I am pleased to have been successful in obtaining the first Adjournment debate on the first Wednesday after our return from the summer recess.

I begin by declaring my interest in the matter. I have been to Cyprus on a number of occasions and, for five days last month, I was fortunate enough to be the guest of the Cyprus House of Representatives, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the former hon. Member for Edmonton, Dr. Ian Twinn, and my wife. We met the Greek Cypriot political leaders and the candidates for the presidency.

My personal abiding concern about the island of Cyprus goes back a great deal longer, because my late grandfather served there for a number of years towards the end of the second world war and after it. When looking through some of his papers and photographs—he lived into his mid-90s and died a few years ago—I was fortunate enough to find the service records written by his brigadier at the end of my grandfather's service in Cyprus in the late 1940s. As a child, my grandfather's tales of his great friendships with Cypriots, especially those in the Troödos mountains, were of great interest to me. I subsequently formed a number of close friendships with many Cypriots, not least from among the many whom I knew when I was a student immediately after the sad days of the Turkish invasion and the establishment of an illegal regime in northern Cyprus in 1974.

The refusal of the western world to intervene at the time of that illegal act remains a blot on its record. I contrast unfavourably the then Labour Government's spineless act of washing their hands over it with the bold and resolute way in which Lady Thatcher and other Conservatives stood up to the Warsaw pact and responded to the invasions of the Falklands and Kuwait.

Today, I should like to consider the present and the future of Cyprus.

Given the hon. Gentleman's interest in Cyprus, can he tell us whether he has ever taken the opportunity in recent times to visit northern Cyprus or to speak to the elected representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community there?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are great difficulties connected with visits to that illegal regime, but on a number of occasions I have discussed that matter with representatives of Turkey in this country. Frankly, I have not chosen to cross the green line because I find it difficult to establish contacts with an illegal regime. On several occasions in the past, however, I have visited the green line with a number of my colleagues and I have had an opportunity to consider the situation in that illegal regime. I shall respond in more detail to the hon. Gentleman's question later. It is important to look at what has happened in the period of occupation and I shall address that later.

I am delighted to see the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), in his place. I sincerely welcome what Ministers said in Foreign Office Question Time yesterday and I recognise that the Minister confirmed that the new Government support the accession of Cyprus to the European Union, as did the previous Government.

In view of Britain's special relationship with Cyprus and the advanced knowledge of the complexities of the Cyprus problem, which are well understood by those involved, both in the EU and in this country, it is extremely useful and constructive that Britain will hold the presidency of the EU when negotiations start in April next year for the accession of Cyprus. I look forward to the British Government's firm commitment to the accession being reinforced in the coming months. Accession to the European Union will offer the best possible guarantee for long-term security and prosperity for all the people of Cyprus.

Turkish Cypriots will probably be the prime beneficiaries of entry to Europe, because, since the invasion, the economy of the occupied part of Cyprus has plummeted. It is noticeable that, before the invasion, the northern part of the island was the more prosperous and the southern part was relatively undeveloped; since the invasion, which resulted in the Greek Cypriot community being forced to move to the southern part of the island, the economy in that region has improved dramatically, whereas there are great areas of dereliction in the north. In Famagusta, one can see the extent of the wastage of resources.

Entry to Europe will serve as a catalyst and open the way to a solution, which I am sure hon. Members want, even those who have close contacts with the illegal regime in the north. That will, of itself, help to ease tension between Turkey and Greece, which has been at a high level in recent months. However, the House should take careful note of the fact that Turkey has recently intensified its campaign to block the process. It has threatened the integration and annexation of occupied areas with Turkey. It is deplorable that during a recent visit to occupied Cyprus—the illegal regime in the north—the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Ecevit, accompanied by seven of his Ministers and a number of warships, signed what he called an integration agreement between Turkey and the occupied parts of Cyprus.

It is ironic that, in an effort to stop the EU accession process, Turkey argues that Cyprus cannot be admitted to the EU as that would be the same as a union of Cyprus with another country. Turkey refers to the 1960s treaties, which it has previously said are no longer in force—such contradictory references show the flaws in Turkish logic. Turkey's arguments have been rejected by the EU and international lawyers on the basis that the EU is clearly not a separate and independent state. Discussions at the time of Austria's accession showed that the Turkish argument is baseless. It is astonishing that Turkey, which in 1974 acted in violation of the 1960 treaties, now considers it appropriate to attempt to derive legal benefit from those treaties.

Madam Speaker, you will know that this summer two rounds of intercommunal negotiations took place at Troutbeck, in upstate New York in the United States, and at Glion, near Montreux in Switzerland. Unfortunately, once again, no progress was achieved on the fundamental issues. The positive and constructive attitude of the Greek Cypriot delegation, led by President Clerides, was again met by the negative attitude and behaviour of the Turkish side.

The negative feeling was reinforced by the comments of the British permanent representative to the United Nations, who was the president of the Security Council at that time. After the briefing of Senor Diego Cordovez, who is the special adviser to the Secretary-General, on the outcome of the Glion talks, the British ambassador, Sir John Weston, said that

"there was a sense of disappointment that it hadn't been possible in the event to make more progress at Glion."

From Sir John's remarks, it is clear that no fault attached to Senor Cordovez, and it was stressed that

"commendation was due to President Clerides for the flexibility and co-operation that he had showed at this round of talks…there was…concern and disappointment that further substantive progress…was impeded by the attempt to bring preconditions to the table by the other party, and here of course I mean the Turkish Cypriots."

However, it was felt that

"the two parties at the highest level do remain committed to the future of this process",

which is a hopeful sign for the future. Sir John said that that was

"also the sense of the members of the Security Council."

Sir John made it clear that there was strong support and endorsement for

"the Secretary-General's good offices mission in which Senor Cordovez plays an absolutely central part."

Everyone agrees that

"The present status quo is unacceptable. There has to be further pursuit of the comprehensive settlement we all seek in accordance with Security Council Resolutions."

Sir John went on:

"Nobody ever thought that this process was going to be easy…in these two rounds of talks at Troutbeck and at Glion there has in fact been some progress registered particularly at a practical level affecting humanitarian issues on the island of Cyprus."

On 31 July, there was an agreement about missing persons, which I am sure everyone with Cyprus's interests at heart welcomes. The Security Council expressed its approval of that. Sir John made it clear that it was essential

"to move on to get to the next stage of doing the hard work that will make it possible to resume the process of negotiations between the parties directly."

Senor Cordovez has said that, as soon as next year's presidential elections in Cyprus are over, he intends to seek further progress and members of the Security Council "warmly supported" his intention to continue paying visits. However, the Security Council stressed how important it was that no one involved in the process

"say or do things which were going to raise the level of tension further on the island or diminish the chances of making progress toward a peace settlement—that will call for good sense all around—we want to use the intervening weeks and months to see further progress made particularly on the humanitarian side."

It is, therefore, with great sadness that one reflects on the fact that there has recently been a great deal of air activity—buzzing—over the Republic of Cyprus by Turkish jets. Turkey has completely ignored what Sir John Weston said on behalf of the Security Council about not indulging in inflammatory acts. It is fair to say that Turkey's intransigence is nothing new. In his latest comprehensive report on Cyprus, submitted to the Security Council in May 1994, the former UN Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, stated that

"the lack of any progress whatsoever is due to one fundamental reason: the lack of political will on the Turkish side".

Great difficulty has been caused by the many settlers from Anatolia, whom the Turkish regime has put into the occupied territories of northern Cyprus. They have no fundamental links with the area and all of us who know Cyprus recognise that the Turkish Cypriots resent the importation of those settlers. Another matter of great concern is the activity of the Turkish Grey Wolves organization—I see the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) nodding—and the resulting deaths on the green line, which, as television pictures clearly showed, were witnessed by senior figures from Turkey.

Earlier in his speech, my hon. Friend was asked whether he had visited the northern part of Cyprus and he said that he had not. Does he accept that several hon. Members, including myself and some Labour Members, have crossed the green line to visit the north? We have spoken to members of the Turkish Cypriot community and have heard their real concern that the settlers to whom my hon. Friend referred are taking over their island. The Turkish Cypriots are becoming a minority in their own country and many have left and come to the United Kingdom. They are gravely concerned about their own future and the future of the whole island. Is it not desperately sad that some Members of this honourable House seek to give succour and comfort to the illegal regime in the north of Cyprus?

I quite agree. What my hon. Friend says has been reflected in my discussions with Turkish Cypriots who have come to this country for the very reasons that he mentions. My hon. Friend has had the advantage of visiting the occupied part of the island. I have not had the chance to do that, but I have talked to Turkish Cypriots in this country—

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are always two points of view in such situations? He has spoken of conditions in northern Cyprus, a place he has never visited, although he has visited the south. Is he aware that there are almost as many foreigners living in southern Cyprus as there are in northern Cyprus, for instance? There are thousands of Lebanese and thousands of Russians there, and many Greek Cypriots resent their presence. Indeed, many of them have had to leave and have come to live here in London in even larger numbers than have the Turkish Cypriots.

Judging by my visits to the legal regime in the Republic of Cyprus I would have to disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have detected no resentment; indeed, the inward investment that foreign visitors have brought to the Republic of Cyprus has been warmly welcomed. Based on my extensive discussions with many Greek Cypriots here, I know that although they choose to travel the world they always retain close links with the home island.

What is more, there is a huge difference between the importation to northern Cyprus of settlers from Anatolia who are imposed on the people of northern Cyprus against their will and the voluntary settling of visitors from abroad in southern Cyprus. It amounts to the difference between the dictatorial regime in the illegally occupied north and the free, democratic regime in the Republic of Cyprus.

As long as Turkey is working to an entirely different political agenda from that of the rest of the western world, and as long as the threat of partition and of the expansionist policies followed by the Turkish Government persists, the Cyprus Government have not only the right but the duty to protect their people from the military threat of Turkey. Although Cyprus's military capabilities cannot possibly match those of Turkey, its Government are trying to avoid a possible repetition of the 1974 conflict. President Clerides has repeatedly proposed the demilitarisation of Cyprus, which will include the withdrawal of foreign troops and the disbanding of local military forces, while an international force will be stationed in Cyprus for as long as necessary to ensure the implementation of the solution during the transitional period.

I should like to pay a tribute to one of the British service men serving with the UN force on the green line. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and I, and other members of our delegation, met him during the summer when visiting the green line. The troops stationed there had not been warned of our coming. We were all impressed by the way this soldier spoke to us, and by his personal commitment to the island and to service with the United Nations. After 10 or 15 minutes of conversation with him, I was most impressed by how he took everything in his stride, including the dangers of serving in the divided island, and by his diplomacy and skill when faced with an unexpected delegation of Greek Cypriots and Members of this House. The episode served to reinforce my great admiration for all who serve in the British Army, and it contrasted sharply with some of the criminal incidents in which some members of Her Majesty's forces have been involved on the island. I believe that that episode shows those incidents to have been aberrations, and I remain very impressed by most members of the British forces.

As for the future, it is fair to say that everyone on the Security Council who has been involved in the issue recognises that Greek Cypriots in the republic are committed to a just and long-lasting solution in a bizonal, bicommunal federation—an idea accepted by both sides, theoretically, in the 1977 and 1979 high-level agreements. Such a solution would preserve the integrity of Cyprus as one sovereign state and as a state with one international personality as a matter of international law.

In order to bring about a just and long-lasting solution, I believe that the security aspects must be dealt with. A satisfactory solution to the problem of displaced persons must also be found. Human rights and basic freedoms should be safeguarded in accordance with the acquis communautaire and other international instruments of human rights.

In a recent UN communiqué, Heads of Government reaffirmed their support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus, and called for the implementation of the UN resolutions on Cyprus, in particular Security Council resolutions 365 of 1974, 550 of 1984 and 939 of 1994. They regretted that negotiations on a solution have been at an impasse for far too long, and they strongly supported the process of direct intercommunal talks under the UN Secretary-General's mission of good offices.

The Heads of Government also expressed their concern at recent Turkish threats to use force and to integrate the occupied territory, and reiterated their support for President Clerides's demilitarisation proposals, calling for the withdrawal of all Turkish forces and settlers, the return of refugees to their homes, the restoration of and respect for the human rights of all Cypriots, and an accounting for all missing persons. They expressed their disappointment that progress had been impeded by the efforts of the Turkish Cypriot side to introduce preconditions to the talks; and called for a co-operative attitude by both sides so as to achieve a comprehensive, just and workable settlement on the basis of a bicommunal and bizonal federation.

While noting the existence of the Commonwealth action group on Cyprus, the Heads of Government also welcomed the initiative of the Commonwealth Secretary-General in nominating an observer at the UN-sponsored negotiations; and recognised that Britain, as a permanent member of the Security Council and a guarantor power, occupies a special position in the matter.

It is certainly true that many right hon. and hon. Members of all parties have taken a special interest in Cyprus. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) here; he is another friend of Cyprus with a long-standing interest in the island. Other hon. Members with an interest cannot be with us this morning, unfortunately. The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has told me that a ministerial engagement will prevent her from being here this morning, but she, too, has a long-standing interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has a long-standing commitment to Cyprus and to a peaceful future for the island. The same applies to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who has just come into the Chamber. I welcome them all.

I regret the recent actions of the Turkish side. In recent days, the newspapers have referred to a heightening of the tension. This comes as Richard Holbrooke, the American negotiator, was expected to call for a ban on all Greek and Turkish military flights over the island, in the hope of averting any fresh conflict. We hope and pray that there will be no fresh conflict, but it is extremely worrying to learn that Turkish aeroplanes have been violating Cyprus airspace. Fortunately, no shots were fired when Turkish aeroplanes buzzed the island.

There are, however, further regional and geo-political grounds for concern. There have been deteriorating relations between Turkey and Russia, apparently because of covert Turkish military support for the Chechen separatists. Turkey has been issuing some rather unbelievable claims. Its recent claims that Russian missiles might be converted to ground-to-ground weapons capable of landing on the Turkish mainland have been ridiculed by western military experts, one of whom is quoted as saying:

"It would be like buying a Porsche and trying to convert it into a snowplough."

However, we are worried that the Turkish regime has adopted a deliberately provocative attitude in the past. One only prays that Cyprus will have a peaceful future. I call on all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have a concern about Cyprus as an island and the future of all its people, whether of Turkish or Greek origin, to work together to participate in a solution for that still sadly divided island.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address the House this morning.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on initiating the debate and on the presentation of his speech. He rightly said that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have for very many years worked together as a group for Cyprus and for the people of Cyprus, be they Turkish Cypriots or—

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he is mistaken. Many hon. Members in the Chamber have repeatedly and consistently said, in speeches in the House and at meetings outside it, that their commitment is to the people of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish Cypriots. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to deny that; the facts are on the record.

Rightly, we often debate Cyprus in the House. I chair the Commonwealth Parliamentary Cyprus Group—a group which comprises members from both Houses and all parties.

The long-running tragedy of Cyprus has continued for far too long. The invasion of the Republic of Cyprus by the Turkish army in 1974 was a flagrant abuse of the territory of a democratic country, a member state of the Commonwealth and a country of which the United Kingdom is a guarantor power.

Recalling the countless attempts that have been made since 1974 to find an honourable settlement, I—and, I am sure, many other hon. Members and Cypriots, be they Greek or Turkish—am filled with despair. There have been intercommunal talks and confidence-building measures. The United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Union have sought to obtain a settlement in Cyprus—sadly, without success.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath spoke of the recent talks between President Clerides and Mr. Denktas in the United States and in Switzerland, and he commented on the statement made by the British ambassador, Sir John Weston. It conveys very well the frustration that a very senior diplomat feels on the issue. Following the failure of the talks, the European Union External Affairs Commissioner, Mr. Hans Van den Broek, said that he found it "unacceptable" for Mr. Denktas to demand that the European Union should freeze its plans for accession talks with Cyprus before further negotiations could go ahead. There we have two clear statements by prominent and powerful diplomats, who lay the blame squarely on Mr. Denktas and his colleagues for the absence of progress.

As I said when the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) shook his head, I, and I believe all of us who are committed to helping to find a solution in Cyprus, have always been committed to the rights of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots to security and prosperity in what we seek—a united Cyprus. That said, although there has been enormous suffering among both Greek and Turkish Cypriots since 1974, obviously the Turkish Cypriot has suffered most. Undoubtedly, northern Cyprus has suffered far more than the Republic of Cyprus, and that is surely one reason why many of us continue to try, in the House and in other assemblies, to obtain an honourable settlement to end this long-running tragedy.

I mentioned the despair that many of us feel. If my hon. Friend the Minister were to ask his officials to write on the left-hand side of a piece of paper concessions made by the Greek Cypriots since 1974, and on the right those made by the Turkish Cypriots, he would find that the Greek Cypriots, under successive Presidents, have made all the concessions in Cyprus since 1974.

That is not true.

The hon. Gentleman says that it is not true. That is not borne out by the facts, which I shall outline.

Let us consider events since 1974. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned the thousands of Turkish troops stationed in the occupied north. Mr. Denktas has made no attempt to reduce the number of Turkish troops in the occupied area. We know of the enormous abuse that has taken place of the Greek Cypriot community living in the occupied area, in the Karpas region.

The late Lord Finsberg, who was a member of the Council of Europe, was required by the Council of Europe to report on conditions in northern Cyprus. He did so about 18 months ago, and described the enormous human rights abuses of those living in the occupied area. I shall not repeat his comments. They were an indictment of Mr. Denktas, revealing the conditions that he was imposing on those people.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned illegal settlers. In the early 1990s, the Council of Europe—to which I am a delegate—commissioned the Cou Cou report, which presented clear evidence of the thousands of mainland Turks brought in deliberately by Mr. Denktas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and I are deeply concerned about Famagusta. Mr. Denktas deliberately reneged on a promise to hand back Famagusta to the Republic of Cyprus. About three years ago, I initiated a debate in the Chamber solely about Famagusta, and no one denied that he had done so. I never received a letter from Mr. Denktas or any of his supporters to say, "You were misleading the House." Mr. Denktas said that he would hand back Famagusta, but he never did.

But is not the handing back of the Varosha district of Famagusta, which is something that should have happened, linked with access to Nicosia airport and the provision of a terminal for northern Cypriots at that airport? Has that concession—a very important concession to the lifeline of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—been given, or is there a willingness to give it?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman says that Famagusta should be handed back and I am sure that that will be warmly welcomed in the Republic of Cyprus. No doubt the other supposed conditions to which he refers are the type of conditions that Mr. Denktas would seek to impose. We know that, in the context of the intercommunal talks and the confidence-building measures, all those issues were willingly and repeatedly discussed by the Republic of Cyprus. However, the Republic of Cyprus wanted the complete return of the town of Famagusta, not the half-issues that Mr. Denktas raised regarding its return. That has been the stumbling block.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there were two proposals in the same set of proposals: one referred to Famagusta and the other to Nicosia airport being opened under United Nations supervision? Mr. Denktas, however, insisted on linking the opening of Famagusta with the opening of the airport on terms that would have meant a de facto recognition of the northern regime, contrary to the United Nations proposals.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.

The whole world was appalled by the brutal murder last year of three Greek Cypriots. Two of those murders were filmed on video. The fact that Mr. Denktas has done nothing to bring to justice those who committed the murders must be the most damning indictment that one can make of him.

We know what has happened since 1974. Where do we go now? The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to Richard Holbrooke, the United States special envoy. Our special envoy is Sir David Hannay, and obviously they both work closely together. What settlement are those two special envoys seeking for Cyprus? Will territory that was taken in the 1974 invasion be returned? Will property and land, much of which is now occupied by illegal settlers, be returned? Will those living on the island of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish, be able to live or move wherever they wish within the island? Is that the kind of settlement that those two special envoys, with the assistance of the United Nations and other organisations such as the Council of Europe and the European Union, want to achieve? Does the Minister have any idea, from the discussions that Sir David Hannay will have had with Mr. Denktas, whether Mr. Denktas is genuinely willing to negotiate such a settlement—or will he impose new conditions as a deliberate attempt to stall meaningful discussions that would lead to a settlement, as he did in the recent talks?

Both Greek and Turkish Cypriots are more than capable of developing and forming the Government that they would want in a united Cyprus. I am sure that they have the ability to develop their country both socially and economically. But until we get over the hurdle, which we have been unable to get over since 1974, we must wonder where to go from here.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to something of crucial importance: Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. He said, as did the European External Affairs Commissioner, that membership of the European Union can only benefit Cyprus and its people, be they Greek or Turkish. No one in the House would disagree with that. We cannot allow Mr. Denktas repeatedly to delay discussion, then threaten to take the occupied area of Cyprus into mainland Turkey. I hope that the Minister will give a clear statement this morning on Britain's attitude to the possibility that Turkey will annex the northern area of a member state of the Commonwealth—a country for which we are a guarantor power. What would we, the European Union and the Americans do? Many hon. Members would not be prepared to sit in this Chamber and say, "It is regrettable, but these things happen." It would be totally unacceptable. We hear such threats being made repeatedly, not only by Mr. Denktas but by senior Turkish politicians.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made another valid point when he referred to the continued infringement of Cypriot airspace by Turkish aircraft. We know that that happens. I have asked questions on that issue in the Western European Union and said that we hope that both sides will cool the issue, but only one side—Turkey—is creating the provocation. That is yet another example of the enormous dilemma that the Government face.

I do not agree with all the efforts that were made by the previous Administration, but I genuinely believe that they wanted a settlement. We cannot allow the problem to continue. For 23 years, a Commonwealth country with a democratically elected Government has been occupied by a foreign power and we do nothing about it. The so-called "independent state" was initiated by Mr. Denktas years ago, but only one country—Turkey—still recognises it. If Mr. Denktas has created such a wonderful state, one would have thought that by now a number of countries would recognise it.

Cyprus is a small, beautiful country. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will agree that, with a settlement and with membership of the European Union, within about five years Cyprus could become one of the most prosperous countries in Europe. We cannot, however, allow the problem to continue year after year. The British Government cannot say, "It is regrettable. We have tried but have got nowhere, because we have substantial interests in Cyprus. We cannot simply hope that we shall get a settlement one day.

I hope that, in the coming months, we shall see real progress towards a settlement. I have no doubt about the kind of Cyprus that I want. I want a united Cyprus where the rights of Greek and Turkish Cypriots are honoured and where security is safeguarded, and I want Cyprus to become a member of the European Union. We cannot allow Mr. Denktas to continue to stall and delay a settlement that could have been reached years ago. I hope that the Government are fully committed to achieving an honourable settlement as soon as possible.

I have been a visitor to Cyprus since 1972. I have not taken part in many of the debates on Cyprus in recent years, but I have watched the subject closely because I have a cottage there—properly declared and bought from a Greek Cypriot in 1972 as, at that time, there were only two administrations on the island of Cyprus. Those were the Cyprus Government, which we recognised, and the United Kingdom sovereign bases. Strangely enough, they have not been mentioned by the previous two speakers.

I saw how the Turkish Cypriot community was being treated—not very well. I saw the Greeks in Athens increasing the pressure for enosis between Cyprus and Greece and, finally, the Greeks overthrowing the independent sovereign nation of Cyprus and its Greek Cypriot President Makarios, and imposing Nikos Sampson on the people of that island. Then there was the request by one of the guarantor powers—Turkey—to the United Kingdom to join it to repulse the Greek takeover of Cyprus and the Greek demolition of the constitution of Cyprus. The Labour Government of that time failed to respond to that request, as we all know, and finally Turkey, as a guarantor power, intervened in 1974.

I had hoped that the debate would be concerned with the interests of both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. In fairness to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), he did at times stress that his concern was to assist both communities. I was terribly disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who was clearly biased, one-sided and bigoted in his interpretation of events in that island.

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, will he recognise that what happened in 1974 was an aborted coup d'etat supported by a discredited fascist Government in Greece, who subsequently fell; that Nikos Sampson was deposed from his temporary position and imprisoned by the proper authorities of Cyprus when the proper Government were restored; and that although, under the treaty of guarantee, Turkey might have the right to intervene, that right of intervention ceased when the status quo was restored?

We could argue for years about what happened. I heard some criticism of the Labour Government's action at that time. I supported some of the things that that Government did at the time.

To respond to the hon. Gentleman's point, it is true that, following the overthrow of Archbishop Makarios by the Greeks in Athens, the imposed dictatorship in Cyprus collapsed as a result of the Turkish intervention in Cyprus. Incidentally, not only did the dictatorship in Cyprus collapse, but the colonels' fascist regime in Greece collapsed and democracy was restored to Greece as a result of those events. We could reinterpret history for hours if we went on.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I want to carry on, as time is running out.

There are at present three administrations in Cyprus, whether we recognise them or like them. There is the Greek Cypriot administration in the south, the Turkish Cypriot administration in the north and the British sovereign administration in Episkopi, Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

As the hon. Member for Tooting said, Cyprus is one of the most beautiful places in Europe. That is why I chose to have a cottage there. At that time, the area was Greek Cypriot. The village that I am in was 50 per cent. Greek Cypriot and 50 per cent. Turkish Cypriot. It is now 100 per cent. Turkish Cypriot. There are some mainlanders there as well, but the people are mostly Turkish Cypriots. The Greek Cypriots had to go. However, the Turkish Cypriots who came into the village also had to go—from southern Cyprus. The Greeks put them out and they had to come into northern Cyprus. Many of them came from Paphos and Limassol.

In this context, I praise the Labour Government of the day. After the Greek coup and the intervention of the Turkish troops, Turkish Cypriots in their thousands were locked up for months in boiling heat and the most inhuman conditions in football stadiums in Limassol and Paphos. Only through the intervention of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Callaghan, were those Turkish Cypriots released from those inhuman conditions and allowed free passage into northern Cyprus, where they now live.

Many of the people whom I know in the village formerly lived in southern Cyprus but had to escape, leaving behind their homes, property, businesses and jobs, and come penniless up into northern Cyprus, but at least they got freedom as a result of the intervention of the then Labour Government.

It is right to say that the division of Cyprus is most unfortunate. We want a settlement in that island. We must ask ourselves what a nation is. Is a nation just an area of land, or is a nation a people with a distinct culture, a religion and a history? The former right hon. Member for South Down, Enoch Powell, speaking on the subject in the House, said that he considered the Turkish Cypriots to be a nation, because under the definition, they qualify as a nation and a people.

Coming from the island of Ireland, I realise the problems of divisions among the different nations that share an island. In the island of Cyprus there are two nations: the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. The United Kingdom recognised that at the time of the Zurich and London agreements in 1959–60. That is why we built into the then constitution an extremely complicated system of government and power sharing in the assembly in Nicosia. It collapsed because it was far too complicated. Perhaps there is a lesson there for Northern Ireland as it considers its future.

I was disturbed to hear some of the accusations thrown at Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots today. With regard to Cyprus joining the European Union, I agree with the hon. Member for Tooting, who said that if Cyprus joined the European Union, it would bring even greater advantages to the Turkish Cypriots than to the Greek Cypriots. That is true, because the Turkish Cypriots are a much poorer section of the Cyprus community than are the Greek Cypriots.

One of the reasons for that is that since 1974, all moneys from the World bank, the European Community and other international organisations have gone only to the Greek Cypriot administration. The Turkish Cypriots have been denied funding from those international organisations. I remember dealing with the matter when I was a Member of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. That state of affairs is contrary to clause 5 of the association agreement between Cyprus and the European Union, which specifically stated that both communities were to benefit fairly from European funds invested in the island.

Membership of the EU would be beneficial, but we in the EU should not wish to bring into our community an unsettled and divided Cyprus. It would be terrible for the European Union to inherit the problem. The division of Cyprus affects not just Cyprus, but Turkey, Greece and the future of the relationships in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. It has major security and political implications for NATO, the EU and the middle east.

The situation is becoming serious because of the new military agreement between the Greek sector and Greece. It has been mentioned—it is always mentioned—that there are Turkish troops in northern Cyprus, but none of the previous speakers was honest enough also to state that there are Greek mainland troops in southern Cyprus, in total contradiction of the terms of the Zurich and London agreements, which provided for 1,000 Greek troops to be in southern Cyprus. There are many more, but there is no condemnation of that, and no mention of the fact that Greece now has military bases in southern Cyprus, in contravention of the Zurich and London agreements.

We hear about one or two Turkish aeroplanes, apparently flying over Greek Cypriot airspace. That is what is alleged. It may have happened, but, as I said earlier, there are always two sides to the story. To be fair, we must examine both. I ask the Minister to respond to reports that Greek military and Greek Cypriot military aeroplanes have entered British airspace in Akrotiri and Dhekelia and that Her Majesty's Government have protested to the authorities in Nicosia and in Athens about those armed flights over British sovereign territory. Will the Minister confirm those reports?

I support Cyprus's membership of the European Union, but I believe that Brussels has bungled the issue. I support the United Nations initiative to bring the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots together. In July this year, Greek Cypriots returned for the first time to the village in which my little cottage is located. It was nice to see them back—if only for a one-day visit. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that when he visited southern Cyprus he could not visit northern Cyprus. That is not correct: people can cross into northern Cyprus from the south for at least one day and sometimes for a week. People cannot enter the south from northern Cyprus, but the Turkish Cypriots allow people to enter northern Cyprus—so one party is more generous than the other.

The United Nations has made progress, and Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktas have met on the two occasions mentioned. Some humanitarian progress has been made on the issue of missing persons, and there has been some inter-community co-operation socially, with visits to villages and to the St. Andreas monastery in the Karpas. It is very upsetting to see that area so depressed—but many things in Cyprus are upsetting. Mosques in southern Cyprus have been destroyed and Muslim graveyards have been desecrated. Greek Orthodox churches have also been desecrated in northern Cyprus.

There is fault on both sides—there are always two sides to the story in Cyprus. We must consider both, rather than peddling the propaganda of only one side—particularly if that side has paid for a nice freebie visit to southern Cyprus or to the north. Both administrations bring people to their areas in an attempt to win them over to their point of view—and they often succeed. I assure hon. Members that I have never had a free trip to northern Cyprus: I travel at my own expense.

I think that Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktas can deliver a settlement in Cyprus. I would be worried if both gentlemen left the political scene causing a leadership vacuum. Strong leadership is essential if there is to be a settlement—we know that from events on the island of Ireland. As progress was being made, Brussels intervened and announced that negotiations would begin on the accession of Cyprus to the European Union and that that would proceed with or without a settlement in Cyprus

The right hon. Gentleman's representation of the situation in Cyprus is a travesty. He has failed so far to justify the presence of some 40,000 Turkish troops on the northern part of the island or of some 80,000 illegal settlers. The continued presence of those people for 23 years has nothing to do with the aborted coup of 1974. Does the right hon. Gentleman claim that that illegal regime in what he refers to as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—no one else recognises it—should be allowed to hold to ransom the island's entry into the European Union? If he does, I assure him that many hon. Members would profoundly disagree.

I remind the House that quite a few hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. It is only a short debate, so any interventions should be very brief.

The hon. Members who have spoken this morning have, as usual, supported the Greek Cypriots and adopted a one-sided view of the Cyprus issue. In referring to the number of foreigners—mainly Turks—in northern Cyprus, the hon. Gentleman refuses to accept that, according to British figures, 35,000 foreigners now live in southern Cyprus. He mentions the presence of Turkish troops in northern Cyprus, but he refuses to condemn the presence of Greek mainland troops in southern Cyprus.

The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) asked whether the Turkish Cypriots should be able to veto Cyprus's membership of the European Union. However, the United Kingdom has always agreed, through the Zurich and London agreements, that the Turkish Cypriots should have a veto over the system of government in Cyprus and its membership of any international organisations. The Zurich and London agreements make it clear that Cyprus cannot join any organisation unless Greece and Turkey are also members. Even when the sovereign state of Cyprus existed—before the Greek coup—we accepted the principle that the Turkish Cypriots could exercise a veto over the future of that island. The hon. Gentleman now rejects the terms accepted by British Governments of both political persuasions for a settlement in Cyprus.

I conclude by raising another serious point, which the previous speakers failed to mention. The Greek Cypriots have decided to purchase S300 missiles from Russia and to place them in military bases in the south of Cyprus. That is a most serious development, which has major implications for peace on the island of Cyprus and for relations between Greece and Turkey. The development must concern other members of NATO and western powers generally.

I ask the Minister to confirm whether the United Kingdom has made any representations about the proposed establishment of those missiles in southern Cyprus. Have we complained about that move? Do we accept that it is contrary to the Zurich and London agreements regarding the militarisation of any part of Cyprus? If representations have been made, what form have they taken?

I add my congratulations to those offered to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on securing this debate on our return from the summer recess. As I sponsored the first debate on the subject this Session, I shall be brief.

The world moves on, but the division of Cyprus remains. After 23 years of failure, the capacity of the international community to remedy the injustice done to the people of Cyprus is at stake. I have just returned from a visit to the island—my third in as many years—during which, like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, I went to the green line which separates the two communities. I saw for myself the tragedy of Cyprus's continuing division. People cannot return to their homes and villages, community members are separated from their families and friends, and the issue of the missing relatives remains.

Presidential elections on the island are due to take place in February next year. Uncertainty about their outcome has inevitably delayed direct negotiations between the two communities, but it should not prevent their representatives or those of the international community from preparing the ground for the resumption of talks early next year.

Although the talks earlier this year failed to move the process forward, I am pleased to see that President Clerides and Mr. Denktas have continued to meet in Cyprus. Those meetings have raised hopes that several confidence-building measures will be addressed. The question of the fate of the missing on both sides—the innocent victims of the military invasion—may finally be laid to rest, enabling families and friends to come to terms with their loss.

The dialogue between the two leaders has also encompassed discussion of various security concerns and the mounting tensions in the region. That is a direct consequence both of the division of the island and of the continuing presence of foreign troops to underpin it. That division creates instability, which leads to escalating tension and friction, not only in Cyprus but between Greece and Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean. Because of that tension, we are beginning to see the unravelling of the Madrid agreement between those two countries, so patiently put together earlier this year with the help of the Americans. Whether it be the cat and mouse game currently played out in the skies over Cyprus, including the buzzing of the Greek Defence Minister on a recent trip to the island, or the threat and counter-threat surrounding missiles and troop deployments, the problem remains essentially the same. It was summed up succinctly by a western diplomat:

"What one side sees as security is interpreted as insecurity by the other side."

Although I accept that the current dialogue is unlikely to address any of the fundamental issues—that can happen only when proper negotiations resume—it is to be hoped that they can foster at least a better atmosphere in Cyprus and, more optimistically, perhaps an agreement that will help to reduce tensions.

It is, of course, to the resumption of UN-sponsored negotiations that we must look for a resolution, and to the European Community and the negotiations of Cyprus's accession. Britain assumes the presidency in January next year and will be in the chair when they commence. In that regard, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his reaffirmation during yesterday's Foreign and Commonwealth questions that the Government will continue to support its application for membership on its merits and without preconditions.

Britain must also help to make the case for membership. It will benefit both communities, not only by providing an impetus to both economies and ending the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community, but, perhaps most important, by helping to guarantee the security of all Cypriots, which remains by far the most difficult issue to resolve. Britain must also honour its obligations. We are uniquely placed, because of our historic role in the island, as a member of the Security Council of the UN, and as a guarantor power of the security of the island. Therefore, we must leave no stone unturned in our efforts as a country to work both with the community and at the United Nations for a resumption of meaningful negotiations. We owe that commitment to the people of Cyprus.

Time is extremely short, so I shall be brief. I know that there are powerful advocates on both sides of the House who have greater expertise on the subject than me. My only plea is that their advocacy of a proper settlement in Cyprus should recognise the needs of both communities on the island and recognise that each community has genuine fears and concerns about the attitude of the other, and the other countries that are involved in the area.

When we last debated this matter, we were looking forward to the United Nations mediation and to the activities of Mr. Cordovez. We were hoping that that would bring about a fundamental change in the position. Sadly, that has not yet happened, but we must still be hopeful that it will happen in the near future and that the United Nations mediation will bear fruit. That has not been helped by the noises off and within. Many hon. Members have referred to sabre rattling, which has come from a number of quarters, whether it is the overflying of military aircraft, the purchase of missiles or the threats of veto and counter-veto, through which external forces are seeking to apply pressure, or whether it is the noises from within, from both communities—principally Mr. Denktas in this case—in threatening to obstruct Cyprus's accession, which seems very much to be in its interest.

The Government's position was clearly stated in the debate in June. We were asked to support a comprehensive political settlement in Cyprus, establishing a bizonal, bicorrununal federation comprising two politically equal communities. That must, of course, remain the case. All parts of the House must support that view. It is my contention that the British position must change a little. Until now, we have, quite properly, supported the United Nations in its efforts, but we are moving on to the British presidency. The talks may or may not be floundering, and the British position as a guarantor nation must come to the front.

Cyprus—particularly northern Cyprus—would benefit from accession to the EU. I believe that the EU would also benefit, because of the importance of Cyprus in strategic and commercial terms in the eastern Mediterranean. During its presidency, the British Government must seek to unravel the complications that are undoubtedly there. There may be legal impediments. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) brushed aside the legal arguments attached to the 1960 treaty; nevertheless, we need sensible answers to the question whether the treaty obligations have been repudiated. We need sensible answers on Turkey's position. We would all welcome, of course, Turkey's eventual accession to the EU, but we all know that there are very strong reasons why it has not yet shown itself to be an appropriate member of that family of nations. We must be clear that outside interests cannot veto the entry of Cyprus to the EU. Nor should outside interests seek to use accession to apply pressure elsewhere in the process, therefore interfering with the prospects of other countries seeking to accede.

This is a diplomatic tightrope. I do not envy the Minister in this respect, but I believe that Britain now has to give a clear lead. I ask the Minister simply to give some indication of where Britain intends to lead in the matter of Cyprus during the British presidency—what was Britain's position at Mondorf-le-Bains, for example?—how the British Government were able to react to the demands of the other Foreign Ministers at that meeting, and how they see Cyprus's application moving forward, which is something that I believe every hon. Member earnestly wishes to happen.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on bringing this debate to the House today. The House is well aware of his long-standing interest in and knowledge of Cyprus, and he displayed his usual insight and clarity in marshalling his arguments. Despite the rather unpleasant lashing that he received from the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), it was right that he should bring his recent experiences to the House so that it might be better informed.

I shall make a short speech and make three points from the view of Her Majesty's Opposition. First, we will, of course, continue to support the important work done by Sir David Hannay, who was appointed by the previous Government in May 1996. We pay tribute to his painstaking work and to the work of all the officials from the United Nations, the European Union and the United States who are involved in seeking a solution to this vexing question. We recognise that a solution lies in the bizonal, bicommunal federation, but it is disappointing that, although the leaders of both communities can agree on the end results, they are not yet able to agree on any steps towards that objective. We hope that they will.

Secondly, we support strongly the application by the Government of Cyprus for accession to the European Union. We very much hope that it will be a catalyst for settlement of this long-standing difficulty. It has certainly been a catalyst for enhanced debate and activity. We make it clear that we are strongly of the view that there is no Turkish veto over the accession.

We are sure that the process of membership of the European Union will be of great benefit to everyone on the island. It is clear that membership would be of enormous significance to foreign investment and to the restoration of full international links. It would provide a significant boost to the tourism sector. Substantial cohesion payments would be available, and that would be of no small benefit to the people on the island.

We welcome the commencement of accession talks in the next few months. We shall do all that we can to support them. We see the British presidency of the EU as an opportunity for the debate to be moved forward helpfully and constructively.

We repeat the call on the leaders of the Government of Cyprus and on Turkish Cypriots to make a fresh effort to find a solution on behalf of all the people. We, the Opposition, want to make it clear that we support any reasonable initiative that is taken by the new Government of the United Kingdom to bring about peace and stability in the region.

I have one simple question for the Minister—I am sure that it will not trouble him greatly. Is he able to clarify whether it remains Government policy to support the rotating presidency, which, when stated earlier in the year, caused some difficulty with the Government of Cyprus? Perhaps the Minister will make his policy on that issue clear.

I wish to conclude where I started, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath on his important speech.

It is unfortunate that time has permitted only one Member to speak from a different point of view. I am grateful, of course, to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Will he clarify whether he still recognises that the Turkish Cypriots, under the 1960 constitution, have a veto on the position of Cyprus vis-a-vis accession to the European Union?

I thought that I made the position clear earlier. We do not see Turkey—

No; Turkish Cypriots, not Turkey.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.

It is important that all points of view are heard in the House and—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall not give way again because time is so short.

In debating this issue, it is important that all points of view are heard in the House, but it is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath was lashed in an unpleasant way for bringing his recent experience to the House and informing our debate.

Finally, we must all wish all of those involved in an important process every success in reaching a lasting and peaceful solution.

I, too, am mindful of the time. I shall not be able to take up all the points raised in the debate in my reply, but I shall be happy to deal in other ways with any points that I miss.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on raising the debate. It is clear that the issue is of great interest to the House, to our nation and to the people of Cyprus.

I thank the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for his supportive remarks on the nature of a future constitution for Cyprus and on European Union accession. I thank him also for his remark that the Opposition will support any reasonable initiative that is taken by the Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all our initiatives are reasonable and that he will have many from which to choose in the months ahead.

As for the rotating presidency, I perceive no change in policy. The future constitution should principally concern the main participants, but obviously the guarantors and others have a view. If a mutual agreement were reached of such a nature that it caused major difficulties elsewhere, the Government would express their concerns. I do not envisage any particular problem in that area.

We had a wide debate on Cyprus in June and not a great deal has changed since then. Talks have taken place, of course, on two occasions during the summer. It is disappointing that more progress was not made for they provided an excellent opportunity for progress. At least the parties still recognise that there is a need for them to have a dialogue. I hope that that recognition will carry forward through the winter beyond the elections in southern Cyprus in February so that we can get down to the hard work that will ensue in the early months of next year.

I am happy to announce that, during the British presidency, Sir David Hannay will be the presidency representative on these matters as well as our own special representative.

During my recent visit to Turkey, in my talks with the Greek Government and during my visit to Mondorfle-Bains over the weekend I expressed the view—I do not have time to go into the details—that the people of Cyprus can all gain if there is a solution to the current divide and the current difficulties. Factors that cause tension and put obstacles in the way of seeking peace and securing a settlement must be condemned.

I have made it clear to the Turkish Government that the British Government support Turkey's inclusion in the European conference for reasons that were referred to partially during Question Time yesterday. We have said to the Turkish Government that, if they want to be part of the European family, we expect a constructive approach from Turkey on a wide range of issues, including relationships with Greece and the influence that they, the Turkish Government, can bring to bear on the northern part of Cyprus.

Will the Minister give way?

I am not giving way because I do not have time to do so.

Similarly, I have said to the Greek Government that we want them to do what they can to persuade the people in southern Cyprus that they, the people, must do what they can to reduce tension. We have said that we do not think it helpful to have any build-up of any military hardware on the island of Cyprus, including missiles, which it is proposed to operate from the southern part of the island.

The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred to overflights of the southern base areas. I can confirm that air clearance is normally required for such overflights. A small number of overflights occurred during recent exercises without such permission being given. We reminded the Cypriot Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the requirement.

There has been a much more general demarche adopted by the British Government involving all the parties that have been involved in increasing military tension in the area. It is time that that stopped. The people of the whole of Cyprus must learn that the world moves on. If the peoples of eastern and central Europe and of South Africa and elsewhere can respond to a new world situation, surely the people of the whole of the island of Cyprus can respond to that new situation.

One of the necessary responses is to de-escalate military involvement. We have complained in specific terms to both the Government of the southern part of Cyprus and to those who are in control in the north. We have told them that we take exception to the dangerous military exercises that are taking place. We have expressed the same view to the Turkish and Greek Governments, who have provided the forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) was right to talk about the future. Where do we go from here? There are no easy answers. It would help if the House did not bicker about the past and instead looked to the future, as that approach would help in Cyprus. We must have a more positive attitude. The EU accession talks will be driven forward by the British presidency as fast as is appropriate in relation to the other accession talks that are taking place. We desperately want to see success in the peace talks next spring. I commend Sir David Hannay, our special representative, for his hard work and dedication in pursuing that end.

At the end of the day, it is the parties in Cyprus who must bring peace. We know that a bizonal, bicommunal approach to the constitution can work, and humanitarian measures can be taken in the interim. De-manning of the green line, dealing with the missing persons issue and expansion of contacts, including cultural, social and sporting contacts, can happen on the way to a peace settlement. Ultimately, the parties must recognise that the big prize is peace, prosperity and stability for all, and for that they must work out a common solution with which they can all live.

The purpose of my speech is not to detract from the Second Reading on 28 November of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill to be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster): quite the opposite.

I first began to think about the problems of sport hunting when I was taken by an Anglia Television crew to a fox hunt in Essex last Christmas. I found the whole day rather boring; there was not a fox in sight. The day came and went without me understanding why people commit themselves to this activity. The only sad event that occurred was a young rider falling off her horse, and that was about it. I was subjected to many of the arguments on the need for hunting. We were all courteously treated and there was no attempt to restrict our movements.

I determined to investigate this issue from a certain angle. My profession has taught me that scientific experimentation and analysis, as well as adding new dimensions to complex matters, can chase away prejudice, so it was to the scientific facts that I turned. My aim today is to ensure that recent scientific studies are discussed and that we use good science to cut through the emotion and nonsense that often surrounds this issue.

Research on sport hunting, which is often undertaken in difficult circumstances, has allowed organisations to make informed decisions on sport hunting, such as to ban it on their land as the National Trust announced earlier this year. That is truly an example of facts promoting political action.

Research has also made it possible to answer questions on the biological effects of hunting; specifically to question the contention that there is a dire need to restrict animal populations by this or any other method. Most hunters agree that hunting with hounds has little effect on hare, deer or fox numbers. I have always found it surprising that some animals are seen as pests or vermin, whereas othersmdash;or even sometimes the same animals—evoke human emotion, concern and passion. I note the recent study by the university of Bristol that was quoted in yesterday's The Guardian, which questions whether the fox is a pest.

Whether in biotechnology, with its immense potential for job and product creation, or in the field that encompasses ethology, biodiversity, management and conservation of wildlife, multifactorial components interact in complex ways that are often difficult to unravel and quantify. There is no common currency—a topical subject this week—with which to equate units of suffering, units of hedgerow, units of rural employment, units of cultural heritage and units of rural infrastructure. Hon. Members will instantly recognise those as major factors referred to in debates on hunting.

It is important to recognise that even after the science is applied and assessed, it is not the role of the scientist exclusively to apply ethical judgments. That is by no means to concede or imply that scientists are dispassionate, cold people—quite the opposite in my experience—who should not participate in such ethical debates and thereby fashion political judgment.

A wider debate is required, whether it is to do with poor old Dolly the sheep or with sport hunting. I hope that the matter is resolved democratically later this year through the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. Ultimately, a judgment must emerge from the whole equation and the scientific impact is essential if that is to happen. What scientific evidence has emerged, what is needed and how does it help us to judge the impact of hunting on the various factors at issue?

Hunting as a form of exploitation of wildlife may relate to conservation issues. Trophy hunting of big cats or the ivory harvest of elephants may affect global diversity, national economics and the recreational and employment profiles of a large segment of many societies. Other hunting issues may seem parochial in comparison but still involve a complex interplay between similar factors.

Scientific methodology, technique and analysis can be applied to the issues involved in our interaction with other natural creatures, be they foxes, hounds, hares, deer or mink. The anti-science lobby, which is fairly prevalent in this country, tells us that any scientific conclusion is merely common sense or that scientists never agree so their results should be disregarded and we should not bother about any of the evidence that is presented. That fails to recognise the immense socio-economic advances that have accrued since the discovery of DNA, electrons and the second law of thermodynamics. Such discoveries not only address issues of wealth creation, but can ensure an improvement in the quality of life and in our understanding of the environment. The intellectual and financial wealth created by such discoveries is incontestable and it ill behoves any Minister to deny the value of research.

How can science resolve some of the current problems in sport hunting? First, it can break down the prevalent mythology. A recent publication from the university of Durham said:

"The mink's reputation as a pest lends considerable support to those who now hunt it with hounds along Britain's rivers. Conservationists fear, however, that the continuation of this activity, albeit directed towards a different species, seriously disturbs any otters which remain in the areas around."

So the simple branding of an organism as a pest fails to examine the whole ecosphere and the effects on other organisms in that environment.

Like Professor Bateson's report on stag hunting for the National Trust, scientific research has reinforced what the anti-hunt lobby had suspected all along: that hunting deer with hounds leads to unacceptable cruelty and suffering. Only last week, DNA profiling or fingerprinting resulted in four men being convicted of badger digging offences. Science showed its worth in that area and forensic diagnosis is very much part of our way of life in other activities. We cannot cherry-pick the science just to get our beliefs across: we must consider the whole dimension.

We can address issues of cruelty and pain scientifically. Such arguments are a prominent feature of the hunting debate. Pain or biotechnical trauma has been measured in the hunting of red deer. The National Trust recently commissioned a significant report by Professor Patrick Bateson and Elizabeth Bradshaw of King's college Cambridge, who were studying the effect of hunting on red deer in Exmoor and the Quantocks.

The study involved taking blood samples from deer that had been chased by hounds and then shot. The deer had run an average of 20 km over three hours. The research showed clearly that cortisol levels—it is acknowledged across the scientific compass that this hormone is released under stress—blood sugar and lactate levels rose as oxygen levels fell due to overworked muscles. Red blood cells broke down and released haemoglobin, and muscle-based enzymes leaked into the blood.

Cortisol levels were 10 times higher in deer chased by hounds than in animals shot by stalkers. Blood lactate levels reached peak levels after 5 km of chase, then dropped as lactate was used to fuel muscular activity. The consequence was that after 15 km to 30 km, energy stores in the deer were completely depleted. That was described by many scientists as an extraordinary and unexpected finding. Another incidental observation was that blood plasma in the deer contained haemoglobin within a few kilometres of the start of the chase.

We must identify and calibrate factors that are amenable to scientific analysis for each situation. We are unlikely to reach ethical agreements from this evidence alone, but it allows us to quantify and assess stress levels and relate that to cruelty claims.

As we expect in science, several attempts have been made to discredit Bateson's work, but it has been peer reviewed and stood the test of conference scrutiny. Therefore, it can truly be described as pioneering, illustrative and conclusive at this stage.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the scientific way in which he is dealing with the issue. I do not claim to be a scientist, but it strikes me that the Bateson report is based entirely on the physical aspect of stress that he has just described so accurately. Does anything in the report suggest that that physical stress manifests itself as mental distress? It seems to me, as a layman, that that is the key aspect of an animal's pain.

It is difficult to answer that question without the evidence provided by measurements involving brain cells and how they function, but I note in today's papers claims that cortisone levels relate to malfunctioning of the brain. Although Bateson did not carry out such measurements, I think that most scientists and medics would look for behavioural effects and effects on the brains of the deer. Certainly there are muscular effects, in that the deer become exhausted when running.

When reading the vast body of literature about hunting—we must admit that there is a sporting element in all such activity, whether it be fox hunting, hare coursing or red deer hunting—I have been struck by the quasi-scientific propaganda and dogma associated with the issues and by the nebulous phrases that are employed. Mythology and perceptions abound. Scientific investigations can cut through all that and provide qualitative and quantitative data, thereby giving a basis for political decision making.

We must get rid of our anthropomorphic attitude to animals. We have consciences and know right from wrong; animals do not. It is ludicrous to describe the fox—as some hunters have—as a cruel killer that kills for fun. Such language muddies the arguments. The notion that the kill is quick, lasting a matter of seconds, does not always stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, fox and deer hunts can involve chases lasting hours.

What other research has been conducted and what questions have been asked? Some questions relate to the organisation, activity patterns and modus operandi of hunting. Asking and investigating such questions involves assessing the scale of hunting and its role in rural socio-economic infrastructures. Some interesting answers are contained in in-depth studies of fox hunting by Doctors MacDonald and Johnstone of Oxford university, which are widely renowned. Among their many conclusions was the finding that the number of participants did not vary significantly from one region to another. About 80 people would participate in a typical hunt. Another finding was that the area covered by the hunt varied from larger areas in the south and midlands to smaller areas in the north and Wales. Cub hunting occurred on an average of 25 days per season and hunting proper on an average of 70.

The researchers went on to ask what role hunting played in the population dynamics of any species—in this instance the fox—what impact it had on countryside management; what and who were the interest groups; how they viewed the hunted and how they dealt with scientific factors when they emerged. To assess the population dynamics, mortality and movement of foxes and to establish the size of the populations and the different habitats, the researchers collected figures that showed the national average annual rate of fox kills by hunts for the past three decades. A slight upward trend emerged in the more recent data, especially in the south.

Consistent differences were recorded in the number of foxes found by hunts in different habitats: for example, it was claimed that there were more in hilly landscapes. Most important, thorough analysis of fox mortality using various methods showed, in summary, how little was due to the hunts. MacDonald's seminal work concludes:

"As a method of protecting game birds, arguably the main motive for fox control, fox hunting is not sufficient. It seems similarly unlikely to offer protection for lambs."

It also states that

"outside perhaps the context of upland sheep farming areas, fox hunting should be thought to be more of a sport than as a method of fox control."

MacDonald's work has been published and internationally acknowledged.

A more recent biological study from the university of Bristol concludes:

"Foxes do not warrant their reputation as major pests of agriculture.

Losses of lambs, piglets and poultry are insignificant relative to other causes of deaths. Greater improvements in lamb survival can be made by improving husbandry rather than by fox control."

I shall now deal with the impact of sport hunting on the countryside. A recent letter in the Eastern Daily Press highlighted a view in Norfolk that might have been justified until recently, but will not necessarily last for, ever. The author wrote:

"My late father came to this farm in 1944. On 250 acres there are today 12 arable fields, 10 small pasture fields, 3 woods, 11 spinneys, 4 ponds and a large number of hedges, banks and ditches".

The author went on to say that, had her father not been a hunting and shooting enthusiast, he would have removed them in the 1950s, when farmers were offered incentives to increase the productivity of their land. She felt that, without country sports, there would be seven ordinary arable fields, tiny areas of marsh and a few roadside banks.

Whether country sports will continue to be a major factor in countryside conservation remains to be seen. As MacDonald says, in the early 1980s reports from fox-hunting farmers suggested that they were more inclined than others to retain hedgerows, but he goes on to say that hunting is not the only plausible motive for fostering hedgerows. In fact, he sees it as being destined to occupy a descending rank in the hierarchy of factors and argument currently fostering conservation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the comments of none other than Dr. David Bellamy? He has said:

"While we have hunting, shooting and fishing interests in this country, we will have better landscape management. Without these interests, Britain would become a prairie landscape."

Does the hon. Gentleman accept those comments?

David Bellamy has not done the work that MacDonald has done, but that is not to say that he might not prove to be right in the long term. As I admitted earlier, scientists tend to argue, but I think that at present most people would go along with MacDonald's assessment.

Scientists may indeed argue, but there can be no argument with farmers in my constituency who have told me that they are putting hedges in and preserving them because they enjoy the rural sports, specifically hunting, that those hedges enhance. Scientists may argue, but I can promise that in Leicestershire those hedges are there because people want to jump them—and the same applies to coverts.

I would have said exactly the opposite, and I would have guessed that the hon. Gentleman would too. There is clearly argument among farmers. That is why I think that conservation issues will be based on factors other than hunting.

MacDonald made clear points about conservation issues. Issues of cruelty and the attendant moral questions are difficult to measure, but are of concern to many people. Bateson has attempted to quantify them. Balancing pain against benefits has now become a major issue and degrees of suffering may become quantifiable in different animals as scientific research and methodology develop.

At the end of the scientific analyses, it can be said that we are now in a position to talk about pain threshold measurements and stress levels in animals. From population studies, we can assess the effect of hunting, number distribution and the structure of the population. The debate has now moved to issues of morality and recreation and away from the classic issues of tradition and employment.

Has Professor Bateson done any work comparing the cruelty involved when a fox dies a natural death—often from starvation or disease—with the pain that it might suffer from a hunt?

He has not done any work on that, but he has asked how such effects should be measured. Foxes do die naturally and it might be interesting to make the comparison. No one is saying that all the research that could be done has been done.

Because of the scientific movements and discoveries that have been made, many aspects of hunting could disappear. The sport might even be conducted without the involvement of a live animal. There is a thought. Other viable substitutes have been suggested. All that it would take is zeal and ingenuity in the consideration of sporting aspects. As has been said elsewhere, as we head towards the millennium, is it not time to think the unthinkable?

I have attempted to expose and measure factors that inform and help the making of a judgment about hunting. As different people put different values on each relevant factor, and as the arguments of population control and farmland conservation seem to be, or will become, independent of hunting, at least in the fox hunting debate, the argument returns to the moral propriety of recreation when suffering is involved against tradition and employment.

The role of good science should not be underestimated and we have highlighted some areas that might be taken up. With it, we can reconsider the traditional arguments to justify sport hunting, but I want to conclude on a positive note: the scientific evidence points us absolutely in the direction of reducing the chasing of animals for sport and of supporting the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to end hunting with hounds, which is to be discussed in November.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate because of the importance of hunting in my constituency. It is important for two reasons: environmental conservation and employment. This debate is about not sport, but the rural economy. Many of the people who support a ban on hunting, particularly Labour Members, live, work and represent urban constituencies and do not understand countryside issues. Urban attitudes often conflict with rural traditions. I invite all hon. Members who represent urban seats to come to the countryside to see what is being done by way of rural conservation and how people earn their living.

What would be the consequence of a ban on hunting being approved by the House? A survey carried out by the Campaign for Hunting in 1996 reported the vital role that hunts play in the British countryside by maintaining walls, hedges and woodlands. For example, hunts are responsible for the management of more than 15,000 acres of woodland for wildlife. Recently, the New Scientist concluded that

"fox hunting has helped shape the British landscape. Areas where it is common often have more hedgerows and thickets which benefit other wildlife beside the fox. These would disappear if hunting were banned."

In June, the National Farmers Union council issued a statement noting that it would

"oppose any change in the law which would result in any reduction in the range of methods currently available to control agricultural pests effectively. This would include the use of dogs to control foxes."

Going back as far as 1993, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food noted that

"foxes can cause serious problems for individual farmers, and the Ministry therefore considers that foxes do need to be controlled to minimise lamb losses. Where control is necessary, farmers should be free to carry this out using effective and humane methods, and it is useful to be able to employ a range of techniques."

It is not an issue simply of fox hunting. That is the hook to hang the issue of the countryside on. There may be a case to ensure that hunts conform to modern welfare standards and for the establishment of a supervisory body, but if we consider the economic facts, any change in field sports does not stack up.

There are 385 registered packs of hounds, 228,000 participants, hunting or following, and 15,300 people are employed by hunts or in related trades. The total associated expenditure for the pastime is £176 million a year; 400,000 farm animal carcases are disposed of by hunt kennel staff to feed hounds, either at no cost or at a much reduced rate; and 5,700 hectares of woodland are managed by hunts.

If there were changes in field sports and, in particular, if hunting were banned, we could expect nearly 9,000 people to lose their jobs. A total of £120 million of turnover in associated trades would disappear and 400,000 farm animal carcases would have to be disposed of at farmers' or taxpayers' expense. The 5,700 hectares of woodland would have to be managed differently or from another purse. In such a rural economy, no changes are viable.

If I could be persuaded that any future legislation to ban hunting would not cost jobs in my constituency and that we could protect and conserve the countryside better, I would examine it carefully. Nationally, 15,000 people are directly employed in hunts and in related trades. If field sports were banned, riding and livery stables, saddlers and farriers would have little work in winter.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that only 9 per cent. of horses are used in hunting? My wife has had a horse for about 25 years and I have yet to meet a poor farrier.

I will come on to the percentage and who hunts later. I hear the point.

Feed merchants, outfitters and vets would also be badly affected.

Where would it end? The issue of country sports comes down to protecting jobs and rural communities, who rely on those pastimes for their income. My concern must be for people who live and work in my constituency. I do not hunt, but I know and represent many people who do. Hunting is not an elitist sport. People involved with country sports come from all walks of life.

In Dorset, many local stables and livery stables depend on hunting, as do saddlers, horse feed suppliers and horsebox engineers, particularly in the winter months. Many of them were among the 500 people from the South Dorset hunt area who went to the Hyde park countryside rally, which was attended by 120,000 people—the biggest demonstration in London for generations. They went because they felt that their livelihoods were at risk and to show their support for country sports.

Three hunts—the South Dorset Foxhounds, the Purbeck Beagles and the Ytene Mink Hounds—hunt in my constituency. Two of their masters live in my constituency. On Monday, the South Dorset hunt was on Rempstone heath, near Corfe castle, and supporters included pensioners and children.

None of those hunts could operate without the permission of local farmers. Indeed, most of the subscribers to the South Dorset hunt are farmers, their wives and children. They look to the hunt to control and disperse foxes. Any future legislation to ban field sport would criminalise those decent, law-abiding people. In years to come, would that prove to be the thin end of the wedge? Will Bills be introduced that criminalise fishermen and people who shoot?

It is also an issue of civil liberties. A ban on hunting would be an infringement of people's freedom to choose how they live their lives. In a civilised society, tolerance is shown to minorities. We accept that we must listen to and respect views that we do not necessarily personally agree with. People live and work in the countryside and they are now a minority. Parliament has a responsibility to protect the rights of such minorities.

I do not want conflict between the town and the country or even a divided nation, but people who favour a ban on hunting probably do not appreciate that it would not save a single life of a quarry species. Farmers would use other methods to control foxes. They would shoot, snare or trap them. Hunting is, however, the only selective method of controlling pest species. It promotes a healthy population by removing old, sick and injured animals.

Other types of hunting, particularly drag hunting, are not a suitable alternative. The Masters of Draghounds Association has endorsed that view. Drag hunting provides no service to farmers in terms of managing the fox population and enhancing wildlife habitats, hedges and walls. It would not safeguard jobs.

The impact of sport hunting and the proposed legislation on banning hunting, if passed, would have a profound effect on countryside conservation and, above all, on employment in the countryside. We must consider carefully any proposed legislation that comes before the House. If it threatens employment and people's livelihoods, it must be resisted.

People who seek a ban on hunting do the countryside a great disservice. They seek to hang the future and stability of rural life on one issue: hunting. They must not prevail.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for his measured speech, which relied on science rather than prejudice. That is a welcome change from some of the arguments that we have heard in the hunting debate. I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) that it is a grave mistake to assume that Labour Members are ignorant urbanites. I am pleased to say that many Labour Members represent rural communities—one could hardly describe Forest of Dean as urban.

I did not say that. I said that those who live and work in and represent urban constituencies should come to the countryside to see how it is worked and managed and how people there earn their livelihoods. What I said does not detract from the fact that some people are ignorant of that.

Likewise, it does not detract from the fact that people will trot out any argument to justify their prejudice. I repeat that it would be a grave mistake to assume that Labour Members are ignorant urbanites who have no understanding of how the countryside works; my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) does not exactly represent an urban constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and I are keen anglers; we have spent many years fishing in the countryside and understand country sports. The argument is trotted out that this is the thin end of the wedge, but how is it that recent polls by the Angler's Mail and the Angling Times show that coarse fishermen are opposed to hunting with hounds in the same proportion as the general public? The argument about fishermen is facetious and has no factual basis.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Opposition Members seem to be getting aerated.

I do not hunt but I occasionally fish. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not a keen fisherman. In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) spoke about the science of the matter and finally dealt with its morality. Is it moral because you enjoy catching creatures with a hook in their mouths? That question must go hand in hand with whether it is moral to chase creatures. Perhaps you could explain that dichotomy.

Order. The hon. Gentleman uses the word you. Could he please use the correct terminology?

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The debate is about the sport of hunting: it is not about fishing. Scientific data draw a clear distinction between the ability of fish and other cold-blooded creatures to feel pain and the reactions and the mechanisms that trigger pain and stress in warm-blooded mammals such as deer and foxes. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North nods assent; that gives me some comfort.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole spoke about the "glorious" demonstration. It is amusing to find Conservatives placing such reliance on a mass demonstration. Many Labour Members demonstrated in support of the miners. Did that stop the previous Administration destroying mining communities? It is interesting to note that a measure seems to be immoral if it affects a small number of jobs in a rural environment. Were not some of the previous Government's policies immoral, given the damage that they caused to employment in mining communities and elsewhere?

The point about the rally on 10 May is that it was by far the largest popular rally of any kind in the history of rallies. It was two or three times the size of the miners' rally and larger than the poll tax rally. It was the largest popular rally on any subject ever known in this country. That is why it was a significant expression of public opinion.

Perhaps my hon. Friend has not been on as many demonstrations as many of us on Labour Benches. I suggest that he did not participate in demonstrations against the poll tax or, if I dare mention it in the new Labour climate, some of the well-attended demonstrations in support of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He is factually inaccurate. I welcome him to a future demonstration.

It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to call us his hon. Friends. We have noted that with great gratitude. The Hyde park rally was attended by people from across the political spectrum and a Labour Baroness was a keynote speaker at the event. It was not partisan but an all-party matter. The hon. Gentleman should look at the facts.

I shall refer to Conservative Members who opposed the poll tax as hon. Friends—and can pray in aid many examples in that respect.

I shall return to the subject of the debate. I made hunting an issue in my election campaign. My constituency contains urban and rural areas with outlying villages. As a fisherman in Berkshire, I witnessed at first hand the brutality and depravity of a fox hunt kill. I have seen hunts dig out a fox that had been run to ground and throw it to a pack of hounds. I am now assured that such things do not happen, but I do not believe it.

I had the privilege of launching the campaign of my hon. Friend the Minister for Worcester in Reading last month and noted the interesting behaviour of the pro-hunting lobby, which engaged in heckling, jeering and jostling. However, that is the stuff of politics and I can handle it. There is an attempt to make the argument country versus town. I took up the challenge issued by the countryside movement, the pro-hunting lobby, to attend a fox hunt. I had seen hunts anyway but I was happy to accept the challenge. I am still waiting for an invitation. People do not want us to see what goes on at the end of a fox hunt. They do not want us to know how barbaric and out of place is fox hunting in modern Britain.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I shall not.

A gamekeeper from rural Berkshire signed our petition before 1 May. I said to him, "I am pleased to see a gamekeeper signing the petition. As a rural person whose job depends on the countryside, why do you support the campaign against fox hunting?" He said, "Martin, hunts will often protect areas for foxes to breed so that they have a quarry to hunt." That response drives a coach and horses through the argument that fox hunting has anything to do with conservation or with helping farmers.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, because I am about to conclude.

The gamekeeper also said, "If you want to put down a fox you can shoot it. We are professionals who rarely miss and we know our job. That is the humane way to control foxes where they are pests." There is no scientific justification for the continuation of the sport of hunting with hounds. There are perfectly viable alternatives such as drag hunting. It is merely a question of satisfying the blood lust of a minority and it is time to call an end to it. I shall support the Bill on 28 November.

The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) says that he has never received an invitation to attend a fox hunt to see what happens. I invite him to join me on Saturday 8 November at the hunt of the Royal Artillery fox hounds on Salisbury plain. I shall be delighted to see that he follows the hunt in a Land-Rover to see precisely what goes on. I hope to see him on Saturday week at 11 o'clock at Shrewton Folly for that meet.

There are two sides to the debate. The first is why there should be fox hunting; the second, which is quite a distinct argument, is why we should not ban it. As they are entirely separate issues, I shall deal with them in turn. The first reason for hunting is its utility. Anyone who has owned a chicken run, as I have, and has seen it strewn with the bodies of headless chickens, or who has seen a fox gnawing at a recently born calf or at the cow, or has seen live lambs half eaten by a fox, will know what vermin they are. In that context, foxes are precisely the same as rats and should be dealt with in the same way. We think nothing of hitting a rat on the head with a shovel in the farmyard and we should have the same feeling about dealing similarly with a fox.

I welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who concentrated on the scientific aspects of fox hunting. I shall counter his speech by giving some of my own scientific knowledge. For military reasons, in 1985 the Ministry of Defence banned fox hunting on Salisbury plain because it was felt that it was too dangerous to gallop across the impact area and risk being blown up. In 1988—just three years later—farmers around Salisbury plain unanimously petitioned the Ministry of Defence to reintroduce fox hunting on the impact area because of the effect of the ban on their cows, sheep and chickens. The Ministry heeded that petition and allowed fox hunting to recommence. That is the only scientific evidence that I am aware of as to what happens when fox hunting is banned. It has a significant effect on agriculture.

Fox hunting is the only selective and scientific way in which to cull this particular pest. To suggest that that can be done by shooting simply demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how foxes live. They are nocturnal animals and trying to shoot them by night is not, to say the least, an easy matter. They live in deep undergrowth and down holes, so it is by no means easy to shoot them in the same way as stags are in the north of Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman says that foxes come out only at night, but does fox hunting take place at night? I have not noticed headlights galloping across the countryside. When I go fishing, I see a lot of foxes, certainly in the first three hours in the morning. It is possible to hunt foxes using a rifle during the hours of daylight.

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that point. I look forward to showing the hon. Gentleman what we do on 8 November at Shrewton Folly when he joins me there.

Hounds are used precisely because foxes are to be found down holes and in deep undergrowth. When hounds are driven into deep undergrowth, the foxes are driven out. The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his lack of knowledge of what fox hunting is all about.

I was interested to see this week that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) now accepts that hounds are needed to flush out foxes and that he is talking about changing his private Member's Bill so that selected gangs of hounds will be used in one way or another to flush foxes out of undergrowth. He has changed his perspective on the way in which foxes can be killed.

In my first point—utility—I include mink hounds. Mink is an appalling pest in my constituency. It cannot be killed in any reasonable way apart from by the use of hounds. Here, I might get myself into trouble with the British Field Sports Society by going some way towards agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on the subject of stag hunting. I am not entirely convinced that the most efficient way of culling deer is by using hounds, but I await further scientific evidence on that point. As a Scot from the north of Scotland, where stag are culled perfectly adequately using rifles, I am not convinced that using hounds is the best method of culling stag. However, hounds are essential for culling mink and foxes.

My second point concerns the landscape. There is any amount of evidence that the English landscape is significantly formed by field sports in general. The New Scientist says:

"hedgerow and thickets … would disappear if hunting were banned."

That is powerful evidence of the significant influence of fox hunting on the landscape.

My constituency has three packs of fox hounds—the VWH, the Beaufort and the Avon Vale—and we have at least one, perhaps two, beagle packs and a mink pack. The people who follow those packs make a huge contribution to the countryside in north Wiltshire. The place would not be the same without hunting.

The third reason for allowing fox hunting was referred to eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser): the economic benefit to the countryside. In my constituency, a significant number of people are employed as grooms, farriers and manufacturers of hunting kit, saddlery and so on. An enormous amount of money is pumped into north Wiltshire by commodity brokers and others who choose to live in London but hunt in my constituency. One need only visit the village of Sherston in my constituency to discover that hunting is almost certainly the most significant industry in that area.

Nationally, country sports generate 60,000 jobs. I have no reason to doubt that figure. The banning of fox hunting would have a huge impact on the United Kingdom's economy. Fox hunting contributes £3.8 billion to the economy.

I represent a rural constituency some 40 miles from top to bottom and almost as wide and I want to dispel some of the misinformation that has been given about employment. Conservative Members insist that the banning of fox hunting would have an impact on the rural economy, but a letter from a union representing employees in country areas dispels pro-hunters' claim that 160,000 people are directly or indirectly employed in field sports. It says that Department for Education and Employment figures for 1995 indicate that 116,000 people work full and part-time in a range of sporting activities, including football clubs, swimming pools and sports arenas. One can only assume that those figures have been taken into account. The letter goes on to say that members of rural trade unions have come out firmly—

Order. When I am on my feet, the hon. Lady must resume her seat. The hon. Lady is a new Member, but interventions must be brief and hers was too long.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her useful, if not particularly well-informed, contribution to my speech.

I rest my case on the scientific evidence in the Cobham report. It concludes that country sports generate 60,160 full-time jobs and provide indirect, full-time employment to a further 30,809 people. The use of horses for hunting generates 9,000 jobs to the riding industry, 3,000 grooms' jobs in private establishments and 910 jobs in hunt service. Those figures are well established, but they are easily verifiable in a variety of ways.

In my constituency—I can speak with any degree of knowledge only about my constituency—field sports make a significant contribution. The suggestion that their loss could be made up by a switch to drag hunting simply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what fox hunting is all about. Drag hunting is an artificial sport that takes place in certain artificially produced areas and there is no possibility that farmers in my constituency would allow the 500 or 600 riders and followers we often see on a Saturday meet with the Beaufort to cross their land simply for fun. Farmers allow that to happen because they know the real benefit of fox hunting to their farms.

Those arguments go to why we should allow fox hunting but, almost as important, particularly under this new Government of freedom, allowing people to do what they wish—or so they say—is the argument for not banning it. In a sense, those are two different things. The libertarian argument is powerful. The temptation of most Governments is to legislate to allow the majority to do what they wish to do, but the important thing about being a socialist—I suspect that many Labour Members believe themselves still to be socialists—is looking after the minority; those people who are not necessarily represented by the majority. Those who take part in field sports are that minority and, as we saw on 10 July, a significant minority.

In my area of Cumberland, as it was, cock fighting used to be very popular. Unfortunately, we used to have badger baiting as well. The same arguments that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward in favour of fox hunting could have been used in favour of cock fighting and badger baiting. What is the difference?

There is a significant difference between the ancient sports of fox hunting and badger baiting. First, many fewer people took part in badger baiting. We can now demonstrate that a significant number of people—I think I am right in saying 600,000—take part in field sports of all kinds. If one cannot prove that such sports are necessarily cruel, wishing to ban them has nothing to do with animal welfare or the economy, but is the result of class hatred and the failure to understand agriculture and the countryside.

I come finally to the way in which the Bill to be introduced on 28 November would undermine the fabric of the English countryside—the fabric of all that is England. Hunting and shooting—and, indeed, fishing—are an integral part of the countryside in areas such as mine. They have been there for 1,000 years. A significant number—a majority—of the people there take part in them or support them. Such sports are a significant part of life in north Wiltshire, and Labour Members who would do away with them are motivated more by one type or another of class hatred and by political correctness than by an understanding of the countryside. As evidence of those motivations, even the hon. Member for Worcester has started to agree that it is perhaps necessary for hounds to flush foxes out of their covers. Moreover, Labour Members have started to agree that foot packs in the north of England may have to traverse hillsides.

The only interesting aspect of those two methods of flushing out foxes is that they are not fun. It is certainly right, however, to acknowledge that fox hunting is fun and that it is a great sport. Many of those who are opposed to fox hunting seem to be saying, "We do not believe that hunting hurts animals and we do not dislike the countryside, but we dislike those whom we perceive as being different from us having fun. If we can do away with their fun and their sport and have a go at those whom we perceive as red-coated, pompous colonels galloping round the countryside, it will somehow appeal to our entirely urban constituents. The people who voted for us do not like that sort of thing, whereas soppy sentimentality about the life of a fox does appeal to them."

Such a political instinct is unworthy and I very much hope that the House will stamp on its head in future debates the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on his speech, which tried to get away from many of the traditions of this debate—in which people seem already to have reached their conclusions and then hunt for arguments to support them.

As a new hon. Member for a very rural constituency, I know that it is a gross caricature to describe discussion and debate in my constituency as occurring between town and country. As their new hon. Member, ex-hunters have written to me urging my support for a hunting ban, and farmers and agricultural workers have said that, on balance, they also support a ban. I have also received letters inviting me to attend a hunt—which I did—so that I could hear opposing views from other constituents.

Too often the hunting debate is distorted by caricaturing the extremes of the argument. I should like to make it clear that I do not think that my constituents who participate in and support hunting are a bloodthirsty lot, wishing to inflict cruelty in the countryside and gaining great pleasure in doing so. In the hours that I could spare to attend a hunt in my constituency, no fox was sighted and the event seemed to be much more of a social occasion than one organised to kill an animal. There was considerable enjoyment, however, for those who met socially and enjoyed some exercise.

People participating in that hunt were also not from any one economic class. Although there were members of the landed gentry, if they will excuse me for so labelling them, there were also agricultural workers who were there to have a bit of fun. Therefore, let us please—at least in the House—debate the matter without caricaturing all those on the other side of the argument as evil people.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, we have a responsibility to identify the key facts in trying to determine where the argument should lead. Although I have tried in discussions with my constituents to maintain as neutral a position as possible and to listen to both sides, I have discovered that—probably because of the depth of their emotional commitment, which is based largely on tradition and the life style to which they are accustomed—there are conflicting arguments among not those most keen for abolition but those who support the continuation of hunting. I have had to tell them that they cannot have the argument every way.

At the hunt that I attended, some people made it very clear that it would be a very bad day for foxes if a ban were imposed, because farmers would quickly shoot the lot and there would be no foxes left to hunt. They said that shooting foxes would be much more efficient than the relatively inefficient process of catching foxes with hounds, and that there would soon be no more foxes in my part of Norfolk. Conversely, two or three metres further on, I was approached by other hunt supporters who said that hunts were not only essential but the only reasonable way in which foxes can be properly controlled. They said that shooting would never control foxes. The balance of the argument must therefore rest on the side of those who say, as the scientific evidence seems to indicate, that control of the fox population is a secondary or tertiary consideration to that of the intent of the hunt.

It is very difficult to understand entirely the employment argument, and I suspect that there has been a mite of exaggeration in the case that has been made. The House, however, has a responsibility not simply to assume that there is no validity in an argument. I suspect that a hunting ban will cause some negative effects on employment. Those who are inclined to support the measure must take account of that fact, and I shall certainly attempt to ensure that the House considers it.

It seems a little misplaced, however, to place such emphasis on the effects of a hunting ban on employment when one considers the effects of other factors on countryside employment. In the 28 years that I have been in Norfolk, the number of people employed on a typical large estate has dropped by almost a factor of 10, and that has been the real change in countryside employment. There were once 28 or more employed on large estates, but now, because of modem farming techniques, only three or four are employed on such estates. I am much more anxious for the House and the Government to address employment issues in the rural economy by ensuring, for example, that there is a decent road structure for commerce.

Although I suspect that there will be some negative effects of a hunting ban, they are not sufficiently large to influence our judgment on the main issue, which we will eventually be debating. There should be more neutral analysis of the figures to determine the likely effects of a ban on the rural economy.

It is very difficult to understand the depth of feeling against drag hunting—although I have noted and respect the conclusion of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has urged me to support a hunting ban. I have expressed those objections to hunting supporters in my constituency, but I was unconvinced by their response. Drag hunts have many of the social benefits that hunting supporters claim for countryside sports such as fox hunting.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that snaring, shooting and trapping foxes is less cruel than hunting?

The honest answer is that I am not completely certain. I do not have sufficient scientific evidence. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, having been trained as a scientist, I am keen to have some facts in front of me before jumping to conclusions. I believe that, as on many occasions, we shall have to make up our minds with only part of the evidence before us.

On drag hunting, if it provides the sport and the exercise and if the agricultural community treasures the nature of the countryside in the way that it says, why not do it? That is the key question that will influence my vote on hunting. I hope that we shall be able to conduct this debate while recognising that the arguments are often shades of grey and, as a scientist and engineer, I am used to that. We cannot paint everything in stark black and white. Life is never so simple. Nature is cruel and, often, so is man. We have a responsibility in the House to debate this issue and to reach the best possible conclusion on the evidence before us. In the spirit of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, I hope that we shall try to base our conclusions on the facts.

I wish to declare a lack of interest as I do not hunt. I have been beagling a few times and I have attended meets, but I do not hunt and hardly ever ride—I can just about stay on a horse. Therefore, I am not arguing from a personal viewpoint.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) made an interesting speech and his scientific analysis was interesting. However, when it came down to it, he said that we have to determine the moral issue of whether it is right to hunt foxes. I believe that he was wrong to say that reports have said that there are insignificant losses of domestic livestock to foxes. The number may be insignificant in the huge flock of hens that we have in this country, many of which live in unpleasant conditions inside buildings, but I am keen to encourage free-range hens and, of course, it is such hens that are nobbled by foxes. If a farmer has 100 hens in a free-range pen and a fox takes 20 of them, that is significant to that individual. I do not blame the fox. We should not make a moral judgment on a fox's determination to kill hens because that is its nature. However, it is at variance with what we would want if we were farmers.

Foxes need to be controlled and almost everybody who has taken part in the debate has agreed with that. We have to determine how to do that. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) who, sadly, is no longer in the Chamber, talked about shooting. I have probably fired as many rounds of rifle ammunition as anybody in the House during my 15 years in the Army and some of those were fired at deer and other animals. Regrettably, it is not easy and one is bound to wound foxes if one tries to shoot them. The only time I saw a fox shot by a farmer was when he had snared it beforehand. It may have been in a gin trap as I was about 10 at the time. He left the fox overnight and then went back to shoot it. That is not very pleasant. Anybody trying to shoot foxes on the loose is bound to wound some. That is every bit as cruel as hunting with hounds.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) mentioned drag hunting. I have never been on a drag hunt but I am told that it is fast and furious and even more dangerous than hunting. I believe that many people who hunt must be a little bit strange because I know too many of them who have broken their necks, backs or collar bones while hunting. My point is that if they wish to hunt and take part in something that contributes—only contributes—to pest control, it is strange that so many hon. Members should try to determine their moral judgment and stop them doing so, whether it be for scientific or for other reasons.

We should address many things if we are looking at animal rights and welfare. What about halal butchery? I have never seen it, but I believe that it is pretty unpleasant. We do not hear much about that because it might be considered politically incorrect to mention it. Anybody who has been to an abattoir, and I have, will know how unpleasant that is. I am not a vegetarian, but I believe that animals should be killed as cleanly and humanely as possible, causing the least possible fear.

This is an issue of morality and, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said, there are arguments on both sides. However, I do not believe that hon. Members should wish to dictate to those who want to take part in a perfectly harmless occupation which plays a part in pest control. We should not say that they cannot do that. I am astonished at the number of people who say, "You will not do this because we do not wish to do it." I do not wish to hunt, but I defend the right of those who do. The House is going down the wrong road if it is about to ban fox hunting.

I should like to return to a point that I spent too long mentioning in an earlier intervention. I am one of the sponsors of the private Member's Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and, as I have said, I am not an urban Member as I represent a large rural constituency. It is essential that any debate of this nature must be carried out objectively. In that sense, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who has endeavoured to achieve that.

It is unfortunate that it is the pro-hunting lobby on the Conservative Benches who seem to be raising the issue of emotion and refusing to debate objectively. That has been shown by the fact that this morning we have heard about the conservation of hedgerows, pest control and the need to maintain foxes and to conserve the countryside as well as the need to get rid of foxes because they are a pest to fanners. Conservative Members need to make up their minds about their arguments.

This is not an emotional issue. I am not emotional about a fox because it is a little red animal with a bushy tail that looks pretty. If it is a pest, the onus is on us to look for humane ways of controlling it. That is the important issue and it was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North. The association representing rural workers has made it clear that it is rural workers who have determined the policy of opposition to hunting with hounds. That is a vital point.

I have met many people in my constituency who took part in the countryside rally. It was not a rally about hunting. It demonstrated the despair felt by people who live in rural communities after the former Government's policies over the past two decades. There was a misconception among many people at that rally that a Labour Government would threaten shooting and fishing. That is untrue.

Will the hon. Lady confirm that the Labour party is hanging the entire issue of the countryside on fox hunting? That appears to be the case from the contribution made by the hon. Lady and other Labour Members.

I reiterate the fact that the Labour party now represents 170 rural constituencies, which is more than the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives put together. The Labour party is the party of the countryside.

I want to talk about the rural economy. There is dissatisfaction among people who live in the countryside about the previous Government's policies. I can give an example from my constituency. In 1984, the gross domestic product of my constituency was 84 per cent. of the United Kingdom national average. In 1994, after 10 years under the Conservative Government, it had fallen "to 71 per cent. of that average. That reflects the massive concerns that are felt in rural areas. The Labour Government's environmental and economic policies will improve matters, but not by seeking to defend the indefensible as Conservative Members have tried to do today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate and on the measured way in which he approached such a controversial issue. It is somewhat ironic that on the first occasion when 1 am required to make a speech from the Dispatch Box—I never had the opportunity to make one from the Government Bench, but one lives in hope and ambition—I find that we are addressing the emotive issue of fox hunting.

It is especially ironic because on the first occasion when I took part in a live broadcast during the 1987 general election, I participated in a Tyne Tees Television question time that was broadcast live in Yorkshire and a Conservative representative asked a question about hunting. I have had to address the issue on many occasions and I am the first to accept that it will not go away.

As the hon. Member for Norwich, North made clear, the question that we have been asked to address today does not relate to the merits or otherwise of the Bill that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), which we will doubtless scrutinise at considerable length in due course, but whether the world of science can inform our debate. That was the hon. Gentleman's key point.

I represent a huge rural constituency, and when I was a Government Back Bencher I always made my views about hunting absolutely clear. There are now seven hunts in Ryedale; there used to be nine, but two have moved to the Vale of York. There is no question but that hunting has a role to play within the community of Ryedale, where it is well supported; equally, however, many people take a contrary view. I do not hunt and I have no wish to do so, and nor do I shoot, but we must consider extremely carefully whether we legislate to take away the individual's right to choose to do so. I have always defended that right and I do not believe that there are any grounds thus far to make me change that opinion.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North made a strong case for scientific research to be taken into account when deciding whether or not hunting with dogs should be permitted, and, perhaps more importantly, the extent to which it might be better regulated. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who is also on the Opposition Front Bench, and I both thought, however, that although the hon. Gentleman made a strong case for the role of research, it did not follow that its conclusions suggested that one could make a decision on whether hunting should be banned or more widely restricted. I thought that the hon. Gentleman made a compelling case for the value of more wide-ranging research to be carried out in the future.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the research conducted by MacDonald and Bateson, which I understand was narrowly focused. We need research to be undertaken to assess the potential for pain and cruelty to be inflicted. It should also consider the alternatives to fox hunting to which one or two hon. Members have referred, for example, snaring, shooting and gassing. The results of those practices are indiscriminate and have significant potential to cause pain and suffering.

I suspect that most, if not all, hon. Members have received a brief from the Country Landowners Association. It is interesting that it concludes by calling for more research to be carried out. It suggests that public confidence in the proper regulation of hunting would be enhanced if such research was initiated and co-ordinated by an independent authority. It might then make recommendations for the better supervision and regulation of hunting and consider complaints of breaches of codes of conduct. I am sure that we will want to discuss such issues on more than one occasion in the future.

Today we have been asked to consider the key proposition of whether research can inform our debate on hunting. I believe that it does, and I believe that the hon. Member for Norwich, North made that clear. I believe, however, that the evidence thus far is inconclusive and is not sufficiently wide ranging to justify the House deciding that there should be a complete ban on hunting with dogs.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate. His speech on such an emotive subject was full of serious points based on a review of the available scientific literature and research. Of course, he is extremely well qualified to make such a speech given his expertise, understanding and the amount of reading that he has done on the subject. I also congratulate him on the thoughtful manner in which he conducted hon. Members through some of the evidence. His speech was in the best traditions of the House and I am sure that the House will look forward to further speeches from him on the subject.

I welcome the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to the Opposition Dispatch Box—as he rightly pointed out—and long may he remain there. In the few minutes available to him, he made it clear that he has a particular view, but he, too, welcomed the tone of my hon. Friend's speech and the way in which the debate has been conducted.

My hon. Friend referred to the important scientific research contained in the MacDonald and Bateson reports. Given that he dealt with them so fairly and fully, and given the time available, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not repeat their findings. Today's debate, although inflamed at times, has been marked by some useful and interesting contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) essentially made a constituency speech in which he spoke of the impact that a ban on hunting would have in his area. He rightly described the economic consequences for the rural economy and specifically the support industries, agriculture and the countryside. I thought that his conclusion was rather apocalyptic, but that will be either proven or disproved by events that may take place.

There was a difference of emphasis, if not of opinion, between the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on the issue of how many jobs may be lost if the legislation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) is put on the statute book. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole suggested that about 9,000 jobs would be lost and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that he thought that 60,000 jobs would be lost.

Will the Minister give way so that I can explain that?

I want to say a little more, which may have an influence on the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but then I will give way. I believe that he quoted the report produced by Mr. Ralph Cobham. The House should be aware that that report was commissioned by the countryside movement. The group has a particular point of view and those statistics might reflect that.

The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) referred to those jobs that are specifically attached to the sport of fox hunting. The figures I quoted include, for example, farriers, grooms, people who make saddles and look after horses, and so on. That explains the difference between the two figures.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that, even making allowances for that qualification, the figure of 60,000 jobs is probably on the high side. Nevertheless, whichever way we cut it, if legislative changes occur, there will be an impact on the rural economy. I do not know the scale of that impact—no one does—but if a current activity is stopped, some businesses and jobs will be affected in some way.

We had an interesting discussion about the "thin end of the wedge" argument in respect of angling and shooting. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading. West (Mr. Salter) confessed to being an angler and, in the spirit of confession being good for the soul, let me confess that, for most of my life since the age of about 10, I too have been an angler. In defence I should say that when asked by a journalist whether, in view of reports on the subject, she thought that her husband's fishing was cruel, my wife responded, "Not in his case, because he rarely catches anything." I suspect that many hon. Members know that feeling well. There is a world of difference between angling and various sorts of hunting. I am not coming down on one side or the other, but it must be acknowledged that there are differences in approach and in the way the sports are perceived. Any comparison is therefore unfair, although there are some points at which they meet and they are part of the same debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West spoke about the scale of various demonstrations, but I am not sure whether that gives a measure of anything these days. That underlines the point my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North made about how we should be influenced not by who shouts the loudest, but by the evidence available—especially that from the scientific world—which we should coolly analyse before drawing our conclusions.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire brought a great deal of personal experience to the debate, both from his constituency viewpoint and from his own participation. In many respects, it is worth listening to those who have such experience; however, he indulged in a little hyperbole towards the end of his speech. I am sure that that will make good copy in his local newspaper, but it added little to the debate. We have to consider these matters soberly and although the hon. Gentleman raised some points of interest, some of his comments were more appropriate for audiences other than the House.

The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made an interesting and brief contribution about the nature of the fox and about people's freedom to engage in various activities. The scale is debatable, but the fact that foxes are by nature predatory and that they prey on some types of farm animal, especially chickens, is not disputed. That there is a pest element to the activities of the fox has to be conceded.

In the time left, I want to refer to recent debate—by which I mean in the past 40 years or so—and to reports that may or may not have been covered today. The last significant parliamentary report was the report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, which was presented to Parliament in 1951. Known as the Scott-Henderson report, it looked into the practices and activities that might involve cruelty to wild animals and concluded that hunting with hounds was no more cruel than any other form of pest control.

The National Trust commissioned Professor Savage's working party report, published in 1993, which studied the conservation and management of red deer and which has been mentioned today. That report did not focus on the animal welfare aspects of that form of hunting. In September 1996, the countryside movement commissioned a review of the findings of the Scott-Henderson report headed by Mr. Richard Phelps, a retired Treasury official. He recommended a new independent authority to initiate research into hunting and to regulate and supervise the practice. He argued that the authority should be self-regulatory and appointed on a basis similar to the Press Commission. That brings us the Bateson report, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, and other more recent research.

I should now say a few words about the Government's position on these issues. The Government's position on the issue of hunting with hounds is clear: we neither support nor oppose hunting with hounds—we take a neutral position. However, in our manifesto we gave a commitment to allow a free vote on whether to ban hunting. It is our intention to deliver that free vote when the opportunity to do so is presented by the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. That Bill would ban hunting with hounds and it would outlaw the hunting of deer, fox, hare and mink. It is due to be considered for Second Reading on 28 November and if it secures a Second Reading members of the parliamentary Labour party—including Ministers—will have a free vote.

It will be for Parliament to consider the question of a ban on hunting. There are complex issues associated with any such ban, including the effects on the rural economy, pest control and a range of other rural and agricultural concerns, which have all been discussed in today's debate. The scientific evidence contained in the Bateson report will no doubt be one of a number of factors that will inform the debate and help hon. Members to arrive at their own conclusion.

The assessment of the report and the conclusions drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North will be a valuable addition to the debate. Most important, the manner in which he introduced today's debate—cool, dispassionate and analytical, looking at the scientific evidence, bringing it to bear and weighing one argument against another—is a good way for Parliament to proceed on this subject. If we can keep that sort of debate going over the coming months, the public will appreciate the House far better and we will have performed a valuable service in respect of both animal welfare and the wider community.

I am glad to have been fortunate enough to get this debate in the first week after the House's return from the summer recess. Timing is everything in this case, as it so often is in transport issues.

The debate concerns the precipitate decision taken by British Airways, to take effect in just a few weeks' time, to terminate its three flights a day between Inverness airport and Heathrow, and to switch them to smaller-capacity flights with British Regional Airlines out of Gatwick.

I mean no disrespect to the Scottish Minister with responsibility for transport when I say that I am pleased that a United Kingdom Minister is to reply to my debate. There are many highlands and islands Members present in the Chamber. I hope that the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) will be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stress the all-party nature of this campaign. The crucial point is that it is not just an argument about services between Inverness and Heathrow. It is about the future of services between regional airports throughout the United Kingdom and Heathrow—and the slots for those services.

We have been here before. I shall refer again later to what happened earlier this year to services between Plymouth and Heathrow. Now the same may be about to happen to the service to Inverness. The management of British Airways have in the past offered categorical assurances on the future of these services. Now, without consulting the local community, they are announcing their wish to axe the services. I suggest, therefore, that Members representing Belfast, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Aberdeen and Glasgow should be watching anxiously, because of what has happened to Plymouth and what may happen to their services in and out of Heathrow.

We condemn the lack of consultation and BA's blatantly broken promises. We are deeply concerned about the economic impact that the termination of services will have on the economy of the highlands and islands and the north of Scotland. Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Government agency with the remit of promoting the economic well-being and development of the area, has carried out an in-depth survey of the economic importance of the Inverness-Heathrow link. Some of the statistics in it are worth reading into the record. Among the three airlines plying between Inverness and Stansted, Luton or Heathrow, 85 per cent. of business flights are taken on the BA Heathrow service, and 47 per cent. of terminating passengers' destinations is Greater London. There is no doubt that Heathrow is preferred to Gatwick by most of them. Most importantly, 88 per cent. of interlining journeys on the surveyed companies were made through Heathrow, and only 12 per cent. through Gatwick.

We should bear in mind the fact that the highlands of Scotland depend heavily on adding value to products and then shipping them out quickly to other parts of the globe, in particular to other parts of the single European market. Therefore, the loss of the interlining freight facilities at Heathrow would have a considerable impact.

A week or two ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I had a detailed meeting with the Scottish Salmon Growers Association, one of whose largest member organisations employs a great many people in Inverness and on fish farms in other parts of the highlands and islands. That firm is already having to reconsider its entire export marketing strategy because of the likely loss of this service.

I will not weary the House by reading out the hundreds of pleas issued by local companies to British Airways and the Government. Suffice it to say that the threat is real and widespread. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) can speak with more authority on this matter than anyone else. The Highland Post Office Advisory Committee has written to me to express its deep concern about the change in the capacity of the new aircraft due to serve on the route. What is more, on one of the UK's most important tourist links during the summer months, about 1,000 passenger seats a week will be lost when the new aircraft to be used by British Regional Airlines is introduced. The aircraft will also have 35 per cent. less hold capacity, and in a more awkward shape. That will affect nightly postal services onward from Inverness. The committee also points out that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland

"will be able to show you a dossier of complaints about mail being shut out of flights to the North Isles"

since BA passed over the Stornoway slot to British Regional Airlines.

One local business man summed up the whole affair admirably:

"I have no objection to British Airways' aspiration to remain one of the world's leading and most successful airlines, but I do think it should reconcile its global ambitions with its domestic responsibilities."

That hits the nail on the head.

I know that the Minister has already said that she wants to meet Robert Ayling, chief executive of British Airways, to discuss these matters. I hope today that she will also refer to the position of the European Commission. Because of BA's global ambitions and its proposed merger with American Airlines, it is under great pressure from the Commission to release slots at Heathrow for competition reasons. It would therefore be helpful if DG IV, the air transport directorate, clarified whether airlines own the slots in question or whether those slots are simply allocated to particular routes.

Once before, BA gave up these slots, which were then taken over by Dan Air. Dan Air eventually went bust, although not as a result of losses sustained on the Inverness service. Peter Clegg, the former director of marketing, said that the airline had been making £1 million a year profit on the Inverness-Heathrow service. Its financial difficulties arose from the charter business links elsewhere in Europe. If, as seems likely, the slot in question was designated for that particular route, there are legitimate grounds—given the number of changes of ownership of the route that I have outlined—for the European Commission looking into the competition implications of the proposed change.

What contacts has the Minister had with the European Union about all this? If she has had none, does she propose to have some in the future?

I mentioned earlier the parallel with Plymouth—the south-west lost its direct link with Heathrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) wrote earlier this year to Commissioner Kinnock to express his concern. The Commissioner sent him a reply pointing out that the British Government have the power to protect regional slots at Heathrow if they so wish. A local newspaper report of 27 March said:

"Mr. Kinnock added that there are rules governing how slots change hands",

and said that he was investigating. Kinnock went on to say that

"a letter has been sent to the UK authorities requesting further information on these points."

That campaign was not successful, even though it was clear that the British Government do have the power to intervene in these matters.

The Labour shadow Secretary of State for Transport met local campaigners earlier this year and pledged that a Labour Government would protect flights to regional airports such as Plymouth. I noticed also that his pledge was immediately condemned by Tory strategists as electioneering. Furthermore, he urged the then Government to use their powers to protect west country air slots at Heathrow in preference to the switch to Gatwick. He said:

"The message I have been given loud and clear is how crucial the Heathrow link is to people and businesses in Cornwall.

It is very evident the Government has been caught off balance by this. Only last week Sir George Young said there were no plans to vary this service. Yet within three days"

announcements had been made. He added:

"The Government must act now in the public interest and order British Airways to review the whole situation at Heathrow."

D' accord. I could not have put it better myself.

If that was the view that Labour transport spokesmen held in opposition as recently as February and March regarding south-west services, it would be consistent for Labour Transport Ministers to adopt the self-same approach regarding north-west services now that they are in office.

I conclude by urging two things on the Minister: first, that she respond positively to the concern that she is about to hear expressed by Labour Members, not only Opposition Members and, secondly, that she urges Mr. Ayling, when she meets him, not to take any precipitate decisions on the future of the service until the Transport Select Committee is able to examine on a United Kingdom basis the future of regional slots and the access of the regions of the country to Heathrow as a whole.

I hope that, in that spirit, the Minister responds constructively and positively.

I endorse the comments by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and thank him for initiating the debate.

The Government have issued a consultation paper, examining integrated transport policies. The result of British Airways' decision, not only in the highlands and islands but throughout the United Kingdom, is a disintegrated transport policy. We must attack that head-on.

We also have examples from the Republic of Ireland where, I believe, 160 slots were lost after BA pulled out of flights to Heathrow. We have heard about the example from south-west England. Now we have the issue surrounding Inverness. Which regional airport will be next? Should we stand by while slots at Heathrow are sold off to the highest bidder in a global game of Monopoly? I think not. We must take into account the social and economic consequences.

My hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware of the weaknesses of the legislation as it relates to the current situation. The current legislation is covered by article 9 of the European Union 95/93 regulation. Perhaps this gap in the legislation relating to the safeguarding of slots should be picked up in the transport review that we are conducting, and perhaps incorporated in a future transport Act.

The aspects of the change have been well recorded. We are having a move from Heathrow to Gatwick, a reduction in capacity and a franchising out to another company. I am concerned about the loss of capacity—a loss of 50 seats per journey—and the 60 per cent. reduction in freight, which is a severe problem to industries in the highlands and islands.

There has been no consultation in Parliament about the decision. We were told what was happening a day before the decision was taken.

We are all aware of the big picture. This is about British Airways' links with American Airlines; it is about opening up Heathrow to more transatlantic and European flights. Obviously, there is much money to be made.

I have three questions. First, if Gatwick is so attractive, why did 2 million passengers and 10 airlines move from Gatwick after the traffic distribution rules were abandoned in 1991? Secondly, if British Airways has lost £8 million in the past five years—which is a matter for debate—why not send the cheaper British Regional Airlines aircraft into Heathrow? Thirdly, how does one answer the arguments of the business community in the highlands and islands about moving perishable goods when the new aircraft plant will have less cargo capacity?

I have received much correspondence. For example, Highlands Wholefoods in Inverness asked me what it should do about the import of its perishable goods if the change goes ahead.

I welcome the meetings that my hon. Friend the Minister has had with Councillor Peter Peacock, convener of Highland council, and the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had with Bob Ayling, chief executive of British Airways.

I want British Airways to continue to be Britain's favourite airline, but let us remember regional airports and fragile rural areas.

I must be brief; I thank the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and the House for enabling me to make a short intervention in this crucial debate.

The arguments have been propounded in the context of business and the tourism and passenger industry. The Minister should also remember, however, that those of us who represent the most northerly areas of the United Kingdom have always advocated that the development of the highlands and islands be based on fair competition, and we are now witnessing unfair competition.

As a result of the removal of the link between Heathrow and Dalcross, it is almost being argued that we should return to a dependency culture. We do not want that because we want genuine competition. All industries and businesses in the highlands and islands base their success on the world-renowned quality of their produce, and all the businesses with which I have been in contact in the past few weeks have said that the ending of the link will affect them and their local communities severely in financial and employment terms.

Hon. Members have mentioned various industries; I shall mention United Distillers, because the whisky industry is very important in my area. In a briefing sent to us today, United Distillers says that it regards it as very important that the Heathrow link is maintained to enable it to sell its quality goods abroad. Small, medium-sized and corporate businesses are, therefore, united.

The Royal Air Force, which is also important in my area, uses the Dalcross link. Many of the families of the young men who come to serve in the forces in my area remain in the south of England, so those men and their families use the link, and they feel strongly that it must be retained. Obviously, the tourism issue is also extremely important.

I believe that the key issues in the debate are who owns the slots, who sells, who buys and what is the best legal opinion on the matter.

I draw the Minister's attention to the letter from Professor Trevor Salmon of the department of politics and international relations in Aberdeen, published in The Scotsman on Saturday. He said:

"the view of Karel Van Miert, the European Commissioner for Competition, appears to be that the airlines do not own slots. If this opinion is correct, the Inverness slot at Heathrow is not the property of BA to dispose of. Would a legal challenge to the action of BA over the reallocation of, and claimed ownership of, slots be worth pursuing?"

Is the Minister prepared to say that she will challenge BA on the legality of the transference of those slots?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on obtaining the debate and affording the House the opportunity to examine these deeply important issues. I congratulate him on his generosity in allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) an opportunity to speak. If, by any chance, as a result of his generosity, I do not complete my contribution, I will ensure that all Members receive a full copy of my speech and I will attempt to answer those questions on which I cannot touch today.

The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West highlighted the importance of regional air services for passengers and freight in developing economic growth and prosperity in some of the more distant areas of the United Kingdom. They play an integral role in assisting and attracting inward investment, in facilitating exports and encouraging tourism, by their linkage with the rest of the world.

The current strong growth in regional airports and services is, therefore, encouraging. Regional airports have increased their share of air traffic from 29 to 35 per cent. in the past 20 years, and their share of total international traffic has grown even more strongly, from 17 to 27 per cent., creating a climate of confidence in the regional market for air services, which has been expressed in recent major developments in Edinburgh, Newcastle, Manchester and Birmingham, and a completely new airport at Sheffield, which opened last month.

The growth in the range of services from regional airports is also encouraging. New services to London should be good for regional economies if competition on those routes keeps operators on their toes, drives costs down and pushes up standards of service. As competition has opened up, British Airways has become only one of a number of operators on many routes.

There has also been a welcome increase in direct international services from regional airports. Direct services provide a better service to the regions, whether for business, leisure or inbound tourism and help to support regional economic development. Although the picture is generally positive, however, we are going through a period of rapid change and development. Inevitably, some of those changes cause concern. When the subject is as important as economic development in the regions, it is right to address those concerns.

The transfer of the Inverness service to a franchise operator is in addition to a number of such operations from regional airports into Gatwick and Stansted. From the point of view of the customer, such services are visually indistinguishable from BA services, using the same livery and uniforms and continuing the ease of through-booking for transfer passengers. However, BA itself admits that the switch to franchise operations on the Scottish islands route has not gone smoothly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for that support. There are continuing serious concerns.

The main focus of concern in the debate has been the transfer to Gatwick. I must emphasise that the scope for Government action to preserve regional air services into Heathrow is extremely limited. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West referred to slots and the European dimension. The allocation of slots at European airports is governed by an EC regulation 95/93. Its key provision is for allocation to be carried out by a slot co-ordinator acting independently of the airports and airlines, and of the member state. Under the regulation, Governments cannot, as a rule, intervene in the slot allocation process and must not attempt to influence the decisions of the slot co-ordinators.

Member states are granted a limited power to protect domestic services from busy airports to more peripheral regions. That would be done by ring-fencing the slot currently used at the busy airport for a specified regional service so that it can be used only for that route in the future. The extent of the Government's ability to ring-fence in that way is narrowly defined by the regulation and is possible only where there is only one service to any London airport and only one operator on the route.

I need not labour the point; I need say only that three operators on the Inverness route fly to three different London airports. British Airways argues strongly that a switch to Gatwick has significant advantages for most passengers. Many onward international connections can be made with no change of terminal. There is a wider range of destinations in north America than at Heathrow. For those travelling into London, Gatwick has faster connections to central London—both the City and the west end—and direct rail connections with much of the south-east.

The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West also referred to the transfer of the Plymouth-Newquay service from Heathrow to Gatwick in March of this year. I understand that both passenger numbers and the proportion of interline passengers have shown strong growth in the first months of that new service. We have had correspondence with the European Commission on the south-west slot issue and answered its questions, and we understand that those answers are to the European Commission's satisfaction.

Serious concerns about Gatwick's suitability to serve the needs of Inverness and the highlands have been raised by local authorities, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. As we have already heard, the Secretary of State for Scotland recently met Robert Ayling, chief executive of British Airways, and urged him to reconsider the decision to switch the Inverness service to Gatwick. I share my right hon. Friend's disappointment about the lack of consultation with local interests and, following my meeting with the Regional Airlinks to Heathrow group, I shall write to Mr. Ayling to make that point as strongly as I can.

As has been suggested, the Transport Select Committee may wish to comment—as is its right—on recent changes in regional air services. Let me reassure the House, however, that the contribution of regional airports and aviation, including regional air services, to regeneration and competitiveness will be an important theme within the treatment of aviation in next year's White Paper. We are actively working on that aspect, with regional seminars in the east midlands and the north-east already behind us, and a national seminar on aviation and integrated transport to be held in London on 5 November.

The Government are already providing active support where it matters for aviation in the United Kingdom regions. We recognise that, in certain circumstances, some socially desirable air services may not be commercially viable, which is why the Scottish Office pays £350,000 a year to support routes to Tiree, Barra and Campbeltown on which public service obligations have been imposed because we consider them essential for the economic and social welfare of the communities that they serve.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is also responsible for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd., supporting it to the tune of £6.8 million in the current financial year in recognition of the essential role that its 10 airports play in the northern Scottish economy. Furthermore, my Department demonstrates its commitment to the development of the United Kingdom's regional airports through strong advocacy of liberalisation in international air service agreements. Airlines are already free to run services from any UK airport to elsewhere in Europe, which has been one of the main factors behind the resurgence of regional airports in recent years.

I strongly believe that the way forward now is through partnership and co-operation. I urge British Airways to discuss with local authorities the implications of its proposals. It is important that all those involved work together, not to attempt to put a brake on change but to work within a changing world to develop regional air services that best meet the needs of the regions and the United Kingdom as a whole.

I am grateful to be able to bring before Parliament a major wrong that has been done to more than 21,000 victims of long-term industrial injury and disease, whose top-up pensions under the reduced earnings allowance have been cut by up to £30 a week. That represents 75 per cent. of their benefits. The cut is wrong also because it was made without consultation and because those concerned were promised that benefit, not just for a few years, but for life.

I return to this issue today because of an answer by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). He said:

"Those affected by the transfer of over-pension-age recipients of reduced earnings allowance to the retirement allowance 16 months ago were harshly treated by the previous Government. Many people lost up to £30 a week in benefit with little advice or no advance warning, and without the transitional protection which we proposed at the time.

Regretfully, however, we have concluded that we cannot remedy that injustice without breaking our election manifesto commitment to keep within current spending totals. We have also concluded that retirement allowance is the right benefit for those recipients who are over retirement age."—[Official Report, 28 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 8.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) correctly said in a short Adjournment debate, that reduction, experienced by some of the poorest pensioners, is equivalent to a reduction in the salary of Members of Parliament of £9,000 a year. Let us imagine the reaction if, at 3.30 this afternoon, the Leader of the House were to announce a reduction of that scale in hon. Members' salaries. I suspect that the House would be full to overflowing, and a few harsh words would be exchanged. I hope that similar sentiments can be expressed today.

On the same day as that Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is now a Welsh Office Minister and was then a shadow Opposition spokesperson on employment, was quoted in The Guardian as saying that the cuts were

"a pernicious attack on some of the most vulnerable, low income households."

He added:

"The retrospective manner in which the changes have been applied must surely be open to legal challenge and may well, if necessary, have to go to the European Court of Justice."

The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), when she was the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, told the South Wales Echo, after a meeting that I and other hon. Members attended in Blackpool about a year ago, that the reduced earnings allowance represented

"for the individuals concerned, very large sums of money, but of course it is only a small sum of money out of the public purse. It really is one of those issues in which having a Labour Government can make a difference."

To make that difference would cost the Government only £35 million a year, and that figure would decrease every year, because some of those who would receive the benefit are dying.

The Trades Union Congress reminded us in a report that

"One element of the industrial injuries scheme abolishing for injuries or ill health occurring after 1st October 1990, was the REA, designed partially to compensate victims of diseases and accidents who left their jobs to take lower paying employment, either because they were no longer able to keep up a heavy physical job, or because their condition would worsen if they stayed in the job which gave them their illness."

The TUC report went on to state that the reduced earnings allowance

"was particularly useful in encouraging people to leave such jobs, such as people working in noisy occupations whose hearing was deteriorating or asthma sufferers whose condition was likely to get much worse the longer they stayed in contact with the substance which caused their asthma in the first place."

The REA thus helped to compensate for reduced pension rights. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, who ended his Adjournment debate speech by saying that, with the withdrawal of REA,

"immense and needless suffering has been caused which I believe cannot be justified."—[Official Report, 21 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 1182.]

Time does not permit me to go into detail about the way in which the Tory Government decision of two years ago affected people over retirement age—that is, 65 for men and 60 for women. It resulted in REA being replaced by retirement allowance of only £9.53 a week.

The new rules governing REA benefits which came into effect on 24 March 1996 mean that the only people who will continue to get REA over pension age will be those who work for more than 10 hours a week, and a small number of people who reached retirement age before 10 April 1989.

The implications of the changes were attacked by Opposition spokespeople in the short debate when Parliament scrutinised the regulations in May 1996. At that time, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), was the social security spokesperson. He led the attack on the REA regulations and told the Conservative Minister, the former hon. Member for Monmouth, that the Labour party felt

"strongly that there should have been much wider consultation"

over the changes. He promised that Labour would

"continue to stress the anxieties felt by particular groups and the losses that they will suffer."

My hon. Friend pointed out that it was a mark of the Conservative Government's

"discomfort over the considerable public outcry about the changes that the Secretary of State has been forced to write to Members about this debate."

He added that it showed

"how important the debate is and how the Government's intentions have been received by the public."

My hon. Friend highlighted the implications of the drafting of the REA regulations, which meant:

"Even when there is an intention to stay in regular employment, with just one day's sickness or unemployment, a person over pension age will lose all his REA entitlement and be forced to transfer to RA."

He stressed the potential sexual discrimination in the regulations, whereby women would lose their benefit at 60 years of age, whereas men would continue to receive the benefit until age 65. He suggested that that was contrary to the sex discrimination rules of the European Union.

My hon. Friend concluded:

"The detail is clear. The Government"—

the Conservative Government—

"Want to use the statutory instrument further to reduce the benefit for disabled people. The stark detail does not give the full colour and flavour of the anguish and problems that many people who fall foul of the benefit will suffer."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 8 May 1996; c. 3–7.]

I agree with my hon. Friend's comments at that time. I ask now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley put it in her response to the Minister's oral answer on 28 July:

"If it was wrong last year, why is it right this year?"—[Official Report, 28 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 8.]

In December last year the current Secretary of State for Social Security was told in response to a series of written questions that he had tabled on the implications of REA that information on the number and results of appeals made to social security tribunals against reductions arising from REA

"is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 17 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 534.]

Can the Minister provide such data, in the spirit of openness that we would expect from new Labour?

A year ago, on 14 November, John Monks, the general secretary of the TUC, issued a statement on the trade union response to the REA changes. He said:

"This mean-minded move by the Government has come as a shock to many pensioners who were injured at work when younger. Their injuries will be with them for the rest of their lives and they thought the Government would stand by them. Ministers have broken faith with some of the most vulnerable pensioners in Britain, and they should make amends."

It gives me no pleasure to say that I agreed with John Monks then and I do so today. If the Government can find, as they rightly did, £300 million from their defence estimate to invest in the national health service, surely they can find £35 million to invest in our pensioners—to give them back the money that was stolen from them.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Withington closed the debate on the REA in Committee, he said that it had been "an interesting debate" and that the Government's response had been "appalling". I trust that no one will be able to express such negative views when the Minister responds today.

I welcome this debate and the opportunity to explain this Governments' position on the reduced earnings allowance.

I appreciate the concern of my hon Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and other hon. Members who are present about the hardship caused to many of their constituents by the changes introduced by the previous Government, and it is right and proper that the matter should be raised.

Let me make it clear that no one questions the hardship caused to those who lost income after they had retired, nor the particular impact in the mining and industrial areas represented by my hon Friend. I shall set out the background to the present position and explain the outcome of the Government's review.

The previous Government made changes to the regulations which transfer over-pension-age REA recipients to the lower-rate retirement allowance. Those changes came into force on 24 March 1996 and were introduced with very little warning to the people affected.

Our Government shared the concern that was widely felt about the effect on those people. Following a commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at the 1996 Labour party conference, I told the House on 2 June that the Government would review the arrangements for the transfer of over-pension-age REA recipients to RA.

We carried out a thorough review of the changes, as we were bound to do, and we considered carefully whether REA could be restored in any way to the people affected.

On 28 July I announced the outcome of the review. We concluded that RA is the appropriate benefit for those recipients who had retired, and that we could not restore REA to those recipients affected by the change, without breaking our manifesto commitments to keep within current spending totals and without creating anomalies. We did recognise that it was essential to improve the way in which we handle those people who currently receive reduced earnings allowance and who have not yet retired.

As my hon. Friend said, REA is an industrial injuries benefit that is paid to employed earners who, because of an industrial accident or disease, cannot return to their regular occupation and suffer a loss of earnings as a result. The previous Government replaced special hardship allowance with REA from October 1986. SHA was basically the same as REA, but was an increase of industrial injuries disablement benefit rather than a stand-alone benefit. The maximum rate of REA payable is currently £40.44 per week.

When first introduced, REA—like SHA before it—continued to be paid after recipients had retired. In April 1987, the previous Government took the first of a number of steps to restrict the amount of REA paid to those recipients who had retired—that is, those over pension age who were no longer working. For those REA recipients who had retired by 6 April 1987, the rate of REA was restricted to the rate in payment at that time. REA was then frozen for those recipients who had retired by 10 April 1988 and again at 9 April 1989. As my hon. Friend said, those recipients are paid at the protected rates for life.

The previous Government then introduced retirement allowance on 10 April 1989 for all other REA recipients upon retirement. An REA recipient who reached pension age on or after 10 April 1989 and retired, transferred from REA to the lower-rate retirement allowance. Retirement allowance is payable at 25 per cent. of the rate of REA last in payment, subject to a maximum—currently £10.11 per week.

The legislation to transfer over-pension-age REA recipients to RA did not work as the previous Government had intended. Many over-pension-age recipients who were no longer working were not transferred to retirement allowance. The legislation provided that REA recipients must first attain pension age and then give up regular employment in order to be transferred to retirement allowance. That meant that someone who retired only a few days before attaining pension age could not be transferred to retirement allowance. Thus there was inequity of treatment. Some 15,000 people were transferred to retirement allowance, but 20,000 others in similar circumstances could not be transferred due to the way in which the legislation was framed.

The effect of the changes made by the previous Government on 24 March 1996 meant that only those over-pension-age REA recipients who were still in regular employment would continue to receive REA. Regular employment is defined in the regulations as at least 10 hours' work a week, averaged over five weeks. This meant that all those receiving REA who were over pension age on 24 March and no longer in regular employment were transferred to the lower-rate RA from 31 March 1996. Other REA recipients would transfer to RA either when they attained pension age or when they gave up regular employment, if that occurred after they attained pension age.

The Benefits Agency reviewed 20,000 REA recipients who were over pension age on 24 March 1996, and 19,600 of those recipients were transferred to retirement allowance. A further 4,000 REA recipients who reached pension age between 25 March 1996 and March 1997 have transferred to retirement allowance.

In the south Wales valleys district—the area that dealt with disablement benefit at that time for a large part of south Wales, including my hon. Friend's constituency and several other constituencies—1,169 REA recipients were identified who were over pension age before March 1997. Those cases were reviewed and only one was not transferred to retirement allowance.

As I acknowledged when I made my announcement on 28 July, many people were treated very badly by the previous Government because they were given little or no warning that their benefit would be reduced by about £30 a week. I fully recognise the concerns that have been expressed again today. Some reduced earnings allowance recipients who had been told that they had been awarded REA for life, or for a long forward period, were transferred to retirement allowance by the changes. Recipients had been given life awards because, as the law stood then, they could not be transferred to retirement allowance.

However, awards of benefit are always made subject to the conditions of entitlement continuing. Any award can be reviewed if the recipient no longer meets the conditions of entitlement set out in the regulations in force at that time. For over-pension-age reduced earnings allowance recipients to continue to receive REA, they must be treated by the regulations as continuing in regular employment. I shall return shortly to the position of those who may have been offered further unconditional assurances about payment of REA.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, there have been hundreds of appeals to social security appeal tribunals against adjudication officers' decisions to transfer the over-pension-age reduced earnings allowance recipients to retirement allowance. Many of those cases were awaiting the outcome of two appeals to the social security commissioners. On 28 May, the commissioners decided the cases and confirmed the adjudication officers' decisions to transfer REA recipients to retirement allowance. We believe that the claimants may appeal that decision in the Court of Appeal. Other cases awaiting social security appeal tribunal hearings should now be heard.

My hon. Friend asked about the information that is available on the treatment and outcome of several appeals. That issue has not been raised with me before now, and I shall look into it. However, I cannot be certain that I can provide the answers that my hon. Friend seeks.

As I have mentioned already, we announced on 2 June that we would review the REA position. We quickly carried out a thorough review of the transfer of over-pension-age REA recipients to retirement allowance, and I announced the outcome to the House on 28 July. Our first conclusion was that retirement allowance is the appropriate benefit for those REA recipients who are over pension age and have retired from regular employment. It is not appropriate to compensate someone for a loss of earnings who would not be working even if he or she was not disabled.

We recognise that many of the 24,000 REA recipients who were transferred to retirement allowance feel that they were treated unjustly. We considered, as part of the review, restoring REA or giving transitional protection to those recipients who had been affected by the changes. Leaving aside for one moment the real problems of public spending—I must return to them later—we should recognise that action would create its own problems.

If REA were restored to all those recipients affected by the changes, the previous differences in treatment between those who had and had not been transferred to retirement allowance would be restored. The 15,000 over-pension-age REA recipients who had already been transferred to retirement allowance before the March 1996 changes were made would continue to be treated unfavourably compared with those in similar situations who were not transferred to retirement allowance until the March 1996 changes were made.

Those changes were made 18 months ago. There would be similar difficulties and unfairness if we now sought to give transitional protection to those people who lost REA. These are real difficulties but, fundamentally, I ask my hon Friend to recognise that he and I were elected on a manifesto that committed this Government to keeping within the current spending totals.

I recognise the difficulty facing my hon. Friend the Minister in putting his case. However, I remind him that there have been spending adjustments in Departments—an extra sum has been found in the Department of Health to try to avert the crisis that may be imminent in the health service this winter. I think that most people recognise the injustice—which was again drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) this morning—of what happened to people last year. Although I recognise that that action was taken by the previous Government, surely some adjustment can be made in the Department of Social Security to take account of the injustice that has been done to the people whom we represent.

I have made it clear that that injustice is not the subject of today's debate. We must take account of the pressures on Government spending and the importance of those commitments in all our decision making. We would all welcome decisions to increase investment in the health service this winter, but not every pressing demand on the Government can be met within the prudent spending limits that we have quite rightly adopted.

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend. He continually rests his case on the election manifesto commitment on public expenditure, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) reminded us, the Secretary of State, when shadowing this responsibility, said very clearly to a deputation of hon. Members that this was an issue on which a Labour Government really could make a difference.

We have followed through that discussion by keeping our commitment to have a review—the announcement that I made in June. If I may, I would like to make some progress to explain the action that we have taken.

We estimate that to restore REA to all those people affected would cost around £45 million a year gross, about £40 million after allowing for offsets. This could be found only by cutting support for others in need. The overriding need for prudent public spending and to meet our priorities to improve education and health services means that we are not in a position to tackle every hardship and injustice caused by the previous Administration. We have concluded that it would not be possible to restore REA or provide retrospective transitional protection.

However, as I have said, many of the 24,000 REA recipients who transferred to retirement allowance following the March 1996 changes were treated very badly by the previous Government. It was harsh that they received very little warning of the reduction in their income of about £30 a week. That caused many pensioners considerable financial hardship. We are determined that REA recipients who transfer to RA in the future are better prepared than those who transferred under the previous Government. We have arranged for the Benefits Agency to write to all REA recipients to give them sufficient warning that they will suffer a reduction in their benefit when they attain pension age if they are not working. This will enable them to plan for their future.

As my hon Friend said, there may be individuals who have received a notice that an award of REA would continue to a particular date or for life who can show that the Benefits Agency made a mistake in giving them a further unconditional assurance that the award would continue for that period. In such circumstances, the individual may be able to get help under the Department's special payment arrangements, which offer financial redress in cases of maladministration. As the unconditional assurance should not have been given, an exgratia payment can be considered in these cases if the individual can show that he or she has undertaken an on-going financial commitment based upon the unconditional assurance.

This is a most regrettable situation which we inherited from the previous Government, but I hope that my hon. Friends will appreciate why we are not able to restore REA to those unfortunately affected by the changes without adequate warning. I hope that they will recognise also the steps that we have taken to ensure that, in future, REA recipients will be given sufficient warning of the position when they reach pensionable age.

Four weeks ago to the day, the Sapphire—Peterhead-registered fishing boat 285—was lost about 12 to 15 miles from its home port. My constituents Adam Stephen, Robert Stephen, Bruce Cameron and Victor Podlesny lost their lives. Our proceedings are being heard by representatives of those men's immediate families and by the only survivor of the tragedy, Victor Robertson. These are people who are united in grief and also united in a campaign to have the bodies of their loved ones returned to their families, if that is humanly possible, to allow a family burial.

The campaign, which is being conducted with the most enormous dignity, is supported by the local mission, by local councillors, by the wider community of Peterhead and by every fishing community the length and breadth of the country, there being a special bond that unites people facing tragedy.

I want to do three things in this brief debate. First, I want to set out an argument as to how we should deal with people in the circumstances that I have outlined, including the right attitude to adopt, and the modern and correct attitude towards family burials instead of services of remembrance.

Secondly, I want specifically to focus on what I regard as a huge anomaly within our system of public administration, which is that no one has any public responsibility for recovering the bodies of men lost at sea. It is extraordinary that there should be no such responsibility, and it is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.

Thirdly, I want to present to the Minister information that I made available to her yesterday evening on the results of a feasibility study commissioned by the families, which shows beyond any reasonable argument, I think, that it is possible to recover the Sapphire and to have a good chance of recovering the bodies—all or some—of the lost men.

The traditional attitude in fishing communities was towards sea graves, but there has been a substantial change in recent years. The reason above anything else is that we have seen 25 years of new technology in the North sea. We have an oil industry that daily uses techniques and technology to recover many things from the sea bed, from oilfield debris to second world war mines. Millions upon millions of pounds are expended in that process. It is now technically possible to locate, survey and raise fishing vessels that are lost at sea. That was not the position in the past.

Over the past few years—I know this from speaking to inspectors privately in the marine accidents investigation branch—in virtually every instance of a fishing boat being lost, there has been a real and passionate demand from the families involved to have the bodies of the lost men recovered.

Seven years ago, there was a well-publicised campaign, supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including many hon. Members whom I see in their places today, to raise the Antares, a boat which sank in different circumstances but which was the subject of a vociferous campaign by Clyde fishermen over several weeks before the Ministry of Defence agreed to do what I believe it was duty bound to do, and raise the Antares—from deeper water, incidentally, than that in which the Sapphire is lying. The exercise resulted in the bodies of three men being recovered. One body was later recovered in the estuary.

I was speaking recently to Patrick Stewart of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. He was in no doubt that the recovery of the Antares greatly assisted the grieving process, and that the recovery of the men's bodies was of substantial comfort to the families involved. I therefore think that feelings within the fishing community and in the wider community have changed.

The attitudes that have changed in the fishing community, as so clearly demonstrated in recent tragedies, are mirrored in the general attitudes of society. For example, in past conflicts, men lay as they fell. In more recent conflicts, such as the Gulf war and the Falklands, service families have had the option of having the bodies of their lost ones returned for family burials, and rightly so. Our attitudes as a society are changing, and because of improved technology, the change of attitude has been especially rapid within the fishing community.

As my hon. Friend knows, I have already written to the superintendent of the mission in his constituency expressing the condolences of the fishing communities of Moray on the loss of the Sapphire, which has recalled for many of us the loss of the Premier. My hon. Friend might care to extend the debate slightly further, because there are instances of fishermen being lost at sea without the loss of the boat on which they were sailing. There is a strong case for investigations to be undertaken in all losses of life at sea in such circumstances, and I refer particularly to the loss of my constituent, Neill Wood.

Only too tragically, my hon. Friend and other Members who represent fishing communities will have similar experiences. Many Members—some of whom are in the Chamber today—have written to me and my constituents over the past few weeks expressing their sympathy and condolences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) brings me to my second point. It is remarkable that no public agency has any formal responsibility for recovering the bodies of men lost at sea. As a society, we spend millions of pounds recovering second world war mines, which are a danger to oil installations. One was recovered quite recently at a cost of several million pounds, and rightly so. But there is no agency with responsibility for recovering the bodies of lost men. The remit of the MAIB is confined purely to determining the cause of the incident.

My constituents and the wider fishing community are acutely concerned to ascertain the cause of the sinking of the Sapphire. There is also concern that the bodies of the lost men should be returned. That concern is not answered formally by any public agency.

The Sapphire sank on 1 October. On 19 October it was located and surveyed by a remotely operated vehicle. It is arguable—it is almost definite—that the boat would not have been found if it had not been for the intervention of one of the widows, Isobel Podlesny. She was able from her knowledge of the fishing community to determine new co-ordinates from where an oil slick had been seen. The surveying vessel proceeded to these co-ordinates, and found the Sapphire just before the contract expired. I mention that because it shows the determination of the families involved, including their relatives, to have their men returned if humanly possible.

The Sapphire was located and surveyed. It is lying in 83 m of water—270 ft, for those who still think in "old money". It is lying on its starboard side and is intact, as if it had been placed on the sea bed. Determining the cause of the accident is the responsibility of the MAIB, and I am sure that it would be greatly assisted by having the physical evidence that would come with the return of the vessel. Even within the narrow bounds of present public responsibility, I submit that the Minister can ask for that to be done.

The Minister should institute a review and give an agency the responsibility—whether the MAIB or another public body—of examining the feasibility of recovering boats lost at sea. No one would argue—certainly not my constituents—that recovery is possible in every case. In many instances, the boat cannot be found. In some, the boat will be so badly damaged as to make its recovery impossible. In others, there will be a huge element of danger, making it impracticable to recover the boat. However, someone should have responsibility—with the onus on recovering the bodies of lost men, if that is possible—to examine feasibility and to come to a considered judgment.

It is totally unsatisfactory that no one had that responsibility. Investigations proceed on a time scale that is designed purely for the official investigation into the cause of an accident. It is now four weeks to the day since the Sapphire sank, and that time scale has been painfully slow for my constituents.

I do not blame the inspectors or the management of the marine accidents investigation branch, who are working to a remit in determining the cause of the accident. But we, as the people who frame legislation, should fill this public responsibility vacuum, ensuring that some agency has such a function and remit, and answers the call of these families in their grief.

I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity at least to consider that wider element, so that no families in future suffer the agony of uncertainty that my constituents and many constituents of other hon. Members have suffered in recent years.

The Minister has written a letter to the relatives in which she sets out the reasons why the boat cannot be recovered. She argues that informal advice from the MAIB shows that a dive to recover the bodies would involve an element of danger to the divers concerned. Quite properly, she considers that such a dive would not be justified and could not be undertaken. All my constituents agree with that.

The families, passionate and determined though they are to recover their lost relatives, would not argue that any human life should be placed in jeopardy in that enterprise. These are fishing families, so they are aware of the dangers of the sea, and would not argue for anyone to be put in that position.

Fortunately, and overtaking the Minister's correspondence, we have available a feasibility study—I faxed a copy to the Minister last night, after she had written the letter to the families—which was published a few minutes ago in its full terms.

This study into the feasibility of lifting the vessel from the sea bed and recovering the bodies of the lost men was conducted on behalf of the relatives by Dronik Consultants, the company employed by the MAIB to survey and locate the vessel. It agrees with the informal advice given to the Minister that a pressurised dive at that depth to a vessel lying on its starboard side would be dangerous and unjustified. It would also be a costly operation: the cost is estimated to be £800,000.

Luckily, there is an alternative. The feasibility study sets out how that alternative can be carried through. The technology of lift barge vessel recovery is available, and would be cheaper and totally safe, because it does not involve the use of divers, but merely a remotely operated vehicle.

Luckily also, by coincidence a vessel with the capability to lift the Sapphire from the sea on to its deck and bring it back to port is at present in Scottish waters: Tak Lift 4 is available from today for the next 21 days, with no schedule of work. A plan to lift the Sapphire could be carried out by that vessel at an approximate cost of £380,000. It would involve no danger, no pressurised diving and no jeopardy of any other human being, and would enable the bodies of these men to be returned to their grieving families.

I hope that the Minister will take careful note of this new information, and agree to consider her position. This information has come to light through the initiative of the Sapphire families. I accept that this is a difficult question, as do the families, but we must have a considered public response.

There is no doubt that recovery of the vessel would assist the process of determining the cause of the accident, and it is possible for the Minister to order its recovery within the terms of her remit and that of the MAIB. The sum of £380,000 is not insignificant, but in relation to the massive expenditure on the North sea, it is a very small sum indeed. Given the impact that it would have on the lives of my constituents and the grieving families, it would be a massive step forward. By forcing us as a society to accept public responsibility through an agency that would examine feasibility in future cases, it would be a step well worth taking.

It is not always in politics that we get a chance to do the right thing. I am hoping that the Minister will take the opportunity to do it today. The right and just thing is to accede to the families' demands to lift the Sapphire, and to give them hope that some or all of these men will be returned to their homes. On this occasion, we should let humanity prevail.

I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I express my deepest sympathy for the families so grievously bereft by this tragedy. I am sure that we all send our commiserations to the surviving skipper of the Sapphire, who continues to suffer the trauma of this terrible accident. I am equally sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) wishes with all his heart that there had been no necessity for him to raise this debate. However, there is a necessity to debate the matter, and it is entirely right that the House should do so.

Mindful of the agony of not knowing for the families so grievously bereaved, I am assured that the staff of the marine accidents investigation branch kept them fully informed of progress during the search for the vessel and the on-going inquiry, and I am grateful to them for that. The families have also been shown the complete video of the underwater survey of the Sapphire. A full photographic survey of the wreck was made, despite difficulties in manoeuvring the remotely operated vehicle around nets and wires floating in the vicinity.

No bodies were seen. That does not imply that they were not there—merely that nothing was visible to the camera. I am told that the families viewed the video with great dignity—surely a harrowing experience for them—and it remains their collective wish for the bodies to be recovered.

Searches for and recovery of bodies can, theoretically, be carried out by divers. The hon. Gentleman referred to a feasibility study, but I regret that I have not seen it in detail, and I am dependent on the advice that has been given to me by officials. Although the feasibility study shows that recovering the Sapphire is technically achievable subject to fair weather, it also shows that it is a difficult operation. The estimate of costs is almost £400,000, but that should not be central to our considerations.

The marine accidents investigation branch has sought expert opinion on the prospects in this case. Although it would be technically possible to deploy divers under saturation conditions, the presence of nets and other obstacles makes that task extremely hazardous. Furthermore, the trauma suffered by divers in undertaking the terrible task of recovering bodies, if they could be located, must be taken into account.

The MAIB's philosophy with regard to diving on wrecks is that divers' lives must not be put at risk unnecessarily, and the operator's decisions on their deployment is paramount. I am extremely reluctant to risk compounding this tragedy by promoting actions that are not justified on grounds of safety, and that could lead to further loss of life.

As soon as we received the feasibility study yesterday evening, I faxed it to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We have a meeting later this afternoon at which these matters can be further discussed. The feasibility study suggested that divers would be put at unacceptable risk, and it does not recommend such action. It would also be a costly operation. The study suggests that the option of lifting the vessel from the sea bed is very real, and has a far greater chance of success than sending down divers.

We are aware that there is no certainty in this life, and certainly none in dealing with the sea; but the feasibility study by a company employed by the Government to survey the vessel suggests that there is a very good chance of a lifting vessel being successful in the enterprise, and a good chance that such a vessel will be available in the Scottish sector over the next 21 days.

I will try to read the feasibility study before I meet the hon. Gentleman and the families. I take his point, but it does not strike me as a point of principle that I could endorse at this stage.

The decision on whether to raise a wreck can sometimes be finely balanced. It may be appropriate to raise or remove a wreck that is a hazard to navigation, to prevent or minimise pollution from cargoes, or to determine the cause or causes of loss. The Sapphire is lying on her starboard side in a depression on the sea bed at a depth of about 90 m; at that depth, the wreck does not pose a hazard to navigation. As for the need to prevent or minimise pollution from cargoes, here again there is no argument to support raising the wreck.

The decision on whether the Sapphire should be raised to determine the cause of her sinking lies with the chief inspector of the MAIB. If the chief inspector finds that he cannot establish the cause of a vessel's loss by examination of the available evidence, he will consider raising a wreck. In the case of the Sapphire, however, it now seems likely that sufficient material is available to allow the inspectors to make progress with their investigation without raising the wreck.

Since its formation in 1989, the MAIB has raised only one wreck, the much smaller Gorah Lass, off the north coast of Cornwall earlier this year. On that occasion, unlike the occasion involving the Sapphire, there were not enough leads for the investigation to proceed without recovery. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Antares—to which he referred—was raised by the Royal Navy.

The feasibility of raising a wreck will vary according to the size of the vessel, the depth of the water, the time taken to locate the vessel and many other factors. While I acknowledge that the recovery of a vessel may be of assistance in an investigation, experience shows that the process of raising a wreck may sometimes destroy crucial evidence. That, I believe, is another factor when we are considering the possibility of raising such a wreck for the recovery of bodies. Equal damage could be caused. Even if a wreck is recovered intact, there can be no guarantee that the evidence will be of value to an MAIB investigation.

Recovery of bodies from wrecks is a difficult issue. Even the most expert diving operation has its limitations. There is always the prospect that divers will never be able to search every part of a wreck. Even if some bodies are discovered and subsequently recovered, there remains the prospect that others may never be found.

There are also strong arguments for protecting, as graves, sunken wrecks associated with loss of life. The Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 provides the Secretary of State with powers to protect war graves; unauthorised interference with wrecks designated under those powers is a criminal offence. The Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 provides power to implement international agreements relating to the protection of wrecks outside the United Kingdom's territorial sea.

The Government will shortly use that power to implement, and become party to, the agreement on the wreck of the Estonia. The agreement designates the wreck site as the final resting place of the victims of the disaster, and requires parties to make interference with the site a criminal offence. The UK is also participating in negotiations with Canada, France and the United States on a multilateral agreement on the wreck of the Titanic.

Let me return to the tragedy of the Sapphire. I am sure that the House wishes to pay tribute to the search and rescue effort that was mobilised when the Aberdeen coastguard was alerted to the sighting of two red flares by the fishing vessel Elegance, a partner vessel to the Sapphire. The search involved two RNLI lifeboats, two RAF rescue helicopters, one RAF Nimrod aircraft and 19 fishing and oil industry support craft.

The search for the four missing crew members was suspended at 2300 hours, and resumed at dawn the next morning. An RAF rescue helicopter from Lossiemouth, along with the RNLI lifeboats from Peterhead and Fraserburgh, carried out a search in the area. The area was thoroughly searched by numerous craft, and the Aberdeen coastguard, in consultation with other authorities, terminated the search at 1100 hours on 2 October.

A search is not called off until all possible areas have been thoroughly searched and there is no likelihood of survivors' being found. That is never an easy decision, and it is made only after the most careful consideration.

In general terms, I must emphasise the Government's concern for the safety of all fishermen. The Marine Safety Agency is responsible for the implementation of the Government's strategy for marine safety—

Will the Minister give way?

I would, but, with respect, I have already allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene once—

There is plenty of time.

The Minister wrote to my constituents expressing her condolences: the letter arrived in Peterhead this morning. She founded her argument, properly and legitimately, on the case that an operation by divers to recover the bodies from the Sapphire would not be justified because of the danger involved.

We have produced a feasibility study carried out by a company with impeccable credentials, which shows that a cheaper and better option with far more chance of success is available to the Minister. Surely she will now give me an undertaking that she will at least consider the study, and, at the meeting that we are to have with the families this afternoon, will undertake to look at it and see if she can return to the subject and consider whether an operation by lift barge would not be possible and well justified in the circumstances.

I am perfectly prepared to give the hon. Gentleman and the families involved an assurance that I will look at the feasibility study, but I am not in a position to give an assurance that I will accept its findings. There are serious considerations, regardless of this or any other feasibility study, which must be given due weight. I am prepared to read the study, but I am not prepared to give an assurance that I will change my initial position—which, as the hon. Gentleman said, I made plain in my letter.

The chief inspector of the MAIB concluded that it was necessary to try to locate the sunken vessel, and to inspect it using video cameras mounted on a remote-operated vehicle. That is a normal method of carrying out underwater surveys. A suitable vessel was chartered following the normal process, and a 72-hour contract was placed on 20 October. Unfortunately, the wreck was not located during that period, and the contract was therefore extended by 24 hours to widen the search area.

While the extended search was under way, on the evening before the search was due to be completed, one of the next of kin contacted the MAIB with the position of a previously unreported oil slick, which had been passed to her by the crew of another fishing vessel. That position was found to correlate with a very small target that had already been seen on the sonar trace. A further extension in contract time was necessary to investigate that contact.

The decision to do that was made, and the remotely operated vehicle was launched to investigate. It discovered and positively identified the Sapphire, lying—as I said—on her starboard side in a depression that was uncharacteristic of the sea bed in the region. That is why it had not shown up more extensively in the original search. Throughout that time, the next of kin were regularly updated on how the search was progressing.

In view of the importance of finding out why the Sapphire capsized, and because of the public interest, the status of the investigation will be that of an inspector's inquiry. A report will be submitted to the Deputy Prime Minister within 12 months of the incident. Subject to his approval, it will be published.

The sea can be a cruel and exacting master. Since the loss of the Sapphire, two further lives have been lost in fishing vessel accidents. My own family has paid such harsh dues to the sea, in both peace and war. But, however cruel the sea may be, I believe that it is—by virtue of those who have given their lives to it—not only a peaceful but an honourable, indeed noble, final resting place. I hope that the families who have experienced such grievous loss in this tragic incident will be able to contemplate it as a final resting place for their loved ones.