Westminster Hall Sitting of 9 May 2000

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Law and Order
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
10 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am very grateful to have secured this debate on a matter greatly exercising the minds of rural communities. The House—indeed, the whole country—knows that the issues raised by Mr. Tony Martin's trial have touched a nerve in the nation's consciousness. During the nine months since the incident, I have not commented on the crime, the trial or the outcome of the trial. Mr. Martin is to appeal, so the matter is again sub judice, and I do not intend to break my self-imposed embargo.
Although I am concerned about the impact of the episode on the people of South-West Norfolk, especially those who live closest to Mr. Martin's property in the village of Emneth, I am even more concerned about what the incident has revealed about the state of policing in rural areas and people's attitudes to the police's ability to protect them and their property.
We should not forget that rural communities are collections not only of individuals, but of businesses, including agriculture. In its journal this month, the National Farmers Union makes its concerns clear. The latest NFU Mutual figures show that rural theft costs the farming industry more than £93 million a year, and the journal states:
The Government must act now to deliver adequate policing and security for people living and working in the countryside.
I feel sure that the Minister will have seen that journal, as it is in front of him.
The NFU's president, Mr. Ben Gill, comments:
There is a growing feeling of helplessness in rural communities—stemming from the inability of the legal system to deliver successful prosecutions.
In a letter dated 2 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), the Country Landowners Association draws attention to the report, "The State of the Countryside 2000", published on 26 April by the Countryside Agency. That report says that some crime, such as vehicle crime, has been rising faster in rural areas than in urban areas. The letter says:
The countryside may still be a safer place to live, on the law of probabilities, but the Tony Martin case, supported by others, demonstrates that if the police are not in a position to respond fast to calls, or to give people the protection they need, then in an isolated rural situation the mere existence of a police force ceases to give people the confidence they need in the battle against crime.
Furthermore, the increased mobility of criminals between rural areas, and from urban to rural areas, means that traditional levels of policing in rural areas are no longer sufficient to tackle criminals who can be sixty miles away before a burglary call is investigated.
The Minister will know, because I have raised the matter several times in the House and in correspondence with him that I urge him to act on the recommendations
158WH
of the report on policing in rural areas that his Department commissioned a year ago. He or his colleagues will have discussed with the chairmen of the 11 most rural police authorities the findings of that report, which would give Norfolk an additional £2.4 million for extra police on the beat.
In a letter to me dated 28 April, the chairman of the Norfolk police authority, Mr. Jim Wilson—recently appointed—makes his point with some force. He says:
It should be remembered that Norfolk, despite being a growth county, territorially one of the largest, and an area which attracts thousands of holidaymakers every year, is at the bottom of the pile as far as police-to-population ratios are concerned. Norfolk bid for 90 further officers in the recent Home Office 'challenge funding' but we were only allocated 66 over a three-year period, now possibly reduced to two years. Since 1997 total officer strength has fallen by 50.
Mr. Wilson also describes the further pressures on Norfolk's existing police budget. He points out that the authority is expected to sign up, apparently, for a period of 19 years to the new national communications service for the police, which seems odd in a field as rapidly changing as communications technology. The Minister may like to comment on that, if he can, although it could be a misunderstanding on Mr. Wilson's part. That will cost the force £3 million in capital and up to £630,000 a year in revenue. He adds:
We in Norfolk are uncertain at this stage that we can afford the necessary menu options; if we cannot it will impact on our ability to deliver an enhanced front-line service.
When we had the opportunity to debate some of those issues last week in the excellent Adjournment debate on police numbers that was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, I said that modernisation and up-to-date technology were clearly essential to combat equally up-to-date criminal activity. However, that should not be at the expense of other priorities and, at the very least, should not render front-line policing less effective, as Mr. Wilson implies would be the effect of the current strategy.
Mr. Wilson goes on to point out that the increased bureaucracy and paperwork imposed on the police by best value legislation and the requirement over the past two years to implement annual 2 per cent. efficiency plans across all forces—irrespective of their capability to make such annual savings—will be time-consuming and expensive. He uses a worrying phrase in that he describes that activity as:
another diversion from what the public would recognise as the real purpose of policing.
Those are the words of the chairman of the Norfolk police authority. I hope that the Minister can comment on that point, which comes from the coal face. Clearly, he would agree that any diversion from the real purpose of policing should be avoided.
I also hope that the Minister can expand on his interesting comment in last week's Adjournment debate that he is seriously considering the problems posed by the funding of pension payments. Of course, I realise that that is not a new problem, but one that has grown over the years. However, such payments currently absorb 15 per cent. of the revenue budget of the Norfolk police authority, according to its chairman.
Police morale is affected by those factors and by the criticism that the police feel that they have suffered as a result of a number of high-profile cases, include that

159WH
of Tony Martin. In Norfolk, the police have achieved two extremely high-profile successes in terms of an arrest and charge in one high-profile murder case and a conviction in another case. In the many hundreds of letters that I have received about the Martin case and the issues that it raises, the legal system is criticised at least as much as the police. The Minister will be aware of that.
However, there are police operational matters uncovered by the case and frequently spoken of, for which the Minister is not responsible, but of which he needs to be aware. I think that such matters exasperate local police on the beat as much as they do the public. Many of those matters were raised last week at a meeting of the Swaffham chamber of trade in my constituency, attended by a police inspector, a sergeant and a constable. The Minister might like to note that the chamber presented the constable with a mobile phone, so that he could be contacted at all times. The Minister will doubtless say that that is a good example of community police partnership. [Laughter.] So it is, but he will also accept that it shows that the chamber of trade feels that it is sometimes difficult to get anyone on the beat. I certainly do not decry the generosity of the chamber of trade, which was well meant, or its relationship with the local police, but I should like the Minister to reflect for a moment on where we now are.
It was pointed out at that meeting that, in the past two and half years, 50 per cent. of the constables, an inspector and two sergeants had been lost because of reduced funds. Poor-quality police cars with high mileages on the clock did not help. Response times to calls for help, the routeing of 999 calls to a central point in Norwich where the staff did not know the location of villages across the county and computer problems were raised at the meeting by local business people who were anxious about what they see as escalating security risks for them and their businesses. Those are clearly not simply matters of resources, although some of them are resource related. That is the view not only of the public, but of the police.
Mr. David Prior: My right hon. Friend will know the market town of North Walsham in my constituency. I believe that she was born there, or at least went to school there. I met a great number of people in North Walsham last week who told me that they were frightened to go out at night. That would also be true of towns like Swaffham in her constituency and Fakenham in mine. There is a feeling that there are simply not enough policemen visible on the beat to protect people. It is the fear of crime, rather than levels of crime, that is important in rural areas.
Mrs. Shephard: There is no simple correlation between the number of police on the beat and the reduction of crime: I know that the Minister will tell us that at the end of the debate, because I have heard him say it many times. But there is a clear correlation between people's attitude as to whether they are at risk and the number of policemen that they see. Indeed, it is connected to my next point, which has been my constant theme during the past nine months while the Tony Martin case has dominated the headlines. If people feel that the police lack the resources to protect them and
160WH
their property—my earlier remarks illustrate the fact that the police share that view—they will be tempted to take the law into their own hands. The consequences of that have been all too tragically demonstrated by the outcome of the Martin case.
Mr. Lovell of Tipps End in my constituency puts the matter succinctly in his letter to me of 24 April. He says:
Rather than make householders more fearful about tackling burglars, the case has hardened many people's views. I have heard it for myself. This is a very worrying trend, and unless something radical is done, the situation, I fear, will get worse. There is now talk of vigilante groups armed with illegal weapons and a total feeling of disgust and frustration directed towards the police and legal system. Those of us who believe in the rule of law are very concerned about the mood of the community.
A letter from a farmer states:
In the rural areas the police presence is now non-existent. The criminals know this. We regularly suffer minor thefts and the police are too over-stretched and lacking in manpower to investigate them satisfactorily. When they are called to the scene of a crime they take, on average, 25 minutes to arrive, their excuse being that, even with grid references and postcode etc., they are still not able to locate us. Is it surprising that some are beginning to take the law into their own hands?
I have received letters on this subject from all over the country. Mr. Derek Bromwich from Greenford in Middlesex takes the point further. He asks:
Why have police numbers fallen so dramatically over recent years? Has it more to do with political correctness and disillusionment with the criminal justice system…? Will you politicians—
the Minister will enjoy this—
who live in relative luxury with high security and personal bodyguards just get real and deal with this problem. Otherwise we have no option but to take the law into our own hands. We are just not safe either in the city or the country and don't insult our intelligence by quoting bogus, inaccurate and manipulated crime statistics to pretend crime is going down. We live in the real world and we are not all stupid.
The Minister is bound to be aware of the current strength of feeling about law and order in this country. He occupies a hot seat, which would not be made more comfortable by reading the survey in the previous issue of the Fenland Citizen. Its readership was asked to telephone in with answers to questions about the Tony Martin case, one of which was, "Do you feel safe in your own home?" A staggering 91 per cent. of the more than 1,000 people who rang in replied that they did not.
The police are aware of these attitudes, which do not make their job any easier, especially when they feel under-resourced. All hon. Members will have heard from their constituents' anecdotal evidence of the police arriving hours after an incident or, even worse, not arriving at all. At the Swaffham chamber of trade meeting in my constituency last week, a shopkeeper in the town, Mrs. Carol Baker, described arriving at her shop at 7.30 in the morning to find that it had been burgled. She reported the crime to the Norfolk police central switchboard at 7.45, was told that no one could attend the crime and was given a crime number for her insurance claim. It was 36 hours before any police officer attended; and five whole days later, the local police had still not been informed about her problem because it had been communicated to a computer. The exasperation of the local police can only be imagined: they would have been as infuriated as she was. Her confidence in the ability of the police to help her took a severe bruising.

161WH
People have written from all over Britain. Many of them took the trouble to say that they were not members of my political party. Much of what they said was about Tony Martin's trial, the verdict and the sentence; but many also commented on how they felt about the current performance of the police. The most important issue raised by the case is that people feel that police numbers are so thinly stretched that they cannot protect individuals' property.
Since the Government came to power, police numbers have fallen by 2,300. The number of civilian staff has remained the same and the number of specials has fallen by 3,500. Worse, the Norfolk police authority chairman has made it clear that the new communications system will demand extra money and the Government's own requirements for police bureaucracy are eating further into police time—a
diversion from what the public would recognise as the real purpose of policing,
as Mr. Wilson put it. The consequent inability of the police to respond as they would wish to calls for help from the public is beginning to diminish public respect for them, through no fault of their own. Their own morale is suffering.
The solution is at least partly in the Government's hands. Some problems are not new, but others—the reduction in police numbers, the increase in bureaucracy and paperwork and the lack of interest in rural communities—are of the Government's own making. Rural people and their problems matter too. They deserve some priority of treatment. I cannot believe that the Minister will stand by and watch respect for the law crumble, partly as a result of reduced resources.
The Minister has taken the trouble to listen to concerns, many of which have been voiced in his own predominantly rural county. He has promised to examine the issues carefully in the run up to the publication of the rural White Paper and the comprehensive spending review that is being prepared for later in the summer. I ask him to persuade his colleagues in the Government to reconsider the Government's spending and attention priorities, to reflect on what is happening in rural communities and to understand that the issue is much more than simply a matter of resources—it is about respect for the law and taking action before it is too late.
10.19 am
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate. Because of Select Committee duties I was unable to attend last week's debate on police numbers, but I am sure that some of the issues that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) mentioned were highlighted. I have, however, spoken in both the debates on police grants that have been held in recent years, so I hope that I have shown an interest. My hon. Friend the Minister will also know about the meetings that we have had.
It is important to put the record straight. I hold the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk in high esteem—we worked together on the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and still bear the scars—but I was disappointed when she said that the Labour party did not care about rural areas. Labour Members do not pretend to have a new feel for
162WH
rural issues but have worked relentlessly over many years to highlight them. Such issues have not appeared on the political antennae only recently, but date back decades.
I do not want to trade newspaper cuttings with the right hon. Lady, but the headline story in my local weekly newspaper last week said that the village bobby and station were about to be axed and taken away from the good denizens of Minchinhampton, which is a fairly large village in the Cotswolds, in my constituency. The newspaper announced that the police constable, Jim Gregory, whom I know well and who has been an excellent bobby over the years, is about to be moved to rural protection duties. I hope that that will be a good way for him to see out his later years in the police force, but the change leaves the authority with a dilemma over his replacement. Jim lives in the police house in Minchinhampton and operates the police station next door, and I should make it clear that I do not want to push him out of his house, because he wants to see out his years there. However, Cheryl Thomas, the inspector for the area in which I live, has said that the police authority will not seek a replacement for Jim, and I want to tease out that dilemma.
We must replace the Jim Gregorys of this world, but we cannot do so by putting officers into the various communities, because there are other pressures and policing has moved on. That dilemma, which I have faced several times, relates to the visibility and accessibility of the police. Those issues are important in rural areas; if people do not see their police, they lose confidence and feel that they are unpoliced. At the same time, that approach to policing is not, in the main, the way to catch criminals. The dilemma that we face is how to balance visibility and accessibility with the effectiveness of the police force.
I am carrying on a funny sort of dialogue, because I have not talked to my police authority and the police about how they reached their decision. However, by pure chance, a police consultative committee meeting is taking place in Minchinhampton tomorrow night, and I imagine that it will be well attended. Inspector Cheryl Thomas announced the news about Jim Gregory at a parish council meeting last week.
I would like assurances from the police that they will give the area a named officer, as they have done elsewhere. Whitminster, which is also in my constituency, lost its police station 18 months ago, and WPC Debbie Lord was allocated as its named officer. That seems to have worked reasonably well. It is important for someone, in co-operation with other agencies, to have responsibility for an area, even if, as with Jim Gregory, his operational duties occasionally pull him away from the community. That has long been the case, but it is more the case now. It is important to have a mobile police force, which can do what we need it to do.
Just before Christmas, I was part of a delegation to my hon. Friend the Minister, which included the chief constable for Gloucestershire, Tony Butler; the chairman of the police authority, Brigadier Michael Browne; and the chief officer of the county council, Richard Cockcroft. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) was also a member of the delegation. Members of the public who say that Members of Parliament have a well-protected, easy life should

163WH
remember what some people go through. Understandably, people sometimes have short memories, but they should be reminded of the tragic events in Cheltenham, which bring home to us the risks taken by anyone in the public service.
The key points raised by the delegation may have had some impact, as the Minister has spoken about those matters on more than one occasion, and we are gratified by what he said. We made an early bid for what are known colloquially as Jack Straw bobbies. I would not say that Gloucestershire got its fair share, as we never get—well, never argue that we get—a completely fair share, but police numbers have been increased, which is most welcome. We bid to ensure that when those officers have been trained there will be a rural dimension to their allocation. We stressed the importance of the sparsity factor as a way of considering how the correct formula is decided, and emphasised that the distribution of police numbers should take account of the mobile criminal fraternity.
My county faces the problem of criminals coming from Bristol and Birmingham, and that has begun to hit rural areas. Constituents and members of the public sometimes allege that the number of offences is up when in reality it is not, unless someone is doing something strange. There are always arguments about how the figures are counted and how crime is recorded, but whenever I ask the police, there is a decline in the number of crimes. However, it needs only one event such as the Tony Martin case to bring home to all of us—
Mr. Oliver Heald: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was talking about Gloucestershire. Crimes there rose by 1,932 last year—an increase of 4 per cent.
Mr. Drew: As I was saying before the hon. Gentleman intervened, it is a lot to do with how crimes are recorded. In Gloucestershire, we are trying to record crime properly and get to the root of what is happening. I shall not bandy statistics with the hon. Gentleman, but in many areas, especially rural areas, there has been a decline—although not significant—in the number of crimes. However, even if we play the statistics game, we ignore crime at our peril because what is important is how it is perceived. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk that how one perceives what is happening is very significant. I raised the matter in a previous debate on the police.
A Women's Institute survey highlighted the degree to which people fear crime and genuinely see it as the most important issue in determining their quality of life. I will not argue about statistics with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire; crime is declining, but although the recording of crime may have improved, there is much more to do.
Dr. Ian Gibson: It is rather novel for me to think about matters relating to crime, in spite of the fact that my home was burgled twice in the past six months. Although a House of Commons champagne bottle was taken, and found in the back of a car during a machete fight, the police were unable to nail the two
164WH
culprits. I wonder about people's perception. What is it that people perceive when they are being burgled, mugged or raped? What sort of perception do the people have whom my hon. Friend spoke about? What are they most frightened of?
Mr. Drew: I shall try to answer my hon. Friend. They are fearful of what appears in the headlines, but their overwhelming fear is that it will happen to them. That is now just as likely to happen in rural areas as in urban centres. Like my hon. Friend, we can all cite such experiences. My office has been broken into twice recently—I suspect by the same person. The first time, he took £5. The second time, he took £2. That tells us something about Labour party offices, which seem to get poorer rather than richer. I am not sure when we can expect matters to improve.
Rural areas suffer not only from the activities of mobile criminals. In rural areas—my constituency is typical of a rural area, with market towns with a rural hinterland—members of a hard core of local criminals seem to commit the same crimes time after time. The police are frustrated because the crimes of many of those who are regularly arrested are drugs related. We need a police presence on the streets because it would give people confidence and make the criminals think twice about the daft things that they often do.
Mr. Prior: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for North Norfolk—
Dr. Gibson: You represent North Norfolk.
Mr. Prior: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) had a bottle of champagne stolen. He certainly would not have wanted to drink it last Thursday night.
Does the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) believe that it is the fact that repeat offenders continuously receive short custodial sentences that so undermines the morale of the police force?
Mr. Drew: Yes, I do. One of the Labour party's key manifesto commitments was to speed up the course of justice. That can be done in two ways. First, we must convict criminals and, when appropriate, commit them to prison. Secondly, we must have an overall approach to dealing with crime. Everyone from the chief constable and the police to the various agencies concerned welcomed the youth justice reforms that we introduced, but the improvements will not come about in a matter of months or years; they will take decades.
Until recently, many communities knew the hard-core group of local criminals; indeed, they were so notorious that they were often accused of things that they had not done. It is important to deal with them. I am not saying that the problem does not exist in urban areas, but in rural areas it is easier to pinpoint those people; because of the way in which communities still hold together, they know exactly what is going on. Until recently, my own community of Stone house had an amazing clear-up rate of more than 70 per cent. because certain people were always known about. Unfortunately, fractiousness there during the past five years has made that clear-up rate more difficult to achieve.

165WH
I wish to comment on what the Government have done so far and what should happen next. It is vital that the police have a presence on the streets, in which named officers are responsible for certain areas. Not only will they been seen doing their daily task, but they will be known from their visits to schools and community centres. That will build up people's confidence. We must also acknowledge that fighting crime is about being mobile. Mobility can be improved by ensuring that we have an effective police fleet and by making the other changes that we know to be necessary.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk spoke about the chamber of trade in her constituency giving a mobile phone to a constable. Police in Gloucestershire might obtain better reception on mobile phones than they do on their radios. I go out with the police regularly and I have discussed these problems with them. I could be a good luck charm, as I have not seen the malaise that has been mentioned, although I know that it is real. Until recently, the police have had to keep changing their radio wavebands as they go from one side of the valley to the other and so on. These are acute problems and, although there have been arguments about the funding of the police radio project, it is crucial that it is completed as soon as possible, so that communications will be as rapid and effective as they can possibly be. I hope that the Minister will yet again reiterate that we are simply waiting for the money to be made available, and that the sparsity argument is won. We know about the associated problems, which are faced not only by farmers and other isolated rural businesses but by rural communities, especially in hamlets, where people feel very left out.
I should point out the importance of security funding—argument continues on this private matter—in these issues. If I did not throw this subject into the debate, my chief constable would say, "You made a good speech, but you failed yet again to mention that some of us feel a little bit miffed about the security issues, which have not been properly listened to in relation to the complete funding picture."
As the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk rightly said, the police pensions issue is also highly significant. Among all the other constraints under which any public service will operate, the police pensions issue is the one that is especially important for police. We must grasp that nettle. I will not say that the current Government are more responsible for this matter than were the previous one, from whom all the problems came. They created a time bomb that was obviously going to explode at some point. We know that if we do not do something about it, it will eat into the police budget. I believe that pensions account for 17 per cent. of my authority's budget, and that that figure is expected to rise to more than 20 per cent. That is an enormous top slice off money that can be used for operational work, and we must do something about it.
In conclusion, I feel that the Government has got the message, which does not relate only to funding; it is also an operational message. We must revisit some of the ways in which we allocate our police. We must also ensure an understanding that the high-profile stuff does not relate merely to a synthetic vision of policing in the past. It is important to build people's confidence, which is as important as—although not more important than—the way in which we use all the different means that are available of fighting crime more effectively.
10.37 am
Dr. George Turner: I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on the generally tempered and measured way in which she spoke about problems that, I suspect, have featured in my mailbag as much as in hers during the past several months. However, I hope that I may gently chide her, as I would like to have heard some words of apology for the fact that when she and her party had the opportunity to do more about the issues that she mentioned, they did nothing.
Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not dispute the fact that police numbers have fallen under the current Government by 50 in Norfolk and by 2,300 in total.
Dr. Turner: I shall come to that point. I know that the right hon. Lady was not present last week, and I intend to briefly summarise, but not repeat, one or two points about that issue.
As a member of the Norfolk county council, which was responsible for the police budget for many years, and having been a member of the authority for a number of years, I know that we are discussing long-standing problems. I am pleased that they are being highlighted, as by emphasising them we can more quickly and firmly ensure that the Government addresses them. The problems of rural crime are not new and hon. Members who were in the previous Government should recognise that they provided the incoming Government with a poor heritage with respect to the resourcing of the police in Norfolk. I visited police stations throughout the county over the years and could have despaired about the resources—the lack of IT and good communications and, for most of those years, an argument about police numbers.
I suppose that it is the job of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk to criticise, but it is particularly inappropriate to say that the Government does not care about rural areas. It was because I represent one of the most rural seats in England that the Home Secretary went, on his first major expedition to East Anglia, not to Norwich but to King's Lynn. He told me that. He went there because he knew that I would be able to invite representatives from 60-plus parishes to meet him. As I reminded the House last week, he was chided by people with their bums firmly on seats in London about the pleasures of being in King's Lynn on a wet Friday night, when 600 people turned up to hear him and to give him their views on rural crime. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), came to the county earlier this year.
I know, from correspondence and discussion, that the Government do care about rural crime. However, I understand—and because I do I shall continue to press the Government about this matter—that there are many demands on resources. We shall have to continue, as the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk did, to keep the issue before Government if we are to have a fair share of the resources. It is to the Government's credit that they commissioned a report to investigate the validity of rural areas' claims that they were under-resourced to an unfair degree. Almost every Member of Parliament says that the police in their constituency are

167WH
under-resourced, but it is claimed that rural areas are unfairly under-resourced because previous Governments did not take into account the problems of sparsity.
I spoke about those challenges last week and do not want to cover them again, but they are problems for those who must police a large area, particularly when, as in my constituency, most crime is committed in the smaller, urban part of it. There are hundreds of square miles to cover, but much police effort is tied up by the crime in a small area, and that makes policing difficult. There are vehicle problems and Norfolk has difficulties in keeping 46 stations—one of the highest numbers in the country—open to the public.
Dr. Gibson: Will my hon. Friend also accentuate the positive with respect to the Norfolk police force? Will he mention their work with DNA technology and the marvellous way that they have solved crimes with the use of modern technology in the past few years? They have grasped the nettle and are leading the way in many of the new technologies. We should sing about that.
Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend does me a favour by mentioning the next issue that I wanted to raise. The matter was brought home when, last week, the debate was summarised as being about police numbers. I regret that I gave that impression because one of the key points that I wanted to make in the debate was that one can overemphasise the import of a number. The fact that modern technology provides the police with tools to increase their effectiveness has led the Norfolk police authority to divert resources. Lower police numbers are due not to lower funding, but to the fact that the local police authority and the chief constable have been trying to achieve better results with the resources.
We must understand that just raising police numbers is not the right way to help the public. We have to ensure that the public understand this argument. The new crime detection methods—and IT, which relieves the burden of paperwork and bureaucracy and provides clues, not because computers are more intelligent, but simply because of their greater crunching power—both free police time. We could divert the money needed for those to pay to have people parading up and down the streets although that would have less effect. The police authority is to be congratulated on facing up to that problem.
The Opposition will not help the debate if they continue to take a blinkered view. I accept the statement by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk that she does not want extra police numbers at the expense of technology. In a non-ideal world, the police and the police authority must balance these demands. We should give them our support and not criticise them if they choose not to adopt the sole measure of increasing police numbers.
Fear of crime in recent months has probably been a more important issue than crime itself. This situation reminds me of my mother. If my mother, a marvellous hypochondriac in her time, were asked several times whether she had a particular symptom, she could almost imagine that she had. One cause of the fear of crime is
168WH
the asking of questions about it. If people are repeatedly asked, "Are you frightened to leave your home tonight? Are you frightened when you go down that dark lane without any street lighting to get to the local pub? Are you frightened by what has happened in Norfolk recently?" the result will be a heightened fear of crime. We must assess the public's view and take it on board, but we must also be careful that we reassure people. Rural crime has always existed. There has always been, and still is, less of it than in urban areas. Whatever our individual experience of crime, most of us for the most part are under no threat from the crime that we really fear—violent crime. The fear of violent crime is the greatest fear at present in West Norfolk.
While trying to discover whether my views are based on facts, I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue with senior police officers and officers on the beat. Yesterday, in preparation for the debate, I met the newly appointed chief superintendent for the division covering west Norfolk, Mr. Mike McCormack. The leaders and deputy leaders of the King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council also attended the meeting, which made it more useful. The borough council is one of the key partners in the new crime and disorder partnership—the Safer West Norfolk steering group—which is taking forward the Government's proposals for closer working. We discussed the report on the first year of the partnership, which was recently submitted to the Minister. The meeting was helpful, and I hope that a formal meeting on the issues later in the summer will receive good publicity because it will reassure the public.
The participants at the meeting reminded me that, in addition to the beat base in Terrington St. John, which I mentioned last week, a beat office has been established in Great Massingham, in another part of my constituency. Although there have been teething problems in terms of the extent to which the office is used, its establishment shows how, when a parish council works with the borough council and the police, the available resources and police efficiency can be maximised.
I want to press the Minister on something that the Government should be doing now. Last week, the Minister promised me that the Home Secretary was working hard to ensure that rural policing received a fairer share of the nation's resources in the spending review for 2000, due to be announced in July. I do not expect to hear much more than a repeat of that promise in terms of the broader picture. Would the Minister be willing to consider whether there was a significant opportunity, especially given the publicity, to study a package of rural measures for the fens? A part of the area is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, a part is in Cambridgeshire and a part is in Lincolnshire. Specific problems there could be addressed.
All those with responsibility for crime and disorder matters should consider whether more could be done in the way of property marking, home and farm watches and, in particular, the improvement of intelligence. Complaints are made about telephone calls taken centrally from remote areas. Rural intelligence officers might be appropriate, perhaps acting across county boundaries. They could serve a particular patch so that local telephone messages could by taken by people

169WH
based locally, passing them to local police. I understand that we do not have a mobile closed-circuit television system because we are awaiting the outcomes of trials elsewhere in the country. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that urgency on the matter would be helpful.
In closing, I hope that, even ahead of decisions to come later in the year, the Minister will be willing to consider some of the suggestions positively. I know from my discussions in Norfolk yesterday that the borough council and the local police would support such a rural package.
10.52 am
Mr. Owen Paterson: I apologise for turning up late for the debate. I had a misunderstanding with a horse at the weekend involving gravity and had to see the doctor.
Mr. Drew: The incident did not involve the hon. Gentleman's head?
Mr. Paterson: Hon. Members will be glad to hear that the diagnosis was entirely trivial.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. I come from a rural area. If I dared to break the Norfolk monopoly on the debate, I would further congratulate my right hon. Friend on being part of a Government who increased the number of police officers in the West Mercia area by 405 during her time in office.
I would like to address the problem of police numbers in the West Mercia police area. The Minister received a delegation of West Mercia Members in January, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). The Minister will therefore know that West Mercia police is easily the worst off of all shire police authorities, receiving £103,127. Dare I mention that Norfolk receives £109,000 and that Cleveland receives £152,495? There is no doubt that West Mercia has the lowest expenditure per thousand of the population. The figures for central Government grant per head of resident population for West Mercia are striking when compared with those for surrounding police authorities. In West Mercia, the sum is £84.63; it is £92.38 in the area covered by the Dyfed-Powys police, £134.30 in that covered by the West Midlands police and £93.60 in the Staffordshire police area.
I could continue at length. I have given the Minister the figures. I stress that West Mercia is one of the largest areas. We have 2,866 square miles and just one police officer per 1,078 members of the population. That is about the lowest ratio in Western Europe. As the North Shropshire Neighbourhood and Farm Watch Association asked,
Is it not about time that residents of the three counties forming West Mercia, who all pay the same rate of income taxes as the rest of the country, had a far better deal out of this Home Secretary and the Home Office?
When we saw the Minister, we were told to hang our hats on the crimefighting fund. We have already lost 78 policemen in West Mercia since the election. There was great disappointment when, of the 36 new posts applied for, only 18 were granted, so we are 60 policemen short—despite the fact that the Government
170WH
acknowledged that there are problems in delivering policing in rural areas and commissioned ORH Ltd. to report on the cost created by the extra travel times and communications difficulties and the need for extra police stations. The report recommended that the sparsity factor in rural areas be taken into account.
I hope that the Minister will respond to that issue. Why did the Government commission that report from an independent company and then stick it in a drawer? Why have the Government not acknowledged the report's recommendations, which would have given West Mercia £2.3 million extra? There is a real danger that the contract between the citizen and the state—whereby the citizen pays his taxes and hands over responsibility to the state to maintain law and order—may be breaking down.
Following the high-profile debates that took place after the incident in Norfolk, I went to Oswestry market last week. As I went around the town, I was astonished to learn how many people's houses or shops had been broken into. I was also astonished to discover that many people had not reported the incidents to the police and, importantly, that they had threatened intruders with weapons. That is extremely worrying. There is a danger that, unless the developing vacuum is dealt with, people will begin to take the law into their own hands, either through vigilantism, which has already been mentioned, or by employing private agencies. I have addressed councils on that issue, and they all say that they would like more policemen. However, there are 98 villages in my constituency, and it is highly unlikely that, with any Government, there will be adequate policemen to cover them.
I want to make one suggestion; parish councils should be allowed to finance security men out of their precept. That has already been done in St. Martins, an ex-mining village that has experienced law and order problems. In that village, where an ex-policeman was employed and put in a smart uniform, a considerable amount of trivial, tiresome street crime disappeared because there was someone on the spot who knew the locals, could spot strange cars or ne'er-do-wells coming into the village and could keep in close contact with the police. The system worked extremely well but, for reasons that I shall not go into, it was stopped, and West Mercia has employed a community policeman, who is based in a supermarket in the village. However, there is real merit in considering the use of security men, funded by parish councils, who can liaise closely with the police—an idea that is supported by the senior policemen to whom I have spoken. I should be interested to hear the Minister's reaction to that.
10.57 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I believe that there is a large measure of agreement between members of all parties who represent rural areas. Rural crime certainly is not new, but perhaps it is now being highlighted and it is increasing—partly, I suspect, due to the population shift. More people are moving into rural areas, so it may not be surprising that there is an increase in rural crime.
I suspect that most people and most parish councils want, not more policemen, but less crime, but they imagine that by having more policemen, there might be

171WH
less crime. There is no doubt that the police are stretched and are being stretched further. The sparsity factor has been mentioned, and I hope that the Government will recognise the need to do something about it because it is clearly affecting the ability of the police to provide the sort of service that they want to provide in rural areas.
Those hon. Members who represent holiday locations will be aware of the problem of the seasonal increase in crime due to tourism. We enjoy the benefits of tourism, but it means that the police are stretched even further, and, with the inevitable traffic jams, response times become even worse, which does not make it easier for the police to attend incidents.
I suspect that every hon. Member who has visited a police station and spoken to policemen recently would confirm that one of their biggest moans is about the amount of paperwork that they have to do. I am unsure whether that problem has been tackled vigorously enough in recent times.
My part of the world, the south-west, has also seen the confluence of some unusual happenings. Two lengthy murder inquiries are under way, and have absorbed an enormous amount of police time and money. When unusual events happen together and resources are already stretched, that can make life exceptionally difficult.
I, too, have heard representatives of towns suggest that they may contract private security firms, but, as a former local councillor, I must say that that is slippery slope. Why should people have to pay additional council tax on top of other taxes in order to provide additional policing support? I can understand why councils in some areas believe that that is the right approach, partly because major problems are experienced at certain hotspot times and in certain hotspot places. Many of the problems experienced in our towns and villages occur exclusively on Friday and Saturday nights at certain locations, which most people could readily guess. It is more difficult to police at particular times in particular places: half a dozen towns may all experience Friday and Saturday night problems. Town and parish councils feel that if they could only have extra support for five or six hours at certain times of the week, they could protect the premises, the flowerbeds, the toilets and so on, which are often the target of vandalism at night.
May I offer several suggestions for the Minister to consider? First, Devon and Cornwall has the largest special constabulary and it certainly does a tremendous job. However, the time has come to reflect on how it operates and functions on a voluntary basis. It may be time to place the special constabulary on a more retained basis, as with many of the fire brigades in the south-west, so that chief constables may direct people when and where they are most needed and gain real value for money out of the training costs. I realise that the whole basis would be changed and that arguments about the merits of a two-tier force would be raised, but the special constabulary provides a means of improving community policing.
Secondly, the centralising of control rooms initially caused problems. It has improved, but many control rooms remain remote, particularly in rural areas where addresses are not complete. Some villages share the
172WH
same name and there is an inordinate number of houses and farms with the same name—and a postcode is seldom provided. An experiment with the Post Office is taking place in my constituency because there is a raft of people with the wrong postcode. Satellite references are being examined. Satellite navigation is becoming prevalent in many areas, so we could consider giving proper reference points to remote locations to enable the police to attend such places without having to drive around the countryside looking for lights, balloons on posts or white towels on gates.
Thirdly, we should look further into Crimestoppers, which has already been successful and could be developed further. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) has obtained an Adjournment debate tonight on that very subject, so I hope that it will tease out further ways of supporting Crimestoppers.
Fourthly, planning is important. We must try to introduce into the planning system some of the defensive schemes that have been developed for older people's housing. Much of the fear about which we hear is undoubtedly related to the rowdyism and vandalism that occur around people's homes. We could look into that. I should also like wardens to be employed for older persons' establishments once more. The movement to electronic alarms has not helped to give people a feeling of security. I realise that that option was chosen for all sorts of budgetary reasons, but I believe that the physical presence of wardens on older persons' developments is far more reassuring than electronic alarms.
Some businesses invest significant moneys in crime prevention on their premises—the electronic tagging of goods, CCTV cameras and so on—only to find that, when they have caught people trying to leave their premises with their ill-gotten gains, the police decide not to prosecute, perhaps because the value is too trivial, or perhaps too high. Business people almost feel that there is little value in investing in security equipment. The police often give little thought to prosecuting offenders. They need to respond more positively to people who invest their money in security systems.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned radio communications, as I intended to do. I do not know what the cost will be. However, we know that a certain windfall of £22 billion has come to the Government's coffers by way of the sales of mobile telephone licences, and I suspect that only a small fraction of that amount would be required to cover the cost of communications by radio. There is a certain synergy between the aspects of mobile telephone promotion and the upgrading of the police radio system.
Finally, the subject of access at night is being considered in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill that is now passing through the House. The Government should consider that carefully. Many people who live in the countryside are worried about people's reasons for wanting access to land and around properties at night. They fear that it might not be for their general enjoyment alone but for other purposes. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will reconsider that provision.
Like every hon. Member present, I want the police to be given greater resources—as do the general public. Whether resources go into physical bodies or to other

173WH
purposes, people must be confident that their fears are being addressed, that crimes that they have experienced are being tackled and that the police have the resources that they need to reduce crime and the fear of it.
11.8 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing it, and on the firm and reasoned stand that she has taken on rural crime. Many people throughout the country appreciate what she is doing, which is why so many of them have written to her expressing their deeply felt concerns.
We have heard a range of speeches; I shall comment on some of them. The final point that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) raised was about access to the countryside at night. He may remember that the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), writing in The Field, pointed out that the right to roam could in certain circumstances become a charter for rural crime, reminding us of how many people's houses or gardens backed on to open land on village edges. That makes the point that at night, access to the countryside—a fine ideal—can have particular dangers in rural areas.
I pay tribute to the police for their work. Their job is not easy, and they show tremendous bravery and courage on occasions. The police also give us a great deal of reassurance. Obviously, criticisms can be made and must be answered, but it should never be thought that we do not support the police in their work.
Yesterday's crime figures bring into focus the worrying background to the debate. The figures cover the full calendar year up to the end of 1999, when crime levels rose for the first time in six years. The statistics also show that the rise in recorded crime is gathering pace. The situation was alarming in September, and now it is worsening. For the 12 months to the end of September, crime rose by 2.2 per cent., but for the full calendar year to December, it rose by 3 per cent. The Home Secretary's so-called crusade against crime is failing.
The figures will cause concern everywhere, but especially in rural areas. It is particularly frightening to be the victim of a crime in a remote place, because neighbours are at a distance and there are concerns about the police's ability to respond. Victims feel isolated in a way that they do not in a town. The figures also confirm the anecdotal evidence that we have heard in the debate, and which has been building in the past year. In his excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) explained that people in Oswestry feel that crime is increasing and that the police are not providing adequate redress.
At the royal show in Stoneleigh on 5 July 1999, it was revealed that rural crime is costing farmers and landowners more than £100 million a year. NFU Mutual said that 30,000 vehicles worth £73 million disappeared from farms and country homes last year, and that farm machinery worth £14.2 million and livestock worth £4 million were lost.
Sid Gibson of the Mutual said that he was concerned about the fact that rural crime was not falling, and he made some suggestions. Colin George, a representative
174WH
of a rural security company, blamed the removal of police from villages. In late August, the Martin case occurred. David Barnard, an Upwell parish councillor, told his local paper that crime had reached crisis point in seemingly tranquil fenland villages. In Wisbech, which has the third-highest per capita crime rate in the country, the police station is now closed in the evenings.
On 3 October, the BBC report on rural crime painted a worrying picture. It surveyed 120 farmers, of whom 55 per cent. had suffered burglary in the past year, 30 per cent. had been abused, 45 per cent. had encountered vandalism and 20 per cent. had experienced arson attacks. They were frightened. In the House, we have held debates that highlighted rural concerns. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk pursued the issues on 19 October, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) did so on 2 December. They both talked about the problems of rural areas and the fact that 14 police authorities had written to the Home Secretary to say that rural police authorities were disadvantaged because of insufficient recognition of the extra costs of sparsity.
Why has that happened? The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) cited the problem in his local village, where the local police officer, Jim Gregory, will not be replaced, and the hon. Gentleman set out his concerns about that. We should not forget the background in Gloucestershire. Since the general election, funding has decreased by 3 per cent., which means 35 per cent. fewer officers, and in the past year crime has increased by 4 per cent.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) explained that in his constituency there were problems with the visibility of officers; he tried to make the case that the Government were not to blame, but one cannot ignore the fact that in Norfolk, police numbers are down by 50 and crime is up by 665 offences. The hon. Gentleman should accept that there is a relationship between the number of officers and increased crime. He argued that officers should be used more efficiently and should have equipment of good quality, and no one would argue with that. But one cannot get around the fact that if everything is run efficiently and there are more police officers, more criminals are caught and the public are reassured.
Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the Government inherited a situation in which the initial support services in Norfolk were extraordinarily badly funded? It was therefore courageous of the chief constable to tackle those issues.
Mr. Heald: It is all very well to argue, "Oh well, it was all terrible then," but at the last general election the hon. Gentleman stood on a platform saying that things could only get better, when the sad fact is that in Norfolk, they have got worse. The chief constable said that he wanted 400 more officers, although that figure was reduced to 90 in the crimefighting fund bid and he got only 66—two thirds of what he asked for.
Police numbers are a serious issue; funding should be provided to restore them to the numbers that existed at the general election—an extra 2,300 officers. There should be greater visibility of officers in rural areas; my

175WH
right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) unveiled her plan for officers on the beat to stop in shops and other public places to do their paperwork, to increase their visibility. Work should be audited so that we know what can be done most efficiently and effectively by police officers and what non-essential tasks can be done by civilian staff.
Under the Conservatives, police numbers increased by 15,000 and civilian numbers from 4,000 to 53,000, which allowed the police to do their work—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Crime doubled.
Mr. Heald: The Minister says that crime doubled, but we turned it round; there were five years in which crime fell. [Laughter.] How can anyone laugh when, after five years when crime fell, it has started to rise again and the pace has built up, so that in September last year it was rising by 2.2 per cent. and now it is rising by 3 per cent? Where will it end?
The Minister must take the reasonable steps that we suggest. Although there may not be a direct correlation between police numbers and crime detection, there is a clear correlation between fear of crime and the numbers of police, who provide reassurance if their efficiency is maintained.
It is time that the Minister listened. We have had enough of the ORH report being put on the shelf and enough of, "Oh yes, we will do something about police pensions some day." The fact is that some day has come; we want answers and action now. The time for all talk and no delivery is over; the thin blue line cannot be stretched any thinner.
11.19 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing the debate. She has shown a consistent interest in this subject. I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who described the way in which the right hon. Lady spoke as firm but reasoned. She expressed her thoughts in a positive and constructive way, which contrasts with the intemperate style of her party's current leader on those matters. Some members of her party might wish that she spoke for it on such issues instead.
My only quibble in terms of substance relates to the suggestion by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk that there is a lack of interest in rural communities in the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) took up that point with her, and I am glad that he did so. I take very seriously the points made by the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the Countryside Agency, to which she referred. In particular, I take seriously the issue of crime against agricultural businesses, which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire mentioned. His point is correct. I note that many schemes, such as the farm watch scheme, have been positive. Nevertheless, the issue is serious,
176WH
quite apart from the problems that arise from rural isolation and fear, which many hon. Members have mentioned.
Two debates have already taken place on this question in the past 10 days, and I do not intend to go over the territory that I covered in those debates. However, I will make a point about the general context. Some crimes are specific to the countryside, such as the theft of livestock and farm equipment. However, in the main, rural areas suffer much the same sort of crime as urban and inner-city areas. The level of general crime is usually lower in rural areas than in urban or inner-city areas. For example, statistics show that the levels of vehicle crime, burglary and violence in rural areas are roughly three quarters of those in urban areas and about half those in inner cities. Across a range of offences—burglary, mugging, car theft, theft from a car, rape and racial attacks—research shows that the fear of crime is also markedly less.
In an interesting interview with the Yorkshire Post, the chief constable of North Yorkshire recently stated:
Across North Yorkshire's largely rural two million acres we are driving crime down, year after year…
I prefer to see the crime figures as a form of recognition of the first-rate work done by the county's officers. They are working increasingly closely with…the community we serve.
I do not want in any way to diminish the point made by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, because she is right to raise it in this way. However, it is important to establish the general context. As I said, we will publish a rural White Paper later this year. Our concern with crime in the countryside will be shown by the inclusion of a section dealing specifically with rural crime.
A large number of specific issues have been raised, to which I must respond. First, we accept the point about pensions. As I said last week, we are actively considering whether the matter can be dealt with nationally, rather than by every police authority separately, because the burden of pensions is distributed unfairly across police authorities.
I have only one quibble with Mr. Wilson, the chairman of Norfolk police authority, on best value. I believe that it is making a difference. It is improving the performances of all forces to the top quartile and thereby freeing resources for better policing. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk will be interested to know that the Government published last week a report by Clare Spottiswode, on the public services productivity panel, considering the possibility of varying the efficiency target instead of having a 2 per cent. efficiency target across all forces. We are considering that very positively, to try to find a more sensitive approach that better reflects the specific levels of efficiency in organisations.
On the police radio project, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is right that it makes a material difference to the police's ability to be in the communities that they serve. However, it is eccentric for Norfolk to suggest that the burden of paying for it falls on Norfolk specifically. Major criticisms have been made of funding, almost all from the main metropolitan areas. In general, most rural areas have acknowledged—for the reasons identified by my hon. Friend—that the project benefits rural areas and that the financial burden does

177WH
not fall on them unfairly. I will discuss that matter with Mr. Wilson and the police authority, because he has also raised it in a letter to me. The issue is important, but I believe that he is wrong.
I have nothing to add to what I have said previously about sparsity. I have met representatives of a wide range of organisations, including all the relevant authorities from North Shropshire, Norfolk, Avon, Devon and Cornwall, West Mercia, and Gloucestershire, which are represented by people who have spoken in this debate. All those authorities are involved in the same consortium. Sparsity is being considered in the context of the spending review and there is a strong case for that. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) made the case about security in Gloucestershire and the same case can be made for Norfolk, which has Sandringham in its midst.
I shall not bandy numbers about any further, except to say that between March 1993 and 1997—under the Conservative Government—numbers decreased by more than a thousand across the country. Civilians are relevant. The example that I gave earlier about the loss of 49 police officers in Norfolk contrasts with an increase of 57 civilians, which is not atypical. Indeed, it applies across the country—
Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: I will not, because I am pressed for time and need to deal with a range of specific points.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) asked about parish councils. He made a powerful case. Parish councils are providing some funding. We are examining ways of increasing the role of parish councils. I have discussed with Church people in Norfolk how that could be achieved. Issues about specials and retained officers raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) could be considered within that context. It was right to highlight the importance of parish councils. As I said, we are examining ways of engaging more actively on that front.
CCTV is another important issue. We are attempting in several ways—including the use of mobile schemes of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, and the linkage of cameras to central control rooms, which has proved effective in different areas—to ensure that it can be used more effectively in rural areas. We are also reflecting on fenland problems—in the context of the relationship between Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire—to establish what is causing the difficulties there and to try to help rural partnerships in those areas.
I much appreciated the points about youth justice raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. It has been widely recognised and is making a material difference to the process. As to Minchinhampton, I am not familiar with the details, but I shall certainly ask the chief constable to write to my hon. Friend about the important matter that he raised. I shall not be tempted to comment on Crimestoppers because there is an Adjournment debate about it this evening, but I take it most seriously.
178WH
On the right to roam, I was intrigued by the proposition that criminals about to break into countryside houses in the middle of the night will be deterred or encouraged by the right to roam. Those issues are not related in the way suggested.
As I said in a recent Adjournment debate, partnership is a key part of the solution. Joint use of facilities is important and I was interested to hear about the possibilities of police doing their work in shops, schools, supermarkets and so on. We are actively discussing and seeking to encourage that in our review. There should be better use of joint facilities—church halls and schools, for example—to bring about a more tangible police presence locally.
We are also considering the roles of special constables and retained officers in the context of helping to develop local partnerships; and we are examining targeted policing to identify the hotspots. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made a good point about known criminals in particular localities. We wish to encourage better watch schemes. Farm watch schemes, for example, have been effective in dealing with some of the problems raised by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the National Farmers Union. More effective alarm schemes and wardens are also important initiatives.
I mentioned technology. In addition to the police radio system, the national strategy for police information systems is important for getting rid of paperwork and developing better intelligence. Reference was made to abstractions of police for training or servicing the criminal justice system, which causes problems for local policing. I repeat what I said to the Association of Chief Police Officers: it is important that it, the police and the community as a whole give evidence and submissions to the inquiry on the reform of the criminal justice system, to which the Government give high priority. Debates should not be dominated by lawyers alone. The criminal justice system is relevant to the police and everyone who uses it. We must achieve a more efficient system for community safety. Changing the criminal justice system so that it places fewer burdens on the police and others is an important element of the process.
The debate has opened up the issue of self-defence and reasonable force. I commend what the shadow Home Secretary initially said on that matter:
At the moment, I have yet to be persuaded that the law is at fault, because the law says you can use reasonable force.
Sir John Evans, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall and president of ACPO, and many other police spokespeople have confirmed that position. The editor of the Police Review said:
Worst of all is the dangerous knee-jerk reaction to Martin's conviction. William Hague, to his eternal shame, has sought to make political capital out of this tragedy by calling for a change in the criminal justice system.
That is a widely held view. I hope that more Conservatives will align themselves with the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, who secured the debate, and the firm and reasoned tone in which she has expressed her arguments, than with their party leader.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order.

Ancient Woodlands
11.30 am
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Brands Hatch, the home of British motor racing, wants to destroy 37 acres of ancient woodland to create new facilities for the 2002 British grand prix. I am a motor racing fan. I relished the performance of David Coulthard when he won at Silverstone two weeks ago and delighted in the driver's world championship victories of Damon Hill and Nigel Mansell. However, the home of British motor racing should not be allowed to desecrate ancient woodland to build, among other things, a new media centre, a helicopter pad and new car parks.
Brands Hatch has owned the 37 acres for many years, using the area for off-road racing. At present, anyone who owns a wood under what are called permitted development rights can race cars in ancient woodland for up to 14 days a year. That can cause considerable damage. In its application for the new development, Brands Hatch claims that its rally school—for which it presumably received planning permission—operates not just for 14 days a year, but for 140 days a year.
Brands Hatch is just the highest-profile case. I have consulted Woodland Trust, which says that at least 35 other ancient woods are under serious threat. Ancient woods are one of the great irreplaceable and unsung glories of Britain's natural heritage. They are nature's cathedrals—timeless places of great beauty and tranquillity. A wood can be somewhere to head for, a place to stop for reflection on an evening's stroll and an indicator of the changing seasons. The bluebell-carpeted wood remains a timeless image advertising the beauty of our countryside.
Because they have long been undisturbed, ancient woods are often historical treasure troves. Bronze and Iron Age earthworks, ancient park boundaries or charcoal pits and kilns provide clues to past land use and local industrial history. As the habitat most representative of our original, natural, stable conditions, ancient woodland is home to more threatened species, such as the bluebell, than any other habitat in the United Kingdom. At least 45 woodland species became extinct during the past 100 years. Many remaining species, such as the wood anemone or Soloman's seal, which are found only in ancient woodland and have limited powers of dispersal, are struggling to survive.
The UK biodiversity action plan states that broadleaf woodland, which forms virtually all the ancient woodland in the UK except for the Scots pine forests of Scotland, supports almost twice as many UK biodiversity action plan species than any other habitat. Only 309,000 hectares of ancient semi-natural woodland survive in England, Wales and Scotland. That is just 2 per cent. of the total land area. In Northern Ireland, no accurate records exist. Roughly 50 per cent. of Britain's ancient woodland has been lost since the first world war, mainly through conversion to conifer woodland and clearance for agriculture. Development pressures, the channel tunnel rail link, the Newbury bypass and countless well-known road schemes have destroyed or threatened areas of ancient wood. Increasingly, ancient woodland is found in small fragments—islands of biodiversity in a hostile landscape of intensive agriculture and urban sprawl.
180WH
I am lucky to have a fragment of ancient woodland in my constituency. I became familiar with Pinner wood during my time on the excellent Pinner Wood first and middle school governing body. The wood occupies almost the whole central portion of the beautiful Pinner Hill golf course and includes one of the oldest oak trees in Middlesex. I am told that the wood, formerly linked to other nearby areas of ancient woodland just outside my constituency, is a valuable nature conservation area, with excellent examples of oak and pollarded and coppiced hornbeam. Bridge pond in the woods is noted for its great crested newts and its rich variety of waterside and aquatic plants, including water plantain and white water lilies. A range of plant species that were previously recorded in the woods are now sadly extinct, including the frog orchid and the violet helleborine. Even in 1547, Pinner wood was 127 acres in size. By the time of enclosure in 1817 it was down to 26 acres and it now measures just two hectares. Not far from Pinner wood is Pinner Park farm, also in my constituency, which stands on the site of a former 100-acre ancient wooded enclosed hunting area. All that remains are the deer park boundary, which still awaits appropriate designation, and a relatively small number of trees. That is an example of the fate that has already befallen so many areas of ancient woodland.
Three broad threats to our ancient woods remain: their size, climate change and a series of legal loopholes. Some 80 per cent. of all ancient woods are less than 20 hectares in area, and 44 per cent. are between two and five hectares. As there are many ancient woods of less than two hectares not included in the current inventory, most ancient woods may be less than two hectares.
The trend towards smaller, more isolated woods has had several important consequences. Large areas of woodland are more valuable for wildlife than small areas. The size of woods is important because of the direct relationship between size and the number of species that can be supported. In addition, all species need a certain minimum area to breed and feed successfully. Core area is an important concept for ancient woodland. The edges of woods are more liable to fluctuations in the environment caused by wind and temperature and are more vulnerable to pollution such as pesticide spray drift. Many species specific to ancient woodland are unable to tolerate that edge effect and require the relative stability of the core of the woodland. The size and the shape of the wood affect the relative amounts of core area and edge. In addition to outright clearance of woodland, habitats between woods and other semi-natural habitats, including hedges, have been lost. Large arable fields have created barriers to migration. Improved grassland, pesticide drift, fertiliser migration in ground water and deep ploughing near trees have all taken their toll.
Perhaps the greatest long-term threat to our ancient woods, assuming that we are able to protect them from further development and fragmentation, is climate change, which is increasingly recognised as a major and as yet unquantifiable factor that will affect all of us in the future. There is already overwhelming evidence that climate change is happening. That creates particular dangers for ancient woods. The environmental stresses caused by summer droughts will make trees more vulnerable to disease and frost-free winters may prevent

181WH
invernisation—many trees need winter cold to reset their clocks for spring and for the germination of seeds. It could also bring about increases in insect pest populations and bring over new pests from warmer climates, which may be able to survive all year round, as well as causing changes to flowering times, the nesting of birds or the emergence of insects, which may disrupt ecosystem functioning. While species may be able to migrate in response to climate change, many ancient woodland species are very sedentary, and migration of whole habitats will not be possible. The cumulative effect of all those impacts could be serious for ancient woods.
Existing legal loopholes include failures of the current sites of special scientific interest system. Some 85 per cent. of ancient woodland, including five of the 12 largest ancient woodland sites in England, lack SSSI or any other designation. Because sites are selected on the basis of a representative sample, many high quality sites fall outside the protection offered by SSSIs. In any case, current SSSI legislation cannot prevent landowners from neglecting woodland. We need to re-examine permitted development rights, which, when exercised for purposes such as scrambling, four-wheel drive vehicle racing or caravan holiday use, can damage ancient woodland. The removal of trees can be claimed to be necessary for such activity, since no felling licence is required for felling necessary for development that is deemed to have received planning permission, as in the case of permitted development.
The current felling licence system is another loophole. To be covered by a felling licence, trees must have a minimum diameter of 8 cm, so it is possible to remove young trees, shrubs and undergrowth from woodland. Up to 5 sq m of timber every quarter can also be extracted. When those two factors are exercised in parallel, they can severely degrade a wood in just a few years. As an aside, I point out to hon. Members that Northern Ireland has no felling licence controls. The tree preservation order system, which is not especially strong in England, is also much weaker there.
Policy on ancient woodland has moved a long way in the past three years. The remaining area of ancient woodland is one of 150 indicators of sustainable development outlined in "A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom", which was published last year. The England forestry strategy, which was published in 1998, also recognises the importance of ancient woodland. However, other positive measures are needed to close a series of legal loopholes. We must increase protection for sites of special scientific interest. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill offers an excellent opportunity to strengthen protection for SSSIs, including ancient woods. We should also contemplate the creation of a new form of conservation status for important habitats outside the SSSI system through the creation of local wildlife sites. Stronger references to ancient woodland must be included in planning policy guidance. We should also consider improving the tree preservation order system and introduce felling licences in Northern Ireland.
182WH
As the last update to the planning guidance to local authorities on trees and woods was made more than 22 years ago, new and updated formal planning guidance to local authorities should be provided. We should review existing permitted development rights and rescind those that damage ancient woods. The Government are already committed to tackling the legacy of past land management policies, but several other specific steps might also be taken. A carefully targeted woodland creation programme could link ancient woods in areas where there is a high density of sites. That would increase the area of ecologically sustainable woodland. The farm woodland premium scheme could also be fundamentally reformed to ensure that woodland creation was targeted and supported planned expansion.
Urgent research should be undertaken into techniques and priorities for restoring ancient woods planted with conifers. We could also ensure that environmental payments to farmers were dependent on whole-farm plans that included sound management of hitherto neglected farm woods. In addition, we could argue for increased support for forestry and woodland expansion through European Union negotiations, based on the specific case of the United Kingdom's low woodland cover and low amount of ancient woodland. We should continue to encourage the take-up of environmentally responsible management of woods and forests through active support for the UK woodland assurance scheme and for Forest Stewardship Council certification schemes.
The Government are already working hard on a number of fronts in relation to climate change. We must continue to champion stronger support for renewable energy and energy efficiency in transport, homes, offices and industry. We need to recognise the role of carbon offsets in reducing the severity of climate change and to promote the value of woodland in helping to increase stored carbon by protecting the existing resource, increasing the rates of planting new woodland and using wood fuels rather than fossil fuels. Support is also needed for action intended specifically to protect ancient woodland from the worst effects of climate change by extending existing woodland areas and creating large areas of new habitat on a sufficient scale to sustain wildlife in the face of potentially rapid environmental change.
Size matters here. The Greater London area has some 2,203 hectares of semi-natural ancient woodland, 30 per cent. of which is found within the borough of Bromley alone. Before this debate, I consulted Trees for London, which told me that much of the tree planting in central London dates from Victorian times. Plane trees are particularly efficient at hoovering up carbon dioxide pollution. Thanks to the Victorian legacy, they are dotted along Park lane and other places, but I am told that those trees now need replacing. I hope that the mayor and the Greater London Authority will address that issue, in partnership with a range of other bodies and as part of an urgently needed strategy for London's trees and ancient woods.
Ancient woodland is part of our heritage. It is a crucial habitat for many species and is vital to the biodiversity of our nation. The Government is already committed to tackling many of the legal loopholes and land use and planning policy issues. I hope that my hon.

183WH
Friend the Minister will be able to add a new sense of urgency and champion the need for new planning guidance, a greater protection of sites of wildlife interest and the use of grant aid to target action for strategic woodland creation. Is it not time that we drew a line in the sand with regard to Brands Hatch and said that enough is enough? We do not want part of our heritage replaced by a new car park and media centre.
11.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) made a good speech on an important issue and raised many points, to which I will do my best to reply. The Government share his view of the value of ancient woods. I do not claim that it is possible or. in some cases, desirable to create a system that protects such woods from all threats. However, we have taken a wide range of measures to protect them, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, and further measures are under consideration.
My hon. Friend mentioned Brands Hatch. The application to which he referred is before Sevenoaks district council. The question of the loss of ancient woodland will be initially for the council to consider. The application, should the council be minded to approve it, will be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan. He will have the opportunity to call in the plan should he see fit. My hon. Friend will therefore understand that I cannot comment further on the matter for the time being.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the way in which the planning system deals with ancient woods. Land use planning plays a positive part in protecting trees and woodland in areas formally designated for their nature conservation value. Where there is no specific designation, the decision on priorities is deliberately left to planning authorities. That reflects the planning system's essential role as a tool to be used by those best able to take a balanced view of all the local considerations. Within that framework, planning policy guidance emphasises the importance of safeguarding the character of the countryside, of which ancient woods are an important element. It also suggests that local authorities should identify sites of local conservation importance, such as ancient woodlands, and include appropriate policies in their development plans.
The forestry forum is reviewing, among other matters, the existing guidance on trees and woods. The forum provides an opportunity to consider whether amendments to offer further protection to woods might be needed. My hon. Friend may be assured that the Government are aware of the arguments and will give them careful consideration. He might be interested to know that we recently added the Forestry Commission to the list of non-statutory consultees for planning applications involving ancient woodlands. That change is important and should ensure that local planning authorities have access to proper advice on the significance of threatened woods.
My hon. Friend referred to the need to take direct measures to protect and expand forest cover. I am pleased to say that the Forestry Commission is
184WH
developing a new challenge fund aimed specifically at reversing the fragmentation of ancient woodland. Its revised woodland grant scheme rules will increase the grant aid for planting that defragments ancient woodlands. I do not like the word "defragment", but it is on my brief.
The use of local native species is widely supported, within practical limits, by the Forestry Commission and English Nature. The Forestry Commission encourages owners of ancient woodland to restock using natural regeneration where possible, or plants of local provenance if not.
The England rural development plan includes several funding measures that should benefit forestry. For example, there will be a 26 per cent. increase for the woodland grant scheme, bringing total expenditure over the planned seven years to £139 million. There will be a 37 per cent. increase in the farm woodland premium scheme. The adoption of the UK woodland assurance scheme is also strongly endorsed by the Forestry Commission, which, of course, was largely instrumental in developing it. My hon. Friend mentioned the situation in Northern Ireland, but I am sure that he appreciates that I cannot deal with that.
The most serious issues relating to SSSIs are neglect and inappropriate management. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will introduce management notices, which will be a useful tool to combat neglect. Other measures include conservation objectives and management schemes. The Bill will also introduce stronger controls over the exercise of permitted development rights by proposing that such operations may be carried out only with the consent of English Nature. The Bill will be complemented by revised guidance on planning for nature conservation and biodiversity.
It is true that the small size of ancient woodlands often means that they may not qualify to be notified as SSSIs. The local sites review group has been taking views on the identification, protection and management of such local sites. The group has submitted its initial report to the Department and we are considering the most appropriate way forward.
Any application for a felling licence for trees protected by a tree preservation order is handled by the Forestry Commission, in consultation with the local authority responsible for the order. If, after consultation, a felling licence is granted, the tree preservation order is overridden, but that is not a loophole. If the local authority objects to the Forestry Commission's proposal to grant the licence, the application is taken out of the commission's hands and transferred to my Department. The provision for a small licence-free quota, to which my hon. Friend referred, is seen as providing a reasonable balance between controlling felling and allowing small-scale woodland management without excessive bureaucracy.
It is the Forestry Commission's policy to prosecute wherever there is clear evidence of a serious breach of felling controls. In 1998–99, 337 cases of alleged illegal felling were reported to, or discovered by, the Forestry Commission. Investigations revealed that in 112 of those cases there was prima facie evidence that the regulations had been broken. In the same year,

185WH
17 prosecutions were brought and formal warnings were issued in 23 cases. A further 15 cases had still to be resolved.
Protection from felling in cases that do not involve development has been recently improved considerably by the environmental impact assessment regulations introduced last year. Any proposal to remove ancient woodland of more than one hectare will need a formal determination by the Forestry Commission as to whether an impact assessment is required. Where it is required, the commission will consent to deforestation only if the assessment shows that it will not have a significant effect on the environment.
As my hon. Friend said, climate change is a threat to woodland. A considerable amount of research is being done on the issue, one of the fruits of which has been a paper produced recently by Forest Research on the impact of climate change on trees. It suggests a range of possible effects, including faster tree growth in some regions and more severe damage by larger numbers of pests. It is too early to reach conclusions on the overall significance of climate change or on the measures that may be required to deal with it, but an integrated model of forest productivity that takes the various factors into account is now being developed.
The Government's draft climate change programme, published on 9 March, sets out a range of policies and measures for promoting better energy efficiency and new technologies. We have set a target to provide 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity supplies from renewable energy sources by 2010 and we want to encourage other more efficient ways of producing energy. For example, we have a new target to double the capacity of combined heat and power to 10,000 MW by 2010.
We also recognise the role of carbon offsets, to which my hon. Friend referred. In our draft climate change programme, we announced that we would encourage
186WH
UK-based carbon offset projects that promote renewable energy, energy efficiency measures and forestry. The recent coppice-burning project successfully demonstrated one aspect of the potential for renewable energy.
In general, the Government accepts that intensive agriculture continues to have a deleterious effect on wildlife. I cannot do justice to such a large subject today, but we are far from complacent and have put in place a considerable number of policies and practices to reduce its damaging effects, as well as incentives to encourage environmentally friendly farming. Measures are in place to control, among other things, the storage of silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oils and to ensure that Environment Agency authorisation is needed for the disposal of hazardous substances such as sheep dip and pesticide waste to avoid damage to species and adjacent habitats.
A range of financial incentives is in place to encourage better management, notably the substantial increase in support for agri-environment schemes in the England rural development plan. More than £1 billion will be spent during the seven years of that plan, including £566 million for the countryside stewardship scheme, £334 million for environmentally sensitive areas, and a threefold increase to £134 million in funding for the organic farming scheme.
As I said at the outset, the Government recognise the value of ancient woods. I hope that I have demonstrated that we have taken and are continuing to take a wide range of measures to protect and expand them, as well as to protect the wider natural environment of which they are a part. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we have a good story to tell. No one is under any illusions about the scale of the problem, but it is being addressed.

Tourism (Southend)
11.57 am
Mr. David Amess: I am a born optimist, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I hope that by the end of this short debate there will no one in this country or overseas who will not wish to visit Southend. It is a truly magnificent seaside resort.
Following the events of last Thursday, I hope that I shall be allowed to be somewhat self-indulgent. Local Conservatives fought the campaign on the slogan, "Wake up Southend". From my biased political perspective, Southend did wake up. Before Thursday's elections, the Conservatives were one short of a majority. There are now 25 Conservative members and 14 opposition members. Sadly, every one of the Labour party's candidates was defeated, and only two of the eight Liberal Democrat candidates were successful. A huge change has taken place in the politics of Southend.
Although many local people seemed to think that the council was still Conservative, it has not been so for six years. The Conservatives made any number of promises during the election and they are beholden to try to keep those promises. They dare not let the people down. We are taking over at a difficult time in Southend, just as the incoming Labour Government claimed that they were taking over the country at a difficult on 1 May 1997. I pay tribute to all those who have worked to promote the town as a seaside resort. It is a wonderful tourist attraction.
So proud are we of the town that we invited Her Majesty the Queen to visit us for the first time a few months ago. We are not permitted to repeat what members of the royal family have said, but her radiance when she and her husband arrived on the seafront to be greeted by hundreds and hundreds of schoolchildren said it all. She thoroughly enjoyed her visit to Southend. If Southend is good enough for the royal family, I suspect that no one could fail to enjoy a visit.
Over the years, Southend local authority has adopted a number of strategies to promote tourism. Traditionally, one of Southend's main roles was that of a seaside resort for staying and day visitors. At one time, it was said to be the second-largest resort in the country. Tourism gave the town much of its impetus for growth during the late 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries. It stimulated investment, employment and development, especially along the seafront. It gave Southend considerable status nationally and it encouraged migration into the town with the consequent expansion of housing, retailing and other facilities.
Of course, things have changed dramatically. Whereas some years ago 5 million people used to go abroad for their holidays, the figure is now in excess of 27 million. No seaside resort is nearer to our capital than Southend. It does not take too long to get there on public transport: 40 minutes on either the Fenchurch Street or the Liverpool Street line. If one is feeling depressed by the grind of the city, in no time at all one can be in an environment that will lift the spirits. Southend has a wealth of culture. It has singers, dancers, painters and sculptors. We have magnificent local talent, much of it inspired by the sea.
188WH
I am a Londoner. I was born here. I love London. When I was a child my parents used to take me to Southend for trips along the pier, which is the longest in the world at 1.33 miles. It is a magnificent attraction. I also used to be taken to Leigh to enjoy shellfish and one of the two finest ice creams in the world at Rossi's and Tomassi's. There is a bit of an argument in the town about who has the best ice cream and as I am friendly with both families, I will say no more. I found all those things very attractive as a child.
Given the 14 years that I spent somewhere else, I would never have believed it if anyone had told me that I would represent the place where I was taken as a child. However, it was a different sort of seaside resort then. Going abroad was something for the very well heeled. It was not within the aspirations of ordinary people.
The town has spent a great deal of time developing a tourism strategy. The Labour party applauds strategies, so that must find favour with the Government. British seaside resorts experienced a marked decline in visitors during the 1950s and 1960s due to changing leisure patterns, a lack of investment in new facilities and a widely held view that tourism was unnecessary for the town's future. That is crazy. Tourism is so very important for us all.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I visited a beautiful part of the world last year, but however beautiful the places that we visit, there is no place like home. The United Kingdom has so much to offer. People say to me, "But David, what about the weather? You cannot rely on the British weather." We can in Southend. Any meteorologist will confirm that we have the greatest number of hours of sunshine and the lowest rainfall—although that may not always be a good thing—and that the weather in Southend is always glorious. Anyone who suffers from asthma, hay fever and other such ailments will find that Southend can cure them all, due to the ebb and flow of the Thames estuary.
During the 1970s, the decline in tourism levelled, but left a legacy of environmental problems, especially in the Marine Parade area of Southend. There was also renewed awareness of the advantages of a thriving tourist trade and the likely cost to the town of stagnation and further decline. In 1985, the council reaffirmed its commitment to encouraging tourism and, in 1989; it published a corporate tourism and resort strategy. It acknowledged the potential benefits of leisure development, increased facilities, jobs and income for local residents and businesses and the need for the council to become actively engaged. I am delighted that the council, which is composed of members of all political persuasions, supports that strategy.
The aims of the strategy are: to promote the resort potential of the town by identifying development opportunities and encouraging the provision of new tourist facilities and visitor attractions; to work to achieve improvements in the environment of the main tourism area along the adjoining seafront; to retain an adequate stock of serviced accommodation and promote the provision of new facilities; and to encourage the provision of improved facilities for water recreation and the retention and development of entertainment, cultural and arts facilities.
I hear siren voices saying, "What on earth is the good of a wish list and strategy like that?" Unless we put down on paper what we wish to achieve, how can we measure

189WH
whether we are achieving it? It is clear that no strategy can be set in stone because things are changing constantly, but in my view the local authority's decision to embark on some sort of strategy was an excellent idea.
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting will be only too well aware that the Conservative party has published a document called "Tourism Today", the details of which I will not go into, much to the Minister's relief. The document talks about standard spending assessments and about help generally given for seaside resorts. The Minister will readily acknowledge that the decline of seaside resorts has been a problem generally. The hon. Lady's Department can do only the best that it can in the spending round against all the competing bids for health, education and other services, so I am not expecting her to be able to comment on that. However, I would support anything that she can do to encourage her colleagues to give more money to seaside resorts because we know well that they are extremely important for the United Kingdom's economy.
The two coastal areas in my constituency of Southend, West are Leigh and Chalkwell. In a debate a few months ago, I frankly expressed my dismay at the way in which the objective 2 negotiations had been handled. We were told before Christmas that Leigh and Chalkwell would qualify, but out of the blue we were later told that the fisheries strand was no longer being taken forward and that we were going for the urban strand and—hey presto!—Southend, West lost the £15 million that would have been available over five years. I complained that I had been elected to the House at the same time as the Prime Minister, but had never had a letter from him in all those years. The next day, a letter arrived from the Prime Minister, saying that he was aware of my disappointment about objective 2 status. He said that the then council knew all about the matter, although it said that it did not. Whatever happened, Leigh and Chalkwell lost out. I know that the Minister can do nothing about that now, but I hope that she will encourage those of her colleagues who work closely with the European Community to ensure that Leigh and Chalkwell are not left out.
The situation in Leigh and Chalkwell is different, but they need help. I have a wonderful briefing from Leigh town council, which makes it clear that, while Southend was set up as a tourist resort, Leigh was and still is a working marine village. It is just 40 minutes by train from London to that magnificent fishing village. It is "quaint" and has everything to offer, although because it is so quaint, it has no electric arcades, bingo halls or funfairs and is more peaceful than elsewhere. We have a tea room that sells clotted cream teas and we have quaint cobbled streets, a beautiful nature reserve called Two Tree Island and arts and crafts centres. We do not want Leigh to become an entertainment extension of Southend; we want it to retain its charm as a niche for tourists.
Leigh has access and parking problems and residents feel that their needs must be considered. There are also problems with boat access and accommodation. However, Leigh offers several opportunities. There are small craft shops in the old town and other specialist retailers in the town centre. We want to maintain Leigh's designation as a port to ensure that the marine industries stay in the town. Public transport access to
190WH
Leigh and Chalkwell stations is good, there is plenty of space for walking, picnicking and nature observation, and food and drink are available from our wonderful restaurants. I was in Agostino's restaurant with a party of people on Saturday, and there is the Paris restaurant—indeed, we have every variety of restaurant one could imagine.
We want to keep the creek open to commercial boats and pleasure sailors and ensure that Leigh has a future as a working marine village. To do that, we need to dredge the creek, and we had hoped to get European money to do that. There is all sorts of talk about dredging that would keep the creek clear for only five years. If the creek is to be dredged properly, however, we need to spend more. That would mean a great deal to the local community.
Chalkwell is an attractive part of the town. Without question, Southend has the finest parks department in the country. Unfortunately, Chalkwell currently has a problem with graffiti. As I have mentioned many times in the House, we keep having meetings with the police, who keep finding the perpetrators, and we then move on to someone else. If the Government have a new strategy to deal with graffiti, I would be delighted to hear about it.
The newly appointed chairman of the leisure, culture and sports committee is our retiring mayor, Councillor Tony North. He is new to the job, so he is now putting his wish list together. I greatly hope that the Minister, who receives invitations from all over the country, will be able to visit Southend—she would receive a very warm welcome. She knows that we have had a challenging situation with asylum seekers, with one or two unfortunate incidents, but I am delighted that the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), is in Southend at the moment meeting my parliamentary neighbour. We hope for some good news in our attempt to sort out that difficult situation.
There has been £50 million-worth of investment in Southend in the past 10 years. The annual day visitor market is estimated at more 3 million. There has been increased film and television coverage of the town, some of which I do not welcome. For 14 years the chattering classes used to take the mickey out of my previous constituency. One or two television companies seem keen to come to Southend to show a few elements that are best not broadcast to the wider public. We welcome all visitors to the town, but under no circumstances do we welcome yobs or drug pushers, as all Members of Parliament would make plain. It is a shame that some television companies and a few other people appear to want to advertise the worst elements of the town.
Southend's marketing division won the British Resorts Association Daily Mirror trophy for the best brochure cover in 1999. I am not surprised—it has a fantastic cover with photographs of a crowd of models. Anyone reading it would ask, "Why did I go to Tuscany for my holiday last year when Southend looks so fantastic?"
Peter Pan's playground is every bit as good as Disneyland and has had more than 1.5 million visitors. I pay tribute to Philip Miller, who is an amazing entrepreneur. He has just taken over the Sea Life environmental centre in Southend. I am keen on tropical

191WH
and marine fish and am delighted to tell the House that the centre is now breeding many species of sea horses from all over the world. In two weeks' time I shall visit the Chelsea flower show. Southend always enters the flower show and was a world finalist in 1999. The Southend air show is the largest free event in the country. Last year I stood at the air show with the mayor and my wife. In the sky we saw the Utterly Butterly light aircraft. My wife and the mayor wanted to go up. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you and I were in Kenya, my wife and the then mayor were strapped to the front of the two light aircraft raising money for local charities. The town stages the biggest special events programme in the south-east and all sorts of other events take place there. The Cliffs pavilion offers a range of magnificent plays and shows. The Palace theatre is wonderful, and Southend has many other activities.
How can the Government help? First, they can help with transport. Southend badly needs an east-west road link to free some of the traffic. It badly needs help with the pier—as the Minister knows, our lottery bid was turned down—and we should like help with our ambitious hovercraft plans. Finally, anything that could be done to help with the dredging of the creek would be welcome.
I hope that I have convinced everyone that Southend is a place worth visiting and living in. I am very proud of the part of the town that I represent and I hope that the Minister will do everything she can to help the promotion of tourism and leisure in Southend.
12.19 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is clearly as good an ambassador and spokesperson for Southend as he was for his constituency in a previous incarnation, which we remember well. There was hardly any aspect of Southend life that he did not mention. He managed, too, to get in a reference to the Chelsea flower show; his skills in the House are undiminished.
The hon. Gentleman clearly understands the potential of tourism and its importance to his constituency. The Government also understand it very well—when the Prime Minister gave me this job, the first thing that I did was reverse the order of my title so that Minister for Tourism came first. That was a small gesture, but it shows that the Government understand the importance of tourism to local economies throughout the country and to the national economy. Tourism's national contribution to the economy is about £63 billion a year. It employs 1.75 million people and is the fastest-growing industry in the world. We want to ensure that everyone has a fair share of it and I know that the hon. Gentleman will do what he can to ensure that people in Southend, especially in his constituency, will be included.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Conservative policy document on tourism called "Tourism Today". I like to think that the Government's strategy document was more far sighted, because we called it "Tomorrow's Tourism". As the hon. Gentleman said, one of the challenges is to keep up with changing consumer
192WH
demand; the days when families went to the seaside for a fortnight's annual holiday have long since gone. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the number of day visitors to Southend is about 3 million. Places such as Southend have to meet the demands of day visitors and appeal to people taking short breaks.
"Tomorrow's Tourism" was the first comprehensive tourism strategy produced by a Government. As the hon. Gentleman said, without a strategy, how can success be measured? We have already made substantial progress in reaching the target set out in "Tomorrow's Tourism". Last July, we launched the new English Tourism Council to replace the English Tourist Board, because a leaner, more strategic body was required to guide the industry in England and to carry out research into changing customer demand and other matters. It will focus on top-quality research, market forecasting, the collection and use of key information, the spread of innovation and best practice, promoting quality and developing a strategy on sustainable tourism and wider access. If I have time later I shall refer to some of the excellent practices that have been established in Southend.
The ETC has already made an excellent start; with its partners the AA and the RAC, it launched a new national accommodation scheme last September. We are determined to increase the voluntary take-up of that scheme and I am pleased that the local authority in Southend has a marketing policy of advertising only the quality-assured properties in that scheme. Visitors to Southend and other resorts will return again and again only if they can be assured of a good experience and value for money. That is what we want to encourage. I congratulate Southend on having an above-average membership of the national accommodation grading scheme.
The hon. Gentleman raised anxieties about asylum seekers. I am pleased that the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), is today visiting Southend to see the situation for herself. Many of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are matters for other Government Departments. The problem has implications for the tourist industry and seaside resorts such as Southend. In such cases we take every opportunity to make our views plain to other Government Departments. I have already had many helpful meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and some other colleagues who represent seaside resorts. The Government are doing their best to ensure that asylum seekers are dispersed only to places where there is not only available accommodation, but appropriate social and community support and educational and employment opportunities.
The English Tourism Council has set up a number of taskforces that will report towards the end of the year on tourism trends, transport, sustainability and resort regeneration. I am sure that Southend will have an interest in its recommendations. Indeed, the experience of places such as Southend will have informed those deliberations. Seaside resorts still represent an important sector of our domestic holiday market, but despite their continued wide appeal, many are finding it hard to adapt to significant changes in holiday trends. Ultimately, it is up to the individual resorts to devise

193WH
sensible regeneration plans. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that £50 million had been invested in Southend. Obviously all the players in Southend understand the importance of that.
I congratulate Southend on taking advantage of its good rail connections to continue to attract large numbers of day visitors. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is the closest seaside town to London, which is a huge attraction. I also commend it for not resting on its laurels. I have never visited Southend, but I should like to take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I look forward to the cream teas and the seafood. He tells me that the shopping at Leigh is wonderful. Rossi's and Tomassi's ice cream sound extremely good. I wish the new owner of the Sea Life centre good luck with his venture. Sea Life centres have been finding things relatively difficult recently and I hope that he can turn it around for the benefit of Southend.
I agree that it is a great pity not to ensure that the longest pier in the world is utilised to its full potential. I wish Southend the best of luck with any further applications to the heritage lottery fund. The hon. Gentleman said that there was nothing that I could do about that, but there is something that might be helpful. My officials have arranged with the British Resorts Association that its conference in Eastbourne in June will include a session with some of the lottery distributors, including the heritage lottery fund.
I hope that will help to emphasise to the lottery distributors the important needs of seaside towns, which have particular infrastructure problems such as piers and promenades that are not found elsewhere.
I hope that that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that resort regeneration is one of the Government's priorities. We have made a lot of progress already. As he knows from a conversation that we had outside the Chamber, my Department made strong representations to try to ensure that the needs of seaside towns were recognised on the objective 2 map. I am sorry and I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that the two wards in his constituency that were on the original map were not accepted by the European Commission. He will know that that is ultimately a matter for the Commission. If it is any consolation to him, four wards in my constituency were removed from the revised map, too.
Many resorts are included and I am pleased to say that Southend is in one of the new enterprise grant areas that offer opportunities to smaller businesses. That helps to illustrate the progress that has been made in the first year since the publication of "Tomorrow's Tourism". That was just a springboard. It was not a one-off exercise. We intend to keep in constant touch with the needs of the industry. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us about Southend's needs. I will do all that I can to press the case for the projects he has mentioned—the hovercraft, dredging the creek, the east-west road link—with my colleagues in other Departments.
Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member on the way he speaks up for his constituency. His constituents should be proud to have him as their representative.

Privatised Utilities (The Wrekin)
12.30 pm
Mr. Peter Bradley: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to the experiences of two communities in my constituency at the hands of privatised utilities. I am confident that in raising these matters I am speaking for thousands of communities, both rural and urban, up and down the country. Their needs have been neglected, their interests have been ignored or undermined and their environment and quality of life have too often been damaged and degraded. The two local examples are important for that reason. Through them I am raising issues of national importance.
I hope that the debate will lead to an acceleration of redress for the community of Hadley in the urban part of my constituency and of Preston upon the Weald Moors in the rural part. I also hope my hon. Friend the Minister will promise to close the loopholes in the permitted development system that enable utilities to ride roughshod over local communities. Perhaps he will go further and impose an obligation on utilities to provide the public services and fulfils the social responsibilities that they have jettisoned—as the high street banks have—in the single-minded pursuit of profit. That is long overdue and would be extremely popular. The privatised utilities would have no one but themselves to blame if tougher regulation were imposed on them.
I have raised the epic saga of the Hadley pylon before in the House. I am grateful to successive Ministers for the support they have given to the residents of Hadley Park road and Wheatley crescent and the indefatigable members of the Hadley pylon action group.
In November 1997, the Midland Electricity Board, acting for the private developer Cofton Land and Property, undertook to underground—which is a verb I have learned in the course of these events—cables beneath a proposed housing development. Cofton Land and Property's intention was to enhance the amenity of the residents of that new estate and to increase the number and value of properties that could be built on the site and thus the profitability of the scheme. The work necessitated the erection of a new pylon in roughly the same position as an existing one. The local residents may not have come to love the old pylon, but they had become used to it. The new pylon presented a different aspect. Looking out of the back windows of properties on Hadley Park road and Wheatley crescent was like being confronted by one of the monsters from H. G. Wells's "War of the Worlds". The morning after the new pylon was erected, someone waking up and opening the curtains would have thought that the Martians had landed.
The works were not undertaken for any environmental benefit, but purely for commercial reasons—to facilitate the development of 300 homes for sale—and at the expense of the existing community. The method of under grounding was a reserved matter in the original planning consent for the development. Despite an obligation to do so, the MEB made no application under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 to take down one pylon and erect another. It did not consult the local community or initiate any negotiations with the local planning authority, Telford and Wrekin council. The MEB has claimed that it was not obliged to make an application or to consult, because the new pylon occupied

195WH
the same space as the old one and, under the regulations, was therefore technically exempt from the process. That was simply one of many fabrications and untruths promulgated by MEB throughout this long and sorry story. It was disproved in May 1998, when the ever-resourceful and energetic members of the Hadley pylon action group secured—by what means I cannot say—a JCB digger and managed to excavate the foundations of the original pylon.
Faced with such incontrovertible evidence, MEB was finally obliged in July 1998 to concede that the pylon had moved. For Telford and Wrekin council—and, more to the point, the Department of Trade and Industry—that meant that MEB had been wrong not to apply for consent to move the pylon. In August 1998, 18 months after the works were undertaken, the DTI wrote to MEB expressing its "dim view" of the company's conduct and pressing for prompt retrospective action. As I mentioned, fabrication has regrettably played a greater part in the story than I should have liked. Delay has been another feature of the MEB's conduct. It has held the community, the local authority and, latterly, the Department of Trade and Industry, in utter contempt.
On 27 October, despite the plea from the DTI for prompt retrospective action, MEB refused to make the application that the DTI was urging it to make. In November, the DTI expressed "deep disappointment" at that decision. In February 1999, two years after the unlawful action, the DTI was obliged to threaten prosecution. It was pointed out to me that this would be only the second prosecution of its kind in 10 years. On 22 February last year, MEB promised that it would submit an application, but by July it had still not submitted to the council the background information and the detailed drawings and specifications that would make the application valid.
In October 1999, after showing extraordinary forbearance and patience, the council took the matter to an emergency committee meeting and rejected the application in favour of a public inquiry. Seven months later, MEB, now known as GPU Power Distribution, has threatened to move the pylon back to its original position. I use the word "threatened" because, far from seeking to appease residents, the company has made it clear that such a move would mean the compulsory purchase of part of their gardens. I mentioned the contempt in which MEB has held the local community and those who represent it in the past two years; that is the icing on the cake.
That cynicism is not atypical of the behaviour of MEB in my constituency and elsewhere—or of many other privatised utilities. The public inquiry that the DTI has now confirmed will take place will be of national significance. That is why MEB has resisted for so long. It knows that much will hang on the decision made at the inquiry. The current state of permitted development rights will be called into question. Those rights were referred to early in 1998 in a consultation document from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, called "The Use of Permitted Development Rights by Statutory Undertakers". That document stated:
PDRs are supposed to simplify procedure and hence remove administrative and procedural burdens from statutory undertakers in delivering their services.
196WH
The phrase "in delivering their services" is the critical one. I do not dispute the value of exemptions from the unwieldy and often lengthy planning process and related processes; nor do I dispute that statutory undertakers should have recourse to those exemptions, if they use them to provide essential services—such as gas, electricity, water or sewerage—to communities. However, those rights were not intended to facilitate commercial transactions between private companies pursuing profit at the public's expense, as has happened in this case. They were not intended to allow utilities to circumvent local authority controls in order to avoid their responsibilities and to make maximum profit at minimum cost. That is what happened in Hadley; MEB used its exemptions not to provide power, but to pursue a purely commercial transaction to facilitate a private development. I believe that that is an improper use of permitted development rights.
I hope that the Government will now act to ensure that new guidelines are issued to utilities and to local authorities. Those guidelines should make it clear that permitted development rights are to be used in future only in order to secure public services and public benefit, and that even then they should be exercised only under proper scrutiny and control by the local authorities. I hope that Ministers will also take the opportunity to review the compulsory purchase powers of the utilities. I believe that MEB has behaved disgracefully. The fact that the issue has come not just to local but to national notice is a credit to the Hadley pylon action group and its extraordinary efforts over the past two and more years. That applies especially to Ann West and Sandra Hodnett, who regularly attend my surgery and whom I confidently expect to see this Friday. They will not give up and neither will I. We are encouraged by the support that we have received from the Department of Trade and Industry and we hope to receive more, not just for the benefit of people in Hadley, but for the benefit of communities throughout the country that have suffered similar outrages. We confidently await the public inquiry, as we know that we have strong case.
The second issue that I want to raise concerns my constituents in Preston upon the Weald Moors—a small village just five miles or so from the major new town of Telford. Like thousands of settlements throughout rural Britain, the village does not have mains sewerage. Many such villages do not have access to electricity or gas—indeed, Preston does not have the benefit of a speed limit either. In this day and age, it is extraordinary that villages so close to major conurbations do not have the benefit of the essential services that so many of us take for granted.
In October 1998, following a visit that I had paid to Preston in the previous year, during which residents told me of their concerns about the lack of mains sewerage, and after protracted correspondence with Severn Trent Water, I received a letter from Mr. Robin Alexander. The letter was concise and to the point. It stated that
approval has been given to a sewerage scheme which will improve the drainage of both Kynnersley—
a neighbouring village—
and Preston on the Weald Moors.
It gave no qualification. It made it clear that the works would be undertaken. In subsequent correspondence, I was told that work would be under way early in 2000 and that it would be completed at the end of this summer.

197WH
A year later, in October 1999, I received a letter from no less a person than the managing director of Severn Trent Water, Mr. Brian Duckworth. He, too, put in writing the same assurance. The letter stated:
I can also confirm that the Preston and Kynnersley project remains in our programme.
A few months later, in March this year, I was informed that the Preston scheme had been dropped altogether and that the Kynnersley scheme, which remained in the programme, was now unscheduled.
Those decisions were not made on the basis of the needs of the people in Preston upon the Weald Moors. Of the 37 households that responded to a questionnaire, 30 said that they were in favour of connection to mains sewerage and that they would be prepared to pay their connection charges. It is not that there is no physical need for a sewerage system in Preston; some of the septic tanks that are used by many of the householders are now leaking and could constitute a health hazard. A primary school in the village has similar problems. If the managing director of Severn Trent is to be believed, the reason for the scheme being dropped from the programme, despite the pledges that were made, is that Severn Trent Water is a company that is going down the plughole. Last year, Ofwat required a 14.1 per cent. reduction in the charges that it imposes on consumers. In a letter to me, Brian Duckworth said that Ofwat's long overdue initiative had imposed
very severe reductions in our income and consequently in our ability to fund capital projects.
That comment is from a company that, since privatisation, has imposed on householders a 90 per cent. increase in charges, has paid its shareholders more than £2 billion in dividends and has handed massive bonuses to its directors. In the past few months, it has announced 1,100 redundancies to add to the 2,500 redundancies suffered since privatisation by the men and women who worked for Severn Trent Water and secured its profits. The company never has to suffer, nor must it ever foot the bill—that is always for the consumer and the employee.
The situation provides the clearest evidence that, when privatisation is accompanied by inadequate regulation, there is cash on tap for the directors and shareholders of the privatised utilities—here, Severn Trent Water—and the service goes down the drain for the consumer. The previous Government were responsible for the disaster; I hope that the present one will take steps to make amends. As I said, it is disgraceful that rural communities should be expected to live without mains services in the 21st century. That is why, when the rural group of Labour MPs, which I chair, published its "Manifesto for Rural Britain" last month, it called for an obligation to be placed on the utilities to develop scheduled programmes of connection, with costs approved by the regulator, which would be affordable to consumers. That would enable isolated communities in the countryside to join the 21st century.
The people in the Preston upon the Weald Moors and Kynnersley case ought not to have to await action from the Government or from the regulator. Severn Trent Water made a cast-iron pledge to them in writing to their local Member of Parliament. I expect the company to honour its obligation and to recognise that it has a social responsibility to fulfil.
198WH
Severn Trent Water might think that it is up against a small community that does not have the resources or the resolve to challenge it. That view would be wrong—the residents of Preston upon the Weald Moors and Kynnersley are no less likely than the residents of Hadley to take this matter lying down. The villages may be small, but the residents will make a big fuss. I will do what I can to help them. I am grateful to the regional division of Ofwat and to its chairman, Clive Wilkinson, who has written to the company, making clear the regulator's position. He said:
As a company of integrity that expressly sets out its desire to be customer orientated and provides high quality service we therefore expect schemes to be completed as promised during the current financial year.
Unfortunately, Ofwat's powers are limited in the matter. That is why I and the people of Preston upon the Weald Moors and of so many other communities in similar positions look to the Government to ensure that the utilities recognise, or are made to recognise, their responsibilities and that they live up to them. I have no problem with private profit or with utilities making their margin. However, I want that private profit to work in the public interest.
As I have said before, these issues will resonate in communities throughout the country. I hope that the Minister will recognise not only the importance of the problems to which I have referred, but the urgency of providing solutions to them.
12.48 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on securing the debate. My Department is aware of the keen interest that he has shown in representing his constituency on the matters raised and in attempting to resolve the matter of the Hadley pylon. Before I proceed, I should tell my hon. Friend that responsibility for the behaviour of Severn Trent Water with regard to sewerage lies with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. If he wishes me to pass on to the relevant Ministers the evidence that he has quoted today, I will gladly do so. However, I cannot speak for that Department on the subject of connection to mains sewerage, important though the matter is.
I shall deal with the Hadley pylon. As my hon. Friend informed us, the story started about 26 months ago. In March 1998, the Department was alerted to a change sought by Midlands Electricity to a steel pylon off Hadley Park road in Telford—a change that caused great concern to local residents. It emerged that the work that the company wished to undertake breached the statutory planning regime. Although the regime makes provision for minor works to be carried out without planning permission or further Electricity Act consent being needed, that applies only within certain specifications as set out in regulations. In the present case, the Department concluded that the company had breached the requirements, and it wrote to Midlands Electricity in August 1998 to express its view and to ask the company to take prompt action to remedy the situation.
It is only right that companies should have the opportunity to reflect on the legal aspects of the Department's view and to make further representations.

199WH
Breaches of statutory regimes are a serious matter and can lead to criminal prosecution. For that reason, although the Department will rigorously pursue alleged breaches in order to protect the credibility and integrity of the regime, it is far better for matters to be resolved constructively than for them to degenerate, with companies taking an entrenched and antagonistic position. As my hon. Friend told us, such breaches are rare. The Department has seldom had to take the extreme measure of prosecuting an electricity company. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, only once during the past 10 years has the Department had to take an electricity company to court over a breach of the statutory consent regime. As my Department deals with up to 1,000 cases a year, that is a rare occurrence.
The Hadley pylon is exceptional, although I take to heart the general lessons that my hon. Friend draws from it. I realise that it may be no comfort to the local residents, who are frustrated at the apparent lack of action, but the Department has quietly and persistently moved matters forward. In March 1999, the company submitted a section 37 application, which was the Department's preferred course of action. The Department actively ensured that adequate information was made available by the applicant company, so that, after consulting the company and interested local parties, the local planning authority could come to a view.
It is a requirement of the section 37 process that a local planning authority, which represents the local perspective and has a detailed knowledge of the locality, should be able to give the Secretary of State a considered view. That the local planning authority has now done, following further discussions with Midlands Electricity—or GPU Power Distribution, as it is now known. The authority confirmed its earlier objection. The local authority wrote as recently as April asking for a public inquiry to be held. The ball is now in the Department's court. Unless material developments occur to resolve the matter, a public inquiry will be held. That statutory regime is specific: if the local planning authority objects and if, after discussion with the applicant, it does not withdraw its objection, the Secretary of State must hold a public inquiry. I believe that the objection has not been withdrawn.
I can understand that my hon. Friend and his constituents might feel frustrated by the protracted procedure, but it is obviously preferable to try to reach an agreed solution, rather than to have one imposed without time to reflect on the consequences. Public inquiries can be lengthy and costly, and without any guaranteed outcome. In our experience, this is an exceptional situation, which must be considered in the context of the Department's responsibilities for up to 1,000 overhead line applications a year, the majority of which are determined without a public inquiry.
In the few remaining minutes, I want to deal with my hon. Friend's comments about the overhead line regime in general. I am aware that experience may lead to calls for the regulations—whereby electricity companies can carry out works without requiring specific planning permission—to be revoked. Those regulations were put in place for reasons that remain perfectly sound. Like any installation, an overhead line will, in order to
200WH
continue reliably and safely in service, need repair, refurbishment, modification or reconstruction. The extent of that work will inevitably vary.
Although the regulations provide for operational changes such as the installation of a temporary line while the permanent line is refurbished and the replacement of any existing line subject to specified limitations, there is inherent power in any existing consent to effect necessary repairs and improvements, provided that the appearance of the line is not materially altered. The relaxations specified in the regulations do not apply in specially designated areas and, for some changes, the company would need to obtain clearance from the local planning authority, which could require full planning permission to be sought.
When the regulations were introduced in 1990, wide consultation took place with electricity companies and local planning authorities, the outcome of which was reflected in the regulations. The regulations have been in force for some 10 years now without any evidence of fundamental problems. As I have said before, this case is exceptional, and despite my hon. Friend's most eloquent plea, the Department doubts whether it is appropriate to launch a major rethink without evidence that the regulations are not operating effectively. That is not to diminish the impact of the situation that my hon. Friend described, which is serious, but we do not believe that it necessitates a major rethink.
I am well aware that the view is often expressed that overhead lines should be put underground. However, there is no getting away from the fact that underground lines are significantly more expensive—at high voltage, in the order of 10 to 20 times more expensive. Ignoring for the moment the fact that underground cables are not without operational problems—they can take longer to repair, are less reliable and might not be suitable for all locations—the issue remains of who will pay for them. The wires businesses of companies are regulated businesses, which operate under price controls. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that Severn Trent Water is in great difficulty as a result of price caps imposed by the water regulator, Ian Byatt. Price caps have also been imposed on the regulated parts of electricity companies' businesses, and, in many cases, they are stringent.
Companies cannot underground at will, and they would inevitably try to pass on the cost to consumers, both domestic and commercial. Those costs could be substantial. For example, it was estimated in the early 1990s that it would cost £100 billion to underground the whole system, which demonstrates the sheer magnitude of the situation. Developments in technology are unlikely to provide any immediate help in offsetting the cost differential. All that suggests that a sensible case-by-case approach must be adopted.
We have discussed a very difficult case, of which I assure my hon. Friend the Department is well aware. Unless the local authority produces new evidence, a proper public inquiry will be held. I know that my hon. Friend has pressed for that. He has represented his constituency well in that respect and his constituents must be proud of him.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.