I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the British tourism industry. This is not the first time that the industry has been debated in this Parliament, but there has not been a debate on the issue in Government time. It has fallen to the Opposition and to Back Benchers to seek to bring the importance of the industry and its circumstances to the attention of the House.

The debate is timely and necessary, not least because of the publication in February of the Government's document "Tomorrow's Tourism", which sets out the Government's view of the strategy for tourism. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced the conversion of the English tourist board into the English Tourism Council, so it is entirely right that we should debate tourism at this time.

We should keep the interests of the tourism industry at the forefront of our deliberations because of the industry's importance. The industry generates expenditure of £53 billion a year, and accounts for up to 5 per cent. of our gross domestic product. It is our largest invisible export, and provides employment for 1.75 million people. It has been responsible for one in five of the new jobs created in this country over the past decade. The industry is managed by some 200,000 businesses around the country, the great majority of which are small businesses. In my constituency—as in all others—tourism bulks large as a provider of employment and expenditure, and as a generator of enterprise.

In that context, I should like to reflect on the fact that restaurants, bars and shops, as part of the hospitality and leisure sector, are at the heart of many high streets and city centres, including the city centre of Cambridge, part of which I have the honour to represent. In London, our thoughts must go to those who run the restaurants, bars and shops of Soho, who were providing hospitality and leisure last Friday when the area was bombed. Yesterday, they set about "business as usual". Our thoughts and congratulations should go to them for the way in which they have responded to those challenging circumstances.

Not all is well in the tourism industry. The latest statistics on overseas travel and tourism show that, in the year to February 1999—as compared with the year to February 1998—the deficit on the travel account of our balance of payments grew from £5 billion to £7 billion.

In Cambridge, an effective strategy was put in place in 1996. It was set up on the basis of the then figure of 3.6 million visitors to Cambridge, and on the expectation that, by 2001, the city would be dealing with 4.2 million visitors. In 1998, the numbers fell to 3.2 million visitors. What was essentially a strategy devised around the dispersal and management of a growth in visitor numbers is now being adapted to one that emphasises the enhancement of the visitor experience and the opportunities to visit Cambridge.

The strategy also makes sure that visitors have ample opportunity to take in attractions outside Cambridge, of which the imperial war museum at Duxford, with the American air museum—opened recently with lottery support and following considerable fundraising in my constituency—is an example.

In the past few days, the English tourist board has published its summary statistics on visits to tourist attractions, which show an overall drop of 2 per cent. in such visits. We are not simply managing long-term growth, and it is clear that we are working with an industry that is not maintaining its share of world markets, and is in continuing need of a strategy.

The Government's document "Tomorrow's Tourism" is an aspirational document, as is often the case. However, as is equally often the case with Government documents, the aspirations look fine, but the actions set out are more of a work in progress than an attempt to match up to the strategy. I share the concern of the industry—expressed not least by the British Incoming Tour Operators Association—that it is necessary to determine strategy first, and then to move to structure. However, the Government seem to be changing the structure and letting the strategy flow from it. That is the wrong way round. I would rather that we concentrated on purposes than processes in the first instance.

My hon. Friend will recall that Mr. Rodgers of the Labour party, who later became Lord Rodgers of the Social Democratic party, signed 35 of my amendments to set up the English tourist board, which was not in the original Bill that became the Development of Tourism Act 1969. The idea was to try to ensure that England was helped equally with Scotland and Wales, which had never previously been the case, and has never been the case since. I hope that my hon. Friend will urge the Government to ensure that there is equality.

My right hon. Friend brings a great wealth of experience to the subject, and he is absolutely right. The grant in aid to the various tourist bodies in England is about 20p per head, whereas it is £3.76 in Scotland and £4.99 in Wales.

The British Incoming Tour Operators Association said that it is clear that Ministers in Scotland and Wales, and indeed Northern Ireland, have understood that investment in the tourism industry can have high rates of return, whereas in England the message has not been understood. Joined-up government, as the buzz phrase has it, does not seem to work in the tourism industry.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the situation is worse in real terms than in per capita terms, because the English tourist board last year received £9.9 million, whereas the Scottish tourist board received £19.3 million? There is double the spending in Scotland in absolute, let alone per capita, terms.

My hon. Friend is right. Comparisons are odious, and I am not suggesting that the Scottish tourist board is acting in anything but an effective manner, but that effectiveness shows how much of the potential for action in England remains unrealised.

I am worried that there may be even further division within England of the way in which marketing is carried out. London is to have a mayor and its own direct marketing budget. Where does that leave other parts of England, such as South Cambridgeshire, which are considerable visitor attractions but receive little support?

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the deeply frustrating question of the differential funding of tourist boards, the steps that the Government have taken have further disintegrated the joint approach to promoting Britain around the world? Scotland and Wales, being so much more generously funded than England, inevitably have much more affluent teams of people selling their part of the United Kingdom. There is a disintegration into different tribes promoting their own separate areas.

If the Government intend that there should be a strategy, what more obvious example of joined-up thinking—to use their parlance—could there be than for overseas marketing to be conducted in a co-ordinated way on behalf of all the countries of the United Kingdom? There is some scope for the Scottish and Welsh boards to undertake their overseas marketing through the British Tourist Authority, but that is not true across the board.

I fear that there will be further fracturing, with London undertaking its own promotion. I applaud the idea of the mayor taking an activist stance in promoting London, because our tourist industry as a whole depends more on the role of London as a gateway than on any other single factor, but that should not be done in isolation from the promotion of other destinations—Scotland is a prime example—to which visitors can be drawn.

We need a strategy rather than simply work in progress. "Tomorrow's Tourism" contains references to transport, but they amount to no more than an assertion that tourism must be part of the integrated transport policy announced in the transport White Paper. There is a very close relationship between the way in which transport is managed locally and the volume of visitors to a location such as Cambridge, for example.

In 2000, local authorities will produce local transport plans for the first time. It should be incumbent on those authorities to prepare the plans in co-operation with other local authorities, the private sector and the tourist industry, so that we can see that they are consistent with local visitor management plans. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should take explicit account of the impact on the local economy when considering transport policies and programmes bids.

Positive planning is important. Because it is mostly small businesses, rather than the big battalions, that are involved, tourism is often at the behest of planning rather than being able to influence it directly. We must view tourism as a positive part of the planning process, not least because, as is evident in Cambridge and many other places, bringing in visitors can generate money that can regenerate an area if it is spent well.

Our heritage, with all our historic buildings, is the principal reason that visitors come to this country. We can use tourism as a positive agency for conserving our heritage. It brings in a lot of money, and we can use the tourist dollar in the planning process—through the preparation of conservation plans for historic assets, for example—to achieve broader environmental and planning objectives.

Planning policy guidance 21 is several years old. When, in the plethora of PPG reviews, do the Government intend to review it, in the light of, for example, the discussion on sustainable tourism? Tourism can be better managed so that it does not degrade the environment and, just as historic assets can be improved by tourism resources, it can make a positive impact on sustaining our environment.

Historic buildings brought back into use for tourism purposes can be better preserved as well as enhancing the visitor experience. For example, in the cities of New England there are buildings from the industrial revolution which have been preserved simply because they are being used as a visitor attraction.

In the range of joined-up government, what thought have the Government given to taxation in this context? I know that the British Tourist Authority has considered the impact of VAT on the competitive position of the United Kingdom economy in comparison with other European economies. Will the Minister respond to that? What scope is there, for example, for considering zero rating for the repair and adaptive reuse of historic buildings, which, as I explained in respect of the promotion of environmental sustainability, would certainly be a considerable incentive for the undertaking such work?

As for joined-up government, the principal failing at the moment—I am afraid that "Tomorrow's Tourism" neglects this altogether—is the impact of Government regulation on the industry. From talking to representatives of many businesses, I have found that most staff in my area are already paid more than £3.60 an hour. That is not entirely true across the country. The wages of many employees in restaurants, bars and shops, for example, have been raised to the minimum level.

Bearing in mind the experience of my area, the Government might take the view that the minimum wage and the working time directive do not cause businesses problems because they do not impose a direct cost on them. However, the compliance costs falling on businesses are substantial. For example, the working time directive is having a considerable impact on the way in which businesses can manage shift patterns for employees such as night porters in hotels. In a very flexible industry of many small businesses that do not benefit from a large administrative infrastructure, and in which staff come and go reasonably frequently, the minimum wage and the working time directive impose a burden of compliance that is out of all proportion to the benefits either to the employee or—certainly—the business.

One hotelier to whom I have spoken—he knows that it is true for many of his colleagues—has had to employ one person virtually full-time to manage the requirements of the minimum wage and the working time directive, given the presumption that an employer is not paying the minimum wage unless he can prove the contrary.

One obvious further example of the need for co-ordination is in accommodation grading. One of the things trumpeted in "Tomorrow's Tourism" is that there is to be a new unified accommodation grading system, but it will harmonised, not unified. We will still be dealing with three organisations—the English tourist board, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club will be working together—and there will still be different systems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It is a nonsense.

As my right hon. Friend rightly says, it is a nonsense, especially because people do not have to visit the United Kingdom. We must encourage them to come here, and make it easier and pleasurable for them to do so. If they find that the accommodation is not what they expected or they cannot anticipate what it will be like, they will not be attracted to this country. That is a further example of why we need to make things connect.

I was very disappointed by the response in "Tomorrow's Tourism" on training. From the very beginning, the document says that people are the key to how we can provide quality in the service industry. Although that is true, the document's exploration of training is weak. It is perfectly clear that, for the industry to be able to make its impact on, for example, training and enterprise councils and local training activity, there ought to be a national tourism training organisation. That is the only way in which sectors can have a strong voice and make the appropriate impact on local training decisions.

As a great devotee of and former incumbent of the British Chambers of Commerce, I should say that "Tomorrow's Tourism" pays far too little attention to the strategic desire for local partnerships to promote tourism activities. In America, for example, chambers of commerce and municipalities work very closely together on managing tourism activity.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to partnership; I was waiting for that word to come up. To me and to the people who work in tourism and the hospitality industry in Scarborough and Whitby, partnership is the key word. In "Tomorrow's Tourism", the hon. Gentleman will find a clear example of effective partnership in my part of the world, which is developing hospitality in particular. We are looking at matters such as training, too. I urge him to look very carefully at our example. Does he agree that the industry will develop and be far better in the future as a result of such partnership?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I saw the reference to Scarborough and Whitby. There are several very good examples of local partnership in the document, as there often are in tourism. The partnership between the Cambridge tourism group and Cambridge city council is another good example. That reinforces my point.

If one works towards a strategy that is based on good practice, one often finds that, valuable though the work of, for example, the East Anglian regional tourist board may be, the focus of action must be complementary to the visitor's view of the area. The Cambridge sub-region and Cambridge might therefore connect with Huntingdon, Cromwell and Constable country and the imperial war museum in my area. By and large, visitors do not visit East Anglia as a whole. Although seaside resorts such as Yarmouth are important, their marketing must be different from that for Cambridge.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman up to a point. The people in the industry whom I represent have struggled for many years under Governments of both parties, and have concluded that establishing partnerships with local authorities and others in the area is the way to ensure that tourism thrives. Where did the industry in my part of the world go wrong over the past 18 years under the hon. Gentleman's Government? People in my area did not see an approach such as that suggested in "Tomorrow's Tourism". We did not receive any national help or hear of any national strategy, as he seems to be saying we did.

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to revisit the past; I am talking about a strategy for the future. It is important that we focus on the future. It seems perfectly clear that if we built a strategy on examples of good practice and first principles, we would be putting more effort and power into the ability to create local partnerships, so that visitors are managed, and businesses—often small ones—can feel that they have an influence. A national body should provide a strategy and, through the BTA, marketing in England in order to attract visitors to local areas.

The Government have gone in the wrong direction. They are trying to shift the national role to regional tourist boards—the relationship between the ETB and the consumer and marketing is to disappear completely, for example—but such boards should be responsive to local action and be drawing their role from local communities and partnerships. The role should not be set from the top down.

The Government are obsessed with regionalism, but pursuing it for tourism is not what the industry is looking for—it is looking for effective overseas marketing co-ordinated by the BTA, for national champions to market and promote harmonised national products, and for power and resources to get behind local partnerships so that they can provide the visitor experience, visitor management plans and destination management systems which are able to work successfully at a local level.

It is right that the Government should publish a strategy document, but it is a pity that they have not sought to expose it to debate in the House. I therefore hope that this debate serves some purpose. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will propose further ideas on how to create a strategy where, at the moment, there is none.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) introducing this debate on a matter that, as he rightly says, is of considerable national importance, given that the tourism industry contributes nearly 5 per cent. to our gross domestic product. Indeed, if one also takes into account the leisure industry, the contribution is probably considerably greater. I shall make one or two brief comments, the first of which has to do with the principle of joined-up Government. I very much supported the idea that responsibility for tourism should be moved from the Department of Employment, as it was at the time—it is now under the control of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has pointed out, a great many of the visitors to this country come for our cultural heritage, historic buildings and royal palaces, and to experience many of our cultural activities.

That leaves me rather puzzled at the arrangement of responsibilities within the Department. For example, the Minister for the Arts is responsible for arts, crafts, music and the Government's art collection; for museums, galleries and libraries; for the built heritage, the royal estate and architecture and design; and also for the Department's interests in information technology, training and education. Training and education also play a big part in the tourism industry, but, as all those responsibilities tie in closely with that industry, one would expect that Minister's role to include tourism.

I mean no criticism of the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, but her responsibilities, in addition to tourism, include broadcasting, film and the press, and the creative industries. She supports the Secretary of State on the millennium project and she is responsible for international, European, regional and local authority policy issues. However, those issues do not tie in very closely with tourism. Given that tourism, appropriately, is allied with her Department, why is it that that alliance is not reflected in the allocation of ministerial responsibilities?

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to the importance of tourism to the nation, but tourism's local importance varies greatly between areas. More than one third of the local economy in my constituency is derived from tourism. If one adds in the associated leisure activities, the figure could be around 50 per cent. Those proportions apply equally to many other towns and cities in the United Kingdom, where tourism is the lifeblood of the local economy, and not just an ancillary industry.

Therefore, it is important that the industry be encouraged in a way that is dynamic and creative. I am afraid that not many examples of dynamism and creativity are evident at present. My hon. Friend mentioned the funding given to the English tourist board, but British Tourist Authority funding is also vital when it comes to attracting visitors, and it has been cut under this Government. That is extraordinary, given that, for every pound that it spends, the BTA returns about £27 to the Exchequer. Britain is the fifth largest recipient of overseas visitors in the world, but the numbers coming here are well below those visiting Spain, France and Italy. Given our heritage—and how important that is for international tourism—that is not very satisfactory.

I apologise for intervening on what I recognise is Back-Bench time, but I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced an additional £5 million for the British Tourist Authority over the next three years?

I am aware of that, but Library figures show that the amount available to the BTA went down last year, and that the increase, which is spread over three years, will do little more than keep up with inflation—so there will probably still be a real-terms cut in the amount being spent. The Government's approach is timorous where it needs to be much more dynamic. Last year's cut in the money for the BTA caused much anxiety across the industry, not least in the BTA itself.

The disparity between England on the one hand, and Scotland and Wales on the other was mentioned earlier. The ETB receives £9.9 million, but its counterpart in Scotland gets twice that, and that in Wales receives nearly £15 million. It is extraordinary that so small a country as Wales should be spending so much more on tourism than England.

I want now to deal with the question of value added tax. The Government have said that they are keen to harmonise VAT rates across the European Union, but VAT rates for hotels in this country are the second highest in Europe, which puts our hotels at a substantial disadvantage. In addition, air passenger duty means that visitors to the United Kingdom from outside the EU pay £20 to enter the country, while visitors from the EU pay £10. The Government doubled the air passenger duty last year: surely that is the wrong signal to give to visitors.

What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of the proposed reduction in value added tax for tourism and hospitality? Does he support that proposal? I do, as I believe that it will free up resources for reinvestment at the grass roots of our tourism industry.

As I have made clear, the present disparity between our VAT rates and those of other countries is not sustainable in the long term. In a moment, I shall describe the other ways in which we ought to invest in the industry, especially at a local level.

The question of raising standards has been discussed already, as has the extraordinary nature of the so-called semi-official classification. That helps neither overseas visitors nor domestic tourists. We need to work to some internationally agreed standard, so that people travelling here from around the world will have some idea of what they will encounter.

An even more difficult problem is posed by the cowboys in the industry—the small unregistered establishments that I believe ought to be registered. Some of them get away with murder: they do not pay their proper contribution in taxes, they offer substandard accommodation, and they gain all sorts of other advantages. For example, landlords of holiday flats in my constituency came to me recently to query the requirement—imposed on them because they are registered—that water meters be installed in the flats. In contrast, the cowboys in that industry, who are not registered, do not have to install water meters. The landlords to whom I spoke therefore have to bear an additional cost as a result of being registered. I urge the Government to clamp down, through local authorities, on those who often give the industry a bad reputation. Other legislation has also had an impact. For example, there is no doubt that the minimum wage is causing job losses in my constituency. An hotelier with three establishments in Bournemouth told me that the minimum wage will cause about seven full-time-equivalent jobs in his business to be lost. That is a great worry for him, as for many others in the same line of business.

Even more difficult is the working time directive. Very often it concentrates merely on the 48-hour maximum, but the real problem lies in the rigid shift patterns and break requirements that the directive imposes. All that sits uneasily with an industry that often operates on a 24-hour basis and must provide service to people who stay in hotels or visit clubs and restaurants. The industry works huge hours, and its shift patterns have been severely disrupted by the working time directive.

Bournemouth is one of the most successful seaside towns, and rightly so. Successive local authorities have invested in the town's future, building premises such as the Bournemouth International Centre, which can encourage different types of visitors from conference tourism. All local authorities must invest in the future if they want to survive and succeed. The country is littered with resorts that have not invested and have declined as a result.

At present, there is no real incentive for authorities to invest. There is no Government encouragement and there is no benefit. Authorities that do invest often face a disbenefit because the national non-domestic rate is clawed back in its entirety by the Government. Authorities end up paying for their investment, getting little or nothing back in return.

The Government might consider a mechanism under which local authorities could be rewarded for investment by being allowed to keep part of their national non-domestic rate, hypothecated for tourism. I appreciate that that idea falls outside the Minister's direct departmental responsibilities, but she may wish to consider it and to make representations to the appropriate Department.

The Government are obsessed with regionalism, but the existing regions unfortunately fail to reflect the true economic boundaries within which we operate. Bournemouth and Dorset are in the south-west region. We were moved there by a previous Conservative Government in an appalling act of vandalism. Bournemouth was snatched from Hampshire and thrust into Dorset.

We have no particular connection with the south-west. The road links from Dorset to the south-west are virtually non-existent, and the rail links are totally non-existent. All our connections are towards London and the central south coast region. My local authority and others along the south coast have developed the South Coast Metropole, which works together to market attractions and economic development. That is sensible, and we should have a central southern region that incorporates all the areas that sit together naturally.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that the same problem exists in other parts of the country. For example, Gloucestershire has far more in common with Hereford and Worcester than with what is termed the south-west, for which Cornwall and Devon are given priority and Gloucestershire loses out.

My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I sought to make, although I was concentrating on my own constituency. Areas throughout the country feel that they do not properly belong to the region into which a Department of Government has thrust them. If the Government intend to pursue a regional policy, I hope that they will re-examine the regional boundaries to try to fix them on the basis of economic cohesion rather than by drawing inappropriate lines on a map.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has given us another opportunity to debate tourism. At one time, I thought that tourism debates were taboo, but we have had three of them since then.

The Government's long-awaited strategy for tourism has been published. I welcomed the establishment of a tourism forum that included many sectors of the industry and employee representatives, because only through consultation with the industry can we progress. The forum sets high goals. I agree that standards must be raised, so we must invest in the people who work in the industry and in our attractions. We must market effectively at home and abroad.

If we are to increase the tourism yield without damaging the environment, quality must be the name of the game. I make no bones about congratulating the Government on their decision to make the tourism forum a permanent fixture. The forum and the Government will together monitor the progress and assess the annual achievement of goals at a tourism summit. Continued monitoring by those who have real enthusiasm for the industry, and a great deal of expertise, is essential if we are to achieve our goals.

A national body is the only group that can effectively monitor international developments, despite changes in Scotland and Wales. The forum must take care to assess the best achievements of our competitors abroad. I do not mean that we should duplicate what they provide, but we should learn from them and match the quality of their facilities and service.

Both the tourist and the business traveller are becoming ever more discerning, and they demand good standards. Many of our hotel prices—especially in London—are high in comparison with those of Europe, the United States and Asia. We must ensure, therefore, that our standards of service and the quality of our facilities are improved and kept high.

Visitors should also be entitled to clarity and ease of understanding. The new national grading system for hotels and guest houses must achieve that. It should be simple to understand, and it should be implemented without delay. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House when she expects the programme to be achieved.

The tourism forum is very much in line with the Liberal Democrat call for a permanent tourism commission. Nine months ahead of the Government's strategy, we called for a joint Government and industry body, headed by the Tourism Minister. Its role would be to propose strategy, set standards and monitor achievements.

It is of paramount importance that the tourism forum and summits do not disintegrate into talking shops. I seek assurances from the Minister that agendas for the summits

will be wide reaching and that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will give priority and vigour to implementing recommendations.

For many years, successive Governments neglected to recognise how much tourism contributes to the economy. Governments must never forget that the industry is worth £53 billion a year, employing 1.75 million people, or 7 per cent. of the work force. It is more important, economically, point of view, than all the Department's other functions put together.

I cannot join those who oppose the minimum wage. I recognise that the cost of living is much higher in London than in, for example, the north-west, and I should prefer a regional minimum wage. However, I also accept that the minimum wage has, for the time being, been set fairly. For far too long, businesses in the tourism industry have suffered excessively high staff turnover because of low wages and poor prospects for training. There has been a vicious circle. Many businesses have traditionally paid low wages not because they wanted to, or because they thought it right, but because they felt compelled to do so because their competitors did so. Now, forward-thinking businesses will be able to retain and train their staff. Training and skill retention are the key to much of the Government's strategy to raise standards and quality.

I suggest that the Government go further by considering a proposal that businesses should give training to their staff—an investment in education and training—through the introduction of a 2 per cent. levy on payrolls. The training could be provided in-house, or by approved training providers. Small and new businesses would be exempt. Some pioneering businesses already provide in-house training above that level, and their success shows how advantageous it is in the long term.

In other areas, Government policy remains sadly lacking. Transport is a major component in the tourism product, and the tourism document suggests that hotels, shops and restaurants should be built near main transport routes. Does the Minister intend to have Stonehenge and the lake district moved? The very nature of tourism is that tourism-related facilities must be placed very close to attractions if they are to be used and so be viable. Much of our tourism product is based on our landscape and existing heritage sites, many of which are located in areas that receive little publicity and have few public transport facilities.

One of the greatest problems facing our domestic tourist industry is that our traditional resorts are declining. Through funding from the lottery, special regeneration budgets and European grants, it is gradually becoming possible to preserve and upgrade some existing attractions and to create new ones at those resorts. The funding is currently only a trickle, but I hope that the regional development agencies will concentrate on meeting the pressing need for funds.

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the regeneration of some of our traditional seaside resorts, which currently have to cope with crumbling infrastructure and with being on the periphery, both geographically and economically. The danger is that many of them will become fixed-income economies unless more is done to boost economic activity. The debate has concentrated on foreign tourism, but less than 10 per cent. of tourists come from overseas. The problem for our seaside resorts is that most people in this country live within an hour of their regional airport, rather than their seaside resort. Will my hon. Friend urge the Government to do more to regenerate seaside economies?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The improvements that we have mentioned will be of no value if potential customers are prevented from having access to the resorts, most of which are located around the coast. Since the election, the Government's refusal to upgrade roads to the resorts has been a continuing problem. It would be an acceptable and even laudable policy if only public transport access to those towns were increased; sadly, no such improvements have materialised. It really is a case of putting the cart before the horse.

In my constituency, there is continued investment in infrastructure and in old and new attractions through the construction of the attractive new promenade, grants for the restoration of the pier and the new modern tourist entertainment site that is soon to be developed on the seafront. However, there has been no improvement in rail services or roads feeding into the area, despite our receiving more than 4 million day visitors per year. The story is the same throughout the country: even if resorts are developed, the congestion involving in getting to them and going home, which causes irritation and pollution, deters visitors from returning. Does that help or encourage the 40 per cent. of the population who do not even take holidays to visit our coast, or our attractive inland resorts and countryside?

I urge the Minister to ask her colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to rethink their current policies. I do not mean that they should tarmac everything in sight, but they should invest more in public transport that is geared to tourism areas and occasionally allow the placing of a strategic route to an unserved area whose economy depends on it. Reopening some of the excellent tourist rail routes closed by Beeching, such as the one that ran from Preston to Southport via the Burscough Curves, would be a real step towards making our railways a public asset once more; many such lines are still available for redevelopment.

The Government must do more to create the right economic climate for tourism to flourish. I have asked time and again what progress has been made in investigating the proposal to reduce value added tax on hotel accommodation to average European levels. That question has not been answered in the tourism document, or by the Minister.

Will the Minister vigorously fight the threat to impose air passenger duty both ways on internal flights in the United Kingdom? Tourism is the largest industry in Scotland and is essential to the economic future of Northern Ireland. As the great majority of international visitors to the UK arrive in London and then travel on within the UK, is not that tax an incentive to the tourist to stay in the London area, which already teems with tourists in summer? Surely, sustainable tourism involves encouraging visitors to spread throughout the country, rather than deterring them from doing so. The BTA and the BITOA are especially alarmed by that development and I ask the Minister to take the matter seriously. It cannot be handled by the new Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, but must be dealt with here in Westminster; I urge her to support Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Finally, may I remind the Minister that, in spite of promises to do so, she has yet to visit Southport?

I shall be brief and raise only three points, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak.

The first point follows from the remarks about the south-west by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Although there are indeed concerns about the borders of the south-west, even as they stand, it is worth pointing out to the Minister that the south-west, with its infinitesimal amount of grant per head compared with that of Wales and Scotland, takes nearly double the number of tourists as Wales and Scotland combined. That cannot make sense. Along the whole Devon coast, tourism is almost, if not outright, the largest employer and biggest industry in seaside towns. Without tourism, there would be a major collapse of infrastructure in those areas, so it is essential that the Government pay greater attention to the creation of jobs in the tourist industry. We have not heard about job creation so far in the debate, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.

My other two points relate to upgrading. We must take positive steps to upgrade the standing of those who work in the catering and hotel industries. A chef in France is a person of considerable standing, but a chef in a hotel in Sidmouth is just a chef, because those who work in the tourist industry have no standing in their community. Many people come from Italy and France to work in hotels in this country, but I should prefer that we raise the standing in the community of such work, so that English people can take pride in working in the catering and hotel industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many young people perceive a career in hospitality and catering—especially the culinary crafts—as being an attractive prospect? That enthusiasm is owed in part to the phenomenon of the television chef. As well as good English people, we have good Scottish, Irish and Welsh people, some of whom serve up fantastic dishes in Scarborough and Whitby in Yorkshire—I urge the right hon. Gentleman to come and try them.

We are doing better—no one would suggest that we are not on the up slope—but in most of the seaside resorts the number of people with good qualifications is extremely limited, so I want the Government to do more to upgrade in that area of work.

My last point relates to the upgrading of the standard of food and food preparation. One of the great features of France is the Michelin guide and the fact that one can go to nearly any town or village within France—the same applies to Italy—and enjoy food of the very highest standard. Unfortunately, that is not the position in Britain. However, Egon Ronay, with great ability, has raised the standard of cooking and the status of the chef, and amazingly in London we have two three-star Michelin restaurants. That would not have been thought possible a few years ago.

One of the great pleasures for a tourist or a holidaymaker is to go to a restaurant and have a special meal of a high standard. The Government should pay much greater attention to upgrading the standard of food and the standard of restaurants throughout the tourist industry. If the Minister were to pay some attention to that, she would do well. I apologise to the hon. Lady because I may not be able to remain in the Chamber to hear her entire speech. Madam Speaker has a ceremony at 11 o'clock in the Royal Gallery and I have to be in attendance. I thank the Minister for paying attention to what I have had to say.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to an extremely important debate about an extremely important industry. Indeed, it is the growth industry, as the Organisation for Co-operation and Development has indicated on many occasions. That applies not only to my area, the west country and especially Cornwall, but to the entire United Kingdom.

The trend towards a widening gap between support for the tourist industry in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the one hand and for England on the other has been apparent for a long time. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) may be forgiven for not recollecting what happened in the previous Parliament because he was not then a Member of this place. However, I thought I saw just now the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) in her place. Indeed, I thought that she got to her feet. I thought she said that she found this "deeply frustrating … differential funding" something to complain about and deplore.

I thought that the right hon. Lady was the Minister with responsibilities for tourism in the previous Government. I do not recall her making such a comment when I and many other hon. Members from other holiday industry areas complained about the widening gap. Indeed, the per capita figure, to which hon. Members have referred, widened dramatically during the period of the Conservative Government, to a point where mere pence were being used to promote the industry in important areas of England, while the pounds were increasing in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. During the right hon. Lady's period in office—if it was she who was here and not her ghost—the gap widened drastically.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the development of the Government's devolution policies have added a new dimension to the debate about the disparity in funding between the various parts of the United Kingdom?

I do indeed. I hope that the Government will respond by expressing a clear view. I welcome sinners who repent; if the hon. Gentleman is saying that the previous Conservative Government were deplorable in this regard, I entirely agree with him. I hope that we can redress the balance.

In Cornwall, which is the holiday destination par excellence in the United Kingdom after London, we have had very little tourism promotion and we still have, as has been accepted in our bid for objective 1 status under European Union regional funds, the lowest household incomes in the country. We still have high levels of unemployment. Therefore, the promotion of the industry is extremely important.

I take up a specific point that was referred to briefly by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), and that is what he described as cowboys. I prefer to refer to them as pirates. I am talking about the differential in terms of costs and controls between legitimate real businesses and those who by various means escape costs and controls. This differential is widening dramatically. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree—he made the point himself—that that is largely the result of controls and regulations introduced by the previous Conservative Government rather than since the general election.

For example, fire regulations dramatically ratcheted up costs. I do not understand why it is better for a visitor to be burnt in his or her bed when there are five bed places in the establishment than to be burnt if there are six or more. There must come a point where that differential does not make sense. As for health and hygiene, why is it better to contract food poisoning in a small establishment than in a large one? Surely that is something that we need to redress.

Trade refuse charges have been introduced throughout holiday areas as a means of trying to maintain a healthy local authority economy. Those charges impinge so much more heavily on legitimate businesses than on pirates. The uniform business rate brings about a dramatic difference between those who are registered as businesses and those that are not. As for value added tax, throughout the previous Parliament those of us who represented holiday areas were complaining about the lack of harmony, not only in terms of accommodation but in respect of all facilities. Having failed miserably to persuade the Conservative Government to take the issue seriously, I hope that the Labour Government will reconsider the matter.

All these matters differentiate between two separate groups. The pirates, as I describe them, evade extra costs. For example, they have more bed spaces than is legitimate and they manage to escape detection. They must be effectively monitored and then brought within the system.

However, now that the cost differential is so very great, we must find a way of bringing those who run perfectly reasonable, good small businesses, offering a welcome to their visitors, for example, within the system.

I think that there is genuine unanimity about the importance of the industry. I believe that all three parties are taking it a great deal more seriously than they did 10 years ago, for example. However, let us not forget that the trend has been against us for many years. Reversing that trend will require all the Minister's energies and enthusiasm, and those of many other Departments of government.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this brief but important debate on the tourism industry. I congratulate him also on the characteristically thoughtful and articulate way in which he introduced the debate. He spoke of the things that really matter to those who are involved in the industry. He referred to its economic importance, which is not in doubt. He spoke of issues relating to transport, planning, sustainable development and regulation. These are the things which those in the tourism industry want to hear discussed in this place.

I thank my other right hon. and hon. Friends who have participated in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) both made immensely worthwhile contributions based on long experience and knowledge of the tourism industry. I was particularly struck by the points that they made about the local importance of tourism to their constituents as well as the national importance of tourism, with which we are all familiar.

It is pleasant to see the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), who alone represents Labour interests on the Government Back Benches. It is a pity that not more of his colleagues came into the Chamber to join in the debate. I had the opportunity of visiting Scarborough not long ago. I know how much work is going on in that town to support the tourism industry. I know, for example, of the transport problems that it faces. I will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman by reminding him of the Deputy Prime Minister's visit and the story of the bogus train ride.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I do not have time to give way. We can talk about the matter afterwards, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Everyone in this place agrees about the huge economic significance of tourism. Since taking up her office, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has tried quite hard. She has a warm personality, but, unfortunately, that and warm words are not enough. I feel that there is growing frustration in the tourism industry. It is not only that the Department's budget for tourism is being cut by ¢2 million in real terms; there are growing concerns that most of the major issues that confront tourism are not being addressed.

We looked forward to the publication of the tourism strategy. Ten months overdue, and boasting the fatuous new logo of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, it appeared. However, it is not a strategy at all. Like so much else that emanates from the Government, it is designed to give the impression of busy activity, without committing Ministers to doing anything much, except attending the occasional summit. Publicly, the industry was lukewarm about the document, though others were more critical. Privately, those in the industry are angry at the wasted opportunity. They are angry that the document was bereft of useful national data and failed utterly to address their key concerns.

What are those concerns? The Minister may be told and may even believe that all is well. It is not. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire about the trade deficit. We heard about falling visitor numbers to the main attractions and our declining position in world markets. There are other problems—regulation, bureaucracy, planning constraints, licensing problems and transport gridlock. Those are the issues which we hear about when we listen to the tourism industry. Nowhere does the Government's tourism strategy document offer any hope or practical suggestions on those matters. The tourism industry is defending the front line against the Government's remorseless extension of bureaucracy and new taxes. Since I May 1997, the Government have introduced no fewer than 2,400 new regulations, many of which bear hardest on the tourism industry—for example, the national minimum wage. The problem for decent, hard-working people in smaller businesses is not the cost of paying the national minimum wage, as the overwhelming proportion of them do anyway, but the cost of administering it—the extra paperwork, the extra systems, the extra associated costs and the consequent lower profits, leading to less investment and fewer jobs.

For some, like members of the British Activity Holiday Association, who employ large numbers of younger people away from home on short contracts, the minimum wage spells possible disaster. I know that strong representations have been made to the Minister about the adequacy of the £20 accommodation off-set, and whether it will be increased or even maintained. I hope that those representations have not fallen on deaf ears, and I look forward to the Minister's comments on that in her reply. The activity holiday industry will be listening carefully, too.

Let us consider the working time directive. The tourist industry, more than any other, needs flexibility in its labour force. It is true that the majority of large corporations in this sector can absorb the extra costs of such measures. They do not want to do so, it will cost them many millions of pounds and it will mean fewer jobs, but they can do it. However, the majority of the industry is made up of small businesses, which can ill afford the extra costs of bureaucracy. The fixed on-costs of compliance in terms of extra clerical work, computer systems and so on are much the same whether a business is turning over £50 million or £500,000, but the burden is greater on smaller businesses.

The parental leave directive, the part-time workers directive, the working families tax credit and the child care credit all pile further costs on to an industry that the Minister claims to support. Then there is the Government's policy of fairness at work in the Employment Relations Bill currently under consideration. I wonder how many people running small hotels or restaurants are aware of what the Government have up their sleeve for them, such as compulsory trade union recognition for companies employing as few as 21 people, and parental leave proposals whose only social and economic effect will be to make it harder for women to get jobs in an industry that has traditionally led the way in providing employment opportunities for women, training them and promoting them.

Each and all of those measures are bad for the tourist industry, but the cumulative effect could be crippling. In the short term, it could drive many businesses out, and in the long run the Government are erecting enormous barriers to new entrants to the market. Does the Minister know that, while she goes around heaping praise on the tourism industry, her Government are busily erecting barriers to those dynamic new entrants who want to make it grow? In doing so, the Government are creating an underlying structural weakness in the entire industry, which it will take years to put right.

I have dwelt on the sins of omission perpetrated by the so-called tourism strategy. There is one sin of commission that cannot go unmentioned. It was touched on earlier. The Government's original intention was to abolish the English tourist board. No one asked for that. It was proposed as part of the Government's overall political agenda to do with the federalisation of England. Faced with enormous hostility from the industry, the Government at first dithered, then fudged. We are now to have an English tourism council.

The most striking feature of this new body is that, unlike its counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it will have no remit to market the country that it purports to represent. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that there will be no one to handle the 300 or so consumer and media calls each month that are taken at present by the English tourist board, and that there will be no one to answer questions about tourism in England. Does she expect that work to be undertaken by the British Tourist Authority? If so, will the BTA be remunerated for that? It is already closing offices around the world because it cannot afford to keep them open. Incidentally, it does an excellent job, as do the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland tourist boards, and many of the regional tourist boards.

The replacement of the English tourist board by a neutered central bureaucracy is a slap in the face for England. As the Minister knows, the chief executive of the English tourist board has resigned. He was a marketing man, who was brought in to do a marketing job. That job has been removed and he has gone. There is no chairman at present, either, so matters are being allowed to drift.

I say that England needs a voice. It is not surprising, but it is depressing none the less, that I increasingly hear people in the industry questioning whether they would be better off if they were sponsored by another Department. The answer to that, in my view, is that they would not. It is not a different Department that they need, but a different Government. They need a Department that will believe in them, that will act for them and that can carry clout across Whitehall. It is already abundantly clear that they will not get that from Labour.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing the debate on an extremely important industry, as he rightly said. That is why the Government produced the strategy that has been referred to frequently in the debate, and which I shall deal with later.

Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world. As has already been said, one in five new jobs that have been created in the past 10 years have been in the industry. The Government estimate that it is worth £53 billion a year to the economy, and as we know, it employs 1,750,000 people.

Hon. Members have touched on various issues that are the responsibility of other Government Departments, such as VAT on accommodation—

What about joined-up government?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government's strategy contains a proposal to do with joined-up government. For the first time ever, we shall have a tourism summit that will bring together Ministers from all Government Departments to discuss the needs of the industry. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what his Government did to support the industry? I remind him that for the first time ever, this Government have a Minister with the word "Tourism" in her title. The previous Government were not prepared to give the industry such acknowledgement.

I see that the Opposition have belatedly set up a forum to consult the industry. In the course of producing our strategy, we consulted no fewer than 200 representatives of the industry. That is a record which the hon. Gentleman quite simply cannot match.

Many hon. Members have referred to funding and the disparities between England and Scotland and Wales. I am sorry, but I have to say yet again that the previous Government reduced funding for the English tourist board from £25.8 million in 1988–89 to less than £10 million when they left office. It is relevant to remind the House that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was parliamentary private secretary to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) when she was Secretary of State.

We have heard much criticism and, first, the national minimum wage and the great burdens that it is putting on the industry was mentioned.

Although it is absolutely true, as the Minister says, that funding was reduced under the previous Government, this Government have continued that process. Funding for the English tourist board was £10.3 million when they came to power; they reduced it to £9.9 million. Funding for the British Tourist Authority was reduced from £36.5 million to £35 million. Even if the much-vaunted £5 million over three years is included, that comes to £40 million for the BTA by the end of that period. If the Government had simply put funding up by 3 per cent. on the figure that they inherited, the total would have been £41.08 million.

We would all like there to be more money, but what we do with what we have available is the important issue. There has been an increase in funding to the BTA, the ETB has been restructured and the new English tourism council has been set up. One reason for that—I will come to this later, if I have time—is to release more money into the regions. Would Conservative Members prefer that money not to go to the regions?

Before the Minister moves on—and, I hope, moves away from her trip down memory lane—will she confirm that the departmental budget for tourism is being cut?

I do not want to repeat things over and over again, because we do not have that much time, but the hon. Gentleman knows that funding to support tourism has been increased for the first time in many years. Through our restructuring, we have made sure that there will be more money to go into the regions, and that has been widely welcomed by the regions.

May I quickly counter some of the criticism that we have heard this morning by quoting some of the comments that we have received about our strategy? The British Casino Association said:

"I write to congratulate you on the publication of 'Tomorrow's Tourism' which shows a cohesive approach to improving Britain's competitiveness as a world class tourism destination."

The Holiday Care Service said:

"I was very pleased to see that the new Tourism Strategy which your Department published a couple of weeks ago highlights the way in which the industry can play its part in helping to create a fully inclusive society."

CenterParcs wrote:

"Firstly, I don't want the launch of 'Tomorrow's Tourism' to go by without congratulating you again on the very considerable feat of having managed to get a very clear and focused strategy document from the many and quite disparate views held within the tourism industry."

There are many more

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not give way again; I have given way several times and I want to get on with what I have to say.

Conservative Members have referred to the national minimum wage. I do not know whether they are aware that, on the day that the pay of 2 million employees increased as a result of the national minimum wage, a new independent report showed that companies in the sector most affected—the service sector—are experiencing expansion, not job losses as some predicted. I suggest that Conservative Members refer to the report of the Low Pay Commission and study it with care.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) has been helpful to me in my post as Tourism Minister and I compliment him on what has been happening in his constituency. Reference was made to lack of partnership, but, as my hon. Friend said, partnership is very much in evidence in Scarborough and Whitby and previously declining seaside resorts are going through a substantial period of regeneration. I congratulate him on his contribution to that.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said that he did not understand the division of ministerial responsibilities in the Department. We have not only joined-up government, but a joined up Department as well. We speak to each other.

The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to cowboys in the industry; we want to deal with them. We also want to do something about quality in the industry. Only yesterday, I was consulting a group of hoteliers to see what we can do.

The reputation of the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) is well known and he knows the problems of the industry only too well. I will do my best to visit Southport soon. He referred to transport routes and to the lake district in particular. I invite him to keep a close eye on developments because, before too long and following consultations with my colleagues in other Departments, we will be making announcements to do with the lake district. The Cumbria tourist board has already put together its own business plan based on our strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism".

"Tomorrow's Tourism", the Government's new strategy for the development of tourism in England, was developed with the help of Departments across Whitehall and with the co-operation of nearly 200 representatives of the industry. I will not set out the raft of initiatives detailed in the strategy, because we do not have time, but all are a first for any Government and such problems have never before been addressed by any Government. I say to Conservative Members that "Tomorrow's Tourism" will not be a "here today, forgotten tomorrow" strategy. It contains well-thought-out, genuine commitments to action and is a springboard to the future. It will remain the basis of our agenda for years to come. Unlike the hon. Member for East Surrey, we set up a tourism forum—some considerable time ago—which will continue and will be followed by a ministerial summit with Ministers from all Departments.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who initiated the debate, said that there is no national training organisation for the industry. I reassure him that the Hospitality Training Foundation is the NTO for those in hospitality-related occupations. There is widespread recognition that the quality of customer service provided by the people employed by the tourism, hospitality and leisure businesses is crucial to success. That is why a working group of our tourism forum considered how the industry could improve the way in which it recruits, manages, motivates and equips its people with the skills that they need to provide excellent customer service. The objective is to build a more stable, appropriately-skilled work force for the future.

I invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to join in national hospitality week in June, and to initiate events in their areas to highlight the importance of the industry and the career opportunities it can provide for our young people.

Particular reference has been made to planning. As reported in "Tomorrow's Tourism"—I wonder whether some of the hon. Members who spoke in the debate have bothered to read it—the Government are researching how planning policy guidance for England can best facilitate leisure and tourism developments while achieving more sustainable patterns of development in travel. That research will be completed this year.

Concern, of which we are aware, has rightly been expressed about the burden of regulations on the industry. The forum and the summit will be considering that issue. There has also been much criticism of regionalism. We are creating the English tourism council—which will be a more effective, leaner national body for tourism in England—to focus on the national strategic framework rather than on provision of direct services.

Reference was made to the lack of national data; that will be one of the functions for the new strategic body. We will also ensure that all the regions of England can benefit from the future growth of tourism. A greater proportion of funding will directly support tourism in the regions and the new regional development associations will make tourism a key part of their economic development strategies.

Finally, I say again that the Government take the industry very seriously.

The immediate impetus for this Adjournment debate is last week's visit by the International Development Committee to Macedonia and Albania. It was, of course, a very moving visit, on which we saw the full scale of Milosevic's barbarity towards Kosovo. It was also a useful visit, in that a Committee of this House is now in close touch with that immensely important area and will be able to help the House, through first-hand knowledge, in its important deliberations on this matter. I hope that some of my colleagues who were on that visit will be able to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We had access to all the major players in the area and I should like to thank them for their co-operation. One issue about which we were concerned—we made this clear on our return to Britain—was the number of refugees to be allowed into this country. I was disturbed that this country, which is risking so much to combat Milosevic's fascism, should be attracting criticism for seeming to do so little to accept refugees. While we were in the region, Britain was certainly not an option available to refugees, whereas other countries were being much more open. I am delighted that, following the Prime Minister's visit, that has been put right. It was uncomfortable to be urging the Macedonians to honour their international obligations when we were not clearly willing to pick up our own.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be most grateful for your guidance on this matter. The title of the debate on the Order Paper refers only to neighbouring countries, but the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has introduced into his dissertation the general subject of refugees and their admission to this country. I am sure that he is right so to do, and it is central to our discussion of the issue, but I should be grateful for your ruling on whether, in this context, Britain counts as a neighbouring country of Kosovo.

It is clear to everyone that Britain is certainly not a neighbouring country. However, I would say that the two issues go together and the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has been perfectly in order so far.

I thank you for your predictable ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

If my speech appears to dwell more on Macedonia than Albania, it is not because Albania is unimportant. It is facing the greatest challenge in terms of numbers and is the poorest country in the region. Some of the challenges are common to both Albania and Macedonia, but there are some extra dimensions to the Macedonian position and I hope that other hon. Members will speak about Albania more fully than I shall.

It is absolutely clear that Milosevic's war game is to destabilise Macedonia. By far the most important political issue in Macedonia is the relationship between the numerically dominant Slays and the more rapidly growing Albanian population. There is a visceral fear among the Slavs that they will lose their dominance. After all, the refugee issue is not just one of the past few weeks. When I first went to Macedonia a few years ago, we were praising the Macedonians for their hospitality to Muslims fleeing from the Milosevic-inspired outrages in Bosnia. Now, nearly 200,000 Albanians have been pushed callously out of Kosovo into Macedonia. It is absolutely essential that Macedonia is stabilised if we are to ensure success in the conflict with Milosevic over Kosovo.

Unfortunately, during the Select Committee's visit to Macedonia and Albania, I found that not enough was being done internationally to focus on the issue. It is essential to military success in the Kosovo campaign that humanitarian, economic and political support for Macedonia is augmented. For example, if there is to be a ground approach by NATO troops, the Macedonian entry—which is linked to the Greek port of Thessaloniki—is a key matter. For years, the relationship between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been fraught—the very name indicates that—and it must be harmonised.

What should be done? Milosevic regards the destabilisation of Macedonia as a major prize, which is why he shoves Kosovars towards Macedonia. While we were there, trainloads were coming in—far more than the overfull camps could cope with. According to UNICEF, there are now nearly 200,000 refugees in Macedonia and, unbelievably, more than 90,000 are staying with Macedonian families while a similar number are in camps. When we were planning our trip the week before, the number was not 200,000, but 130,000 to 140,000. The number has soared in recent days as Milosevic has turned on the taps.

It has been argued that if the refugees were taken out of the region, that would be doing Milosevic's job for him. That argument lacks conviction; it is an arid argument. Such are the numbers that many refugees will remain in Macedonia anyway. It is not a case of either Macedonia or elsewhere; it is both. While I was there last week, an increasing number of refugee-bearing planes were flying out, but they were heavily outnumbered by Milosevic's new victims coming in.

Taking our full share of refugees is not the only reassurance that we can give Macedonia as an aid to winning this conflict. We must immensely strengthen the performance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in coping with the refugees in Macedonia. Frankly, the day was saved at the start by the British-inspired NATO forces putting up the camps in Macedonia. However, the refugee programme cannot be militarised other than in the short term. The other UN organisations and non-governmental organisations yearn for the UNHCR to be powered up for that huge job which, whatever happens in respect of the military effort, will be needed for at least many months. I saw no sign on the ground that the UNHCR had anywhere near the horsepower that it needed to cope with this huge challenge in the Balkans. Can the Minister give any reassurance on that?

We must also help out the Macedonian economy. At the outset of the crisis, Macedonia had 40 per cent. unemployment. Because of the crisis, it has now lost its export trade in food and textiles, which has to go through Serbia. Unemployment is now much higher. Huge numbers of refugees are now in Macedonian homes with no extra resources to sustain them. It is worth pointing out that, if one uses the index of 100, the Macedonian GDP was 100 in 1989 when Yugoslavia broke up, whereas it is now 60. The country is having to bear the cost of the transport, policing and many other aspects of the refugee crisis, yet it has less income than before the crisis.

Other problems loom—I was told that the biggest threat was that the sanitation system was incapable, in the long term, of coping with the extraordinary pressures put on it by the refugees. Life for the ordinary Macedonian is getting worse because of the huge influx by a feared minority. For how long will the Macedonians blame Milosevic rather than the Albanians? They need help in bearing the cost of that influx.

Recently, the European Union distributed aid to Albania and Montenegro, but Macedonia was left out because its books were not in order. To be told by the EU that one's books are not in order is a sick joke. Get the money out and monitor it scrupulously, but do not make a tragedy into a catastrophe by accountancy. Countries such as Macedonia and Albania need money now. Poor government capacity is an indication of the scale of the problem, not an excuse for inaction. Will the Government ensure that Macedonia, like Albania and Montenegro, will receive immediate budgetary support from the EU?

May I ask the Minister a more general question? Does he believe that the EU can play an active part at present, in the light of the collapse of the Commission? The Commission staff must feel so shell shocked by the revelations of poor behaviour that they are afraid to act decisively. Is there not a case for Heads of Government to agree on extra special measures to shift committed money out of Brussels and to get it working to good effect in the Balkans? I gather that a meeting will take place today in Paris with the World bank, the European Union and others to look at the structural support that will be needed for those countries.

The size of the camps—Kukes in Albania has about 1,000 residents—is putting an unreasonable strain on the infrastructure of these poor countries. It is not that the camps around Tirana are testing its sewerage system to the limit, because Tirana does not have a sewerage system. The health threats in the summer are considerable. We cannot expect NGOs and United Nations organisations to deal with major civil engineering and governmental tasks. NATO stepped in early to rescue the situation in the camps, but development should not be militarised. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister how these structural issues are to be tackled.

These countries cannot be asked to cope with a million refugees by providing new roads, power, water, sewerage and other systems that are not linked into the infrastructure for the whole population. It is inevitable and right that the host population should benefit from the development of the infrastructure that will be necessary for the refugees.

We all hope that the war will be rapidly resolved, and that the refugees will be able to return home. However, we shall not be forgiven if we do not plan for the worst. At the moment, we cannot produce enough tents or sites to house the ever-growing number of refugees. The refugees will not be able to live in tents in the Balkan winter, and we have seen that some of the sites are already unsuitable. They are in the wrong location, have poor water facilities and inadequate sanitation, and places for latrines are already running out.

Long-term camps require education facilities, better health services, including reproductive health services, and attention for people's psychosocial needs. We are desperately trying to provide primitive accommodation for those expelled from Kosovo, but we may soon have to start again. Hundreds of thousands of refugees may have to be rehoused in winter quarters that do not yet exist, either in fact or even on paper.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the doubling of funds by the British Government to help to meet the costs of the refugee crisis? Does he accept that a further doubling of funds may be necessary very soon? Will he give the House some assessment of the resources that should be made available immediately and in the longer term for the management of the refugee crisis and the eventual rebuilding of Kosovo?

Of course I welcome the doubling of the funds. What I am trying to get across in my speech is the fact that we cannot approach this matter only on the military and the humanitarian front. A major improvement of the infrastructure is required, and that cannot be organised by NGOs. It must be done by major international organisations, such as the World bank and the European Union, but I need convincing that they are geared up for what will happen not in the coming months, but in the coming weeks so that they can provide what is needed for the Balkan winter.

I came back from the Balkans with mixed emotions: anger at the despicable actions of Milosevic; admiration for the courage of the refugees; intense respect for the humanitarian work of UN organisations, such as the World Food Programme; pride in the work being done by the British NGOs; and admiration for the organisational skills of NATO in rescuing the humanitarian situation. I came back utterly determined that we should recognise and respond to all the dimensions of this problem, and not merely restrict ourselves to the humanitarian and military aspects. Much more is needed.

I was not on the Select Committee visit to the Balkans at the beginning of last week, because I had already accepted an invitation to visit Tirana in Albania, sponsored by the European Children's Trust. After consultation with the Chairman of the Select Committee, I felt that that would add an extra dimension and provide a different view of what is going on out there, so I went on my own to Tirana.

In passing, I should like to mention the European Children's Trust, which gave me the only good news of my visit. It has been working in Romania since the problems there began, and it is now closing orphanages because it has found good foster homes for the children. Many of their natural parents who abandoned them have come back to claim them. I wanted to begin on a bright note to show that there is a little light at the end of some of these tunnels.

Tirana was away from the front line, which was interesting because the refugees there had had an opportunity to reflect on their future and had recovered a little from the initial shock, although they were still pretty dazed. The city council in Tirana was assessing what was needed for its own people and for the refugees. In 1997, the population of Tirana was 250,000, and it had the infrastructure—social services, education and health services—that more or less catered for that number. By 1999, the population had almost doubled to 450,000, and in the past month, 43,000 refugees have come into Tirana city-—25 per cent. of the population have come to Tirana in a few weeks. Of those refugees, 33 per cent. are in host families—they are staying with anyone who will have them.

Host families in Albania have an average income of £15 a month, and some of them are catering for two or three families. I visited the Sipri family, who are a family of three. They are unemployed, because there is very little work in Tirana. They live in a tiny, two-roomed flat, and because of their son's long-standing link with a family of six, including two children, they welcomed them into their tiny flat and were feeding and coping with them on £15 a month.

I also visited what was described to me as a model refugee camp. It was a small camp on the site of the old Tirana municipal swimming pool, which no longer had any water in it. It was built for 2,000 by UNHCR, but it already had 3,000 refugees in it and others were moving in every day. When I visited, the mud was drying up and the sun was coming out, so it was looking a little better, but there were 20 latrines for more than 3,000 people which, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) reminded us, could cause infections and other problems in the summer months. It was desperately overcrowded, and there were no cooking facilities and no hot water. I think that the Select Committee saw a better refugee camp in Rwanda when we visited that country last year. The camp I saw in Tirana was appalling, yet it was described as a model camp.

The men in the camp were unanimous: they wanted to have guns and to join the Kosovo Liberation Army so that they could get back to Kosovo to fight for freedom. On the whole, the women wanted to stay in Albania, because they had small children. They were also worried about their families, and they wanted to stay put until they knew what had happened to them.

I visited a women's hospital with its director, Dr. Kallajxhi. It was one of the worst places I have ever seen; Florence Nightingale would have been ashamed. It is the main women's hospital for Tirana, the capital city of Albania. It was dirty, there were building works all over the place—even above and below the wards where women were giving birth—and very few painkillers were available, so the women who had suffered so much coming out of Kosovo were not getting any relief in childbirth. Most of the equipment was 20 years old.

The hospital was catering for the people of Tirana as well as for the refugees, which made it difficult because it did not have the staff. Many of the women were having abortions: many were having to have extensive gynaecological repairs and some were having hysterectomies because of the damage they had suffered after having been raped by Serbian soldiers. It was a distressing visit, and quite honestly the conditions in that hospital beggared belief.

At the end of my visit, I met Mr. Orhan Sakiqi, who is the head of the Tirana municipal council, and together we came to some conclusions. I appreciate that this is a small

area of the whole problem, but I felt that it would be useful to list the things that we believed were needed, especially in the medium and long term.

According to all those to whom I spoke, registration is a problem. As has been said, the UNHCR is not considered to be performing terribly well in Albania. Most of the refugees whom I met in Tirana had no papers, because they were not being processed—as we were told that they were—as the refugees crossed the border. The refugees were stuck with host families, with no identity and no papers. Some would like to come to the United Kingdom, but not many, because few of their friends and families are here owing to the United Kingdom's asylum and immigration policies over the past 10 years. That is one of the reasons why a number of them want to go to Germany. That is our fault, and we should be doing something about it.

The Sipri family, whom I visited, would like to go to Germany, where they have relatives, but they cannot do so because they have no papers. No one seemed to know how to remedy the problem, even the people in the municipality.

There is no substitute for direct evidence. Let me ask a question, without any overtones. The hon. Lady spoke of rapes committed by Serbian soldiers. There seems to be considerable dispute about that, and I do not know the truth. Doubtless some rapes have taken place, but did the hon. Lady have direct evidence of rape committed by Serbian soldiers on a significant scale?

I appreciate that it is a difficult question. Before I came to the House, I worked in gynaecology and family planning, and I know that it is sometimes difficult to assess the truth of what people say. Because I was in the area for only a short time, I heard the story directly from only a few people, but the evidence is that the same story is being told all over the place by all sorts of women who have had no contact with each other. A fortnight ago, some of us met two professionals, a paediatrician and a journalist, who had come from Kosovo. They had a good deal of evidence. There is certainly medical evidence in the hospital to which I referred that women have been brutalised, raped and then mutilated, and it was alleged that the Serbs had done it. That is all that I can say in answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Let me return to the problem of identity. The Government must put pressure on the UNHCR to get its act together and ensure that those people are registered.

What my hon. Friend has said about the camps in Albania coincides with my experience in Macedonia. Record keeping and being able to trace refugees and record their stories are indeed problems, but, now that the necessary information technology is available, could that not be done largely out of country? Should not western countries be employing people to maintain databases, and relieve some of the pressure on the Albanians, the Macedonians and the relief agencies?

The thought crossed my mind as well. I cannot see why the details of people's past lives, homes and businesses cannot be recorded in England or Germany as easily as in Tirana or somewhere in Macedonia. I agree with my hon. Friend: surely computer technology could help. This is one of the most urgent problems for the refugees, who do not know where to turn, and are forced to remain non-people. They do not exist, and it is not possible to help people who do not exist.

As I have said, I was appalled by the state of the refugee camps. I am sure that our Government are putting pressure on the UNHCR to improve them, but I was interested by the Albanians' suggestion that smaller camps should be built to reflect the village communities that existed in Kosovo, and to keep people together so that they could give each other support.

One of my main worries is the lack of help for the tens of thousands of host families in Albania who are trying to manage on meagre incomes and looking after all the refugees. I do not know how long their patience will last. The European Children's Trust has developed a scheme whereby families' needs are assessed and a recommendation is made; they are then given direct financial help to buy food which is available in Albania, and any other supplies that they need. I urge our Government in particular to consider schemes that would enable us to help host families directly to support the refugees.

As for education, health and social services, there is a network—in other countries that we visited, there is no such network—but it is entirely inadequate. There are thousands of refugee doctors, nurses and teachers who can work and want to help their own people, but there is the matter of paying them a little to do so. Pressure should be put on all the authorities to mobilise the professionals in the refugee group to help with social services in Albania.

There is also an urgent need for medical equipment and medicines. I hope that our constituencies, including mine, will want to do something identifiable, rather than just giving money to an anonymous appeal. They could, for instance, focus on a hospital that badly needs updating, and some decent equipment and medicines. Europe, and our Government, could help with that as well.

The hon. Lady has told us about the present arrangements for the accommodation of refugees in Albanian host families and elsewhere. Given the state of the camps and the difficulties experienced by the host families, is there any prospect of accommodation being arranged there for refugees in the medium and longer term, or is the UNHCR right in saying that such accommodation can only be temporary and provisional, and that it will soon be necessary to move many of the refugees to other countries in western Europe?

There are two aspects to the question. Some refugees, having reflected, are beginning to think that they would be better off in another country; but it was emphasised to me—although I spoke to only a small sample—that they wanted that to be on a temporary basis, especially the women and children.

As I said, the Albanians have suggested the establishment of medium to long-term villages, providing slightly better accommodation than tents—perhaps prefabricated buildings such as those that we had just after the war—so that people could live in village communities. They would then be able to stay in the area among people they knew, and to return to Kosovo that much more quickly.

The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that the Albanians, and indeed the Macedonians, would not tolerate the influx of people even poorer than themselves indefinitely. They are responding magnificently now, but that may not last for ever, and there could be civil unrest. One of the most moving things said to me during my short visit was said by Mr. Sakiqi, the leader of Tirana council. He said, "Whatever Europe does, the Kosovars are our brothers, and we welcome them." The Albanian people have set us an example with their generosity and kindness, but we must realise that there is a huge financial implication for the future, and we must know where the money will come from. I trust that the Government will not make the Department for International Development contingency reserve meet the cost in the medium and long term. The money must come from the Treasury reserves; it cannot come out of the development budget. One thing is certain: we need to plan for the long term, and we need to plan quickly.

I am sure that all hon. Members wish that the war had never been necessary. For a long time, we tried to negotiate with Milosevic and the Yugoslav Government in an attempt to reach some accommodation that would ensure that the ethnic cleansing that we are witnessing would not continue, but it was anticipated as far back as July 1995 that there would be refugees. One of the interesting things that we learned during our latest visit was that a disaster contingency plan had been drawn up as far back as July 1995 for 300,000 refugees from Kosovo to Albania and Macedonia. Hon. Members may well ask what happened to that plan.

The plan was jointly organised by the World Food Programme and the UNHCR. The programme has done its job in relation to the plan because there is no shortage of food and it is preparing to feed many thousands of refugees for months ahead, not only if they remain in Albania and Macedonia, but if, by some good chance, the war ends and they are able to return to their country.

Even if the war were to finish tomorrow, the refugees would have to be fed in Kosovo for about 16 months after their return because they have missed the planting season. Before they are able to plant again, obviously, they will need to be fed by the World Food Programme.

I wonder what happened to the plan. The meetings between the World Food Programme, the UNHCR and various other agencies were supposed to continue every three months. One of the things that are obvious to us after visiting the region twice in the past two weeks is that The UNHCR, for various reasons, has been caught short.

As some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, there is a shortage of tents in Albania. When we were there last week, 9,000 people were out in the open without cover. The UNHCR told us that there was a shortage of tents. There are other shortages. Refugees in both Macedonia and Albania are in overcrowded conditions. In Macedonia, the population in the camps is three times the density that the UNHCR considers acceptable.

Last week, I went to some of the camps for the second time in 10 days. What is clear is that, with the present numbers that are flooding across the border, it is impossible for the existing camps to contain such numbers of people. Aid workers were saying to me that they wanted us to know that refugees had been threatening hunger strikes, or to burn some of the tents down unless things improved in the camps.

As the NATO commander made clear to us, there is a small window of opportunity. Only a few months are left to get people out of the camps before the winter comes. Unless they get out, when the winter comes, they will freeze to death. At the end of August, there will be the short-term problem of making arrangements for the winter.

On my first visit to the camps, people told me that their choice of country would have been the United Kingdom if that choice had been available to them, but that they had chosen other countries. In one case, a university professor and his family of three had been forced out of their home. He was forced out of his job at a museum by the Serbs, who brought a letter to him one day and said that he had no job. He went back to his home village and lived in a house with his family. One day, the paramilitaries came and burnt it down.

The professor then hid in a basement for two months. The paramilitaries came down that street as well and he had to flee. He and his family spent three nights on the road and in a forest, and many other nights in the open on the border. He said that he had been separated from his 90-year-old mother.

As hon. Members know, it is a story that many other people in the camps can tell: a story of separations and losses. They do not know where their children or elderly parents are. In some cases, their husbands were kept behind; they believe that they are now dead. All those refugees have stories of tragedy.

The refugees go to the camps and are asked which third country they would be ready to go to. That professor told me that he had been given a form and had put down Norway as his first choice because, as he said, although not in an accusatory way, the refugees understood that Britain did not want them. I met a man who was in another camp with his family, who put down Germany as his first choice. He was told that Britain was not an option. I asked the UNHCR people on the spot, who said that they had put down countries as options only if those countries had specified a quota.

Going there the second time, I picked up a form in one of the UNHCR tents where refugees were filling in their details. Of course, the vast majority have no papers at all: no passports, no identity cards—nothing to prove their identity. They were filling in forms for UNHCR.

I turned over one form. Again, it had the same list of countries on the back, and someone had written in biro—I presume that it must have been a refugee-"England." I have said many times how ashamed I was that the refugees thought that the United Kingdom did not want them, so I am delighted that the Prime Minister has stated that we are ready to take several thousand refugees, without specifying a quota. That is good news. I am pleased that he saw for himself the needs of those refugees and how impossible it is for countries such as Macedonia, which has 2.2 million people, to absorb such numbers.

Sixty per cent. of refugees are already in private homes in Macedonia. Again, the hospitality of the people who have taken refugees into their homes, in both Macedonia and Albania, has to be commended. However, it puts

enormous strains on families. Twenty-seven refugees were living in one home with two bedrooms. Obviously, that cannot go on because it strains the host family. They do not have the money to support those people. Some of my hon. Friends have talked about the low incomes in both Macedonia and Albania. We are now saying that we will be generous to the refugees who want to come to Britain. I am pleased about that.

In Albania, I was told by our embassy that we were giving no visas. Indeed, people who approach the embassy for visas are told to go to Istanbul. I hope that that is something that my hon. Friend the Minister will look into. It seems utter nonsense that we are sending people to Istanbul to apply for visas.

Last week, people were telephoning me from Manchester, including the wife of a man from Kosovo who has lived in this country for more than 10 years. He went to Albania to get his elderly parents who, two months ago, had come across from Kosovo. He was told that he could not get a visa to bring them back to Britain. Again, such incidents have to be investigated.

The strain on the Macedonian Government cannot be over-emphasised. As I have said, it is a small country of 2.2 million people. It is very poor, with 40 per cent. unemployment. It is having to pay for the transport of refugees to the camps and for the policing of those camps. The Deputy Foreign Minister, who spoke to us, mentioned the extra man hours for policing and the hospital treatment for refugees that Macedonia had to pay for. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, it is no longer able to export many of its goods to other countries.

In Macedonia, 87 contracts with EU countries have been cancelled. The Minister told us that he was afraid for the political stability of his country. It is right that we give countries such as Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania as much economic aid as possible. They must be assisted in dealing with the vast numbers of refugees who are flooding into their countries.

The UNHCR has a problem, although I do not know quite what it is; it may be understaffing. I have the greatest respect for UN agencies, as do my hon. Friends, but the UNHCR's role in this and what happened to the disaster preparedness plan must be investigated in the future.

I have been to many refugee camps and I have seen much worse; I can be realistic about the situation in which the Kosovars now find themselves. Many of the Kurds who fled across the mountains from Iraq into Iran 10 years ago are still in refugee camps in Iran. It is unlikely that Kosovars will return home in vast numbers before Kosovo is rebuilt.

Obviously, I hope that the war will soon be over, although I still consider that ground troops are essential. I said so on 14 January in the House and I have not changed my mind. I am sure that were the Prime Minister to obtain the backing of other EU countries, he would be ready to use those ground troops. The Americans' attitude is amazingly ambivalent. This is not the first time that they have been enthusiastic for a particular war, only to back off. Our Prime Minister is resolute. He completely opposes the hideous ethnic cleansing in which Milosevic is engaged.

I agree with the Government line that Milosevic must be defeated, that Kosovo must be a safe place to which the Kosovars can return, and that we must give Kosovo, and possibly Serbia when the war is over, as much economic aid as possible. In the meantime, we must persist in defeating what we all know, at the end of the 20th century, is no longer acceptable in Europe.

The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) refers, in the long title of his debate, to "Humanitarian and economic effects". I subsume those broadly into the social consequences of a huge tide of refugees. I understood you to rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be within order to discuss the impact that that may have on the United Kingdom.

Hon. Members may recall a rather peculiar incident that took place on the quayside at Calais some three months ago involving an exchange of fire between people whom the French police later identified as Kosovars, as a result of which some British tourists were injured. That gave rise to various questions, such as how they got there, what were they doing and how they had managed to come as far as the English channel carrying firearms.

Further inquiries disclosed that it was quite normal for British tourists returning home and lorry drivers with British registered vehicles to be intimidated, sometimes at gunpoint, by Kosovar refugees who want to enter the United Kingdom in their vehicles. That was before any announcement had been made on the acceptance of refugees.

That brings me to a subject to which the House must continue to direct its attention. I see from today's papers that MI6 and the other intelligence services are also involved. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has already reminded the House of certain findings of the German police authorities and Interpol regarding the high level of criminal infiltration in the KLA by Balkan criminal elements mainly concerned with drugs, immigration rackets and prostitution.

We know that a high criminal infiltration in any body results in a breakdown into gang warfare. The events on the quayside at Calais had every appearance of gang or factional warfare. For that reason, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, for whom I have huge respect, will not take it personally when I say that I wish that a Home Office Minister was present beside him who could pay some regard to my points. In the fullness of time, the criminality that pervades the KLA will be a matter of prime importance for consideration by the Government and the House of Commons.

It might be unreasonable to ask the Minister to comment in any kind of detail, but some of us do ask the Government for a statement on Tim Butcher's report in The Daily Telegraph today on MI6, and on the recurring reports that there is an investigation by Interpol and the Bundeskriminalamt Verfassungschutz. At least we should have the assurance that the Government take the matter seriously.

I hope that the Minister will infer from what I have said that that would be welcome.

All I want to say at this stage is that Ministers in my Department are in close touch with Home Office Ministers about all the issues, and Home Office Ministers will take account of all that is said in this debate relating to their responsibilities.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding at this stage.

I listened with great concern to the first-hand accounts of visiting the camps by the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Cynon Valley spoke movingly and I would in no way impugn their testimony to the House. However, did not the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie have any intimation of the degree of intimidation and gang dominance within the camps?

The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that she had heard from the Macedonian authorities that there was a threat of a hunger strike or of burning down the tents. Who is organising that threat? Why should perfectly ordinary decent people in a high level of distress consider starving themselves and their children and burning down the accommodation that has been provided by the great generosity of the west? I suggest that it is because they have been threatened and told that that is what they must do if they want to get into line and stay safe.

My evidence is anecdotal. I have not visited the camps myself. One of my sons is a soldier and, as the House knows, there is general gossip and an exchange of information among the services. He has given me anecdotal evidence of drug trafficking, violence and intimidation, and, in particular, the trawling of camps and the removal of likely candidates for prostitution rackets. Such things are habitual and recognised. I see the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie shifting in his seat. I hope that he will feel able to comment briefly on that.

The camps are ripe for the kind of activity to which the right hon. Gentleman refers if we do not get the situation there right. If we simply allow things to go on as they are, they will become recruiting grounds for the KLA. Something similar happened in Rwanda and elsewhere. That is why I was emphasising the much more important point—rather than the issue that the right hon. Gentleman is stressing—that the vast majority of people in the camps are destitute and that appalling things have been done to them. We should concentrate on that point.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and should not for a moment dispute the tenor of his comments. However, I feel that the House should be aware of the very high level and very wide diffusion of criminality within the camps and within the itinerant refugee bodies themselves.

When the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie says that we have to "get it right", I assume that he means that provision of direct aid to those bodies is not of itself sufficient, but that there will have to be a level of policing. There is no doubt that the flow, when it comes, of those people into equable and democratic western societies will cause enormous trouble, as it contains within it many people who are simply taking advantage of the situation to operate drug trafficking.

There has always been a very close link between the Albanian mafia, the Calabrian mafia in southern Italy, and drugs are the most portable and easily traded form of wealth. The moment that people get into that type of racketeering, violence, murder and intimidation follow. We have to be extremely careful to guard against such developments.

Magistrates in my constituency are already going out of their way to tell me of their experience in the London courts with Albanians affecting to claim refugee status. Those Albanians are being indoctrinated and told what to say by one or two groups of solicitors in the capital, who are clearly retained by criminal elements that are a part of the overall structure. They know how to ask for interpreters, to claim that they are below the appropriate age and to assert totally unjustified charges of racism, although they have been apprehended for genuinely criminal acts.

The House should be aware that the current situation is as good an opportunity as any for those groups. If we are not careful in our generous impulses—which are always one of the Chamber's most valuable responses to particularly objectionable crises; and first-hand testimony of which we have heard from hon. Members today—we shall be making ourselves vulnerable to a very great criminal influx.

I am glad that the Minister has said that the matter will be properly reported and that proper liaison on it will be made with the Home Office. It is an aspect of the whole tragic affair that—because it is so widely diffused, and the element of violence is so overt—our Government should be considering very seriously as they approach it.

This is one of those rare occasions when I decide—halfway through a debate, after hearing hon. Members' speeches—to make a completely different speech from the one that I had planned on making. I should like very briefly to address the issue of psychosocial support, mental health and psychological support for refugees in camps and in host families in Macedonia and Albania. The issue may not seem relevant to the debate, but it is, and I hope that you will be patient with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and allow me to develop the argument.

Early in the NATO military campaign, I asked in the House whether psychosocial support would be provided very early for refugees, to ensure stability in the camps and in the surrounding areas, and when the refugees have returned to their homes in Kosovo. After visiting the camps and surrounding areas in Macedonia and Albania, and after speaking to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Red Cross, the World Health Organisation and refugees themselves, I am more convinced than ever that we have to co-ordinate psychosocial support and ensure that refugees receive at a very early stage the mental health support and counselling that they need.

The refugees have witnessed, or been victims of, a series of acts of terror. They have seen massacres. When we were at the Blace border crossing, we spoke to people who had seen piles of dead bodies by the roadside in villages around Lipjan. They have also witnessed beatings and threats. We spoke to refugees who said that the Serbs had daily entered their homes, holding guns to their

children's heads and saying, "Shall I shoot them today, mother? No—not today, but maybe tomorrow." After a few days of that type of intimidation, they left their homes.

The refugees have experienced rape. I was quite shocked to hear some of the comments on rape and intimidation made earlier in the debate. It is well known that women, particularly from the Muslim community and in a culture in which rape is deeply shaming, will not just come out and tell all and sundry that they have been raped. Rape is therefore very difficult to verify in such societies. Sometimes, the truth comes out only after months or years.

We spoke also to refugees whose homes were burnt, who saw their animals being killed, and who had been separated from their families. One of the most moving moments was seeing the long list of lost children, aged two to 18, posted outside the International Committee of the Red Cross building.

The refugees are in a state of shock and suffering from acute anxiety. Those are symptoms of the first stage of being terrorised, and become apparent particularly when one speaks to the old men in the camps or in host families—halfway through a logical conversation, tears start streaming down their faces. That happened with almost everyone with whom I spoke in the camps. At some point in the conversation, they cried uncontrollably. It was not sobbing, but uncontrollable tears.

We have been told by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture that the refugees are suffering acute anxiety, and that they need psychosocial help and mental health counselling and support. They need that help now, and they need it to be delivered in an organised and co-ordinated manner. The refugees will continue to suffer anxiety, panic attacks and flashbacks, and possibly ill health.

We have already heard about the camps destabilising economic and social effects in Macedonia. The camps that we visited were surrounded by fences. The Macedonian authorities tried to keep the camps as far away as possible from the rest of the population. People are not allowed at will out of the camps, which are quite tense places. Because of the volatility of the situation in Macedonia and the effects of the refugee influx on the local population, the Macedonian Government move most refugee convoys and equipment at night.

If mental health support is not provided to refugees now, there will be many and various severe consequences. Organisations such as the Red Cross, the World Health Organisation and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture have stated that the consequences of not providing help now will be manifested in several ways, such as in violent outbursts. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) was perhaps right to say that there are violent outbursts in the camps; but many of those may be caused by pent-up trauma and lack of psychological support.

I appreciate the hon. Lady's comments, and certainly it would be valuable for people to receive such support and counselling. However, does she not think that, in times like these, the closeness of people's own families and communities is of overriding importance and would provide far more support to them? The Albanian Government's suggestion of trying to gather people in camps into their natural communities, reflecting the old villages of Kosovo, is therefore a very good one.

I agree partly with the hon. Lady's comments. However, organisations that have worked with victims of oppression, torture and rape and with those who have witnessed tragic events have made it clear that close family members are not always those who are able to provide the necessary support to victims—who need long-term counselling by external counsellors and advisers—and that families break down if the right support is not available. Families cannot always provide their members with the support they need.

If victims cannot speak to an external counsellor and gain that support, the possible eventual consequences are tension within the family, domestic violence and outbreaks of—sometimes physical—abuse of children, all of which lead not only to dysfunctional families but to dysfunctional communities and communities in crisis.

My hon. Friend is developing an important and interesting argument. She is obviously aware of the work of the Medical Foundation, which agrees that someone other than a family member is often needed. A Muslim woman who has been raped might find it very difficult to talk to someone whom she knows. Being in a camp surrounded by armed guards is similar to detention. My hon. Friend may be aware of the work of Dr Christina Pourgourides on the mental health effects of detention on asylum seekers in this country, who are held in much better conditions than those in the camps in Macedonia.

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I have spoken to several organisations in the camps, including the UNHCR and the Red Cross. The World Health Organisation is considering providing services for psychological support. However, there is a clear lack of co-ordination. In Bosnia, support was not provided in the early stages of humanitarian assistance and it was not followed through. Dozens of small non-governmental organisations turned up in Bosnia to give quick-fix counselling and psychological support and then pulled out. Unfortunately, that sometimes did more harm than good. The effort was not sustained and people did not get the support that they needed.

The Medical Foundation and others have pointed out to me that, after six months, refugees go to the intermediate phase of mental crisis, when self-denial is no longer possible and the true force of the effects of the terror that they have experienced will come out. It is crucial that they have long-term support at that time. They will also need support when they return to their homes in Kosovo. It will be no utopia. Their homes will be devastated and their villages will be burned. They will face yet another phase of crisis.

Support for the refugees is necessary immediately, after six months and on their return home. There must be an integrated programme in the humanitarian assistance effort to ensure that they are given support from the beginning until they return home. I do not feel reassured that such help is being provided. The consequences of that could be grim. There could be outbreaks of violence in the camps, families may break down, communities will not be functional and, when people return home, they will not be able to rebuild their lives in the way that they need.

I urge the Government to ask the UNHCR to ensure that a programme of care for the refugees is bolted into the planning for the coming months. It is not an optional extra. There is no point in feeding people and giving them shelter and medical care if we end up with appalling scenes such as the horrible picture that I am sure that we all remember emblazoned over the front of the newspapers during the Bosnia crisis featuring a 19-year-old girl who had been raped and had hanged herself from a tree because she could no longer live with the trauma and felt that she had nobody to turn to.

May I ask a question of which I have given the Department notice? It concerns the nuclear power station at Kosledoj in Bulgaria, which, before the crisis, was perhaps the most worrying of the eastern bloc nuclear power stations. There is a real problem of oil pollution in the Danube, which could foul up the coolant system. If the coolant system were injured in any way, there could be a catastrophe along Chernobyl lines. I am not saying that that would happen, but it is possible. I have contacted Scottish Nuclear and British Energy about the issue and told the Department about my worries. There is a similar problem with the Romanian Cernavoda No. 1 power station.

The environmental consequences of bombing know no borders. Large quantities of chlorine and other noxious gases have been released into the air after the bombing of the refinery and petrochemical plant at Pancevo. I understand that the rain that has fallen in the past few days on Pancevo, Novi Sad and Belgrade, as well as over the Hungarian border, is grey-black. That has been detected by ordinary people striving to save water and by meteorologists and other experts. That water will seep into the soil and poison the crops. The Danube and the Sava are so polluted that people are forbidden to eat fish from them. The destroyed chemical plants and the oil storage drums have leaked into the rivers. Fertiliser and chemical plants have been spawning black fumes.

I make a plea to the Government to reconsider yet again whether the strategy of bombing helps this awful situation. Sometimes, doing the right thing may involve loss of face, but history will judge us kindly for choosing such an option. There is still scope for diplomatic activity to negotiate a settlement under the auspices of the United Nations to protect the people of Kosovo and elsewhere. We have to stop our policy of capitulation or else.

After the conflict with NATO is over, Yugoslavia and the area around it will depend on imported oil and will be unable to rebuild its industrial sector, let alone bridges, without huge amounts of aid from the countries that are now bombing it. Can we not reconsider the policy of bombing?

The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for initiating this important debate and to the members of the Select Committee, who have brought back their testimony of what they have seen in the past few days of this dreadful crisis. The House would also be wise to listen carefully to the words of warning from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). Hon. Members are entitled to speak about different aspects of the issue in this Chamber.

I am sure that many hon. Members feel, as I do, that it is almost too painful to open a newspaper, turn on the television or listen to the radio, only to hear yet more distressing tales of what is going on in Kosovo. The suffering of the Kosovar Albanians is distressing for us all. Perhaps it is not easy to focus on anything more than supporting the refugees through the crisis and bringing the conflict to a successful conclusion so that peace and security can be established in the region once again and people can go back to their homes and begin to rebuild their lives, which is what they want.

However, we would fail the people of the region if, in addition to soft hearts, we did not also bring clear minds to the debate. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie is right to cause us to look at the wider implications for neighbouring states and the longer-term implications for the region. The decisions that we make in the west continue to have a significant effect on the people of the region.

I intend to be brief, because I want the Minister to have as long as possible to answer as many points as he can. However, it is worth repeating what we all believe: that the responsibility for the situation lies with President Milosevic and a tiny minority of Serb enforcers. He is a brutal dictator who has no part to play in the Europe of the 21st century. I have a friend living in Belgrade who still e-mails me about once a week. He is an intelligent and reasonable man, but he cannot understand what NATO is doing and does not believe that ethnic cleansing is taking place in Kosovo. That shows the scale of the challenge that the Serbian people will face when all this is over to come to terms with the reality of what has happened in their country.

We will always support our troops in action overseas. We pay tribute again to their courage and dedication. However, I must take this opportunity to make it clear again that when the armed conflict finally comes to an end, we shall require some answers to the many searching questions that we have asked about how we found ourselves in this position. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a similar point. It is in the interests of the region that lessons should be learned from the situation. It will be necessary to revisit the failure of the diplomatic efforts of the past two years. We shall have to examine the consequences of so many threats but so little action in 1998. We must examine carefully the lack of preparedness of the relevant agencies in terms of coping with an exodus of refugees that was breathtaking, but inevitable once air strikes started. We will be right to probe the initial lack of co-ordination between NATO, the EU and the UN.

I feel strongly—perhaps the Minister will not agree—that we should consider whether some of the intergalactic rhetoric of some Government Ministers in the past few weeks has helped or hindered the cause. Many lessons must be learned from the conflict, and it is our job, as Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, to try to make sure that that happens. Having started down the road, there is no alternative but to press on to a successful conclusion for the people of Kosovo, NATO and the region as a whole. There are implications for neighbouring states. Albania and Macedonia are poor and have internal problems of their own, and they have been all but overwhelmed by the influx of refugees. The testimony that we have heard today makes that point eloquently. The strains on their social structures and economies are significant.

There has been a severe impact on the economies of other neighbouring states such as Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania as a result of the loss of transport routes through Serbia for exports and the lack of investor confidence in the region generally. I was in Kosovo in December and in Bosnia earlier in the year. The region is staggeringly beautiful, but it is not hard to see that tourism this year is unlikely to be substantial. Milosevic has many victims, not all of whom live in Kosovo.

Our response must be in the short, medium and long term. However, our commitment to the region must be absolute. This is Europe; we have a strategic national interest in long-term European stability. I believe that we have a moral responsibility also to see the matter through.

In the short term, we must pay the costs of supporting the refugees in the region. We must be both compassionate and efficient. The magnificent record- breaking response of the great British public—in giving over £30 million to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal—demonstrates how the crisis has been taken to the hearts of the people of this country.

I welcome the increase in our aid from £20 million to —40 million, announced by the Prime Minister on Monday. It would be helpful if the Minister could specify where that money is coming from. Which part of the Government's coffers will it be taken from? What specific use will be made of the money? What are the implications for the balance of the Department's budget? I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that the money should come out of Treasury contingencies, rather than those of the Department for International Development.

I welcome the decision by the EU to make £168 million available to aid agencies and to the Governments of Macedonia, of Montenegro and of Albania. It is vital that we support those Governments at this time. However, I am concerned at the reports, to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie alluded, that the money is still not getting through on the ground. I did not understand the reference to the books of Macedonia not being in order, and I hope that the Minister will clarify that matter. What must be done to get the money through? How much longer will the Macedonian Government be kept waiting for this vital aid? Will the Minister keep an eye on the Brussels money to ensure that it is not bogged down by long-term Brussels red tape, as so often has happened in the past?

The Home Secretary announced yesterday that this country will take 1,000 refugees per week. Before that, the Government's clear policy had been to provide for the refugees on the ground. Can the Minister explain the change of policy? Does he agree that such an important policy change should have been made by a statement to the House of Commons? Can he confirm that there will be such a statement by the Home Secretary this afternoon, so that we can question him on the matter? It will be difficult to decide on the proper response to the announcement until we know the detailed facts and figures.

It remains our preference to care for people in the region, so that they can go back to their homes as soon as possible, as that is what they want. We look forward to a statement in the House this afternoon so that we can make a proper assessment of the decision.

In the medium term, it is vital that aid for the region is co-ordinated. People are talking about a Marshall plan, and we would support a significant reconstruction plan for the region. It is in the long-term interests of all of us that European stability is achieved. Obviously, the EU has a vital role, and perhaps the Minister can say a little about its plans.

In the long term—with the goal being the stability of the region—I feel strongly that the EU has an historic opportunity to underpin long-term stability by proceeding with enlargement at a realistic and reasonable pace. Enlargement can bring to the region the benefits of stable democracies, market-based economies, strong, civil societies and respect for the rule of law and human rights; perhaps for the first time in history. Will the Minister confirm the Government's commitment to that process?

Perhaps some lateral thinking is required by the EU to create some special status for some of those countries that clearly are not ready—or anything like ready—for accession to the EU. That would help those countries through the next few years as they prepare for accession. Does he agree that a wider Europe, rather than a deeper Europe, will bring peace, stability and ultimately prosperity to that needy region?

I am deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for initiating this debate, which the Government welcome. In the time that the House has generously provided for me, I will try to provide answers to all the questions. If I am unable to do so, I undertake that either I or one of my colleagues from another Department will write to the hon. Members concerned. That will include the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in relation to nuclear power plants. I should have liked to answer that question but, in the time available, I was unable to do so. I can assure my hon. Friend that someone will write to him.

As the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) rightly said, we are facing the most acute crisis in Europe since 1945. More than 1 million people have been evicted from their homes. Thousands have been killed, and hundreds of women raped. I am surprised that anyone has questioned those figures, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) and to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) for confirming them. Thousands of people have been separated from their families.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that, for more than a year, we tried to find a diplomatic solution. We called on Milosevic to stop attacking and persecuting his own people. He refused. At the end of the day, we had a duty to act to help those people who were being persecuted, killed and maimed. We have acted on that duty, and none of us in the Government apologises for that. The scale of the resulting crisis is clear, but let there be no doubt in the House; Milosevic is responsible for the crisis and the suffering.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that this is a timely debate. As he and others have said, a donors' conference is taking place today in Paris, considering specifically the needs of Macedonia. I expect that there will be a similar conference on Albania soon.

The UK has an important role in the conference, as well as in the medium and long-term support for the region. However, that is along with other donors. We must not forget that, as well as the bilateral donors, the EU and the international financial institutions have a responsibility. The UK should not take it all upon ourselves in dealing with the problem. At the donors' conference, we will pledge a further £5 million from the know-how fund to improve the administration within Macedonia and to make the country more able to cope with the problems to which the hon. Member for South-West Devon referred.

We all appreciate that aid is needed and, after the conference, we may have a clearer idea of the scale of the money to be given. However, I am concerned about the comparison of what is being given with the costs. The Home Office has said that this country will spend more than £600 million this year on support for asylum seekers; and that is supporting maybe 50,000 people. When we compare that figure with the problems in Macedonia and Albania, it suggests the scale of aid that might be needed.

I will deal with that point, but it is important to deal first with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and others about our position on taking in refugees. There has been some misunderstanding of the Government's position. There has been no policy change. Not having a quota does not mean an unwillingness to take refugees; indeed, quotas can easily be used as an upper limit.

We have said all along that the vast majority of refugees should remain in the region, as is their own wish—they said that to members of the Select Committee and to the Prime Minister—ready to return when the NATO campaign has succeeded. We in Britain have given more help on the ground than most other countries. We recognise that some refugees need to be airlifted out: especially the vulnerable, those with particular medical conditions and those with family connections in the United Kingdom. Above all, only those who want to come here must be brought; it must be voluntary. We were concerned that some people were being shipped out against their will. That certainly must not happen.

That humanitarian response has always been our intention. Two planes came in last week, to Leeds-Bradford airport and to East Midlands airport. I want to thank all those involved in receiving the refugees, including the Refugee Council, local authorities and local Members of Parliament. We are now able to increase the pace of our humanitarian response because the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration have been able to process more requests.

Departments, local authorities and voluntary organisations are now ready to receive more people, so we can go up from two planes a week to four a week, and ultimately one a day over the next few weeks.

If, as is proper, the Minister is consulting local authorities and others and getting their consent, will he not also feel obliged, for reasons of both practicality and honour, to assure those authorities that a proper screening process will be set in train, to prevent infiltration by criminal elements and by those who, as I have warned the House, will be intimidating refugees, and whom their own people will obviously be reluctant to reveal?

A Home Office team will go to the region—this weekend, I expect—to help with the screening, working with the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration.

Those who come will get exceptional leave to stay and will be able to receive social security and to work. The next two plane loads will arrive at Prestwick airport on Sunday and will then go to Clydebank and to Glasgow.

Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley that the fact that Britain was not on the list at the beginning and had to be added in biro was an administrative oversight on the ground in Macedonia—I apportion no blame—which, I am glad to say, has now been rectified.

I was asked about the level of assistance that we are giving. The Prime Minister announced a further £20 million, which several hon. Members have welcomed today, bringing the total since the conflict started to £40 million. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that we are willing to consider further requests for funds as the need arises.

I can confirm for the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for South-West Devon that the latest funds do not come out of my Department's budget. We are not taking away help that should rightly continue to go to those in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. We try to ensure that the help that we give on the ground helps host families and the host countries as much as possible.

I join the hon. Member for South-West Devon in congratulating the British people on contributing £28 million through the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. That, in a matter of days, is a phenomenal response, and shows their concern for the plight of refugees; indeed, they have contributed to other appeals, too. I know that many people want to give medicine or gifts, but money is what is needed. They would do better to sell what they might otherwise give and raise money so that what is needed can be procured locally, wherever possible.

We have an unparalleled record of providing help on the ground. We have flown 40 airlifts so far, providing tents, blankets, food, and medical and emergency supplies, with more on the way. I am proud to say, in this Red Cross week, that we have given £2.5 million to the Red Cross for relief and for family tracing, to get families back together. Scores of families have already been reunited, and more will be.

We are providing an airport logistics cell at Tirana, an aircraft handling package at Skopje, and a convoy of five trucks. We have helped to set up two camps in Macedonia and we are setting one up in Albania. We are establishing contingency stockpiles of food, tents and blankets. There are scores of Department for International Development staff on the ground.

We are providing funds to the World Food Programme, to UNICEF and to international voluntary organisations. We are helping with radio programmes to give information to the refugees and providing free radios. Hon. Members can be proud of what the Government are doing in this very difficult situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie urged us to give additional help to the UNHCR. There have been some criticisms of the UNHCR, and Mrs. Ogata, its head, has accepted that it is not perfect, but we should recognise that we are dealing with an unprecedented exodus. I can confirm today that, following the Prime Minister's visit, substantial further funds will be made available for the UNHCR. He hopes to talk to Mrs. Ogata about that. We are keen to help the organisation to overcome any weaknesses that have been identified and to provide the psychosocial help to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred.

I have been asked about European Union funds. Our officials are today working on a specific remit to unblock the 25 million euros for Macedonia. It is important to remove the blockage as quickly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Member for South-West Devon will be pleased that the Adam Smith Institute is providing the help to try to get the Macedonian Government's books in some kind of order.

We recognise that the conflict affects not only Macedonia and Albania but the other front-line states, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon said. We recognise the need for long-term assistance, and we have already started discussions on that. The countries concerned are European countries and need to be integrated into the wider European and global framework, with political and economic stability in the long term. Membership of European and international organisations is vital to that end.

In the longer term, it is important to have a stability pact in south-east Europe. Proposals for such a pact will be discussed at a meeting of senior officials in Bonn on 27 May.

No one, and least of all Milosevic, should be in any doubt that we will continue our campaign until the Serb troops are withdrawn, there is an international force in place and the Kosovars can return in safety to rebuild their shattered lives. Meanwhile, we will continue to play our full part in helping the refugees on the ground and in the United Kingdom. They want NATO to succeed, above all, as they want to return to their homes. We will continue until they can do so in safety.

The next debate is on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

If, like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have had to practise saying "encephalopathies", you did extremely well.

The purpose of this debate is not to discuss the general issue of the spread of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, but to raise a particular case in which the rules to prevent it have been misapplied.

My constituent, Mr. R. Lennox of R. Lennox and Son of Layer de la Haye in my constituency, agreed to the sale of three loads of lambs to an Italian company, ILCO, in June 1997. I should say at the outset that I dislike the trade in live animals, and would much prefer United Kingdom-reared stock to be slaughtered before export—but that is another subject for debate and not one that I intend to raise now. My duty is to make representations on behalf of my constituent, who has suffered an injustice. Incidentally, not only Mr. Lennox but everyone in the supply chain has suffered—including those on hill farms in north Wales, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who cannot be present but has written to me about the problem.

The livestock were shipped on 4 July 1997 with all appropriate health records and veterinary certificates, as required by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They arrived in Italy on 7 July, and a certificate was issued confirming that their arrival in good condition. Mr. Lennox thereafter expected payment of £57,000.

As background, to cut a long story short, the Italian Government, acting under an ordinance dated 24 December 1996 on the prevention of the spread of TSEs, claimed that the MAFF certification was inadequate, and refused to accept the import of the lambs.

Incidentally, a similar shipment of lambs, which was sent to southern Italy, was accepted until the Rome branch of the Italian veterinary service contacted its representatives in the south. By that time, the consignment had been paid for. To be consistent, the Italian Government should have impounded those sheep, but the sheep had mysteriously disappeared. That consignment was paid for and disappeared, but Mr. Lennox's lambs have never been paid for.

After several days of exchanged faxes, during which time the condition of the lambs deteriorated, all 1,700 were slaughtered for non-food use on the order of the Italian Government. During that exchange, the UK Government made it clear that they considered that the Italian Government were acting illegally. On 14 July, Liana Smith, assistant to the first secretary at the British embassy in Rome, faxed the Italian Ministry of Health, apparently on the instruction of MAFF, stating that MAFF did not accept that the ministerial ordinance of 24 December 1996 was a lawful restriction on trade. Moreover, the fax made it clear that MAFF would write to the European Commission asking it to take legal action against the Italian Government.

In summary, Mr. Lennox is owed £57,000, but ILCO is refusing to pay. Mr. Lennox has therefore issued proceedings in the High Court, but ILCO has filed a defence, which, in effect, blames the Italian Government for what occurred. The substance of the High Court action is not the subject of this debate. I question the UK Government's conduct in this matter, which is not sub judice. What have the Government done to help to remedy the loss suffered by UK businesses—notably that of my constituent—as a result of the Italian Government's legal action?

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Donoughue, wrote to me on 20 July last year, saying that the Italian authorities were shortly to amend their ordinance. He confidently predicted:

"Mr. Lennox will be in a stronger position with regard to pursuing the matter of compensation from the Italian authorities once the Commission has given an opinion on these legal matters."

A new ordinance was brought into force by the Italian Government on 24 August 1998, which replaces the previous one and conforms with Italy's treaty obligations. According to Lord Donoughue, Mr. Lennox is now in that "stronger position" to which his letter referred.

In February, I again wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary, asking his Department to raise the issue with its counterparts in the Italian Government, and to press them to ensure that compensation is paid. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food himself replied. Although he acknowledged that the Government had made representations on the illegality of the now-defunct ordinance, he refused to assist my constituent. The purpose of this debate is simply to ask why.

My constituent has lost a large sum of money through the illegal actions of another Government. Why do the UK Government refuse to help to rectify that injustice? It has had a devastating effect on the viability of Mr. Lennox's business. He has no working capital; he cannot run his business. The suppliers whom he owes in turn are threatening bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Lennox has had to put his farm on the market. Is that what the Government want?

The High Court action against ILCO will take a considerable time to resolve and may finish up in the European Court of Justice, which would take years. The sum in question is dwarfed by the legal costs. Is such a route the only recourse open to British businesses when other Governments flout their obligations under the single market, or does the Minister seriously expect an ordinary Essex farmer to be able to sue the Italian Government without any support from his own Government?

I urge the Government to write to the Italian Government, pressing them to take action to ensure that compensation is paid to Mr. Lennox, and thereby to his suppliers. If that is refused, the UK Government should seek meetings on the matter, ultimately at ministerial level and in the Council of Ministers, involving the Commission, until it is resolved. At the same time, the Government should take a policy decision in support of Mr. Lennox's legal action, with such financial and other help as may be necessary.

The Government cannot dismiss this matter as though it were a private contractual dispute, as the Minister did in his letter of 18 February. This is a matter between Governments. Failure to act one way or the other will mean that the Government are opting for the interests of their political horse trading, rather than for the real trade for which European Community rules were ostensibly established.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on finding a means by which to describe on the Floor of the House his constituent's important case and the circumstances in which he finds himself. As the hon. Gentleman knows from our discussion a few minutes ago, I was hitherto unaware of the specific nature of the issue. In fact, I have come to this debate armed with 1.5 in of briefing material on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies—one can say it if one does not think about it, by the way—in order to explain what is happening in respect of cattle and sheep. To reply with such information would be beyond the bounds of the subject that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and discourteous to him.

I recall the issue of what I call Italian sheep from the middle of 1997, just after we came into government. I remember seeing notes about delays concerning exports of sheep to Italy over which there was an argument. As the hon. Member for North Essex said, he has corresponded with two of my colleagues—Lord Donoughue and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The way in which Mr. Lennox has been treated is very unfair. I do not know how many similar cases there are, although the hon. Gentleman referred to the disappearance of a consignment following payment. As the Government, we took a view that the Italians' actions were unlawful, and made very strong representations to them. The Italians changed their law in December 1996. That went well beyond the Community rules at the time. Indeed, the chief veterinary officer of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food complained to the Italians about it.

The way in which the matter has been left is clearly unsatisfactory. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that further inquiries about this case will be made. I will see whether anything can be done. It does not make sense that a fellow European Union member state can bring in an illegal order that causes British companies to suffer. I suspect that things would be different were matters the other way around. I do not know of other cases, but, although I cannot state that the Government will pay the bill or initiate court action against the Italian Government, the events that the hon. Gentleman described send an unsatisfactory signal to other traders, in all walks of life, who could find themselves in the same difficulties as Mr. Lennox.

Clearly, the Government cannot intervene in the High Court proceedings against the importer of the sheep into Italy. It would not be satisfactory for me simply to tell the hon. Gentleman that we succeeded in persuading the Italian Government to withdraw the relevant order last August, and to imply that the problem has been solved for the future. Mr. Lennox has been left high and dry: although I do not know what the answer is, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's collective view is that the case is one of very unfair treatment of a British trader by another EU member state, which has led to court action.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's caveat about the trade involved, but in fact the nature of the trade is irrelevant. It does not matter whether sheep or car radios were involved: a British exporter has suffered because of the illegal activities of another EU member state Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry will look into the matter further. If need be, I shall advise my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make the strongest possible representations to the Italian Government and indeed to raise the matter face-to-face with them. I shall, of course, report back to the hon. Gentleman on the progress being made.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to say that I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I undertake to furnish whatever additional information might be relevant. However, I fear that more than just the Ministry will be involved, as this is a matter between Governments.

Given the embarrassment that the matter has caused between two member states, some members of the Administration—such individuals are present in all Administrations—will wish to bury the issue and hope that it drifts into the past without becoming a stone in the shoe in the relationship between the British and Italian Governments. I wish to re-emphasise the devastating effect that the problem is having on the livelihoods of Mr. Lennox and his family, and on the north Wales farmers who are affected by it.

It is potentially a tragic case, but it is also unnecessary. I urge the Government, as a matter of policy, to consider giving financial assistance to companies and individuals who have been wronged in the way that I described. The Government should assist in the development of the EU law, because we are in a grey area. If we are to be good Europeans—as I believe that we should—we should encourage speedy mechanisms for the resolution of such disputes. Establishing the necessary legal precedents will require far more impetus than can be provided by a small farmer in Essex taking on the whole EU machinery himself.

I hope that the Minister of State will take action on the policy issues involved around Whitehall and ensure that those who would prefer inconvenient and embarrassing problems such as this simply to go away will not prevail.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the circumstances that he envisaged as a possibility will not arise. There is a policy issue at stake, and I will ensure that it is addressed. I shall report back to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for the additional time that has become available for this debate.

On 12 February 1989, two masked men entered the home of Patrick Finucane and shot him 14 times. He died in front of his three children. His wife Geraldine was also injured, and the Ulster Freedom Fighters claimed responsibility for his murder. It was another brutal atrocity in the saga of killings and violence that has scarred the Six Counties of Northern Ireland for the past 30 years.

However, what is different about Patrick' s murder is that a catalogue of evidence has been amassed that points towards its being the result of collusion between British security and intelligence forces and loyalist terrorist organisations.

The background to the murder appeared to be straightforward. Patrick Finucane was born in 1949, in the Falls road in Belfast. He came from within the Six Counties' Catholic and nationalist tradition. After his family were forced out of their home by loyalists at the start of the troubles, he became a student at Trinity college, Dublin. After completing his degree, he returned to Belfast to study law and eventually qualified as a solicitor. He commenced his practice in 1979.

As a solicitor, he represented Catholic and Protestant alike. However, there is no doubt that he gained a reputation for his highly professional competence in representing members of the nationalist community seeking protection in law from human rights abuses; nor is there any doubt that Patrick and fellow lawyers representing clients seeking to secure their rights in law were resented by certain groups among the authorities.

Less than four weeks before Patrick's murder, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), then an Under-Secretary at the Home Office, said that, in Northern Ireland, there were "a number of solicitors" who were "unduly sympathetic" to the cause of the IRA. He added that that statement was made on the basis of "advice" and "guidance" from people "dealing with the matters".

I do not say this lightly, but I know of no more dangerous a statement to the House from a Minister of the Crown. The statement, in effect, was a declaration to some elements in the loyalist organisations that human rights lawyers in Northern Ireland were legitimate targets. For Patrick Finucane, it was the pronouncement of a sentence of death.

Of course, the statement outraged the nationalist community and the legal profession in Northern Ireland. On the very best interpretation, it was an act of such reckless misjudgment that it put in danger the lives and safety of many brave men and women who were upholding the best traditions of the legal profession in the most adverse conditions.

However, the charges of British state collusion in the murder of Patrick Finucane do not rest on the culpability of a Minister. They rest on a series of disclosures about the British security forces in Northern Ireland that have come to light in recent years. The first such disclosure came with the arrest and conviction of Brian Nelson for conspiracy to murder in the early 1990s, following an inquiry by John Stevens, a Metropolitan police officer. John Stevens was brought into Northern Ireland by the then Government to investigate the release to loyalist paramilitaries of Royal Ulster Constabulary files on supposed suspects, and following the outcry after the murder of Loughlin Maginn.

A summary of the report by Mr. Stevens was released in May 1990, but the full report has never been published. In fact, it is a near-miracle that the report was completed at all. A fire gutted the office of the investigation team, which was sited in heavily guarded RUC barracks outside Carrickfergus. All the files that Stevens had accumulated relating to Brian Nelson were destroyed. Although the Stevens team later stated that they had arranged for the back-up storage of some material before the fire, I believe that not all the files have been fully identified.

Stevens discovered that military intelligence agents were being used in the Ulster Defence Association. Senior British Army officers at first denied that the Army ran any agents at all, but for the first four months of the inquiry they concealed 1,100 documents from the inquiry team. They handed them over only when Brian Nelson revealed their existence to the Stevens team. As a result of the inquiry, two Ulster Defence Regiment members were convicted in relation to the killing of Loughlin Maginn. However, no one was charged with conspiracy to murder—except Brian Nelson, whose central role in the wider picture as an agent of British intelligence was exposed.

The Stevens inquiry exposed Brian Nelson's role as an agent of British military intelligence. He was placed as a senior intelligence officer in the UDA. The Stevens inquiry did not look fully into collusion, as it was restricted to considering the leaking or release of RUC documents to terrorist squads.

Nelson described his role as a British military intelligence agent in his journal, which was exposed on BBC's "Panorama" in June 1992. The information contained in the journal was largely confirmed when classified Army files were brought to light by a journalist, John Ware, in an article in theNew Statesman in 1998. It is clear that Nelson served as a chief intelligence officer of the UDA. He infiltrated the UDA through the actions of the British security forces.

According to a British colonel—Colonel J—who gave evidence at Nelson's trial, the UDA had been persuaded to centralise its targeting of IRA suspects, as they were described, through Nelson. It was persuaded to concentrate on known IRA activists. John Ware, in the New Statesman, described how Nelson operated. He said that Nelson assisted the targeting of IRA activists by compiling personality cards—P cards, as they were called. Those cards listed the target's address, associates and identification details, and they included a photograph.

When a target was selected for assassination—often by Nelson himself—Nelson passed the P card to the hit squad. Nelson, however, often did not know precisely when the assassin would strike. From the moment he passed on the P card, he and the British security handlers had lost control of the exercise.

In the case of Patrick Finucane, Nelson was asked to gather information weeks before the murder. He informed British intelligence officers—his handlers—of the request He passed a photograph of Patrick Finucane to a UDA member, Eric McKee, a few days before the killing. Loyalist sources claim that Nelson reconnoitred the Finucane home with the killers before the attack.

Despite the warning given by Brian Nelson to the British intelligence services, Patrick Finucane was not informed of the threat to his life. A similar and simultaneous threat against another prominent lawyer, Paddy McGrory, was not relayed until two months after Patrick Finucane's death. Nelson was never charged in connection with the killing. His claims have never been examined in open court. No one has been prosecuted for the murder of Patrick Finucane. No one has been charged in connection with the murder, but three men were charged with possession of the murder weapon.

According to Ed Maloney, a journalist, in The Sunday Tribune, the man who asked Nelson for the photograph of Pat Finucane, and who was subsequently taken to the Finucane home by Nelson, was the head of the UDA's murder gangs. That man served a sentence for possession of scores of leaked documents, along with four others. One of the four was the UDA leader, Tommy Lyttle. All were arrested by the Stevens inquiry team. As at the Nelson trial, a deal was struck preventing full details of collusion between British forces and loyalist murder gangs from coming out in open court.

The Stevens inquiry did not, unfortunately, interview Patrick Finucane's widow, his partner, Peter Madden of the Madden and Finucane legal team, or any of the clients to whom threats had been made against Patrick Finucane. Since the original Stevens investigation, there have been many calls for a further inquiry based on the examination of the available evidence by various bodies.

In April 1998, Param Cumaraswamy, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, set out a special review of the Patrick Finucane murder in his report on Northern Ireland. He stated:

"Although some pointed out that this was only one of hundreds of unresolved murders, the murder of Patrick Finucane is of a different nature. As a high profile lawyer who had tremendous success representing his clients, both before domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights, his murder had a chilling effect on the profession and further undermined public confidence in the judicial system. Solicitors informed the Special Rapporteur that the murder led them either to give up criminal practice entirely or to alter the manner in which they handled terrorist related cases. Thus, the defendant's right to counsel was compromised. It was also learnt that several lawyers armed themselves for self-defence and their houses were equipped with security devices.

Principle 17 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provides, 'where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.' If it is true that Brian Nelson informed military intelligence of the UDA's intent to murder Patrick Finucane, as Nelson claims in his prison diary and which seems to be corroborated by the testimony of Colonel J at Nelson's trial, then the Government has violated its duty to safeguard Patrick Finucane. Further, this omission would constitute a violation of article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The outstanding questions surrounding the murder of Patrick Finucane demonstrate the need for an independent judicial inquiry. So long as this murder is unresolved, many in the community will continue to lack confidence in the ability of the Government to dispense justice in a fair and equitable manner."

The rapporteur also revealed that, before Patrick Finucane's murder, Patrick had received a number of death threats from RUC officers, mainly delivered through his clients. One client, Brian Gillen, who received compensation for ill-treatment suffered while in detention, has testified that he was told by an RUC officer, following the filing of a habeas corpus petition by Patrick Finucane, that

"it would be better if he were dead than defending the likes of you."

The RUC threatened to give details of the solicitor and his client to loyalist paramilitaries.

Following Patrick Finucane's defence of Gillen, other clients have testified, numerous death threats were made against him by the RUC. He is reported to have received threatening phone calls at home. On 5 January 1989, five weeks before his death, one client alleged that an RUC officer

"informed me that my solicitor was working for the IRA, and would meet his end also … He asked me to give Mr. Finucane a message from him … He told me to tell him he is a thug in a suit, a person trying to let on he is doing his job and that he, like every other fenian… bastard, would meet his end."

In January 1999, Mr. Cumaraswamy reiterated his call for a public inquiry. In a further report, the UN rapporteur made clear his view that the Government might have misunderstood the reason for his call for an inquiry. His concern over the murder was over doubts about state collusion—that is, military or RUC collusion. In materials that he had seen, he said, there was at least prima facie evidence of such collusion.

Mr. Cumaraswamy reiterated his earlier call for a royal commission of inquiry into the murder. In his view, on behalf of the UN,

"Only such an inquiry could finally lay to rest the lingering doubts about this brutal murder, which has had a chilling effect on the independence of the legal profession in Northern Ireland."

The Finucane family has submitted papers to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland listing further information on Patrick Finucane's murder. The Irish Government have examined those papers, and, according to David McKittrick in The Independent on Monday, in a letter to the British Government, enclosing documentary evidence, the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister said:

"I believe the case for a public inquiry is compelling. The allegations serve to undermine confidence in the rule of law. In my view, they can only be answered with confidence — one way or the other—through the mechanism of a public inquiry."

The evidence is building, as is pressure for a public inquiry. There is support for the UN call for an independent judicial inquiry from, among others, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation of Human Rights, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the Committee on Administration of Justice, British Irish Rights Watch and the Law Society of England and Wales.

We are aware that John Stevens has reopened his inquiry and we welcome that, but there is a general view that confidence can be restored only by a full public inquiry. The breadth of the evidence of intelligence collusion between British forces, the RUC and loyalist terrorist squads in the murder of Patrick Finucane demands that sort of public inquiry, but the evidence goes further: it demonstrates that while he was an agent for military intelligence sources Brian Nelson played a role in the supply of arms from South Africa to loyalist murder squads; that he informed his intelligence handlers two years in advance of the supply of the arms; and that, although there was a sweep to obtain those arms, only some were obtained by the security forces and others are being used even today by loyalist murder squads.

Our view is that all the allegations of collusion between the British state and loyalist murder squads warrant inquiry, but I am using today's debate to call for an inquiry specifically into the death of Patrick Finucane. We believe that the Stevens inquiry would be usefully supplemented by a public inquiry summoned by invoking the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921, as we had in respect of the investigation of Bloody Sunday.

We all believe that peace requires confidence building. The nationalist community and all those who are searching for a just peace have been battered by the deaths of so many of those who stood up for human rights, including Patrick Finucane and, more recently, Rosemary Nelson. The Irish community in this country and in Ireland have been offended by last week's failure to prosecute anyone for the killing Diarmuid O'Neill and by the long-standing refusal to reach for truth in the case of Patrick Finucane by way of a full public inquiry. Today, I urge the Government to act, not only to secure prosecutions, but to ensure that we arrive at a full and thorough understanding of what happened to Patrick Finucane. If, as we suspect, his death came as a result of collusion between security forces and loyalist murder gangs, that should be exposed, because that exposure will enable us to build the confidence that we need for peace.

Just as a truth commission was established in South Africa, perhaps the search for peace in Northern Ireland will require the establishment of a series of truth commissions to investigate different cases and different issues that affect the whole community. We have appealed for all terrorist organisations to identify the location of the graves of all those who disappeared, so that their families know what happened to them and their minds can be put at rest. If the Lawrence inquiry taught us any lessons, it must be the prime importance of listening to the families of those who have been lost; that is the wish of the Finucane family.

I hope that the Minister will offer a constructive response to the debate. I have seen today's reports in The Independent that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is trying to secure the fullest possible inquiry into the case and that she seeks prosecutions of those who murdered Patrick Finucane. However, I hope that we have not closed our minds to the potential of a full public inquiry, for in that way we may be able to expose the range of collusion that went on.

Let me give one further example. The supply of arms from South Africa to loyalist groups increased the number of assassinations; that was one of the roles played by Brian Nelson. In the six years before the arrival of the South African arms, between 1982 and 1987, 71 people were killed by loyalist murder groups; in the following six years, between 1988 and 1994, 229 people were killed—an increase of more than 300 per cent. Yet British intelligence were given two years' notice of the supply of those arms by Brian Nelson. I believe that there was a degree of collusion involved in the murder of Patrick Finucane that must be exposed, and that doing so might expose a level of collusion that we never dared to expect from the British security services, serving in the name of the British Crown.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has spoken of a tragic event—the murder 10 years ago of Patrick Finucane in front of his family. As he says, a further police inquiry into the murder of Mr. Finucane was announced last week. I shall say more about the background to that investigation in a moment, but the point I need to stress is that I shall not be able to comment on the substance of the issues that are being investigated, as I have to ensure that I say or do nothing that would impede the police inquiry, or any possible future prosecutions. In addition, in relation to the murder, there are on-going civil proceedings in the courts in Northern Ireland, which severely limit how much the Government can say; and there is an on-going case in Strasbourg under the European convention on human rights. Because of that, my hon. Friend will understand why I have to be circumspect in my comments in this debate.

The Government unreservedly condemn the brutal murder of Mr. Finucane, and we are determined that all necessary steps should be taken to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. Certain allegations have been made against the security forces in relation to the murder; likewise, we are determined to ensure that all the allegations are fully and fairly investigated and are seen to be so. As I have mentioned, a police investigation into the murder and related issues is under way, but that does not mean that the Government have closed their mind on what additional action, if any, is necessary in relation to the case. All options remain open. Nothing has been ruled out.

It might be helpful if I were to outline in more detail the background to the recent developments in respect of the murder of Mr. Finucane.

When my right hon. Friend says that no option has been ruled out, he is explicitly stating that the option of holding a full public inquiry has not been ruled out at this stage.

That is correct, and I shall stress that again later in my speech.

To return to the background of the case, Patrick Finucane, a Belfast solicitor, was murdered in February 1989. The murder was investigated by the police at the time and, although the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone for murder, three people were charged with and convicted of possession of one of the weapons used in the attack and received sentences of two, three and four years respectively. As my hon. Friend says, unease about the background to the murder has not gone away, and it has been the focus of an on-going campaign over the years.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Mr. Finucane's widow, Geraldine, on 12 February 1999 and took receipt of a document that contained alleged new evidence prepared by British Irish Rights Watch about the murder of Mr. Finucane. My right hon. Friend gave an assurance that the document would be examined fully, and that is now being done. The Irish Government have now written to us with their assessment of the document—an assessment that has now been widely published, although it would have been inappropriate to discuss the content of that assessment during this debate. My right hon. Friend met Mrs. Finucane again this morning; she also plans to meet the Irish Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs to discuss the Irish Government's representation. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday:

"I take the situation very, very seriously. I am determined that no option will be excluded. Be assured, I am not going to leave the issue alone… I am not going to let this drop."

Let me now explain the process involved in the examination of the material. After receiving the document, the Government sent it to the RUC and to Mr. John Stevens, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, asking for their views on the significance of the material. Because the material contained allegations of criminal offences having taken place, we also passed it to the Law Officers. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in turn received a copy of the report from the Law Officers.

The Director wrote to the Chief Constable of the RUC on 16 March in regard to the report, asking the Chief Constable to inform him whether it contained facts and information in respect of offences alleged to have been committed against the law of Northern Ireland, which had not been the subject of investigation and report to him, whether by Mr. Stevens or any member of the RUC, and which required investigation by the police. The Director also asked to be informed whether the report contained additional facts and information in regard to offences alleged to have been committed against the law of Northern Ireland which had been the subject of investigation and report to him, whether by Mr. Stevens or any member of the RUC, and which required further investigation by the police.

I recognise that some have criticised the Government for referring the paper to the RUC and Mr. Stevens. However, in doing so, we were not only following up the most effective lines of inquiry to assess the material, but we were legally obliged—I want to stress this —to pass to the police any evidence of criminal offences having been committed. Practical and legal imperatives therefore required us to act in this way. The way in which the RUC then carries out its own criminal investigations is for the Chief Constable to decide, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to interfere in that process. That does not mean that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ruled out the option of an independent public inquiry.

As I stated earlier in response to an intervention, that option remains open. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is determined to keep developments under review and will not hesitate to act if she concludes that the public interest and the interests of justice require her to do so. For now, however, it is right that the possibility of bringing those responsible to justice in the courts should be pursued.

The Chief Constable announced on 19 March that the British Irish Rights Watch paper had been referred by him to Mr. Stevens for investigation. Mr. Stevens then made an announcement on 28 April about his remit. He said that he would be investigating the murder of Mr. Finucane and associated matters raised by the British Irish Rights Watch report and the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Param Cumaraswamy.

In order to progress his investigation, Mr. Stevens has set up an independent team of investigators, with current and former officers from the Metropolitan police service and the Northumbria constabulary. He has called for anyone who can provide information to get in touch. I reiterate and re-emphasise that call today. If people want this investigation brought to a successful conclusion, they should co-operate fully with those responsible for carrying out the investigation.

While there are no RUC officers on his team—

Does the Minister think that it would be better if Mrs. Finucane also spoke to Mr. Stevens?

I think that I have made things clear. I have said that anyone who has any information—it is not for me to assess whether someone has information—or who thinks that he or she can help Mr. Stevens in his inquiry, from whatever quarter, should do so. That will help in bringing to justice those responsible for the murder.

I was about to comment on the fact that while there are no RUC officers on Mr. Stevens's team, Mr. Stevens explained that it would have access to RUC information and resources as necessary to support the investigation.

In September 1989, Mr. Stevens, then deputy chief constable of Cambridgeshire, had been appointed by the then RUC Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Annesley, to inquire into allegations of breaches of security by the security forces in Northern Ireland. Mr. Stevens's team had not previously investigated the murder of Mr. Finucane itself, but information emerging from the previous investigations had linked individuals involved in those investigations to the murder.

Mr. Stevens's first investigation had begun after the theft of photo-montages from a Belfast police station. It resulted in 43 convictions and more than 800 years of imprisonment for those convicted. The report of that investigation contained more than 100 recommendations for the handling of security documents and information. All were accepted and they have now been implemented. To quote from the published summary of Mr. Stevens's report, the analysis of the evidence

"makes it clear that the passing of information to paramilitaries by security force members has been restricted to a small number of individuals. It is neither widespread nor institutionalised."

I would ask my right hon. Friend to take back to the Government and the Law Officers who would be involved in the decision on this matter the message that part of the restoration of confidence in the overall investigatory processes in Northern Ireland would be assisted by the publication of the full Stevens report rather than just the summary.

That predates this Government taking office. In any event, the documents refer to highly sensitive intelligence material. If they had been put in the public domain, they could have put at risk the lives of those who are acting in the interests of us all in the defence of democracy. Very difficult decisions have to be taken by Governments in the pursuit of democracy and in the defence of it against determined paramilitary and terrorist forces. However, if there is some form of inquiry, public or otherwise—as I have said, nothing is ruled out— it becomes a matter of deciding at that time what is published and what goes into the public domain. I am not at liberty at this stage to say that that should or could happen. It remains a matter for the authorities at that time.

In 1993, following further allegations that had been made, Mr. Stevens was again asked by the then Chief Constable to investigate further matters which related solely to the initial inquiry. Mr. Stevens's second report to the Chief Constable was considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who concluded that the evidence was insufficient for any further prosecutions to be brought. As I have said, the fact that the new investigation has been established very much limits what I can say about the substance of the recent allegations surrounding the murder of Mr. Finucane. I hope that the current police investigation will leave us in a better position to assess what further action, if any, we need to take.

I emphasise again that no options have been ruled out. That means that a public inquiry has not been excluded as a possible outcome. It is important that every support and encouragement is given to the police in carrying out the current investigation to bring to justice those who murdered Mr. Finucane.

One of the issues raised in discussions about the potential for an inquiry is the nature of that inquiry. The United Nations rapporteur has made it clear that he would welcome a judicial inquiry. Are there any plans to meet the UN representatives to discuss the potential of an inquiry as an option, and the nature of the inquiry—for example, whether the inquiry should be judicial, whether it should have an international element or whether any other steps should be taken that would at least move the process on in reassuring the UN rapporteur that the Government have taken this matter seriously?

I know of no plans at present to do so. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met Mr. Cumaraswamy. He was very satisfied with the way in which the Government were dealing with the issues that he raised at that time. I have probably said about three times that nothing has been ruled out. I do not think I can say that more clearly. Therefore, further meetings with those who have expressed an interest in this matter may prove beneficial if we move into that phase in dealing with the issue.

The Minister says that nothing has been ruled out. As everyone in Northern Ireland knows, the Finucane family is a strong republican family. Mrs. Finucane has made it clear that she will not work with the RUC. She has now rejected the English police as well. She refuses to speak to Mr. Stevens. Has the Minister not destroyed Mr. Stevens's inquiry already by saying that nothing else is ruled out? There is no need to speak to Mr. Stevens now because the Minister has already said that he is going to go ahead beyond that.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to put words into my mouth. Clearly, we do not know what Mr. Stevens will report on. I think that it is appropriate, therefore, to say that nothing has been ruled out. It may lead to a requirement to proceed in the way that has been suggested during the debate or in another way, which would then be defined, based on what information was available. The statement that Mr. Finucane's family are a well-known republican family does not justify the murder of a member of that family. When we put labels on people, we must be careful about the possible consequences.

In no way am I saying that that is an excuse for a murder. I deplore all murders. I was nearly murdered myself, as the Minister may know. What I am saying is that the family are one of the strongest republican families in Northern Ireland, who despise all police, whether they are RUC or English police. They have now said that they will not co-operate with Mr. Stevens. By saying that he will look beyond to an independent inquiry, the Minister has cut away the credibility of the Stevens inquiry, and people will no longer co-operate with it.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A statement has been made in the House about a certain family despising the police, but no evidence has been presented in the Chamber. When statements were made about the Finucane family 10 years ago, Patrick Finucane's life was put at risk and he eventually lost it. I believe that we should caution right hon. and hon. Members to be careful with their words when we are dealing with such matters. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) should know that full well, with his wealth of experience.

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but all hon. Members should take care about the language that they use in debates such as this.

All I am saying is that Mrs. Finucane herself has said that she will not co-operate with Mr. Stevens.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point.

The right hon. Gentleman has indeed made his point, and I am glad that he was able to correct any false impression that may have arisen from the way in which he phrased his remarks. I am not suggesting that he set out to create a particular impression, but it is important to put on record that, in a democracy, the fact that someone has certain labels put on him and takes a view on the institutions of the state does not justify action by paramilitaries to murder any member of our society. We have a duty of care for all members of our society, irrespective of how they view that society. That is the strength of the democracy that we seek to uphold in the House.

Before that exchange, I was about to conclude my remarks. It is important that we give every support and encouragement to the police. The best way that anyone who has information can bring people to justice is to co-operate with the police. It does not undermine Mr. Stevens's inquiry one iota to say that we must consider the possible consequences of his report. It would be wrong to rule anything out, as we do not yet know the contents of his report.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for initiating the debate. It has allowed me the opportunity to put on record the thoroughness with which the issue has been tackled by the Government and the RUC. We owe that to the Finucane family and to the rule of law.

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on a subject which, through their case work, affects a large number of hon. Members. I appreciate the Minister for Transport in London replying to the debate. I have consulted several disablement groups, and all were positive about and appreciative of the knowledge and understanding of their transport problems that she has shown.

The angle from which I shall approach this issue is in one sense narrow. I am concerned, as are most hon. Members, with cases that fall just outside the eligibility criteria, but I do not want to lose sight of the bigger picture as I discuss the specifics. Orange badges are important because access for disabled people is crucial for employment, for shopping and for living a normal life. Access means mobility—and mobility, for almost all of them, means a private car, because the public transport system has not yet adapted to the problems of disablement.

I believe that the regulations applying to buses and to taxis will not fully come into effect until 2017 and 2012 respectively. Even for disabled people who can reach access points, buses and taxis are not practical options. The private car is the key to access and mobility and, in the urban and suburban environments that I represent, that means access to parking, so the orange badge concept is absolutely crucial.

Although I shall discuss a particular aspect of this issue, I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little about the Government's broad approach to the orange badge scheme. It was reviewed in 1989—which led to changes being made in 1991—and again in 1996, specifically in relation to enforcement. Perhaps she will bring us up to date on the Government's thinking. To the best of my knowledge, the orange badge scheme has not been discussed in this Parliament; I may have been inadequately briefed, but that is my understanding.

Although I shall argue for some broadening of the eligibility criteria in one or two cases, I recognise the dilemma—the tension—in this whole problem; it was brought home strongly to me by the disablement groups. Some cases, such as those of which I am aware, fall just outside the eligibility rules. They are hard cases, and my instincts are to seek a widening of the scheme for the benefit of those individuals. However, I recognise that the authorities, the Government and the disablement organisations are concerned, above all, with the integrity of the scheme. That is an important objective in itself.

Fears have been expressed about the proliferation of badges, abuse of the scheme and the system falling into disrepute if it is widened too much. I understand and sympathise with those fears; I certainly do not want to propose anything that would undermine the integrity of the scheme and thereby affect the seriously disabled badge users who take full advantage of it.

As I move to a discussion of the specific categories that I want to raise, it may be useful to hit upon a few of the key trends, which bring the conflict between the broadening of the scheme and its integrity into sharper relief. The first trend, as the Minister well knows, is the considerable increase in the number of badges. I tabled a parliamentary question to her a few weeks ago and the answer suggested that the number had increased from slightly under 1 million in 1989 to about 1.7 million.

I understand that that figure may now have reached 2 million, so it has doubled over a decade and a substantial number of vehicles—probably one in 10 of those on the road — have orange badge specification. My question, to which I do not know the answer, is whether that number is appropriate and whether research has been carried out into whether the disabled community as a whole is fully utilising the scheme.

My research suggests that about 4.5 million people are seriously physically disabled, and they obviously fall into the category of being eligible for the orange badge scheme, so slightly less than 50 per cent. of disabled people are covered. A lot of disabled people are old, live in rural areas or do not have cars, and they would not want to take advantage of the scheme. However, it would be useful to know whether the number of people taking up badges is appropriate, given the incidence of serious physical disability.

Some estimates of the number of disabled people go way beyond 4.5 million and it would be interesting to know whether sample surveys have been carried out in particular areas in respect of supply and demand for facilities for the disabled.

The second trend is abuse. I hear and read in the press apocryphal stories—and also real examples—of abuse of the scheme. I understand that a key objective must be the prevention of abuse and that any fresh look at eligibility criteria, if there is to be one, must not open the scheme to more abuse than already occurs.

I appreciate that abuse can occur in several ways. For example, general practitioners may be excessively liberal in their approach. It is difficult for doctors to say no, just as it is difficult for Members of Parliament to say no, when people ask for help. Perhaps the GP system is excessively liberal, but I find that difficult to believe as I have come across many cases of doctors refusing what seem to be plausible requests for orange badges.

Similarly, it is alleged that many local councils find it difficult to say no and award orange badges too freely. Again, from my experience, I find that a little difficult to believe —certainly of the area for which I am the Member of Parliament. The local authority is quite tough in its issuing policy and many cases of what seem, at first sight, to be unreasonable refusals come to me. Local citizens advice bureaux and other agencies—not only in my area, but in others—report how difficult it often is for those who fall within the eligibility criteria to get orange badges. There may be abuse, but it is certainly tempered by severe application of the rules elsewhere.

There may be abuse by disabled people themselves. We all hear stories of cars with orange badges pulling into parking bays and fit young people bounding out. No doubt some disabled people give their badges to relatives, but such incidents occur simply because many disabilities are episodic. People who have rheumatoid arthritis are more active in some periods than in others. I am sceptical about many of the claims of abuse, and I should be interested to know the Government's assessment of the scale of the problem and of how seriously we need to take it when we consider eligibility criteria. The next broad trend that I want to sketch as background to particular cases is what appears to be—and what the disabled associations believe to be—a breakdown of the national scheme. Implementation of the disabled orange badge scheme locally appears, in some cases, to be resulting in different councils adopting radically different philosophies in their approach to it. We know that green badges are being issued in some local authority areas, for the benefit of local residents as opposed to orange badge holders from elsewhere. A tougher regime is being applied and the scheme has never applied at all in other areas, such as central London.

It is not immediately obvious to me why Kensington and Chelsea, for example, should be exempt from the scheme; its parking problems are quite serious, but so are those in my part of suburban London. I am sure that there are serious problems in Hampstead and Highgate as well. We need to consider why orange badge schemes apply in some areas but not in others, and why the rules are more severe in some areas than in others. That is the context in which I want to place the discussion about eligibility criteria.

This issue has been raised before in the House, but not in this Parliament. It was confronted in 1994 by the late John Watts, when he was Minister responsible, and representations on widening the criteria were made by hon. Members. I want to return to some of the issues that he raised.

There seem to be two broad problem areas and I have encountered both in my work as a constituency Member of Parliament. The first is that of temporarily disabled people. Some people might be described as temporarily disabled for what appear to be trivial reasons. For example, someone may have broken his leg in a skiing accident or injured himself playing football. Clearly, I would not want the scheme to be extended to cover such cases. However, there are other cases of temporary disablement, such as that of the woman in Twickenham who came to me for help. She had been walking along the road and a car had hit her and badly crushed her legs. She is still immobile after 21 months—she tried to walk with difficulty on crutches. She clearly falls within the criteria of substantial disablement, but because she is not permanently disabled the council would not issue her with an orange badge.

Another case is that of a woman with serious cancer. She is undergoing cancer therapy, which has the effect, as does the disease, of greatly weakening her so that she is not mobile and cannot walk 100 yd. She needs help, but cannot get it because that disease is curable and thus the disability is temporary. She does not fall within the disability criteria that the legislation requires. There are also people with arthritic conditions, who are waiting for hip replacement operations. That takes a long time. I am sure that the Government's health policy will improve that over time, but people wait for one or two years for hip replacement operations and, in the meantime, they cannot avail themselves of orange badges because they are only temporarily disabled.

Can the Minister do anything about those categories of people? One suggestion is to issue for one or two years orange badges that would be returnable thereafter. Clearly, the flexibility that local councils have would enable them to judge the severity of particular cases.

The second problem area is of a different kind. It covers people with diseases that clearly do not fit into the conventional definition of "physical disability". I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with Crohn's disease, but it is a serious bowel disorder, such that people must have immediate access to public conveniences. It is a very distressing condition. Although it is not physical disablement in the normal sense, for those with severe manifestations of that illness easy access to parking is absolutely critical. Certain variants of epilepsy have similar implications.

If some of those diseases, which I believe are known to the Government—epilepsy, certain forms of mental illness, Crohn's disease and other bowel disorders—were encompassed in the scheme, we would be talking about large numbers of people and I understand why the authorities would not wish to widen the scheme indefinitely in that way. However, I should have thought that with an independent medical panel to hear appeals against local authority decisions and to look at cases flexibly, there might be some way of offering relief to those concerned.

Do the Government plan to address the question of the eligibility criteria? If they do, it must be done in a way that balances liberalisation against the danger of abuse. Do the Government propose to introduce the changes that were recommended in 1996 for a tougher enforcement code for orange badges; and if so, when? It was proposed that police officers and traffic wardens should be entitled to look at the identification of badge holders and that it should be mandatory for disabled people with orange badges to show them. That would be one way of cutting down on abuse while being flexible in other respects.

In a more general spirit, may I ask the Minister whether this whole area, which I accept is a vexed and difficult one because of the competing pressures, will be reviewed by the Government?

I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for affording the House the opportunity to debate an issue that is of particular importance to many disabled people.

As we acknowledged in our White Paper, for many severely disabled people the private car is the only viable transport option. However, its value would be greatly reduced, if not lost entirely, if disabled motorists were unable to park as close as possible to their destination. That is the primary purpose of the orange badge scheme, which enables people with severe mobility difficulties to park close to the places that they need or want to visit. Research demonstrates clearly that the mobility range of severely disabled people can be as little as 50 m, so even having to park 100 m or so away from one's workplace or from shops may make the journey extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible. The orange badge scheme is therefore vital in enabling the day-to-day activities that non-disabled people take for granted.

The scheme was first introduced in 1971 and, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been reviewed twice since then, the last review being completed in 1992. Eligibility for an orange badge is governed by the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1982, which were subject to wide public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. To qualify for a badge a person must either be in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance or a war pensioner's mobility supplement; use a motor vehicle supplied by a Government health Department; be registered blind; have a severe disability in both upper limbs; regularly drive but be unable to turn a steering wheel by hand—even if that wheel is fitted with a steering knob; or have a permanent and substantial disability, which means that he or she cannot walk or has very considerable difficulty in walking. That last category is known as the "discretionary criteria".

It is clear from that list that eligibility is fairly tightly controlled, yet, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the number of badges issued over the past decade has risen dramatically, from 929,000 to 1.7 million—an increase of over 80 per cent. That total number bears no relation whatever to the proportion of the population that is disabled —some 10 to 12 per cent.; nor is the increase supported by a corresponding increase in the number of cars over the same period, although I recognise that not all badge holders are drivers.

That increase has prompted much concern, not least from our own statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the majority of whose members are disabled people. The committee recently submitted to me a report that recommends that we review the scope of the scheme with a view to tightening up the eligibility and revising the administration of the scheme.

DPTAC is particularly concerned about the application of the discretionary criteria. Its concern has been prompted by the fact that only a third of badges are issued "as of right" under the specific criteria that I outlined earlier. DPTAC's view is that the discretionary criteria are being applied too widely and should be restricted to people over the age of 65 years who would otherwise have qualified for the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance.

One of DPTAC's proposals is that an applicant's GP should be removed from direct involvement in the process. Many local authorities considering applications under the discretionary criteria consult the GP for further information. DPTAC's view is that there should be some form of independent assessment, either by another doctor or by a qualified health professional.

It is not just the issuing process that has come under scrutiny by DPTAC. Like those of us in the Department, it is also concerned about the apparent abuse of the system—another matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The badge design already has a photograph of the holder, but we have not yet been able to introduce the legislative changes to provide the enforcement authorities with the powers to inspect badges. That gives rise to scope for unscrupulous people to use a badge belonging to someone else—often an elderlym relative—and thus to enjoy the parking privileges that the scheme provides. That is unacceptable, and we have made it clear that we shall introduce the necessary legislation to allow inspection of badges as soon as parliamentary time allows.

DPTAC wants local authorities to strengthen their response to the abuse issue. It has recommended that local authorities should take a firm line with disabled people who knowingly allow their badge to be used by someone else, including withdrawing the badge altogether in cases of persistent abuse.

I recognise that DPTAC's recommendations have arisen from genuine concern about the effectiveness of the scheme. Although I share that concern, I am not as yet convinced of the need for a wholesale review of the scheme, as DPTAC has suggested. We have, however, undertaken a survey of issuing authorities to gather more information about how they are currently administering the scheme, particularly in relation to the discretionary criteria. I shall want to consider very carefully the information that is provided before deciding what, if any, further action is necessary.

Having set out the current position and explained our concerns and those of our advisers, I now turn to the particular concerns of the hon. Member for Twickenham, who has suggested that, far from narrowing eligibility, the scheme could perhaps be extended to cover people with temporary disabilities and those with specific conditions affecting their mobility.

I am very sympathetic to the problems faced by people with temporary disabilities, and I have certainly received other representations suggesting that the regulations should be relaxed to accommodate them. Currently, the regulations allow for badges to be issued only for a three-year period. We are not convinced that extending the scheme to allow badges to be issued for shorter periods would be in the best interests of the many thousands of severely disabled people for whom the scheme is an essential part of their mobility.

As I have said, there has already been a dramatic increase in the number of badges. Widening the eligibility criteria would inevitably mean a further rise in numbers. That would contribute to further traffic congestion in town centres, and could become self-defeating if it encouraged more local authorities to introduce local parking schemes that benefit only disabled people resident in their area. A number of local authorities have already introduced such schemes, which have attracted considerable criticism from disabled people residing outside those areas, as they are no longer able to access their town centres.

A significant rise in the number of badges would also make it more difficult for the police and traffic wardens to enforce the national scheme. The associations representing local highway authorities, whose members would have to operate the extended scheme, are opposed to the introduction of temporary badges.

From what I have said already about DPTAC, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that it, too, shares those concerns, and fears that a move to extend eligibility would lead to the erosion of the benefits for those who currently qualify. It has emphasised the importance of ensuring that the rules of the scheme restrict eligibility to the permanently disabled people who rely on a badge to have at least some of the freedom of movement that non-disabled people enjoy.

It has also been suggested that there could be a two-tier system with a different coloured badge for people with temporary disabilities. Again, that would be difficult for local authorities to administer, and would make enforcement even more difficult for the police and traffic wardens. A two-tier system would also run counter to our decision to implement the European Commission's recommendation for a standard design of parking card for disabled people.

The new badge, which will be blue, will be introduced in this country from 1 January 2000, and all badges will have been replaced by 2003. It will be recognised by all other member states, and will provide disabled people with the assurance that while travelling anywhere in the European Union they will be able to enjoy the parking concessions that apply to disabled people in each member state. The recommendation does not affect the eligibility criteria or the parking privileges that operate in each member state.

Returning to the United Kingdom scheme, I am aware that some authorities issue badges to people awaiting surgery, such as a hip replacement—a point made by the hon. Gentleman. They do so on the basis that, until surgery has taken place, those people are, in effect, permanently disabled. I understand that approach, but, in my view, it would not be appropriate to set national rules in this area. The effect of such conditions vary considerably. Setting eligibility criteria around particular conditions regardless of their effects would increase the demand for parking spaces reserved for disabled people, and could disfranchise the most severely disabled people who rely on them.

One such condition, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which I know is of particular concern to him, is Crohn's disease. Although I recognise that the condition can be debilitating, those with the disease would be eligible for a badge only if their walking ability was also permanently, not just intermittently, affected. The issuing authority is best placed to make that judgment—supported of course by medical evidence—and to decide whether the applicant qualifies for a badge.

I realise that this may seem harsh to those who are outside the scope of the scheme, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that for severely disabled people, who view the scheme as a lifeline, the main concern is to ensure that it does not become so over-subscribed as to minimise or even negate the benefits to them. They have already been disadvantaged in areas where local authorities have introduced their own badges in response to the increasing number of orange badge holders. They are anxious that that practice should not extend to other authorities.

The orange badge scheme is, without doubt, a key element in the independent mobility of many severely disabled people. Without the badge, many people would be unable to go about their day-to-day business. It is, therefore, vital that the eligibility criteria for an orange badge should be tightly controlled, and that issuing authorities take great care in processing applications to make sure that those who receive a badge are those who have the greatest need for one. I am afraid, therefore, that I can offer the hon. Gentleman little hope that the scheme will be widened to bring people with temporary disabilities within its remit; nor are we likely to specify specific conditions in the guidance that we issue to local authorities to assist them with their administration of the scheme.