"Dignity at Work" is the affirmative title that has been given to trade union campaigns and two successive Bills to establish a legislative framework to ensure dignity and respect for everyone in the workplace. My direct involvement began, as so often for Members of Parliament, with a constituent's telephone call about being undermined, passed over for promotion, leaving and bringing a case for constructive dismissal. Such cases are distressing, but may initially lead one to question whether there was a clash of personalities, a misunderstanding or a lack of confidence. However, I soon reflected on the fact that I had other such cases; inquiries among friends and colleagues led to other cases coming to the fore. Such personal and workplace examples are often told with a sense of relief that at last someone is concerned.

I was aware of the general extent of the problem without knowing the details until November 2001—I first applied for this debate in July 2001—when Manchester School of Management at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology published a report entitled "Destructive Conflict and Bullying at Work". That survey was the result of responses from more than 5,000 people in 70 workplaces. It showed that one in 10 people—10 per cent. —had experienced bullying during the previous six months and one in four —25 per cent.—had experienced bullying during the previous five years. Bullying turned out to be particularly prevalent in the Prison Service, post and telecommunications and teaching. Since then, I have received further evidence from trade unions confirming that, despite years of campaigns against bullying, it remains a persistent and extensive problem. Far from going away, it seems to be intractable.

I want to thank Amicus-MSF and, especially, Chris Ball, the national secretary, for bringing the matter to public attention and for producing good material for the use of its members and officers, and draft policies for employers and organisations. It has extensive experience and states:

"We have organised conferences and training events and struggled to make sense of a phenomenon which blights the lives of millions of workers. The size of the problem cannot be overstated."

The Work Foundation and, in particular, Angela Ishmael, also deserve credit for the research, campaigning and consultancy that have helped to raise awareness and to prevent bullying at work. The Work Foundation defines bullying as

"offensive behaviour through vindictive, cruel, malicious or humiliating attempts to undermine the competence, effectiveness, confidence or integrity of an individual or a group of employees on a regular or persistent basis."

The contribution of the Andrea Adams Trust, the first charity to be set up to deal specifically with workplace bullying, should also be highlighted. It offers a national telephone helpline which, since it started in 1997, has provided a welcome source of help for thousands of people and a lifeline, literally, for some.

Linda Roy, whom I heard recently at a conference, was a postlady for 20 years and then, with the support of the Communication Workers Union, worked on a helpline for post office workers. Her stories bring tears to the eyes and include two suicides, so the matter is serious.

Trade unions, including CWU, the Public and Commercial Services Union, and Unison, offer training and support for their members. All recognise the value of dignity-at-work polices and the need for a legislative framework. Indeed, the Labour party, with its links with trade unions, has also recognised the need for further action. It stated in its manifesto:

"We are committed to working with managers and employees to reduce the problem of bullying and violence in the workplace".

It went on to recognise that, particularly in the public sector where the Government have their main responsibility, it is important to improve the quality of work for employees and to help with recruitment and retention, stemming from the need to prevent bullying at work. Yet, so far, there has been no legislation, although the Government should be commended for improving employment legislation. Work conditions have undoubtedly improved under the Government. The introduction of the minimum wage, the part-time workers directive, the increase in the length and payment of maternity pay and the start of paid paternity leave all add up to an improvement in conditions for workers.

There is some legislation on the statute book, but it covers sexual, racial and disability discrimination. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 do not cover the persistent intimidation, undermining or malicious acts so often described to us in our surgeries and to trade unions and for which there is no immediate remedy. That complex set of legislation is difficult for any individual and, indeed, trade union representative to wade through to find the relevant sections for this general and extensive form of abuse.

Why have we made no further progress? The most frequently given reason for the lack of legislation is that bullying is extremely hard to define.

Does my hon. Friend recall receiving a letter from a constituent of mine, who also sent it to me, making exactly that point: some employers evade their responsibility to employees because it is difficult to define bullying? What areas does she believe can be tackled in the first instance to provide an all-encompassing definition of bullying? That might be difficult to achieve.

I am grateful for that contribution, which, I am sure, echoes the experience of many hon. Members who have come here today to provide support. I acknowledge that it will be difficult to draw up the legal definition of bullying, but it will be no greater than the difficulty of defining sexual or racial harassment. The purpose of considering Bills in Committee is to tease out the legal framework and definition.

The Department for Education and Skills has worked on anti-bullying strategies for many years so the Government have defined bullying. Just this morning a Minister issued a press release on how to beat bullying, in which he states:

"Bullying is a blight on us all; it is painful and degrading for the victim, and tarnishes not only the reputation of the school but also the wider community. I am determined to do more to spare young people the indignity and distress of bullying."

If that is so for schools and communities, how much more so for workplaces and communities?

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Given that bullying is a form of discrimination, might the EU directive designed to tackle discrimination in employment prove a useful vehicle for our purposes here?

We have to look at that very carefully. I would welcome consistency in legislation across Europe. Given the wide transfer of people from one country to another, creating a common factor in legislation under which all our workers were covered would be a welcome step. I do not think that legislation yet covers workers in the detail that I am asking for but, yes, the directive is one obvious way in which we can move forward together.

Given the work that has been taking place on this matter in the DFES for many years, perhaps there is a need for joined-up thinking across government or do even the Government have the erroneous idea that bullying happens only in schools? If so, we must apply a strong dose of reality. Legislation is needed and a Bill exists—we do not have to go back to square one. A definition of bullying is included in that Bill.

The first Dignity at Work Bill was introduced to the House of Lords in 1996 by Lord Monkswell and to the House of Commons by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). That Bill fell, however, with the end of that Parliament. In December 2001, a second Bill based on the earlier one was introduced to the Lords by Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen. It had its Second Reading almost exactly a year ago today and passed through all its subsequent stages, but failed to reach the Commons. I have a copy here, which shows the valuable work, including detailed analysis in Committee, that was done. The Bill deals clearly and concisely with the right to dignity at work and the action to be taken when that right is breached.

When Lord McIntosh of Haringey replied to the debate on the Bill for the Government, he stated that the Government were neither for nor against the Bill. I trust that we shall have a rather more positive statement from the Minister today. Lord McIntosh went on to say how strongly opposed to bullying the Government were. We have heard such a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) this morning. Lord McIntosh then listed the existing legislation that provides protection, and concluded that bullying was extremely difficult to define.

Lord McIntosh looked to the Health and Safety Executive to develop management standards to form the basis of a code of practice, but a code of practice is not sufficient.

In relation to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, does my hon. Friend think that if there were codes of practice, it would be possible for individual victims of bullying to bring claims against their employers, and that established claims could be the stimulus for employers generally to accept such codes of practice?

Clearly, we are moving forward in that way, which is valuable. However, as I shall discuss in a moment, good companies establish a code under which employees can appeal. If the HSE comes up with a code, that will be an improvement, but it will not give individuals or trade union representatives a legal code under which to appeal.

We must make strenuous efforts on the matter. We should accept the health and safety avenue as an improvement, but it is not the final objective—certainly not for the many people who have been working intensely on the issue for so many years. If, as trade union evidence suggests, we are talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, poor administrations in institutions and companies will not roll over and accept a code and all that goes with it. The impetus of legislation is needed to give better conditions to their workers. I welcome the move in the HSE, but my immediate reaction is that by the time the HSE goes into companies to look for the stress factor, it is too late. We want legislation to prevent bullying at work, not to pick up the pieces afterwards. Picking up the pieces is important, but I and many others are concerned with prevention—with dignity, not just anti-bullying measures.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that two important meetings in Parliament recently, one in the Lords and one in the Commons, were both attended by more than 100 people who had direct experience of bullying or were working on behalf of people who had been bullied. Not a single person at either meeting thought that the situation would change without legislation. There is a whole culture and ethos to be changed. Good companies and workplaces operate dignity-at-work policies. Trade unions have produced such policies in detail, which are recognised by good companies as being important, but the individual still has no clear legal remedy. In poor companies with no such policies, the need for a legal framework is even stronger.

I am sure that my colleagues will want to add to the debate, and endorse it by quoting experiences in their constituencies. There is a new all-party group on dignity at work, which will continue to campaign on the issue. Sadly, bullying is not diminishing. However, we will not diminish our efforts on behalf of the many people who, even today, are going to work in fear of further intimidation.

My hon. Friend has laid out in graphic detail the problems facing many people in work. Does she accept that a further facet is the number of days lost through associated stress-related illnesses, estimated at some 19 million per year? Does that not make a compelling case for my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise that legislation is required?

I am delighted that that point has been made. Although I have emphasised the importance to the individual of dignity and respect at work, from the other side—that of the employer or institution—the loss of working days, the cost to the company and the dysfunction are enormous problems. There is a lack of effective, efficient business and industry. There is a cost in stress to the individual, but also a cost to the health service. That shows that this is a matter for clear cross-party and cross-Government action, to benefit individuals, companies and Departments, in particular the Department of Health.

This is an enormous problem, which we have all, I think, wanted to push under the carpet. When we hear distressing cases, we do not initially want to believe them. We think that the case brought to our surgery is the exception, the extreme case. Then we realise that it is not. I have realised that since I put my head above the parapet and said that I wanted to campaign on the issue. I first spoke on it in the Adjournment debate that ended the previous Parliament, saying that if I was returned to Parliament this was the one issue on which I would personally campaign. As I have campaigned, attended conferences, received more correspondence and talked to colleagues, I have been made aware that the problem is extensive and affects many areas of government. The heart of the problem is that so many hundreds of thousands of individuals are affected that we cannot deny its existence any longer.

The all-party group will continue to work until we get legislation. For the sake of the people who have gone to work this morning in fear and those companies whose work is made less effective by bullies who, being unrestrained, continue to act in that way, our commitment to the legislation will not diminish.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing this important debate.

Last Thursday, the startled constituents of Salisbury woke up to the headline, "Council suspends 'bullying' whistle-blowers" in the Salisbury Journal, which is their excellent local newspaper. The newspaper stated:

"Four members of staff have been suspended by Salisbury district council after going public with complaints accusing council bosses of harassment and workplace bullying ߪ Councillors attending a meeting of the council's resources overview and scrutiny panel on Wednesday night were taken by surprise when the statements were produced during public question time."

One of the objectors, who

"has worked for the council for 14 years, spoke in her statement of a 'culture of bullying, intimidation and inequality'. She claimed: 'I have watched people being bullied and good, capable people leave. I have been bullied myself and made to be frightened' ߪ The council acted swiftly in suspending the four staff, saying in a statement that they would remain off work on full pay pending an investigation into their actions. The statement ߪ said: 'It is totally unacceptable for staff to hijack an official meeting of the council to express personal views about their employer' ߪ In a letter to members this week, Salisbury branch organiser of the union"—

Unison—

"said: 'We were not approached prior to this action being taken for our advice or support. If we had been, we would have counselled against this action."

Had I been asked for my opinion, which I was not, I, too, would have counselled against.

It was distressing for those people that the union could not back them. The regional organiser for Unison is now being extremely helpful and has explained that the local organiser is compromised because he has to get on with the management come what may. He did not therefore wish to intervene; his position was difficult.

I have not told my councillors or the chief executive that I am raising the matter because I have no intention of getting inside the rights and wrongs of the issue. Important disciplinary procedures will be instigated, which will affect people's working lives, and I am not competent to judge the issues. However, the headline did not surprise me because in January I received an e-mail from an organisation called "Worms Can", which has a website at www.geocities.com/wormscan. It states that it

"was set up by and for employees of Salisbury District Council. Our aim is to make it possible for people across the Council to meet and talk. Our hope is that open discussion will reveal the extent to which workplace bullying is endemic in the culture of the Council. We believe that the first step towards solving the problem is to acknowledge that it exists, and this can be as hard for the victims to admit as it is for the perpetrators ߪ We realise that you are unable to interfere in the management of Salisbury District Council, but we feel that you are able to have influence."

It is right; I will not interfere in the management of Salisbury district council. I am bringing my influence—such as it is—to bear today.

The organisation asked me to support early-day motion 198 on dignity at work. In my reply, I stated:

"I won't sign it for the good reason that it is a completely blank cheque and no government could accede to that. A pity it wasn't drafted rather better, really. But I do support the concept of 'dignity at work'."

In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West cited the Prison Service and education, and the hon. Gentleman is citing local government. Does he find it especially disappointing that the problem is prevalent in the public sector? Will he acknowledge that it is, of course, also widespread in the private sector?

The problem is, of course, widespread. My example happens to be in the public sector. It shocked me that in a small local authority such as Salisbury anyone should even think that the problem exists, regardless of whether it does, which is something that I am in no position to judge.

When I met the people involved in "Worms Can", they said one or two important things. They said that one problem is:

"People won't give witness statements"

in the procedures of the council

"because they are circulated to the person complained about".

The council is small and one can imagine that situation. I asked them whether that happens in other local authorities, to which they replied that it occurs in some. They said that in Wiltshire county council there had recently been a case of alleged bullying, which the county council had immediately put in independent hands for adjudication, but that course of action is not available in Salisbury.

My constituents threw the bullying and harassment procedure into doubt. They alleged:

"It is flawed in the mechanism of its application and in-house investigation and judgment is unlikely to be objective ߪ Where bullying is endemic in the culture, and people are fearful for their jobs, they do not feel able to question circumstances which may be improper or irregular."

I have a copy of "Harassment Policy and Procedures" of Salisbury district council, which I have read carefully. Paragraph 1.3 of its introduction states that there should be

"independent support free from pressure".

I subsequently discovered that independence means calling in an occupational health adviser who is not a council employee.

Stage 3 of the disciplinary procedure concerns investigation. It states:

"The Head of Personnel & Training Services will nominate an officer not within the Service Unit of the alleged harasser, to investigate the allegation, including all relevant parties. The investigator will establish the facts and complete the investigation and report within ten working days of the date of receipt of the complaint. If the allegation is against the Head of Service, their Director will undertake the Senior Officers role within the procedure."

The process is entirely internal and there is no external adjudication, which is the fundamental flaw.

I wanted to know whether just Salisbury district council was involved. I therefore got hold of the "Sexual, Racial and Personal Harassment Policy" of Ryedale district council. The policy is good, but the "Formal Procedure" section states:

"If the Line Manager is approached he/she will consult with Personnel & Training Services and an investigating officer will be identified as responsible for conducting the investigation into the complaint."

Again, the procedure is entirely internal, which is emerging as the real problem.

I turned to the House of Commons Library for help. Its business and transport section has produced an excellent briefing paper on bullying at work, which was last updated on 26 November 1999. It contains an answer from the Minister for the Environment to a written question on workplace violence and bullying:

"I have therefore asked the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) to consider options for further action that would make a significant impact on preventing assaults, verbal threats and abuse in the workplace. Any plans I make to introduce measures will be based on HSC's advice."—[Official Report, 14 June1999; Vol. 333, c. 47W.]

I thought that that was good and that progress was being made.

I therefore asked this parliamentary question:

"To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what advice the Government has received from the Health and Safety Commission on options for action to make a significant impact on preventing assaults, verbal threats and abuse in the workplace for employees of local authorities."

The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) replied:

"The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) is committed to tackling the problem of work-related violence. In March 2000, the HSC agreed a three-year programme to help employers tackle the problem of work-related violence ߪ HSE has published general guidance for employers to help them tackle work-related violence, and sector-specific guidance covering health services and education."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 740W.]

He said nothing about local authorities and did not answer the question—what's new?

I asked the Library to probe further. It said:

"The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to issue regulations which would provide a framework for the investigation of such complaints and allegations, but I understand ߪ the drafting of the regulations have taken longer than expected—in part due to the large number of submissions received in response to the consultation document. One issue which emerged during the consultation was that section 66 of the Local Government Act 2000 envisaged that all allegations and complaints would be referred back to the local authority's monitoring officer for investigation.

Many of those responding to the consultation document argued—as I understand is being argued in your constituency—that the investigation should be conducted by an investigating officer from outside the local authority, to ensure impartiality and fairness."

Hooray! The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has got the message. So what is happening? To me, this absolutely is not a party political issue. My council is a Conservative council, but the incident distresses me very much.

I contacted the Local Government Association, which replied:

"I can confirm that Section 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 set out proposals for a code of conduct covering employees of local authorities as part of Labour's 'ethical framework' to improve standards in public life. However, to date no proposals have been drawn up or published by the relevant dept. (now of course the ODPM). It seems that these proposals have slipped due apparently to other more 'pressing' matters."

The LGA added that its predecessor had published guidelines and recommended minimum standards, but that they had been

"totally voluntary and carried no legal weight. Local authorities can therefore do pretty much as they like in regard to a code of conduct at the moment."

I asked the Deputy Prime Minister what statutory remedies were available to local authority staff who were victims of workplace bullying. The Under-Secretary replied:

"The main acts of parliament that are in place to deal with unreasonable behaviour or workplace bullying are as follows:

• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Disability Discrimination Act 1995
• Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
• Race Relations Act 1976
• Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 740W.]

I also asked the Deputy Prime Minister

"when he will publish proposals under Section 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 for a code of conduct to protect employees of local authorities; and if he will make a statement."

The Under-Secretary replied:

"Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 provides for the Secretary of State to issue model codes of conduct as regards the members (section 50) and employees (section 82) of local authorities. Codes of conduct under section 50 were laid before Parliament in November 2002. These codes place obligations on members to treat others with respect and not to do anything which compromises the impartiality of those who work for the local authority."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 740W.]

Full stop—nothing about local authority employees. That is the root of the problem.

I ask the Minister for Energy and Construction to speed up the introduction of regulations that will provide a code of conduct for local authorities. If local authority employees in their tens of thousands felt that they could follow a route of impartial adjudication on their problems with bullying in the workplace. we could begin to crack this appalling problem.

I shall try to be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing the debate. It is very important that we discuss bullying at work in an Adjournment debate and that we continue to discuss its effects on the mental and physical well-being of people. Companies could provide examples every day of people who have been affected by bullying.

However, the issue affects not only councils and public services. In a way, that is a distraction, because workers want bullying at work to be dealt with, irrespective of whether they work in the public, private or even voluntary sector. Workers from all sectors have experienced and have had to deal with bullying at work—no one is exempt. Therefore, we must address the problem across British industry and the economy as a whole, rather than in individual sectors.

I wish briefly to remind my hon. Friend of the point that I made to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) a moment or two ago. Is it not the case that people expect better of the public and voluntary sectors and related areas and, to a certain extent, condone and are unsurprised by the existence of bullying in the private sector?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. It is important to consider the matter in the way that he describes, because it is not restricted to any one sector; it occurs across British industry. We must tackle the issue accordingly.

There is plenty of evidence about the extent of bullying at work. It is worth referring to some of the surveys that have taken place. When the TUC asked for information about bad employers, 38 per cent. of the responses related to bullying at work. That gives a fair indication of the spread of bullying across the UK. The public sector union Unison surveyed its members to try to identify the incidence of bullying in the workplace and found that 66 per cent. had either witnessed or experienced bullying there. Again, a substantial number of people said that it had occurred in their workplace. Of those who participated in the Unison study, 75 per cent. said that bullying had a mental or physical effect on their health and led to stress, depression and low self-esteem—part and parcel of the problem. Every day, people could give testimony to how they have been affected by bullying at work.

Not just trade unions but employers confirm that bullying is extensive in the workplace. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development surveyed more than 1,000 workers and found that one in eight had been bullied in the previous five years. The Institute of Management said that every day 270,000 people took time off because of stress and bullying at work.

The facts and figures are absolutely devastating. It is right that we try to drive bullying up the political agenda and develop joint working on the issue. Employers and trade unions are keen to tackle it, and the Government must show the same willingness and play their part through their legislative programme.

For years, the TUC has campaigned on bullying. At successive conferences, it has called for additional education, training and legislation. I am glad that many employers and trade unions have taken up the call and operate policies in the workplace to raise awareness and train people so that they are able to tackle the problem when it arises. It is the same in the private and voluntary sectors, and it is good that it is.

At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West referred to the survey that Cary Cooper and others carried out on behalf of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Again, the figures are staggering: £1.3 billion lost to the British economy, 18 million working days lost, one in 10 people—approximately 2 million—bullied at work and one in four bullied within the past five years. Approximately one in two report that they have been bullied or have witnessed bullying within the past five years. The physical and mental effects include anxiety, headaches, ulcers, nausea, skin rashes, suicide and sleeplessness.

Our agenda is clearly set. We must ensure that this opportunity for an Adjournment debate is not lost, but is part of the campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West properly described in her opening remarks as trying to secure dignity at work. There is a good feeling in the country about doing that. Employers and trade unions are happy to do it, and the Government need now to show their willingness to do it.

rose—

Order. Before I call the next speaker, it might be helpful if I point out that the first of the three Front-Bench spokesmen should be called not later than 10.30 if we are to leave time for them to make their winding-up speeches.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing the debate. She and other hon. Members have been trying for some time to secure a debate on the subject. Her speech illustrated the enormous amount of work that she has put into the issue, and I am delighted to support her.

My hon. Friend said that bullying behaviour in the workplace manifests itself in many ways. All forms of bullying are unacceptable. Not only does it make the employee's job considerably more difficult, if not impossible, but it can affect other aspects of people's lives. Stress and ill health may become part of their daily life. Well-known symptoms include anxiety, headaches, sleeplessness, skin rashes, irritable bowel syndrome, high blood pressure, tearfulness, loss of self-confidence and, in extreme cases, thoughts of suicide. Hon. Members have mentioned those points, but I reiterate them so that we remember what we are dealing with when we talk about bullying.

We need to appreciate the much wider cost of bullying to industry and the Exchequer. Many facts have been mentioned, and I will not go into all of them again. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) mentioned that somewhere between 19 million and 40 million working days are lost annually. The cost of that is estimated to be about £12 billion, but it could be in excess of £20 billion to £30 billion annually. That is equivalent to a hidden tax burden of over £1,000 per working person per year.

I also want the Government to consider why legislation is failing to do justice to UK employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West mentioned that harassment is all too prevalent in bullying. Harassment law is based on discrimination, but litigation can be pursued only on the grounds of race, gender or disability and that precludes employees who are being harassed for other reasons. In fact, studies have found that most bullying is targeted at confident staff, regardless of race or gender, who are seen as a threat to the perpetrators. It has also been argued that bullies focus their prejudices on things that are not covered by legislation.

My hon. Friend will be aware that many local authority workers—for example, social workers—work in the community and that much bullying takes place outside the traditional workplace. Does he feel that legislation should embrace that situation?

My hon. Friend makes his case very well. He is absolutely right. The Government have to address that issue. The fact that we have considered only race and gender is wrong. Consideration of many forms of bullying has been precluded, and we should conduct an in-depth study of bullying. Bullying causes loss to manufacturing industries and local authorities. Particularly in the case of carers in the community, there is the stress of having to do a job for which there appears to be absolutely no reward and for which, in effect, it seems that all that one gets in return is abuse.

Unfortunately, each time new discrimination legislation is introduced, bullies change their prejudicial focus to remain outside the law. Bullying occurs not just because of gender or race, but because the target is talented, successful or co-operative and, ultimately, is perceived as a threat to the bully. Legislation must be flexible and adaptable. We cannot write it in tablets of stone. As the bully changes his or her tack, legislation should adapt to cover that.

Considerable steps have been taken to legislate against discrimination on the grounds of sex, race or disability. However, in such cases, the main thing that has to be established is the motivation for bullying; the issue is not just proving that bullying is taking place. In short, what we might term motiveless bullying is not covered at all.

Employers have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. 1974 to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees. If they do not fulfil their duty, they are breaching an individual's contract of employment. Employers and/or bullies may find themselves facing fines, compensation and possibly a jail sentence. Currently, the only redress for many employees is to resign and claim unfair dismissal. However, only about 2 per cent. of bullying cases make it to employment tribunals owing to the inadequacy of UK law on bullying and the absence of provision for compensation for detriment caused by bullying. On average, only about 0.5 per cent. of cases result in compensation.

It has been argued that because bullying can be difficult to detect it can often be overlooked or dismissed as a weakness on the part of the person on the receiving end, a personality clash or a strong management style. The key feature of bullying is persistence of behaviour. It is never just a one-off incident and it is rarely targeted at a sole employee. In fact, it is estimated that 90 per cent. of cases involve serial bullying. A bully acts in that way all the time; once a bully, always a bully. Many would say that bullies have a medical problem. They perceive their behaviour as the way in which they do their job. Patterns emerge, and if there were legislation to cover bullying, it would be much simpler to take action against bullies who currently get away with their behaviour.

I want to consider what is happening abroad. In Sweden, an ordinance on measures against victimisation at work came into force in March 1994. It defines victimisation as

"recurrent reprehensible or distinctly negative actions which are directed against individual employees in an offensive manner and can result in those employees being placed outside the workplace".

Guidance on the ordinance makes it clear that that includes adult bullying, mental violence, social rejection, harassment and offensive administrative sanctions. The ordinance requires the employer to plan and organise work so as to prevent victimisation; to make it clear that victimisation cannot be accepted; and to provide routines for the early detection and rectification of unsatisfactory working conditions. I ask the Minister to take a look at that legislation. It makes it clear that bullying is an organisational issue and that employers have a duty to organise work and the work environment so that they do not create a climate in which bullying is likely to occur.

I reiterate my call for legislation to counteract bullying. We need a new law that will close some of the loopholes in the existing legislation. Ultimately, employment law needs to be upgraded to provide the right to dignity at work regardless of the prejudicial focus of the bully or harasser. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West for initiating today's debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing this important debate. Until fairly recently, it was thought that workplaces were benign and free of bullying and violence. However, recent studies have shown that that is not the case. In fact, a study that was done at the time that Baroness Gibson introduced the Dignity at Work Bill to the House of Lords showed that large numbers of people were being bullied. At that time, it was estimated that about 18 million people were being bullied and that the cost to society in general was between £4 billion and £5 billion.

I note from the TUC's website that the latest study indicates that the worst region for bullying tends to be the north. I was particularly disappointed to read that because I had always believed that there was greater solidarity and compassion in the north and therefore that bullying was generally less prevalent there than in other regions. Clearly, that is not so. Much of the bullying has arisen because the demise of trade unions in many areas of work has exposed workers to the continual possibility of bullying by employers.

The Dignity at Work Bill described bullying and set out a legal definition. The International Labour Organisation has also set out a definition, which may well be adopted by the European Union and could be used for legislation embracing all EU countries.

During the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I referred to the fact that many people who work for local authorities do not work in an environment that conforms to the traditional perception of the workplace. Before my wife came to work for me, she was a social worker, dealing with child abuse. I recall that she dealt with a problematic case, which resulted in the family being disruptive in the community and the local authority office being burgled. At the time that the burglary took place no one was convicted, and it was difficult to associate it with that particular case. It has come to light since that in all probability the burglary was related to the case. My wife was subjected for some months to shouts in the street and so on from family members. That is bullying in the community and when the Minister examines the legislation he will need to consider such situations and ensure that the legislation embraces them.

Last weekend, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and I were scheduled to meet cleaners at the local hospital. I could not be at the meeting, but my hon. Friend was and he was astounded to find that the bullying had become institutionalised to the extent that notices had been posted in various places throughout the hospital denigrating the cleaners. That sort of bullying undermines the position of those cleaners. We shall raise that matter with the hospital management during the coming weeks.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said, there is an array of legislation. Health and safety at work legislation in particular gives a victim the opportunity to make a claim for compensation, but that is not what is required. We require legislation that deals with such cases at work in a more preventative way. The dignity at work legislation introduced in the House of Lords provides the way forward, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pick up on that, and ensure that the legislation can move forward so that we can provide protection from bullying in the workplace.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing the debate, and the excellent way that she has led it. I congratulate her even more on the campaign that she has been involved with during the past two years to move the issue up the agenda.

Like my hon. Friend, and many hon. Members interested in the issue, I was alerted to the seriousness of the problem of bullying, harassment and victimisation at work by a constituent who was suffering such treatment daily. My constituent is a woman who had a professional career in a major public institution in south-west Wales. She had taken a job in a department working with other professionals, and thought that she had taken a major step forward in the development of her career and, because she loved—and loves—the area to which she moved, in the quality of her life. However, the bullying began almost immediately and affected the nature of the work that she was expected to do, the quantity of that work and the respect that she received, not just from her immediate superior, but from several of her colleagues. When she challenged her treatment or raised her concerns with the perpetrator she was promised change, but she experienced further victimisation. When she took up the problem with colleagues, she found that they either had a vested interest in supporting the status quo or were too scared to raise their head above the parapet.

Out of desperation, my constituent eventually sought redress from more senior management—including the most senior management—in the institutions that she worked for. She was listened to sympathetically and promised that the issue would be seriously addressed. She then found that that meant in practice that her complaint had been reported to the person doing the bullying, resulting in a new wave of increasingly petty acts of harassment on top of ongoing injustices.

My constituent managed to find an alternative employment opportunity that allowed her to use her training and skills. She still does not want me to name her, the bully or the institution because, even now, it could have repercussions. Since listening to that case, I have come across other examples. It occurred to me that the bullying that we find in the workplace is not so different from what we find in the playground. Frequently, it is carried out by people who have problems of their own and feel inadequate in some way. It involves creating an "us and them" gang culture in which people are pressured to take sides. It undermines the successful development and individual fulfilment not just of the bullied, but of the bully and his or her allies. In its most extreme forms it damages health and even takes lives. In the workplace, bullying also means lousy management practices.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the problems inherent to bullying, particularly in management, occur when senior mangers encourage junior managers to bully and set impossible targets to ensure that they bully to meet them?

That is absolutely true. The culture of believing that good management is harsh treatment of people is a major part of the problem that leads to less effective work from all.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need change to the law in this area. That is exemplified by the cases that we have heard about today from the public sector, where there are, ostensibly, codes of conduct and good working practices, but they are not being carried out. We need law so that everyone in the management chain knows that repeated offensive, abusive, malicious, insulting or intimidating behaviour is unacceptable. Repeated unjustified criticism and unreasonable punishments imposed under a cloak of discipline are nothing more than harassment.

Changes in work duties that devalue the employee for no reason are just a form of bullying. Everyone in the management chain, and all employees, should know that employees have recourse to a complaints procedure that will establish the truth and rectify injustices. If bullying, harassment or victimisation is exposed, there should be severe consequences for the perpetrator or perpetrators. All such provisions should be based on statute.

Surveys show that bullying is rife in the workplaces of our country. The cost of bullying to industry and taxpayers is estimated to be some £12 billion annually. Most important, bullying at work, as anywhere else, makes life unbearable for the victims, and often their families as well. Let us do something about it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing the debate. In preparation, I read a speech that she made last September to the south-west TUC. In that speech, she explained that she had been applying for this debate every week since Christmas, by which she meant Christmas 2001. The debate is a tribute to extraordinary persistence on her part, and her case was extremely well made.

The hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) and others have set out well the factual evidence of the high incidence of bullying, and the costs to employers and the economy as a whole. I will not repeat all that; the UMIST study is pretty comprehensive.

Listening to the contributions, I found some of the anecdotes compelling, such as the one that we heard from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I have several, too, which I was shocked to encounter. One was referred to me by my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is trying to sort out the case of an 18-year-old man who started work after leaving school. He was in a carpet laying company and fell in with a group of fellow apprentices who systematically bullied and hounded him with violence and verbal abuse. The pressures were so extreme that he had a nervous breakdown and had to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983. In the mental hospital he tried to hang himself, and cut his wrists. One hears stories of such things occurring in young offenders institutions, but that case occurred at work. The problem is not yet resolved because the family cannot get legal aid. There was clearly a succession of legal failures by the company. That may be criminal failure, but the family cannot get access to the legal system to sort that appalling problem out.

My second example concerns a constituent. It is a less extreme case, but it shows circumstances that many people encounter. A young woman came to my surgery about three weeks ago. She works for a chain of pub restaurants. I shall not mention the name, because the case is still unresolved. She was happy working there. A new manageress came to the unit and decided to crack the whip. She made it clear that there would be a new, more abrasive style of management. Within a few days, my constituent had been ordered to remove an unobtrusive necklace. It was a little like that worn by the hon. Member for Bristol, West. There was no safe on the premises and, as the necklace was valuable, my constituent declined to remove it on the spot. She agreed to come back to work the following day without it, because she did not want to make trouble. However, the next day she discovered that she had been suspended for insubordination and failure to follow instructions from management. She then set in train an appeals procedure through the company's disciplinary process.

Six of my constituent's colleagues have been disciplined similarly by the same manageress and the atmosphere at the workplace is inflamed. I have advised my constituents to consult the union, so that the problem can be approached collectively. I said that, if they exhausted the company's procedures and did not receive satisfaction, we would try to name and shame it in the media. I accept that that case involved a subtler form of harassment than the first case to which I referred, and one to which legal remedies are not easily apparent.

The third case concerns another constituent and is more serious than the other two. It is difficult because it points to the fact that bullying can be perpetrated not only by management, but by other workers and members of the union. The case that was referred to me involved a Sikh gentleman who lives in Twickenham and who works for London Underground. He had an appalling history of abuse by his union, the RMT, which seems to be dominated in some branches by an unholy combination of Trotskyites and neo-Nazis. The neo-Nazis had their teeth in the individual and other Sikhs. I think that there had been 40 separate allegations of abuse. They had been subjected to enormous torment over the years.

The problem is that such matters cannot be dealt with under race discrimination legislation. The guy had been promoted on merit. There was no evidence that his career was impeded in a formal sense, but each day he ran the gauntlet of abuse. The management did not condone what was happening, but felt weak. They could not confront the union branch. They tolerated such activity, although they eventually sacked one of the worst perpetrators. However, the bullying did not stop.

The people involved in the harassment found out the gentleman's home telephone number. They rang perpetually. They abused his wife. His daughter was followed to school and beaten up in the toilets. The police were involved. My constituent has paid them enormous tributes.

However, such practices continue in London Underground to this day, so much so that I have sought an inquiry through the Commission for Racial Equality, the Mayor of London and London Underground. The problem may be as serious as the subject of the Ford inquiry a few years ago, although that remains to be established. The case demonstrates the different facets of bullying at work and the difficulties of finding a single solution to such a problem.

The hon. Member for Bristol, West argued that we need new legislation. I have sympathy with that suggestion, but we already have a considerable number of laws to deal with the problem, some of which the hon. Lady itemised. There is standard discrimination legislation, such as that on disability, sex and race. However, as the hon. Lady implied, we are dealing today with non-specific discrimination. In addition, there are separate pieces of legislation, such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which contains provisions on harassment. In 1995, there was an addition to the Public Order Act 1994. I am not a lawyer and I cannot evaluate such legislation, but it is difficult to believe that harassment cannot be pursued through those Acts. However, there could be a loophole in the legislation, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) said earlier. If so, that needs to be dealt with. Perhaps the Minister can advise us on such matters.

I was struck by the comments made by the Andrea Adams Trust, which the hon. Member for Bristol, West cited. It asked:

"Does the courtroom really have to be the appropriate battleground? … Surely in reality the ideal place to resolve the problem must be in the workplace itself. Recognition and awareness of workplace bullying is essential if we are to move forward."

Whether or not there may be a case for workplace legislation, the report said that a concerted effort should be made by management and the unions to raise the profile of workplace bullying to ensure that it is properly monitored.

One piece of legislation that has not been mentioned this morning is the European convention on human rights. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that one of the best actions taken by the Government was to make that part and parcel of our domestic law. Under article 3, the Government have an obligation to protect everyone, irrespective of their nationality, within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom from, among other things, degrading treatment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that bullying in the workplace and schools is degrading treatment and that the convention is valuable legislation?

I agree with the hon. Lady that such legislation is positive; indeed, we supported it. She is a distinguished lawyer, so she is in a better position than me to judge whether it is appropriate. I hope that it is. It reinforces my point that various legal remedies already exist.

The recent survey carried out by personnel institutions made the point that only 40 per cent. of employers have anti-bullying practices in place, whereas about 90 per cent. of personnel managers acknowledge that there is bullying in the workplace. The key step that must now be taken is to ensure that those employers who recognise the problem, but do not control it, have a policy. If there were a role for legislation, perhaps it is not laying down prescriptive procedures to deal with workplace bullying, but placing an obligation on employers to have an anti-bullying policy and to allow for flexibility in that policy to deal with particular problems.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) for securing the debate on such an important issue. I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who has specific responsibility for such matters in the Conservative party, for his absence. At present, he is a member of a Standing Committee, so responsibility for responding to this debate has fallen to me. However, there is no harm in widening our expertise and understanding of the issues that have been raised during such an excellent debate.

When I first knew that I was to take part in the debate on behalf of the Opposition, I was asked why I was participating in a discussion about the conduct of the Government Whips Office. When the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) referred to "us and them" gang culture and lousy management practices, I thought that we were beginning to reach the kernel of the issue. It is easy to make a light-hearted remark, but that should not distract us from the seriousness of the issue raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, West.

The central question is whether legislation is the appropriate framework to pursue the problem. The hon. Lady and her supporters are of the view that that is the case. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked whether the courtroom was the appropriate forum for the battleground in respect of bullying. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) said that employers and trade unions wanted to deal with the problem. He said that 38 per cent. of calls to trade unions concerned bullying and that 75 per cent. of such cases resulted in specific health effects, either mental or physical. That provides ample evidence, which is also mentioned in the UMIST study and elsewhere, about the widespread nature of bullying in the workplace. The central point is that bullying must be dealt with by everybody—employers and trade unions. We must decide whether tackling it through additional legislation is appropriate, because legislation is already on the statute book.

We must first define bullying. There is no official definition, although various suggestions have been offered. The one in the UMIST study is probably as good as any. It states:

"We defined bullying as a situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending him or herself against these actions. We will not refer to a one-off incident as bullying."

That definition emphasises the negative, persistent and long-term nature of the experience.

Workplace bullying is a widespread problem. We have heard evidence of the trauma that it causes. It damages businesses and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made clear, the climate in which people work, especially in the public sector. The UMIST study suggests that bullying is more widespread in the public than in the private sector and several of the cases to which hon. Members referred appear to confirm that.

The hon. Member for Bristol, West did not mention one area of the private sector to which the UMIST study referred. The dance profession is an example of a profession or recreation in which bullying has taken place. Hon. Members who have learned to ride or sail will know that instructors in those activities tend to be extremely firm because of the danger that is sometimes involved and that firmness could turn into bullying.

On a wider scale, our armed forces are in action in the Gulf. The military have had to recognise the problem of bullying in training, when officers try to create a resilient work force prepared to put their lives on the line. They have to operate on the most extreme end of what is, in a sense, the workplace. Officers face the difficult task of developing resilience through training without overstepping the mark with actions that could be perceived to be bullying. Such work involves facing difficult issues.

A study by the London chamber of commerce published in 2000, estimated that bullying cost industry £2 billion a year. It identified 19 million working days lost per year because of abuse, which often resulted in accidents and mistakes, increased sick leave, lost productivity and higher recruitment costs. Causes of the problem included autocratic, insensitive and even abusive management styles, high work loads, unsatisfactory relationships and rapid changes. A survey in 1999 by Personnel Today and the Andrea Adams Trust found that 82 per cent. of respondents identified weakness in management as the prime reason for bullying, which seems to be supported by testimony from the public and private sectors that we have heard in this debate.

The problem is serious and widespread, but we should question whether more legislation is likely to solve it, given that previous legislation has failed adequately to do so. We should also question whether the extra burden that such legislation would impose is justified, especially for small businesses and the public and voluntary sectors. Large, private sector employers with adequate resources can and do use cost-benefit analysis to underpin a business case to tackle workplace bullying. However, it is not certain that small businesses would have adequate resources to carry out similar analyses should legislation require them to do so.

It is self-evident that bullying is counter-productive for any organisation or company. It is fair to assume that a company in which bullying is a significant problem will be less profitable and effective than competitors that have proper policies and look after their people properly, which must be a great incentive for companies to do the right thing.

Several UK companies already have serious policies in place to deal with workplace bullying. Indeed, about 6 per cent., including Rolls-Royce, Littlewoods and British Telecom, have specific anti-bullying policies. That is welcome, and reflects my belief that the best place to deal with the problem is in the workplace. It is important to create a culture in which bullying is seen to be unacceptable. Firms should be encouraged to deal with the problem by paying careful attention to the way in which they conduct their business.

I sound a note of caution to any firm considering taking action: it should recognise that employment rights also cover those accused of bullying, not only the employee who is being bullied. We must also recognise that, although in many instances it is clear that bullying is taking place and must be dealt with, in other instances, accusations of bullying might be used to disguise inadequate performance. Mr. Richard of the Institute of Directors has suggested that any legislation automatically faces difficulties. He said:

"How would you distinguish between times when people do need to be criticised and encouraged to do better, and those when people are being treated in an unacceptable fashion?"

I have already alluded to professions in which that boundary is difficult to identify.

Bullying is an emotive issue that must be dealt with. I support measures that aim to tackle bullying in the workplace and that raise public awareness of its existence. If a company has a well-publicised anti-bullying policy, it can learn to recognise and minimise the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury referred to a case involving Salisbury district council. He made overwhelmingly clear the requirement for independent adjudication of bullying within the public sector. Why such adjudication is not already taking place on a voluntary basis within the public sector frankly escapes me. Such organisations are the very ones that should have developed personnel procedures to deal with bullying problems.

We should all aspire to the universal adoption of good practice. It is likely that people work best under good conditions. Ways of dealing with bullying present particular problems for small businesses, which comprise nearly 99 per cent. of businesses in the UK. They employ 44 per cent. of the private sector work force and generate 37 per cent. of our nation's output. They also create virtually all the new jobs in the economy.

A great deal of new regulation has been introduced to employment law over the past few years. Last year, more than 4,642 new sets of regulations were introduced in the UK, which amounts to one every 26 minutes for every working day. The IOD says that the recurrent annual cost of employment regulations introduced in the past five years could be as much as £6 billion, with those costs rising as new regulations come into force. Although it may be possible to find valid reasons for each new regulation, the cumulative total is undermining the enterprise culture. It is worrying to note that Britain has fallen from ninth to 19th in the world competitive league. That should give us pause for thought before we reach for the legislative or regulatory rule book.

Faced with such facts, I worry that further legislation, however worthy its aims, could be damaging to business. The problem of bullying is real to business because it loses its competitiveness, but balancing that problem with the complexity of introducing more targeted legislation that has not succeeded in the past poses difficulties. Ways of dealing with bullying are difficult to identify and I am not able to provide an overarching solution. However, I welcome the attention that the problem has received, and I note with interest hon. Members' contributions to this debate, especially the Swedish example.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West on raising the issue and on her persistence in obtaining this debate. In the end, we must make people in all work forces—both management and workers—aware that the problem is widespread and must be dealt with. People will then begin to deal with it because it is a matter of simple justice and decency.

I echo the congratulations that have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on having raised this debate and on her general commitment to the campaign against bullying. I am sorry that she has had to wait for so long for it to take place. The debate has been a useful of airing of an important subject—which, in some extreme cases, is a matter of life and death.

As my hon. Friend said, she has been involved—particularly since the last election—in an ongoing and valuable campaign. The only caution that I would offer her came through in the other two winding-up speeches. Progress should not necessarily be equated with specific legislation. A lot is happening, and highlighting the issues in the way that my hon. Friend has done today will contribute to the pressure for more to be done, but it is open to question whether specific legislation is the answer—or the sole answer.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions would normally have responded to this debate. He is attending the Committee stage of the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill, but I will ensure that the letter and the spirit of the debate are communicated to him.

The most fundamental thing to say is that the Government take the issues of bullying and harassment very seriously. We condemn such behaviour unreservedly and believe that employees should be able to work without fear of encountering bullying or harassment from their employers, fellow employees or anyone else. It is worth recalling that the last Labour manifesto made the following commitment:

"To work with managers and employees to reduce the problems of bullying and violence in the workplace."

Therefore, it is clear that we all share the same objective; we want bullying and other forms of degrading treatment to come to an end. That is an essential part of good employment relations and of a good culture in a workplace, but it is also inherent in the concept of human dignity and people's right to lead their lives free from harassment.

If I heard the Minister correctly, he described such behaviour as degrading treatment, and he said that he wished everyone to be free from it. Does he accept that article 3 on the prohibition of degrading treatment in the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms—which is now part and parcel of our domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998—makes that form of bullying illegal?

Perhaps I could address that later in my speech. [Laughter.] I wish to do so for the best reasons—I do not want to evade the question. I had better keep a watch on how much time I have left, but I was interested in what the hon. Lady said earlier, and I asked for further advice on the matter. As she can observe, my only problem is that I have lost that advice.

We consider that a combination of legislative action and a change of approach in the culture of workplaces must be a key to solving the problem of bullying and harassment in the UK. The law that is already in place covers a wide range of definable undesirable behaviours. I must repeat a list that has already been made: the current legislation includes the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Employment Rights Act 1996. All these laws provide protection and enable individuals to seek remedies to problems that are a result of detrimental behaviour against them.

My hon. Friend the Minister has read out a litany of Acts, but does he accept that, in spite of a concentrated effort to reduce bullying at work, there is a growth in instances of it? Does he also accept that that means that we need to do more to control bullying at work, and that an Act would help in achieving that?

I respect that point of view. One of the problems is that, while there may be a perception of such an increase, it is impossible to gain objective evidence of that because, for instance, for very good reasons more attention is now paid to the matter. People are more prepared to talk about it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West and others have taken it up as a campaign. I cannot comment on whether there is more or less of this behaviour, but everybody seems to recognise that it is a substantial and continuing problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West recognised in her opening remarks, a lot has been done, even since 2001. For instance, the Employment Act 2002 contains provisions to ensure that all employees have access to a good internal grievance procedure. It is estimated that that will benefit around 6 million employees who have access to no such procedures, or to procedures that are inferior to the new statutory minimum. It is hoped that the Employment Act 2002 will provide an important means for employees to raise their problems at work, and to have them addressed by their employer at an early stage. We are also extending this range of protection against the most extreme forms of abuse under the provisions of article 13 of the Amsterdam treaty. That will extend protection to cover age, sexual orientation and religious discrimination.

Reference has been made to the work that is going on to create Health and Safety Executive management standards on relationships. The Department of Trade and Industry and the HSE are working on a relationship management standard to address the problems caused by bullying through cultural change. The management standards will be introduced on a voluntary basis. However, employers have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to assess the risk of stress-related ill health arising from work activities.

The HSE has the power to issue enforcement notices if employers are not addressing stressful situations in the workplace. They are not used often, as it is hard to judge how stress affects employees and where in the workplace it is occurring. However, the management standards that I have described will help HSE inspectors and employers to identify where and how stress is occurring.

Officials have met Chris Ball of the MSF section of Amicus to discuss a wide-reaching partnership fund project to tackle bullying in the workplace, and the Andrea Adams Trust may be included in that as a partner. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West will recognise that as another productive outcome of her campaign, even if it falls short of the legislation that she seeks.

We had an interesting little sub-Adjournment debate about the problems of Salisbury district council and the wider issues that flow from that. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, and I will draw attention to the anomaly that he suggested exists between the provisions for local authorities and other employees. I will ensure that he receives a response to that, and I commend him for raising an interesting subject.

Somewhat paradoxically, I will now return to the comments of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on the Human Rights Act 1998. For private sector employers, we have checked whether the legislation that I listed complies with the Human Rights Act, but it is my understanding that the provision in that Act—which would, in any case, be the last course of action—applies only to the public sector. That requires clarification and elaboration, and I undertake to write to the hon. Lady about it.

The general message that has come through from this debate is that there is a substantial problem, which has been given more attention as a result of the campaigning that is going on and of the fact that people feel more confident about discussing it. Simply because a problem is submerged does not mean that it is not a problem, and the attendance at this debate, and the contributions to it, reflect the interest in this area of human suffering. Perhaps it was neglected to some extent in the past, and perhaps the measures that are in place do not adequately respond to it. However, the Government's current position is that there are ways ahead that fall short of legislation, although I have no doubt that pressure for further legislation will continue to be applied.

I shall take the opportunity of today's debate to raise an issue that was brought to my attention by one of my constituents, although it prompts wider concerns that are worth bringing to the attention of the Chamber and my hon. Friend the Minister.

The outline of my constituent's case is straightforward. She suffers from a psychotic illness and depression, and she receives disability living allowance—DLA—at the higher rate for the care component and the lower rate for the mobility component. Due to her illness, she finds it difficult to leave her house on her own, and she is cared for at home by her husband.

Last year, my constituent was admitted to the Royal Edinburgh hospital for treatment lasting several months, which involved a course of medication combined with overnight stays in hospital. During that time, however, she spent most of the day—between 10 am and 10 pm—out of hospital and at home. She was technically an in-patient, so after four weeks she lost her entitlement to DLA despite the fact that for large parts of the day she was living normally at home, incurring the same costs of care that she would have incurred had she not been receiving hospital treatment.

Many people are concerned about the withdrawal of DLA after 28 days from disabled persons admitted to hospital, which has been criticised for causing undue hardship to the disabled and their carers during a difficult time. I have some sympathy with that point of view. However, I intend not to talk about that, but to focus on the issues raised by my constituent's experience—namely, the problem that arises when DLA is withdrawn from someone who is nominally a hospital in-patient, but who spends large parts of the day at home. It has not been raised recently in Parliament, so I welcome this opportunity and look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Three specific issues arise from my constituent's case: the definition of an in-patient, how someone who normally receives DLA can have their cost of living met when the allowance is withdrawn during a stay in hospital and the purpose of the mobility component of DLA.

The definition of an in-patient is central. As my constituent was classified as an in-patient, her entitlement to DLA was lost. My research suggests that there is, at the very least, a lack of clarity about what constitutes in-patient status for the purposes of the benefit. Existing case law throws up contradictory answers: one case suggests that a person is to be treated as being maintained free of charge as an in-patient provided only that he or she is in the hospital 24 hours a day, but other cases suggest that absences during the day do not affect in-patient status, nor that of being maintained free of charge.

The same lack of clarity is to be found in the Department for Work and Pensions publication "Decision Makers Guide", which states that an in-patient can be someone who is

"a long-term patient and spends part of each day away from the hospital".

However, the guide does not give any indication of how long that time away from hospital needs to be before the person is no longer regarded as a long-term patient. The criteria should be clearer for deciding whether a person who spends time away from a hospital during the day is to be regarded as an in-patient. I find it hard to understand why my constituent was considered to be an in-patient for DLA purposes.

My second point relates to how a person in the circumstances of my constituent is to meet their normal living costs. Even if my constituent were to be described as an in-patient for the purposes of the benefit, she was out of hospital for what would be described as the normal day—10 am to 10 pm. I wish to concentrate not on the general issue of withdrawing DLA from hospital patients after 28 days in hospital, but on the particular experience of my constituent. She was spending 12 hours a day out of hospital, but was not receiving DLA help to meet the costs of care and mobility. She and her husband do not live on a high income, and she relied on the income from DLA to meet the cost of her essential expenses. She said that the experience of losing DLA during her hospital stay was "difficult" and "very stressful", and that it had led to a significant reduction in her weekly budget. Although she received some care at home from the hospital in the form of visits from a community psychiatric nurse, she was not compensated for the loss of DLA. She was certainly not receiving constant care at home from the hospital.

I am sure the Minister agrees that it is important for people to be given the autonomy to spend time away from hospital during any course of treatment, if that is appropriate, but if daily expenses during that time are not supported by benefits or the health service, either disabled people may be less inclined to enter hospitals in the first place or patients may have to remain in hospital for more of the day than is necessary. Those outcomes would not be conducive to recovery and would lead 10 patients qualifying for further DLA payments, which would be a cost to the public purse.

My third point, which relates to the mobility component of DLA, is the most central to my constituent's case. Although there is certain logic, even in my constituent's case, to not paying the care component of DLA to someone who spends their time overnight in hospital, the logic to withdrawing the mobility element from my constituent is much weaker. For the vast majority of the day, that person was out of hospital, so presumably the mobility needs that originally justified the mobility component still applied. Part of the definition of eligibility for the mobility component is that it is designed to help people who have severe difficulty walking or who require assistance getting around out of doors. That need is not any the less because a person spends part of the day or night in hospital. For the rest of the time, that person must meet the costs of mobility.

If someone on the higher rate for the mobility component is admitted to hospital, entitlement to a car or wheelchair provided under the motability scheme is not withdrawn, but that protection does not help people on the lower rate—people such as my constituent who are not immobile, but who still need help when they venture out of their home. I hope that the Minister considers that point. A possible solution would be to pay those who spend a substantial period away from hospital a proportion of the DLA mobility component. Perhaps it could relate to the time that they spend in hospital in a day and the time that they spend at home.

Of course, I recognise that in any benefits system there are bound to be cases that do not fall neatly into the categories or definitions of eligibility. That is inevitable, and I accept that sometimes it is not possible to introduce a general principle that will ensure that the difficulties in a particular case do not recur, but cases such as that of my constituent must recur from time to time. Also, greater clarity about the rules and how they are applied, and greater fairness in their application, would ensure that people do not suffer the financial penalty that my constituent undoubtedly did.

The Minister has already considered the matters raised by the case, but I hope that she will consider the points that I have made today, both as they relate to my constituent and in terms of their general implications for people in similar circumstances.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). In such debates, he usually mentions a fascinating lacuna or difficulty that he has found in the benefit rules—not that it is difficult to do that, the rules being as they are. Today is no different, and his comments are of his usual standard.

The Government recognise that the need for financial security does not cease when people are in hospital and that they are likely to have ongoing domestic commitments. Many income maintenance benefits are downrated once the recipient has been a hospital in-patient for six weeks. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions took his post, he committed himself to changing the rules on hospital downrating of benefit, particularly as that relates to retirement pension, but also in respect of such benefits as income support, and incapacity and housing benefit. From October, such benefits will be downrated after 13 weeks, rather than six.

The average hospital stay lasts about six days, and the vast majority—more than 97 per cent.—last less than six weeks. Nevertheless, we estimate that the change made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, which is to be introduced in October, will benefit a further 26,000 people at any one time. For some 18,000 of them, that change will be in respect of their retirement pension; for the rest, it will be in respect of other income maintenance benefits. Those who need longer hospital stays will have the extra seven weeks to plan their future financial arrangements.

I want to explain the rationale for hospital downrating, because when one discusses the subject with people, they do not necessarily immediately understand it. However, I do not say that that is right or wrong. The rationale basically comes down to the rule against overlapping provision, which is a founding principle of the welfare state and has been with us as long as the welfare state itself. That principle pops up in all sorts of places in the benefit system, and it basically means that the state will not pay two benefits for the same contingency. It will not pay benefit or income maintenance—such as income support, incapacity benefit or housing benefit—when the needs for which they are paid, namely maintenance, are met free of charge by the national health service for a hospital in-patient. That is why the issue arises, and why benefits are downrated at all after a period of hospital admission. That is the basic rule.

I come to disability living allowance and attendance allowance. As my hon. Friend said, since the changes to hospital downrating were announced, it has been asked why such changes have not been extended to DLA and AA. Those allowances involve different considerations. They are not paid for normal day-to-day living and they are not for income maintenance, although my hon. Friend said that that is what his constituent is using them for. They are paid as a contribution towards the extra costs faced by severely disabled people who need help with care or have walking difficulties. The rationale behind those "extra cost" benefits is different from that behind benefits such as retirement pension or income support. Of course, the state will still pay out money to people who receive such benefits, once they have been assessed.

The reason for paying a benefit is not necessarily apparent to those receiving it. There is no question of there being any restriction on what the benefits should be spent on. There is no requirement for someone receiving DLA care component to spend it on care, nor is there a requirement for someone receiving the lower-rate mobility component of DLA to spend it on their mobility needs, although they may choose to do so.

Perhaps I should be clearer: my constituent has made it clear that she fully understands the purposes of DLA. There is no question of DLA contributing towards normal living expenses. My constituent's normal household budget takes account of the fact that she normally spends DLA on costs that continued when she was in hospital for part of the time. I am not suggesting that the DLA was being used for normal living expenses.

It is always difficult to discuss particular circumstances. I do not want to discuss a particular case here, although I may discuss it with my hon. Friend away from the Floor of the House. If his constituent was receiving the highest-rate care and the lower-rate mobility components, that would, last year, have come to £71.15 a week. That is a significant amount, and I fully accept that its removal would have had an impact on her ability to budget for costs that she meets one way or another.

DLA comprises three care and two mobility components, whereas attendance allowance has two care components only. All in-patients' disability-related needs are met by the national health service. That is where the rule against overlapping provision comes in, and that is why DLA and AA are withdrawn after a shorter period—namely, once an adult has been in hospital for 28 days. For children under 16, the rule is 84 days.

Those arrangements are based on the principle that double provision—in this case, NHS in-patient care and payment of DLA—for the same need should not be made from public funds. The difference between the arrangements for adults and for children is recognition of the therapeutic value of visits and treats for a disabled child who is adjusting to life in hospital.

Different arrangements also apply for people who are using their higher-rate DLA mobility component to secure a lease or hire-purchase agreement for a motability vehicle. My hon. Friend referred to that. In such a case, the higher-rate mobility component is still paid, so that the motability vehicle can be available when a severely disabled person is discharged from hospital. I hope that it is obvious why an exception is made in that special case. If it were not, a person would lose a car that should have been available to them for three years. The implication of the downrating in that instance would last long after the discharge from hospital and the restoration of benefit.

My hon. Friend has properly drawn attention to details of his constituent's case. I can say general things about that, but he will appreciate that I will not go into vast detail about particular cases. His constituent spent several months in hospital, but she was permitted to go home during the daytime. This is a slightly more difficult case, although the circumstances are not unique—other people are hospital in-patients who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983—and it is not representative of most hospital stays. Most people go into hospital and stay until they are discharged, but some hospital in-patients—my hon. Friend raises one such case—spend a lot of time out of hospital. This is, of course, a difficult case, but the withdrawal of the DLA payment in such a situation does not breach the underlying principle of not providing twice out of public funds for the same need.

The person concerned was a hospital in-patient and all her needs, including disability-related needs, could be met throughout the day. The in-patient place could not have been be used by another patient until she was formally discharged. My understanding, from Department of Health advice, is that hospitals are reimbursed within the calculation of their unit costs for all the costs involved in providing the patient with all the care they need, including periods out of hospital on leave of absence. That ought to include help with mobility.

My hon. Friend's constituent appears to have been out of the hospital for as long as she was in it, but the NHS should still have been responsible for all those costs. Perhaps we could discuss more precisely, outside the Chamber, what has gone on in this case. None the less, in such circumstances, it would not be right for us to make concurrent provision for a person's needs through the benefits system, because that would inevitably breach the double provision principle.

My hon. Friend was especially concerned that the payment of the mobility component of his constituent's DLA was withdrawn. He asked what was the purpose of the mobility component; I understand that his constituent was receiving the lower-rate mobility component. As I suggested in my brief exposition of the reasoning behind DLA and the extra cost benefit, the purpose of the benefit is to assist in providing a contribution to the extra costs to severely disabled people of personal care and being able to get around. However, after a person has gone through the gateways, as required, and has been assessed as being in need of one of the components, there is no requirement on how that money should be spent, so there is no question of the benefits system policing how such money is spent or threatening to take it away if it is not spent on mobility-related costs.

I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise answer on what is the purpose of the mobility component, although I can tell him what are the eligibility criteria. It is up to the individual disabled person how to spend the money and I understand that disability groups value that flexibility. There is no doubt that the range of needs and requirements of disabled people vary enormously from person to person, but while the benefit has gateways, the severely disabled person involved can decide, once the money is there, to use it in the most suitable way to meet extra costs.

Most hospital in-patients have little opportunity for individual mobility—they are in hospital and they stay there. If they need to be moved, the hospital will arrange transport. For most people, a stay in hospital is a short-term event and people who need a degree of care, but who might benefit from independent mobility, are likely to live in their own home, with friends or relatives, or in a care home. The mobility component of DLA can he paid to them in any of those situations for as long as they meet the conditions of entitlement to the component.

My hon. Friend referred to the definition of an in-patient, highlighting what he regards as a lack of clarity and quoting contradictory case law. Any lawyer would tell hon. Members—there are a number of lawyers present—that there are always contradictions in case law. One can always find cases that point in opposite directions. It is important to recognise, however, that the hospital is under an obligation, which is set out in the 1983 Act, to meet the needs and requirements of my hon. Friend's constituent. In this case, that is what being an in-patient means.

"Decision Makers Guide", to which my hon. Friend referred, suggests that one can be a hospital in-patient and spend time away from hospital. There is, however, no reference in that document to a length of time. The key point is, who is responsible for the maintenance elements and for looking after the costs associated with the person concerned? We expect our decision makers to apply a common-sense approach, subject to any case law that is currently out there and authoritative.

It would be neither possible nor desirable for "Decision Makers Guide" to set exactly how long an in-patient had to be out of hospital before they were no longer considered as such. It is not the length of time that matters. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that this lady was out of hospital almost as much as she was in, but "Decision Makers Guide" is there to guide people and our decision makers have to deal with myriad situations and circumstances, not all of which could be captured in a guide or a booklet. There is no right or wrong answer on DLA—it covers such a wide range of circumstances. It does not surprise me that my hon. Friend could find no definitive answer in "Decision Makers Guide", because it is a guide to common-sense decision making.

My hon. Friend also asked how this lady could meet the cost of living. The Department of Health has suggested to me that it reimburses hospitals to meet such costs, and I think that I have already dealt with his question on the purpose of the mobility component. Disability living allowance, AA and the extra cost benefit are unlike any other part of the benefits system: they are neither simple nor straightforward, and there is no black and white answer on eligibility or the circumstances in which somebody might be eligible. One cannot say that somebody with a condition or illness is automatically eligible—in fact, the effect of a disability or illness affects the care and mobility needs of the individual. That flexibility is an essential part of the benefit, which is valued by its recipients, but it is also the administrative bane of my life, and of many others who have to deal with DLA and AA decision making. There are downsides to the upside of flexibility, but we must live with that while the benefit remains as it is.

The debate has provided a useful opportunity to explore how benefits are treated when people are in hospital—my hon. Friend usually secures useful debates. I understand his concern that the changes we are making for benefits for everyday living are not being made to attendance allowance and DLA. I do not expect everybody to agree with the rationale, but I hope that they understand it. That does not mean that benefits recipients will not benefit from the changes that we are introducing in October—many of them also receive benefits for income maintenance.

At the same time, we shall introduce the pension credit, which will provide enhanced support for lower-income pensioners and reward those people with savings. However, I suspect that my hon. Friend's constituent might not be a pensioner—he did not say that she was. Perhaps we can continue our discussion on the case away from the Chamber.

I am grateful to the Minister for abandoning his visit to Wales to reply to this debate. I have heard him speak many times on this subject and not only is he in total command of his brief, but he speaks with commitment and enthusiasm on the subject.

Many issues fill the rural MP's postbag, but the non-availability of broadband is elbowing its way up the political agenda, certainly in Hampshire and, I suspect from looking around the Chamber, elsewhere. It is a reflection of the changing nature of rural life that the absence of the latest technology is such an issue. The blood pressure of many of my constituents has been further raised by the high profile campaign urging them to sign up for broadband when they have already tried to do so and been told that they cannot have it.

I have three objectives for rural broadband: to increase accessibility and affordability, to promote greater openness from infrastructure providers on the options, and to obtain some answers from the Government in areas where they hold the key. The internet is to wealth creation in this century what the roads and the railways were in the last two. As the exchange of information becomes as important as the exchange of goods and services, the information highway—the internet—is a key element of a country's infrastructure. Just as countries that have prospered needed an efficient transport system to carry people and goods quickly, so the growth economies of tomorrow need an efficient highway for information to move around quickly. Broadband provides that efficient highway. A computer using a standard phone connection can download up to 56 kilobits of information a second. Broadband, however, allows it to download information at rates from up to 512 kilobits to more than 20 megabits per second, some 400 times faster than a standard connection. The services now being marketed to consumers are what I call introductory broadband at up to 512 kilobits, approaching 10 times the speed of a standard phone connection. Other advantages of broadband are that it is always connected and comes at a flat rate price, meaning that the user pays a standard price per month or year, regardless of the time spent online.

The Government are seized of the importance of broadband. In his letter to me of 26 February, the Minister said:

"If the UK is to succeed as a world-class place for e-business, public service delivery and online participation, it is essential that we develop a world-class communications infrastructure."

The Government have set a target to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. If that is the right target, we are a long way behind the leaders. Japan had more than 5 million ADSL subscribers at the end of last year and was adding no fewer than 300,000 a month. We have about 750,000.

Two options are available to the Government to enable them to hit that ambitious target. One is to decide that broadband is a universal service, like water or daily delivery of mail, that everyone should have it and that, if the revenue from the service does not cover its cost, the Government will make up the difference. That subsidy to the universal supplier can be justified by invisible benefits, such as equality of opportunity or international competitive advantage.

The other option, which has been adopted in this country, is not to rely on a universal obligation, but to promote a market with alternative suppliers and means of access, and then to let competition ferment away, moderated by regulation. That has certainly proved more economical. Less than $5 per head has been spent by the UK Government to support broadband infrastructure, compared with $25 in France and $90 in Japan.

That policy has worked well in city centres, where people and companies are being offered faster and faster internet connection at lower and lower prices by a variety of competing suppliers using a range of different technologies. Around 50 per cent. of broadband is provided not over BT's wires but over cable. That policy is working less well in rural areas and gives rise to a policy issue for Ministers. Are they content to see that differential provision and, if not, does their current approach need adjustment?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Devon's topography is hilly and that BT has not invested the necessary money to enable people who want to work at home—they increasingly want to do that—to access broadband? Is he also aware that structural funds from the European Union and Government funding for broadband facilities are being dispersed to the regional development agencies rather than the providers of broadband? Why is the money not being used to encourage BT to widen broadband facilities instead of being used for wasteful bureaucracy?

As a fellow cyclist, I am aware of the topography of Devon and that it is not a flat county. My hon. Friend asked a good question and although he seemed to direct it at me, I know that he was directing it at the Minister, who will, I am sure, take it on board in his response.

Rural areas play a vital role in the life of the nation, accounting for nearly 25 per cent. of its population, 30 per cent. of its employment, 30 per cent. of its gross domestic product and 80 per cent. of its landscape. According to the Country Land and Business Association, whose activity in this area I applaud, only 20 per cent. of rural areas have access to broadband. The broadband stakeholder group gives a lower figure of less than 10 per cent., emphasising the point that there is no definition of a rural area. Such a situation puts rural business at a clear competitive disadvantage compared with urban business. There is an urgent need in rural areas to diversify from agricultural employment and to develop home-based employment to discourage travel. In Hampshire, many farmers are diversifying into other income areas. I visited one recently who has the UK franchise for a solar-powered swimming pool purifier. Folk like him need broadband, because without it it is more difficult to compete. They cannot get broadband because they live too far from an exchange or it is unviable for BT to enable the exchange, and the costs of alternative provision are very high.

People living in many of the small towns and villages in Hampshire may, if they are lucky, be on an uncertain path towards what I call introductory broadband in the form of either ADSL or the more restrictive satellite services. However, large parts of the country have no choice at all. They are told to use satellite services, or to form local co-operatives to put up more radio masts and take the risk of investing in local community wireless systems, or to club together and risk £55,000 for BT's new exchange activate proposition. They are busy folk who are trying to run their own companies. They are confronted by a mosaic of agencies that are falling over one another to offer potential and sometimes conflicting help and advice on rural broadband. It cannot be right when developing a national infrastructure that is critical to the future of the country's economy and a foundation for important social and public service developments to ask those busy people to get broadband to their village as well.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that haphazard approach to something with strategic importance—it certainly has that in mid-Wales—risks enabling the Government to abdicate? It is the Government's responsibility to recognise not just the economic benefits for rural areas, but the environmental benefits for all of us in having a strategic approach that is transparent and affordable for rural communities.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If one wants to conserve energy and minimise the need for travel, the better the communications infrastructure, the more progress will be made. The moral is simple. People who live in cities have access to an information motorway. In villages they have access to a footpath. Without change, there will be a drift to jobs in the cities.

The main broadband provider in rural areas is BT. As of 21 March, only 1,158 of 5,500 exchanges had been ADSL-enabled, which is just over one fifth. Both the Government and BT stress that that covers approximately 71 per cent. of homes. However, that is the mean of 90 per cent. of city homes and less than 10 per cent. of rural homes. Another 179 exchanges are currently at the build stage, having reached their trigger levels, which is bringing the percentage of enabled exchanges to around 25 per cent. A further 102 exchanges will have trigger levels published on Monday. I declare an interest—as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, that is a wise precaution—because I live in an area served by an unenabled exchange, along with my near neighbour, the chairman of British Telecom.

If my right hon. Friend moved from his constituency to Devon, he would be in good company because, by the end of the year, 45 per cent. of the population of Devon will be unserved by broadband compared with the national figure of 20 per cent. That shows the problems that we have.

My hon. Friend reinforces my point about the risk of a digital divide between rural and urban areas.

BT has reduced the price of broadband, introduced a rolling programme to enable exchanges, set targets and, in some cases, reduced those targets. I commend it for the progress that it has made, but too many people are still left out in the cold. That means that businesses that need broadband will have to consider more expensive options if the trigger level cannot be reached or if no trigger level has been set for that exchange. The director general of Oftel told me on 25 February:

"Where no trigger levels have been set, BT does not believe it to be commercially viable to fully enable the exchange using current cost information and its existing business model."

ADSL coverage will never reach many parts of rural areas. The Minister told us in the debate in the House on 4 March:

"It is clear that it will reach 80 per cent. over the next year or two, but the big challenge will be how to get from 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. and over."—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 738.]

BT is working hard to find ways of extending broadband availability to rural areas through marketing initiatives and through working with interested public and private sector bodies. However, its plans have to be made within the current commercial and regulatory framework and it is clear that, unless there is dramatic change in the economics of broadband provision, the remaining 10 per cent. of areas will require a different public-private partnership model or a different technological platform. Are the Government prepared to put together the right combination of interested parties and give the appropriate encouragement and support, so that rural broadband in those areas becomes a reality on a time scale that will benchmark against key competitors?

I know that this is a reprise of the earlier debate, but there are two key issues that should be raised with BT, through the Minister. First, BT often sets the highest targets in the most rural areas, which seems unfair and counter-productive. Secondly, take-up in rural areas is very low, even where there is ADSL. That is because we have not provided the proper packaging to make it clear to people what they are signing up to. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

Yes, I entirely endorse that. I agree that we should tackle not only the supply side, about which I have been talking, but the demand side. We need to explain to small and medium-sized enterprises exactly what the benefit of broadband is.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that one problem has been that people have expected to have broadband available, have gone through a process to get that service but have then found that they could not get it? The trouble with the demand side of the argument is that demand is stimulated where the service cannot be provided.

My hon. Friend is exactly right. If he raises that problem with BT, it will tell him that it is anxious to increase demand in areas where broadband is already available but take-up is low. That is why it is promoting broadband as a concept, but the downside to that, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, is that it irritates those who want broadband, dial in their exchange number and are then told that it is not available, that there is no trigger level and that there are no plans to bring it within reach.

In fairness to the Government, they are worried about the digital divide. Some £30 million of grant has been given to the regional development agencies so that a digital divide in high-speed internet access does not open up between urban and rural communities. The Minister said on 4 March that he was working on that problem "energetically". I want to find out how that reservoir of energy is being applied.

In particular, I want to know how the prime ministerial commitment given last November will be met. I make no apologies for returning to that question a fourth time. The last time that the Minister spoke, he said:

"It would not be sensible, however, for me to announce from the Dispatch Box precisely how that will be determined"—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 739.]

With respect, I disagree. It would be sensible for us to know how that commitment was going to be delivered, because it goes to the heart of the issue under debate this afternoon.

The Prime Minister set the Government targets of 8 megabits per second in broadband connections in secondary schools and 2 megabits per second in primary schools. In non-broadband-enabled areas in my constituency, such bandwidths might be provided through a private circuit, which helps the school but does nothing for the rest of the village. An alternative, bolder and preferable method would be for the Government to specify a delivery mechanism for schools that would bring opportunities for the school and automatically pull through additional broadband infrastructure to the surrounding area—somewhere that might otherwise have to wait a long time for broadband under normal commercial conditions.

Until there is clarity on that issue, there will continue to be blight and uncertainty. Children will learn in one environment at school—proper broadband—and go home to a more basic form of delivery. How that commitment is delivered is of enormous interest to communities large enough to have a school or GP practice but not large enough to have their telephone exchanges enabled. In my constituency, that includes Whitchurch, Overton, Kingsclere, St. Mary Bourne, Hatherden and Abbotts Ann.

In the debate on 4 March, the Minister was pressed on that subject by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who asked whether the Government would

"draw up contracts with added public benefit, or … end up with tight contracts"?

The answer was straight from "Yes, Minister":

"I am confident that we will be able to achieve suitable contracts".—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 739.]

Can the Minister shed more light on that this afternoon? His letter to me on 26 February said:

"The public sector as a user of broadband will be a major driver for the introduction of broadband services throughout the country."

Later, speaking of the £1 billion that the Government are going to spend on broadband connectivity for public services during the next three years, the Minister said:

"We will make sure that the potential benefit of this spending is maximised and takes full account of the benefits of broadband."

The primary objective of the UK broadband taskforce is to support the aggregation of public sector demand for broadband and to ensure that through such aggregation, there is an extension of broadband availability, particularly in rural areas.

The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that concern is being expressed in some public sector organisations that are demanding to be aggregated, that that is causing problems. That applies particularly to the national health service network. The contracting for NHSnet has, in effect, been put on hold while the demand aggregation process takes place, and it feels that it is losing time and capacity that it desperately needs. There are problems across the piece.

That underlines the need for joined-up government and a cohesive approach that looks at the broader benefits of public sector aggregation. As the hon. Gentleman has just implied, there is some cynicism outside this place over whether we will get the broader benefits potentially available.

Some people living in rural areas will need a wireless solution, on which I want to press the Minister. Wireless broadband is based on a network of a central transmitter and a series of receivers. The clear advantage of wireless broadband is speed. At up to 11 megabits per second, it is far faster than other forms of broadband, and the roads do not have to be dug up for it to be installed.

However, wireless has a number of disadvantages. First, the technology in the UK is still very much in its infancy. With the wireless spectrum currently allocated in the UK, connection fails if there is no clear line of sight, just as mobile phone signals can be lost in a valley. Secondly, unless there is external funding, the local community—by definition, the village—has to fund the cost of installing the service and stand the risk that enough people may not subscribe, while each user has to pay for individual receivers' equipment. Thirdly, the issue arises of connecting the community wireless network to the main internet, known as backhaul. There have already been two failed attempts to auction the spectrum suitable for that, but even where the licence was taken up there was no obligation on the successful bidder to deploy. As a result, fixed wireless networks are springing up all over the country, but they are all in towns—unlike in the USA, where they are also in the countryside.

Those solutions, and the technologies involved, need to be linked to the aggregation of public sector demand. If the public sector uses leased lines where a wireless solution might be developed, that will not help the community generally.

I have further questions on the allocation of spectrum for that purpose. The 28 GHz auctions did not deliver the demand levels anticipated. My right hon. Friend may know, as we have briefly discussed, that the technology and equipment used by a company such as Cambridge Broadband—an equipment supplier rather than an operator—is successfully in use in other countries, operating at 3.5 GHz. Some problems with the use of wireless solutions, to which he referred, would not apply to the use of that spectrum to the same extent. The question of whether that spectrum is to be licensed is, therefore, real and immediate.

I want to probe the Government on their taking account of broadband issues when they make their decisions on allocating the spectrum. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, the Government have not released the sweet spot, which is the 2 GHz spectrum. He implied the question, which I shall pose again, whether the Government will optimise public benefit through conditions that actively encourage rural deployment or whether they will maximise income regardless of broader policy imperatives.

In its annual report to the Government last November, the BSG said:

"The Government should give priority to the support of broadband services when deciding policy on spectrum allocations"

on the basis that

"wireless schemes offer the most attractive means of providing broadband facilities to large sections of the population and their timely deployment will be crucial to the achievement of Broadband Britain objectives".

The Government released their response to the BSG's report on 20 March and said that the Radiocommunications Agency would be making additional spectrum available this year. Whether that will be the right spectrum under the right conditions remains to be seen, but the price is obviously important. The BSG's response states:

"Unleashing the potential of wireless is absolutely essential for Broadband Britain, but there are some real commercial regulatory barriers that need to be overcome, particularly around the provision and assignment of suitable spectrum".

I hope that I have conveyed to the Minister my constituents' mood and that he can give me a message to take back to them. They feel a little bruised by some of the Government's policies. They have an appetite for the new technology and are frustrated that they cannot get it. I hope that the Minister will help to bring it within their reach.

I am delighted once again to respond to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I am sorry that we are a double act, but the issue covers the whole rural area. I shall be brief, to allow other Members to contribute.

The BSG's report is a useful position paper. The group is obviously made up of many hard-working people in the field, although it is unfortunate that all the references to rural areas are at the end of the report. I get the feeling that it was written to draw in different aspects of the issue such as business needing to get on to broadband and the broadband needs of institutions, including public services and others. It discusses the rural dimension at its end, which is where we read for the first time about RABBIT. That, if I can get it right, is the remote area broadband inclusion trial—but we can all talk about RABBIT. There are many good initiatives, but I would like to hear from the Minister how they are being taken forward to ensure that good practice is widely explored.

In an intervention on the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I explained the two key problems on which I want to spend a little time. There was probably no way to allocate the resources fairly other than by setting targets. I have worked with Giles Deard at BT and, in the main, have found BT to be helpful and responsive. From my area, I congratulate Mike Cowley in Stonehouse, where I live, on leading a campaign to get on to broadband. In my constituency, there has been a similar campaign in Dursley, and I am sure that there will soon be one in Nailsworth. I understand why the trigger mechanisms were set, but there should be a clear implication that broadband will go as widely as possible and that the form of rationing is a means to an end. Broadband should go forward wherever it can, notwithstanding the difficulties over cost.

If people are located just outside an area covered by ADSL, they will be in a frustrating situation because a next-door business can get ADSL while they are highly unlikely to get it unless they happen to overlap with another, more urbanised area. In those circumstances, they are likely to be excluded unless they can find another technology, which is an important point to explore.

To follow up on those who are on broadband, there is a need for—I hate this term—capacity building to ensure that the process is about not only the trigger mechanism. I am aware from my discussions with BT that it gets about 10 per cent. follow-up in real terms to information service providers once the ADSL has been put in place. That cannot make much sense and much more needs to be done.

I would like to see an evaluation of the benefits of the other means available. There are clear advantages if people can get on to ADSL: if they are in the fortunate position of being on cable, it does not need to be part of the evaluation process. I would like to see a comparison between satellite and wireless conducted by means other than cost to allow people to know where they are going. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire rightly said, people are being asked to pay up front and they want to know how long their competitive advantage will be in place. If they have to change technology, they will lose money.

Will the Minister say what progress is being made on the institutional side in terms of health and education, and how that backwashes into the business world and wider community ventures? Greater co-ordination seems sensible, and I congratulate the Government on setting up the BSG. Its report is good and it shows that there is an attempt to co-ordinate and monitor progress. The number of people coming on to broadband in one form or another is pleasing.

I cannot think of an organisation that could co-ordinate the situation better locally than a local authority. There should be a way to ensure that the different public sector bodies are in touch with businesses and the wider community to see how they can achieve economies of scale by building the critical mass and negotiating communally with BT and others to ensure that the best service is obtained. I am not sure whether such co-ordination is happening. Perhaps my area is less developed than some others, but I have seen little evidence of co-ordination. It is down to the enthusiasts to keep e-mailing people, including their local MP, to get enough names on their trigger lists to reach their targets, at which point everyone can relax and the next town or village has to follow suit.

It would be better if there were greater cohesion locally. The debate has come at a fortuitous time and the Government have plenty to do. They have made a good start, but we have to be honest and admit that some areas are unlikely to get on to broadband. We must have the satellite versus wireless debate and we must make some decisions. We should also make the situation clear to allow people to pursue their hunches on the best way forward.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on securing a debate on such an important subject. My constituency, which is largely rural, although it contains some of the outer fringe suburbs of Norwich and some dormitory villages, has mixed access to broadband. For the majority of my constituents, access to broadband is problematic if not some way off, which will discourage established small businesses. The majority of small businesses in my constituency employ fewer than 10 people, and I suspect that limited access to broadband will deter others from setting up businesses in rural areas.

Like other Members, I have been approached by a number of small businesses, which frequently consist of one man or woman. They say that if they cannot have broadband it will be a severe disadvantage and that they will consider moving to an area in which there is broadband. I have spoken to the chief executive officers of both my district councils, Breckland and Broadland, and they are very enthusiastic about the potential of broadband for the public and private sectors. In fact, they emphasised the importance of broadband access in a rural area such as Mid-Norfolk because of the need to support sustainable communities.

I do not have to tell Members that many rural constituencies are undergoing a massive sea change as their economies move from traditional farming and food industries to much more complicated industries—often tourism, for example—which frequently use the internet. The internet will be an important stimulus for the economic growth of many of those areas and broadband will be absolutely key to promoting sustainable communities in them.

Constituencies such as mine are often considered to be wealthy and idyllic. They are idyllic, but the Countryside Agency received a report from the New Policy Institute in which the whole of Norfolk was classified as "remote rural", with the exception of Norwich and Great Yarmouth. Some 20 per cent. of the people who live in the countryside live in poverty, so building sustainable communities is absolutely crucial.

I wish to pick up on points that the Minister made to me in a letter dated 8 January, in which he responded to questions raised by a constituent. He noted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, that £30 million has been allocated to help with the development of broadband through regional development agencies. BT has joined forces with the East of England Development Agency to test a new approach that could bring broadband ADSL technology to small exchanges where previously it was not commercially viable. Can the Minister tell me whether the trials have been completed and whether they focused on any exchanges in my constituency?

The broadband brokerage is a pilot scheme that allows companies and public sector bodies to register their interest in broadband and that brokers an aggregated solution for them. It has been expanded to the connecting communities competition, which offers communities a chance to apply for a substantial contribution from EEDA's dedicated £5.8 million fund. How many communities in Mid-Norfolk are eligible, how many have applied and how many have been successful? I do not expect the Minister to provide the figures off the top of his head, but I would be grateful if he wrote to me later.

My final point, which is crucial, relates to what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said. The remote area broadband inclusion trial is examining alternative broadband internet access, using wireless and satellite, for small businesses in rural areas. The Minister's statement of 7 January 2003 highlighted the importance of wireless technology in delivering broadband to rural areas. Several innovative schemes have already been developed by local communities. For example, EdenFaster is a local community organisation that is bringing broadband internet connections to the entire Eden valley, which is on the border between Cumbria and the Yorkshire dales, and several trial schemes are being developed in Norfolk. I commend to the House the scheme of Richard Ellis and his son, James, which aims to provide broadband service for local communities in my constituency.

Noel Coward once said, "Very flat, Norfolk." That is not completely accurate, but, in large parts of my constituency, tall structures such as closely linked church towers can be used to provide a useful network. However, I wish to draw a technical constraint to the Minister's attention. Mr. James Ellis has asked whether it would be possible to have a dispensation to increase the legal effective radiated power limit between specific point-to-point links in rural situations. The Minister is aware that there are major problems in such areas. Mr. Ellis believes that there would be considerable advantages to establishing wireless technology in remote rural areas and providing the development that we want for sustainable communities, but the ERP limit must be addressed.

This is an important debate. Establishing broadband on a wide basis in Mid-Norfolk, which is a rural area, would secure the economic future of my constituents and bring a wider world to them.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on securing a debate on this important issue. One can tell how important it is by the number of hon. Members who have turned up this afternoon.

Most people think of me as a Member of Parliament for an urban area, but the vast majority of the Tamworth constituency is rural. There are pluses and minuses to living in a rural environment. I do not expect a motorway to run to every village or a supermarket at the end of every street. However, I do expect the information highway to run to every village and rural location. I shall explain the grounds for that in a very short contribution, so that other hon. Members are able to speak.

The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) mentioned sustainability. Information technology is necessary for sustaining our communities. We all know that farmers have gone through hard times recently. We asked them to diversify. Some farmers—they are businesses—would like to diversify into alternative businesses and run them from the same site. How can they do that if broadband is not available to them? How can they sell their concept or bring in money and investment?

That environment has certain advantages. Many people would like to live in a village and do not want to travel into towns or cities. If we maintain communities that are more sustainable and create work in the rural economy, people will not have to travel to towns and cities, or sit in traffic jams causing costs for the person who is behind them. It would be a win-win situation. The advent of broadband in the rural economy should not be seen in isolation. It should be considered by all Government Departments.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that access to broadband can be hugely beneficial not only to those who are in work but to those among our population who are retired and wish to continue studying through, for example, the Open university? They, too, are penalised if access to the internet is not available in rural areas.

There is no doubt that the matter affects the whole community. I was simply advancing an argument about why it is so important that Government Departments should interact with each other to show that the cost can be offset. For example, the cost of providing extra traffic management facilities could be avoided if the traffic were not generated in the first place.

I congratulate BT on its work as a main provider. I understand that, as a commercial enterprise, it may have a problem in funding a large amount of work at any given time. It must raise funds, and we know what the stock market has done to its value and how difficult it has been for the company to raise money. However, we should not walk away from the problem and say that we cannot solve it if the matter is simply one of securing extra funding.

In my area, we must deal with enablement and trigger points for the local exchange, as does everyone else. One would think that that was easy. However, I shall run through a case that shows the difficulties. It involves Mr. John Metcalf of Shenstone, who was told by BT that the Shenstone exchange required 150 people to register to trigger enablement. Being a community-minded individual, he wrote to the local paper, put up posters in the village, and encouraged people to sign up, so that the exchange could be enabled. He has been getting there slowly—96 people have now registered interest.

A new development in Shenstone involves the building of an office block of 36,000 sq ft and the creation of up to 400 jobs in a rural economy. That will be a tremendous boost to my constituency. Mr. Metcalf suggested to BT that with a big office block in place there would surely be enough people to enable the exchange to be triggered. The developers cannot sell the office block to potential customers if there is no broadband access. No one will move from an area that has broadband to an area that does not. I was a bit amazed—I suppose that the Minister would have been too—to be told by BT that only BT account holders can register an interest. It is a Catch-22, chicken-and-egg situation. There will be an office block of 36,000 sq ft, and it is obvious that the exchange will be triggered and that the need is there, but BT will not even take that into consideration. How does that support the Government's plan to diversify and bring sustainable economies and communities together? BT is working on a different route map.

One of the dangers that we face is telling BT how to run its business, when what we really want is the Government to release the 2 GHz bandwidth. Once people can get broadband by means of radio, we will not have to worry about telling other people how to run their businesses or about commercial decisions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that with radio delivery of broadband, everybody would be happy?

I believe that radio has an important part to play in the delivery of broadband, but people should walk away with the idea that most broadband in this country will be delivered by cable. It will come mainly through copper cable. I hope that later it will come through optic fibres, but it will still be cable-delivered.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken such issues on board and has been working quite hard in this area for many years. I am sure that the problems are not new to him. I would like some guidance on when my constituents can expect the delivery of the system. The Government target of 2006 is fast approaching. Will the Minister assure us that he will meet that target? I would love to take that message back.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on instigating the debate. We have had such debates before, but we cannot have enough of them because we need continually to highlight the importance of extending broadband to rural areas.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins). If nothing else, his constituency has a great reputation for pigs. I support what he said about farmers diversifying to get an income. Many farmers are desperately trying to diversify and without modern information technology and broadband communications, they cannot do that. There is more to diversification than running bed and breakfasts, and farmers are looking forward to that.

BT has behaved very well in my constituency, which is the most sparsely populated in England—that is what we claim. I certainly have the least populated district council in England. In the market towns and larger villages, we have reached the threshold and exchanges are being converted. I suggest that hon. Members who are worried about the matter should encourage their local paper to run a campaign. My local paper, the Hexham Courant, ran a successful campaign that alerted people to the idea that they must register. People registered in droves and, as a consequence, the exchanges will be enabled. However, a vast area of my constituency has no prospect of a traditional link-up. People in those areas will be able to access broadband only by satellite or wireless technology.

I want to give a brief example. I can claim another record: my constituency contains the most remote village in England. It is called Kielder. Believe it or not, six workshops were developed there with help from the regional development agency and the local authority. They were supplied with satellite broadband courtesy of the regional development agency. As a consequence, within weeks of the buildings being completed, five out of the six had been let. It was clear that if there had not been access to some form of broadband communication, those premises would not have been so easy to let, so broadband is extremely important.

The hon. Gentleman has made several important points about how we will lose businesses in rural areas if they do not have connections. In my constituency, I have a business centre in a rural area. It has 12 tenants, all of whom have told the owner of the business centre that if they cannot get broadband in the next 12 months, they will have to move to a town. That is the kind of problem that rural areas face.

That is an important point. It was pointed out earlier that if some areas are enabled for broadband and others are not, there will be a migration of people from areas that are not enabled to those that are.

Earlier today, the Countryside Agency issued an extensive report on rural economies called "Stepping Stones to Healthier Futures". It is worth telling hon. Members about some of the key facts and statistics, because that should go a long way towards informing the debate. The Countryside Agency states:

"80 per cent. of the rural workforce is employed in either manufacturing, distribution, financial or public services—not farming or tourism."

Those areas rely hugely on broadband communication. It continues:

"5.53 million employees and self employed work in rural shops, offices, workshops, factories and farms."

One can see that there is a considerable amount of manufacturing and industrial activity in rural areas. In fact, 17 per cent. of total rural employment is in manufacturing and not farming, which some people will find surprising.

One further point, which many people in villages will not be happy to learn, is that it is village incomers who start up businesses. Apparently, many of them move to villages simply because they want to live in the lovely countryside, but they go on to start up businesses. The Countryside Agency estimates that two thirds of all start-up businesses in rural economies are started by incomers. Such people are familiar with, and rely on, modern technologies. If they cannot access them, they will not move to such areas and will settle elsewhere.

I want to reinforce the message conveyed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and others. It is vital for the Government to take a lead in addressing the problem of how to roll out the network into the countryside.

I was saddened to hear that the Minister has been unable to visit Wales today. He should not be too concerned because the examples that I shall cite are exclusively from Wales.

No one taking part in the debate minimises the importance of broadband to the economic development and prosperity of our country. Over the past few years, Wales has seen a number of examples of good practice, which have been successful in themselves but have also served as models for development elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I cite the example of the Strand 6 initiative, which was completed in December 2001. It was a partnership between BT, the Welsh Development Agency and the Llwybr Pathway. Essentially, the project addressed the supply side of communications in rural Wales. It ensured that, in a short space of time, ADSL broadband was installed in 10 exchanges. That was extremely important for the communities in question and it also served as a model for what could happen elsewhere.

Lessons were also learned from some of the initiative's shortcomings. For example, Strand 6 paid very little attention to demand stimulation. Subsequent initiatives, such as Opportunity Wales, show that that lesson has been learned. Opportunity Wales has been directed primarily at small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales and has encouraged them to get the best out of ICT. The Opportunity Wales initiative is one of the largest objective 1 projects in Wales; some £21 million has been allocated over three years. That is enormously important. West Wales and the valleys are categorised as objective 1 because they have a very low GDP. Although there are many other ways in which GDP can be increased in the short term, investing in the long term, through broadband, is one of the most effective ways of ensuring the vitality and wealth of the local economy.

We have seen other examples in Wales as well. One of the most socially worthwhile instances of success has been the partnership established between BT and the national health service in Wales. Broadband connections have been provided to some 500 GP practices, hospitals and home workers, and an enormous social benefit has been derived from that. We are seeing the rolling out of the Broadband Everywhere initiative, with some £100 million earmarked for the development of a partnership involving BT, the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Development Agency with the objective of achieving nearly 100 per cent. broadband coverage throughout Wales.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to focus on developments in the Caerphilly county borough, 40 per cent. of which I have the privilege of representing. In that area, a grass-roots public-private partnership has already proved to be very successful. Its aim is to increase the availability of broadband in some of the less commercially advantageous parts of the Caerphilly borough, which includes most parts of the borough. Initiatives are already under way in many parts of the borough, and the success of the partnership is reflected by the fact that in one or two pockets of the borough that are not covered there is already a hue and cry, and people are asking why they do not have access to broadband as well. A local momentum has built up to encourage the maximum amount of coverage.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things that we can do as Members of Parliament is to encourage that kind of activity? For example, there is a link on my own website www.jamesgray.org to BT so that people can register through the site. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a good idea?

Declare an interest.

The hon. Gentleman has not declared an interest yet, but he does make a very good point. I am sure that many hon. Members—myself included—can cite instances of members of the public getting in touch because they want us to make representations and facilitate access so that they can get the benefit of broadband. We can make a practical contribution where that is concerned.

The initiative in Caerphilly is designed to stimulate demand and to provide investment on the supply side. It is an extremely important partnership because, through the good offices of Caerphilly county borough council, there has been co-operation with BT and the Welsh Development Agency. Funding has come from the Corus regeneration partnership, where resources have been provided because of a slimming down of the Llanwern steelworks; Caerphilly county borough is part of that catchment area. Money has come from the partnership to stimulate marketing and encourage demand, and BT has provided four or five extra exchanges to cover much of the area. The initiative is proving to be extremely successful and there is no doubt in my mind that it will be a success, followed by others elsewhere in Wales in the near future.

Broadband is absolutely essential for economic development in the Caerphilly county borough, in Wales and throughout the UK. I am hopeful that by the middle of 2005 availability will rise to nearly 90 per cent. throughout the UK. That will come about not least because the Government have the right support policies, and the vision and perspective necessary to ensure that broadband makes a significant contribution to the future prosperity of this country.

Order. I remind hon. Members of the importance of starting the winding-up speeches at 3 o'clock.

I start by declaring a depressing fact. I have probably the only mainland constituency that has no BT exchange enabled—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said probably, and I said it cautiously.

I can confirm that my constituency has no BT broadband-enabled exchanges, and I believe that there are none in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) either.

I am sure that tomorrow's record in Hansard will show that I said "probably". When I said probably, it was likely that I would be challenged.

I have the fifth largest constituency in the UK. That means that some 525,000 hectares of south central highland Scotland—most of Perthshire and Angus—have virtually no broadband access. Listening to some of the contributions of other hon. Members today, I can see that my constituency is not untypical in that respect.

I looked at the BT website today to see what type of exchanges were enabled for broadband, and I could not find any exchanges that could be described as rural enabled in Scotland. We hear that in the next few years broadband will be brought to the south pole. It now looks likely that the south pole will have broadband access before my constituents in Pitlochry and Aberfeldy. [Interruption.]

Order. We seem to have several competing debates going on at once.

On its website, BT also stated that it is rolling out ADSL upgrades to some 200 new exchanges. Only one of them is in Scotland, in South Queensferry, which lies in the Scottish central belt. Rural Scotland is not benefiting from the technology and looks unlikely to in the medium term because of the massive infrastructure investment required to enable rural exchanges. BT is doing all that it can to enable such parts of the country, but leaving broadband provision to market forces simply is not working when it cannot provide broadband to rural areas. BT has set improbable trigger threshold levels, which are almost impossible for small disparate communities to meet in constituencies such as mine. There are 12 exchanges in my constituency. Only three of them have been set a threshold level.

I believe that BT is serious and sincere when it says that it wants to bring broadband to rural areas. I have had several discussions with senior BT members and executives. They have even gone so far as to lower the threshold in the three exchanges in my constituency—not sufficiently to enable them—and BT staff have been prepared to sit down and discuss the problems and issues with the many campaign groups that have been set up to push for broadband in their localities.

BT understands, as many hon. Members do, that if we do not deliver broadband to such areas we are in great danger of creating a technological divide with the fault line separating urban and rural communities. Many small and medium-sized enterprises and small family companies in my constituency already feel technologically disadvantaged. Perthshire and rural Angus may be great places to stay, but they are rotten places to do business if one requires the latest in information technology and e-commerce.

My constituents get—I will use a Scottish word—fair scunnered when they see glossy BT or Freeserve campaigns knowing fine well that they will never get broadband in the short or medium term. The only way that my constituents will acquire broadband will be if they up sticks, move out of my constituency and resettle in one of the cities or towns in central Scotland.

Why is broadband so important to rural areas? I will give an example from my constituency. Highland Perthshire is almost entirely dependent on tourism. As everyone in this Chamber knows, tourism is a very competitive business. Broadband can enable a better net profile for tourism businesses and attract a worldwide audience, which such businesses require. Broadband means more information on services and accommodation, quicker access to that information for customers worldwide and more rapid handling of complex booking and ordering tasks and payment transactions.

I understand that there are problems in rolling out broadband, not just for the UK but for all the developed countries. Most people who currently receive broadband get if from cable or ADSL. ADSL has problems; it can be supplied only to homes that are up to 5.5 km from an exchange. If every single exchange in the UK were enabled by BT, a significant amount of the population would still not have access to broadband. We have to consider other mechanisms for delivering broadband to rural communities, but we must approach some of the alternative technologies with a great deal of caution.

I looked at the BT website today, and it floats the option of what is called midband. I think that BT sees midband as the solution for rural areas. However, midband is little more than glorified ISDN. It only gives half the operating speed of broadband, but people are charged almost the same.

The midband myth must be dispelled. BT has said:

"Midband … will provide faster internet access and hopefully sensitise people in relevant areas to the benefits of broadband and thereby stimulate the demand which will then support full broadband upgrading."

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a con trick?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that midband has been floated to get BT off the rural hook. That is unacceptable.

However, there have been a couple of experiments in operation of mini-DSLAM in highland Scotland. There have been trials in Drumnadrochit and Muir of Ord. Mini-DSLAM enables small communities to have smaller exchanges at a much more competitive cost. When we see the results of the experiments at the end of June 2003, we might learn more about the possibilities in that particular technology.

I refer now to the old chestnuts of satellite and wireless. Initially, satellite was paraded as a solution for rural communities, but it is an expensive option. It costs £1,000 to install. The running costs of satellite are between £60 and £500, depending on the bandwidth required. Clearly, that is not an appropriate solution for the domestic user in rural areas. I have only four or five businesses that are enabled with satellite in my constituency, and even for them it is an expensive solution. It is a far from ideal technology. The time delay in signals travelling to and from the satellite can cause serious problems. Internet browsing is slow—in some cases, as slow as dial-on.

Wireless access offers a solution for rural areas, although it is beset with regulatory and political problems, which have been barriers to its entry and stop its adoption. Power lines have not been mentioned today. They are another attractive option for delivering broadband. A couple of interesting experiments are now taking place in the south of Scotland and at Stonehaven in Aberdeenshire. Power lines have the advantage that they can be delivered to each home. Each home is connected to the grid. Such technology has enabled large parts of Scandinavia to deliver for their rural communities. Will the Minister comment on what he regards as the potential use of power lines to deliver broadband?

Securing broadband in each locality in the United Kingdom should become a mission for the Government. We are still at the bottom of the G7 for broadband access and that must be dealt with. We are looking for resources and a commitment from the Government to deal with such matters, so that I can tell my constituents in Blairgowrie that they will receive broadband before it is received by people at the south pole.

It gives me pleasure to return to this subject. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on raising it again. I want to talk about broadband services as a process, not a specific event. It is important that a process is in place whereby the network can develop, instead of our thinking that it is a single challenge to put out ADSL to many more people.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to use the development of the road and railway networks as an analogy. We are discussing the scale of the development of transport networks. They have never been frozen in time, but have continued to develop. We are seeing something that is equivalent to the canal, road and rail systems being developed at lightning speed, but people are feeling left out along the way. Unlike the transport network, the information network has the great advantage that its development is generally not seen to have huge environmental downsides. It is welcomed, particularly in rural areas, whereas motorways such as that planned up to the Humber bridge was not welcome as it would have been built through the middle of Lincolnshire. Indeed, it was never built, for that reason.

We must remember that the process should be driven not by technology, but by what functions people want from information networks. We should not be thinking about requiring a specific technology. We do not require broadband as such. We are looking for services and benefits that will derive from it. Broadband is not important in itself, but the services that it will deliver to people are. There is no doubt that the ADSL network over BT wires will be the network that satisfactorily delivers to most people in the short term, specifically to those in rural and semi-rural areas who have not been able to receive the same benefits as people in urban areas.

A range of solutions has already been mentioned. We could be wrapped up in a lot of technical jargon, but it is worth referring to the ups and downs of different technologies. ADSL broadband is often talked about. It is advertised by BT, which focuses on the fetching creature that flies through the living room. As has been said, the normal speed of that is 500 kilobits per second, but it can go faster. BT is offering business solutions that go up to 2 megabytes, which gives some scope for expansion.

Satellite has a slow uplink and is thus unsatisfactory for many people, especially those in business. Many of the requirements are business requirements, and people need to send documents to their customers and receive documents back. Having a fast downlink to the computer is fine if a person wants to surf the internet, but a fast uplink is essential if a person wants to transmit material to customers.

Cable broadband has a high potential and is a most satisfactory solution. However, I do not think that we are discussing cable networks rolling out to broadband areas. There is no serious prospect of that happening. It will have an important role to play in urban areas, but we should not be thinking of it delivering in rural areas.

Wireless networks are important. As has been said, they have a fast local loop. However, when we get off the local loop, we have the problem of how to get on to the mainstream network. We particularly need some imagination from the suppliers of the wired loop, especially BT. It could either encourage or discourage the kind of community initiatives that we have heard about. One, in Bottisham in Cambridgeshire, is talked about at length. We would expect such things in Cambridgeshire, but I have also heard about them in Norfolk when people have got together and created a wireless local loop. Clearly, the terms of their contract do not enable broadband services to feed all that through one ADSL connection in someone's bedroom.

BT could come up with imaginative and helpful community contracts that would allow people to develop such services at reasonable cost to each of their customers. I am not arguing for it to be a free service, but it could be reasonably priced. I hope that the Government will, through Ofcom, give a clear steer that they want to encourage such innovation. We must bear it in mind that discouragement could arise if the suppliers of the onward link want to hold back in order to sell their own single-user contract at a later date.

Wireless also raises the matter of potential interference with satellite. The Minister sat through debates on the Communications Bill in Committee, as did the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who must have been itching to talk about broadband, but could not because he was in the Chair at the time. The spread of wireless seems attractive, but there may be a downside to it. The Minister was arguing that the logic behind asking satellite providers to pay to protect their spectrum was to do with the potential for future interference. Wireless has scope for growth, but we may reach a limit simply because of interference.

The final important network that has not been mentioned is the mobile phone network. It has been slow to develop its third generation services, but one of the major logics behind that is the provision of faster internet services to points anywhere within the mobile phone network. That has a much greater potential reach than the wired broadband network does at present. The third generation mobile services have been developing slowly.

Costs are being highlighted at present. A person can buy a pig in a poke. He may sign up to buy 3G services, but he does not know what he will get; all that he knows is that services are likely to get cheaper. That is interesting for people who want to take up technology quickly, but we cannot argue that the third generation mobile services are an adequate substitute for wired broadband access. A range of solutions will offer broadband access, but we should not be under any illusions that the market will deliver to everyone at the speed that we need.

The demand for ever greater speed will always create a further technology gap. People may be on the information super-highway as it is currently defined when they have access to broadband at the speeds that come through BT and ADSL, but in five or 10 years' time that may no longer be sufficient and they may feel left behind because an even quicker technology is being rolled out to urban centres, from which they are excluded. We need to consider mechanisms through Ofcom, which is the Government's primary mechanism for delivering the services, to raise the floor for which a universal service needs to be provided. The current legal requirement imposed on BT is that it should deliver data access at a speed of 2.4 kilobytes per second. It has a self-imposed requirement to meet a speed of 9.6 kilobytes, which is slow. There is scope within Ofcom's remit to require all the providers of communications networks that it regulates to raise the floors—the slowest speed at which they provide services successfully. There would be benefits across the piece of sticking to that type of mechanism rather than one that is technology-specific.

We must also continue to sell the benefits of broadband more widely. I have just changed over to it at home and it is revolutionary—I cannot sing its praises highly enough. Although the slogan is trite, it is true because broadband "Works at the speed you work at". I can now go home and access the latest news update, using my BBC Online service in preference to Teletext. It is quicker and better. There is no way that one would do that using narrowband, and the more I use it, the more I understand the very rich layer of functionality that can be accessed only through broadband.

We must continue to get that message across. As we tell everyone about the wonderful stuff out there, the Government and their regulators—especially Ofcom—have a responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure is in place for everyone to receive broadband, wherever they are in the UK.

I too congratulate my fellow cyclist, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), on his good fortune in securing this debate, his tenacity in pursuing the issue and his extremely comprehensive and excellent speech, which the Minister will wish to address in his winding-up comments.

There have been some useful and varied speeches. Unusually, I would like to comment on that of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who brings great personal knowledge to the debate. During the passage of the Communications Bill, he referred to himself by a rather self-deprecating term that I do not intend to repeat. He brings knowledge to the debate that is useful, as does the Minister. Not everyone knows that in 1986 or 1987 the Minister wrote a paper on broadband communications, which was probably before most of us had even heard the term.

This is not a partisan debate. We all genuinely want the Government to deliver for the sake of the country. We know that it is not easy. Hon. Members who have followed the problems of Deutsche Telecom, or those of France Telecom reported in today's newspapers, will know that broadband delivery can bring commercial difficulties.

In my home town of Lutterworth in my constituency, I have to ring people up to encourage them to register. We had a trigger point of 500, in common with many other hon. Members' constituencies. That figure has now been reduced to 350 and we have got as far as 344. I am not sure that it should be the purpose of a Member of Parliament to lobby for a commercial company to register with the local exchange, but that is the point that we have reached.

Also in my constituency is an example involving the public sector, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire referred. The East Midlands Broadband Consortium delivers broadband to a school that I visited on Friday, as well as others in the constituency—as do other consortiums throughout the country, I understand. Sapcote library, I was surprised to discover, receives its broadband through the People's Network, another public sector delivery point. If the public sector can get broadband, surely that can pull through additional broadband infrastructure for the private sector, as my right hon. Friend said.

We have discussed the huge importance of broadband to business—especially in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned. It is of huge importance throughout the country that the UK is not left behind in the development of the information or knowledge economy. Various people have come to see me with their concerns about that. The number of hon. Members present for the debate testifies to the importance of broadband to rural areas. There are 11 Conservative Members present, who represent areas from the Scottish borders all the way down to South Hams in Devon. That signifies the importance of what might otherwise be a quiet debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday afternoon.

Rather than covering old ground, I turn to two specific issues. One has been termed the broadband tax by Vtesse Networks in Hertford, a company that has written to me. I am sure that the Minister also received a letter from Vtesse. It states that

"rates are, in our view, applied unfairly to the leasing of dark fibre"

which creates

"a Broadband Tax inhibiting the development of Broadband Britain."

Will the Minister comment on that in his winding-up speech? Exactly the same issue was raised by Thus, a company that sprang from Scottish Telecommunications. Thus raised the issue in a meeting with me yesterday. It considers that the broadband tax is a tax on investment and a tax on its network. The tax is also counter-competitive because British Telecom does not pay the same rates as Thus for its network. In Vtesse's view:

"The development of a market in dark fibre is in our view the key to the development of a leading edge Broadband infrastructure in the UK."

The second issue concerns what the CBI would like to see—incentive-based regulation. The CBI believes that the lack of competition in the telecommunications market has stalled investment in the required infrastructure. Although there were 1.4 million broadband connections at the end of January, the UK is in only 6th place among the G7 countries in terms of the number of its broadband connections. Only a small percentage of those connections were for SMEs.

A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found a close correlation between the availability of rival providers and the growth of broadband penetration. To date, the UK regulatory environment has offered insufficient incentive for operators to build an alternative infrastructure. We know that much attention has been paid to the unbundling of local exchanges, but local loop unbundling does not appear to have had the desired results. Indeed, of those that have been unbundled, only a small number are being used by alternative operators, which suggests that the concept of local loop unbundling may be inherently flawed. Certainly, it is not a simple procedure.

The CBI concludes that if there is to be an increase in the number of broadband connections in the UK to reach the Government's target of being the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005, regulation should be introduced to encourage investment and innovation. The existing regime, which was partially created to curb the monopoly of BT, is largely based on penalties rather than incentives. There are few carrots to match the sticks available to the regulator. To attract long-term capital expenditure and create an incentive for the development of broadband markets, a new approach should be taken by the new creature of Ofcom, encouraged by the Government.

What action will the Government take to deal with the problem of broadband provision? It is not a partisan issue—all hon. Members have agreed today that more action must be taken to encourage the development. At a recent meeting, I was told that the Government were good at tea and sympathy. We need more than that today.

More than RABBITS out of hats.

More than RABBITS out of hats, as my hon. Friend says. We need sensible action, policy and, from the extremely knowledgeable Minister, delivery for the future of the UK and its information economy.

I too congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on securing this debate, which has been extremely good. We have had a useful discussion. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the diligence and authority with which he has pursued this subject. I also wish the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) well in finding the last six people to sign up for the BT threshold in his constituency.

I think that we have got them.

I am very glad to hear that.

My hon. Friend referred to the business of trying to get enough people to reach the threshold, which is what I have been doing in my constituency. The problem is not in achieving the trigger, because my main town has been enabled and we are now trying to enable the second town. However, even when they are enabled, there is the problem of the distance limit of 4.5 miles of copper wire. Large tracts of my main town cannot access broadband and the rural parts of the constituency will never be able to access broadband because of the problem. How will my hon. Friend encourage wireless solutions?

My hon. Friend raises an important point: the limitation is an important constraint. BT has announced today that it is introducing a technology to increase the limit. That will not remove the problem entirely but will at least enable some of the problem to be addressed.

In October, I visited the Act Now project in Cornwall, an impressive partnership put together by the county council and enthusiastically supported by the Federation of Small Businesses and others. The generation of demand for broadband has been a key element of that project—to pick up an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—alongside funding for technology.

During my visit to that project, I met the Quintdown Press, which has three print shops in Cornwall, and which as a result of broadband has been able to achieve one-day turnaround for print jobs delivered to its shop in Truro, compared with three days in the past. Its Internet café in Newquay increased its turnover by 50 per cent. within two weeks of the introduction of broadband.

The Minister referred to the Act Now project. Will he join me in congratulating Devon county council? It is seeking to emulate that project: it has announced today that it will provide £300,000 to perform a similar function in Devon—and hopefully to obtain some objective 2 funding, as well.

I welcome that point.

In Cornwall, I also visited a web marketing company called Neutralise, which moved from London to Cornwall because it knew that broadband would be available there. It is now a six-person business, and its staff made the point that it would never have been able to become that large if it had stayed in London.

Those examples show the economic importance of broadband in rural areas from the point of view both of the rural areas themselves—I refer hon. Members to the remarks about diversification made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins)and echoed by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)—and of our ambition to raise productivity and improve the competitiveness of the UK economy as a whole. It is important that we ground this discussion in the interests of the country as a whole, as well as in the interests of rural areas themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth made a telling point about new developments, which I hope that BT heard.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Oakham, the diminutive county town of Rutland, and I visited Rutland Online, which employs 15 people. It began six years ago by hosting websites and providing e-commerce solutions for businesses in the area, but broadband has increasingly become a major part of its interest. Today there is no broadband service in Oakham, but in the coming few months three separate broadband services will be established. Next month, an independent operator will use local loop unbundling to provide the first broadband service in the area; shortly after that, BT expects to upgrade its local exchange for ADSL, and later in the year, Rutland Online will establish a wireless broadband service with which it expects to be able to support 60 small and medium-sized enterprise users. Rutland Online would like to be able to roll out that wireless service to other nearby villages, perhaps by using church spires in the way that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) suggested—I will write to him about the points that he put to me.

There is a great profusion of activities of this kind at the moment. One can get a sense of that from the Government's response last week to the report of the broadband stakeholders group, in which we set out information about activities in each of the regions, in Wales—my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) referred to a number of important initiatives there—and in Scotland. I refer the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) to some of the initiatives that are being taken forward, for example, the objective of increasing access to ADSL-equivalent broadband to 70 per cent. by the end of 2003–04, which is a Scottish Executive initiative. A copy of that response is in the Library and on the Department of Trade and Industry website.

At present, 71 per cent. of households in the UK can access an affordable broadband service. That puts us ahead of several other countries, including France and Italy. We now have over 1.5 million connections, which is more than the figure that some hon. Members mentioned. The UK now has the second largest broadband network in Europe after Germany, and the number of connections is growing by over 30,000 per week, which is much more than in Germany. Recognising the effectiveness of the much greater degree of competition in the UK, my German opposite number asked me last week for UK input to the development of the German broadband strategy, which is due to be launched in May. However, despite the progress that we have made, the hon. Members who underlined that there is still a great deal more to do to make broadband available in all rural areas of the UK are correct.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made an important point about the limitation on the distance from a BT exchange from which people with ADSL can receive broadband. Oftel estimates that 5 per cent. of customers connected to BT's DSL-enabled exchanges live too far from the exchange to obtain DSL broadband. However, as I said, BT announced today that it can extend that distance further, and it believes that that will increase the maximum national coverage to 98 per cent.

I do not believe that there should be a general public subsidy for broadband, as has been suggested. The key role for the public sector in broadband will not be through handing out subsidies; it will be as a customer for broadband services, because public services will spend over £1 billion on broadband in the next three years. We need to aggregate that demand to maximise the impact on industry investment and on the availability of broadband. That was why I launched the UK broadband taskforce last November.

At present, the main obstacle to the provision of more affordable broadband in rural areas is concern that the initial investment required will obtain a slower return in those areas, where there are fewer people within a given distance from the service provider than there are in areas of high population. In particular, there is the problem of the so-called backhaul infrastructure—the cost of connecting a local exchange or a new wireless base station to the core network. That is a big barrier to the extension of broadband to rural areas. Rutland Online told me that of the £90,000 cost of providing its wireless broadband service for two years, backhaul will account for £50,000. The key point here is that the investment that delivers, for example, broadband to a school in a rural area in the future can also contribute to the backhaul for a local access system for the community as a whole. That is the key: public sector investment should be used to ensure wide access to other users for broadband services in rural areas. That is at the heart of the work that we are taking forward.

In Shropshire, every school has been enabled on broadband, but there is no broadband for any of the businesses in my constituency. There is a reason for that: the Government imposed a deadline of this year for the schools and they managed to do that by January, but the only system that was on offer to the county council was of no use to businesses or homes. There was no choice but to accept the only tender on offer: now, every school and library is on broadband but that is of no use to businesses and homes.

I welcome the progress that has been made in public sector provision in Shropshire. Advantage West Midlands is now putting together a very impressive arrangement for using the investment that has been made in infrastructure to open that up to other users. The intention is to aggregate the network that the hon. Gentleman refers to—whose contract comes to an end this summer—with the higher education network in the west midlands so that they can be put together and the infrastructure can be opened up to other users. To pick up on some of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate, what is happening in the west midlands is a good illustration of the potential of this approach to provide broadband services, particularly to small enterprises in rural areas.

There is great potential for using public sector procurement to extend the reach of broadband into rural areas. That is not automatic: it requires some very smart management on the part of the Government and the regional development agencies, but I am certain that we can do that. Therefore, we should look at what the public sector will be procuring in broadband services over the next year: for schools, it is planned that broadband will be provided at 8 megabits per second symmetric to every secondary school; all GP practices will get 256 kilobits per second connectivity; and the criminal justice system will use broadband. We need to ensure that that investment is managed to extend access to other users as well: for example, 85 per cent. of public libraries currently have broadband—including, I noticed during my visit there, the public library in Oakham.

I could say a great deal more, and I welcome the comments that have been made in this debate. I hope that I have briefly been able to give the House a sense of the determination of the Government to ensure that rural communities have the benefits of broadband. We have already seen with regard to mobile telephones that the competitive market can best deliver the choice of services and real value that consumers are looking for.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of phoenix traders. It is by no means a new issue, and has been raised by other hon. Members over the years.

As I prepared for today's debate, it struck me that the reason why everyone always agrees on this issue but nothing ever changes is because the main victims of phoenix traders are usually small and medium-sized enterprises, which do not have the same political clout as big business. Often such businesses are too busy fighting for survival to seek the necessary political change. I hope that today gives us the opportunity to focus on the small and medium-sized enterprises that suffer from this practice.

My interest in phoenix trading was first stimulated by a piece of constituency casework, to which I shall later refer. The debate has proved timely, however, as last Sunday the Sunday Mail carried an article that is a classic of the genre. The headline is "Shameless", and the article tells the story of a tycoon whose bus firm went bust owing £350,000 but who is back on the road again. Being a good tabloid newspaper, it states that he is "guzzling" champagne. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with the Sunday Mail—it may not be the paper of choice in her constituency—but I commend it to her as an excellent example of responsible tabloid campaigning on an issue that affects a great number of people.

The report states:

"The firm under investigation is School Bus Scotland, which went to the wall two years ago after running up losses of £500,000 and owing creditors £344,715."

The creditors of that firm are typical of such stories. One is the Golden Filling Station in Greenock, which is owed some £26,907. That is an example of what I mean when I speak of small businesses that can ill afford to be so cheated.

The Minister and I both served on the Committee that considered the Enterprise Bill—I hope that her scars have healed as well as mine, as it was something of a marathon. Much of the debate in Committee focused on the tension between encouraging an entrepreneurial spirit and the need to penalise dishonest chancers. The more I see of such stories, the more convinced I become that we have not got the balance right. The law is letting too many chancers get away with economic murder—it is nothing short of a chancers' charter.

The constituency case to which I referred concerns one of my constituents, Dr. Jonathan Wills. He runs an excellent wildlife tourism business, taking visitors to see Shetland's spectacular seabird colonies and seal rookeries. It is an award-winning business. He was looking to develop and expand his business and accordingly he decided that a more comfortable, larger boat that was specially designed to allow wheelchair users and other disabled passengers to take advantage of his service was necessary. He received good support from the local council and Shetland Enterprise.

Dr. Wills then entered into a contract with a company called Steelboat Ltd. in Pwllheli, north Wales, which was run by one Mr. Don Fuller-Love. The business was apparently on the level. Mr. Fuller-Love produced a reference from Natwest bank. A proper marine construction contract, complete with penalty clauses for late delivery, was checked by lawyers and a marine surveyor. In October 2001, Dr. Wills paid a 10 per cent. deposit, and thereafter made stage payments as work proceeded on his new boat.

My constituent did not know at the time that Mr. Fuller-Love had previously liquidated two of his companies. He believes that Mr. Fuller-Love used the practice of taking funds from one company to pay debts due on another. His subsequent investigations led him to believe that more than £90,000 may not have been properly accounted for in the firm's books. Nor did he know that the deposit and stage payments that he made were all that kept Mr. Fuller-Love's company afloat. It began with no capital, and was using deposits from new customers to finish work on the previous contract. A game of financial musical chairs was going on, and when the music stopped it was Dr. Wills's misfortune to be left standing.

It eventually became clear that the boat would not be finished on time. Eventually, Mr. Fuller-Love's company went into voluntary liquidation. A liquidator, BN Jackson Norton, was called in to perform the administration. That was when Dr. Wills's difficulties went from bad to worse. The liquidator insisted that, notwithstanding the terms of the contract as Dr. Wills interpreted them, he would release the boat in its semi-completed state only on payment of £30,000. I do not know how that was assessed. At the same time, another company in my constituency was dealing with the same company and they received a similar offer.

Dr. Wills ultimately had to hire lawyers to negotiate with the liquidator, and I became involved. I was eventually able to broker a deal and as a result Dr. Wills was able to get hold of his property at the beginning of December. If the situation had been left for another couple of weeks, Dr. Wills would have been out of business because he would not have been able to sustain the losses. He tells me that he may be working for nothing for the next couple of years to keep his business afloat.

My constituent is a remarkable individual. He is a former investigative journalist and—the Minister may be interested to learn—a former Labour party activist. In his own time and at his own expense, he traced Steelboat's former employees, and with their help he discovered that £53,000 of company assets had been spirited away just before liquidation. He says that there are gaping holes in the company's financial records, and has established that the liquidator did not have full access to the company's records, which were all removed from the office in Four Crosses by Mr. Fuller-Love and his assistant hours before the liquidator was called in. Dr. Wills properly passed on all that information to the liquidator, and 12 weeks after the firm had gone into liquidation some interviews were held.

I understand that Mr. Fuller-Love is still in business. He is trading under another name and uses assets that my constituent believes are properly the property of Steelboat Ltd. Incidentally, some 16 workmen lost their jobs at Steelboat Ltd., but somehow Mr. Fuller-Love continues to trade. The injustice of that is obvious.

I should like the Minister to consider the role of insolvency practitioners in dealing with such cases. My suspicion is that a lesser man than Dr. Wills would have paid the £30,000, which was over and above all the money that he had paid to Steelboat Ltd., and gone away counting himself lucky. I do not quite understand how the liquidators arrived at the figure of £30,000. It seems arbitrary, but no doubt there is some reason behind it.

It is worrying that the only real investigation into the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the company was carried out by those in my constituency, not by the insolvency practitioners—and BN Jackson Norton, as the Minister will know, is a very reputable firm. If that is how insolvency practitioners conduct themselves, it is time to look again at how the system works. Not every small and medium enterprise is run by someone as intelligent and resourceful as Dr. Wills is, especially when roused. How many others have been in the same situation and simply given up and gone away because it was too difficult?

What use has been made of the new powers to disqualify directors for up to 15 years? Can the Minister give me some assurance that those powers are being used to their full potential, and that it is not just the big boys who are being hammered? If we are serious about cracking down on phoenix traders—I hope that the Government are—those powers are an obvious sanction that will have some effect. It is said sometimes that phoenix traders are an inevitable consequence of limited liability. I understand why that is said, but that does not have to be the case. If we use the sanction, limited liability can regain some of its respectability.

There is also the factor of the different practices of, and resources used in, trading standards departments. The Minister will be surprised to hear me ask for more central control. She will have heard me speak in the past about the importance of subsidiarity. However, on this issue, the Minister's Department should have control, especially in setting minimum standards.

The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland suggested that there is a need for a special division in courts to handle liquidation applications. I do not know whether that comes under the Minister's remit or that of the Justice Department of the Scottish Executive. Obviously, it is a matter on which there will be considerable overlap. I hope that, if that is a shared responsibility, the Minister can make progress with the Scottish Executive.

The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland has suggested that stop now orders simply do not work properly, especially in relation to one of the most recent scams, in which companies offer services under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Minister may be aware that many companies receive an official-looking letter telling them that they need to pay £90 to register under the 1998 Act. The actual cost of registration is, I think, £35. As soon as the companies responsible are found out, they go under and re-emerge in another guise, and the scam goes on. That is one of the most obvious and clamant deceitful practices of phoenix traders.

The Government introduced the disqualified directors hotline in 1998, but I am told that it does not operate north of the border. Does the Minister's Department have responsibility for that, and why is there that distinction?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing the debate, and on raising issues affecting his constituents, which he did with his usual vigour. He did not advise me beforehand of the specific cases that he has mentioned, but even if he had, I could not comment on them. I cannot comment on the detail of the points that he raised. However, I listened with sympathy to his constituent's plight.

The Government's overall aim is to promote an effective framework for corporate activity and to give confidence to investors, business and other stakeholders. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the business-to-business aspects of that. Within that framework, it is essential that we have an insolvency regime that, while encouraging enterprise and reducing the stigma associated with failure, deals fairly and effectively with financial failure and deters fraud and misconduct. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully committed to tackling abuse and misconduct, and that we have in place—and in use—mechanisms that deal with that abuse. I must emphasise that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's concern that we have got the balance wrong on "chancers", as he called them. That is not right.

The term "phoenix trading" is generally used for those who abuse the privilege of limited liability. It normally refers to cases in which the directors walk away from the debts of a failed company and assume the management of a successor business, often working from the same premises, using the same or a similar name and the assets of the failed company. At its worst, phoenix trading is dishonest exploitation of limited liability by the unscrupulous, who maintain commercially unsustainable operations at the expense of their creditors. Those creditors typically include the small businesses and members of the public who can ill afford such losses. The hon. Gentleman sketched out how losses of that kind have affected his constituent.

Of course, the Government are keen to prevent such abuses. We have brought forward a number of cases recently involving such matters as the reuse of a company name. Last year, at West Bromwich magistrates court, Grenville Higgins was convicted of the offence of using a prohibited company name. At Manchester Metropolitan magistrates court on 12 November, Graham Heap was convicted of the same offence. There have been several other such cases, some quite substantial, involving directors.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions about the use of the powers, I will sketch out what we are doing in a little more detail. There are quite a number of mechanisms to deal with the abuse. There is disqualification, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Courts can, in the cases that he mentioned, disqualify unfit directors for between two and 15 years. Phoenix companies are particularly targeted, and the courts take such cases very seriously. I mentioned a couple of them earlier, but I could have cited many others. Of course, we need hard evidence in all cases.

I thank the Minister for what she has said about the use of disqualification. What assessment is her Department making about the length of disqualification, and will she consider introducing a minimum period of disqualification? That would fetter the discretion of the courts and ensure a more uniform application of the law.

We have in legislation set a period of between two and 15 years, so once a disqualification is issued, there is, in effect, a minimum ban of two years. In a way, what the hon. Gentleman requests has already been envisaged. Obviously, it is not for me to fetter the discretion of the courts. I am sure that if he were wearing other hats, he would object strongly if I did such a thing.

On the results of the process, it is worth the hon. Gentleman noting that 1,413 disqualification orders were made between April 2002 and February 2003, of which 1,122 were undertakings. Since 1986, some 13,082 directors have been disqualified. Indeed, in some of those cases there was no need for a court hearing, because the director consented to the period of disqualification. There is also the fast track process that was introduced in April 2001. The Insolvency Service has the resources to pursue all identified cases of serious misconduct and it has been doing so.

The hotline that the hon. Gentleman mentioned was established in January 1998. The public may use it to report possible criminal activities by those who manage companies while they are disqualified. More than 3,500 calls have been received and every one is followed up by the appropriate people. Apart from being disqualified, directors can be, and are, prosecuted for offences relating to phoenix operations, including theft of company property, fraud in anticipation of winding up and, in more serious cases, fraudulent trading. There is quite a wide range of responses. It is not just the big guys, as the hon. Gentleman alleged; it is also the smaller companies and those who are affecting other small companies. I sketched out earlier a couple of court cases involving both large and small companies.

The reuse of a company name is another relevant aspect. There are restrictions on the reuse by directors of the failed company name. They can be prosecuted if those are ignored and they can also be made responsible for the company's debts. Between April 2000 and March 2001 the Department prosecuted 46 offences and obtained 35 convictions. Between April 2001 and March 2002 it prosecuted 74 offences and obtained 58 convictions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming that activity and the success rate we have achieved.

The hon. Gentleman may wish to note that it is possible to arrange for clawback provisions to apply if a company's money and assets have been put deliberately beyond the reach of creditors. However, the creditors may need to fund such a court action and they are often unwilling to lose more by funding the liquidator to take action. Of course, unscrupulous directors take care to cover their tracks.

I do not have to hand the figures on activity on stop now orders, but I am happy to supply whatever current figures we have. I have recently answered a number of questions relating to that issue. There has been a good success rate in the use of stop now orders. However, the formal orders brought before the courts as injunctions are orders that have not been successful in preventing, through agreement and discussion between trading standards officers, or the Office of Fair Trading, and those who are committing an offence, the need to go to court. In fact, many stop now orders do not appear in the statistics. However, we know that they are being used widely by trading standards departments throughout the country and by the OFT, under its responsibilities to protect the consumer.

Can the Minister tell me what measures are taken to record those informal arrangements, that enable us to stop short of going to court? There is a danger of people entering into that kind of arrangement and then quietly going away.

It is not possible for me to give any figures on the number of arrangements that have been accepted by anecdotal means, or perhaps through contacting various trading standards departments. The likely numbers would vary between departments, because they are of different sizes and deal with different kinds of areas. It would not be easy to get a representative picture, but we know from what is said to us that the numbers refer to negotiations by trading standards and the OFT that take place in various cases. It is unlikely that, having come to the attention of either of those bodies, the trader would be left entirely to his or her own devices without some continuing oversight, albeit from a distance, to check on whether their trading practices and activities are lawful.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that people are watching over those who have not gone through the formal injunction processes or to court, but who have, none the less, been prevented from continuing with things that would undoubtedly have led to injunctions for offences. Those powers are being widely used and the hotline is also being well used.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the powers of Westminster and the Scottish Executive. I will write to him on those matters. It is always dangerous to venture an opinion about the exact balance of responsibilities in that regard.

We take the hon. Gentleman's concerns seriously and we take the need to tackle phoenix companies seriously.

I would not normally intervene on a Minister during her peroration. However, the Minister has dealt fully with the matter and it strikes me, as I listen to the full exposition, that we have a complex system that will be beyond the means of many small businesses. Is the Minister's Department actively looking at ways in which the system might be simplified and made more user-friendly for the small firm that does not have vast resources to spend on big commercial lawyers?

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that in all instances the businesses themselves must bring the case. However, a trading standards department would act if something were brought to its attention. Similarly, disqualification proceedings are brought to the attention of the courts by the department, and those are prosecuted through the courts. Businesses on the receiving end of such problems are not required to bring them to the attention of the courts. There are various routes that do not require the businesses themselves to take further and to prosecute—both literally and metaphorically—the case in question. Many routes are available. Those are well used and are leading to disqualification, fines, winding up and other mechanisms, about which we have spoken.

I am happy to draw the hon. Gentleman's views to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths)—the Minister with responsibility for small businesses—who always gives due consideration to how things can be improved for small businesses. I shall ask whether he has additional reflections on the matter, which may assist small businesses in future. That may reassure small businesses throughout the country that the Government, Government agencies and trading standards departments do, and will, regularly take action on their behalf.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a matter that started as a constituency issue but has wider implications. The reason why I requested the Adjournment debate is the tragic death in my constituency of Sheila Creighton, who lived at Norristhorpe and who died last April in tragic circumstances.

Sheila was an active and fit 61-year-old. She was 18 months into her retirement when she had what seemed a simple fall in her garden and cut her head on a step. She went, as anyone would in those circumstances, to an accident and emergency unit, where she received prompt attention and the cut was cleaned. Sheila was sent home and at first all seemed well. Her family and even she did not realise how serious the situation was. Unbeknown to her family, friends and doctors, Sheila had contracted tetanus. She soon developed serious problems and had to return to hospital.

Tetanus was not diagnosed instantly, however. There were several factors in that, all of which had some justification. There was some doubt at the time about how long ago Sheila had last been vaccinated against tetanus. Indeed, I think that some confusion still surrounds that. In addition, many of the symptoms that she displayed could have been attributed to other aspects of the fact that she had fallen and hurt her head. It was not clear that the symptoms were pointing in one direction as opposed to another.

The other factor that undoubtedly played a part was that tetanus is extremely rare in Britain. Very few doctors in hospitals or elsewhere think of that as the first diagnosis for someone with Sheila's symptoms. Indeed, it was a doctor with experience of working abroad who first indicated that tetanus might be a diagnosis in the case. It is not for me to comment on the balance of those factors, but I think that they all contributed.

As I said, Sheila was not diagnosed with tetanus quickly. Once the diagnosis was made, it was not possible to save her life, and tragically she died as a result of what at first seemed a simple fall in the garden. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), will join me in expressing sympathy to Sheila's widower, Ronnie, and the whole family. I have spoken to Ronnie, to another relative, to the family GP, Dr. David Findlay, and to the coroner involved in the case, Dr. Roger Whittaker. I am grateful to them all for the time that they have given. Obviously, each of them has thought about this exceptional case a great deal.

The case raises a couple of basic questions, which I shall raise with the Under-Secretary so that Ronnie Creighton and his family can feel that all possible lessons have been learned from what seemed like a simple accident leading to tragic consequences. First, is enough being done to raise awareness among people generally of the need for protection from tetanus? My second question is somewhat different. It is relevant to this case and many others. Are our individual medical records as patients, including our vaccination records, sufficiently available to those who need them when they need them?

I am aware that tetanus is relatively rare in Britain. It is a common cause of death in developing countries, but thankfully not in the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary probably has more up-to-date figures than I have. Mine are from the Library, which recorded 145 cases in a 10-year period up to the mid-1990s. Of course, most of those cases were not fatal, but that was the incidence of the disease during that time. The fact that we have so few cases is thanks largely to immunisation, higher hygiene standards and probably other factors, such as greater mechanisation in farming. We could discuss that, but it is important to register that it is a rare disease.

In the decade for which I have figures, 53 per cent. of all cases involved people over 65, and two thirds involved women. The fact that the younger section of the population is less affected by tetanus must be due at least partly to the vaccination programme that has been in force since 1961. It is now commonplace for infants to be vaccinated against tetanus and to receive other vaccinations when they are very young. Booster injections are also commonly given at different points in a child's school life. I have figures suggesting that, in 2001–02, 94 per cent. of children who reached their second birthday at that time were immunised against tetanus when they were immunised against diphtheria and polio. I understand that 95 per cent. is the target and that that was the first time in nine years that the figure had been below 95 per cent. Perhaps that tiny chink in the numbers needs to be watched, so that the figure does not go any lower.

I want to ask the Under-Secretary about the fact that there are no formal targets for the reinforcer or booster doses, which come later. According to the figures that I have seen, not all those who receive early vaccinations successfully are covered when it comes to booster injections. It is commonplace for people to receive some protection, but not everyone will realise that vaccination in early childhood or the injections that people receive after an accident do not necessarily provide protection for the whole of their lives, and that they need booster injections from time to time. Lifelong immunity is not easily achieved. I saw a report—perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment on it—that we need five full doses on different occasions before we have lifelong full immunity. I am not sure how many people have that.

Will the Under-Secretary look again at whether more can be done to ensure that everyone receives the advice that they need and that everyone considers vaccination? I understand that there are sometimes reasons why vaccination may not be recommended and why it is sometimes decided that not everyone in an A and E department should be routinely vaccinated against tetanus. However, many people do not even consider the matter unless they are travelling abroad and they take advice then.

I looked up what information was available on the NHS website and the Department of Health website. I also tried NHS Direct. Its advice was helpful, as are programmes such as "Gardeners' Question Time", which occasionally mentions the need for people to seek protection against tetanus. However, many people, particularly those potentially at risk, such as those over 65, do not necessarily search out that information and do not come across it. Is the Under-Secretary satisfied with the immunisation programme and, in particular, the follow-up programme for return booster injections, which are critical for long-term protection? If we get the early vaccinations right, it is easier to continue. Is she satisfied that more mature adults who have never had any vaccinations are being encouraged at least to be aware of the need for appropriate information and immunisation? They should not panic or queue up for injections that they do not need, but they should get the advice that they need from GPs or elsewhere.

That brings me to my other concern. When my constituent went to hospital for the first time after the accident, there was no easy and immediate way of checking if or when she had last been vaccinated. Many of us could say that that would happen for other illnesses or vaccinations. We often cannot recall exactly when we had different vaccinations and would probably have to get our vaccination records checked before we travelled to certain countries, which is the most likely time that we think about vaccinations.

My concern is therefore about accessibility to medical records and whether more could be done. In particular, will the Under-Secretary share her latest thinking about the possible use of smartcards? I know that there is a European Union dimension to the issue, which can be a red rag to a bull, but that does not mean that we should not consider it. Many EU countries have incompatible health smartcard technologies, but there are incompatible technologies within Government, and computers cause us problems.

We have an opportunity to do something. I understand that there have been pilot schemes in the United Kingdom. Whether such a development is UK based or wider, there must be scope for improving access to information. If my constituent had had a smartcard with all the information about her vaccinations, what she told the doctors or whether she could remember having a vaccination would not have been an issue. The information would have been instantly available, and a routine post-accident tetanus injection would have been considered necessary, and would have made a difference.

My constituent Ronnie Creighton has suffered a great loss, and his family were devastated by the incident. Obviously, there is nothing that we can do for Sheila, but it would help the family if we met some of their anxieties about the need for more awareness of the dangers of tetanus and about information getting to the point at which it is most needed. If we made progress in both improving access to information and increasing people's awareness, so that they consider having tetanus vaccinations, and younger people know about keeping up to date with their booster vaccinations, some good could come out of this tragic incident and more people could get better protection in future.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) on securing this important debate. I extend my sympathy to the family of Sheila Creighton, in particular to her widower Ronnie. Sheila died tragically in the spring of last year after contracting tetanus following a fall in the garden, and it is safe to say that the majority of the undoubtedly rare cases of tetanus arise from incidents in the garden.

It is incredibly sad that someone should die of tetanus in the 21st century. The disease has largely been eradicated from this country, and the circumstances are unusual. The inquest into Sheila's death found that the treatment delivered by the two hospitals that she attended—Dewsbury and district hospital and Pinderfields hospital—was acceptable and although the diagnoses were incorrect, they were perfectly reasonable given the rarity of tetanus. Several different doctors saw Sheila, and her condition was recognised only towards the end. Mrs. Creighton's tetanus status was investigated as soon as she presented at the accident and emergency department, and it was indicated that she had had a booster within the past five years, so in accordance with hospital policy and Department of Health guidelines, no tetanus injection was given.

I want to deal with the immunisation system generally and how that protects younger people and consider the position of older people, which my right hon. Friend has rightly emphasised. I will then examine the information technology issues and look to the future and how we can have systems to minimise such events.

A national childhood tetanus immunisation programme was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1961. Since 1990, vaccination coverage at two years of age has exceeded 90 per cent. in England and Wales. I am pleased to say that in the Calderdale and Kirklees area, the percentage of children immunised by their second birthday is in excess of the national average at 96 per cent. and the percentage of children who have had diphtheria, tetanus and polio immunisation at the age of five years is 97 per cent. A good job is being done in that area to ensure that children are immunised at two and then have their boosters later in childhood.

Due to the success of the programme, tetanus disease almost disappeared in children under 15 years of age by the 1970s, so the majority of cases are in unimmunised adults, as in the case of Mrs. Creighton. To increase the vaccination uptake in adults who remained at risk, it was recommended in 1970 that immunisation should be routinely offered in the treatment of tetanus-prone wounds, so that when people presented with any wound or burn that showed various symptoms of tissue damage, doctors routinely offered immunisation.

That is still the position today. If there is any doubt about someone's tetanus immunisation status, it is recommended that the patient receive a tetanus jab. The difficulty in the case in question was that the hospital believed that the doubt was eradicated by Mrs. Creighton's indication that she had had a booster jab. However, if there is any shadow of a doubt, the patient should have the injection straight away to build the immunity.

It is incredibly important to us that the childhood programme is maintained and, when possible, opportunistic vaccination takes place in adults who have not been able to complete a course of the vaccine. In that way, we can approach the problem from both ends: ensuring that the children are properly vaccinated and getting the patient immunised on every occasion that they present with a tetanus-prone injury. Tetanus is not passed from person to person. It is picked up from spores in the soil, so it cannot be completely eradicated, which is why vaccination remains so important.

My right hon. Friend is right that it is recommended that people have five doses of vaccine at appropriate intervals to give lifelong immunity, which is what the childhood immunisation programme aims to achieve. The vaccine is now given in three doses one month apart for infants at two months old, so they receive their first three doses early on. They then receive a pre-school booster dose of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis together. That is recommended for three to five-year-olds, is given with the polio vaccine, and is the fourth dose of tetanus. Finally, a reinforcing dose of tetanus and low-dose diphtheria is recommended for young people between 15 and 19 years of age, which is the fifth dose of tetanus vaccine.

Will my hon. Friend confirm whether targets exist for those other two categories? There are clearly targets for the young infants, but my information was that targets do not exist for three to five-year-olds or school leavers. I would have thought that it would have been useful to have targets for those groups, particularly as school leavers may remember having the vaccine in later life and go back for subsequent booster injections.

At the moment, these are recommendations, not targets. The programme is extremely successful in relation to childhood immunisation, which involves the four doses that I mentioned up to the age of five. As I said, the figure in England is up to 94 per cent., and is even higher in my right hon. Friend's area. There are no targets for the dose for 15-year-olds, which remains to be recommended. I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall examine the current state of affairs more closely to see how much of the population we are reaching to ensure that they have that final booster dose that will give them the lifelong immunity that it is so important.

Tetanus has occurred only exceptionally rarely in fully immunised individuals. The relatively small number of cases that continue to occur in this country are among unimmunised or partially immunised people. The tetanus immunisation programme has been very successful. The annual incidence of tetanus is now 0.2 per 1 million people—the lowest figure ever recorded in this country. We have driven down the figures for the disease; there is a real record of success in the UK. There are no longer any cases of tetanus reported in children under the age of five, although we should remember that tetanus infection is still a common problem in parts of Asia and Africa, especially in newborn babies due to infection of the baby's umbilical stump. Tetanus is an important cause of death in many of those countries.

The situation is regularly surveyed by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, which is part of the Public Health Laboratory Service. Between 1984 and 2000, it carried out a survey in which 175 cases were reported. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, 91 of those cases were people over the age of 65. We are therefore seeing a concentration of the admittedly few cases among older people.

Since the 1930s, cases of tetanus have been more common in women. One of the reasons is that in 1938, men in the armed forces started to be immunised. Women obviously did not have the same access to that immunisation programme. Recent surveillance data

suggests that men and women are now equally at risk. Tetanus is more common in older people. Because the national infant programme was introduced only in 1961, many older people have not got the immunity that they need. It is very important for older people to ensure that they are protected.

It may be possible to intervene around the time when older people go for their flu jabs to ensure that awareness is raised. We have a major campaign among older people to ensure that they receive a flu jab every year. Injection rates are now quite good; probably more than 65 per cent. of older people are now being immunised every year. It would be an excellent opportunity for general practitioners to check with their older patients that their entire immunisation is up to date. I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall undertake to see whether we can dovetail that raising of awareness with the times when patients go to their GPs to receive their flu jabs.

The guidance that we give to staff at accident and emergency departments is that they should give a tetanus injection to the person who is being treated if there is any doubt about their immunisation status. There are clear guidelines that anti-tetanus immunoglobulin should be given to someone who is not immunised, or if their immunisation is not up to date, as it gives immediate protection. It is not about the future, but about the there and then, and ensuring that the antibodies are stimulated and that tetanus is prevented from taking hold.

Immunoglobulin contains ready-made antibodies against the tetanus toxin that work immediately—one does not have to wait for the body to make its own antibodies. It is a course of action that can be taken to try to minimise tragic events such as that involving Mrs. Creighton, and should be taken in hospitals where there is any doubt whatsoever. Ideally, people will receive lifelong protection through immunisation, but an emergency response is also very important.

It would be extremely useful to have more accurate and up-to-date information about patients' immunisation records. In the case of Mrs. Creighton, the coroner, Mr. Whittaker, said:

"What I am concerned about is the lack of knowledge available to doctors. I shall be recommending that electronic medical cards with a computer chip be introduced which will contain all the details of a patient."

For some time now we have been working with the NHS on the idea of developing an electronic patient record that travels with a patient. The professionals—the doctors, nurses and therapists—can have access to a patient's medical history wherever that patient accesses the NHS. That would be of immense value in improving the health outcomes for patients wherever they are.

As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, major information technology projects are fraught with difficulty and have varying success. That is why we are committed in the health service to managing that process as much as we can in a co-ordinated way to ensure that all the computers talk to and interact with each other, and that electronic patient records are a fully integrated system throughout the health service.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's encouraging remarks on raising awareness among pensioners about the possible need for a tetanus injection when they receive their flu jab, and on the need for information to be available. I agree that computers can cause difficulties, but will she update us on any possible time scale, especially in view of the fact that we have had pilot projects and that other countries are using the technology now?

My right hon. Friend is right. Several trusts have been able to install information technology to help them with electronic patient records. However, it will be some time before that is rolled out throughout the country. The state of technology in our NHS varies dramatically, as different places have invested in their infrastructure at different rates. Many of our GPs still use a wide variety of IT systems that need to be co-ordinated throughout the NHS. In the NHS plan, we have made a commitment to ensure that electronic records are available throughout the service, but I understand that we will not be in a position to ensure that all patients can access their records through IT until 2005.

The situation is encouraging in that more and more GPs, community-based organisations and primary care trusts are starting to realise how much investment in IT can help them to carry out their functions more efficiently and effectively. We need to make swift progress on the programme, but we must also ensure that the massive investment in IT, which will run to hundreds of millions of pounds, is money well spent and is effective. The public sector has too much history of investment in IT that does not serve the purpose for which it was designed. The NHS is therefore determined to ensure that our IT programme is effective and achieves value for money.

We must ensure that the electronic patient record travels with the patient wherever they may be and that it provides the widest possible range of medical information for patients when they access the health service. It is an ideal way of empowering patients themselves: they too will have that knowledge and information.

The electronic patient record will also be extremely useful in medicine management. If patients and doctors know the sort of medication that patients have been taking, their care will be much more appropriate and effective when they arrive at the accident and emergency department.

My right hon. Friend has made some extremely important points today on behalf of her constituent. I am only sorry that Mrs. Creighton died in such tragic circumstances, but if doctors can cope appropriately and effectively with patients in those circumstances, we may learn lessons from that tragic case for the future. I hope that my right hon. Friend's constituent will feel that the NHS has learned from that tragedy and will take it very seriously.