I thank the Speaker for granting me this debate and I apologise to the Minister for trashing a second morning of his time.

The Government’s commitment to Afghanistan is brave and principled. As I am sure the Minister will point out, we cannot allow it again to become a failed state—one from which the likes of Osama bin Laden could plot the murder of thousands of innocent people. One should not invade countries and then run, leaving chaos in one’s wake. A stable Afghanistan is in Britain’s national interest. Unlike our invasion of Iraq, we had compelling reasons to invade Afghanistan, and for wider strategic reasons we had to play a part in introducing stability and democracy there.

As the Minister is aware, during the Easter recess I went to Afghanistan, and I managed briefly to visit Helmand province while there, so I hope that he will forgive me if I am not completely up to date. I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject and I do not have huge armies of knowledgeable advisers, but during my visit I conducted about 47 substantive interviews with Afghans and other well-informed people, with the emphasis on seeking the thoughts of the ordinary people of Helmand province.

The main headline that emerged from those discussions is that the British public have not been alerted by the Government to the great dangers that confront our troops and officials in the province, nor to the great risk of doing further damage to our reputation in the region. Announcing our deployment, the then Secretary of State for Defence said that he hoped, as we all did, that we would leave Afghanistan without a shot being fired. That was a somewhat optimistic observation.

At the moment, we have more than 5,000 troops in Afghanistan, and more than 2,000 in Helmand province. I am reliably informed that we would be hard pushed to get more than a couple of hundred on the ground—out of camp—at any one time. Helmand has a population of about 1 million, spread over an area the size of Wales and the west midlands. There are more than 1,000 villages. The area is dominated by the mighty Helmand river, and most of its population live within 10 km of the river banks. As one flies into the province, one is struck by the cultivation along the river banks. The guy in the next seat may shout over the noise of the aircraft, “Down there, look at that green; 80 per cent. of that is opium poppy and it will end up on your streets.”

In the 1950s, Helmand was known as little America. A huge programme to build irrigation systems opened thousands of hectares of desert to cultivation and created a huge farming zone. Recent wars have all but destroyed that. In 2001, about 95 per cent. of the crops were destroyed by drought, leaving many families internally displaced, in debt and destitute. There is virtually no government in the rural areas outside the traditional structure of mullahs and elders. The Government are seen as corrupt, remote—and far away.

With the exception of Helmand’s new governor—as the Minister knows, his relationship with the British is extremely close—most provincial government is completely corrupt. The last governor of Helmand was removed when opium may or may not have been found in his office, and his brother Mullah Amir remains the deputy governor. As one officer put it to me, the police are corrupt from top to bottom and police cars are the favoured vehicle for exporting the opium poppy.

In the south, Afghanistan has a 160 km border with Pakistan, but to the local population that is little more than an accident of history because it does not reflect family ties or economic activity—nor the long history of smuggling and the exchange of people. Indeed, when I first heard the word “Helmand” I was 18, and watching the mujaheddin attacking unfortunate Russian conscripts on one of their infiltration routes from Baluchistan and Pakistan into Afghanistan.

The Minister will be aware that a sizable Afghan population remains in that province of Pakistan, and that high levels of the Taliban and al-Qaeda organisations can be found there. Those groups may or may not be planning things from Pakistan, with or without the help of Pakistan’s rogue inter-services intelligence, and trying to co-ordinate attacks on NATO troops. A couple of days ago this appeared on an Islamic website:

“On June 15, armed forces of the Islamic State of Afghanistan ambushed and terminated eight puppet regime soldiers and destroyed their…vehicles”.

Another entry says:

“On June 14, armed forces of Islamic State of Afghanistan attacked a joint convoy of puppet soldiers and puppet policemen in Hasan Kariz area…which left three puppet policemen dead and two…injured. A vehicle was also destroyed in the attack.”

Helmand was the birthplace of the Taliban and there remain substantial numbers of Taliban in both the towns and the villages. In the past few months, so-called night letters have been distributed, calling on local people to fight the British. That would not be the first time. In 1880 the Royal Regiment was virtually wiped out in the disastrous battle that it fought along the banks of the Helmand river at Maiwand. A British officer wrote, rather pessimistically, at the time that

“making war and planning a campaign on the Helmand from the cool shades…is an experiment which will not, I hope, be repeated”.

Well, the experiment is being repeated and the Taliban tell people in their night letters that their grandfathers are scratching at the soil in their graves to get out and kill the grandsons of the British troops they massacred.

That is the bad news. The good news is that ordinary Afghan villages badly want British troops. They want security and reconstruction. Since the 2001 invasion, opium production has increased immensely. Most families are involved in its production. It is not something with which they necessarily feel comfortable; but needs must. The opium yield per hectare is about $5,400. The yield for wheat is about a 10th of that. People might not starve without the money from opium, but it certainly helps family finances. Attempts at eradication are seen as unequal and unfair. When I was in the country I tried to see a very senior police officer, but his deputy told me, “He’s out. He’s busy making money.” It turned out that he was in the poppy fields, directing that afternoon’s eradication programme—presumably sparing the fields of farmers who could pay.

A couple of weeks ago a special forces officer who had just come back told me, while drinking tea on the Terrace, that he had lost count of the number of times he had been to an area in which he had been told eradication had taken place, only to find that the fields that were supposed to have been eradicated were intact, but that on the margin smaller farmers who had not been able to pay had had their crops destroyed. The process is thus seen as corrupt and inequitable. It forces out smaller players and allows bigger drug producers to consolidate.

The UK seems a bit confused about what it is doing about opium. We are the G8 leader on drugs, but one feels a certain sensitivity. Sitting in the garden of the British embassy in Kabul, having a quiet chat, I asked a senior official whether there was to be any change in our policy of providing “lift, cordon and planning” for counter-narcotics operations. The official answered that he was sure that the Minister’s position had not changed—remember, this was supposed to be a friendly chat—and that he could only refer me to Hansard for what he said. That felt bizarre.

The Afghans are not stupid and we are kidding ourselves if we think that they will not notice if we get involved in the corrupt destruction of a crop that provides people with their livelihood while we cannot provide the conditions or means for them to earn a less harmful living. We will not generate good will by standing around while tractors dragging discs destroy crops that feed families. I am categorically not saying that we should do nothing about narcotics that damage vulnerable people, but I do not buy the supply side argument. Even if we could eventually destroy every poppy in Helmand there would be no resultant shortage on the streets of Gravesham. The situation is corroding Afghanistan from its people to its Government, and everything in between, but battles must be fought one at a time, at a time of one’s own choosing. Fortunately, the harvest has just taken place, which will give the British breathing space so that we do not have to get involved immediately.

The end state is unclear and the objectives are confused. Is this a matter of counter-narcotics, counter-insurgency or nation building? Inequitable counter-narcotics operations will inevitably lead to insurgency, which can only have a negative impact on nation building. One major gripe in the villages, and a huge gap in our credibility in Helmand, is that we are working not only with a police force that is seen as 99 per cent. corrupt and whose members are involved in trafficking, but with national, provincial and district governments that are floating on the stuff. I imagine that the whole region is being swamped with signals and electronic intelligence as we look for Osama and his friends, but we have somehow failed to use that large amount of intelligence material, which points to the involvement of an extremely close relative of the President of Afghanistan, and no prosecution has yet been made. That matters, because the individual concerned is, in effect, the business partner of the biggest trafficker in Helmand, and the locals all know it. We are seen as connected with the eradication programme, but these guys are banking tens of millions of dollars and building ornate villas.

Successfully prosecuting a large trafficker would send a positive message to the villages of Helmand. As General Ulumi, the former Communist governor of Kandahar, put it to me,

“no one protects the villages and keeps them safe…They see most of the national income going into the pockets of a small group of warlords and drug dealers”.

The villagers feel attacked from all sides. Jolyon Leslie, who used to run the UN development programme and who has been in Afghanistan, including under the Taliban, for about 15 years, says that

“they might have their school burned down by the Taleban, and then get beaten up by the Police for not stopping the Taleban from burning down their school. The trouble is the Taleban have not gone away, or if they have, they come back at night”.

We decided to go to Afghanistan based on the assumption that Iraq would be stable by the time we did so. That assumption was pretty shaky anyway, but the conditions in which both would happen at the same time never pertained. As a result, we are carrying a large strategic risk in failing to achieve results in Basra and Helmand. When we decided to go in late 2004, we were keen to support the NATO mission and prove that it was usable, deployable and relevant.

The model that we have taken to Helmand is pretty much a first, with an unprecedented amount of planning. There is joined-up government, which is much to the Ministers’ credit. The Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office are working together to deliver the force that buys time for development and governance initiatives to take place.

However, that is all very little. The resources that have been allocated are inadequate. The military budget is £1 billion and the DFID budget was initially £10 million, with perhaps another £11 million, although that may have changed. Not only is the civil-military spend disproportionate, but the military commander is dependent on DFID for delivering his success, and it is unlikely that DFID will deliver. I have not been able to confirm this, but I think that the US has allocated $300 million for its poppy eradication and alternative livelihood programmes in Jalalabad, and the Afghans appear content with that. Even £21 million looks a bit light by comparison. This is what people call buying peace, but more than £1 billion over three years will create a fairly tiny footprint in Helmand, and I have referred to the 200 troops that we could routinely have had on the ground.

We have taken ownership of a huge problem, with the little prospect of gain. We have also not been told by what criteria the Government will measure success. One aid worker told me that

“it is absurd to think that you can create the conditions in Helmand…to pour in armed with hand pumps”.

As I keep hearing, however, we are where we are. As usual, our troops get on with things and do what is asked of them.

Clearly, Afghanistan’s centre of gravity is Kabul, and our national contribution in Helmand is really a tactical activity. We must do what we can to join up central and provincial government and clean up governance and police. We must also develop the Afghans’ own apparatus to ensure that we do not leave Afghanistan as an aid state or a narco-state.

The stated objective of Her Majesty’s Government is strengthening the power of the Kabul Government, but, historically, any attempt to strengthen the centre against the periphery in Afghanistan has failed. Afghanistan is not a nation, but a loose confederation of tribes. The establishment of democracy will not replace tribalism, which Afghans prefer, but cause huge resentment between Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hazaras.

One senior officer who has been heavily involved in some of the more interesting military operations since Labour came to power warns against unnecessarily picking fights, and says that we should guard against considering every militia man with an assault rifle as being Taliban. Troops who have their own area of responsibility may end up having fights that do not help us at all. He says:

“It is a mistake to wind the locals up and give them an excuse to join the Taliban. Company sized swoops through your village and helicopters flying low overhead could act very effectively as a recruiting sergeant for the Taliban. We must be careful not to provide a self defeating profile.”

In Iraq, we were until recently in the absolutely woeful position of conducting patrols without an Iraqi face. We must not repeat that mistake in Afghanistan. The senior officer says that we must be seen at all times to be backing up the Afghan army and the Afghan national police.

I do not know how far we have been able to go, in terms of cleaning up the police and working with reliable officers. If we do not manage to do that, the Afghan villagers will simply see us as an extension of a corrupt police force. One westerner who has lived in Helmand for over a decade believes that cleaning up the police and working with them is the key enabler. He believes that once we have done that, we can prepare Helmand for development, which will move people away from insecurity and drug production. Others cite the example of Dhofar, where a small, discrete contribution of UK forces is working with local forces to secure the environment for development. Obviously there are differences; there, the threat was external and everything was not polluted by drugs. Also, critically, we were prepared to be there for the long haul, which does not seem to be the case in Afghanistan.

There are recent reports of insurgents who have operated in Iraq arriving in Afghanistan, in Helmand province. Regardless of the veracity or otherwise of those reports, it seems inevitable that jihadists will transfer their devastating roadside bombing techniques from Iraq to Afghanistan. One British officer who served in both Iraq and in Helmand province in the aftermath of the 2001 invasion maintains that troops are getting killed in Iraq by roadside bombs because we do not have enough helicopters. He says that we seem to have forgotten the lessons that we learned in south Armagh. There, we faced devastating culvert bombs in the early 1970s. Vehicle movement was completely stopped and patrols were done on foot and by helicopters. Bessbrook Mill was the busiest heliport in the world. Of course, there are foot patrols in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is no longer the default setting, as it was.

There is another footnote to the lessons learned from Ireland. There, people in the key jobs that required continuity would serve for two years, albeit with rather different leave arrangements, in order to build up long-term relationships. Of course, Afghanistan is not Northern Ireland, where we had absolutely no choice other than to think of the long term. That point is not lost on many commanders to whom I have spoken, even if it is not axiomatic to tri-service chiefs, among whom corporate memory seems to be rather short.

At the time of the abduction and rescue of two special forces guys in Basra last year, the brigade commander’s staff are reported to have spent hundreds of hours making the case for more helicopters and more troops. That request was for the most part denied, apparently because it would look presentationally wrong. We are about to take delivery of a couple of hundred partly irrelevant air defence jets, just when the size of our battlefield helicopter fleet is proving completely inadequate to the task. Another officer who will shortly take his troops to Afghanistan rang me the other night to say that he had just heard the likely number of helicopter hours that he would be allocated in Helmand. He said:

“We will be completely hamstrung without choppers—it looks like we are going to have to drive everywhere. Day to day resupply and troop movement will really eat into the hours.”

It is not good enough to say that we do not have the air frames and the crews that the troops on the ground so desperately need. If we cannot do the job properly because we do not have the kit or the air crew, either we should not be doing it or we should start shopping, fast. Most people to whom I have spoken describe more battlefield helicopters as the urgent operational requirement. There are a number of other issues connected with the safety and effectiveness of our troops and officials in other Government agencies, of which the Minister is aware, but I do not propose to blunder into those in public.

In conclusion, the condensed view of many people with whom I have been in contact is as follows: the people of Helmand desperately want us there. They want security and reconstruction. They remember the 1950s, when they had irrigation and produced crops, and when they had proper roads and access to markets. They want those things again. They do not want endless war and opium. They want deliverance from poverty, but they also believe that there is a grave danger, given our tiny number of troops and the NATO model, of disappointing such high expectations. Of course it can be done and our troops are doing everything they can to ensure that it happens, within the constraints of the resources that they have.

The average Afghan is in his village and, metaphorically, sitting on the fence. He can either jump off it on the side of security and reconstruction or he can go the other way: the way of the Taliban and the side of insecurity, drugs and poverty. My fear is that the Taliban and external actors might be able to make the villagers feel that security is worse than it was before the British arrived. There would then be no development and another strategic failure, which will do nothing to make our people safer.

rose—

Order. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that I intend to call the Front-Bench winding-up speakers at, or very close to, half-past 10. Approximately four Members have signalled their wish to speak, so with even a moderate degree of self-discipline it ought to be possible for everybody to make a contribution.

The whole Chamber owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) for his interesting, well thought-out, well researched and thoughtful contribution this morning.

When the present Home Secretary was Secretary of State for Defence, he said that he would deploy to Helmand only if there was full support from DFID. I want to speak about that this morning, but before I do so, I should like to give some thanks and make some comments.

Last year I was fortunate, along with the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), to go to Afghanistan as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. May I, through the Minister of State, thank the officials in the MOD who organise that scheme? It must sometimes be a complete headache having a group of Members of Parliament lumbering around military establishments, but they look after us extremely well.

We were struck by the incredible work of the RAF in heavy lift. It has few heavy transport planes, which it is having to use in both Iraq and Afghanistan, working 24/7. It is a phenomenal task and the people involved do it incredibly well. We were also struck by the professionalism of our forces in Kabul. What a contrast we saw between UK squaddies out on patrol, making eye contact and being friendly with locals, and our American cousins, who are bunkered down in Humvees, travelling at huge speeds around Kabul, frightening the locals and causing mayhem. It is no wonder that people do not respect the United States; it is not difficult to see why that is so.

It was impressive seeing the work that was being done to train the Afghan army, but that process will obviously take a long time, particularly the building up of middle management and the relationships between sergeants and junior officers. None of us should genuinely expect much from the Afghan army for some time. That is not because they are not people who are committed and of good will; they are starting a long way back in respect of their training.

I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has disappeared. He and I were looked after by the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, which is being amalgamated into the Rifles. I hope that it will be able to keep its back badge. The Minister smiles, but such things matter in terms of the history of our nation. The regiment defeated the French in Egypt, despite the fact that the French were attacking in both directions. Despite the amalgamations, we hope that soldiers in the British Army can keep such things, which are icons.

Everyone recognises that British forces will do an extremely professional job, but in the brief time that I have left I want to talk about DFID. It has been in Afghanistan for some while, but its time has been spent almost entirely in Kabul. The work that it has been doing in Afghanistan is almost entirely about helping the machinery of government to work in Kabul—helping President Karzai and Government Ministries to work. That is not an easy post. It is an unaccompanied post. The number of DFID staff who are particularly interested in Asia is not that great; most of them are interested in Africa. I think that it has not been easy to recruit staff to go to Afghanistan for DFID, although it has had some extremely good people there.

As far as I can discover, there has never been an oral statement from DFID on what it is doing in Afghanistan, and I have tracked down only one written statement, which was made on 31 January. It talked about the 10-year development plan, but nothing very detailed has ever been provided about Helmand. The written statement reinforces the fact that DFID has felt happier or has been more focused on helping

“the Afghan Government’s planning and budgeting through more effective delivery and use of aid, resulting in greater impact on poverty”

and reducing

“the risk of funds being misused through weak administration or corruption.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. 17WS.]

DFID has been focused on the machinery of government in Kabul. Hon. Members know little about what DFID is doing in Helmand. How many UK-based staff are working in Helmand? Are they working through local non-governmental organisations and other local organisations? What are they doing to seek to establish alternative livelihoods? Or are we in a chicken-and-egg situation? Is security not yet good enough for DFID and other staff to get to Helmand? We do not even know yet what work DFID is doing in Helmand.

I know that many colleagues want to contribute to the debate. It would be extremely helpful if we could have the information that I have mentioned. The Government have made it clear that in this area of policy winning hearts and minds is partially what the military are doing in bringing in security. However, the question is also what DFID can do to increase and enhance alternative likelihoods. We need to know both sides of the story. Because Helmand will be difficult for journalists to access, we are rather dependent on the Government telling us what they are doing. Perhaps the Minister of State could ensure that colleagues in DFID appreciate that they also need to be telling this story; they also need to be telling us what is going on. Alternative livelihoods in Helmand and in Afghanistan as a whole will never be easy, but we need to see the complete picture.

I shall keep my remarks particularly short because I came into the Chamber a tad late. It is a delight to take part in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) for initiating it. It is an honour to follow my friend from the trip to Afghanistan, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and I, too, express my respect for the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, which hosted us in Mazar-e-Sharif and looked after us very well there and in Kabul.

I have three quick observations to make from the trip and from what I have read since. The first is an optimistic one. When we make such a trip, we realise how good our troops are, and not only at peacekeeping. The hon. Gentleman and I also saw the provincial reconstruction teams. We took a rather long journey to see how they engaged with some of General Dostum’s warlords. It was very moving as well as interesting to see them sit down and talk through issues that were arising, trying to bring about genuine peace on the ground. It was interesting to see the degree of detail that they have to go into. That just shows the commitment of our forces.

The second issue, which has been alluded to, is training. It is obvious that the real battle is training and retaining people in the army and police force of Afghanistan. That will not be a quick win; a long-term structural effort is required. The worry was that the work was being undertaken in different ways by different national entities. The French were training the officers and we were training the NCOs. There were clear tensions about the training. The fact that officers got the same level of training as NCOs and not much more than ordinary troops suggests a somewhat superficial command structure. We must keep putting effort into that.

My third point, which I make no apology for raising again, is about how we manage not just our entry to this difficult scenario—I support our having troops in Afghanistan, for reasons that I shall give in a second—but our exit strategy, inasmuch as this is an international commitment. Afghanistan is not like Iraq where, in effect, the United States and the United Kingdom are leading a peacekeeping effort.

Operations in Afghanistan are under the auspices of the United Nations, and therefore the UN must take responsibility through ISAF. We all know about the difficulties in getting clear commitments from some of the players in the lead-up to the British going into Helmand. The Dutch going into Uruzgan was a classic case. They would not go in until they had their own air cover. Thankfully, that situation was resolved, but I would like the Minister to describe the management process. We cannot keep 5,000 troops there indefinitely. We have to know how we will move through the responsibility that we have taken on, who will replace us and how they will do it, and what will happen.

The Americans continue to pursue various elements—for example, al-Qaeda and the Taliban through Operation Enduring Freedom—but in their own way will begin to reduce the number of troops that they have on the ground. We learned a simple fact about US logistical problems, in that the US uses many reservists. Come the end of their year, having paid off their mortgage, the reservists leave—I am sorry to be cynical, but it appears like that when one is out in the field—but the Americans do not necessarily have people to replace them. There are drivers affecting British military forces that are completely outside our control.

I wish to conclude with a question that has always worried me and which prompts my belief that we have to be in Afghanistan. What is the alternative? There is every threat that the Taliban could return and that Pakistan could be further destabilised. I went to Pakistan shortly before I went to Afghanistan. It is clear that President Musharraf is in a difficult situation with both the north-west frontier province and Baluchistan already somewhat in the grips of more extreme elements. We must recognise that the future of the whole region depends on some level of stability in Afghanistan, but that can happen only if we will the means and the minds of the people. That is why what our provincial reconstruction teams are doing is so important.

I heard what has been said about money. Perhaps the message from this debate is not for the Ministry of Defence but for the Department for International Development. If it is serious about moving through the military stage, which, sadly, we will be in for some years, substantial resources must be channelled through DFID conduits. However, the UN must recognise that this is a real test of its authority. Will it be able to engage properly in reconstructing a country that has known nothing but conflict for decades? It will be difficult to achieve that objective, but the alternative is far worse.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate. I would like to start by thanking and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) on securing this extremely timely debate on the situation in southern Afghanistan. Given the seriousness of the challenges facing our troops in Helmand province and the escalating violence in Afghanistan in recent weeks, this is an appropriate time to discuss these matters.

Without wishing to ignore or downplay the importance of issues such as whether our mission there was planned with sufficient clarity as to its objectives or adequately resourced, I should like to raise another factor that will be critical to the long-term peace, stability and reconstruction of Afghanistan. That is the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). My theory is that without much greater trust, co-ordination and pooled effort between the Governments of those countries, the situation will continue to deteriorate, the risks facing coalition troops will increase and the long-term success of the project will be even more difficult to achieve.

Five years ago the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan were seemingly smashed by the United States-led Operation Enduring Freedom which, although derided by many now, drew widespread praise at the time for its design and execution. Yet here we are in 2006 and Afghanistan is facing a resurgent Taliban movement that threatens to overwhelm that fledgling democracy and poses a real challenge to both coalition troops and the Afghan army.

Given that Afghanistan shares a rugged porous border of nearly 1,500 miles with Pakistan, and that Taliban fighters have found more than a few welcoming homes in the semi-autonomous tribal areas on the other side of that border, the goal of eradicating those militants was never going to be solely concerned with what happened within the Afghan interior.

Effective security in the border areas of both countries is vital for the overall reconstruction effort, but it is not easy to achieve, given that neither Kabul nor Islamabad has ever managed to extend any meaningful authority to those parts. That was well understood by military planners from the outset. However, while—under the auspices of the tripartite commission, which involves the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan—significant steps have been taken towards achieving a co-ordinated approach to stopping the cross-border flow of Taliban fighters, the overwhelming picture is one of mistrust, finger pointing and too little effective action by the Pakistan and Afghan Administrations.

Throughout the past 12 months, the Government of President Karzai have repeated complaints that militants in Pakistan are freely crossing the border and that Pakistan is being used as a launch pad for attacks inside Afghanistan.

Two months ago, the head of the Taliban in Pakistan, Haji Omar, vowed to continue attacks against foreign forces in Afghanistan. The claim is not just that the Taliban have found a safe sanctuary in the north-west frontier province of Pakistan, where they have been able to set up a major logistics hub and training camps and to carry out fundraising and recruitment, but that they have also received help from Pakistan's two provincial Governments, from Pakistani Islamic extremist groups, and from various Pakistani criminal gangs—while the Government in Islamabad looked the other way. Such claims may carry some truth, but the way in which they have been aired publicly by senior Afghan politicians and officials—at embarrassing moments for the US and Pakistan—has done nothing to strengthen the partnership that needs to exist if the Taliban problem is to be dealt with effectively.

Not surprisingly, President Musharraf’s Government hotly deny that they are providing any kind of safe haven for Taliban fighters or that they are providing less than full commitment to the anti-Taliban cause. I believe that Mr. Musharraf has shown great courage and taken personal risks in the fight against terrorism, but it would not be surprising if some of his lieutenants were less eager to quell Afghanistan’s insurgency, given that they remain dismayed at their loss of influence over a country that, under Taliban rule, they controlled to a significant extent.

Three months ago yet another joint statement was issued at the end of a tripartite commission meeting. It said that the three sides had agreed to enhance communication and co-ordination in order to fight al-Qaeda and Taliban guerrillas in the border area. However, verbal commitments to greater co-operation have been made all too often. Back in 2003, when Pakistan was utilising 60,000 troops in the semi-autonomous tribal areas to seek out al-Qaeda and Taliban members, the Afghan Government angrily accused it of effectively invading their territory. Such accusations and suspicions have even led to the sporadic exchange of gunfire between Afghan and Pakistani border outposts in the past two or three years. That is not the kind of partnership that is needed if the Taliban and al-Qaeda are to be defeated.

Many hon. Members will be aware that the situation is exacerbated by the border dispute to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham alluded, which dates back to the colonial era. Pakistan regards the border as settled; Afghanistan does not. In 2003, the Pakistani Government announced that they had begun fencing the border with Afghanistan, using as a justification their need to block infiltration by Islamic militants. That served only to raise suspicions even further on the Afghan side that Pakistan was seeking to close off any future discussions about the border.

The US has tried to resolve the border issue through the tripartite commission, but so far its effort has had little fruit. It is not just about which particular rocky mountainside the border should cross; the significance of the problem lies in the fact that the colonial border divided Pashtun tribal families who now want easier access to each other. They are the very people that the Taliban are trying to enlist in their cause.

There are fears in Pakistan about the spread of Taliban sympathies within the western border and in other parts of the country. According to reports from Pakistan earlier this year, the Taliban recently opened an office in the capital of south Waziristan, one of Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal areas, supposedly to help restore law and order.

As the UK shoulders an increasing burden for resourcing and leading the military campaign in Afghanistan, and as the US commitment is reduced, it is right for Her Majesty’s Government to consider what steps they can take to help neutralise the points of conflict between the Afghan and Pakistani Administrations, to encourage greater confidence-building measures and to create a much stronger anti-terror partnership between the two Governments.

Crucially, the UK needs to consider how it can strengthen and support the work of the tripartite commission, which has been led by the US and needs to become far more effective. The meeting of the commission two weeks ago in Pakistan was the first time that NATO and the international security assistance force participated as full members. It is important that our involvement with the commission is meaningful from the start. The shared interests of Afghanistan and Pakistan—security, trade and development—should be a healthy foundation on which to build a successful partnership, but that partnership seems very far off.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) on securing this important debate, and I offer my congratulations and thanks to the Chairman. Mr. Bercow, it is the first time that I have come under your tutelage, and it is a pleasure. I imagine that you are frustrated to watch us speaking with such authority in a debate about international issues. I am surprised that you did not ask us to end early in order to hear 10 minutes of your own views on the subject. Maybe that will happen; who knows?

I am pleased to be participating in this debate. It is not very long ago that I was speaking with the Minister in this very room on the same subject. As we have heard in a number of contributions today, it is not just a military matter any more; it is much more. I put on the record my disappointment that we have received no representation from the International Development team or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office team to answer our questions.

It is always a pleasure to see the Minister here, but it has been up to the Opposition to call this debate. Large numbers of British soldiers, DFID and other organisations are working in Afghanistan. Whenever there is a threshold of interest in another country, it deserves a major debate on the Floor of the House, not a Westminster Hall debate secured by the Opposition. We are here today, however, and the debate has been useful so far.

I had the pleasure of visiting Afghanistan last week—I got back on Thursday—with General Jones, who is the NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. General Jones is overseeing the expansion of ISAF forces as ISAF takes over three of the four regions of Afghanistan.

Hon. Members have expressed concerns about link-ups and the overstretch that our forces are experiencing. Some 36 countries are participating in the international security assistance force, with 10,000 troops. That looks very impressive on paper, but the unfortunate reality is that many countries are participating with caveats—restrictions or limitations imposed by their Government on how troops can and cannot be used. A simple but stark example is that German troops cannot go into combat. They are not allowed; their Government prevent them. Obviously there are historical reasons that need to be respected, but because of the number of combat troops available to do the job, it limits NATO’s ability.

There are also concerns about incompatibility between nations. NATO forces have a lot of experience of working together in Bosnia, Kosovo and other operations. However, in Afghanistan, there are still incompatibility issues in communications and, most importantly, airlift and logistics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham mentioned in his opening speech. The problem I discovered is that all the heavy and medium airlift capability is limited to the home country; in other words, Britain, for example, moves our own troops around Afghanistan, but we do not donate any of our aircraft to NATO. If NATO and ISAF want to move troops to react to a situation in another province or another area of Afghanistan, they have to request from the home nation the ability to use a C-130 or a C-17. That does not allow NATO to act as one. Logistically it is hampered.

There is also concern about equipment. The most worrying is to do with something called blue force tracker. That is a new piece of equipment stuck on to every single vehicle, allowing HQ to monitor it via satnav. The French refuse to use blue force tracker because they want to use another system that is being created by Thalys. That rival system is not yet on the shelf as it has yet to be invented. Huge frustration was expressed by General Jones and by General Richards, head of ISAF, who asked why we could not agree: why cannot Governments come together and collectively determine what is needed and what is not, rather than waiting until we are out in the field to discover that there are frictions in that area?

My hon. Friend also mentioned mission creep. Many of us here have military backgrounds. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) pointed out so eloquently, this is a DFID situation as well. NATO is creating an umbrella of security in Afghanistan, which is fundamental. But while we have a limited period underneath the umbrella of security that we are creating, that is when DFID and other international development organisations must come in and help Afghanistan to get off its knees. Otherwise when that umbrella of security is removed we will be left with an Afghanistan in the same place as it was three or four years ago, and we will have failed.

If we go to visit the provisional reconstruction teams as I did in Helmand, we will see that there is mission creep everywhere. NATO is very much involved, and certainly the British are, working hand in hand with DFID. There is just one DFID representative in Lashkar Gah, but she is working closely with our military. In the same way, this is a G5 project, which is a military term. It is mission creep; it is not going out there providing security. It is that extra step of going down to help to build a school. That is what is happening, but it is being done unofficially. It is unco-ordinated and there is no one above making sure that one hand knows what the other is doing. The problem is that we discover that many organisations are interfering with each other. There is no overall umbrella organisation controlling the international development emphasis. That is the one lesson that needs to be learned. I encourage the Minister to speak with his colleagues in DIFD to see whether that can be rectified.

Poppy crops have been mentioned. We cannot separate them from our task in Afghanistan, much as we went out there to deal with the terrorist aspects. Unfortunately we cannot separate those from what is happening. Last year was the biggest crop ever grown in poppies: 4,100 tonnes. That is after the millions of dollars spent trying to tackle the problem: $400 million was spent last year, but it had no impact whatever because it resulted in the largest crop ever seen.

In a meeting with President Karzai—I brought this up the last time we had a debate—I suggested the idea of a pilot scheme to purchase the poppy crops in a particular area; for example, Helmand, so that they could be removed and used to make the morphine and so forth that we need due to the shortage in the world. That was dismissed last time by a number of British representatives, by the Minister of State here and by other representatives too. President Karzai agrees that it is worth pursuing; so do General Jones, SACEUR, General Richards and the PRT team in Helmand.

It is appreciated that there are problems. Will people deliberately grow poppies simply to come in on the trade? There are only about 250,000 people involved in the poppy trade, but the impact that they are having on the rest of the country is phenomenal. We should think a little wider; we could certainly say, “We will buy the poppy crops off you this year, but next year, you have to match your poppy crop with a wheat crop.” That way, we are weaning people off growing poppies. That would prevent money getting into the hands of terrorists, who are causing so much mayhem around the world. It would also pour money into the local economy. Some 90 per cent. of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan, so we have a vested interest in challenging what is going on.

Helmand province is facing an awful lot of challenges. It has about 500 policemen, who are not trained; the whole programme of police development is about two years behind schedule. That is hindering the process because there is no overall collective responsibility in that area. Also, something called Talibanisation is occurring, and not only in Helmand. That is when locals and parts of tribes who are in debt have no loyalty to Afghanistan as a whole, but only to their family and then to their tribe. They get a large payment from organisations to come and take a pop at Americans or NATO troops and so forth. International development agencies need to help those individuals through alternative lifestyles, but I am afraid that that is not seen to be working, as a collective measure.

As has been mentioned, NATO’s footprint is actually quite small. We speak of Helmand province a lot because that is where the British presence is, but there are 30 provinces in all, and the neighbouring province of Nimroz is actually empty; there is not one British, American or NATO soldier, or one international development organisation, in that province. It is the same size as Helmand, yet there is no one there at all. If a terrorist organisation is in Helmand, and things get busy there, where do we think it will move to?

My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) eloquently illustrated the problem with the Pakistani border. When I visited it, it was clear that SUVs and other vehicles were able to drive straight through the border by paying some sort of tariff to the tribes that operate on the border. Pakistan certainly needs to do more to challenge what is happening there. There is no military presence in the 150 miles between Lashkar Gah and the border. If we are to tackle those issues, we certainly need more troops in the province.

I end on international development issues. While I was in Kabul, we met a number of agencies, and I took a look at some of the operations working on narcotics. Hon. Members will be aware that the issue is a G8 responsibility, the UK being the lead nation on that particular subject. There are six major organisations in Kabul run by the Afghans themselves, including the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Counter Narcotics, the Afghan national police, and so forth. On the NATO or military side, there are all the PRTs in the country, ISAF and the American equivalent, which is the Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan, and the operational mentor liaison teams.

In addition, there are other organisations, such as the counter-narcotics trust fund, the inter-agency operations and co-ordination cell and the joint co-operation management board. They have just been created in Afghanistan. In addition, there are all the UN organisations, the United States Agency for International Development, the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, the US embassy, the British Embassy, the EU mission and the EU Commission—which do not talk to each other; they have offices on different sides of Kabul. The World Bank is there as well. That is not to mention the Department for International Development and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which I understand is now helping with narcotics, too.

That is far too many organisations for us to really achieve the mission of dealing with international development and reconstruction in Afghanistan. Everybody from President Karzai down to the head of the PRT in Helmand province agrees that there is an urgent need for a co-ordinator, a Paddy Ashdown-type character, with the power to cut through the red tape imposed by donor countries on how money should be spent. [Interruption.] I thought that might get the Lib Dems excited. What is needed is a co-ordinator with the authority to influence the international agencies. That is not happening, and money is being thrown down the drain. The consequence is the largest poppy crop ever.

If we fail in Afghanistan, it will not be due to the size of the forces that we have sent there; it will be because we have not taken advantage of the fragile blanket of security that those forces provide. I believe that we have about two years to get it right.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow. Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) for securing the debate, particularly given the on-the-ground, detailed knowledge that he brings to it as a result of the time that he spent in the country recently and in his youth. I also pay tribute to my colleagues, who have made sure that we have had a wide-ranging debate on the military and international development aspects of this issue. In addition, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is not in his place, for his robust support for ensuring that the Glosters get their back badge. The Minister would expect me, as a Gloucestershire Member, to support that initiative, and I hope that he bears that in mind when he responds.

I am sure that the Minister will want me to give him sufficient time to respond to the many questions that have been raised, and I, too, want to ask him a few questions. Before I do, however, it is worth saying on behalf of the Opposition that the United Kingdom has a clear national interest in being involved with Afghanistan. We saw what happened when it was a failed state run by the Taliban regime. We have a clear interest in being there and ensuring that it is a successful, democratic state. The Conservative party supports that mission. The reason for asking the questions that we do is to ensure that we maximise its success and minimise the threat to our forces.

One question that has already been raised is on the resources that we have available. In response to the Defence Committee report on the UK deployment, which was published last week, the MOD stated that it believed that the force package that it was sending was

“sufficient to meet the threat”.

Immediately following the publication of that report, the Government had to announce that they were sending more troops to Afghanistan to secure the airfield at Kandahar.

Other hon. Members have touched on the scale of the province and the job that needs to be done there. It would be interesting if the Minister would say whether he is confident that the troops we have deployed there will be sufficient for the task in the future. The wider question has already been alluded to: given that the mission will go on for the long haul, do our defence planning assumptions need to be revised and do we need to examine our overall military resource?

On that subject, it is clear that NATO views our deployment in Afghanistan—or its deployment there—very much as a decade-long commitment. The current British mission is for three years. Given comments that the Government have made about the difficulty of that mission and the challenge that we face, it seems likely that we will be there for much longer than that. Will the Minister outline the Government’s current thinking about how long the mission will last?

Given that the need for the mission is clear and that a clear case for it can be made to the British people, having an honest and robust discussion now about the length of time that we are likely to be in Afghanistan, the difficulties in the mission and the risks that we face is the best way to ensure that, whatever troubles we have in the future, we retain robust public support.

Obviously, this is a NATO-led operation, but, as I said, the role of the UN is crucial. Clearly, the UN has various resolutions on Afghanistan and cannot wash its hands of this. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way to secure a force that might be able to continue after the NATO involvement is if the UN gets directly involved? What are his views on that?

I thank my neighbour for that intervention. My opinion of the efficacy of the UN is probably somewhat lower than his. He makes a sensible point about planning for involvement after the NATO involvement. The challenge has already been outlined by hon. Members talking about other national forces being deployed: the use of such forces is heavily restricted and subject to caveats.

The reality is that while this deployment remains of real danger to our troops, relatively few countries will be prepared to put their money where their mouth is. That probably means that the United States, the United Kingdom and perhaps one or two other countries will bear a significant burden simply because other countries are not prepared to deploy their troops in situations where they may come into harm’s way. That might not be a satisfactory outcome and we should do what we can diplomatically to try to change it, but that is the situation that we face.

One question that has been outlined relates to the availability of helicopter lift in Afghanistan and whether the lift is sufficient. Given the terrain, helicopters are vital; getting around that country by road alone is not adequate. Will the Minister comment on that issue, which was raised by the Defence Committee? When our soldiers were attacked 10 days ago, sadly leaving one officer dead and two seriously injured, did we have sufficient helicopter lift capability to ensure that they were able to be extracted quickly? Is the Minister confident that in any such future engagements helicopter lift will be available to ensure that our troops in difficulty have speedy extraction from danger?

There is some circularity on the issues of counter-narcotics and reconstruction. In its report, the Defence Committee stated that it believed that there was a fundamental tension between the UK’s objective of promoting security and stability and the counter-narcotics strategy. In its reply, the Ministry of Defence said that it did not believe that there was such a tension and that long-term stability could be obtained only if the opium trade were tackled. The difference in the two views is on the time scale involved. We agree with the Ministry of Defence and the Government that in the long term Afghanistan will be stable only if the drugs trade is tackled, but trying to tackle it in the short term before there is a proper security environment will be risky. Will the Minister comment on that? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I am not sure whether the resources and the work being done on the ground by DFID and the Foreign Office are adequate for the task.

If we table questions to the three Departments we get different answers. The MOD makes it clear that there can be no long-term security if the opium trade is not tackled whereas the Secretary of State for International Development states that delivering alternative livelihoods to those involved in the trade is highly dependent on the security situation. We need to decide which of those priorities should come first. If they are to be done in parallel we will need a more significant troop presence on the ground.

Looking at the role of the two operations, the then Secretary of State for Defence, now the Home Secretary, said on 26 January that we were deploying our force to protect and deter. The ISAF mission was unchanged, focusing on reconstruction. He made a clear distinction between insurgency or terrorist attacks on our forces, which would get a robust response, and our forces having a primary counter-terrorist role. We have repeatedly been told that it is not an offensive mission, but the lines seem increasingly to be being blurred. Last week, the press reported British involvement in Operation Mountain Thrust. Will the Minister confirm the nature of that mission? Was it an offensive mission, and was it undertaken by British forces under Operation Enduring Freedom or ISAF?

The Minister has said that the operation planned for ISAF will not involve it undertaking counter-terrorist operations, which remain the preserve of coalition assets under OEF. In a written question last week, the Secretary of State was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) whether he classified al-Qaeda and Taliban forces as insurgents or terrorists for the purpose of possible engagement by UK forces. He stated in his reply that no such classification of that threat was necessary for the purposes of the engagement of our forces in Helmand.

A distinction was clearly made by the then Secretary of State when he outlined our mission. He said that we would respond robustly but that ISAF would not primarily be a counter-terrorist operation. The written answer from the current Secretary of State seems to blur that distinction. If there is no attempt to define whether the threat that we face is terrorist or insurgent, then the nature of the missions is widened.

I have been pondering something that the hon. Gentleman said a minute or two ago and his following remarks. Bearing in mind that a sizeable number of soldiers from the Colchester garrison are already in Afghanistan, is he advocating that more British troops should be deployed there?

I am advocating that the number of troops should be equal to the mission. I want the Minister to outline the nature of the mission in which we are engaged and ensure that it is properly resourced, which we will be able to judge when he responds.

I want to leave the Minister the remaining 16 minutes to answer my questions, so I shall draw my remarks to a close.

I do not think that I have served under your chairmanship before either, Mr. Bercow. You have chaired the proceedings very well.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) on securing the debate. As ever, such debates are worth while and serve a genuine purpose. He has not trashed my morning, because I hear things that make me reflect and think. In the time available I will not be able to answer all the questions that have been asked, but I shall do my best to touch on some of them in general terms and some specifically.

I thank the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) for their contributions, and I also thank the two Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen.

Before I deal with the issues raised in the debate, I wish to pay tribute to Captain Jim Philippson, who was killed in Afghanistan on 11 June. In the same incident, two of his fellow soldiers, from the Royal Artillery and the Royal Horse Artillery, were seriously injured. Captain Philippson’s death underlines what a demanding mission our forces have in Afghanistan. I know that all hon. Members will join me in offering condolences to Captain Philippson’s family, and sympathy to the injured soldiers and their families.

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) asked how casualty evacuation was delivered. An investigation is being held into how rapid our response was, and I shall write to him about that. We try to deliver a rapid and effective CASEVAC approach at all times, but lessons must be learned if it does not deliver as it should. It is an ongoing investigation and we will find out the background.

Everyone accepts our reasons for being in Afghanistan. We all vividly remember the terrible events of 11 September 2001, which provoked a justifiable international reaction. It is worth remembering that it was the first time in its 57-year history that article V of NATO’s treaty had to be invoked. If we had not acted, Afghanistan would have remained a cauldron of competing fanatics, tribal warlords and drug smugglers. In short, it would have remained the ideal breeding ground for a new generation of global terrorists. There were noises off—some did not think that it was justified—but in the wider political spectrum it was recognised to be fully justified.

We must prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a haven for the likes of al-Qaeda and other insurgents. We must help her people rebuild their nation as a functioning, stable, secure and prosperous country. To put it bluntly, it is in our interests to do so. It will always be in the interests of the Afghans, but it is also in our interests. It is the right thing to do: we are helping a people, a society, to recover from the corrosive impact of decades of war, criminality and repression.

The hon. Member for Gravesham clearly set out his support for, and justification of, our presence in Afghanistan; and everyone else who contributed to the debate, in their own way, made a similar point. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) spoke about the extent of our commitments globally. It is always easy to criticise, but those who make such criticisms ought to say what we should not be doing. Questions are easily asked, but answering them is much more difficult. Does the hon. Gentleman not want us to be in the Falklands, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, or in Iraq under a United Nations mandate? Does he not want us to be involved in sub-Saharan Africa? When he raises such questions, he should ask himself where we should not be. Perhaps we are to be enlightened.

The answer is quite clear. We should not have started from that position. We stated our opposition to the Iraq war from the early stages.

I am not going to debate whether we should be in Afghanistan—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] We are where we are, and such a question must be answered from that point, and not from where it is thought we should be. When the hon. Gentleman asks the question, he should ask himself those other questions. We are in Iraq under a UN mandate. Is he now saying that we should withdraw our troops? If so, it would be an interesting development of Liberal Democrat policy.

Why are we in Helmand? As we have heard, it is an ungoverned space and the conditions are unquestionably severe.

Will the Minister give way?

I have only 10 minutes left to respond to the debate, but if I find time I shall certainly do so.

The authority of the central and provincial authorities is weak. There is no question about the influence of the insurgents, no matter how they are defined, and the drug traffickers are in a strong position. Large parts of the province lack any real government, and its people are unquestionably very poor. As the hon. Member for Gravesham pointed out, it was once the bread-basket of Afghanistan, and that is what we are trying to recover. Can we restore that part of Afghanistan and revive the legitimate economy in the region? That is our objective. We want to make a positive difference. By doing that there, we can help the rebuilding of the whole of Afghanistan.

I responded last week to the Defence Committee’s recent report. It noted some of the issues that must be addressed, and the issues that it raised are valid, but overall it endorses our objectives in Afghanistan. It recognised, as the Government do, that our goals are ambitious. They will not be achieved easily. Things will not happen overnight. There is no simple equation. That applies to any troubled part of the world where we try to achieve a stable economy and the redevelopment, or sometimes the creation, of a society that understands the benefits of democracy and all that flows from that. That applies wherever we find ourselves, and Afghanistan is no different.

I was asked how long the mission is for. We have made a commitment for three years. That is a long-term commitment—longer than usual—but we do not expect to achieve all our objectives within the three years, as I told the Select Committee when I gave evidence. It would be foolhardy to say that we would not have a presence in Afghanistan three years or five years from now, or perhaps even later. However, our current presence in Helmand has a specific purpose. Progress will be uneven, but given the size and potency of our force package, I believe that we can make a real difference.

The Minister does not think that by the end of three years we will have achieved all our objectives, but does he have a sense at this stage of what we can realistically expect to have done by that time?

I can speculate. There is always the danger of being too specific, because the nature of the environment that we are in can create uncertainty. Things will be extremely difficult. We do not know what will be thrown at us. However, we have planned very carefully for this mission. We know the potential strength that is there and we have put in place a potent force to deal with it. Of course, it is not just a UK presence. Other countries are heavily engaged in all that. It is part of NATO’s mission. Again, we know the purpose of what we are seeking to do.

We started in Kabul. For too long, Afghanistan was Kabul-centric. There was no governance beyond Kabul. We then developed the concept of provincial reconstruction teams. We reached out into the north and the west. Those who have visited Mazar-e-Sharif will have seen the benefits of that. It was a more benign part of the country, but it was not without dangers. In the early stages of that PRT, there were real threats on the ground. However, we have stabilised the situation. We have got a measure of development and support from the local population.

It was logical that next we had to take the benefits of that—the construct of that—and look at other ungoverned parts of Afghanistan, which is what we are doing. That is stage 3 of ISAF’s development. It is why we are in Helmand and the rest of the south. If we make good progress there, the next step is to move into the east and stage 4. That is an ambitious programme. It cannot be delivered by the UK or even by the UK and US together; it has to be multinational. There has to be international buy-in. There has to be that NATO commitment.

The hon. Member for Gravesham asked about the financial commitment. I know that he was not saying that money alone can solve the problem. It cannot, but money is a real trigger for progress. At the London conference earlier this year, the UK committed £500 million. That is a sizeable tranche of money, and it is in addition to the £1 billion or more that we announced for our military commitment. The sum, which is across Government, is not just for Helmand but for the whole of Afghanistan. It is part of a total donor commitment from international pledges of $10.8 billion—again, a sizeable package of aid. The question is how the aid is delivered and used to achieve the objectives.

Will the Minister give way?

I want to make one or two other points. I have been asked many questions, and I want to give some detail in my responses.

In Helmand, we plan to spend £38 million on non-military activity this financial year, and there is an ongoing commitment of £20 million per annum for support programmes. The overall change in Afghanistan is truly substantial. Consider the number of people who are now at school, the number of health clinics that have been built and the way normal society is beginning to come into play. Those who have visited the country and tried to understand it appreciate the benefits that have come mainly to areas in and around Kabul and in the north and the west. We must now try to replicate those benefits in the south and the east.

On co-ordinating our activities with DFID, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East was right to point out that there is only one DFID representative in the south. At present, security issues do not allow easy transference out of the social and economic programmes that we need to deliver. Interestingly, because of close ministerial engagement and the new way of working cross-Government—there is a sharp focus in Government on delivering across Government agencies—DFID could be working in the field alongside military personnel as a way of delivering its programmes.

I do not accept that our efforts are unco-ordinated. They are not yet well specified because the situation on the ground has to be better understood and stabilised. We could put civilians’ lives at risk if we just go out and start to do things. Clearly, it would be detrimental and highly damaging if lives were lost. We must ensure that we get a return from our programmes when we go out to deliver them. We have shown that we can do that in the rest of Afghanistan, so let us build on that model.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about multi-agency working. There are many agencies in Afghanistan, and that is a good thing. It shows buy-in by the international community. A joint co-ordination and management board has been created to oversee the Afghanistan compact. The board is chaired by the Afghans and the United Nations and brings together ISAF, the combined forces command in Afghanistan, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Union and other agencies. The hon. Gentleman’s criticism that multi-agency working can result in dissipation and duplication is valid. Agencies should not compete with each other but should be complementary. That is how we seeking to develop programmes.

The point was made about DFID’s role and how the Department should answer these questions, and I do not disagree. We are open about what we are trying to do, but if the view is that there is a paucity of response from DFID or other Departments, I will ask my colleagues to ensure that their message is getting out. Getting the message out is one of the benefits of this debate.

I have many more points to make but time is working against me. I will consider some of the key issues that have been raised and write to hon. Members to give them a better understanding of where we are going.

The men and women of our armed forces play a major part in our work to help bring about a more stable and secure Afghanistan, and they do so in difficult, uncomfortable and often dangerous conditions. Anyone who has seen them deployed on operations will know that they act with great courage, restraint and good humour. They deserve our full support, and I know that that opinion is shared by everyone in this Chamber.

I am very glad to be able to initiate this debate on the 1996 Hague convention on the international protection of children. I start with a point of curiosity, which I hope that the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who is responding to the debate, will not take personally. The debate is on a human rights issue, and I am curious to know why the Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is not replying to the debate. After last Thursday’s human rights debate in Westminster Hall, I had the opportunity to mention to him that I had secured this debate, and he said that he expected that he would reply to it. He is, as the Minister is aware, not only the Minister with responsibility for human rights but a previous Chair of the all-party group on child abduction, which I currently have the privilege of co-chairing with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner). He would, therefore, have been extremely well qualified to respond to the debate and I hope that that is not the reason why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has decided that he should not do so. Having said that, may I, as always, welcome the Minister for the Middle East. I know that, with his usual diligence, he will have burned the midnight oil and got himself fully up to speed on the convention.

The non-ratification by EU member states—apart from a small handful, which ratified it before becoming EU member states—is regrettably one of the worldwide scandals from a human rights standpoint. I use the phrase advisedly. It is a scandal and it is having serious human rights repercussions. It would be a scandal wherever it happened, and one might expect such a thing to occur in a part of the world that was conspicuous for violations of human rights. However, one would not expect such a situation to arise in an area such as the EU, which prides itself on the fundamental importance that it attaches to human rights—including children’s rights—and which makes them a centrepiece of its architecture. However, that is the position.

I shall come on to why EU states have still to ratify the 1996 Hague convention, but I want to highlight at the outset why its ratification is critical. Its significance was well summarised in a letter from the Secretary-General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Mr. Hans van Loon, to the then EU President, Mr. Luc Frieden, on 25 February 2005, in which he appealed to him to achieve EU ratification of the convention during the Luxembourg presidency. Mr. van Loon wrote as follows:

“The 1996 Convention, which entered into force on the international plane on 1 January 2002, has huge potential to bring justice and relief to parents and children dispersed over EU territory and third States of all continents, including countries from within the Islamic tradition (Morocco is already a Party to the 1996 Convention). It will help prevent international child abduction and provide a secure legal framework for cross-border contact between children and their parents when families separate. It will help, worldwide, to establish a framework for the co-ordination of legal systems, and for international judicial and administrative co-operation, which will further many objectives of the almost universally ratified United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children of 20 November 1989, and complement the widely ratified Hague Conventions of 25 October 1980 on Child Abduction and of 29 May 1993 on Inter-country Adoption.”

That passage from the letter to the then EU president shows all too clearly what is at stake in ratifying the convention. The specific rights of children and the opportunities that the convention presents to give them additional protection were extremely well summarised by the deputy Secretary-General of the Hague conference, Professor William Duncan, in the conference’s judges’ newsletter of last autumn. Professor Duncan wrote of the benefits to children that will arise from the ratification of the 1996 convention:

“The children who stand to benefit include: those who are the subject of international parental disputes over custody or contact, those who are the subject of abduction or wrongful retention (including in those countries which are not able to join the 1980 Convention on international child abduction), those who are placed abroad in alternative care arrangements which do not come within the definition of adoption and are therefore outside the scope of the 1993 Convention on inter-country adoption, those who are the subject of cross-border trafficking and other forms of exploitation, including sexual abuse, those who are refugees or are simply vulnerable unaccompanied minors.”

The 1996 Hague convention is of the most profound importance to vulnerable, needy, exploited and sexually abused children all over the world. Its non-ratification denies all those categories of children the benefits of the legal protection that it would afford.

I appreciate that the position is not 100 per cent. black worldwide, and that the EU has taken it upon itself—quite unnecessarily, in my view—to introduce its own parallel provision to the 1996 Hague convention in its 2005 parental responsibility regulation. However, although that effectively gives children in the EU the protection afforded by the 1996 Hague convention, it provides that protection only in cases of abduction and so on between EU member states. It does not provide any protection in abduction and other cases involving an EU member state and a state outside the EU, or to children who are involved in such cases between two states that are both outside the EU. The protection provided so far for children by the EU 2005 parental responsibility regulation is very limited geographically.

I come to the key issue: why has the 1996 Hague convention, a vital convention for the protection of children, not been ratified so far by the EU? The answer is one word, and that word, extraordinarily and reprehensibly, is Gibraltar. It is because the British Government and the Spanish Government are unable to agree on how the 1996 convention should be operated within Gibraltar that children throughout the world are being denied the crucial protection and fundamental rights that they would otherwise have under the 1996 Hague convention.

It is because of the dispute over Gibraltar and how the convention should be operated in Gibraltar that, although the Hague convention came into force in January 2002, now—four and a half years later—we still have no EU ratification. It is a completely unacceptable position and I must say that both the British Government and the Spanish Government should be hanging their heads in shame that such an important issue to benefit children throughout the world is not available because they are unable to deal with the Gibraltar dimension.

I say straight away that I understand the significance of the sovereignty of Gibraltar issue. Indeed, as a Member of Parliament individually and as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have been consistently robust in defending and upholding the right of the people of Gibraltar to determine their own future and to do so by a legitimate and democratic process of self-determination. They should not have their sovereignty removed against their will. The issue that the Spanish and the British Governments should be attempting to resolve and which should have been resolved ages ago is how to disentangle the Gibraltar sovereignty issue from the equally imperative issue—in this context, I would say more imperative—of getting the 1996 Hague convention ratified. That is not difficult, given good will and common sense.

I say to the Minister that the British Government have been here before, well within living memory. I shall give him a precedent. We were in the same position when dealing with sovereignty vis-à-vis Argentina after the end of the Falklands war. The British Government had to normalise their relations with the Argentine Government. They had to do business with them, sort out the limits of fishery zones, fishery protection issues, the resumption of civil flights between the Falkland Islands and Argentina and the resumption of sensible commercial relations between them. That was done successfully in the obvious, simple way of the British Government and the Argentine Government agreeing to put the sovereignty issue on one side, take it off the table and concentrate on reaching common-sense, responsible solutions that were in the interests of the Falkland islanders and the people of Argentina. That is how the issue was solved. It seems wholly negotiable to achieve a similar solution to the issue between the Spanish Government and the British Government.

What I question about the British Government is whether they are putting the amount of effort into solving the matter that it requires. We are talking about the denial to children throughout the world of the protection afforded by the 1996 Hague convention. To establish what degree of priority the British Government and Ministers have given to the issue, I recently tabled a question in anticipation of eventually being successful with this Adjournment debate. It stated:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which Government Ministers have had discussions with Spanish Ministers on the ratification of the Hague Convention of 1996 on the International Protection of Children; and on what dates such discussions took place.”

First of all, for some unknown reason the question that I tabled was transferred by the Foreign Office to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I fail to see why the Foreign Office ducked answering the question. On 8 May, however, I received a reply from the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who said:

“My right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary raised the matter in a letter to the current Spanish Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Mbratinos, on 12 October 2004.

In addition to this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham…raised the issue in a meeting with the then Spanish Europe Minister on 13 November 2003, when Minister for Europe. On 24 November 2003 Baroness Scotland also discussed the issue with Ana Palacio, the then Spanish Foreign Minister.”—[Official Report, 8 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 111W.]

So the shocking answer, and I did find it truly shocking, is that Ministers have raised this issue three times, and three times only, since the convention came into force in January 2002—four and a half years ago. I appreciate that work has been going on at official level, but what priority have Ministers been giving this key issue when they have raised it just three times in the past four and a half years? The Government are giving this key human rights and child protection issue an unacceptably inadequate level of priority.

We had a golden opportunity to crack the problem during the British presidency last year, because the presidency gave us influence and the ability to prioritise the agenda. Mr. Hans van Loon returned to the charge and wrote to the Prime Minister, who was then President of the EU, drawing attention to the incredibly negative effects that non-ratification was having on the prospects of ratification around the world. He said:

“We are also concerned about the negative effects of delay on other regions of the world. There is interest in the 1996 Convention among a growing number of States in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South and North America, among others. The Convention is viewed as an instrument which will not only help to build bridges between the regions but also have an application to some of the very challenging problems of cross-frontier child protection within certain regions such as Southern and Eastern Africa. The ratification of the Convention by all European Union States will send out a strong signal internationally. It will be an act of leadership which will bring benefits to children in different parts of the world.”

Well, the Prime Minister replied on 22 November 2005, and hon. Members will draw their own conclusions about his reply, although I think that it is very disappointing. It is brief, so I shall read it out in full. Mr. Blair wrote to Mr. van Loon:

“Thank you for your letter of 25 October about the 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children.

The UK is well aware of the Convention, and remains committed to securing its ratification. I sympathise with your frustration that this has not happened, and I was grateful for your thoughts on how to break the impasse over this, and other, instruments. You are aware of the difficulties raised by Spain over Gibraltar, and the background to these. We have tried to be flexible, working in both our national capacity and as EU Presidency, and explored various possible solutions with both Spain and Gibraltar. So far, a resolution has eluded us. But I am hopeful that we can eventually achieve one, working through the dialogue between Spain, Gibraltar and the UK that Jack Straw and his Spanish counterpart established last year. We will, of course, continue to keep you posted on progress.”

And progress on this issue during the British presidency there was none. As far as I am aware, there has been none since. However, the issue has been selected for debate today, so perhaps the telephone wires have been humming and a deal has been done over the weekend. With good will, it would have been perfectly possible to do a deal over the weekend, and perhaps the Minister will announce that the problem has been solved. That would be wonderful. Should that not be the case, however, the British and Spanish Governments will continue to be censured by all the other EU member states, and by international groups around the world concerned with child protection, for failing to resolve this issue and for preventing the ratification of the 1996 Hague convention on the international protection of children. In my view, such censure will be richly deserved.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on securing the debate. I know from his distinguished record in this field how strongly he feels, as indeed do you, Mr. Bercow, about the subject. He is right that there can be few subjects of greater importance. I shall try to explain why this extremely regrettable impasse continues.

There was quite a debate in the Foreign Office about who should deal with this subject. The right hon. Gentleman is right to question why I am answering the debate and not my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who is the Minister with responsibility for human rights, or my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. The reason is precisely because of some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised when he described the importance of the Hague convention. Such issues stray into my responsibilities, and they include human trafficking. These are very serious issues and I hope that he will accept my answer to his debate, which I am glad he raised.

May I begin by saying that the Government are well aware of the 1996 Hague convention on the protection of children and its significance, and remain committed to securing its ratification? I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration that this has not so far happened.

Before dealing with specific concerns, I shall take the opportunity to make a few comments to set the context for my response. Both the 1996 Hague convention and the new EU parental responsibility regulation are intended to reinforce the operation of the 1980 Hague child abduction convention, one of the most widely adopted and most effective Hague conventions worldwide.

The 1996 Hague convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children is one of a number of international instruments that are intended to work together to secure better outcomes for children in circumstances where cross-border arrangements have to be made for residence and contact—known as custody and access internationally—following family breakdown.

The revised Brussels II regulation—EC regulation No. 2201/2003—which came into force on 1 March 2005, was drafted to take account of the provisions on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to children contained in the 1996 Hague convention.

EU member states signed the 1996 Hague convention on the protection of children on 1 April 2003. It is intended that they will ratify the convention simultaneously. Several EU member states will need legislation in order to ratify. The revised Brussels II regulation gives partial Community competence in this field, which means that ratification must take place on an EU-wide basis. As matters stand, the UK will need primary legislation in order to ratify the 1996 Hague convention on the protection of children.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, Spain is currently blocking the EU from making decisions on the signature or ratification of international instruments that involve a degree of EU competence unless special provision is made for their application to Gibraltar. The most prominent case to date has been the 1996 Hague convention on the protection of children.

Spain wants to limit the extent of direct contact between the competent authorities in Gibraltar and those of other parties to such instruments, including states outside the EU. We understand that the Spanish view such contact as recognition of the 1969 Gibraltar constitution, which the right hon. Gentleman hinted at. However, they have never acknowledged that constitution because the preamble makes clear the principle of Gibraltarian consent to any change in sovereignty, and we do not consider the 1969 constitution to have any sovereignty implications.

That problem held up EU business in the late 1990s. The UK therefore entered into detailed negotiations with Spain, in consultation with Gibraltar; and in April 2000 we agreed a system that allows for indirect communication between EU member states and the competent authorities in Gibraltar, via the FCO—the so-called “post-box” system. That covers business within the EU, and a limited number of international treaties. What Spain wants represents a significant move beyond those arrangements—that any country that is party to an international instrument to which the EU is party must communicate with Gibraltar via the FCO post-box.

In 2003, as a compromise on the Hague convention on parental responsibility, the UK offered to consider using the post-box between EU member states and Gibraltar. Spain refused to accept that solution, and more recently the broader issue of post-boxing was raised by the Government in the trilateral forum—a dialogue between Spain, Gibraltar and the UK that was established in 2004. That forum is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman spoke of when he mentioned arrangements made after the Falklands war. It is about putting sovereignty to one side and making progress on co-operation between Spain, the UK and Gibraltar, which is what we want to see happen.

Will the Minister say why the British and Spanish Governments were able to agree over the operation in Gibraltar of the EU’s parental responsibility regulation, but could not agree to a similar arrangement that would enable the 1996 Hague convention to be settled?

As I understand it, the Hague convention is of an altogether different order. It is not an EU provision; it is an international treaty and it is therefore treated differently within the EU.

I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about what we have been trying to do about it recently, but since the establishment of the trilateral forum, representatives of the UK, Spain and Gibraltar have been sitting at the same table, each with an equal voice. The post-box is an anachronism. It impedes the development of better and more efficient communication.

So far, the Spanish Government have not been able to offer an acceptable proposal. However, we will continue, through the trilateral forum, to find a way forward acceptable to all three parties that will enable the EU to ratify the 1996 Hague convention. Indeed my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe was in Madrid on Monday and in Gibraltar on Tuesday for discussions in the context of the trilateral forum.

A special commission will discuss the work of the 1980 Hague convention from 30 October to 9 November 2006; and the Hague conference intends to devote one and a half days to discussing the implementation of the 1996 Hague convention. I hope that we can arrive at a solution. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that it is urgent. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has been dealing with the matter over the past couple of days.

Member states are being canvassed about what issues should be raised at the special commission, and the questionnaire includes questions on the 1996 convention. We recognise that the United Kingdom will probably be criticised at the special commission—the right hon. Gentleman has criticised us, and so will Spain—for holding up implementation of the 1996 convention. It is a serious matter.

Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the Minister.

I am not inclined to view you as an avenging magistrate, Mr. Bercow, but may I begin by saying how delightful it is to appear before you for the first time?

This debate on future funding for local transport is timely, as the Treasury is beginning work on the 2007 comprehensive spending review, and it has been pursued primarily on behalf of me and other Members representing metropolitan areas served by passenger transport executives. We support the Passenger Transport Executive Group in advancing the case for funding for our areas, not only because of the key economic role that they play, but because of the increasingly crucial environmental factors that also underpin the case for enhancing local public transport. I hope that my hon. Friends from other PTE areas will succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Bercow.

At the end of the debate, I would like to present my hon. Friend the Minister with a hot-off-the-press copy of the PTEG case for investment. I ask her to confirm her willingness to meet with me and other PTEG MPs in the near future to discuss its content.

We hope that the CSR process and the Department for Transport submission to it will be an opportunity to bid for the additional investment that we need in public transport networks in city regions. In the last spending review, London made a good case for better public transport. There is no doubt that London needed and deserved better public transport, and the Labour Government can be rightly proud of how they and a Labour Mayor worked together to agree a £10 billion, five-year investment plan for the capital.

Of course, London is the UK’s world city and a major driver of the UK economy. It put forward a cogent and successful argument that a modern, efficient public transport network is crucial to its continuing growth. However, after London, the economic drivers of the UK are the country’s other city regions. They also need modern, efficient transport networks if they are to continue to drive wider regional economies.

It is straightforward to paint a broad economic case for investment in public transport in those regions, and I shall refer to that in more detail later, but the case equally needs to explore the benefits to and positive impact on the people we represent, and the neighbourhoods in which they live, in terms of tackling social exclusion, congestion and pollution, and dealing with road safety and parking problems, as well as all the other effects that come with increased use of private cars and the inadequacies and shortcomings of public transport. That is why I will, on occasion, descend from higher and loftier planes to the more parochial experience in my own constituency.

In descending from the heights to the depths, will my hon. Friend also descend from the built-up areas of West Yorkshire, the west midlands and so on, where PTEs operate, to recognise that there are similar issues in the less densely populated parts of the country? They also need improvements in public transport by whatever financial means may be possible. The Chancellor’s recent contribution towards concessionary fares in those parts of the country and free national fares will be a huge boost to regions such as the east midlands, which do not benefit from access to PTE funding.

I could never describe talking about my constituency as descending to the depths. I am forced to correct my hon. Friend for what I am sure was an inadvertent slip of the tongue. As I indicated at the outset, I shall concentrate on PTE areas, but I am sure that his intervention will have made the wider point to my hon. Friend the Minister.

As a Leeds MP, Leeds is the example with which I am most familiar. Much of my contribution will focus on Leeds and West Yorkshire, but the general points that I shall make could be made about all PTE regions and, as an aside to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), possibly about other areas as well.

Over the past 20 years, Leeds has created more jobs than any major city outside London. Between 1981 and 2002, it added 86,000 new jobs to its work force. It has provided more than 30 per cent. of the 144,000 net additional jobs in the Yorkshire and Humberside region that were created between 1994 and 2004. It is expected to provide about 46 per cent. of the region’s additional 60,000 jobs between 2004 and 2014.

Although jobs have been created in Leeds, many are being taken up by people living outside the Leeds city boundary. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of people commuting to Leeds increased by 38 per cent. The trend towards more and longer-distance commuting will continue as cities such as Leeds develop as centres for high-value economic sectors in financial and legal services. However, although such cities are transforming themselves, the pace of renewal within wider city regions such as Leeds and between those city regions varies substantially.

It is an unfortunate fact that our cities and city regions have yet to make the European premier league. For example, in the top 50 European cities for gross domestic product per capita, there are only three English representatives: London, Bristol and Leeds, with Leeds in 43rd place. The economic performance of the north also lags significantly behind that of London and the south-east. The gross added value per head in Yorkshire and Humber is £14,222 compared with £18,411 for the south-east. PTE areas also have some of the worst concentrations of deprivation in the country, with 84 of the 100 most deprived neighbourhoods being located in metropolitan areas.

If we are to raise the economic performance of our city region, tackle deprivation and deal with increasing environmental problems, we need to accelerate not only the pace of economic renewal, but infrastructural issues such as public transport. That regeneration must take place on a sustainable basis—it is not simply a case of dashing for growth at all costs.

We cannot simply create more jobs and businesses, generate more journeys and build more houses without examining the impact on communities and the infrastructure required. Transport is a crucial part of that process.

I apologise for being unable to stay for the entire debate, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing it. Does he agree that this is a matter of improving not just buses, trains and even the supertram, but the roads in West Yorkshire, where we are neighbouring Members of Parliament? They must receive a fair share of spend from the Highways Agency to relieve many of the pressure points that run into Leeds, as well as the Saltaire roundabout in my constituency, where many local people consider we do not receive a fair share of that money.

I shall touch briefly on investment in roads, although I must admit that my contribution will focus mainly on rail and bus public transport.

I was speaking about sustainability. Some parts of my constituency have seen substantial additional house building on brownfield sites—an experience that typifies that of many hon. Members here today. We have frequent arguments about the sustainability and density of such developments. Planners seem to base their interpretation of planning guidance, such as planning policy guidance note 3, on the simple existence of a local rail station, rather than realistic analysis of the capacity of that station and the line that runs through it to provide transport to the increasing number of residents generated by the developments.

It is fair to say that, working with PTEs, the Government have invested heavily in schemes that have been effective in supporting the economic revitalisation of core cities such as Leeds, tackling exclusion and, to a certain degree, addressing some of the environmental issues of which I have spoken. I can cite examples from my constituency, which is served by three stations and three different rail lines—Horsforth, New Pudsey and Guiseley. They have had major improvements, and all three have undergone refurbishment and renewal. The efficiency of Leeds City station has been increased with a £250 million investment to reduce congestion and delays. A rail passenger partnership grant has enabled the provision of excellent new 333 class rolling stock on the Airedale and Wharfedale line.

I shall listen with interest to the comments of Conservative Front Benchers, but I must say that there could be no starker contrast between what was on that line under the Conservative Government and what is there now. We have replaced 40-year-old slam-door cast-offs from the south-eastern commuter belt with the most up-to-date, relevant stock imaginable. Much of the investment has gone into playing catch-up, and we need even more to catch up further.

I have been listening intently as my hon. Friend has built his arguments, and I agree with them. However, I must apologise for being unable to stay because this important debate clashes with a sitting of the Transport Committee, which starts in five minutes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although investment has gone to Leeds and our other major cities, they have suffered from a double whammy? The investment gap per capita there has been growing as compared with London and we suffer from the disadvantage of a deregulated bus system that is inferior to the regulated one here.

My hon. Friend mentions two points that are close to the hearts of PTEG members. I shall come to them in due course, and at some stage in the not too distant future we will pursue the Minister over them.

As more and more people are commuting to new jobs in Leeds, the West Yorkshire rail network has grown phenomenally during the past 10 years, from 1.5 million journeys in 1994-95 to 21.1 million in 2004-05. The modernised Airedale line, which runs through the constituency of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), now has a 75 per cent. share of commuter trips to Leeds. Unsurprisingly, that growth has led to overcrowding on peak services, which is a continual source of complaint from our constituents. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement.

To help to tackle the problem, Metro, West Yorkshire’s passenger transport executive, is working with Yorkshire Forward and Northern Rail to develop a £20 million partnership to add 12 additional carriages to the local train network. That will include extra capacity on two lines through my constituency that suffer from serious overcrowding, the Harrogate and Calderdale lines.

The investment should lead by 2013 to a reduction of more than 90 million road vehicle kilometres. That equates to a net saving of 3,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide. On the question of carbon emissions, we know from research by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research that per passenger mile, rail travel produces only 40 per cent. as much CO₂ as petrol-fuelled cars and only 50 per cent. as much as cars fuelled by diesel. Coaches and buses compare even more favourably, with figures of 30 and 40 per cent. respectively.

Another West Yorkshire Metro initiative that supports the continuing revitalisation of Leeds is a free city bus service, provided in response to the organisations represented by the Leeds Initiative and other major city employers. The free city bus links up key points in the city centre with main rail stations. Since the service started in January, it has proved hugely popular, with passenger numbers topping 500,000 in just five months, and has taken some 1,450 journeys a week off Leeds roads.

The West Yorkshire yellow school bus service is another Government-supported initiative that has proved hugely successful. It provides a safe and high-quality home-to-school service and is reducing congestion caused by the school run. In fact, 70 per cent. of pupils who use the service used to travel to school by car. The yellow bus is taking 8,000 km of car travel off the roads each week, and by 2007, 300 West Yorkshire schools will be benefiting from the scheme. As the Prime Minister said when congratulating Metro on winning the working together category at the recent national public servant of the year awards, the scheme represents a remarkable achievement.

I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that these schemes demonstrate how a Labour Government, working with local PTEs as their delivery agencies, are bringing real improvements to transport for the city regions. However, welcome though those schemes are, there are clearly not enough resources available for the PTEs to keep pace with the needs of the growing economies in our major cities and increasing environmental problems faced by our local communities and constituents.

So, it is equally clear that unless we obtain more investment in public transport, the combination of traffic congestion and a public transport network that cannot cope with the number of passengers using it will begin to choke our communities and strangle economic growth in cities such as Leeds and other PTE areas.

In the light of last year’s cancellation of plans for the Leeds supertram—I do not intend to go into that in any great detail—a 20-year transport vision has been drawn up for the Leeds city region. The data presented in the vision document show that overcrowding problems already affect most rail services to Leeds during peak hours. They also indicate that the strategic highway link, including several sections of the M1, the M62 and the M621, is operating close to capacity. At morning peak hours on the M621 between junctions 5 and 6 near Leeds, for example, speeds are as low as 20 mph.

If we look into public spending on transport—this comes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer)—we can see that London is obtaining the resources it requires to provide the capital with the public transport system it needs. Spending on transport in London in 2001 was £223 a head. By 2005-06, that had risen massively to £631 a head. In Yorkshire and Humberside, transport spending in 2000-01 was £117 a head, and by 2005-06 that had risen significantly to £197 a head.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about West Yorkshire. Will he acknowledge that the English midlands is bigger geographically and more populous, as well as the contributor of a larger section of UK gross domestic product, than Greater London? We need some rebalancing of the investment that is going into regional transport away, perhaps, from the metropolitan area, which we are debating in relation to this important topic.

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, although I disagree that there needs to be some redistribution of the investment in metropolitan areas to the county areas, for want of a better expression.

The point I am making is that the PTE areas in the city regions are major drivers of the UK economy—maybe second only to London in terms of their importance in that respect. That is why my PTE colleagues and I are pursuing this debate. I do not want to get into a beggar-my-neighbour discussion about it, because all hon. Members feel that they have a duty to pursue the case for investment in all kinds of services in their own area and my hon. Friend is doing a good job on that on behalf of his constituents.

I talked about the increase in funding. Clearly, there has been an increase in Yorkshire and Humberside, which is very welcome, but the main point is that it is well below the London figure. The rate of increase for London is far faster than it has been for Yorkshire and Humber and other PTE areas. Recent research by the PTEs suggested that if we were to halve the funding gap—not close it completely—between London and the PTE regions, that would release close to £4 billion a year extra for transport spending in those regions.

A higher transport spend per head would allow West Yorkshire Metro, for example, to provide the Leeds city region with a model for an efficient public transport network that would underpin the sustainable development of the city region’s economy. Sustained and significant investment will build on the excellent, but often isolated and limited, examples of successful good practice and demonstrate that the PTEs are an excellent agency for delivering such a step change, given the right investment levels.

As I said a few minutes ago, the 20-year transport vision for West Yorkshire has been drawn up for the Leeds city region. On the rail network, that vision includes more rolling stock to provide much needed extra capacity for the ongoing growth in rail patronage, as well as the even more important potential to draw even more people out of their cars by giving them a good, affordable and reliable alternative to the internal combustion engine. It would enable new and enhanced stations, such as those proposed for Appleby Bridge and Kirkstall, and extra car parking at rail stations.

It is often impractical to build new stations or enhance park and ride simply because there is insufficient capacity on the rail network to carry the additional passenger numbers that would be generated. That is clearly a nonsensical paradox that must be addressed as we strive to get people out of their cars. We know that good rail services do just that.

Investment would also allow tram-train technology on routes such as the Harrogate line to get the most out of the Metro train network. Extra investment would also allow the introduction of a new Metrocard zone for commuters beyond the West Yorkshire border. Investment on buses would allow bus rapid transit on planned supertram routes and be the alternative that—we were told by colleagues from the Department for Transport—was a more economic alternative to the tram proposal. It would enable high-quality, improved bus corridors and bus rapid transit schemes to provide better connections throughout our PTE areas.

Investment in roads—this is perhaps my one mention of roads; I must apologise to the hon. Member for Shipley—would allow the upgrading and improvement of the Leeds and Bradford ring road, and allow other key routes between towns and cities to remove some obvious bottlenecks and pressure points, of which the roundabout that he mentioned, which I know well and use often, is one example.

The total capital cost of the long-term transport vision for the Leeds city region is some £3.5 billion. Together with all the proponents of this case, I recognise that, as in London, funding for a programme of that scale needs to be drawn from a range of sources, not just central Government grant. For example, a recent report by Tony Travers and Stephen Glaister of the Local Government Association suggests that if PTEs were to gain greater powers over public transport fares and revenues, as in London—again, that point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley—they would be able to gain access to up to £1.5 billion in fare revenues. That would, in turn, give the PTEs an income stream against which they could borrow. That would be the important source of funding.

Despite the time, I cannot resist the temptation to digress to the issue of bus deregulation, which was also touched on by my hon. Friend. In PTE areas across the rest of the country, private bus operators have had 19 years—20 years this year—to show that they can provide decent services, and they have signally failed to do so. It is time that they were made more accountable to passengers and communities.

Since deregulation, quality and standards have fallen dramatically, fares have risen by almost 50 per cent. in real terms and the number of passengers in West Yorkshire has fallen by almost a third. That represents about 100 million passenger journeys. Deregulation has meant that the bus companies can pick and choose where they provide services. They are free to make profits while providing poor service. The result is that many people have been denied a reliable and affordable bus service to travel to work, school, college, shops, health centres and hospitals. Week in and week out, that is the experience in my constituency: services are chopped or changed, go missing or arrive late, and passengers suffer and simply vote with their feet.

Quality contracts, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, already operate to good effect in London, and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley was right to point out that juxtaposition. Bus use in regulated London increased by about 10 per cent. in 2004-05, the last year for which I have figures, whereas outside the capital, it fell annually by about 3 per cent.

As a Member for a London constituency, I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s eulogy. Perhaps he can tell us what the average use of a London bus is.

Perhaps I cannot, Mr. Bercow. That is clearly a rhetorical question. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman another: will he come to West Yorkshire and talk to my constituents, then let them come down to London and see its services? Although those services are not perfect—services never are—my constituents would bite his hand off if he offered them as replacements for our deteriorating services in deregulated West Yorkshire.

Absolutely true.

Complete nonsense.

Thank you.

West Yorkshire Metro can influence just 20 per cent. of services in the area; in London, virtually all the services can be influenced. There is little competition for tenders, so it is difficult to test value for money, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is rather keen on. The vast majority of tenders for service contracts receive only one bid. That is a tremendous indictment of the competition that was supposed to be generated by the deregulation of which the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is such an advocate—perhaps one of the few remaining.

Partnership is the Government’s preferred approach and nobody disputes the fact that we need partnership where it can work. We must continue to invest in partnerships with operators who are prepared to take a long-term view. However, in my view and that of colleagues from PTE areas, we need much tighter regulatory intervention.

The CSR provides an opportunity for the DFT, districts and PTEs to work together to get the right mix of powers, local funding freedom and central Government support for giving city regions the transport networks that they need. That process has taken place to some degree in London, and I reiterate that we would exchange the London situation for what exists in our patches.

A deal is in place between the private sector, London government and the national Government, and the people of London have been the winners through a £10 billion, five-year investment plan. It must now be the turn of the city regions. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the opportunity presented by the CSR is grabbed with both hands. If we can get the funding right, then in PTEs the Government have the proven delivery agencies that they need to turn funding into public transport networks that can do the job for the city regions they serve and the people who live and work there.

rose—

Order. It may help hon. Members to know that I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at approximately 3.30 pm. Four hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, so it will require the exercise of marked self-discipline for all who wish to contribute to be able to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Bercow. I shall heed your warning and be as brief as I can. I am sure that we all agree that public transport is vital for the cohesion of our constituencies. It aids social justice and gets people to their jobs. It is therefore all the more important that there is value for money and that money for public transport is not wasted.

I am grateful to the National Audit Office, which issued a report entitled “A5 Queue Relocation in Dunstable – Wider Lessons” on a Highways Agency scheme in my constituency. The report is important because the Highways Agency spent some £2 million trying to relieve congestion on the A5 in Dunstable. The scheme was not asked for locally, it did not do what it said it would do—in the memorable phrase used in the Dunstable Gazette it “did not do what it said on the tin”—and it made the situation worse in some respects, given that pollution is worse in the town centre as a result and accidents have increased. That came at a cost of £2 million, which is money that all of us in this Chamber could use on schemes in our constituencies that would be worth while.

I have had a letter today from the Comptroller and Auditor General telling me of his plans to ensure that the Highways Agency takes note of the NAO report when considering other schemes across the country. Is the Minister aware of the report? Will she ensure that the Highways Agency follows its recommendations to ensure that there is value for money and that money is not wasted? I wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General shortly after the report came out, because I had been alerted to the potential further waste of £10 million of Government money through not providing a new junction, 11A, on the M1, during the current widening of the M1 between junctions 10 and 13. That is important because a previous Secretary of State for Transport announced that a bypass—now known as the A5-M1 link—will be built to the north of Dunstable. It came to my attention that if the junction were not to be put in while the M1 was being widened, the cost of the bypass would be increased by £10 million, thus possibly further delaying it and perhaps calling into question whether it would meet the Department’s own value-for-money criteria.

I was, therefore, reassured to receive, not 15 minutes before I entered the Chamber for the debate, a fax of a letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General, telling me that the Highways Agency intends to progress the two schemes—the M1 widening and the construction of the new junction 11A—at the same time. The letter states:

“The Agency is currently proceeding on this basis and has let one contract covering both jobs to the same contractor.”

I should be grateful if the Minister could let me know, even if she cannot do so today, whether that is indeed the case, so that we avoid the further waste of £10 million of public money, and so that we have synergy between the two schemes. One is under way and the other will happen, but I want to make sure the £10 million will not be wasted.

On 17 May, the excellent town clerk of Dunstable, Richard Walden, received a letter from the Government office for the east of England, informing him that construction would not commence on the A5-M1 link project until 2013, and that a guided bus way, known locally as Translink, had received approval under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and would receive priority funding for the financial year 2006-07. That letter caused consternation locally, because we are desperate for the A5-M1 link. The Translink proposals are by contrast highly controversial and there are serious concerns that they will make local congestion worse. We were alarmed by the letter for several reasons.

Not three weeks later, however, on 7 June, the same official at the Government office for the east of England wrote again to the town clerk of Dunstable to say that his earlier letter was wrong. I have been told that it is almost unprecedented in a local government career of nearly 40 years that an official letter saying one thing should be contradicted three weeks later. The further letter on 7 June said that there was no decision about whether to approve the Translink proposals, that work would, indeed, start on the Dunstable northern bypass, or A5-M1 link, as it is known, in 2009, and that it would be open to traffic in 2010-11. I hope that that is the case, and that the cat was not let out of the bag in the earlier letter of 17 May, which informed us of a delay to the bypass and the early implementation of Translink.

In the letter that I received today from Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General—it is dated 7 June, which was the date of the second letter from the Government office for the east of England—a third date is proposed. Sir John says:

“In prioritising schemes in the East of England within available funding, the regional assembly has taken the view that construction of the A5-M1 link scheme cannot commence until about 2012.”

That is a third date from three official letters. The letter continues:

“We understand from the Department for Transport that the Secretary of State is currently considering the regional submissions.”

We are confused, locally, about what is to happen in those important schemes.

There is considerable annoyance that the East of England regional assembly is giving the Government—from a south Bedfordshire perspective—bad advice on the importance of the various schemes. My constituency is right on the edge of the East of England area. It borders your own, Mr. Bercow, in a neighbouring government region. We feel that we are often short-changed and that our needs are not properly understood. Because we are right on the edge of a region we do not get fair consideration.

All the local authorities, and people from all political parties, differ from the view of the East of England regional assembly on Translink, whereas everyone—every local authority and every political party—agrees on the importance of bringing forward the A5-M1 link. The issues are serious and we do not feel that they are being treated sufficiently seriously by the regional assembly. We look for clarity on these important issues from the Department for Transport and I hope that the Minister or one of her colleagues can provide that—if not today then by letter.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow, although I must begin with an apology to you, the Minister and Opposition Front Benchers, because I will not be able to stay for the winding-up speeches. I have to attend the Select Committee on Transport, which is dealing as we speak with issues not unrelated to those before us.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on securing this important debate. He is right that in the next round of the comprehensive spending review it is crucial that transport in the major conurbations is properly addressed. Funding is certainly an issue in the north-east of England, where there is a Going for Jobs campaign that has been supported by local business, local Members of Parliament, local government and the local press. In that campaign we are recognising that transport is crucial in improving and growing the economy of the north-east, and in increasing jobs. At the moment we are suffering from under-investment in transport—not only in public transport but in road and rail links, especially roads.

The north-east is the only English region that is not directly connected to the motorway system. There is a stretch of two-lane motorway running from Newcastle to Scotch Corner, followed by 35 miles of dual carriageway before we rejoin the motorway system for the rest of the country at Dishforth. There should be national as well as local investment in transport issues.

The north-east’s spending on road and rail infrastructure has increased by just 25 per cent. over the last six years—four times less than the national average and nine times less than for London. I know that there are arguments that London is a special case, and perhaps that is why more is spent on education and health in London, but the spending gap in those areas is as nothing compared with the spending gap per head between London and the rest of the country on transport. Crossrail and the Olympics are in danger of making that even worse.

One answer to congestion and environmental problems is to improve public transport. We are particularly concerned about that in the north-east, and in Tyne and Wear in particular. Our passenger transport executive and authority do a remarkable job, but they recognise that congestion costs British business £20 billion and that that figure is getting worse and will continue to do so over the next few years. Car ownership in the region is expected to rise by 30 per cent. between 2001 and 2021.

The Highways Agency is not helping. Using its infamous article 14 orders, it is blocking new development because of congestion, which is slowing down economic growth in the region. If we introduced congestion charging, as is being examined, it would increase the need for efficient public transport solutions.

That brings me to the Tyne and Wear metro system, which is extremely successful. When the new Sunderland extension was opened, 16 per cent. of its passengers had previously travelled by car. Thirty per cent. of individual passengers using the system could travel by car but instead choose the metro. The metro certainly allows longer commuter journeys and is crucial as skills shortages become more of an issue with employers.

It is also cost-effective. The metro meets 69 per cent. of its costs; only 7.4 per cent. is met by local authorities. However, the metro is 26 years old. It has carried more than 1 billion people over those 26 years and it remains the only locally owned and operated railway in England. It carries 36 million passengers every year through some of the busiest commuter corridors in Tyne and Wear. Having no metro would mean 15 million more car journeys every year in Tyne and Wear. The metro is the most cost-efficient urban passenger transport railway in the UK. The subsidy is just 42p for each passenger carried. As I said, however, the metro is 26 years old, so it needs to be improved if it is to last.

That brings me to Project Orpheus. That proposes a £500 million investment plan, which will secure the future of the metro over the next 30 years, renewing the whole system for the price of renewing London’s Victoria station. Project Orpheus was recently submitted to Ministers, and we await their consideration. It is a 20-year plan to reinvigorate the metro. It offers bus-based solutions in all 29 key corridors over the next 10 years, and the possible long-term extension of the metro would come about through use of on-street tram technology. The Department for Transport does not look favourably on that at the moment, but let us hope that that changes.

If we do nothing, speed restrictions on deteriorating track will mean longer journey times. Metro cars will begin to fail between 2010 and 2015. Reliability will fall as power, signalling and escalators fail more often. Stock and stations will degrade, increasing the gap in comfort with the car. The cost to the taxpayer will spiral as passenger numbers fall and costs rise. The operating deficit is predicted to rise to £60 million per annum by 2025, and if nothing is done, the whole system will have to be closed at some point in the next 20 years. In that case, there would be up to 40 million more journeys by road in Tyne and Wear—15 million by car—which would increase the pressure on river crossings and major routes, and overall business competitiveness would suffer. It is therefore crucial that we have that public investment in the metro system and in public transport generally in Tyne and Wear over the next few years.

We should be considering not only funding, but the powers of passenger transport authorities. Currently, local government carries the power when it comes to providing bus lanes, concessionary fares and so on. PTAs have very little power in those areas, hence Newcastle has no-car lanes, Gateshead has bus-only lanes and some other authorities have bus lanes. The situation is confusing for motorists and particularly taxi drivers, who like to use those lanes when they can. They do not know which lanes they can use and which they cannot. However, the passenger transport authority has no power to apply a common standard and a common rule across the conurbation. In that respect, the powers of PTAs need to be increased.

The situation is similar for concessionary fares. In relation to concessionary fares for over-60s and disabled people, the problem of cross-boundary issues will be resolved in 2008, when the national scheme comes in. However, other concessions that we have in Tyne and Wear or had until recently, such as teen travel and concessions for students travelling around, are restricted according to local authority boundaries. Quite often, students want to travel to further education establishments and so on outside their area, but are unable to do so. The PTAs need more powers, but perhaps there should also be a regional authority, not necessarily on the model of Transport for London, although certainly Transport for London has shown that a co-ordinated approach in a major conurbation is the way to have successful public transport, and that is something that we can do in Tyne and Wear.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey in what he said about bus deregulation. The Transport Committee, which I am about to address, is considering that subject. The public need improved bus services in the conurbation: the services have deteriorated badly since bus privatisation. A form of regulation or re-regulation is needed quite urgently. I hope that the Select Committee produces a report that suggests that, and that Ministers take it seriously.

I calculated that, with four of us wanting to speak, we had about eight minutes each to do so and I will endeavour to stay within that time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), my neighbour, on securing this important debate. I speak as a Leeds MP but also as the passenger transport executive group contact for the Liberal Democrats. I want to make it clear that I support the thrust of the debate and the argument that the hon. Gentleman has put forward today. I know that he is an advocate, as I am, of improved public transport in the region. It is appropriate that on the boundary between our constituencies is Horsforth railway station.

To reiterate the situation that we face in Leeds, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the overcrowded roads and the fact that we simply do not have the capacity on the railways. In my constituency we have the infamous A660, which is reputed to be one of the top five congested roads in the country, while the hon. Gentleman has the similar A65, another traffic hotspot that causes many problems.

The hon. Gentleman and I have come from a pleasant lunch with the new editor of our local paper, and we had a vibrant and interesting discussion. We do not all agree on all issues, but all eight Leeds MPs strongly agree that we have an enormously successful city and city region, of which we are very proud, and that the one single thing that holds back that continued economic success is inadequate transport infrastructure. It is the one thing that needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one thing: his comments on the Leeds supertram scheme. As a passionate advocate of the scheme, I think that it was a great shame and a disgrace that it was turned down for the city and that £39 million was spent without a single rail being laid. I look forward to the NAO report and its comments.

At the risk of correcting the hon. Gentleman, I share his view about the supertram but my view was that the debate should look forward and not back.

Absolutely, but it is important to get such points on record. I will go so far as to say that one day, when we have a more progressive method of transport decision making in this country, we shall indeed have light rail in the city. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that for now we must look forward. We are where we are.

Simply, public spending on transport is not keeping pace with the needs of the city or the region. At the same time, London has secured a five-year, £10 billion investment plan for transport. As has been mentioned, there is now a significant funding gap between Yorkshire and Humberside and London; it stood at £434 per head for the year 2005-06. That is a huge and scandalous difference.

I wholeheartedly concur with the comments made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). Of course London needs and deserves a better transport system, but so do we in West Yorkshire. The point of the debate is to say that the comprehensive spending review offers an opportunity for us to achieve what is available in London. Halving the spending gap with London would generate close to £4 billion a year to improve transport in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west and the west midlands. That is a significant factor.

My main point is that although I agree that that is an opportunity that we need to take locally and nationally, we also have to consider the decision-making process for public transport. At the moment, insufficient decision-making powers are granted to the generally efficient passenger transport executives and to the passenger transport authorities that are the publicly accountable side. Those bodies are in place, and they have huge professional expertise, but they simply do not have the ability to make decisions or the resources to do what needs to be done. That is especially true of long-term sustainable developments in public transport, which I am sure that we would all agree are essential. That is largely why these things are not happening. The Local Government Association report, “Improving local transport: how small reforms could make a big difference”, made recommendations about decisions on transport schemes such as light rail and bus services. I again put on record my wholehearted support for bus deregulation outside London.

Re-regulation.

Absolutely, I am rushing to get through my speech in time, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

I want to put on record my support for bus re-regulation, to give power back to local authorities and local people rather than having bus routes determined by private bus companies as a result of profit.

In conclusion, we need a fairer and more equitable deal for areas outside London, and I specifically include my own Yorkshire and Humber region in that. Such a deal is needed to solve the increasingly acute problems of gridlock and overcrowding on both rail and road, and to provide sustainable economic development in these areas. Let us not forget that it is also needed to deliver environmental improvements, to which all the parties are now committed. We must also seriously examine how public transport decisions are made in this country and seek to give more power to local areas to enable them to make decisions to deliver appropriate, affordable and sustainable public transport systems for their areas and the people whom they serve.

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr. Bercow. I apologise for being slightly late to the beginning of the debate. I was taking part in the debate on the BBC on the Floor of the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on bringing this important debate to this Chamber.

Manchester city region plays a crucial role in the UK economy, contributing £47 billion to its gross domestic product, but it needs significant transport investment to underpin its economic competitiveness. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) that the gap in funding between London and the north-west needs to be addressed. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey about the important issue of the re-regulation of buses.

For our economic growth to keep going, we need better transport links. Connectivity is vital to the success of the Manchester city region and the whole of the north-west. If people cannot move about efficiently, the private sector will not invest. Public transport helps to promote agglomeration of businesses and therefore productivity, as well as providing significant wider benefits both in terms of sustainable growth and in helping to tackle social exclusion.

Research through the Greater Manchester integrated transport strategy has shown that Greater Manchester requires a £4 billion programme of investment by 2020 to support its economic growth. That investment includes getting more and longer trains, improvements at Victoria station, high-quality links such as Metrolink and Tram-Train, and improvement to the Manchester rail hub. Our Greater Manchester passenger transport executive is responsible for both bus and rail, and is doing a great job of implementing its integrated transport strategy. Not the least of the developments has been our successful and popular Metrolink tram system.

The PTE needs more resources to allow better access. For example, it would be good if some trains stopped at the relatively accessible and pleasant rail stations of Clifton Junction, Irlam and Eccles in my constituency. That would make the whole pattern useful to my constituents.

I have just come from the Chamber, where I made a contribution to a discussion on a major development in the BBC move from the south to the north. That will bring around 15,500 new jobs to the Manchester city region and the whole north-west. With such massive developments, transport infrastructure becomes a big issue, too. I hope that the Government will see the need for integrated economic, social and infrastructure development, and will make sure that the Manchester city region gets much greater transport investment. I urge the Government, through their comprehensive spending review, to provide Greater Manchester with funding on a similar scale to that for London.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on securing the debate, and on the contributions that he and others have made this afternoon. Although we are predominantly from metropolitan areas, many of the remarks made this afternoon are equally applicable to other areas.

As has been said, the debate is timely. The comprehensive spending review has been mentioned. There is also the Lyons review of local government finance, and the White Paper on city regions is due in the autumn. All those provide us with an opportunity to move forward. However, it should be remembered that, in the 10-year transport plan White Paper, issued in 2000, the Government set a whole series of targets. It is instructive to consider those targets because, although huge sums have been expended, very few of them—only two, I think—have been met. One is about individuals being killed, and the other is about children being seriously injured.

Let us consider some of the other targets. The growth in bus transport that was mentioned has not happened. Outside of London, bus use has declined, on average, by 45 per cent. That is not acceptable, and hon. Members have mentioned the need for re-regulation. We have heard warm words from the former Secretary of State on that subject, but it is about time that we saw some action. On light rail and trams, we were told that there would be 25 new schemes. The reality is that only two of them are likely to go ahead: the Edinburgh scheme, which is predominantly funded by the Scottish Executive, and, hopefully, the scheme in Manchester—when we get an announcement from the Department.

On roads, the picture is not very rosy. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned his own particular scheme. The average overspend on road building is 45 per cent. I am pleased to report that, as a result of Liberal Democrats complaining about that, the National Audit Office is investigating not just the scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but all road schemes—and about time, too, because it has already been stated that in the next comprehensive spending round there will not be huge sums of new money. We have to make sure that the money available is used properly and to best effect.

On rail, the picture is much better: there has been an increase in the number of people using rail, but it is not as large as the Government said it would be. There will be serious problems if there is a continual increase in rail use, because of the overcrowding that many of us experience on commuter lines even now. There are new rail franchises. Northern Rail, which combined three franchises and is the largest franchise in the country, was let last year, but there have been no new developments, no new rolling stock. Apart from what Yorkshire Forward are doing in west Yorkshire, there is no new rolling stock planned. The average age of that rolling stock is 17 years, and that is clearly unacceptable.

In other areas, the Government are not only letting new franchises, but are stipulating the timetable. On the west coast, we have seen reductions in the commuter services that are being operated, which is not acceptable. One simple way for us to move forward would be not to let rail franchises on 10-year contracts. The original transport plan envisaged a longer term, and giving companies a 20-year contract would enable them to invest in new rolling stock and the development of services. That is not happening now.

We have had local transport plan 1, and we are now on to local transport plan 2. There have been good schemes, and the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) mentioned our passenger transport authority. Like him, I think that it has an excellent record on delivering public transport, albeit without the resources that it needed.

We also have the transport innovation fund, but I am concerned that Ministers talk about congestion charging as if it were the panacea for all ills. That is what the new Secretary of State did in his first public speech, but I must tell the Minister what many local authority leaders are saying. Interestingly, the Department for Transport has today published a survey of people’s attitudes to congestion charging, but many local authority leaders believe that it works in London only because the investment has already been put in place. No local authority leader—whether in Manchester, Leeds or elsewhere—will agree to introduce congestion charging. That is the view of Greater Manchester Transport, and that will remain the case unless and until there is investment in improved public transport. Those who responded to the survey accept that there is a problem, but very few of them—only 10 per cent.—see themselves switching their journey, because many people have no alternative.

So what do we need to do? We must have investment, which must be put in place before we have road user pricing. We also need greater democratic devolution because we have some of the most centralised decision-making processes in the world. It is ridiculous that Department for Transport officials stipulate the timetable for the Rochdale-Oldham loop line, and that will not bring about efficiencies. We therefore need greater devolution to city regions, but they must be accountable. That is the Liberal Democrats’ major concern about the current proposals; handing over complete control to the 10 leaders in Greater Manchester is not the way forward.

There needs to be re-regulation of the buses. I think, for example, of the money that private sector companies are making on the London operation, where they are on a 9 per cent. return. Elsewhere, companies are on an average of 16 per cent., so cost savings can be made by allowing local authorities to stipulate and control the services.

There is a need to look at other forms of funding if, as the hon. Member for Pudsey said, we are to raise the £4 billion extra to bridge the gap between London and elsewhere. That money must come from somewhere, and it will need to be found.

There also needs to be an integrated transport policy. We need to make sure that we have responsive rail franchises that are let over a longer time frame and deliver the services that are needed. We need to ensure that the pricing on all franchises cuts across others. People in London can use their Oyster card, but there are myriad pricing schemes everywhere else, and people cannot go from one bus service to another using the same card. I travelled around on the buses last week as part of green transport week, and it was ridiculous that I could not buy a pass in Rochdale that enabled me to travel on the services run by the different bus operators.

In the next few months, we have an opportunity to move forward, which, as many hon. Members have suggested, is what we all want to do. I hope that the Minister can respond to some of the concerns that I have raised so that a decent transport system can develop.

Good afternoon, Mr. Bercow. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on gaining this debate. He may be surprised to hear that I agree with some of what he said, but probably not surprised that I do not agree with it all.

Since being appointed to speak for the Conservative party on transport, I have had the honour of contributing to six Westminster Hall debates in the past six months. I started each in the same way, and I shall do so again. I shall ensure that the Conservative party is committed to delivering value for money on public transport.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who will be glad to hear that the Minister is going to write to him. We have heard numerous contributions, including from the Liberal Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), and I am particularly pleased to hear that his party will join us in calling for longer railway franchises. That is to be welcomed.

Before speaking on the future funding of local transport, it might be instructive to consider some promises made by the Government in their now infamous 10-year plan. That plan promised more than 200 major local road improvements, including 70 bypasses. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how many of those improvements and bypasses have thus far been funded and built.

On light rail, the plan said:

“We will fund a substantial increase in the role of light rail in our larger cities and conurbations over the next ten years.”

It went on to promise up to 25 new light rail lines, but the Minister can count on her left hand the number of light rail routes introduced under a Labour Government. Over the last couple of years, funding approval has been revoked for schemes in Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and south Hampshire. I could go on, but I have made the point. Whatever the Government’s plans for the future funding of local authority transport, one has to hope that they have considerably greater longevity than the 10-year plan, and substantially better delivery.

The transport innovation fund—TIF—is designed to enable local authorities to research radical and innovative ways to reduce congestion. It is supposed to encourage local solutions to local problems, but councils have discovered that they are entitled to be as radical and as innovative as they like as long as the plan involves road pricing with Government backing. Perhaps the Government are worried that an errant council might come up with another awkward light rail scheme, and that the Secretary of State will have to pull the plug on it.

My colleagues and I are not against road pricing—it should be noted that it is very different from the simple congestion charge—but local authorities should not be asked to go to the trouble and expense of preparing a bid for TIF money only to find that their plans, which are appropriate for the local area, do not meet what central Government want and therefore have to be withdrawn. There is an inherent contradiction between what TIF and the local authorities want to do.

I wonder what the Minister will have to say about the expectancy of the new approach. Will the fund quietly be dropped, along with the 70 bypasses and the 25 light rail schemes? We shall see. I think it was Groucho Marx who said that history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce. Whatever local transport funding the Government settle on, it will inextricably be tied up with the future of local government funding, which has been referred to several times.

I hope that the Government resolve the problem of imposing obligations on local authorities without giving them the extra requisite funding. I used to be a local councillor, and I know that that habit is a notable feature of the Labour Government. However, they are not the only ones to have it.

The hon. Member for Pudsey eulogised London, but council tax payers in my constituency faced a 13.5 per cent. rise in the Mayor of London’s precept this year and last to fund some of his schemes. The council had to divert 9 per cent. of the social services budget to pay for transport policies that were imposed on it. London boroughs are forced to implement Livingstone’s transport policy through local implementation plans, yet a number of those schemes are often of no direct local benefit to the boroughs. There is an inherent contradiction between local transport and regional transport funding.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the criticism that he just made of the Mayor of London can also be levelled at the Conservative Government, who reduced grant to local authorities year-on-year for 18 years, and forced them to divert money from social services and roads?

Indeed, the same criticism could be made of this Labour Government in respect of numerous authorities all over the country. I do not think that we need any lessons there.

Let me return to TIF, and the revenue support grant, because that is where the bulk of funding for local transport comes from. Local transport plans and local funding are inextricably linked to the Lyons review, and to the slings and arrows of fortune that might result from the rate support grant settlement. However we look at it, over the past few years the rate support grant has been disproportionately favourable to some authorities and disproportionately unfavourable to others, which has had implications for local transport funding.

The hon. Member for Pudsey challenged me to go and see the schemes in West Yorkshire and to find out about their problems. I would be delighted to do that, and I am sure that either he or my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is no longer in his place, would be happy to organise it for me. In my role as transport spokesman for my party, I have visited a number of regions. I have been down to the south-west, which has been devastated by the over-prescription of the Government’s timetable for the railway, and to the west midlands, where the PTA told me about underfunding by the Labour Government. I have been to Manchester, where PTA officials expressed very clearly their views on the withdrawal of funding for the light rail scheme, and I have listened to views around the country. I would be delighted to go to West Yorkshire, if that is the challenge.

We seem to have spent a lot of time referring to a relatively recent debate in this place on the funding of PTAs and local bus services. I stated in that debate, and reiterate today, that I am not in favour of re-regulation. However, I am in favour of greater co-operation, and I challenge the hon. Member for Pudsey, if he thinks that London is the great place—we might disagree on that—to go to Brighton, where the local private operator and the local council, operating together, have made substantial improvements to the bus service.

I laid out in the previous debate a number of the preconditions for that arrangement, which have enabled it to be such a success. A number of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues asked me afterwards what they might learn from that lesson. It is instructive that a number of PTAs have decided not to co-operate, but rather to go against. That is an issue.

We have heard a lot in this debate about the difference between London funding and that in the rest of the country. It is true that some of that funding comes from central Government. It is also clear that some of it comes from the Mayor’s having decided to push prudential borrowing right up to its limit and that the London council tax payer has had to pay considerably more. As a result, we have increasing bus usage, but there is tension between Transport for London and the London boroughs. To answer my rhetorical question, the average number of passengers on a London bus is 15. There has been no clear analysis of the capital cost involved in that project.

Any moment now, the Minister will undoubtedly regale us with a huge number of statistics. She will tell us that local transport will receive £1.6 billion this year for capital projects, and that TIF has been a huge success and will receive extra pump priming. I know that she will tell us that £18 million is available for congestion this year. I would also like to hear the answers to some questions. What do the Government believe should be the relationship between local authority and regional funding? Who should take priority, and who should decide on that?

When will local authorities have adequate powers to raise funding for local transport? Can the Minister confirm that all TIF funding is to be congestion related in this round? What assessment have we of the planned projects? Have local authority transport schemes so far met expectations? Why do the Government not ensure an appropriate balance between revenue and capital funding in respect of local funding?

There are myriad schemes, and I would be interested to hear the answers to my questions. If the Minister cannot deliver them today, I am sure that she will write to everybody in the Chamber with some of them.

Due to the Lyons review, this could be one of the most important years for local government funding—so it is, of course, an important year for local authority transport funding. Sir Michael’s report could provide the opportunity for new funding streams, at a very local level, to supplement the council tax. Such streams would be available for the local authority funding of transport.

Sir Michael might, for instance, choose to consider sources such as planning gain supplements, congestion charging and road charging at local level, an extra levy on lorries and a local environmental levy on polluters. He might support the idea of municipal or project-specific local bond financing. Such opportunities would create a wider package of opportunities for local authorities to increase their funding. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to some of the questions posed during the debate.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on securing this important debate on the future funding of local transport.

My hon. Friend made his case well, and was right to concentrate on his constituency. The matters of local interest that he raised illustrate the important issues. I confirm that I would be delighted to meet him and his colleagues, as he requested, to discuss the 2007 comprehensive spending review and its implications for transport. I shall also be delighted to consider closely the points made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and write to him in detail about them.

We all agree that local transport is vital. Every one of us depends on it every day, for our own personal travel, for travel to our jobs, for the transportation of the goods that we buy and for the services that we access. Importantly, local transport also combats social exclusion. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey for his generous acknowledgement of the positive difference that this Labour Government have made and are making to the quality of the lives of all our constituents, including his own. I certainly share his view on that.

As my hon. Friend outlined, the city of Leeds has enjoyed remarkable economic success in recent years. I join him in congratulating all those responsible on helping him secure that growth. My hon. Friend brought a welcome note of realism to the debate in talking about what an improving transport system has contributed in this country. I particularly acknowledge the work of Metro, the West Yorkshire PTE, in spearheading the changes needed to cope with the transport consequences of success.

No one should underestimate—I do not—the challenge of dealing with commuter traffic that has increased by nearly 40 per cent. in the past 10 years. As my hon. Friend said, Metro has invested in a number of successful schemes, including the free city bus service, the yellow school bus service and an innovative partnership with Yorkshire Forward and Northern Rail to develop rail services.

I am pleased to say that the Government have invested substantially in Yorkshire. They invested £600 million in upgrading the A1 through Yorkshire to motorway standard. The final section of the Leeds inner ring road is to be completed and substantial investment in rail has enabled a 44 per cent. rise in daily GNER services between Leeds and London in the past 10 years. As my hon. Friend knows, I travel on said services each week.

Funding for local transport in the Yorkshire and Humber region has more than doubled since 2000-01 to £160 million in 2006-07. As my hon. Friend acknowledges, in addition to investment, an important factor in the success of Leeds—and of course this is not unique to Leeds—has been close working between the city and this Government.

To give a further note of realism, I would like to describe three ways in which our transport policies have helped to ensure continuing economic growth not only in Leeds but in many parts of the country. First, local authorities have benefited from large and sustained increases in transport funding. Second is our strong view that local people know what is best for them. Third is our encouragement of authorities to develop and deliver their transport policies in a broad context of objectives for the long-term future of cities such as Leeds.

This Government took steps immediately after the 1997 election to remedy the under-investment in local transport during the preceding decade and before that. We provided for a step change in the provision of local transport. The result is that Government-supported council investment in local transport projects has roughly trebled in cash terms since the late 1990s. That has enabled councils to deliver far more projects for the benefit of their areas. English councils outside of London have developed and delivered major improvements over the past four years, including more than 2,500 miles of bus route improvements.

The Minister’s second point was that local people know what is best for them. Everyone in Dunstable, including all the elected representatives, told the Highways Agency that the green wave scheme would not work and that we did not want it. They were overruled and £2 million was wasted. Have lessons really been learned by the Department?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I shall discuss local transport planning in some detail, particularly the regional allocations and how decisions will be made. They will, of course, be very much informed by local views.

The Government have provided the framework for investment. They have provided £7 billion of support to councils outside London for local transport investment over five years, and—this is important—they have provided stability for that investment.

Hon. Members will know that the Government replaced annual bids for funding with five-year plans. The local transport planning system has provided local authorities with a new level of certainty about funding so that they can tackle local issues that often require a long-term view, whether improving road maintenance, securing better traffic management, enhancing road safety or making buses more accessible and integrated.

In introducing local transport plans, the Government recognised that stability is vital in helping councils make decisions for the longer term. Councils outside London have recently produced their second five-year local transport plans. We are continuing the investment programme and providing the financial stability that is so necessary.

Overall, the funding levels build on the expanded investment levels introduced five years ago. Some £550 million per year is available to councils in England outside of London for smaller transport improvements, and funding for highways capital maintenance is a further £670 million per year.

I have listened closely to the points that hon. Members have made about London. However, I do not feel that comparison is workable for the following reasons. First, transport spending per head will never be the same in every part of the country because projects in different parts of the country do not take place at the same time or in the same conditions. Secondly, successive Governments have all recognised the importance of London to the UK economy when making spending decisions. Expenditure in London includes spend on the London underground and is therefore always likely to be higher than elsewhere.

However, the third point is the key in determining how useful a comparison is. We must recognise the unique position of London and the fact that transport demand in London is on a different scale from the rest of the UK. It is enormous not only because of the spread of the capital and beyond but because of its sheer density and congestion and the challenges in responding to traveller demand. The comparisons that some colleagues have attempted to make are perhaps not the most useful for us to apply ourselves to. Good local transport is fundamental to prosperous, thriving communities. Since 2000-01, the Government have more than doubled transport funding to local authorities in every region to over £1.6 billion in 2006-07.

On local decision making, I assure hon. Members that the Government moved swiftly in 1998 to recognise that good decisions on priorities must be made as near as possible to those affected. What is important to people in Lincolnshire might not have the same priority as issues in Lancashire. Our local transport planning system, introduced in 2000, was designed to help authorities make the right policy and priority decisions.

It could be easy to forget the transport policies and programme system introduced by the Conservative Government, but I doubt that we will, because it was so universally disliked. It required local authorities to submit all their significant investment decisions to central Government. The result was vast bureaucracy and a series of unrelated top-down decisions that did absolutely nothing to help authorities and local communities form coherent plans and left them uncertain about the funding available even a year ahead.

It is not so easy to forget the Conservative Government’s neglect of the transport system, which led to our roads being in worse condition at the end of the ’90s than at any point since records began. Hon. Members will be glad to know that the Government’s significant increase in local road maintenance funding has halted that deterioration. Of course, we recognise that national and regional objectives must be met as well as local ones.

Perhaps it has halted that deterioration, but how many of the 200 schemes promised at a local level in the 10-year plan have actually been implemented?

My reference was to the maintenance of local roads.

We have put a clear framework in place. Local authorities work within defined national policies and regional transport strategies, but the principle has been that all decisions should be made at a local level. Last year, we extended that principle for the first time not only to the myriad small investments that make up the bulk of transport investment but to larger schemes that authorities cannot fund without help from central Government. Until now, each authority has sought additional funding by making a direct application to the Government, and decisions on those applications have been made individually in the light of Government priorities.

With regional funding allocations, we have offered each region an opportunity to advise us, in the light of long-term indicative budgets, of their priorities for spending. The total indicative transport budget for regions outside London is set to rise steadily to more than £850 million per annum, over and above the amounts that I mentioned previously for regular LTP funding.

Regional funding allocations present a much more transparent system, which I know hon. Members will welcome. I also know that they will be keen to hear the Government’s response to regional advice, and they can expect an announcement shortly. The Government have provided sustained extra support for councils to invest in local transport, and that will continue as investment, which will be welcome up and down the country, as we enter the second local transport plan period.

I look forward to continued close work with our partners in regions and local authorities to develop a local transport system in which we can all take pride. We hope for further success in serving people throughout the country, whether in London or outside it, to create the kinds of improvement that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has pressed for, worked for in Leeds and the surrounding area and explained to us.

I welcome the Minister to her new position. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the variety of transport issues that affect my constituency today and that will affect it to a greater extent in the years to come.

Unquestionably one of the great advances of the 20th century was that transport opened up the world to nearly everyone in the UK. We think nothing of continent-hopping or of going away for a weekend break. The problem that we face in West Lancashire is not travelling to Australia but the lack of bus services and the difficulties faced in going to the local hospital to visit relatives.

As I was saying, the problem lies with day-to-day travel in my constituency. People are now trying to negotiate a public transport system that does not get them where they need to be when they need to be there. That is serious in places such as Skelmersdale, where there is low car ownership. There is no doubt that the Labour Government are and have been committed to local transport, since their election in 1997, and that there have been year-on-year increases in transport investment. That is, indeed, a stark contrast to the policies of previous Conservative Governments. In particular, privatisation of buses has led to companies vying with each other for the most lucrative routes and deserting the less profitable ones without conscience.

I know that this is the third Adjournment debate on transport in the past two days, and that reflects the challenging agenda that faces us. I apologise to the Minister for the wide-ranging nature of the debate, but an efficient, sustainable and successful transport system is built on the right mix of transport forms. I believe that West Lancashire is disadvantaged in two ways on transport matters. First, we are at the edge of major regional cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Preston, which attract much support and many services. I believe also that West Lancashire is not helped by its position in a two-tier authority, as its priorities are not necessarily those of Lancashire county council.

I want to deal in the debate with the roads issue in relation to the Ormskirk bypass, and then move on to public transport, in the form of bus services and, finally, rail services. There is a temptation to deal with space travel as well, but I leave that to another occasion.

In one form or another the Ormskirk bypass has been on the road transport agenda in West Lancashire for about 45 years. The current bypass proposal stands at No. 2 of Lancashire county council’s transport plan priorities, but since the recent disastrous decisions on regional priorities it has been dubbed the road to nowhere. The scheme is the key to unlocking many of the transport problems of West Lancashire, but it is being ignored. The local transport plan envisages significant public transport improvements along the Wigan, Skelmersdale, Ormskirk and Southport corridor. However, those can be fully realised only if the existing congestion is tackled. There is no question that the increasing number of car trips, exacerbated by poor public transport, is bringing Ormskirk town to a standstill. In the hot weather the local vicar and his wife hand out glasses of water to trapped, exasperated motorists who just cannot get through Ormskirk. We need the Ormskirk bypass as we face gridlock.

There is also a threat to life and limb as ever-bigger heavy goods vehicles thunder along unsuitable roads. The Government invested £15 million in a new secondary school in Ormskirk, and when I visited it recently schoolchildren expressed amazement that none of them had been killed or injured as a result of the ever-increasing size and number of HGVs thundering past the school. Other local residents complain that their homes are shaken to their foundations by those vehicles.

As the M6-Heysham road was due to be delivered, many people in West Lancashire naturally expected the Ormskirk bypass to move to No. 1 position. However, changes to the funding allocation process, away from local and towards regional priorities, mean that there is little likelihood, under the present system, of the road being built in the next 20 or 30 years. The decision not to make the Ormskirk bypass a regional priority will have serious economic, social and environmental implications for West Lancashire in the years ahead.

My hon. Friend the Minister will know and understand the importance of the road in my constituency because I raised the question with her predecessor and the Prime Minister several times, in questions and in correspondence. I am concerned that the process of regional prioritisation will mean a favourable wind for city region areas, and not for constituencies such as mine. Does that really mean that there is no prospect of delivering local transport priorities to aid the future prosperity of constituents such as mine? I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention. My concerns are compounded by recent information from Lancashire county council. Using the regional priority criteria, it reassessed the Ormskirk bypass, and according to that reassessment, the scheme would score a minimum of 100, not the 76 that it scored in the regional assembly’s assessment. Reassessing it using those criteria would put the Ormskirk bypass near the top of the second quartile, and would give it real prospects of being built.

The county council continues to work on progressing the scheme. It is currently collating information on an environmental assessment, and will submit a planning permission application at the end of the year. If agreement cannot be reached on the completion of the Heysham-M6 link road, could not precedence be given to the Ormskirk bypass, making it Lancashire’s No. 1 transport priority? If that were to happen, I hope that the Government would recognise the need to retain a Lancashire priority when allocating funding for a north-west transport scheme, and would therefore include the Ormskirk bypass.

My second issue is local bus services. This Labour Government once again demonstrated their commitment to public transport with the recent introduction of concessionary travel for the over-60s and the disabled. In the last Budget, it was announced that the scheme would be made a national scheme in 2008. In West Lancashire, we desperately need more buses and more funding for transport schemes, but where the Government are investing, local authorities are using some of the money to prop up their general revenue budgets. In my constituency, the Conservative-controlled district council received a very generous settlement of £900,000 for the new concessionary travel scheme. It estimated that it would cost £700,000 to fund the scheme and held the rest in reserves. It tried to conceal that fact by suggesting that the token scheme, which is already funded by the district council, is now being funded from Government money. Paul Daniels would be proud of that.

Once again, Conservative politicians are prepared to starve the transport system of much-needed funding. They failed to agree with other councils across Lancashire, including Lancashire county council, a scheme that allows free travel across Lancashire. That has angered local pensioners. The council could have made a real difference with the money, but has chosen not to. What good is a free bus pass if there are no buses to use it on? That is a common and vociferous complaint that many West Lancashire residents make to me. As one resident said, there are only so many times that one can travel between Ormskirk and Skelmersdale within the district.

Some of my constituents live on the edge of West Lancashire in Up Holland. Their nearest shops are in the next district, Wigan. They cannot get free travel to their local shops, so that bus pass is of no use to them whatever. There have been severe cuts in commercial bus services in West Lancashire in the past few years, and that will leave many of my constituents isolated and detached, unable to access core public services, employment opportunities or recreational activities.

Some years ago—before I became an MP—a decision was made to move the accident and emergency unit from Ormskirk to Southport, a decision that I believe to be absolutely and fundamentally wrong. A lack of transport infrastructure, fast road through Ormskirk or easily accessible public transport system compounds that bad decision and poses real threats to my constituents.

Another service, the Roundabout bus service, was funded by moneys made available under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That bus service took Skelmersdale people to work, but when that money ran out, the scheme was stopped. Surely we can find solutions that enable people to get to work. That includes disabled people, who used the Roundabout bus services to go to Midstream, an organisation that enables them to carry out garden work. Dial-a-ride, for example, cannot guarantee to take such people to work every day. I am sure that my hon. Friend will point me in the direction of demand-responsive transport, and I am a firm supporter of that method of organising and providing transport schemes. Once again, however, the experiences of people in my constituency have not been encouraging. There is a dial-a-ride scheme that almost closed last year; it has six buses but can afford to run only three of them, despite the fact that people cannot get a bus to go to a doctor’s appointment. It is impossible for local people to understand.

We need to reassess who should be the main beneficiary of bus service provision. For the past 20 years it has been the bus operators, and we know only too well the damage that privatisation has caused to public transport services, particularly in constituencies such as West Lancashire. There is no getting away from the fact that bus services are not run on a social need basis or even to allow profitable services to subsidise less profitable routes. If we are to pursue a social inclusion agenda then transport is what connects all other aspects of life: health, education, support services, employment opportunities and social activities. In my constituency there is limited cemetery provision. Local people have to travel to Liverpool, St. Helens and Southport to bury their nearest and dearest. The problems that they face are compounded when they want to visit graves and find that they have to fight with a transport system that does not help them. That is the reality of the everyday situations that my constituents face and must negotiate.

I know that Lancashire county council spends approximately £8 million a year on subsidies for bus services. Those subsidies range from nearly £8 to perhaps £44 a passenger, which everybody will accept is not a sensible use of taxpayers’ money. We need solutions that get value and good services but do not leave people isolated from key public services or from their relatives.

Lancashire county council is an example of the Government providing substantial funding increases but local decisions meaning that my constituents get a poor deal. There has been an increase of £6.7 million and a further increase of £10.2 million, which is nearly a 5 per cent. increase in 2007-08, but in the past year 10 bus routes in West Lancashire have been withdrawn or reduced. There are currently another five routes that fail to meet the county council’s subsidy criteria, which are a maximum of £2 a journey or a minimum of a 20 per cent. revenue-cost ratio.

School bus services are under serious threat as the council looks to withdraw them. In a new town—Skelmersdale is a new town—that would place schoolchildren in danger as schools are not located near the centres of population and main roads are designed for cars, not pedestrians. There are no pavements on the main thoroughfares and it would be a travesty if the loss of a bus were to mean a loss of life. I understand that subsidies cannot be stretched to support all possible routes, so it is vital that we explore sustainable and realistic options to ensure some sort of transport provision across our communities, not just along profitable routes.

My final point is on rail transport. In February the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), opened a new interchange station at Burscough Bridge station in the heart of the community. It shows how we can better understand the ways in which people use public transport, and it is the beginning of a move towards more integrated transport services in the area. Burscough is a transport hub for much of the district, as it provides access to the wider region. We can enhance transport integration through further investment in rail services in Burscough. That would involve the electrification of the line from Ormskirk to Burscough Junction and the reinstatement of the southern Burscough curve, which would provide once again a local rail link between Ormskirk and Southport. Such a development would have benefits not only for the integrated transport system but for rural economies such as Burscough and I hope that the Government will support it. I know that there is an in-principle commitment to the scheme from the county council and from Merseytravel, and I would welcome a positive commitment from the Minister who is present today to drive it forward and examine how we could support such developments to better integrate modes of transport.

I am not asking simply for more money to be invested in transport provisions; I am asking for a fair distribution of what already exists. People have been patient in West Lancashire, and their voices—rather than just the voices of the big cities—should be heard. We are talking not just about adding value but about what is essential. Without it, we could potentially be creating transport haves and have-nots, and that is not acceptable to any of us.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on securing this important debate for her constituents. As on previous occasions I listened carefully to her remarks. She is a tireless campaigner for her constituents and she continues to be a strong advocate for their views and concerns.

I appreciate that areas such as West Lancashire have particular transport challenges and opportunities. The larger settlements of Ormskirk, Skelmersdale and Burscough have grown around a network of major roads that has experienced an increase in traffic and congestion in many conditions.

The county’s local transport plan acknowledges the bypass as the most important proposal for West Lancashire. The A570 Ormskirk bypass is the county council’s second highest priority highway scheme after the Heysham-M6 link road scheme near Lancaster. At present, the A570 runs from the M58 to Southport, in a one-way system through the centre of Ormskirk. Through traffic conflicts with what is going on in the town centre and causes congestion, both for the through traffic and for local traffic. The local transport plan proposes a bypass that would take through traffic out of Ormskirk, improve journey times between the M58 and Southport, and reduce traffic congestion in the town centre. It would greatly improve access to local services, and the town centre would become a safer place for all road users.

As my hon. Friend has confirmed, there is strong support for the proposal from the local hospital trust, which suffers from difficulties with access to its two hospital sites. Lancashire county council is currently developing the proposal, and environmental assessment and traffic modelling work have started with a view to a planning application being made in due course. It will be a matter of years, however, before Lancashire county council is in a position to bid for funding.

As my hon. Friend is very clearly aware, last year the Government provided indicative financial allocations for every region, and asked the regions to provide 10-year investment programmes for housing, transport and economic development. All major transport schemes are part of that process, which represents an opportunity to show how the interrelated areas of transport, housing and economic development can be better aligned so as to serve the people of the region and the north-west better.

Each region was asked to prioritise, using the realistic funding assumptions, funding for major transport schemes up to and including 2015-16. In the north-west, the two regional bodies that were responsible for preparing advice to Ministers were the North West Development Agency and the regional assembly. The region’s advice was developed following a programme of regional and sub-regional consultation events. The Lancashire sub-regional event was held at the end of October and provided an opportunity for partners to provide advice about sub-regional and local priorities, and to inform the assessment criteria. All Lancashire local authority chief executives and leaders were invited to the event, which was followed by a regional consultation event held on 1 December last year to discuss the outcome with regional partners and to identify any major concerns. I understand that West Lancashire district council was represented at the meeting.

As my hon. Friend knows only too well, competition for funding for schemes in the north-west was, as elsewhere, tough. More than 100 schemes were assessed, many of them in the final stages of preparation, and 25 were identified as priorities, supporting regional and local objectives. In reaching its recommendation to Ministers, the North West regional assembly and the development agency took fully into account the assessment by independent consultants who were commissioned to examine economic, social and environmental impact and the deliverability of the schemes that were put forward by the local authorities.

In the event, the region accepted that the three schemes that Lancashire county council identified as top priorities should be prioritised for funding: the completion of the Heysham to M6 link; phase 1 of the Blackpool and Fleetwood tramway upgrade, with Blackpool borough council; and the East Lancashire rapid transit scheme, with Blackburn with Darwen borough council. That meant that the region did not recommend the Ormskirk bypass as one of the 25 prioritised schemes. I have heard only too clearly, both today and previously, how much of a disappointment that is to my hon. Friend and I understand that.

I also appreciate that the decision is disappointing to the people of Ormskirk. However, the decision on regional priorities does not exclude the possibility of the scheme being reconsidered at a later date when it is has been more fully worked up. I know that the county council is working to complete environmental appraisal and traffic modelling work once it has a clearer picture of the time scales and costs of the scheme. Once it has that, I assure my hon. Friend that we will be happy to discuss further the way forward with the council.

May I just make a second plea: should there be difficulties over the Heysham-M6 link and the moneys not be spent in time, could the Ormskirk bypass be reconsidered?

I note clearly the point that my hon. Friend makes, but we still have to work on regional priorities. She might like to make that point to the relevant regional bodies who will be advising Ministers should that event occur. We are currently considering the recommendations from the north-west region and she can expect an announcement before the summer recess.

On rail, the reopening of the redundant railway lines known as the Burscough curves would improve rail links between Ormskirk and Southport and between Preston and Southport. The lines are protected as a long-term proposal in the Lancashire structure plan, but I regrettably must inform my hon. Friend that there are no current proposals to reopen the line.

On tackling congestion in West Lancashire, I understand and appreciate the strength of the case that my hon. Friend put for the Ormskirk bypass, reflecting, as I know, the strong views of her constituents. I am bound to point out, as I am sure she knows, that the building of bypasses is not the only way in which we can tackle congestion. Many initiatives do not require new infrastructure but aim to help people to reduce their car use while enhancing the attractiveness of alternatives. Such initiatives include workplace and school travel plans, personalised travel planning, travel awareness campaigns, public transport information and promotion, car clubs, car sharing, teleworking and teleconferencing, and home shopping.

As part of that, I know that my hon. Friend is particularly interested in the issue of buses. The Lancashire bus strategy will form an important element of the overall strategy on congestion—an issue that we are seeking to tackle. The Government recognise that buses are the backbone of our transport system and that compared with rail and light rail they are a flexible and low-cost option for tackling congestion, meeting environmental targets and, importantly, reducing social exclusion.

In West Lancashire, the proposed quality bus partnership for the Wigan-Skelmersdale-Ormskirk-Southport service will raise standards for an important route that takes staff, patients and visitors to the hospitals. I know that that is of great concern to my hon. Friend and her constituents. The county council will be working with bus operators and local authorities to raise the quality of vehicles and the infrastructure on that cross-border route.

I know that there has been some local concern in West Lancashire about the operation of the Government’s bus challenge initiative. The grant schemes were never intended to provide permanent revenue support for services and successful projects should become self-sustaining or part of mainstream support from local authorities or other sources. Inevitably, some services turn out to require a high level of subsidy and they are difficult to sustain. The local authorities, as we know, decide on the viability of such schemes.

I would also like to clarify the position for the Government’s concessionary fare scheme. All relevant authorities have extra money—my hon. Friend welcomed that, for which I thank her—and that reflects the new duty to provided free concessionary fares. The Government have put an additional £350 million into the settlement, which correctly reflects the cost of free fares. There is general agreement that there is enough additional money overall for the new local authority responsibilities. Both the level of the settlement and the way in which it is made reflect the fairest way of sharing out the money.

It is, of course, for local authorities to decide their overall funding priorities based on their judgment of local need and circumstances. Cross-boundary travel, which is important to my hon. Friend’s constituents, is offered at the discretion of the local authority. It must, of course, be based on their judgments of local needs and their overall financial priorities. Regrettably, the 14 district and unitary authorities of Lancashire have yet to agree on a county-wide concessionary travel scheme, so free travel across boundaries is not available at present although it is in other parts of the country. With that in mind, I have asked my officials to take it up with the authorities and I shall write to my hon. Friend on the matter.

As my hon. Friend will be well aware, we are introducing a national scheme in April 2008 that will allow older and disabled people free off-peak bus travel anywhere in England. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome that on behalf of her constituents. Capital funding for local transport in West Lancashire is allocated to Lancashire county council and the total funding provided to fund major schemes, integrated transport measures and maintenance of assets for transport since 1997 amounts to more than £185 million.

Having made those points, I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for doing such a good job in raising so clearly and ably on behalf of her constituents a range of issues that matter so much to them. I hope that I have been able to give her a response that will help her in continuing to work to improve transport in her local area.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr. Bercow. I start by thanking the Speaker on behalf of my constituents on Mull and Iona for granting me this Adjournment debate.

I want to set out the background to the swimming pool before turning my attention to the complex VAT issue. Mull is the largest island in the country that does not have a swimming pool. I do not want anyone to think that because Mull is an island, people have the alternative option of swimming in the sea. The seas round the island are very treacherous and are certainly no place for anybody to learn to swim.

Tragically, every year about 50 children in the country die from drowning. That shows the importance of learning to swim, and Government policy rightly attaches a high importance to teaching children to swim. The Schools Minister recently announced a £5.5 million scheme to give daily catch-up lessons to children who cannot swim by the end of their primary schooling. Such a policy could not be implemented on Mull simply because there is no swimming pool.

For a quarter of a century, the islanders have been trying to raise enough money to build a pool. The Mull and Iona Swimming Pool Association was formed and it set up a company with charitable status to manage the fundraising, oversee the design and construction and to own the pool when it was completed. That company is called the Mull and Iona Community Enterprise—MICE, for short.

After a quarter of a century of effort, the islanders are now tantalisingly close to getting a swimming pool, having raised £1.8 million required to build it. They have overcome many hurdles along the way, one of which was the fact that on an island of only 3,000 people, no swimming pool could be run without making an operating loss. That hurdle was overcome by reaching agreement with the North British Hotels Trust—NBHT—a registered charity that owns and operates the Isle of Mull hotel at Craignure on the island. It was agreed with the trust that the pool would be built next to the hotel and that it would be leased to North British Hotels Trust, which would then operate the pool and absorb any losses on the running costs.

The pool would, of course, be open to the public and made freely available to schools and swimming clubs. It has received financial support from the Argyll and Bute council, Argyll and the Islands Enterprise and SportScotland, as well as many contributions from trusts and individuals. A great deal of money has been raised through voluntary fundraising activities by the islanders.

A few months ago, it seemed that the difficulties were over. MICE had raised £1.8 million that was required to build the pool and the North British Hotels Trust had agreed to manage and operate it and absorb any operating losses. It all seemed fine, but then came the bombshell in the form of the dreaded VAT man, which is why I applied to Mr. Speaker for this debate. It is frustrating that the islanders are so close to realising the dream of a swimming pool, yet they are being foiled by the prospect of being taxed to the tune of £300,000 for a project that I am sure the whole House would agree is a worthwhile voluntary sector project. It would be simply impossible to raise that extra £300,000.

It has always been assumed that, because MICE and the North British Hotels Trust are both charities and the pool was for school and community use, as well as being non-profit making, it would be zero-rated for VAT. However, it has turned out that the law is not quite as straightforward as that. Much correspondence has taken place between Revenue and Customs and MICE and, so far, Revenue and Customs has not been able to give a ruling on the matter. I stress that the HMRC officers with whom MICE has been dealing have always answered its questions speedily and are doing their best to do their job and co-operate. MICE has no criticism whatever of the people in the VAT office, but simply of the complicated rules under which they have to operate. Parliament designed those rules to catch large banks and insurance companies that wanted to avoid VAT, but it seems to have caught a small voluntary group in that net.

The list of items that are zero-rated for VAT are specified under schedule 8 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Under the heading “Group 5—Construction of buildings, etc.”, item 4 states:

“Use for a relevant charitable purpose means use by a charity in either or both of the following ways, namely—

(a) otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business;

(b) as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community.”

However, the interpretation of the law is that a swimming pool does not fall into the zero-rated category, despite its being used for social and recreational activities and—in this case—being operated by a charity. It was therefore accepted by MICE and North British Hotels Trust that some VAT had to be paid, but it was assumed that the hotels trust would be able to pay VAT on the lease and charge VAT on admissions to the pool and that MICE would be able to recover the VAT on the construction.

An independent commercial valuation of the lease was obtained, and it was estimated that the commercial value of the lease was about £5,000 a year. That is the cost of the lease that the hotels trust would pay to MICE. The assumption was that the hotels trust would be able to pay VAT on the lease, which would work out at slightly under £1,000 a year, and that would allow MICE to recover the £300,000 VAT on the construction costs.

However, an unexpected problem arose, and this is where the whole affair becomes difficult to understand. Certain categories of admission to the pool are zero-rated for VAT. Those include schools, clubs and what is known as a series of lets. The series-of-lets rule is specified in the Value Added Tax Act 1994, schedule 9, group 1, note (16). In conjunction with that, we have to look at another part of the 1994 Act: schedule 10, paragraph 2. That is a long complicated paragraph, and it would probably take me the whole time allocated for the debate to read it out, so I shall refrain from doing so, but the crux of the issue is a phrase in that paragraph: “wholly or mainly”.

The Act says that the hotels trust cannot recover VAT on the construction costs unless the pool is used “wholly or mainly” for purposes for which VAT would be charged on the costs of admission. I find that slightly illogical. Parliament has decided that certain activities are zero-rated for VAT. I will refer to those activities as good causes. If the pool operators admit too many of those good causes, the builders, MICE, have to pay £300,000 VAT, yet if those good causes were not admitted, VAT would be required to be paid only on the lease and would be less than £1,000 a year. That seems rather illogical.

Let me summarise the position. Revenue and Customs says that the law is that more than 20 per cent. of admissions being good causes attracts £300,000 VAT, but with less than 20 per cent. good causes, VAT is less than £1,000 a year. Surely there is something far wrong there. I cannot believe that Parliament intended that when it passed the legislation.

Because of the agreement with the council and with SportScotland, schools and clubs must be admitted to the pool, and of course MICE wanted schools and clubs to be admitted. That was one of the main reasons for wanting a pool on the island in the first place. There is surely something far wrong with the law if it says that a charity cannot recover VAT on the construction costs if too many zero-rated categories of swimmer are admitted. That is surely the wrong way round.

The law that Parliament passed uses the phrase “wholly or mainly”, but does not put a figure on it. Revenue and Customs has adopted a policy that, in the case of indirect taxation, “wholly or mainly” means 80 per cent. That, I understand, has never been tested in court, and it must be stressed that the 80 per cent. figure was not passed by Parliament, but adopted by Revenue and Customs.

It has been estimated that less than one third of the usage of the pool would be by groups that were zero-rated for VAT, so if “wholly or mainly” could be reinterpreted as more than two thirds, the problem would be solved. I would have thought that “mainly” could reasonably be interpreted as meaning more than two thirds; 80 per cent. seems a very high interpretation of the word “mainly”.

The accountants hired by Argyll and the Islands Enterprise to advise MICE have told me that they are confident that if the case goes to a VAT appeals tribunal, MICE will win the case, but of course none of us wants the case to go to an appeals tribunal, so I ask the Paymaster General to take a look at the Revenue and Customs interpretation of the Act of Parliament.

MICE’s accountancy advisers have told me that the “wholly or mainly” rule was originally introduced in an attempt to eliminate anti-avoidance measures by some large financial institutions. There appears to have been a scam involving deals between financial institutions and universities or private hospitals. Apparently, universities or private hospitals were taking advantage, through a convoluted series of agreements, of the zero-rated status of health and education to enable the financial institutions to recover VAT on non-exempt activities. However, I understand that that loophole has been plugged by other means: the Government recently introduced other legislation that plugged that loophole, and a recent European Court ruling, which rejected an appeal by HBOS plc, BUPA and Huddersfield university, confirmed that.

My understanding is that that ruling shows that the 80 per cent. policy is no longer required to stop such tax avoidance by big banks, big universities and private hospitals. If the policy were to be reinterpreted to, say, two thirds for the deserving case of the Mull pool, I do not believe that that would open the floodgates.

Will the hon. Gentleman disclose which company is giving that financial advice to MICE? That may become pertinent to what I have to say.

I am perfectly happy to do so. Ernst and Young has been hired by Argyll and the Islands Enterprise and has given that financial advice. I have certainly used financial advice from that company in preparing my speech. I am working on the assumption that it is correct professional advice.

If the policy were reinterpreted to two thirds, that would not open up the floodgates to undeserving cases, because the European Court case was decided on a different piece of legislation.

It must be stressed that the recent agreement between MICE and the hotels trust was put in place because MICE could not afford to fund the inevitable operating deficit on the pool. The structure was not chosen as a VAT avoidance measure.

A Customs and Excise officer who had been dealing with the case had originally been suspicious that the purpose of the lease may have been to avoid VAT. However, in his latest letter to Ernst and Young, dated 16 June, he seemed satisfied that it was not. He wrote:

“I have decided not to pursue the question of purpose further in respect of the structure set out in MICE’s letter dated 10 March 2004.”

The crux of the problem appears to be the 80 per cent. policy, which, given how it has operated in this case, means that if the pool operators admit too many good causes, MICE has to pay a VAT bill of £300,000. Customs and Excise will never collect that money. If the ruling is implemented, no pool will be built, so at the end of the day no money will be collected.

To show how unfair the VAT bill for MICE would be, I shall refer to another swimming pool. Last Friday, I was delighted when the Scottish First Minister opened a new swimming pool in Campbeltown, also in my constituency. That pool is owned and operated by the council, so under the legislation it is free from VAT. However, because Campbeltown is big enough to enable the pool to run without an operating loss, the council was able to afford it. The paradox is that a reasonably large town on the mainland gets a VAT-free pool run by the council, but when a voluntary organisation on a smaller island tries to build a pool that would run at a loss, it receives a VAT bill. I do not understand how that can be fair.

The community on Mull has done what it thought the Government, the Scottish Executive and the council wanted it to do. It formed a community group, raised the money itself and went into partnership with the private sector. Like all islands, Mull has a tremendous community spirit. People there did not rely on the state, but got up, worked their socks off and raised the money themselves. Now it appears that they have to pay VAT on the pool that would not have had to be paid if the council had built it.

Time is running out because many of the bodies that awarded grants imposed time limits, for obvious reasons. For example, the European objective 1 money must be spent by the end of November or it will be lost forever. In a 16 June e-mail to Ernst and Young, the Customs and Excise Officer who is dealing with the case wrote:

“I note that you now appear to challenge customs policy in regard to the wholly or mainly test in schedule 10 of the VAT Act. I am sure that you can appreciate that HMRC officials are accountable to Members of Parliament through the appropriate Minister. We may have ministerial direction on this matter after Wednesday’s debate.”

I do not expect the Paymaster General to give an answer today, but I am sure that she will be sympathetic to the islanders’ plight. I would hope that she would study the problem in detail and attempt to find a way round the VAT problem.

I must stress that when I am speaking in the debate, I have no criticism of Customs and Excise officers or the way that they are carrying out their job. They are responding quickly and giving advice. I have no criticism there.

I am sure that all those laws were passed by Parliament for perfectly sensible reasons to stop VAT avoidance by big companies and banks. However, two charities are involved, MICE, a community group and the North British Hotels Trust, a voluntary group trying to provide a swimming pool for the island. Therefore, I hope that we can find a way round the problem without opening up floodgates that would allow big banks and insurance companies to benefit from it.

The islanders of Mull have tried very hard for 25 years. Therefore, I hope that we can find a solution to the problem that would allow them to build a pool without the extra £300,000 bill from Customs and Excise.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) for allowing me to take a couple of minutes to support the powerful argument that he made. I agree with everything he said about the need to crack down on evasion; I think that everyone in the House agrees on that. However, he put forward a powerful case for how that can have perverse consequences for small community groups. I understand that absolutely from my own experience.

For example, as the hon. Gentleman noted, if a building is built in one way it can attract VAT, yet if it is built in another it does not. In a recreation facility in which the entrance to the swimming pool is through a central area, if the pool is completely replaced but the entrance remains the same, that new facility attracts VAT. However, if it were wholly new—with an entrance in a separate place—it would not attract VAT. As the hon. Gentleman said, that can be enormously damaging for small voluntary groups that are trying to build a community facility, not trying to evade VAT, and which are not big corporations. Therefore, I support everything he said in that respect.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that time is running out on the Isle of Mull. Time, as he powerfully demonstrated, is often of the essence in these judgments. It is important for small community groups, such as those on the Isle of Mull and in Highworth in my constituency, that do not have access to much professional advice—they cannot afford it—to get a clear and rapid indication of their tax liability. In my experience in Highworth, that can take a year, which I am sure he agrees is too long.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, whom I know will be sympathetic to the efforts of voluntary groups in the Isle of Mull and elsewhere, can find a way to reassure everyone about those concerns.

It is delightful to see you in the Chair, Mr. Bercow. You have chaired quite a few debates in which I have participated. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing today’s debate, and I shall return to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills).

First, let me say to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that things are not always as they seem. For instance, when the officer wrote the e-mail to him about ministerial direction, he was referring to whether the officer had authority to meet him as a Member of Parliament. Ministers have absolutely no power of direction over the tax system; it is divided by care and management. However, I want to return to the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

First, I appreciate why the people of Mull and Iona—an island community with an extensive coastline—attach such great importance to the issue of the pool. Their feelings reflect and are reflected in their impressive and sustained fundraising efforts over many years. As the hon. Gentleman was good enough to acknowledge, the project fits closely with the Government’s objectives for access to swimming pools for members of the public.

I pay tribute to the efforts of the community on Mull and Iona, particularly the swimming pool association, which has been involved for some 25 years in campaigning, fundraising and trying to establish the pool. All of us would probably acknowledge that it is probably one of the longest-running fundraising campaigns in Scotland. Pools are expensive to build and maintain, and the association has experienced several difficulties over the years in respect of those costs. We all congratulate members of the association on the endurance, determination and imagination that they have demonstrated in overcoming those many difficulties.

In that respect, I was particularly interested to hear about the partnership that the community set up with Argyll and Bute council and the Isle of Mull hotel. It was unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman referred to “the dreaded VAT man”. Again, I shall defend my officials. Anybody who works in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is following the law of the land as instructed by this Parliament. They are not allowed to vary it—Members of Parliament do that. They do a fine job and are not to be dreaded. I hope to demonstrate that in this case we are in great danger from a series of misunderstandings.

The hon. Gentleman appreciates that HMRC administers the VAT rules, as I have said. Those rules are laid down by Parliament and I have no power personally to intervene and direct HMRC. It follows the law of the land.

I understand that Mull and Iona Community Enterprise—referred to by the hon. Gentleman as MICE—has sought to waive an exemption on the proposed lease of the swimming pool to the hotel. That would enable MICE to reclaim the VAT costs incurred on the construction of the pool, subject to the normal VAT rules. Let us be clear about events: the scheme was notified to HMRC in March 2006 and, in defence of my officials, the numbers of letters that have been exchanged are two from HMRC to MICE asking for information about the proposed scheme and its financial structure, two from MICE to HMRC responding to those requests, and another one or two—no more than five or six. We are only a little way into the discussion.

The hon. Gentleman touched on what is at the heart of the problem. Just before the 1997 election, the then Government introduced anti-avoidance rules to prevent significant VAT revenue losses, which were £100 million or more a year. The rules were designed to head off a classic VAT avoidance structure in the property sector whereby non-VAT recovering bodies created taxable bodies to reclaim the VAT incurred on construction costs, and then charged an artificially low rent for the occupation of the premises.

Whatever the advice that the hon. Gentleman received from Ernst and Young about the court cases and whether the anti-avoidance rules are still needed, I must tell him that if he cares to look at any Finance Bill, including the one that we finished considering in Committee only yesterday, he will see that VAT on property remains one of the main areas of avoidance activity. That has not changed and is not affected by the rulings.

There is a dilemma over how to proceed. There are classic VAT avoidance structures that involve hundreds of millions of pounds, and they follow certain key steps, but I want to make it absolutely clear that HMRC accepts that the intention of the arrangements in relation to the swimming pool is not to avoid that VAT. Nevertheless, the Department has to satisfy itself—we do not want to set a precedent here and find the same scheme popping up somewhere else, but this time involving a bank and hundreds of millions of pounds. It is necessary for the facts to be put on the table, then Revenue and Customs can give an adjudication.

The best advice that the accountants can give MICE is to disclose the facts of the case and put them on the table as quickly as possible. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, because I have made sure of this in talking to my officials, that HMRC officials will resolve the matters as quickly as possible. Instead of relying on complex accounting—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon said, is not always accessible—simply and straightforwardly say, “This is what we want to do and why we want to do it.” Then a decision can be taken, and very speedily.

I want to emphasise that HMRC stands ready now, as quickly as possible, to clarify the VAT treatment, once all the facts have been established, although we are still waiting for all the facts. It is much better to get it done this way than via a VAT tribunal. Then a decision can be made.

The issue of whether a swimming pool has a similar use to a village hall goes to the heart of the points that I want to make to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. This is the question: is the proposed use of the swimming pool similar to that of the village hall for the purposes of VAT and why do they not come within that? Even a cursory glance will demonstrate why. Here, case law is followed and it is defined in case law what needs to be done for a building to qualify. It must be constructed by a charity, it must have a high degree of community involvement in its operation and activity, and it must be provided for a wide range of predominantly social and/or recreational activities.

As I understand the proposals, the pool will be managed and operated by the hotel, which is not a charity. The pool may also not be managed with a high degree of community involvement. Furthermore, by definition, the pool is unlikely to be able to cater for a wide range of social and/or recreational activities beyond swimming and water safety. Therefore, it is not within the similar treatment. But to recap, this is an important scheme that is hugely important to the community, which has done a great deal. We should pay tribute to it.

I must impress this on the hon. Gentleman: get the facts on the table and HMRC will make a decision. I am confident that it will be the right decision and all will be happy. That is all that needs to be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Five o’clock.