six years, I have to tell him that it cannotߞalthough there are many signs of improvement.

In contrast to the previous fragmented approach, the SRA is getting to grips with the problems that rising prosperity has brought. Since 1997, passenger rail journeys have increased by just over 20 per cent. The increase in the amount of freight on the network has been similar. The hon. Gentleman did not have time to mention that, but I am sure that he would join me in welcoming it. Use of the rail network is now much higher than before, but for decades the network has been deprived of necessary investment.

All of those pressures threaten the drive to improve performance. We have made the structural changes that are necessary to achieve that improvement. The SRA has a clear plan and a clear strategic direction. Network Rail is now working in the public interest—working to overcome the legacy of Railtrack. We have to remember that the handover to Network Rail was very recent.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber long and many hon. Members who have been here would like their questions to be answered.

I shall comment on the performance of First Great Western and South West Trains, the main providers of rail services between London and the south-west. The latest statistics that the SRA has published, for April 2002 to October 2002, show that the operators' performance in the quarter from July to September was an improvement on their performance in the corresponding quarter in 2001. However, late last year a considerable number of problems arose. In this country, we like to laugh about certain problems, but some of the weather and flooding was exceptional. Not only did that upset the rail system, it flooded houses and roads. As we know, the famous Dawlish problem was prominent again last year for Virgin trains. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it can take only one train being delayed to have a knock-on effect throughout the whole system.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that Virgin Voyagers were not all they were cracked up to be. Those trains are considerably better than the rolling stock that was used before. They are much more reliable and comfortable. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that, he should go and sit first in one of the old trains, then in one of the new ones, to test which is better. I can only think that he has not used one or other type of train.

The hon. Member for Northavon talked about the failure to deliver the service that the passengers have a right to expect. That is sometimes true, but not always. Lamentably, it is true too often. That is the reason for our current level of investment in the infrastructure. The hon. Gentleman will know that central and local government budgets for improvements are finite. However, he must admit that no other Government in the past 50 years have put the type of investment into the rail system that we have done, or invested at the same level.

The hon. Gentleman wants various projects to be brought forward. Given that funds are finite, I challenge him to decide which of the projects currently being undertaken he would not proceed with. Would he put a stop to some of the investment that is being made in the west coast main line? That has an effect on the whole of the south-west. If trains from Bristol to Birmingham and further north are delayed, there will be a knock-on effect in the south-west region.

I notice that the hon. Member for Bath was extremely coy when we talked about more funds. I look forward to his proposals in the next few days. He has said that he will announce extra funding. Only a short time ago—the hon. Gentleman will not like this—the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), who is the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, told his colleagues in a confidential paper that they could no longer assume that spending pledges could be funded unless they satisfied five conditions. One of those was that the pledge could be funded within current budgets. Previously, when I have asked in this Chamber how much extra money the Liberal Democrats would make available, I have been told that there would be no extra funding. I was also interested in something that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said.

Will the Minister give way?

Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way. Hon. Members must not heckle.

I will not give way to the hon. Member for Bath. As the Liberal Democrats do in this Chamber, he took longer for his speech—nearly 13 minutes—than I have been allowed and longer than the hon. Member for Christchurch. There are other people we need to listen to.

On the question about Filton junction, the scheme is being developed, and once the SRA knows the costs and benefits of the project a decision will be taken. We are aware of the problems at the Chipping Sodbury tunnel, which are causing considerable difficulty. A pumping system is in place, but I am told that the difficulty is where to pump the water once it comes out. I think that a problem with creating wetlands is the possibility that flooding might result. The matter is being given careful consideration because of its importance to the whole network.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) stressed the importance of the line going west from Exeter and I agree, of course. That is a part of the Government's view of the matter. Good-quality links in that direction are vital, particularly as the lines run through Devon into Cornwall—which has, after all, objective 1 funding.

Several hon. Members mentioned the Exeter to Waterloo line. We shall be considering what improvements can be made to capacity utilisation, to make better use of the existing track. I also take the point about keeping Members of Parliament better informed. I shall consider devices for that. If the hon. Lady has any suggestions I shall be happy to take them forward.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) talked of the Oxford to Bristol service. I know that he will be disappointed—as I think we all are—at the prospect of the service being withdrawn. I should be happy to meet a delegation, but we should need to consider how to increase the use of the service. At the moment, only 43 people, on average, use a large train. That is a low level of use. If we can increase it, a case for improvement may be made. I am, of course, happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about the matter if that is helpful.

With the little time that I have to sum up, I have not covered many hon. Members' questions. However, if they want me to take up particular points and are happy to do so by correspondence, I shall, in the usual way, try to answer them most thoroughly.

I am delighted to have secured this important debate on local policing for my constituents and those of other hon. Members in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.

I emphasise first my strong support for the work of the police in Cornwall in particular. I keep in close contact with the district commanders on my patch and with the chief constable—we now have a new one—because policing is a matter of concern to many of my constituents. I regularly visit local police stations to discuss issues of local concern and I join police from the local constabulary on night patrols and other occasions to see their work at first hand. I am grateful to the local constabulary for enabling me to do that.

The purpose of the debate is to raise a number of policing matters that concern my constituents. I was advised by the Table Office—I am sure correctly—that many policing matters are the responsibility of the constabulary rather than the Home Office, which is why I specifically requested a debate on Home Office responsibilities for policing in Cornwall. I am sure that the Minister, in replying to my questions, will know far better than I do where the constabulary's responsibilities end and the Home Office's begin, and will advise me on that.

I have informed the Minister's office of the three issues that I intend to raise in the debate: the first is the clarity needed when defining an offence, particularly with regard to replica guns, knives, extending police batons and so on; the second is how to contact the police if one fears that an offence has taken place or is likely to take place; and the third is how the police can fund their responseߞin other words, their budget.

What is an offence? I want to reflect the deeply felt and widely expressed public concern about a shop that recently opened in Penzance. Two weeks after it opened there was a peaceful protest outside its front door, and on an extremely wet Saturday afternoon in December, one of my constituents, Mrs. Lucy Duveston, collected more than 700 signatures. I have the petition here and will happily give it to the Minister after the debate. It expresses the deep concern felt by local people about the laws relating to the sale of replica guns, knives, police-style extending batons and drugs paraphernalia, which are now being sold openly on the high street in Penzance. The petition calls into question where the boundaries of the law lie and whether it is being made to look an ass in this respect.

I asked the local constabulary for a briefing, and before Christmas a local police constable, PC John Fahy, provided me with a briefing on the situation. I wrote to the Home Secretary seeking further clarification. Although I appreciate that the matter raises many complex issues, I look forward to receiving a response in due course. I have also had a further meeting with the chief inspector, Mike Fowkes, the district commander for Penwith and the Isles of Scilly, at which I raised these issues. The local constabulary needs to know when the police can act and whether the regulations can be tightened to make it clear where they can intervene.

The kind of baton being sold at the shop is one that is extended by being simply flicked out, in the same way as a police baton. I understand that if a baton is extended by means of a button, spring or other mechanical device, it is illegal to sell it. As the local police have pointed out to me, it does not matter how the baton is extended—the fact that it can be extended and that it is a potentially lethal weapon is a matter of deep concern. There is another aspect of the law that needs to be considered. Once the baton is out on the street, it is an offensive weapon no matter how it is opened. Why allow it to be sold in the first place? There is no good reason. Why would someone want to have it?

There is also an issue with knives. The shop sells a large selection of knives and swords, many of which have very long blades and some of which can be concealed on a person in the street. They can be sold quite legally because the shop does not suggest that they are fighting knives or suitable for combat in any way. The fact that they are not sold as combat knives means that they can be sold to a person in a shop. As I understand it, the law relating to carrying offensive or dangerous weapons acknowledges that there are reasons why someone might be carrying knives and swords publicly. For example, one can do so if one is a chef or for ceremonial and national costume purposes. Apart from such instances, it is an offence to carry such weapons. Again, why sell the weapons if there is no good reason to have them? One cannot use them publicly, other than for ceremonial or other specified purposes. Clarification on that would be helpful.

I understand that the issue of replica guns was raised in the debate on gun control this morning. In the shop in question, many of the replica guns for sale are so close to the originals that even experts cannot tell the difference. Local policemen have made the point that a toy should be made to look like a toy and that the police should be empowered to seize anything that looks like a real weapon. There are serious issues here, and I am sure that the Minister takes that on board.

On drugs paraphernalia, it is argued that section 9 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is out of date and that it is perfectly reasonable to come to a conclusion that eight-inch cigarette papers, huge rolling machines, sets of scales, mouthpieces, bongs and various other paraphernalia, all carrying a cannabis leaf design, will be used to prepare and smoke drugs, rather than tobacco. Those things are openly on sale in the local shop and many of my constituents are very concerned about that. It would be extremely helpful to have some clarity in relation to that area of the law. Do the Minister and his Department propose to review such matters and tighten up the law on the sale of such items?

I will move on to the issue of how the police can be contacted when there is a suspected offence, but it is not an emergency. As the Minister knows, I am raising the issue of the non-emergency police phone number, which is 0870 577 7444. Many of my constituents, local authorities, parish councils and neighbourhood watch groups have complained about the system. Many responsible citizens who fulfil their public duty to the community by reporting matters to the police are deeply frustrated by their experiences.

Mr. Anton Barkhuysen from Stithians, which is just outside my constituency, sent me a copy of a letter relating to a recent incident. His letter says:

"this week's West Briton carries a report of thieves who are targeting houses locally, and a statement from a PC Wheeler as to their possible technique. Yesterday my rather isolated house was visited by a couple who exactly fitted the description, and I noted the registration of the car which they had driven onto my property. On reporting this to your Crimestoppers hotline, with a request for PC Wheeler to phone me for the details, I was told to phone your inquiry line, where I was eventually told I was number eleven in the queue. As this would have involved at least a half hour call at national rates to your non-geographic number, which cannot be accessed by discount network providers at the reduced rate, I gave up."

I am afraid that that is the experience of many of my constituents. Waiting times are unacceptably long. The police are aware of that—they have accepted the criticisms and have attempted to reduce waiting times. However, the latest figures that the constabulary gave me in November—for September 2002—show that, of those calls that the switchboard answered and put through to the call-handling centre for inquiries, 46,328 were connected. Of those, 34,139 held on until their calls were answered. However, almost a quarter of those who phone are unable to get through or simply give up because of the expense.

The issue is about long waits and people simply not wanting to hang on because they feel uncertain. They have no confidence in the system and are concerned about the cost. As I understand it—and I recently sought clarification from the constabulary on this—the police can make a small profit by using an 0870 number—chatlines use the same system—so a call not only costs people money, but additional money goes to the constabulary. Indeed, it profits the constabulary to keep people waiting.

That is not a satisfactory system. I understand that the Minister's Department is looking at a national call number, which is to be piloted from April 2003. Although the constabulary is aware of the problems with its call-handling system, which severely dents local people's confidence, it would be helpful if the Minister set out the timetable for the roll-out of the national number. The constabulary might go to great lengths to improve or change its system at great expense only to find out that there is a national number, so some co-ordination would be helpful.

Once a person has decided that an offence has taken place and has managed to get through to the police, the police must be able to respond. There was a great deal of trumpeting at the proposed settlement for the local constabularies at the end of last year. However, the police have additional costs that perhaps the Home Office does not fully appreciate.

In the far west of Cornwall, it is quite clear that if the constabulary is providing an emergency service and there is a severe emergency, it cannot call on support from the north, west or south, because all there is is sea. The cost of ensuring that the panoply of services is available to respond to serious issues in a place such as the far west of a long peninsula in a constituency such as mine will be an additional cost that other constabularies do not have to meet.

The proposed settlement is due to be confirmed on 3 February. I urge the Minister to review whether the settlement is adequate for the constabulary of Devon and Cornwall. Government funding represents a 3 per cent. increase, which is equivalent to £4.7 million. However, that leaves a considerable shortfall when compared with the unavoidable increase in costs, which the chief constable has told me is £4.2 million for police reform impact. Inflation costs are £5.7 million and national insurance increases amount to £1.2 million. Those and other costs can be funded only by a significant increase in council tax. That excludes funding for additional police officers over and above the crime fighting fund allocation. The police authority has set an aspirational target of 3,500 officers by 2006, but that would require a further £2.6 million in 2003ߝ04, making a total additional cost for the next financial year of £13.7 million, compared with the proposed increase of £4.7 million.

At this stage, it is obligatory to brandish a copy of the Western Morning News. The Minister will notice that it points out that the police authority estimates the increased cost of local tax payers' contribution to the local constabulary at between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. Clearly, the question that Maria Wallis, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, is asking is, having broken the figure down to a weekly rate, are people prepared to make that additional contribution in the future?

We want people to support their police. However, in his response, the Minister must recognise that, in low-wage areas, the Government have obligations. Although many of the improvements are welcome, if they impose additional costs on constabularies, those should be reflected in the announcement of funding support on 3 February.

I thank the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for securing this debate and for his obvious involvement with and support for his local police force. I am sure that that is appreciated by his constituents and by the police themselves. They need to see that politicians support their work on behalf of the communities that they seek to protect.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's comments about problems relating to call handling within the Devon and Cornwall constabulary. It is encouraging that in the past three months the force has achieved its 90 per cent. target for handling 999 calls within the required response time. The number of non-emergency calls answered by the switchboard has also increased over the past couple of months. The force has achieved a target of answering 90 per cent. of those calls within 30 seconds.

I agree, however, that waiting times after the switchboard has received the call remain unacceptable, and I fully understand why the management of call handling within the force has caused concern to some members of the local community, the police authority and the command team. I am confident that the establishment of the call management and communications department will improve performance. The hon. Gentleman may know that a review of the supervisory structure within Devon and Cornwall's control rooms is being completed. I hope that it will ensure that the resources allocated are used efficiently and that real improvements to the services offered in that area will result.

We must ensure that the police service is properly funded. It will remain a top priority for the Government. The settlement announced for 2003–04 continues that commitment and builds on substantial investment over the past three years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Devon and Cornwall constabulary has been provisionally allocated £164.4 million in general grant for 2003–04—an increase of £4.7 million. All police authorities were guaranteed at least that level of increase. The force also benefits from continued funding from the crime fighting fund of £6.37 million, and £3.13 million goes to Cornwall from the rural policing fund. That is 10 per cent. of the overall pot, so it is not true that we do not recognise or try to address some of the problems that sparsity and geography impose on the police service. Continuing the £30 million allocation for rural policing through the rural policing fund demonstrates our commitment to addressing those issues properly.

Specific initiatives also provide funding for Devon and Cornwall, including £390,000 towards the cost of Airwave. Forces have been invited to bid for further funding for community support officers, and funding has been provided for this year. The force has also been invited to pilot the detention powers for CSOs. We await a reply as to whether we shall receive a bid for CSOs for future years.

The increases in the past two or three years have been very welcome, and police numbers, as I am sure the Minister will point out, have finally reached record levels. However, the chief constable is specifically warning that this year's increase of £4.7 million is substantially short of the amount that she needs to find for the nationally agreed pay rise and national insurance and pension costs. Short of people in this low-wage area being asked to pay even more on their council tax bill, above the amounts that the Government have allowed for, she will have to cut police numbers.

Will the Minister at least accept that there is a financial problem this year, in that there is a difference between the amounts needed to meet the nationally agreed pay rise and so on, and the amounts that Cornwall is receiving?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledges that there is an agreement at national level as to the necessary funding for the enhancements and the introduction of the police reform agenda. A funding level has also been agreed through the machinery of the police negotiating board.

A legitimate debate is taking place in Devon and Cornwall about what level of precept there should be. Currently, because of the priorities in the area and decisions that have been taken locally, Devon and Cornwall's precept is 13 per cent. below the national average for shire areas. The new chief constable has obviously triggered that debate. Whether or not the local community wants that to be changed or the force should be given an opportunity to increase the precept, I hope that the Liberal Democrat party and Members locally consider that there must be a local element to such decisions. They cannot all be taken at national level and imposed on local areas. The level of precept is not a matter for the Home Office, as the hon. Gentleman recognises.

Quite rightly, the discussion is taking place in the locality. Do we want to continue, because of the specific problems, with a below average precept for policing in Devon and Cornwall, or is there an argument for a substantial increase up to the national average or even beyond?

Irrespective of whether the precept should be set at the average level, or above or below it, the fact is that it would be helpful for the Minister to state clearly whether he believes that it is the responsibility of Government at least to attempt to fund those elements in the police budget that are the result of Government decisions. I am referring to increases in salaries and pensions, and other improvements in standards that are Government-driven, not locally driven.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we place outside each area the machinery that has been established to decide what funding level is necessary to pay for all those initiatives and improvements that we want to see? He accepted that there is machinery through the police negotiating board, and that a level of funding has been agreed. There ought to be a residual debate about what level of precept should be set for the people of Devon and Cornwall. I do not fully understand what he is saying. Is he saying that, quite separately from that discussion, additional payments ought to be made to areas, and that those nationally agreed systems of setting funding should be abandoned? [Interruption.] He seems to be indicating that he does not agree with that. He must articulate exactly what he is asking for. If he or his party wants to make some suggestions as to how the methodology can be changed, we shall be more than happy to listen. However, we cannot have hon. Members making demands for an area that are completely outwith what they then agree ought to be a national framework for taking such decisions. The hon. Gentleman needs to come clean about what exactly his position is.

The force will also receive a share of both the £50 million pot for basic command unit funding and the £38 million pot for the special priority payments element of the PN B agreement.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned our serious concerns about the sale and use of imitation weapons, airguns, real guns, and other items. We have recently made announcements about discouraging people from carrying illegal weapons. The Home Secretary has announced the introduction of a minimum sentence of five years for those who carry illegal weapons in a public place. That will be enshrined in legislation as soon as possible. We intend to give the police the power to challenge people on whether they have a reasonable or lawful excuse for carrying either air weapons or imitation weapons, and where appropriate to arrest people and confiscate those weapons.

We have not gone down the road of a total ban on imitation weapons—there is a constant debate on that in the House—because of problems of definition. I am

more than happy to continue considering that issue, but unless there is a legal definition that bans imitation weapons of the type that the hon. Gentleman talked about but does not impinge on toys, there will be serious problems with a total ban. By doing what we are doing, we are giving a power to the police and relying on the good sense of a constable to use that power appropriately. Where someone is carrying an imitation weapon in a public place without good reason or lawful excuse, they can be challenged, the weapon can be confiscated and they can, if necessary, be arrested. That avoids some of the definitional problems and gives us a tool to use. We are also planning a long-term review of all the firearms legislation. We cannot rush that or do it immediately.

I appreciate that response. However, outside the replica weapon issue is the issue of lethal weapons such as knives and extending batons. That is a serious matter, and it would be helpful to have some indication that the Minister would be prepared to clarify the law to help the police.

Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman—I am not sure that there is confusion on the matter, but we can obviously consider it if the local police say that there is—that flick knives are offensives weapons. It is illegal not only to carry them but to sell them. Other items, such as batons, swords and knives, including hunting knives, are not illegal and it is not an offence to sell them. However, it is illegal for people to carry such items in a public place, and they could be arrested for carrying an offensive weapon. There is a problem. Exactly what do we want to ban and what do we not want to ban? Items are often sold for legal and proper reasons, and sometimes they are sold totally inappropriately, as the hon. Gentleman said.

First, I put on record my appreciation of having been given time for this Adjournment debate. I confess that I am not an expert on the missing in Cyprus. In fact, the matter was first brought to my attention when, like millions of others, I visited the island as a holidaymaker. I was shocked to see in Nicosia mothers parading every day with photographs of the missing around their necks. When I first heard about the numbers involved, I thought that they must be exaggerated and that the story could not be exactly right. However, it is important that we consider the human, personal and humanitarian consequence of the missing in Cyprus.

It is a long time since 20 July 1974, but that does not diminish the horror of the situation and the nightmare that relatives and friends of the missing must have gone through. When the Turkish army invaded, Cyprus was a sovereign, independent state and a member of the United Nations and of the Commonwealth. After the cessation of the war between the invading Turkish army and the civil population, about 1,600 people were taken and made prisoner. The 1,600 included some 900 reservists and soldiers, and more than 500 civilians, including men, women and children, some of them United Kingdom citizens. I could not believe that when I was told.

Many of the missing were taken from their homes or places of work—that was confirmed by eye-witnesses who saw all these events. Those people were taken to Turkish concentration camps and prison. Relatives and friends have gone so long without knowing what happened to the missing, and it is no exaggeration to say that a despicable, cruel crime was foisted on the people of Cyprus.

Since the Turkish army invaded Cyprus, the UN has said much about the situation. It has passed six resolutions relating to missing persons, all of which sought an early solution, and it understands the humanitarian scale of the problem. The UN also set up bodies, including the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus, to look into the matter. Those bodies tried to unlock the problem of Turkey approaching Cyprus and discussing what had happened. Kofi Annan and others thought that that might bring out some truth in the matter.

The matter of the missing in Cyprus has also been referred to the European Court of Human Rights. In a judgment of 10 May 2001 in Cyprus v. Turkey, the Court stated that Turkey was guilty of a denial of the right to life, a denial of the right to liberty and a denial of the right of citizens not to be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment. That was a proper and important decision.

About 1,600 Greek Cypriots are missing men, women and children—among whom are British citizens. There is indisputable evidence that most of those people, who will never return, were detained by Turkish soldiers and/or armed Turkish Cypriot elements under the command and control of the Turkish army during the invasion. There is evidence that captured Greek Cypriots were held in concentration camps, and even the Turkish authorities do not dispute that. They have issued lists of Greek Cypriot prisoners of war, but some of those people were never released and Turkey gave no explanation of what happened to them thereafter. People who were on the International Committee of the Red Cross list as prisoners of war or enclave persons in Turkish-occupied areas of Cyprus were not released. Greek Cypriot prisoners who sent messages to their families over the illegal radio systems are still missing.

The UN has taken a sharp and focused view on the matter. The General Assembly passed resolution 3450 in 1975 and expressed concern

"about the fate of a considerable number of Cypriots who are missing as a result of armed conflict in Cyprus".

It reaffirmed the basic human need for those people's families in Cyprus to be informed about their fate.

Despite repeated attempts by the Government of Cyprus, relatives of the missing and international organisations, the Turkish Government have refused to provide information about the missing in Cyprus, which is contrary to international law. Turkey's insistence that it knows nothing about the fate of the missing persons has been proven internationally as nonsense—it is a lie. Turkey does know what happened, but is unwilling to reveal it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that Turkey is trying to join the European Union, progress would be made if the new Turkish Government started to find people and bodies in order to identify them and put people's minds at rest after nearly 30 years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows much about Cyprus. He makes an important point.

Even after so much time, the international community wants Cyprus to take the initiative and come forward with information on missing persons, and wants the relatives, friends and family of the missing to do the same. As we hope to move towards resolving the outstanding issues, it would be a major plus if Turkey told us what happened. The time is right for the Government to say to the new Turkish Government, "We, as part of the international community, want some explanation about the missing persons. We have to be told exactly what took place and what the circumstances are."

The UN Assembly has taken a keen interest in the missing persons in Cyprus, as have international organisations. It questioned the Turkish authorities at length on several occasions, and even the European Parliament has taken a keen interest by discussing, debating and concluding on the matter.

Some of the 1,600 people were reservists and civilians, and accounts say that they were taken from their homes and workplaces. They were not involved in military activity. They were nothing more than citizens going about their daily work and normal activities, but there has been no explanation of why such people were caught up in the conflict, apart from the fact that they were prisoners of the Turkish army.

The question of the missing in Cyprus has been brought to international organisations' attention, and I quote a presentation made by the Cypriot Government when it came before the European Court of Human Rights:

"In the present case, the relatives of the missing persons have been left without information about the latter's fate for a period of 25 years. In view of the circumstances in which these persons disappeared following a military intervention during which many persons were killed or taken prisoner and where the area on which the disappearances took place was subsequently sealed off and became inaccessible to the relatives, the latter must no doubt have suffered the most painful uncertainty and anxiety. While their state of distress was most acute in the first period after the 1974 events, it has not vanished with the passing of time."

Of course, it will not pass with time.

I shall give a simple example. We have all lost either a child, a relative or a friend temporarily, even if only for five or 10 minutes. When someone loses a child, even for such a short time, their sense and logic disappear completely, and they go into a fearful state—a panic. We all know that feeling, and we would never want to recreate it. Imagine, then, the nightmare experienced by someone whose relative has been taken from them for all those years, and imagine not knowing whether that person has been imprisoned, tortured or killed.

We need to find some way to assist the Cypriot Government and international organisations in coming forward, and we should put more pressure on the Turkish Government to say exactly what happened. The relatives need to know the truth; they need closure after so long. We should not allow the passing of time to result in the relegation of the issue. It must be kept at the forefront. It is up to us—the humanitarians, the democrats and those who are interested in people—to raise the matter at every opportunity, within and without Parliament. That is a responsibility on us all.

I do not intend to discuss at length the presentation made at the European Court and its decision, which I have already mentioned. However, I quote from page 234 of the report:

"Turkey has not conducted either a prompt, or an efficient, investigation. Turkey's duty cannot be discharged through the Committee on Missing Persons, a body which in any event does not function due to a pre-condition imposed by her local administration."

It is, of course, the Turkish Government who have imposed that condition in Cyprus. The quote continues:

"In any event, the Committee's scope of investigation is too limited to satisfy Article 27".

We should take every opportunity to insist that international organisations step up the pressure on the new Turkish Government.

The evidence before the court is extensive, and compulsory reading for those interested in the matter. We should make sure that people read it, because the case is about not what the Turkish Government think, but what the European Court thought after listening to the evidence. It based its judgment on the tragic tale that it heard.

Does not my hon. Friend feel that the British Government have a special role in the matter, as they are the third party in Cyprus? We still have bases there and, irrespective of the fact that humanitarian and European organisations rightly argue for disclosure of the whereabouts of the people concerned, Britain alone should take up the matter, because of its special relationship and links. Our country has a specific responsibility.

That is an important point, and that is why I want the British Government—regardless of other considerations—to tell the Turkish Government that we held a special responsibility for the island, and so bear a special responsibility for the missing. For that reason alone, we should approach the Turkish Government. We should also ensure that the Cypriot Government know what we are doing about the matter.

Finally, I want to refer to the Dillon report for the United States Congress. It extensively considered the question of the missing and came to the same conclusions. The truth must be told and the Turkish Government are the only people who can do that. I urge the British Government to put additional pressure on them.

As I said earlier, we all understand the panic of losing a child. Fifteen hundred families, relatives and friends want to know what happened to the missing of Cyprus. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that the case is publicised every day and that every assistance is given so that we can discover what has happened to them.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on securing this debate on Cyprus and on the passionate and articulate way in which he put his arguments. The issue concerns many of us in the House, and it is right to draw attention to it.

The debate comes at an apposite time, as negotiations under United Nations auspices intensify for a settlement of the long-running Cyprus problem. Talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash, which restarted in January 2002, are now nearing the endgame. On 10 December, the UN Secretary-General tabled his proposals for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in Cyprus. He rightly urged the two leaders to reach agreement, based on the proposals, by 28 February. The British Government fervently hope that that will be possible.

However, as my hon. Friend so effectively reminded us, the issue of missing persons in Cyprus, known more commonly as simply "the missing", is a particularly human one. It is not about structure of government, percentages of territory, treaties, protocols or any of the other matters that we are used to discussing in government or dealing with as politicians or diplomats, but a very real human issue. It is about people and their families and bringing some relief to a human tragedy.

I wish to point out that people are missing from both communities. Significant numbers of Greek and Turkish Cypriots fit the category.

:Will my hon. Friend comment on the effectiveness of the United Nations Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus? Does he believe that it can make effective progress in improving the situation? What measures should be taken? Would he also comment on the fact that support is weak and must be strengthened? We must get more people involved and committed to tracking the issue.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on securing the debate and on the way in which he presented this very important case.

I shall deal specifically with the role and practice of the UN Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus. The fact that the issue has not been resolved suggests that it has not made progress, but I believe that it is the appropriate vehicle for resolving the matter. I shall later discuss some of the ways in which we can help the process.

People have gone missing from both communities since the events that first wracked the island soon after its independence in 1960. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden made clear, the missing are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, uncles, fathers and grandfathers, none of whom has come back and all of whom leave behind loved ones who grieve their loss but are unable to mourn the dead. As my hon. Friend so eloquently made clear, they are unable to have closure. It is a genuine tragedy.

The issue is a reminder, if one were needed, to politicians, diplomats, mediators and others of the human cost of this political problem and of the imperative for an early solution. Every conflict bears a human cost, and Cyprus is no exception. Many thousands lost their lives as intercommunal fighting first erupted between 1963 and 1974, when extremists on both sides sought to destroy Cypriot independence. Then, in 1974, many more died in a nationalist coup backed by Greece, which sought to overthrow the elected President; and fierce fighting following Turkish military intervention some days later. Once the dust had settled on the events of 1974, Cyprus faced a division that still haunts it, and people from both communities remain missing to this day.

For the relatives of the missing, there is no respite. When one speaks to them, they say that they know, 30 and 40 years on, that their loved ones are almost certainly not coming back; but they do not know for sure. They are haunted by the thought that they may look up one day and see a familiar face again. That underlines the fact that it is a human tragedy and not a political issue.

There is growing evidence that that is now recognised in Cyprus. Indeed, at a meeting in January 2002 that was dedicated to the missing in Cyprus, Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash agreed that it should be regarded as a humanitarian issue—that was progress—and that it should be addressed separately from, but in parallel with, the political talks.

Unfortunately, it has not always been treated as a humanitarian issue. For too long it was treated by some, but not all politicians, on both sides of the line in Cyprus as an opportunity to score political points. That is not right. No one should seek to make political capital out of the pain felt by the families and relatives. The Government firmly believe, as do Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash, that the issue should be dealt with urgently as a humanitarian matter. We believe that all outstanding cases—they are real people who are missing—should he resolved quickly and with dignity, without recrimination and away from the public eye. Some people may have reservations about that, but that is the only realistic way that the issue can be resolved.

A forum has been established for dealing with these cases in that way—the United Nations Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus to which my hon. Friend referred, which is based in Nicosia. That three-person committee was established in 1981 to address impartially the issue of the missing, while retaining an international humanitarian focus. Both sides in Cyprus have referred cases to the UNCMPC, so that it can fulfil its remit in establishing what happened to the missing, and finally bring their families that much-needed closure. The committee is not part of the talks process or of any political movement or process. It is scrupulously independent. I take the opportunity to send the Government's—and, I hope, the House's—warmest appreciation for the many years' work done by Mr. Pierre Guberon as the third member of the committee.

Unfortunately, as we heard earlier, the UNCMPC has not been able fully to fulfil its remit. The committee has been able to work on only a small number of the cases referred to it. Procedural complications have dogged progress, as have political disputes, I am sorry to report. The Government call on all concerned to put aside such political and procedural concerns and to show the will necessary to resolve the outstanding cases. That is what my hon. Friend and the Government call for. In answer to my hon. Friend, I believe that the committee remains the best forum for fully addressing those concerns. I urge all to co-operate fully with the committee. There are no good reasons not to do so—only political ones.

There has been some progress, albeit limited, and I welcome the unilateral initiatives taken over the last few years to bring closure to the families affected by the tragedy. In particular, exhumations and DNA testing have enabled a number of families to afford their loved ones a proper burial, and have relieved the anguish of others by removing names from the list of Greek Cypriot missing persons. I urge all concerned to take this important work forward and to implement the agreement made on 31 July 1997 by Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash, which was that the two sides would exchange full information on the missing. That important point needs to be registered.

Although the issue is a poignantly humanitarian one, I believe that the political pressure of the UN settlement process, under which the two sides are in the final stages of intense negotiations, can help provide the impetus needed finally to resolve it. The UN settlement process, which is nearing its conclusion, provides the pressure and the impetus that we need finally to resolve the issue. I am pleased that the issue is being addressed in that UN settlement process. We understand that Kofi Annan's proposals of 10 December 2002 state that the two leaders shall, without delay, make every effort to resolve the issue of the missing persons by co-operating fully with the UNCMPC, exchanging full information on the missing, as agreed in July 1997, and completing any necessary inquiries, including exhumations.

My hon. Friend asked about our attitude and stance towards the Turkish Government. We can and will urge the Turkish Government to do all that they can. We must also be clear that the major responsibility for resolving the problem lies with the Greek Cypriots, the Turkish Cypriots and the United Nations—the three parties to the committee of the missing. We will make those representations to the Turkish Government. I also believe that the issue should be specifically referred to in the proposals of the UN Secretary-General, which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have urged the two parties to accept as a basis for agreement. That is important because while the issue can and should be resolved outside the political process, the political process could none the less have a huge impact on the ability of both sides to resolve the issue. After decades of division there is an historic opportunity to heal old wounds.

Negotiations are under way to create a new state of affairs in Cyprus, which will lead to Greek and Turkish Cypriots bringing an end to their longstanding differences and joining once more as equals in a reunited Cyprus. There is clearly tremendous pressure at the moment for a settlement in Cyprus. Hon. Members will be aware of the march two weeks ago by approximately 50,000 Turkish Cypriots in favour of the plan. That is about one quarter of the population of Northern Cyprus. With that degree of support the chances of a settlement are greater than they have been for an awful long time.

Just as it is vital that the issue of the missing, which has haunted Cyprus's past and divided Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, is resolved, so it is vital that the future security of the two sides is assured. The Secretary-General's proposals provide for the physical and political security of both sides. That has been missing for a long time. Local—Cypriot—forces would be demilitarised and Greek and Turkish forces on the island would be scaled down. A new UN force would help to ensure that the implementation of the settlement talks takes place peacefully. The treaties of guarantee and alliance, to which the United Kingdom is a party, would continue. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that talks on the security aspect of the settlement between Greece and Turkey will take place on 5 and 6 February. I am sure that I am joined by all hon. Members in sending our strong support to both Greece and Turkey and our hope that they will finally be able to reach a settlement.

That bizonal solution for Cyprus set out in the UN proposals would ensure that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots would be masters in their own houses with control over day-to-day issues that really matter to voters. The distrust and conflict of the 1960s and 1970s would finally be allowed to heal. We firmly believe that the United Nations proposals are fair and balanced and provide for a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus. Securing a settlement by 28 February by accepting the UN Secretary-General's proposals of 10 December as a basis for agreement would allow a reunited Cyprus to sign the treaty of accession with the EU on 16 April, enabling all Cypriots to enjoy a more prosperous and peaceful future. We should not miss that opportunity. We have a real opportunity not only to take a divided Cyprus forward, but finally to bring closure to those families who have been waiting far too long to see the problem resolved. I hope that we, and everyone concerned with the Cyprus problem, can take that opportunity.