I am delighted to have secured this debate on the middle east peace process and the road map. These are significant times. In fact, this is a significant day on the road to peace in view of the meeting taking place today in Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt. We hope that, ultimately, there will be peace between the Palestinians and the state of Israel.

I come to the debate as a relative newcomer compared with many of those present. In view of that, and the large number of hon. Members who want to speak, I will do my best to keep my comments brief, so that as many hon. Members who want to speak on the subject can do so. I cannot claim to be a scholar on the subject, certainly not compared with others here today. I have not visited the region, but I do not accord with those who take the view that, by visiting a place, one earns the right to be regarded as an authority on it. I have taken a deep interest in the region for many years and I have often challenged the modern myth that travel broadens the mind.

Often, the most ardent advocates of that myth are possibly trying to justify the disproportionate use of non-renewable resources to travel around the world; in fact, people may travel around the world and return with the same teeny-weeny minds they started with. Travel itself does not broaden the mind, but if one starts with a broad mind, there is much to be gained from travel. Many people in the Chamber today and others have travelled in the region and had many experiences that they will want to relate to the Chamber. I accept that, in that sense, I am a Johnny come lately to the debate.

Having initiated the debate and received representations in the last week from people on all sides of the debate, I know how deep the anxieties are, and that to give one smidgen of nuance that implies favour or bias to either side will be picked up very quickly. However, I believe that it is impossible not to come to the conclusion, whether one is an Israeli or not, that the current position of the Palestinians is unacceptable.

I come to the debate with no bias against the Israelis either. My brother-in-law is a Jew. We recently celebrated the wedding of my sister and brother-in-law on the cliff tops in my constituency. It was a joint Hebrew-Cornish Methodist service and a celebration of two rich religions, of which I am very proud. I am therefore concerned about the need for this debate.

I shall briefly construct a canvas for the debate, and others will no doubt add their own comments. The roadmap involves a process of relearning universal truths—those of Sophocles, Homer, Shakespeare and others down the ages. People must learn that they cannot bludgeon others into submission, although they can bludgeon them into retaliation. Indeed, if they try to bludgeon others into submission, they will ultimately face retaliation. Therefore, there must be a process of reconciliation.

Faith and religion can be taken over by those who want to use them as respectable fronts for their own prejudices, agendas and vengeful purposes. Indeed, the idea that religion justifies self-righteousness and dogma, that it gives one a divine right, and that God is on one's side runs through the whole debate.

In that respect, there was a tragic plane crash in South America a few years ago, and a breathless backpacker, who just missed the plane, gave a telling quote in an interview. He missed it by 10 minutes and proclaimed to the world that that proved that "there must be a God", yet 250 or so poor souls were dead on a South American hillside. That disturbingly absurd sense of a divine right and of personal salvation runs through many religions. It sounds absurd, but we understand it to an extent. It is at the core of concerns on both sides of the divide, and those concerns must be resolved if the road map is to achieve a peaceful solution.

It is important that all involved in the process retain pride and dignity. It cannot merely be seen as an elaborate method for getting one's enemy to eat humble pie. The magnanimity of unexpected generosity can lead to a thawing of relations. That is the path along which we must seek reconciliation, and I am sure that the Foreign Office seeks it, too.

We must remain focused on where we want the process to end, because it is not simply a means—there is an end. There are people on both sides whose purpose is war and terror, and they have lost sight of where they want to go, what this is about and why they do what they do.

In the light of President Bush's intervention this week—we can be grateful for that—does my hon. Friend agree that the Americans' key task is to convince both sides that forsaking violence as a means to an end is the only alternative leading to lasting peace? Using violence as a means will ensure that there is no end at all.

Absolutely—my hon. Friend is right. I shall come to my questions to the Minister in a moment. One key sticking point is the view on both sides that the other side is not doing enough to constrain people and therefore to achieve the peace that they both want, so that they can take the next step on the road to peace. It is extremely difficult to make a judgment about that, because even the leaders of the two regimes cannot constrain every individual.

The context of the road map is not especially promising. Indeed, there was strong cynicism about the publication of the draft in March, which was believed to be timed partly to reassure a wider world and to enable the US and the UK to engage in military action in Iraq. That cynicism about the timing has created a problem and an opportunity for the Government and the US. They must overcome it and demonstrate that the roadmap was not introduced for purely cynical purposes. It must also be recognised that the middle east is a focus for the whole world and for the tension between the west and Arabic and Islamic countries.

On the campaign on terror, the perpetrators of the atrocities of 11 September 2001 must be pursued. However, the only way ultimately to deal with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is the overwhelming retaliation of friendship, not war. We do not want to create a fertile recruiting ground for future generations of terrorists by ignoring the situation, doing too little about the problems of the middle east or stoking up problems by simply attacking Islamic nations.

The road map has been agreed by both Israel and the Palestinians; the first step on the road has been made. However, Israel has listed several concerns, and the Minister will be aware of them. Some have been put in the public domain, and the United States has said that it will address them. Will the Minister outline what he sees as the Israelis' concerns and whether the UK Government agree they should be addressed? What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the ability of individuals or ad hoc organisations, neither attached to nor controllable by the Palestinian Authority, to continue with terrorist incursions and suicide bombings in Israel? Is a cessation of suicide bombings a prerequisite for Israeli co-operation? Is that either realistic or achievable?

What confidence does the Foreign Office have that the road map will lead to a lasting and just peace settlement, or does it fear that the journey will be held up by violence and Israeli checkpoints? What justification could the Foreign Office have to argue for the simultaneous rather than sequential implementation of the proposals? Does the Foreign Office agree that certain achievements must be made before progress can be taken a stage further, and what does it believe are likely to be the main mechanisms for applying pressure on both sides? Does it intend to work through the European Union and use the EU-Israel association agreement and its human rights clauses as a lever in negotiations?

Britain has sold and still sells arms to Israel on the proviso that they are not used in the occupied territories, but that condition is often breached. What safety mechanisms prevent British arms from being used in the occupied territories and what monitoring is undertaken? What representations have been made about known cases of inappropriate use of British-sold weapons? Has the breaking of that proviso resulted in the withdrawal of or a reduction in arms sales?

What role should Israel's neighbours play in the process? How important are those countries, particularly Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, in the development of the road map, and what contact has the Foreign Office had with them thus far? As we know, an oil pipeline between Syria and Israel is under consideration. What discussions has the Foreign Office had with those countries on that?

Which UN resolutions does the Foreign Office believe are relevant and should be fully complied with for the road map process to succeed? Does the Foreign Office accept that international law and United Nations resolutions should be applied, not simply superseded by the roadmap? What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the time scale for the road map's implementation? Many are concerned about the forthcoming US elections, which may stall future progress. Since the road map was discussed in Israel, in some political quarters, politicians are referring to implementation taking years rather than months. It is important that things are speeded up.

Will the time scale be enforced by the Quartet or will the US take the lead? What efforts will the Foreign Office make, in concert with the Department for International Development, to ensure that adequate aid is given in particular to the Palestinians during the process? What contribution will be sought from Israel towards those efforts? Only recently, Ariel Sharon expressed some sympathy for the situation in which Palestinians find themselves.

We are talking about two of the worlds' rich religions, which should be capable of living side by side. We need a two-state solution and to recognise that, unless fundamentalists, literalists and extremists can be removed from the process, the international community may have to accept the need for perpetual peacekeeping in the region. We must find a better way. The road map is the best opportunity, possibly for a generation. I seek a clear indication from the Minister of how Britain will be engaged, and how it will deal with the predictable stumbling blocks on the road.

rose

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that the winding-up speeches will commence at half-past 10. A large number of Members have indicated that they want to speak, and it is up to them to accommodate that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing today's debate. It is timely because it is held the day before the summit at which President Bush will meet Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Sharon. Few more important issues face the world today. The human suffering that we have witnessed during the past few years bears witness to that: more than 700 Israelis and 2,000 Palestinians have died during that time. There are few more important things about which we can show our determination. The issue has great relevance not just to the people who live in that part of the world but to the entire world and its security.

I pay credit to our Government, and to the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in particular, for their efforts in moving the road map and the Israel-Palestine conflict up the United States agenda. We must also recognise, however—the hon. Member for St. Ives referred to this—that a good deal of scepticism has surrounded what the road map can offer. Until the past few days, the lack of progress showed that in many ways that scepticism was well founded, but during the past few days there have been some encouraging and hopeful signs. We look ahead with expectation and anticipation, and welcome what the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas—also known as Abu Mazen—has said about his hopes that a ceasefire will be declared by Hamas and perhaps other organisations. We welcome his efforts to rebuild the Palestinian security services, which were so woefully degraded and undermined over the past few years, principally by Israeli military action.

I am not known for complimenting Ariel Sharon; I take a deep breath before I do so. However, it is fair to say that the first few tentative steps are being taken. It is good to hear the Israeli Prime Minister begin to use the word "occupation"—others have rightly used it for some time. It is also a step forward that he has indicated that perhaps 10 of the 102 illegal outposts that dot the hills around the west bank will be dismantled. That is tempered by the fact that those 10 are unpopulated. Nevertheless, that may be a start—and let us hope for more movement beyond that. It is good to hear that there will be easing of some of the movement restrictions on Palestinians and, hopefully, on others. We await the practical realisation of that. It is also good to hear from the White House, which has not always shown itself to be as even-handed on this issue as we had hoped. President Bush has said that he will devote as much time as necessary to dealing with the issue and seeing the road map through.

There are some hopeful signs, but the important thing about the road map is that it happens, not whether we talk about it. That puts responsibilities on all of us; it certainly puts responsibilities on the parties. For those of us—like me—who come from a background that has, perhaps, been closer to the Palestinian side of the story than the Israeli side, it is important that we make it absolutely clear that violence against civilians is not only wrong morally, but totally counter-productive for the Palestinian cause. It is also correct that we give all the support we can to the reform of Palestinian political institutions, so that Palestinian civil society can enjoy the democracy its people want and which its leaders want, too.

It is also important that those who come from the other perspective make some things clear to the Israeli side. The road map is very clear. It is not a sequential document. The obligations on the parties are in parallel; that must be said without qualification, especially by friends of Israel. It is also important that they—and all of us—express some regret at the string of reservations that the Israelis have put on the road map.

First, the reservations published in Ha'aretz on 28 May, which are strident and right in saying that the Palestinians must unequivocally cease violence, specifically say that

"the roadmap should not state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."

That is not on. If there is to be an obligation on the Palestinians to cease incitement and violence, there must be an equal obligation on the Israelis as well.

Secondly, there is the right of return, which is a complex issue that is left to the end of the process. There will, no doubt, have to be painful decisions on both sides on that issue: it is complicated. Nevertheless, for Israel to rule out, or to attempt to rule out, the right of return at the start of the process, as it has, will not build the confidence that is needed in the process. The practical way to secure justice for the refugees will need discussion. Refusing to recognise the injustice that was done to the Palestinian refugees in 1948 and subsequently, in 1967, will not make it go away. Quite often, the arguments put forward insisting that Palestinians waive the right of return are about Jewish Israelis not wishing to be outnumbered in future. I understand that. However, those people must understand the message that that sends to Israel's own Arab citizens today: that they may be tolerated as a minority as long as they know their place and stay a minority in their own country. There will have to be some reassessment of that.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, just as it was in relation to Oslo. I will always keep this memory with me: while the world was talking about the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and about what was and was not going on, I and many hon. Members who are here today were over there in Jerusalem and the west bank and we saw what was happening on the ground. The most important thing was not what was or was not happening in Camp David, but that land was still being expropriated and water was still being denied to Palestinian farms. Unless we secure changes on the ground, all the talking in the world will not achieve peace.

I acknowledge the work that the hon. Gentleman has done in his field and his excellent speech. However, does he share my frustration that despite all this talking year in, year out, hopes are raised and then dashed and the Palestinian people are becomingly increasingly poor? They cannot reach their medical services, their children cannot go to school and are malnourished—I forget the percentage—and women are dying in childbirth. It is a terrible humanitarian situation, and the world is simply standing by, watching it.

I totally endorse the hon. Lady's remarks. Her passion and anger are shared by many of us.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Oslo process. He will recall that we travelled together to speak to Hanan Ashrawi when she left the negotiations over the much vaunted Oslo process for the reasons that he mentioned—the continuing increase in the number of settlements and the increasing withdrawal of water from Palestinian villages. It was, in fact, a cul-de-sac and a trap for the Palestinian people. The problem can never be resolved until we deal with the question of settlements and a land divided by the Israeli Government; the road map can lead to nowhere but a cul-de-sac.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should not lose sight of the fact that some 72 new settlements—more than 8,000 new dwellings—have been built in the occupied territories since 2001. He is right that we will not secure peace unless we deal with that.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) talked about the humanitarian catastrophe. It is difficult to overestimate the problems. More than 70 per cent. of people in Gaza and more than 50 per cent. of people on the west bank live on less than $2 a day. The poverty is grinding. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to say something about non-governmental organisations operating in the occupied territories and about foreign nationals who visit the occupied territories for different reasons.

The international aid agencies wrote a letter to the Quartet envoys on 12 May. That was followed by a press release from the United Nations dated 18 May, which talks about the closures of borders into Gaza, checkpoints, and new visa restrictions leading to a Catch-22 situation in which aid agencies can get into the occupied territories only if they have a particular sort of visa that is very difficult to obtain.

According to the letter to the Quartet of 12 May, the end result is that the

"feeling of disempowerment and outright despondency amongst international staff is now overwhelming. It would seem that the GoI does not want to facilitate our work in the GS, and does not want an international presence there. In addition, there is no evidence, or feeling, amongst INGOs that the situation will improve in the near future, despite the recent introduction of the 'Road Map'."

Only a few days later, the United Nations said:

"The closure of Erez has made the operations of all UN Agencies, NGOs and other humanitarian and development agencies unreasonably difficult, inefficient and costly. If these new restrictions persist, a number of international and non-governmental humanitarian organisations may be forced to stop their operations in the Gaza Strip."

It then lists organisations that have been affected.

I am pleased that the Minister of State, Dept of State for International Development, expressed the Government's concern about these matters in an answer to a parliamentary question that I asked a couple of weeks ago. However, although concern is one thing, the important thing is that we do something about it, because in the meantime there is poverty and people will simply die unless we can somehow sort out the problem.

Lastly, I want to talk about foreign nationals who, for different reasons, may be in the occupied territories and who have died or been injured as a result of their work there. Last year, Ian Hook, a United Nations worker, was shot by Israeli troops in Jenin. This March, Rachel Corrie, a United States citizen wearing a bright orange jacket, was crushed under the tracks of an Israeli bulldozer while trying to prevent house demolitions in the Gaza strip. Brian Avery, another American, was shot in the face in Jenin, again by Israeli troops. Tom Hundall, who is a British citizen, and who, as a photographer, was observing the work of the international solidarity movement in the Gaza strip, was also shot in the head, and today lies in a coma in a London hospital. When he was shot, he was trying to rescue Palestinian children from Israeli bullets. He was wearing a bright orange jacket when the bullet struck, as Rachel Corrie had been.

I met Tom's father at the weekend: he and Tom's mother are witnessing our proceedings today. Not surprisingly, they are asking some fundamental questions, to which they are owed answers by the international community and particularly by Israel. They ask how it was that Tom, a photographer, rescuing children in Rafah, was shot in the head by the Israeli military.

We understand that the Israeli military have undertaken some inquiries, but that the results of those inquiries have been partial. The document produced resembles a Powerpoint presentation rather than an inquiry report, and the arguments in it focus as much on why the international solidarity movement should not be there, as on addressing the issue of how Tom Hundall came to be shot. It is important that Israel undertakes a full, proper and independent inquiry into the shooting of Tom Hundall in Rafah. It is also important that his family and, indeed, the world should have access to all the evidence about what happened.

I welcome the fact that Tom's family will meet the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs later this month, and that he has written to Mr. Hundall expressing the British Government's concern about what has happened. In that letter he said that the British Government have

"continually pressed the Israeli Government for a full and transparent enquiry"

into Tom's shooting. He also said that the British Government asked the Israelis to review their

"rules of engagement to try to avoid further civilian casualties in the future."

That issue was raised by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), on 19 April.

Will the Minister clarify in his response today what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office means by a "full and transparent enquiry" by Israel? Does the Minister agree that if that inquiry is to be transparent it must be independent, and that all the evidence should be made available both to Tom's family and to the public? Will he also tell us what Israel's response has been to the request from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for a review of the rules of engagement?

I ask those questions because we owe it to Tom's family, to Tom, and to Rachel Corrie and other foreign nationals who have been shot to insist that such an inquiry takes place. However, I also want answers to those questions because that would help to ensure that the road map has meaning, and to remind us why Tom was there and why he was shot—he was trying to rescue Palestinian children.

If Tom had not been shot, would one or more of those Palestinian children have been shot instead? Those children are not in the Gaza strip by choice—they are there because that is where they live, and there is no escape for them. We need to find out what happened to Tom, to ensure that that does not happen to any more foreign nationals, or to Palestinian children. If we can stop such things happening, end the occupation and also end the violence by Palestinians, that will ensure that the road map means something in practice, and will determine whether we can achieve what we all wish to see—peace in the middle east.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. I have not been to Israel and Palestine but grew up partly in Cyprus. I worked in the Persian gulf and I have a longstanding interest in Lebanon, which I have visited on several occasions and about which I have a considerable concern.

It would be worth while to spend a few moments looking at the history of the region. My father served extensively in the middle east. He was in Palestine from 1945 to 1948 and his father also served extensively in the region. My grandparents met in 1916 in a military hospital in Basra; the first world war has a certain amount to answer for in producing me. It is important to understand that our concerns are not just about a grave and monstrous injustice but about one half of a dreadful fracture that runs across the world—Kashmir is the other half, the other side of the region—which, if these matters are not addressed, threatens to cause generations of trouble on a scale that is difficult to exaggerate.

The current miserable situation in the Holy Land, which is sacred to three faiths, is grounded in an original terror—that of the Jewish settlers who arrived in what was then the Turkish province of Palestine before the first world war and between the wars under the British mandate. That terror was stoked first by the pogroms in Russia and eastern Europe, then by the unimaginably worse situation in the growing Nazi republic and by the concentration camps. It inevitably knocked on into their attitudes and their determination to have a state of their own where such things could never happen again, and that is understandable. It was shown in the attitudes towards the indigenous people, which, even in the 1930s, were expressed in language that would be regarded today as utterly unacceptable. It was made very clear that those people of "inferior" stock had no long-term role in the country, as accounts like Nicholas Bethell's remarkably impartial book on the subject testify, with many quotes. As one Palestinian writer put it, very sadly, the terrible evils visited on the Jewish people by the Europeans are being progressively repaid by the terror currently being visited on one small group of people, the Palestinians.

In 1948, a week or two after my father left the country in one of the last attachments of British soldiers to leave, the Jewish third of the population, which had almost all the weapons—they were provided mostly by America—seized 70 per cent. of the country. The Arabs were herded at gunpoint into the rest, and a number were killed on the way. I shall not dwell further on the history, except to say that, in 1967, the Arab nations tried to throw Israel into the sea. I will not go into who fired the first shot. The rhetoric was clear. Israel seized the balance and since then the remaining 30 per cent. of the portion of Palestine has contained a growing, deeply unhappy, dispossessed people who are virtually prisoners in their own country. There are 3.5 million people with no economic prospects, no rights and, above all, little hope.

I want to give two brief examples from the press of what it is like to live in the area. The first, which includes a comment from the Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, describes a typical incursion by the Israeli army. The article states:

"Israeli soldiers demolished 62 shops at a market yesterday, destroying the livelihood of hundreds of Palestinians. In the early morning, about 300 troops streamed into the market, just outside … Nazlat Issa. They brought seven bulldozers.

Villagers poured out to protest as the bulldozers tore down the village market, the main source of income for Nazlat Issa's 2,500 residents.

The village was once a place of peaceful co-existence. Nazlat Issa is among several Palestinian villages along the Green Line … Israelis travelled here to shop.

The market is now the site of one of the biggest Israeli demolitions in the West Bank for years."

The article makes the point that there is no suggestion that bombings or terrorists were involved, only that the market was not wanted.

I come next to a remarkable article that appeared in The Spectator a couple of weeks ago. It was written by Emma Williams, who has lived in Israel for some years. It states:

"Qalqilya, a once thriving market town of 45,000, is now shut off from the world by a fence and wall of concrete 24 feet high. There is one exit, guarded by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), who determine whether the occupants, their produce, their food and medicines may or may not pass."

She reminds us:

"The start of the Intifada set the scene: before a single Palestinian shot was fired, the world was shocked to see `riot control' that consisted not of baton charges … but of shooting dead scores of stone-throwers and bystanders.

Almost all studies of violence in the occupied territories have found countless cases of Israelis firing on children, onlookers, old women; of pregnant women dying at … checkpoints"

because they cannot pass through. For every Israeli child killed by a terrorist bomb, two Palestinian children have been killed by the Israeli army.

The horror has knocked on into Lebanon, a country that I particularly love. Between the twin horrors of the Syrians and the periodic Israeli incursions, the once democratic jewel of the middle east has been ruined. The hon. Member for St. Ives referred to the disadvantages of travel. I have done the Lebanese extremely badly: on my first visit to the Lebanon the Syrians overran Beirut and, on my second visit, the Israelis bombed the town—a Christian town that has never produced any anti-Israeli terrorists.

It would have been better if my hon. Friend had stayed away.

My hon. Friend is right. The situation is one of the world's most terrible injustices. It is an injustice that is felt passionately by hundreds of millions of people in the Islamic world. I refer to one conversation that I had with an ambassador to one of the most moderate, reasonable and westernised states. I shall not disclose his name, but I know his country well. He said, "You cannot imagine what it is like for our children and teenagers. They are growing up to hate the west because they see America and her ally Britain propping up the monstrous situation, which they see morning after morning, evening after evening on their television sets."

I shall end on a positive note. I am sick of people who constantly knock President Bush. He is the first American President to make a clear and specific commitment to a Palestinian state. He is the author of the road map. He is on his current tour to sell it. He has convinced Prime Minister Sharon—probably the most unreasonable leader that Israeli has had for a generation, since the former terrorist Prime Minister Begin—to accept that America means business. More important than that, the moderate, decent voices in the Israeli and the international Jewish community, who must be central to any deal, see hope in the road map, as do those various groups from that part of the world that send us e-mails. They are conducting a dialogue and want to see an Israel that can survive as a state in the long run.

I urge the Government in the strongest possible fashion to accept that the road map must not simply be a process; it must arrive at a destination that leaves the small part of the original state of Palestine—the 30 per cent. that is in the west bank and Gaza—as Palestinian, not dotted and balkanised by a mass of settlements. The message must be clear. There must be an end not just to suicide bombing but to Israeli army brutality or there will be no peace process. It will be not only the Palestinians who pay the price but the whole world.

I, too, welcome the publication of the road map, and I do so for one essential reason. It is currently the only internationally backed initiative. That backing is the key. Let us consider what has happened in the past few years. Whenever apparent progress has been made in the middle east, it has happened only in the context of international involvement. We all recognise that a solution will be possible by direct negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.

The other international issue that must be borne in mind is that the road map does not stand alone. It is a framework—a mechanism. It cannot override established international law and United Nations resolutions over many years that lay out clearly what the basis for the future of the region should be.

The road map rightly and understandably makes demands of both Israel and Palestine. When we look at progress towards negotiation we must bear it in mind that the two sides are not equally balanced. On the one side is the state of Israel and on the other the Palestinian people who have lived under occupation for many years. They are not two equal powers. Far too often the peace process is discussed as if what was happening, or might be happening was negotiation between two equal powers. That is a further reason why international involvement is crucial. There are omissions from the roadmap. The building of the security fences and the attempt thereby to appropriate land are missing. They had not been built when the road map was drawn up.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an important signal that the Israeli Government could send now to demonstrate that they are serious about implementing all phases of the roadmap is to stop building the walls and associated fences immediately?

I could not agree more. That is a simple and important point. The Israeli Cabinet has said that it accepts the road map, but at the same time it has tried to attach a range of conditions to it. Settlements have been mentioned. The Israeli Cabinet says that it will not discuss settlements in Judea, Samaria or Gaza, excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, 10 illegal outposts will be removed. That is 10 that are not occupied out of 102. Let us remember that the definition of an illegal outpost that is being used by the Government of Israel is not the same as the definition of a settlement. En international law, every settlement on the west bank and in Gaza is illegal, not just the 102.

My hon. Friend spoke about the right of return of refugees. The Israeli Cabinet states that in both the introductory statements to the road map and the final settlement reference must be made to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the state of Israel. Again, the right of return of refugees has not been dreamt up in the road map: it is recognised clearly in international law. That right cannot just be written away, and if an attempt is made to do so, any solution will not work. We are talking not only about people in Gaza and in the west bank, but about people in the refugee camps in Jordan, Syria and especially Lebanon, where the conditions in the camps and the prospects for the people are probably worse than elsewhere.

If the aim is a viable Palestinian state—everyone says that that should be the aim—the obvious question is what constitutes a viable state. The only possible state that I can envisage in that region is a state that is based on the 1967 borders. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I visited refugee camps in the region two and half years ago, and every Palestinian to whom we spoke accepted that the 1967 borders provided the possibility for a viable state and that there could be no going back. However, a state will not be viable if it is made up of Bantustans and if settlements on the hilltops scattered in the west bank are still regarded as outside its control.

Although we are admittedly talking about a provisional Palestinian state with provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, Israel has said that that state can have only police and internal security forces, and no authority to undertake any defence alliances. Israel will control the exit and entry of all persons and cargo, as well as the state's airspace and electromagnetic spectrum. That is not viable in the long term. Even in the short term, those demands will mean that anyone travelling from Amman to Jerusalem will go through Israeli checkpoints—Israeli soldiers and the Israeli army will be within that provisional state. I do not believe that that can last for very long if there is to be progress.

On the ownership of the road map, one of the Israeli Cabinet's reservations is for the monitoring mechanism to be under American management. That is not acceptable. The road map is not the property of the US—it is the property of the Quartet. Since that means that the United Nations is involved, the road map is the property of the international community. The Israeli Government cannot unilaterally allocate monitoring to one state. That is unacceptable, and we ought to say so now.

There is an opportunity that needs to be pursued. I very much welcome the fact that President Bush is today meeting both the Prime Minister of Israel and Abu Mazen. That needs to continue, because if the process fails, the situation could be catastrophic and there could be long-term problems in the area. However, I shall finish where I started by saying that our Government and the international community must take on the responsibility of ensuring that the road map is pursued, that negotiations are supported and encouraged and that, where necessary, pressure is put on either side to ensure that those negotiations develop.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on his exquisite timing in securing the debate, with the Sharm el Sheikh summit in effect under way and with the active intervention of President Bush.

I share the perspective of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on the issue. In a passionate speech, my hon. Friend made it clear why hundreds of millions of our fellow citizens on this planet, particularly those from the Islamic community, feel so passionately about the issue. That cause has to be addressed in terms of future global stability, let alone righting what many people in the United Kingdom now believe is a wrong. Over the past two or three decades, public opinion in the UK has moved from seeing the little assailed state of Israel trying to defend itself against what appear to be stronger armies and countries surrounding it. Israel has established its own security, so now people do not see the justice of this affair in that small state heroically trying to protect itself, given the appalling history of oppression that the Jewish people have suffered. They see that oppression now being meted out to the Palestinians by the Israelis in turn.

Last year, I saw Israeli security policy for myself on a visit to Israel and the occupied territories. My conclusion is that it is not only cruel, but wholly counter-productive. In a sense, one now sees Israel as boxed into a corner. Talking to Israelis out there, I was made aware that they see no way out, except through an extreme and tough security policy, which has almost no policy objective other than defending the immediate interests of their people by defending them as best they can against the threat of suicide bombers. Of course, the consequence of that policy is simply to breed more suicide bombers, not only among the Palestinian population, but among Islamic radicals, who join the Palestinian cause in a wholly unwelcome way.

I saw what are perhaps the more cynical parts of Israeli policy. The Palestinian Authority was expected to detain the people whom the Israelis identified as terrorists. The authority did detain a terrorist identified by the Israelis. He was put into prison in Nablus, under the control of the authority. Then, on the basis of information received and having identified the cell that they believed he was in, the Israelis sent a fighter-bomber to attack the prison and to attempt to kill the prisoner inside the jail.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I have only three minutes.

The prisoner crawled wounded out of the wreckage, but what does one say to the families of the prison officers who are dead as a result of that Israeli policy? One saw the action of the Israeli Government systematically destroy the effectiveness of the Palestinian Authority as an act of policy. Then it becomes wholly unreasonable for the Israelis to turn round and ask, "Why is the Palestinian Authority incapable of acting against the terrorists among its own population?"

However, it is important for those of us who see the injustice being meted out to the Palestinians to rotate the chessboard and to see it from the point of view of the Israeli population. I see the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) here, who represents a significant proportion of the Jewish population in the UK. In the short time remaining to me, let me say that it is crucial that we understand the perspective not only of the Jewish people living in Israel, but of the Jewish diaspora.

We accept that the role of the British Government will be to support the road map and to do all they can to bring about a settlement, but there is one community in our country that has a very important role to play in recognising the injustice that is being done to the Palestinians and in understanding that this is a historic moment—the Jewish community. The Jewish community in the United States is even more important in that respect.

It is an historic moment, when compromise is available. If anyone can deliver a solution to the settlement issue, it is surely a Prime Minister who is seen as a champion of the settlers. If anyone can face up to the need for a historic compromise and return to boundaries giving the Palestinians 22 per cent. of the land of the original Palestine to establish their state, it is Prime Minister Sharon, with the reputation that he has built, rightly or wrongly, in his past 50 years of involvement in Israel's army and politics.

Considering that, I hope that the Jewish community in the United Kingdom will support the voices of moderation and those seeking compromise in the Jewish community in Israel. I hope that the hon. Member for Hendon, who will not be able to speak today, and other hon. Members who represent significant numbers of Jewish people will focus on the fact that it is not only ordinary British and other citizens who want a solution based on justice. The self-interest of Israel and Jewish people around the world, and the security interests of us all, are now tied up in the historic opportunity of taking the road map to a successful conclusion. We must wish it well.

This has been a typically passionate debate on an important subject and I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). He asked some important questions. to which I hope the Minister will turn his attention in a few minutes.

There were other important contributions. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) spoke about the scepticism that had greeted the slow progress on the road map and the reality of the past few days. He highlighted the humanitarian plight of many caught up in the conflict and, importantly, the personal tragedy that touches the lives of people even here in Britain. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made a strong contribution, describing the terrible fracture that the conflict represents through the whole of the world and the dangers that failing to resolve it will create for us and any hope that we have for a wider middle east peace settlement.

The significance of today's debate is not lost on any of us here, safely ensconced in Westminster Hall. It is lost even less so on the people whose daily lives are blighted by the threat of violence and death. Since September 2000, there have been 3,000 deaths, which is just one ugly snapshot of the human misery and destruction that has characterised the conflict in Israel and Palestine for many decades. We all recognise that there will be huge benefits for the wider region and world as a whole if a peaceful outcome is achieved under the auspices of the roadmap, but we must never lose sight of the fact that, first and foremost, it is the Israelis and Palestinians who have the most to gain or to lose.

Summits in Egypt and Jordan are the latest in a long history of attempts by external parties to help to find a peace solution. Their significance is that they demonstrate a renewed and welcome commitment by the United States to push the parties along the road.

There has been great frustration about the delay in the publication of the road map and concerns that the timetable is already slipping. In phase one, which was due to be completed by the end of May—we are already past that deadline—we were supposed to see the ending of terror and violence, the normalising of Palestinian life and the building up of proper institutions. In a couple of years, we are hoping for an agreement that will ensure a permanent status for both Israel and Palestine and the end of the conflict itself. The timetable is ambitious to say the least and, as I have noted, it is already slipping.

The onus is on all sides to establish as a starting point the basic features of a peace process, which are set out at the beginning of the road map. For the Palestinians, that means reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security and an immediate and unconditional end to violence against Israelis everywhere. For Israel, it means that it must affirm its commitment to a two-state solution and an independent viable sovereign Palestinian state, and end all violence against Palestinians wherever it occurs. Without those basic steps, nothing else can be achieved. The summit in Jordan must surely be the key to making that start. Above all, the steps must be taken together. One side must not watch while the other takes the first step.

There are concerns that the commitment of the parties is not as wholehearted as we might hope. Certainly, the Israelis have endorsed the road map and the Cabinet statement of 25 May, which is welcome and important for the process. At the same time, however, they have listed 14 different reservations, some of which are hugely significant. If all of them were taken on board, they would substantially alter the roadmap as it exists at present. The Palestinians and the wider Arab world watch the response to those Israeli reservations with some concern.

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Would he join me in paying tribute to the substantial portion of the Israeli population that has disagreed vehemently and passionately with the stance that the Israeli Government have adopted and is as anxious to see a peaceful solution as anyone else in the world?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution. He is right to highlight the fact that there is substantial hope in Israel that progress with the road map can be made.

I hope that the Minister highlights what he believes are the important steps in the process and confirms the status of the road map. In June last year, President Bush signalled the beginning of his personal involvement in the middle east peace process when he said:

"This moment is both an opportunity and a test for all the parties in the Middle East: an opportunity to lay the foundations for future peace; a test to show who is serious about peace and who is not. The choice here is stark and simple … The time has arrived for everyone in this conflict to choose peace, and hope and life."

That moment may soon pass.

The summit taking place today and tomorrow is the latest in a long list of initiatives designed to create conditions for peace and security for the Palestinians and Israelis. We must hope that the declarations at the end will not become another sad, irrelevant footnote in this dreadful conflict. To avoid that, both sides must honour their commitments to and support for the road map. The members of the Quartet must hold each side, and each other, to those commitments. The bloody status quo should not be an option, but for too long it has been the only reality known by Israelis and Palestinians alike. Sustained and constructive engagement by all the parties is now more important than ever.

I welcome the debate and thank the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for securing time for it.

The road map's recent publication must stand as potentially one of the most important developments in the politics of the near middle east and of the wider region that we have seen for 50 years, and I took slight issue with the hon. Gentleman when he said that its origins are not auspicious. The road map is on paper and has been designed collectively by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. It contains a detailed schedule towards a defined objective of a Palestinian state, which is a first. What is more, it engages the United States from beginning to end—so often in the past, it has gone in and out and any process has been interrupted—and it does so across the timetable of a presidential election. That, too, is a first. This is all happening at a time when the domestic popularity of the President is uniquely based on his foreign policy actions in that very region, which is another first. When all those factors are taken together, the provenance of the document and the process it defines give grounds for optimism, not pessimism. That opportunity must not be squandered.

The Israeli-Palestinian dispute has proved not only to be one of the most intractable international conflicts, but has demonstrated its capacity to bedevil international relations with the entire region, to which it still remains the main geopolitical backdrop. It colours the attitudes of many Muslims to the west. America, in particular, is perceived as having a one-sided policy.

A settlement of the dispute would bring immediate benefits to both sides. In the long term, it would see Israel safe and secure within her borders and living peacefully alongside a viable, independent Palestinian state, thus fulfilling the aspirations of millions of Palestinians who feel humiliated and stateless. The key components to any agreement have existed in the past. They were tantalisingly close at Taba, and the negotiations there and at Camp David, although not perfect, showed that agreement on the four main components—the Palestinian right of return, the settlements, borders and Jerusalem—was possible.

The goal of the road map, over its three stages, is the creation of a viable independent Palestinian state, with roughly the same borders as the ones that existed in 1967, and an Israel recognised and unreservedly accepted by its neighbours and free from the horrors of terrorist attack. The creation of such a Palestinian state is probably the best means by which Israel can enhance her security in the long term.

The road map also refers to the need for a comprehensive settlement between Israel and all her neighbours. Settlements with Syria and Lebanon are vital components of the eventual solution. Anyone who says that neighbouring Arab states will never recognise Israel are simply wrong: in the right circumstances, there is a clear collective willingness to do so.

We have, of course, been here before. The road map is no magical talisman, but previous talks have also shown how close the two parties can become. The key is to get the two sides talking. The road map contains a time scale, although, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we must be realistic—the peace process will move at its own pace. We must also be wary of tying the process to rigid dates, which the road map document recognises when it states that the process can move faster or slower than envisaged depending on how quickly the two parties fulfil their obligations at each stage.

Early this year, the appointment of Abu Mazen as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and the formation of a Cabinet were very positive developments. Despite the horrific bombings and the loss of innocent lives on both sides, I believe that both Abu Mazen and Prime Minister Sharon are now determined to make the peach process work. Their groundbreaking talks last week, which I believe lasted for more than two and a half hours, showed that they were both willing to talk and to engage. They also produced positive results. Abu Mazen made the all-important commitment to improve security and to prevent future bombings. According to press reports, he is working towards ceasefire agreements with all the organisations that have carried out attacks in Israel and on Israelis. Although Hamas appears unwilling to co-operate at this stage, I am confident that Abu Mazen will make every effort to secure agreement and that neighbouring countries that have supported such organisations will lend their weight to a process that gives Israel security.

Equally, I welcome Mr. Sharon's release of several Palestinians from prison and the easing of restrictions on the movements of Palestinians, enabling a large number of them to return to their jobs on the Israeli side of the border. Those are small but important first steps, without which the road map process would not get under way.

I also welcome Mr. Sharon's openness and political courage in pushing acceptance of the road map through his Cabinet and in referring openly to the west bank as occupied. He has also said that he is prepared to give up settlements as part of a deal. Those illegal settlements in another people's country are a source of constant dismay, and their eventual abandonment is essential.

In passing, it is worth remembering that it was Ariel Sharon who removed the settlers from Yamit in Sinai to return it to Egypt as part of the peace settlement then, which is often forgotten. I am not saying for a moment that Mr. Sharon's past is faultless, but he demonstrated a willingness to make a concession for peace then, which might be a hopeful pointer to what will happen now. Let us put his determination to secure peace and his willingness to make concessions to the test. He knows, as we all do, that the world is watching and hoping.

Reciprocity is at the heart of the road map and is vital to its success. The central tenet of the document is that both sides have obligations and must meet them in parallel. Attempts by either side to corrupt or alter that central principle should be resisted because they would undermine the basis on which the Quartet structured the road map.

Quite apart from the obvious benefits, Israelis and Palestinians stand to benefit in other ways from the peace dividend. Economically and socially, they are tied to each other in many tangible and intangible ways. Their futures and prospects are largely interdependent. The Palestinians have much to gain from a settlement with Israel, including the economic benefits of jobs in Israel, technological assistance in "making the desert bloom", the day-to-day fostering of trade links and the ability to travel freely to see relatives on the other side of the border.

Anyone in either country would prefer peace, a normal life and hope for their family to constant conflict and employment in the army rather than in a normal job. Above all, a just and balanced peace settlement for Palestinians and Israelis alike will give their children a future—one that is not dominated by violence, but in which they can grow up learning skills that will enable them to provide for their families, improve their lot and develop their country.

We all recognise that the reinvigorated middle east peace process must be accompanied by sustained and balanced American interest and encouragement to both sides if it is to be a success. Without the application of American political interest, no peace process will be seen through from beginning to end. American support and, on occasion, pressure, coupled with the realities of America's power and its ability to act as a guarantor of any settlement, are vital to success. Indeed, President Bush's speech on 24 June and his promise to see things through helped to kick off the current peace process. The forthcoming summit in Aqaba between Mr. Bush, Mr. Sharon and Abu Mazen will be a very public demonstration of that commitment.

It may be important for America to take the international lead in supporting the peace process, but there is also an important role for the British Government. We have a unique understanding of and standing in the region. I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure us that his interest and that of his colleagues in the issue, and the Prime Minister's determination, which I applaud, mean that the UK will continue to assist the process.

We are all united today in our desire for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and the vast majority of them are united in the same cause. To quote loosely something said by, I think, Shimon Peres, we now have the road map, but what we need is a vehicle. In the desire for peace and the willingness to talk demonstrated by Ariel Sharon and Abu Mazen in the past few weeks, we now have that vehicle, and I look forward to steady progress towards a lasting peace. It is my genuine belief that the vast majority of Israelis and Arabs want peace to replace conflict, harmony to replace hatred, and hope to replace despair. The process could achieve that, and I hope that it does.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important and timely debate. It is significant that interest in the issue and, indeed, well-informed opinion about it stretch right across the House. I am also struck by the fact that there is near unanimity about its importance and about how we should resolve it together.

In the short time available, let me respond to some of the points that have been made. It is undoubtedly true that the cycle of violence between Israelis and Palestinians has claimed more than 2,500 Palestinian and 750 Israeli lives since the start of the intifada just two and a half years ago. That must be brought to an end. We condemn the suicide bombings and the deliberate targeting of civilians. Terrorism is inexcusable in any circumstances. The Palestinians' legitimate national aspirations will not be helped or secured through the use of violence. Indeed, worldwide support for their cause is undermined and weakened by the suicide bombings. Such practices can only make the peace process more difficult to achieve. We call on the Palestinian Authority to do everything it can to stop further attacks.

Israel, like all states, has the right to ensure the security of its citizens. However, we remain deeply concerned about certain actions taken by Israel in the occupied territories, which have undoubtedly resulted in civilian casualties and the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and farmland. The humanitarian situation, which is a concern for all hon. Members, continues to deteriorate. Such hardship serves only to fuel hatred and violence, making a comprehensive settlement more difficult to achieve.

It is against that background of violence and despair that a political solution must be found. A solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an important precondition for long-term peace in the middle east. It is in the interests of everyone—certainly of the UK—that the violence cease and we see movement towards a final settlement. A negotiated settlement in the dispute between Israel, the Palestinians and her neighbours is long overdue. However, I share the view of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan): there are grounds for cautious optimism.

The outline of a just, lasting settlement based on UN Security Council resolutions is clear: a viable state for the Palestinians and security for Israel within recognised borders. Israel and Palestine alike deserve to enjoy security from attack and the freedom to run their own lives. The Quartet road map clearly sets out the steps to achieve that: a three-stage process with a clear indication of time scales moving towards an eventual settlement in 2005. It is true that the road map talks about the pace being faster or slower, depending on progress, but we regard that time scale objective as important and we will urge all parties to adhere to it.

This Government and this country have played a central role in pressing for the publication of the road map and the Prime Minister has stated his personal commitment to working for its implementation. We welcome both parties' acceptance of the road map and the recent meetings between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas are a positive step towards renewed dialogue. Various hon. Members have commented on that. The immediate obligations on the parties are clear. Israel should withdraw its forces from Palestinian-controlled areas and it should ease curfews and closures. Settlement activity is undoubtedly an obstacle to peace. That has to stop. Similarly, the Palestinians must continue to promote reform. They must take action to prevent terrorist attacks. The Palestinians can achieve their legitimate aspirations only through peaceful means.

Surely the Minister must accept that Israel will hold the process to ransom. I fear that that will happen. Who will interpret what is sufficient in constraining suicide bombings? The Israelis may demand an absolute end to suicide bombings. Mahmoud Abbas cannot be omnipresent in constraining the frustration and hopelessness of individual Palestinians. There is not only that reason, but the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). Does the Minister not share the sense of frustration, and the concern that the process will be held up?

We have to encourage progress and reform on both sides, and we call for an absolute end to the suicide bombings. A complete cessation of suicide bombings cannot be a precondition for the Israeli Government engaging with the process. We are saying that very clearly, and we will continue to do so.

The hon. Member for St. Ives talked about the cynicism around the timing of the publication of the road map. I wholly reject the implication that the timing was related to the conflict in Iraq. That assertion is not consistent with the actions and activities of this Government and our Prime Minister, who have been pressing for months and months to get the road map published. I know we live in cynical times, but it is important to put that issue into context.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the time scale and the impact of the United States elections next year. It is important to point out that President Bush is the first American President unequivocally to call for a two-state solution. The proof is in the pudding, and we need to see how that process is taken forward. The indications of his personal commitment on the issue are strong and developing. Undoubtedly, within any election campaign there will be pressures and forces in the opposite direction, which is why it is doubly important that we remain engaged with the United States on the process and seek to move that issue forward.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the 14 concerns about the road map that the Israeli Government want to be addressed. The process has to start. If there are concerns, they can be addressed as that process is under way. Undoubtedly, there should be further discussion of the road map, but there has to be that clear commitment to start the process. There are strong indications that that is what we have seen. He also asked whether the commitments should be undertaken in parallel or on a sequential basis. It is important that both sides recognise the need to move forward in parallel. It is simply not practical for one side to insist that the other fulfil a series of near impossible conditions before there can be any response. We are expressing that view strongly to both sides.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the UN Security Council resolutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) raised that concern, too. Our position is that the roadmap does not override those UN resolutions. UN Security Council resolution 1435 is key. It calls for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian cities, for a meaningful ceasefire and for the Palestinian Authority to bring those responsible for terrorist attacks to justice, leading to the resumption of political negotiations. The UK Government played a key role in securing that resolution, and we will continue to push for its implementation.

The hon. Member for St. Ives raised the issue of the export of weapons to Israel. He rightly pointed out that Britain sells arms to Israel on the proviso that they are not used within the occupied territories. We continue to put forward that view. There was one breach in March 2002, which was reported to Parliament. We have not identified further breaches of Israeli assurances about the use of UK-supplied equipment in the occupied territories since then. On that occasion, we asked the Israeli Government for an explanation, and we made it clear that their assurances under our arms export control guidelines would no longer be sufficient to allow those arms sales.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the oil pipeline between Syria and Israel. We have seen nothing specific about such a pipeline. If he wishes to write to me about that, I will follow it up. He also raised the important concern about international aid. We are a significant contributor: we contributed £22 million in 2002 and another £22 million to the special emergency appeal for the west bank and the Gaza strip. We will continue to assess what is the most effective and practical way to bring forward our aid contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow raised the issue of refugees. We recognise the importance to Palestinians and Israelis of the right to return. Undoubtedly, a just resolution of the refugee issue must be agreed. consistent with UN General Assembly resolution 194, which calls for the right of return and compensation for Palestinian refugees. We believe that a solution to that issue can be agreed and implemented without threatening the existence of the Israeli state.

Finally, and briefly, on the tragic incidents recently in the Gaza strip, we are regularly in contact with the families of people who have been affected. We have called for a full and transparent military police inquiry. We continue to urge that way forward and have called on the Israeli authorities to review their procedures. We have as yet not received a response, although the Foreign Secretary recently raised—

Order. Time is up.

I notice in The Guardian this morning that Torn Winsor, the rail regulator, describes Network Rail as "out of control". In opening this debate, I wholeheartedly agree with him—that is the reason that we are here this morning. In seeking this debate, I intend to highlight the problems that Network Rail is causing for my constituents and for people in many other parts of the country through its failure to develop and consult on a proper tree and land management policy.

Let me begin by quoting from Network Rail's environmental policy statement, which says:

"In all of our activities, we: minimise emissions and waste; act to reduce adverse impacts to the local community and environment; comply fully with our legal obligations; are sensitive to natural heritage features.

The railway has a positive environmental impact, too. Buildings and natural habitats under Network Rail's care contribute greatly to the local community and its surroundings. For example, the railway offers an important habitat for many plants and animals. Because access to the land is limited, the linesides offer an undisturbed refuge from urban sprawl."

Network Rail's community relations policy statement claims:

"We are committed to developing our relationships with the community and strive to be good neighbours across the areas in which we operate."

No one argues that leaves on the line have not been a problem for the railways in recent years—it probably rates with the wrong kind of snow as one of the most familiar excuses that I have heard about British railways in recent times. However, now Network Rail claims to have a solution. It plans to eradicate all vegetation within 15 ft of railway tracks. That will result in thousands of trees being cut down along some 1,000 miles of heavily wooded embankments, many of which are important wildlife sites. According to Network Rail's own consultants, it plans to destroy an area the size of the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire.

The programme of destruction is already under way. On 19 March this year Network Rail's contractors arrived in Welby road, Hall Green, in my constituency, at six in the morning and began to chainsaw trees without giving any prior notice to local residents or the city council. That was despite the fact that the embankment forms a significant part of the council's conservation strategy. The contractors refused to explain to local residents what was going on and ignored advice that they were demolishing habitats at the height of the nesting season.

The contractors went on to Scribers lane site, which is a site of importance for nature conservation. They drove an excavator the whole length of Scribers lane to Slade lane, apparently to erect new fencing. However, they failed to clear the old fencing, which is now cluttering the site; they failed also to make the usual provisions for the badgers that inhabit the area.

Not satisfied with that damage, the contractors turned their attention to Hall Green's millennium woodland, which was developed at a cost of more than £11,000. In the course of that orgy of destruction, they exposed badger setts, felled trees near Trittiford pool—a bat roosting site—and even managed to fell trees that were part of the "sponsor a tree for a railway station" campaign run by their predecessors Railtrack. Those trees were not even on the embankment—and they were evergreen conifers, not the most likely source of leaves on the line.

To date, Network Rail has failed to produce an environmental impact assessment of the work; perhaps the Minister will confirm it, but I understand that to be a legal requirement. After consultations with English Nature and the naturalist David Bellamy, Network Rail promised that it would not damage habitats and would concentrate on trees in high-risk areas only. It promised that it would concentrate on sycamore, ash and birch, as their particularly large leaves pose a specific problem, but its contractors are operating a scorched earth policy, which is leaving track sides desolate. It is absolute butchery.

Vegetation has been removed with chainsaws; and specially adapted rolling stock, with mounted flails, has been used to cut through huge swathes of land. Martin Buckland, head of vegetation, ecology and wildlife at the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which advises Network Rail, said that many areas had been devastated. He said:

"They do not always go about doing it in the best way. There have been some examples of good practice but in some areas you would want to throttle them because they are just butchers."

That campaign of obliteration is not confined to my constituency. There are plans to extend it throughout Birmingham. Network Rail has also been up to mischief at Wigston near Leicester—again on a nature conservation site—and at Didsbury in Manchester, Wolvercote near Oxford, Colwall station near Malvern, and at Telford, Wrekin and a host of other areas, many of which my hon. Friends will no doubt wish to draw to the House's attention. Network Rail's justification is that it is a safety precaution.

I checked the number of accidents caused by leaves on the Stratford line between Earlswood and Tyseley in my constituency, where Network Rail has done so much damage. In a parliamentary written answer, I was advised that since records began 13 years ago, there has not been one incident involving leaves on the line. Network Rail claims that trees and bushes can obscure signals. I agree; but it happens also on the highway, which is why most local authorities and the Highways Agency have a policy of management, conservation and pruning. They do not destroy entire areas of woodland. In Hall Green, my constituents tell me that the only time when they saw leaves on the line was when an operative clearing the platform with his leaf blower blew them all back on to the track.

Network Rail says that land slippage can be caused by unstable embankments, but over-zealous tree clearing creates that very problem. It says that it is worried about vandalism, but huge logs and tree trunks were precariously poised at the top of the embankment at Hall Green, perfectly placed for vandals to roll them on to the track. One of its greatest disservices to my constituents was completely to expose the rear of their homes, thus directly contributing to a rise in house burglaries in the area. The contractors left behind brushwood, which is a fire risk; they failed to inform the environmental health agency, despite a known rat problem in the area; and they did not even observe the basic health and safety requirements when using pedestrian footpaths in a residential area.

There appears to be evidence of a change of policy in the land management approach of Network Rail. Its new policy is to reduce all trackside habitats to ground level to minimise the cost of work in future years. Safety is not the real issue in Network Rail's tree felling policy. The core of the matter is money. Interestingly, the bonuses of Network Rail's directors are linked to delay statistics, so it might be reasonable to infer that money is a significant motivator.

Network Rail was supposed to be the friendlier, not-for-profit successor to Railtrack. For a company that has received such an intensely hostile press for years and has promised a fresh start to act with such arrogance and contempt for its neighbours and the wildlife that it supports is utterly incomprehensible. I wrote to the head of public affairs at Network Rail asking him to meet me and other Members of the House to discuss the problem. I have had no reply. I was not that surprised, as my constituent, Mr. David Hardy, wrote to John Armitt at Network Rail and, strangely enough, also received no reply.

Network Rail is a private company and says, quite rightly, that the embankments are its land and it can do with them as it sees fit. However, Network Rail is funded by the Government and therefore by the taxpayer, and those valuable embankments and lineside wildlife sites belong to all of us. In future, Network Rail should consult both local residents and organisations such as English Nature and local wildlife trusts before any further work is undertaken. Personally, I would prefer that consultation to be a statutory obligation, but at the very least I hope that the Minister hears what has been said today. We should also publish and implement a strategic approach to protect the national wildlife assets that Network Rail owns. It could be similar to the approach taken by the Highways Agency. Network Rail must make clear its policy for both the short and the long term. We need to know what will happen where and when.

At present, it seems that few people have any power to rein in Network Rail. I have been advised that its actions may be in breach of article 10 of the European habitats directive—I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that—and if that is so English Nature would be in a perfect position to mount legal action against the company unless it shows a dramatic change of heart.

No one wants to compromise rail safety, but the simple fact is that Network Rail has not provided evidence that the policy it has embarked on is wholly related to rail safety. It has treated local people with utter contempt, and exposed their homes to the risk of burglary. It has produced an environmental policy and then completely turned it on its head by destroying wildlife habitats without any regard for the views of others. It has acted in the high-handed, arrogant fashion that we had come to associate with its predecessor, Railtrack. My purpose in securing this debate is to expose what Network Rail is doing and to ask it to see sense before it causes any further damage.

I am delighted to take part in this debate on behalf of my constituents, who have been appalled by the situation and the way in which they have been treated.

The matter was first brought to my attention by a constituent in St. Werburghs, an area of Bristol in which people are particularly ecologically sensitive. There are allotments at the bottom of the first embankment, which was completely devastated. There is a city farm nearby, and a narrow ways strip, which, as one colleague here will remember from Avon county council days, we saved as a nature reserve. In that setting, all the trees and vegetation on a steep embankment that slopes away from the railway line were removed. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that constituents asked me what on earth was going on.

Can the hon. Lady confirm that when she viewed the bank to which she referred, which, as she said, slopes away from the railway line, she could see no justification for the argument that treating it in that way would prevent leaves on the line? Knowing that area as I do, 1 believe that such a justification could not be made.

I agree entirely. When I raised the issue with Network Rail, I was given a long and convoluted explanation about the existence of a suction element, which draws the leaves up the bank and on to the railway line. However, the same treatment was given to banks further along in the Montpelier area, which slope down to the line. I could not work out why the same treatment should be given to those two different types of embankment.

I wrote to Network Rail, and received a reply, which illustrates the illogicality of its approach to environmental issues. I was first told:

"At this site there has been a significant problem"—

I shall return to the significance of the problem in a moment—

"with leaves affecting the train braking system during the traditional Autumn leaf fall period."

The letter then discusses the "need to discourage re-growth." However, two paragraphs further down in the same letter, it is stated that

"non-native species such as Sycamore"

are a problem, and need to be destroyed because they do not allow the

"re-growth of indigenous plants and shrubs."

Therefore, on one hand it is said that there is a significant problem, and on the other, that the problem relates specifically to sycamores, because they do not allow the growth of indigenous species.

One of a group of constituents from the St. Werburghs area immediately looked at Network Rail's website, and read its explanation of its environmental policy. It says—or rather, said—that

"the company in all cases will make every attempt to conserve wild plants and animals and their habitats. If any work or development of Network Rail land would cause disturbance to wildlife, every effort is made to…minimise the disturbance"

and

"we aim to be sensitive in our management of natural and heritage features, taking into consideration the views of all those with an interest in our activities and working with them where appropriate."

Interestingly enough, that policy statement was removed from the website within a week.

Local people were dismayed by the lack of consultation and decided that they needed to take action. On 12 March, local people in St. Werburghs, as it says in their newsletter, were

"fed up with being fobbed off and having their intelligence insulted by Network Rail's inane justifications, so over 40 gathered in the early morning and dissuaded the chainsaw wielding contractors from continuing with their … felling."

I contacted the lady who co-ordinates the group yesterday, and she said that the work has not continued, so we are in an impasse on that site. However, I know from colleagues in Bristol that work has continued in the St. Annes area, where debris and logs caused a fire that meant two hours' work for the fire brigade, smoke on the line and long delays to trains.

The two ideas of environment and safety appear to be in conflict, but hon. Members will see no reason for that. In this situation, the safety aspect has been infringed, as brambles and undergrowth have gone, allowing more children access to the railway lines, which we want to keep them off. With good consultation, especially with people who know the St. Werburghs area and recognise the need to take down certain trees, those conflicting aspects could have been resolved.

I urge the Government to use their influence to make it clear that a national policy for Network Rail is implemented, that local people are drawn into the conversation so that their experience of their area is brought to bear and that, as a result, we have a railway that is both safe and environmentally friendly, particularly in our cities where we need the greenery and want to conserve wildlife.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) thinks that Network Rail's interest in delay statistics may have something to do with directors' pay, and if he is right, such delays must be a significant problem on my line, requiring immediate action. One would think that it was a main line, not the Severn Beach line carrying 16 trains a day—eight in each direction. One part of me is delighted that Network Rail has so much concern for the people and those trains, but we have no evidence of delays resulting from leaf mould. Instead, we have a difficulty in getting more trains, despite the need to expand the line and dual rail it, to ensure more commuters.

The situation has been rather like a traditional bereavement or sudden loss in a community. There was initial stunned disbelief and then guilt—had the people not done enough? We learned that Bristol city council had been contacted about the question of planning, but that the people were told simply that the land belonged to Network Rail and that it was a safety issue. It could do as it liked. Following that came the anger and now the determination to do something, and the one piece of good news is that the group in St. Werburghs have introduced proposals for replanting that area. In telephone conversations, Network Rail has given no definitive statements that it will look favourably on that, but it assures me that it will at least consider the proposals for replanting in that area. I look forward to a positive and continuous dialogue with Network Rail to get some replanting.

The final outcome of any disaster is to ensure that it does not happen to other people, and we are here this morning to prevent the devastation of wildlife in cities and rural areas throughout our beautiful country as a result of some inane, misguided and short-sighted Network Rail policy that will do neither it nor anyone else any final good.

I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the debate, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing it. Although rail punctuality, cost and safety are normally at the centre of attention, the environmental dimension is important, and it causes many of our constituents a lot of grief. In a way, I was relieved to find out about this debate, because I have been grappling for the best part of a year with the problems that the hon. Gentleman described. It is almost gratifying to discover that these things are happening throughout the country as it gives us a platform from which to try to do something about it. The consequences of two such incidents rumble on to this day.

The first was on a major branch line through one of the most densely populated parts of my constituency in the area behind Hampton Wick station. The details of what happened are almost exactly as the hon. Gentleman described. Last summer, Network Rail took away the tree covering along the side of the track and behind the station, which destroyed the local environment and created a perfect platform from which local teenagers could hurl stones and bricks at people's windows. It created a focus for local crime and has become a major environmental eyesore. We had some short-term success in shaming the rail companies into doing something about it. Network Rail accepted that it had made a mistake; there was a lot of publicity and a public meeting was held. One complication, however, as stations were involved, was that there were difficulties because of the fragmentation of the rail system.

The issue is who was responsible at the end of the day—Network Rail or the train operator. In this case, the train operator, South West Trains, assumed responsibility for solving the problem, although it had not caused it. Ever since, attempts have been made to get it to implement the results of that agreement. A few saplings were planted, which in 20 years may remedy some of the damage that was caused, and last summer the company felt able to finance a street party for the jubilee. We are still waiting for the fence that was promised to replace the trees that were destroyed. There will be a public meeting next week to force the company to take on the matter. A year later, the damage, the public anger and the sense of frustration remain.

A few weeks after the first incident, there was a similar episode in another part of my constituency—Hampton Hill—which followed the course of events that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) described. Local residents were alerted to the fact that the chainsaws were out and an enormous area was being cleared of vegetation many yards from the track, far removed from anything that could conceivably have affected the operation of the railway. Nesting birds were being disturbed, and there was complete indifference to the effect on a very attractive area. I am lucky to have many environmentally aware people in my constituency, and fortunately there was rapid mobilisation: the press were brought to the scene and lawyers were wheeled out to draw attention to the fallacies in the Network Rail operator's brief. The clearance was stopped after about 30 to 40 yd. The operation has now been suspended, although what will happen eventually I do not know.

Such episodes are happening throughout the country, and I draw three conclusions from them. First, Network Rail shows a complete absence of environmental sensitivity. Most big utilities have an environment policy, but Network Rail seems not to—it is host to the main concentration of graffiti and shows not the slightest inclination to clean it up—which suggests a lack of environmental awareness or any feeling of obligation to maintain decent environmental standards.

Secondly, as hon. Members have said, there is a complete absence of public consultation by Network Rail. It reacts to protest rather than consulting in advance. There is no mechanism for involving local communities in decisions that affect them. Thirdly, there are the difficulties that arise as a result of the fragmentation of the ownership structure, and the poor relationships between Network Rail and its contractors and between Network Rail and the train operators. There is a lack of co-ordination, and difficulties are involved in their reaching agreement, which particularly affects the station environment. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has any power to intervene to alleviate the problem.

There is not much more that I can acid to the points raised by my colleagues, except to highlight what has happened in my constituency. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) for securing such a timely debate. I first came across the problem in April, when constituents wrote to me about what was happening on the track between Lee station and Hither Green station, which I use each day. They had seen the most appalling vandalism—it cannot be called anything other than that—as tree after tree was cut down in a relatively small area.

None of us would want to compromise safety on the railway. We all know of the tragedies that have occurred as a result of unsafe methods. We absolutely endorse the role of Network Rail in making our railways safe. However, that does not mean that it should completely ignore what is happening. Network Rail's actions are devastating the area around the railway, and I am not convinced that its methods are making our railways safer.

My constituents received a letter from Network Rail on 10 April in which it outlined its intentions and described its forthcoming action as "lineside vegetation management". The letter referred to a contract that would last three weeks and said that the work would commence on 1 April. Had my constituents received such a letter on 1 April, they might have thought of it as an April fool's joke. However, they received it 10 days after the work had started, halfway through the contract period, by which time they had seen the utter horror at the back of their houses.

My constituents contacted me, as did Network Rail. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, such people are articulate. They put together a forceful argument. As other hon. Members have said, if Network Rail responded at all, its response was slow. After I had contacted it, Network Rail called my office and asked why I was so worried. I explained in detail the matters that I wanted to raise with it, and it promised to fax a response immediately. Well, my machine is churning out faxes from many people, but not from Network Rail.

Few large companies in this country do not place some value on decent public relations. It is not difficult to do that, and most companies have members of staff who can communicate positively to residents. Informing residents that work would start after it had begun is one of the crassest examples of incompetence that I have come across for some time. My constituency is in an inner-London borough with the greatest length of railway corridor of any borough in London—it covers 86 hectares. It also has the largest number of important nature conservation sites of any London borough, so it is important that our natural environment is preserved and protected. Hundreds of thousands of people travel on those railway lines each day; surely it would be in Network Rail's interest to encourage them to enjoy the colour and spontaneity of wildlife alongside the tracks.

The Minister may wish to raise with Network Rail the publishing of information on the biodiversity in our inner cities. Network Rail wrote to me:

"We are careful only to prune…or cut down problem trees."

No one would disagree with that commendable position. However, Network Rail wrote to my constituents explaining that it could not get to the unhealthy trees without cutting down healthy trees. Then, after the work had started, it discovered that the fencing behind the properties needed to be replaced, so more healthy trees had to be cut down. That is why in the small area between Lee and Hither Green stations there are next to no trees left standing. One of our major problems is not simply the fact that Network Rail went in with its bulldozers and chainsaws on that occasion; it is that for years it—and Railtrack before it—clearly did nothing to manage and look after the railside environment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green raised the issue of impact assessments. When my constituents asked Network Rail if they could see the ecological surveys and risk assessments that it said had been done, it replied:

"The request to see ecological surveys…and risk assessments is one we must decline. These are confidential reports"

commissioned by Network Rail for internal use only. Why are those assessments not available to the general public, or at least to the local authority? Although we asked our local authority to get involved—it was keen to be supportive and help the residents of Southbrook road—its hands were tied, too. It had only been approached as a basic matter of courtesy by Network Rail in the process of getting on with this vandalism.

I know that this sounds like Members of Parliament whingeing about small, relatively unimportant issues, but they are not unimportant to the people whose houses back on to a railway line where there were once trees and wildlife, including foxes and nesting birds. Now they can see not 16 trains a day, but four trains an hour going in one direction and four in the other, to say nothing of the freight trains going through all the time. This is, ironically, a conservation area. There are not many conservation areas in Lewisham and here is one environment that has been devastated through no fault of the residents or the borough, but by an independent, arrogant, unthinking and non-listening organisation.

The value of the residents' houses has dropped considerably as a result of that action, although I know that that is not the main concern. People do not buy a house from which they can watch trains go by eight, 10 or 12 times an hour, whereas they would buy a house that had vegetation and so forth behind it—that makes a huge difference. I have to say that those houses are very beautiful. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether there is any possibility that Network Rail will compensate my constituents for the remarkable drop in the value of their property in the past couple of months. I know that at least one person needs to sell their house for reasons that I will not go into here.

I raised the issue of security with the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green is correct to express concern about crime. In my constituency the fear of crime, rather than actual crime, has risen considerably since Network Rail's action. I raised that with my local borough commander, who said that he, too, was very concerned about what had happened and particularly about the resulting fear of crime. He has sent his local beat manager to speak to the residents about their concerns. He also confirms that Network Rail did not contact the police when it started this exercise, but the local police have taken the initiative and spoken to Network Rail, which has been made aware of the concerns expressed by the residents.

As a result—this is one of the few positive things to come out of this horrific exercise—Network Rail now says that it will contact the police in cases where it believes that police input is needed. However, the fact that it must feel that police input is needed is the get-out clause; we need something stronger. I do not argue in favour of regulation for the sake of it, but there is a loose cannon here. Network Rail is not taking its responsibilities to its neighbours or others very seriously.

Can the Minister put pressure, in one form or another, on Network Rail to ensure that it takes into account the aesthetic and environmental impacts of its work? It should also inform people of its conclusions and the reasons for its decisions. I should like pressure to be exerted to ensure that Network Rail talks to the local police and the British Transport police about the impact of its work in the form of a rise in crime or at least in the fear of crime, and to ensure that the work is not disproportionate to the need to keep our railways safe. As I said, I should also like to know whether there is any possibility of compensation for those people who may need it as a result of that work.

I end on this note: although my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) says that Network Rail will now involve people in its replanting programme, which is a good thing, very few people have great faith that it will carry that out. I hope that when Network Rail considers, as it has told us it will, what replanting is needed and what has grown in the meantime, it will not just rely on sycamores reseeding themselves and so on, but will plant appropriately, in consultation with the residents and the local authority, whose environmental studies seem considerably better than anything that Network Rail has produced so far.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing this important debate. Having listened to other hon. Members recounting experiences suffered by their constituents, I should feel comforted by the fact that Network Rail has not simply picked on my constituents, but I actually feel greater anger, incredulity and despair because Network Rail has continued its arrogant mismanagement in the face of protests from residents, community organisations and MPs up and down the country.

My constituents, too, have the misfortune to live close to land owned by Network Rail. I should like to focus on a couple of the areas in my constituency that have been affected by Network Rail's policy of environmental rape and pillage. I want to raise serious questions about the total lack of accountability and responsiveness of senior managers in Network Rail.

I first became aware of the problem at the beginning of the year, when I was contacted by a number of residents of Gypsy lane in Hunton Bridge, in the north of my constituency. I had dealings with those residents when they contacted me with concerns about an electricity substation that Railtrack was due to install close to their homes to allow for the upgrading of the west coast main line. The land bordering the track is a popular location for walkers. It is a beautiful area that contains many habitats for a variety of wildlife. The residents were deeply unhappy about the development, but they took some comfort from the fact that the substation would partly be screened by vegetation and trees and from the firm's assurances that the screening would be further enhanced.

Railtrack staff gave those assurances at a public meeting in my constituency last May. Foolishly, I and many other residents believed them. I was therefore extremely surprised to be contacted again in January by the same constituents who this time were concerned that Network Rail seemed to be intent on removing all the trees and vegetation in the area. I thought that they might be exaggerating a little, but again, in circumstances similar to those that hon. Members have described, I soon found that they were not. A stretch of some 400 m of track had been cleared of trees, leaving only stumps behind. Many of the trees that had been removed were nowhere near the track or the overhanging cables that power the trains. Some were as much as 25 m from the track.

No one would ever question the need to remove trees that cause a health and safety hazard, but no one with any common sense could believe that that was the case in these circumstances. I immediately contacted Network Rail and received an assurance that it would get a tree expert to examine the remaining trees further along the track to check whether they really needed to be removed and to consider the company's position. I had to ask the manager at Network Rail to get his contractors to stop work while we talked, because I feared that they would continue to cut down the tress while we discussed the matter. There would have been little point in having any discussion if all the trees were gone by the end of it.

The firm also promised to contact local residents to tell them what was going on and to warn them of possible future works. Again, I foolishly accepted that reassurance. In early February, however, more trees were felled in the same area. No letters had been sent to local residents, and Network Rail has never produced evidence of any investigation by an arboriculturist. Residents had to approach the site office to receive any explanation for the work restarting. They were handed a letter stating that the company had an environmental policy and a licence for the work, and was going to get on with it.

I acknowledged that it was now too late to stop work in the area around Gypsy lane, but made further inquiries with Network Rail and spoke to its head of public affairs, Mike Watson. He sent me an e-mail in which he assured me:

"Further, the matter has been raised with the Zone Area Asset manager in Network Rail Midlands Zone, who is responsible for ensuring that this programme is delivered, in terms of notification with lineside residents and local authorities."

Mr. Watson continued by assuring me that that the zone area asset manager

"is determined that, across the zone, contractors will notify those affected prior to the start of works together with any relevant local authorities. You have my personal assurance that I have raised the matter of notification prior to programmed tree level at a national level."

Because of my past experiences with Network Rail and its predecessor, I am afraid that I took little reassurance from that e-mail. I was annoyed that Mr. Watson had only raised the issue of telling residents that the work was going to be done, and that he seemed unwilling even to consider that the entire programme was a waste of money that could have been better spent elsewhere.

It seems that I was right to be sceptical, because only a few weeks later, residents in another part of my constituency, Southfield avenue, contacted me. Their homes back on to a small branch line that links my constituency with St. Albans, but they were hardly aware of that because of the extensive foliage and the number of trees at the rear of their properties. That was, however, until Network Rail decided to remove the trees and the foliage and erect a large, ugly metal picket fence in their place. That gave residents a wonderful view of an industrial estate that had previously been screened from them, and views of the railway line and the trains. Once again, the first that people knew about the work was when they heard the chainsaws and saw the trees coming down. There was little evidence that the zone area asset manager for the midlands had paid much attention to the words of Network Rail's head of public affairs, because no resident had been consulted or sent a letter.

With that in mind, I contacted Network Rail's chief executive, John Armitt. I hoped that he would be interested to learn that his firm was spending vast sums on removing trees and foliage. Given that the company is funded from the public purse, I also hoped that he would be interested to hear from a Member of Parliament who was representing her constituents. He wrote back, saying that the work in Southfield avenue had been carried out to stop fly tipping on railway land. That is probably one of the worst excuses that I have ever heard, and I shall explain why.

The short stretch of rail that has been cleared of trees is bordered by two level crossings, which give easy access to the railway. They allow trains to cross a couple of main roads and give pedestrians access to two small stations. Anyone with a mind to do so has always been able to fly-tip on that bit of railway land. Putting some bits of fencing alongside the track will do nothing to solve the problem, because it will not alter the fact that it is easy to access the line from the two crossings, which cannot be closed off. Indeed, clearing many of the trees will only aid the fly tippers, because they will have more empty land on which to fly-tip.

Mr. Armitt appeared to acknowledge that in his response of 17 April:

"I would also mention that the area has been reinspected by our contractor who confirms that further extensive fly tipping is already taking place and that garden refuse and building materials have been found on Network Rail land. You will appreciate that we take this issue very seriously and I understand that local residents will be advised of any action to be taken."

Perhaps it would be helpful if I paraphrased Mr. Armitt's words. As I understand it, he was saying, "My firm has spent vast amounts clearing land to stop fly tipping, but we've just discovered that our solution has been a complete waste of time and money, because the fly tipping has got even worse." Let us not forget that the trees were supposedly cut down for health and safety reasons.

In any case, the reasons that Mr. Armitt gave me for the work contradict those mentioned in a letter from the firm to local residents. It referred to the need to ensure that line-side workers had a place of refuge when trains passed, that the sighting lines of trains were not obscured, that drivers could see signals and that there were no leaves on the line—that familiar old phrase.

I wrote back to Mr. Armitt on 24 April and told him what I thought of his response. I asked him to provide me with a copy of the detailed study that had been carried out before the work was done and which showed that it was necessary. I also wanted to see a copy of the contract that Network Rail had signed to authorise the work, because I wanted to be sure that the firm's contractors were not being over-zealous. Additionally, I asked for an assurance that the firm that drafted the study showing that the work needed to be carried out was not the same one that had been given the contract to do the work. I am sure that hon. Members will understand my suspicions and my reasons for asking such a question. Finally, as Watford is only 20 minutes from Network Rail's Euston headquarters, I offered to show Mr. Armitt round the site of the devastation caused by his firm. All that was done at the end of April, and I have not even had the courtesy of a holding response from Mr. Armitt—so much for Network Rail's public affairs management.

What really concerns me about my experiences with Network Rail is that I know from press reports and conversations with colleagues that the same thing is going on throughout the country, and it must be a massive drain on the resources that the Government are putting into the firm. No one wants rail safety to be jeopardised, and some trees close to a line may need to be removed. That is fine, but why does Network Rail believe that all the trees along the west coast main line will suddenly fall down and crush unsuspecting commuters? Those trees have been standing for decades, and in most places they have caused no harm. I am not aware of any tree being implicated in the tragic accidents that have befallen the railway industry during the past few years.

Without doubt, it is a massive undertaking to chop down a tree that has been standing for decades and to dig out the stump that is left behind. Contractors spend many weeks clearing vast areas of land along many hundreds of miles of railway. That is an enormous expense, and I cannot help but feel that the money would have been better spent on replacing rail or signalling facilities, which have been demonstrated to have caused accidents when faulty. I am concerned that the removal of vegetation and trees, especially alongside steep railway banks, could lead to a weakening of soil close to railway lines and cause landslides on to tracks. In common with other Members of Parliament, I have been assured that extensive replanting will take place—I am sure that that will be of great financial benefit to garden supply firms throughout the country—but would it not have been cheaper to spend the money on a programme of reinforcement and selective cutting instead?

Commuters in my constituency are already facing higher fares and not gaining vastly improved services. Is it too much for them to expect Network Rail to be a decent neighbour? They should not have to put up with the environmental butchery that is taking place and the arrogant mismanagement by Network Rail. It is time that we made it clear to the company that it should be accountable to the Government, to commuters and to the people who pay—the general taxpayers—for the continued running of the company. I hope that the Minister ensures that Network Rail hears that message loud and clear.

As has already been implied by several speakers, one of the advantages of these debates is that they reassure individual MPs that they are not alone. It is clear from what we have heard that the concerns of constituents in various constituencies are shared—for the record, many people in my constituency, too, have written to me about such problems. It is also important to have an opportunity to hear the strength of feeling that has been expressed by our constituents, not least because they feel that they have not been consulted in any way.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing the debate. He follows a growing tradition whereby in recent times hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), have raised concerns about various areas of Network Rail's behaviour. My hon. Friend has raised concerns about the way in which Network Rail has been installing masts on the land, and the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the destruction of wildlife habitats at the side of lines.

Today's debate was given the title of "Tree Management (Network Rail)". Were we discussing tree management, I suspect that many hon. Members would not have great concerns. As has been said, we entirely accept that Network Rail has a duty to ensure that the lines are safe and to take action that will reduce the many delays that we currently experience. I entirely accept that Network Rail has common-law responsibilities in respect of trimming vegetation that overhangs the line, and statutory responsibilities to protect the line. The problem is that those powers are wide ranging, and it appears that the company can, more or less, do anything it likes subject to its being

"required in connection with…carriage by rail".

That gives the company wide-ranging powers. It is therefore important that opportunities exist to introduce checks and balances for activities that take place.

Sensible tree management is something that we would all support, for the reasons that I have given. Sadly, we are not debating sensible tree management, but something far worse: the scarring of landscape and the devastation of wildlife habitats.

Members of the public may be concerned simply about appearance, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that a number of experts have passed their professional judgment on what Network Rail has been doing. For instance, Mr. Martin Buckland, the head of vegetation, ecology and wildlife at the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, a body that advises Network Rail, said that its actions had resulted in many areas being devastated, and that those responsible were butchers.

The hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green, for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) gave us some horrific examples of Network Rail not following its clear and welcome environmental policy document. However, it goes far beyond that; we have also heard that Network Rail is clearly not prepared to live up to the standards that it set when it said that it aimed to be a good neighbour. We also heard of a number of examples of a clear lack of accountability.

Network Rail is meant to be a not-for-profit public interest company, yet it has so little regard for the public interest that it seeks to prevent the media from attending its annual general meeting; and we heard from several hon. Members that it does not even bother to reply to their letters. So much for accountability, and its willingness to be involved in consultation.

Because much of the work carried out by Network Rail was not based on a detailed environmental impact study, it has led to wholesale devastation. I was delighted to hear that a diligent policeman in Didsbury in Manchester took action under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which requires people not to disturb nesting birds; he was able to get the work stopped, and I congratulate him on that.

Sadly, however, the devastation has occurred; as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, it will cover a total of about 30 square miles, an area equivalent to the Forest of Dean. As a result, areas of vegetation are being lost, and various species, including nesting birds and badgers, have been affected. However, it is being done in a way that will not solve the problem. At times, particularly when I hear phrases like zone area asset manager, I wonder whether it is not a case of too many leaves on the track but too many managers.

Crucially, Network Rail has started telling us that it is not doing any of the things that we have heard about today. Not yet mentioned is its document, "Tree management in your area", which states:

"Network Rail needs to carry out some essential tree cutting in your area."

Under the heading, "What about the environment?" the document states:

"Whilst our first priority is running a safe, reliable railway, we are also concerned about the environment. We know how important trees are as a 'green screen' and as a haven for wildlife, therefore we are careful only to prune or cut down problem trees."

As the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) pointed out, Network Rail has found all sorts of excuses, including cutting down other trees to gain access to the problem trees and to fences. In reality, it has adopted a scorched earth policy because it is cheaper and easier than selective pruning.

The document continues:

"Network Rail employs its own experts and environmental managers to assist our maintenance departments. We also consult conservation specialists to minimise the impact that tree work has on nesting birds and native wildlife. Before starting a tree felling programme, they will liase with your local authority to inform them of our plans and to discuss and resolve issues particular to your local environment."

That is what Network Rails tells us that it is doing and, frankly, if that were what it was doing, there would not have been any need for this debate.

Given that Network Rail is a not-for-profit, public interest company, the question for the Minister is how it is possible for the House to hold its actions to account when it is not doing as it promised. If we had sensible tree management to reduce delays and improve safety, there would be no problem. The problem, however, is that Network Rail is not sticking to what it said it would do. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will say how we can hold Network Rail to account for the clear commitments that it has given. It is crucial that consultation with residents and local authorities be improved. It is crucial that before any work is done a proper environmental impact study is carried out. It is crucial that before Network Rail carries out any of the work it has a clear understanding of why that method of solving the problem is necessary and not some of the other methods that we know are available.

How do I know that those other methods are available? Because in the very document to which I have referred, six or seven alternative approaches that can be adopted to solve the problem of leaves on the line are listed. The onus should therefore surely be on Network Rail to say why it cannot use any of those six or seven alternative methods and why it must take the tree-cutting approach first. There are other, better ways of protecting the environment and the wildlife habitat, of providing security and protection to individual residents and of improving our environment generally. I hope that the Minister will therefore tell us how, in the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, we are going to rein in Network Rail.

I call Her Majesty's Opposition spokesperson.

May I say what a pleasure it is to appear before you this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I also take the opportunity to declare my interest in the railway industry: I am still a shareholder in Railtrack, FirstGroup and Eurotunnel. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing this debate, which is timely, and all hon. Members who have contributed to a heartfelt and lively discussion.

Network Rail's policy on tree management and public consultation raises a number of pertinent questions that may, I hope, form the basis of a study and the taking of evidence by the Select Committee on Transport. The talk used to be of leaves on the line, but times change and we are now talking of trees on the line and whether Network Rail has the right to cut them down and, if so, to what extent.

I am delighted to see the Minister in his place looking so well today—he has obviously benefited from the recess. Will he use his good offices to find a commonsense solution? Clearly the residents have the right to enjoy the environment in which they live and work. Trees form a part of that and provide a natural habitat for wildlife and birds, as a number of hon. Members have said. Equally, however, Network Rail has the right to go about its business in the provision and maintenance of the railway infrastructure and in running a safe and reliable railway.

Trees near the railway—and roads, for that matter—are desirable. They soak up noise and pollution and also look nice and provide screening for residents and habitats for birds and wildlife. However, the problem is not new. The document from Network Rail to which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred says:

"In the past, trees and bushes alongside the railway could be ignited by sparks from steam engines and were therefore a serious fire hazard."

At times trees can also become a liability. When deciduous trees shed their leaves they obviously become an obstacle to trains. As frequent rail passengers we know that every autumn, delays are blamed on leaves on the line. At worst—no one has picked this up in the debate—trees can threaten the railway line themselves. Just as they can jeopardise a house when their roots grow too long, they can sometimes buckle a line.

In such circumstances, surely the Minister would agree that it is right for Network Rail to undertake a tree-trimming or tree-cutting exercise or, in its words, "a vegetation management programme". In what other circumstances might that be justified? Obviously, removing vegetation from the side of the line could be justified to give train drivers clear views of signals. Railtrack was criticised in Lord Cullen's inquiry into Ladbroke Grove for not taking action to make the signals more visible. Eight separate driver overruns were reported at that signal.

Track workers must see and be seen by approaching trains. They must have a safe walking route alongside the track. Old or diseased trees may fall on the track, causing a danger to trains. As I mentioned earlier, leaves falling on the line create the railway's equivalent of "black ice", which hampers train braking, thereby causing delays as trains have to travel more slowly. Even the law recognises the problem. Exemptions to tree preservation orders are set out in section 198(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They apply where trees have become dangerous. I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with those. We would all accept that in those circumstances Network Rail would be justified in taking action.

I turn now to the matter that caused most concern this morning and which has enjoyed all-party support. I pay tribute not just to those who have spoken today, but to Bob Harvey, the Conservative councillor in Hall Green, who has supported the campaign most vigorously. The hon. Members for Watford (Claire Ward) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) both spoke about consultation. Obviously, if a document is submitted to local residents on 10 April but the tree-cutting programme started on 1 April in any one year, that is not adequate consultation.

Does the Minister agree that the proposed consultations are an improvement, and does he consider that they go far enough? Approximately 10 weeks in advance Network Rail will liaise with the local authority tree officer and other relevant bodies such as English Nature and the Countryside Agency. Approximately eight weeks before works start, Network Rail will write to all local councillors and MPs. Approximately four weeks before the works start, it will inform residents living nearby.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Unfortunately, time does not permit. The hon. Lady had longer than those of us who are summing up. Would the Minister see fit to invite Network Rail to extend the consultation to parish councils? That would be a welcome development. I certainly understand the concerns and the real sense of frustration expressed this morning, but I recognise that Network Rail is adapting its programme.

I sound a note of caution and invite the Minister to assure us that the ultimate test will be safety. We cannot afford a rail accident in any circumstances caused by a tree destabilising an embankment and creating a mudslide or landslip and buckling the line, leading to a collision or derailment. None of us would want it on our conscience if cuts in the tree management programme lead to another rail disaster. Does the Minister agree that safety should be the ultimate test and that we should do everything we can to encourage the widest possible consultation, which should be extended to parish councils?

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to reflect on the plethora of bodies that have responsibility for rail safety. The website of the Office of the Rail Regulator today says that the national rail network infrastructure was originally owned and operated by Railtrack but has now passed to Network Rail. It states:

"The framework for the regulation of Network Rail is designed to provide effective incentives so that the company is rewarded for doing a good job."

That is contradicted by the rail regulator's statement, to which hon. Members have referred. The rail regulator, Tom Winsor, is reported as saying:

"Network Rail's not-for-profit structure has made it harder to set incentives for management because he"—

the rail regulator—

"could no longer fine shareholders for the railways' poor performance."

The Strategic Rail Authority, together with the new body, the Rail Safety and Standards Board, is responsible for rail safety. There is a host of those who are responsible for rail safety: Network Rail, the rail regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Health and Safety Executive, the new Rail Safety and Standards Board and the soon-to-be-created rail accident investigation branch. Will the Minister tell us who has the last word on rail safety?

It is a pleasure to call the heavily worked Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak when you are in the Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing this important debate and on the forthright and informed way in which he spoke on behalf of his constituents. If, nearly 30 years ago, I had been successful in my first parliamentary election, I might have been speaking for Birmingham, Hall Green. My hon. Friend obviously had more success in getting elected in that constituency. I know the area well, and the stretch of line to which my hon. Friend referred.

This has been a classic example of a debate in which hon. Members can strongly express their views on behalf of their constituents and they have done so most effectively. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) referred to "whingeing" about important issues, but I do not consider that we are whingeing. These issues have been raised, properly, by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), who made powerful remarks.

Several issues have arisen from the debate, to which I hope that Network Rail has been listening. I hope that it will study the Hansard report with care, especially the allegations of its not responding to letters from Members of Parliament. I take a very dim view of that; the Department has a good record of responding to hon. Members' letters and I hope that other organisations to which the Department is affiliated try to emulate our record.

I hope, too, that Network Rail has been listening to some of the criticisms that have been made and that it will respond appropriately to them. There are one or two environmental issues that are probably beyond my brief. If hon. Members feel that those have not been adequately dealt with, I shall ensure that other Departments respond.

I should like to say a few general words about the objectives, responsibilities and priorities of Network Rail. As hon. Members are aware, it took over responsibility for the operation, maintenance and renewal of Britain's rail infrastructure in October last year, in the wake of Railtrack's going into administration. It must strike a balance between providing a safe, efficient, reliable and affordable rail network and meeting environmental and community concerns, as well as aesthetic concerns about the local environment. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about safety. That must, of course, be a priority for Network Rail. As we know, there is widespread public concern about rail performance, and delays caused by leaf fall each autumn have generated pressure for preventive action. The concerns raised today have to be viewed in that light.

Network Rail is a private "not for dividend" company. It is responsible to its membership—more than 100 organisations and individuals representing the railway industry—stakeholders and the wider public. The Government regard the creation of Network Rail as a crucial turning point. It is clear that it has consistently failed in its role as custodian of the rail network. Its priorities must inevitably be focused on the effective management of the rail network. Its first priority is to operate a safe, reliable railway. Tree clearance plays an important part in achieving that goal. I am sure that no hon. Member present today would disagree with measures that are intended to ensure the safety of rail users and those who work on the railway lines.

I appreciate the concerns that hon. Members have expressed today, on behalf of their constituents, about the removal of trees that stood for some 30 years. Younger constituents were not around when it was necessary for the side of the track to be kept clear of trees and other vegetation, to prevent fires. In those days there was little vegetation at the side of railways. I see that you nod, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I think that you and I may just be old enough to remember the last knockings of the steam engines on the railways. After the withdrawal of steam trains that kind of maintenance was reduced—some would even say neglected—by the British Railways Board and subsequently by Railtrack. As a result, the presence of trees and other vegetation on cuttings and embankments has become commonplace, whereas it was not 30 to 40 years ago. Network Rail has concluded that that presents an unacceptable safety risk and it has embarked on an accelerated programme of vegetation management that is prioritised in terms of the degree of risk to the operational railway.

Several safety risks arise from the presence of trees by the side of the track. Leaf fall, especially from broad leaved deciduous trees, can result in trains sliding past signals or platforms and, by interfering with track circuits, it can cause signalling systems to malfunction. That can be exacerbated by the gradient of the embankment, leading to the contamination of the rail head as the leaves fall to the bottom of the cutting. In addition to the safety risk, leaf fall has a significant effect on train performance and is a major cause of delays in the autumn. Last autumn was no exception, especially in the south-east of England and the London area.

Train drivers' views of signals may also be obstructed. Track workers must be able to see oncoming trains and they must be seen by the drivers; they need to be able to move quickly and safely from the track and tripping and slipping hazards arising from vegetation must be avoided. It is a sad fact that in the year 2001–02 four trackside workers were killed as a result of being struck by passing trains, which was double the number killed in the previous year. We cannot ignore that in the consideration of the matter today.

Falling trees are a risk to trains in certain areas, due to factors such as the steepness of embankment slopes, soil conditions and nature of vegetation. Obstruction of lines and consequent delays can be a major problem, such as after the storms last October. Again, Network Rail was criticised, because the service was disrupted by trees blocking the railway lines.

To address such problems, Network Rail is creating a 6 m flail strip adjacent to railway lines. It will be free from all woody vegetation and will ensure that signal-sighting lines are cleared and maintained, and that the safety of track workers is not compromised. In addition, other trees that pose a safety risk are being selectively felled. That primarily affects the species that have been mentioned in the debate.

Network Rail recognises that a cleared site is likely to be unattractive to residents and others. Arrangements are therefore being made for subsequent vegetation management, and advice is being taken from arboriculturalists and conservation specialists. That will control the re-growth of species that cause a problem and allow colonisation by herbs, grasses, shrubs and trees that do not.

The important issue of consultation was raised, and all hon. Members expressed concern regarding the lack of consultation about proposed clearance work. It has always been Network Rail's policy to consult residents and other stakeholders to explain why work was necessary. The company has produced a leaflet on the subject, and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library for those hon. Members who have not seen it.

It has, however, become apparent from correspondence that the Department has received and. not least, from today's debate that consultation procedures have not always been carried out effectively. In some instances, which have been mentioned today, individuals have either not been given prior notice or have been informed only after the cutting started.

I have been informed that Network Rail is revising its consultation process to ensure that key stakeholders are informed of intended operations in good time and given a proper opportunity to express their views. I am sure that the company will also take into consideration the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York about consulting parish councils.

Consultation will involve a number of processes, which will start several months before any proposed work. About 10 weeks before, Network Rail will liaise with the local authority tree officer and relevant bodies such as English Nature and the Countryside Agency and invite them to view the proposed site. About eight weeks before, it will write to Members of Parliament in the area and to local councillors who represent areas covered by the works. About four weeks before, it will inform local residents near the proposed works. That should ensure that all stakeholders have a proper opportunity to comment, although we must recognise that there may be a need to act more urgently in an emergency, where there is an immediate danger to the railway.

Having listened to the debate, I am absolutely certain that Members of Parliament who are affected by the issue—the vast majority probably are—will want to monitor the effectiveness of the new arrangements. I shall certainly be looking carefully to ensure that the consultation process works.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green asked about environmental impact assessments. I am not aware of any requirement for an assessment to be carried out beforehand, but I undertake to find out from the relevant Department what the situation is. Rather than giving an inaccurate answer, I shall refer to the proper Department.

My hon. Friend said that money, not safety, was the prime reason for Network Rail's actions, but costs cannot be ignored. The rail sector as a whole, and Network Rail in particular, is facing affordability problems. I think that he will agree that it is not in the company's financial interests to pay to fell more trees than is absolutely necessary.

The hon. Member for Twickenham asked who took responsibility for tree clearance at stations. As he knows, most stations are leased to train operators, and they, not Network Rail, are responsible for tree clearance in the station precincts.

Network Rail will appreciate that hon. Members have expressed many worries on behalf of their constituents. I hope that it will carefully note the points that have been advanced powerfully in the debate because we must achieve a balance between providing a safe and reliable service, which our constituents want, and preserving the environment and ensuring that people are properly informed and consulted before such action takes place.

I will choose my words carefully because this is the first time in the two years of such sad events that we have had a chance to debate them in Parliament. I am not speaking to impress anyone, but to help to achieve a given result—the release of men who, I believe, are wholly innocent of the crimes with which they are charged. I know that their release depends on people outside the jurisdiction of Parliament because we are awaiting the outcome of an appeal for clemency. It sets aside the alleged guilt of the men in favour of the interests of mercy.

If the appeal for clemency were successful, it would resolve the destiny of men worn down by captivity and alleviate the anguish felt by their families who wait for them. Furthermore, it will clear away an obstacle to the wholehearted pursuit of terrorism that threatens the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom, undermines civil society and disfigures this very building in which we meet. The true antidote to terrorism is a just world order, which is defended robustly and is apparent to all. The conviction of Sandy Mitchell, James Cottle, Les Walker, Glen Ballard, Peter Brandon and James Lee of bombing forms no part of that just world order.

I say that as someone who came to the issue by chance—almost by accident. A constituent, David Brown, was one of the alleged victims. He felt strongly that the people accused were not those responsible for the crime that had blinded and maimed him. He has sought actively to ensure that justice is done and has appealed to many media outlets to listen to his story. I pay tribute to him and his selfless endeavours to secure the release of those citizens of England who have been charged unjustly.

The more that I looked into the matter, the more I believed that a grave injustice had been done. The convictions were made without any forensic evidence. They are based on confessions; indeed, in some cases, televised confessions. The convictions were allegedly extorted after solitary confinement at least and possible torture. The comments of a senior Saudi figure from the embassy on a recent radio programme on 23 February 2003 did not gainsay or contradict that particular allegation.

The convictions were criticised by the rapporteurs of the United Nations when they investigated the Saudi Arabian justice system. They have bizarrely failed to stop the offences for which the men have been charged because such offences have taken place subsequent to their arrest, conviction and incarceration. The convictions have also failed to ascribe a coherent set of motives to the accused. Fundamentally, they would not pass the stringent tests of British law and, possibly more important than that, fall short of the higher standards of Islamic and sharia law. As the Muslim lawyer arguing for their appeal on behalf of the men said:

"The majority of Muslim jurists back up the illegality of coercion"—

as a means of getting a confession—

"referring to the Koran, the Sunnah, the Athar and Logic".

There is no reason to consider the issue with a false sense of cultural pride. We have been here before. In our desperate attempts to stem terrorism on this island, we have made errors: we imprisoned the Birmingham Six for 17 years. Here we have a group of men who face 18 years or death, and in one case beheading, not for drinking or distributing illegal alcohol, which is against Saudi law—if they had been involved in that they could have no complaint—but for homicide, which I believe none of them would ever have contemplated.

The surprise is that this false hypothesis has been persisted with and has even led to further allegations against people who have been released. We all know of the case of Ron Jones, who was incarcerated at one stage then released. We know of his ongoing legal action in respect of that incarceration and his treatment during it. We also know that people who have been at the scenes of bombings and who have been associated in some way with people involved in bombings have, temporarily, been arrested and considered for some time to be culprits of offences of which they would not have dreamed.

On 23 February 2001, during a radio interview on a programme chaired by Robin Lustig, the Saudi ambassador, Prince Turkey al-Faisal, maintained that most of the offences were, as originally diagnosed by the Saudis, committed by Britons on Britons. If that is the case, it is curious that the incidents have persisted as they have.

Subsequent to the offences with which the men are charged, there was a further bombing on 15 March in Riyadh, involving a bomb in a bin near a bookstore, in which an Egyptian man suffered minor injuries—that was said to have involved Ron Jones. In May 2001, a United States chiropractor, Gary Hatch, lost his left arm and an eye because of a parcel bomb delivered by a courier. On 6 October, a pedestrian exploded a bomb, killing himself—he was subsequently found to be a Palestinian—and a US oil engineer, Michael Gerald. On 20 June 2002, Simon Veness was killed by a bomb that was planted under his Land Rover. And so it goes on. Maximilian Graf, a German, was killed on 29 September. A Dutch family found a bomb under their Cherokee jeep on 5 December 2002. An American couple found a bomb attached to the underside of their vehicle on 29 June 2002. It is difficult to sustain the belief that those incidents all involved disputes about alcohol.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the recent events and bombings that he has listed should signal to the Minister and the Foreign Secretary that, if anything, it is time to intensify the campaign for release rather than ease up on it?

I agree. The case against the men as based solely on confessions was slender. It has now become implausible in the face of subsequent events.

We all prefer to believe that life is less dangerous than it is. Recent events have disabused all of us of our preferred illusions. Earlier this year, the Saudis made 90 arrests of al-Qaeda suspects, which we all welcome. Shoot-outs occurred in Riyadh and there was the awful destruction of the compound there and the subsequent loss of life, including Muslim life. The pieces of a horrible jigsaw are falling into place. Despite that, what the Foreign Office truly thinks about the situation remains a mystery. Perhaps we shall find out today. I have been unsuccessful in finding out through parliamentary questions its thoughts on the alibis presented by the men, the absence of forensic evidence and human rights issues. In public, the Foreign Office remains concerned, but silent.

I agree with a large part of the hon. Gentleman's preamble about the background to justice in Saudi Arabia. What we do not know—I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to tell us this today—is precisely what has happened behind the scenes. I know, because of my connections with Mr. Walker's family, that an awful lot has been done, but so that we are absolutely clear, may I ask the hon. Gentleman what he would have the Government do? What is missing from the jigsaw? What more should Her Majesty's Government do? Mr. Walker's family would love to hear about it if initiatives could be taken.

I think that the Government have pursued all relevant diplomatic channels with force, and I do not doubt their sincerity in doing so. Their mistake, which goes back some time, was probably not to have identified properly to all and sundry the predicament and the environment in which the men found themselves. The Government have been sincere in their diplomatic efforts, but they have not satisfied the concerns of the bulk of the relatives to whom I have been speaking. I say that as someone who is in constant contact with many of them. They have not expressed to me total satisfaction with what the Foreign Office has done, but I shall come to that in a moment.

In so far as the Government have pursued a concerned approach but have been relatively silent on the main public issues, they have been open to the criticism—I do not make it here—of subordinating the men's cases to the interests of geopolitics or, worse still, commerce, because we all know that Saudi Arabia has many very important economic links with England.

I have no doubt that the Government are concerned and think that diplomatic pressure is the safest route. I have no doubt that, despite the succession of false hopes and the long anguish of the relatives and their evident frustration, which has been voiced to me on a number of occasions, the Government still think that that is the best way. However, if it is true that careless talk can cost lives, it is probably also true that lack of plain speaking can, too. One could ponder whether, if there had been a more open dialogue about the case and more public concern expressed about the possible terrorist dimension, lives could have been saved—lives such as that of Robert Dent, who was shot in his car at traffic lights in Riyadh. He was a former constituent of mine.

I am genuinely struck by how much of what has subsequently gone on appears to have been predictable once we accept that we are talking not about a turf war between expats, but the insidious growth of al-Qaeda activity. I know of no better way to put it than this: four days before the awful bombing in Riyadh in May, I received an e-mail from a gentleman who was worried that precisely that type of event might occur. I shall say something about that gentleman and the circumstances in which he found himself in Saudi Arabia. He found himself close to the scene of an attack, trying to help a comrade of his who was blown up and in fact killed. As a result, he was interrogated. He was traumatised already, but he was even more traumatised after being interrogated on several subsequent occasions and treated almost as the chief suspect for the attack. All he was endeavouring to do was to help his friend, who was killed by the blast.

As the evidence mounts up, the hypothesis of a homicidal turf war, which was shaky at the start, looks as odd and bizarre as trying to sustain a Ptolemaic view of the universe in the face of recent science. That is comforting for some, but it is downright false. Those of us who cannot accept the hypothesis of a homicidal turf war will not and must not keep quiet about the issue because that would let it die down. As we forget about it to some extent, the men's health has deteriorated. Organisations acting on their behalf have been clear in reminding us of the dangers to their health. We are talking about individuals with heart problems, individuals who have developed heart problems as a result of their incarceration, individuals who have had operations on their gall bladder, individuals who shock their relatives by their appearance and who have lost substantial amounts of weight. Their health is deteriorating almost as quickly as the case against them.

One acknowledges that illicit drinking goes on in Saudi Arabia, that illicit imports take place and that that is all punishable by Saudi law. However, one contests the relevance of that to the charges that have been made against the men. Therefore, we must ask the Foreign Office some questions. The questions that other Members and I have tabled have been answered in either a formulaic or an obstructive way. The answers have always been concerned but never precise, so we must ask specific questions.

What is the Foreign Office view of the men's probable guilt? I recognise that there are circumstances in which it would not be prepared to state that, but it has the opportunity to do so today. Does it have a view on the conduct of the trial? Is it satisfied that the trial would recommend itself by the highest standards of both English jurisprudence and Islamic law? Is there now a reliable expectation of release and are we likely to see a successful plea for clemency? What news do the Government have on that?

If there is to be a successful route to the men's release that sets aside guilt and concentrates on the future, is there a possible deadline that, unlike previous deadlines, will not be passed, dashing the hopes and expectations of relatives? Exactly what stage have negotiations reached and as they progress, will the relatives get regular feedback? If the men are released, will their medical state be checked? Will their medical, physical and financial needs be attended to as they try to rebuild shattered lives? The Foreign Office has done considerable work in connection with Ron Jones, so what does it intend to do if the men are released by an act of clemency?

What is the Foreign Office's current information about the men's physical and mental well-being? Does it know anything about a new witness to the original alleged crimes who is cited in the plea for clemency, and is that relevant to the trial or the men's guilt? At what level is the Foreign Office now negotiating with the Saudi authorities on the appeal for clemency? The central question, to which we may never get an answer, is how we can be in such a situation when we are on such unprecedented good terms with Saudi Arabia—such good terms that the Foreign Secretary appears on television with senior Saudi figures in conditions of complete amity. I have taxed my mind on that question a great deal.

Looking from the outside, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's observations, but as you will remember Mr. Deputy Speaker, I dealt for a long time with a constituent who was in jail in the United States having originally been charged with murder. I asked exactly the same questions until I got inside the case, when I understood the situation more fully. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not expecting a Minister of the Crown to answer his questions today. That is absurd.

There is nothing wrong with some of the questions that I have asked. They are not confidential and they are about current activity. They ask not that the nature of the dialogue be divulged, but simply for straightforward, factual evidence to which the relatives are entitled.

To conclude, the puzzle is how we can be on such terms of friendship and over two years have achieved so very little.

This is a serious and important debate, although, as I shall make clear, I do not wholly agree with some of the points that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) made. However, I congratulate him on securing the debate and welcome the opportunity to put on the record the actions that we have taken in this case.

The motivation of every hon. Member who has been concerned with this case is entirely understandable, and I recognise that this is an exceedingly difficult time for the men who are detained and their families. I shall make clear the position of the Government and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

From the outset, we have been deeply concerned about the case of the British men detained in Saudi Arabia accused of involvement in a series of bombings, and we remain deeply concerned about their case. We are in close contact at every level with the Saudi authorities, who are well aware of our concerns. We have raised those concerns at the highest levels and will continue to do so until the case is resolved to our satisfaction, and to that of the families concerned.

The British Government are working tirelessly on behalf of the men who have been detained. However—and this is the substance of the difference of emphasis between what I am saying and what the hon. Gentleman said—we believe that that pressure is most effectively applied by engaging the Saudi authorities in private because we believe that publicity will be detrimental to the men's interests. In this case, as in all consular cases, we have worked in the best interests of the men. When Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular officials visited them, they made it abundantly clear that they did not wish us to discuss the details of the case in public. When such a view is clearly expressed, we must respect the judgment of those who are most closely affected.

The Minister has almost made a generalisation that in all cases in which people are falsely imprisoned, publicity is a negative factor. Is it a negative factor only in the case of dealing with the Saudi Arabian Government, or in other cases, such as Burma?

When we are dealing with human rights cases, judgments must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the particular circumstances and assessing the most effective way to achieve the desired result.

This issue is easy to grandstand on from the Opposition Benches. I was particularly struck by the fact that the hon. Gentleman said that he was not aware, from the answers to the parliamentary questions that he tabled, of what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was doing on the issue. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), took some time to explain to the hon. Gentleman that we would not say more publicly at the moment because we believe that that would not help the men's case. That is our judgment, and if we genuinely believe that to be the case, it would he irresponsible to act otherwise.

I should also make it clear that the men have legal representation. They see their lawyers regularly and discuss their cases with them. We are in close contact with those lawyers and discuss the men's cases with them. The lawyers also maintain contact with the Saudi authorities about the progress of the case. We are in constant touch with the families and keep them informed of developments. I stress that as the process continues, we will keep in regular contact with the families and will inform them of our actions in seeking to resolve this serious problem.

I understand that this has been a long and difficult process for the families. I do not underestimate for a minute how upsetting and concerning this must be for all members of the men's families. As in all such cases, the men's well-being is our paramount concern and we continue to make regular consular visits to reassure ourselves about their health and welfare.

Since November 2000, there has also been a series of small bomb explosions in Riyadh and Al Khobar, which resulted in the death and injury of British nationals and other westerners. At no time should we forget the victims of the bombings in Saudi Arabia. Nor do we underestimate the huge amount of pain, hardship and distress that has been caused by that series of bombings. Some people lost their lives; others were horribly injured. I reassure the House that we continue to work vigorously to resolve the case of those British men detained in Saudi Arabia who have been accused of involvement in the bombings.

I have a constituent, Mrs. Mitchell, who has not seen her husband, and he has not seen his wife or child, for more than two years. His health is suffering. Can the Minister say when quiet diplomacy will be deemed to have failed? How much longer will he have to stay there? Are there alternatives, such as sanctions or United Nations involvement? I am desperately worried about Mr. Mitchell's health.

I cannot pluck a definitive answer out of thin air; I say only that we would not be pursuing this course of action unless we felt that there was a significant chance of success. Given the sensitive stage that discussions have reached, going beyond that would be counterproductive and unhelpful, but we would not be pursuing that course of action unless we thought that it would bring results.

Let me make it clear also that we are not reluctant to criticise Saudi Arabia more generally, which was one of the summing up accusations made by the hon. Member for Southport. We address a wide range of concerns with the Saudi authorities. We raise human rights issues both generally and in the context of those men who have been detained. In our annual human rights report, hon. Members will see specific references to our concerns about Saudi Arabia. However, on issues such as that raised today, we judge that those messages are most effective when made in private.

Promotion of human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is at the heart of British foreign policy. We take every opportunity to urge states to pursue laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks. We also work with our partners in the European Union and with the United Nations to raise those issues with other Governments, including the Saudi Government.

I underline the fact that we have deep concerns about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Our concerns apply to a wide range of human rights issues. including the implementation of basic international human rights norms, aspects of the judicial system, corporal and capital punishment, torture, discrimination against women and non-Muslims, and restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and worship. We discuss our concerns about human rights matters with the Saudi authorities at every suitable opportunity, at both ambassadorial and ministerial level.

In response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), some progress has been made. Saudi Arabia has recently shown a greater willingness to engage with the international community on human rights issues. It has produced reports for, and answered questions from, UN treaty monitoring bodies. That is welcome progress, but it does not go far enough and we shall continue to reinforce our concerns.

I place on record the fact that the UN special rapporteur for the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Cumaraswamy, visited Saudi Arabia in October 2002. During his mission to Saudi Arabia, he examined the case of the British men who had been detained. He visited some of the men accused of involvement in the bombings and he also discussed their case with their lawyers and the Saudi Ministry of Interior. In his report, the special rapporteur voiced his concerns about the men's case. We welcome that because it underlines the fact that there is international co-operation on the issue.

It is a difficult and serious case. I respect the hon. Gentleman's motivation for raising the subject today, but we are acting according to the best information and advice about the most appropriate and effective way to deal with it—the one most likely to secure the release of the men.

We have a difference of opinion, or emphasis, on tactics. However, the Minister has not yet responded to a specific question. Has anyone shared with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the information about an additional new witness that appears in the plea for clemency? Does he know what relevance that has to the original trial?

I shall seek guidance on the matter. We will of course consider any further information that can help to secure the release of the men and act in the most appropriate way. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are already acting in the men's best interests. Surely he would not call on us to pursue the course of action that he suggests if it imperilled the men's situation? Nevertheless, we continue to pursue the matter in the most effective way that we can.

Order. This is a very important debate, but I am afraid that time is up.

It is with great regret that I raise this matter in the Chamber today. I do so as the patron of the Society of Registration Officers—SORO. I was appointed to that unpaid position shortly after my election to the House on 1 May 1997, when my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), was appointed as a Home Office Minister.

Registration officers and their deputies—I shall refer to them all from now on as registration officers—are independent statutory office holders with no employer. Civilly, they are held responsible for their own acts or omissions. Local authorities appoint, accommodate and pay registration officers, but they do not have any power to dismiss them as they are not considered to be their employer. Consequently, registration officers do not have contracts of employment with those local authorities. They receive salaries chargeable to income tax under schedule E and receive redundancy payments under the 1967 regulations governing redundancy payments for office holders.

The Registrar General has the sole power to dismiss registration officers. They have only recently won an appeal against unfair dismissal, but the Registrar General must hear the appeal and only if new material evidence is to be considered. They do not have the right to go to an employment tribunal in cases of unfair dismissal. I have been campaigning for that fundamental right since I was appointed patron. In 1997, only coroners, rent officers, members of the clergy, the armed forces and the police were in a similar position. I believe that the position has now been regularised in relation to rent officers, but I stand to be corrected. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and Amicus MSF have been campaigning on behalf of the clergy, who of course are answerable to God, and there was an Adjournment debate on 8 April on the situation regarding the clergy.

The Economic Secretary and the Treasury have been responsible for the Office for National Statistics and registration officers since I was elected to Parliament. One of my difficulties has been that I have dealt with four Economic Secretaries since 1997: the now Secretary of State for Scotland; the now Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson); the now Financial Secretary to the Treasury; and the now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That difficulty has been compounded by the fact that employment law is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Industry. I have dealt with two Ministers of State: my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio when he was at the DTI; and the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions.

In 1997, I began my campaign with a letter to the now Secretary of State for Scotland. who responded on 2 February 1998 that the situation had been under review since 1985, when a Select Committee recommended that registration officers become officers of local authorities. A Green Paper made the same proposal in 1988. It became a White Paper in 1990. Many of the White Paper's recommendations have already been implemented in legislation, but the right of registration officers to go to employment tribunals has not.

It has always been possible to take cases through the judicial review process, but that would consider only the procedures, not the fairness of any dismissal case. The Society of Registration Officers would prefer its service to become a national agency or board. It believes that that would be the best way of maintaining a consistent registration service throughout England and Wales. Different standards of accommodation are already offered by local authorities for the service as well as different charges; for example, for hiring an approved premises. However, the Government have dismissed that proposal on the grounds that it may increase costs and bureaucracy and, more important, damage the existing partnership with local authorities.

In another letter dated 30 April 1998 from the now Secretary of State for Scotland, I learned that the Department of Trade and Industry was reviewing employment status issues as they affected the coverage of employment protection rights. On 21 May 1998, I took up the issue with my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, then Minister of State at the DTI. In his response of 10 June, he mentioned that there was a way forward through the publication of the Government's White Paper entitled, "Fairness at work", whereby existing employment rights could be extended to allow office holders such as registration officers the right of appeal against unfair dismissal, which was encouraging news.

However, my right hon. Friend made it clear that,

"further consultation would be carried out on any changes before such a power was exercised".

To cut a long story short, clause 21 of the Employment Relations Bill 1999, which became section 23 of the Act, introduced those measures, for which I was grateful. I raised the unfair position of registration officers on Second Reading on 9 February 1999. In September 1999, the Registrar General published a consultation paper entitled "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service", which resulted in 968 responses and publication of a White Paper entitled "Civil Registration: Vital Change" in January 2002.

In a letter dated 1 December 1999 from the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, I was informed that consultation on section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, originally scheduled for autumn 1999, was postponed until the following summer—that is, 2000. In a letter dated 20 December 1999 from the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I was promised that consultation on section 23 regarding registration officers "would not take long" because they were a "small and discrete group". She reminded me that the Registrar General was in favour of an early order to give registration officers the right of access to employment tribunals. That letter was extremely encouraging to officers in the service. However, it was received more than three years ago, and I have seen no sign of such an early order being made.

I wrote to the current Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 9 May 2002 about various matters, including employment rights, raised by registration officers at their annual conference, which I address every year—that year, it was held in Scarborough. In her response of 15 July, she informed me that a consultation was about to be launched by the DTI later in 2002 to seek views on the effects of extending statutory employment rights under section 23 of the Employment Relations Act to individuals currently excluded.

I was informed that the Government would use the order-making powers in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 to "deliver registration reform". The Financial Secretary also informed me that it would take two years for legislation to reach the statute book and that changes affecting registration officers would be phased in from late 2004. I raised the issue again at Department of Trade and Industry questions, which, ironically, was on 1 May just passed—an appropriate day for raising employment issues. The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), told me that there had been 400 responses to that consultation on section 23. Furthermore, he told me:

"My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear…that all new employment legislation must be implemented by 6 April or 1 October. We will work with the Office for National Statistics so that those deadlines can be adhered to."—[Official Report, 1 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 405–6.]

I assumed that he meant 2003—I hope that that is the case, although he did not mention a year.

However, that answer contradicts other information that I have been given and also a written answer that I received from the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions on 7 April 2003, in which he said that the results of the consultation were being analysed and that any proposed changes would be the subject of even more consultation. How long do we have to consult for on such a simple matter?

The employment rights of registration officers appear to have been under review since 1985. By 2004, it will have taken almost 20 years for successive Governments to resolve that simple matter. Is it any wonder that registration officers are losing their patience? Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me why it has taken so long to make progress on an issue that the Government might regard as minor but which is a great concern to the registration officers whom I represent? To consider only my part in the campaign, it will have taken seven years by next year to resolve the matter.

The most important point is that I seek a separate order—I emphasise separate—to be made, as I have been promised in the past, as soon as possible for registration officers, who are a named group. The Registrar General himself has agreed to be named as their employer in the order until the more radical changes that are proposed for the registration service are implemented.

Believe it or not, registration officers get dismissed—three in one day in Newcastle a few years ago. SORO has told me that some local authorities are pushing interpretation of their powers concerning that group of workers to the limits, which often results in changes to their office practice; without proper consultation. That has inevitably led to stressful working conditions and increased the use of local disciplinary powers that potentially lead to dismissal through the Registrar General.

Radical changes in the terms and conditions of employment of these officers are inevitable when the recommendations in the White Paper entitled "Civil Registration: Vital Change" are implemented. Rights of access to an employment tribunal are necessary before such large-scale upheavals, rather than after, because, in my opinion, disputes there will be. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's response to what has been a long drawn-out procedure.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the debate, which, as he said, is the latest in a series of ways in which he has raised the issue in Parliament since 1997. I am conscious of that track record and of his role as an unpaid patron of the Society of Registration Officers. As he explained, he has raised his concerns regularly and tirelessly—I think he said that he had raised it with two DTI Ministers and four Treasury Ministers, so I am sorry that he is raising it now with me, as a fifth to add to his collection.

Civil registration is an important service, which touches everyone at some time in their life. It ensures the civil status of every person and protects individuals and society as a whole. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Registrar General is responsible for administering the law relating to the registration of births, deaths and marriages in England and Wales. The office of the Registrar General—the General Register Office—now forms part of the Office for National Statistics and therefore falls within the remit of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

In the Financial Secretary's temporary absence with her new baby Niamh, I have the pleasure of dealing with the issues. The Financial Secretary is conscious of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and she does not want to see any momentum for reform stalled in her absence. I will do my best to honour that intention while she is on maternity leave. I shall explain later in a little more detail about the consultation document that we plan to issue next month, which I hope will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East that a sufficient momentum and priority is being given to reforms of the type about which he is concerned.

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the problems have a long pedigree. He goes back 20 years, but I would go back further. The fundamental structure of the civil registration service in England and Wales dates back to 1837 when the current arrangements were established, including the introduction of registration officers holding statutory office, as they do, and the organisation of the registration service into small districts and sub-districts, as it is. Although the registration service functions well within its 19th century limitations, it is widely acknowledged that many of the arrangements do not meet people's current needs and expectations. The limits that those place on the service mean that often it cannot be flexible and sympathetic to the present expectations of the public. I shall deal with that later in a little more detail.

I turn now to the employment relationship of registration officers, and therefore their employment rights, which is at the heart of my hon. Friend's concerns. He is correct. The 1,800 or so registration officers in England and Wales do not have a legal employer. As such, they do not have the full range of employment rights that many others take for granted; they are appointed, paid and accommodated by local authorities, but are answerable for their actions to the Registrar General. Currently, registration officers hold office during the pleasure of the Registrar General. That rather quaint employment status places a responsibility on the Registrar General to act with great prudence in matters of discipline and, ultimately, in matters of dismissal. He is, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the final arbiter in the decision-making process for registration officers and he is conscious of the duty of care and caution that he must employ, given the unusual employment status of those registration officers for whom he is responsible.

My hon. Friend will know, although he did not mention it in his speech, that the Registrar General has, in conjunction with the Society of Registration Officers, developed, introduced and subsequently revised an agreed system of disciplinary procedures for registration officers that are designed to mirror local authority procedures, as far as they can. The Government, and the Registrar General, are grateful to the society for the contribution that it made to that process and for making the procedures work as effectively as possible. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would pass that on to officers of the society.

The procedures strive to ensure that registration officers are treated with the same consideration as local government employees and are offered as high a level of protection as possible within the current registration law. The Registrar General liaises closely with local authorities wherever possible, to ensure consistency and fairness in all disciplinary cases.

As my hon. Friend said, a registrar may appeal in person or in writing against the Registrar General's recommendation to dismiss. Such decisions are not made lightly. The total number of cases involved in such procedures is relatively small and the dismissal of registration officers on disciplinary grounds is very rare. In the past 10 years, the Registrar General has considered fewer than 20 such cases.

Recent case law from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in April 2002 confirmed that registrars are not eligible to appeal to an employment tribunal when they are dismissed from office. That is the core of my hon. Friend's concern. They may not therefore follow an accessible and independent appeal route, which is open to the majority of other workers. Judicial review is the only way to challenge the Registrar General's decision, which is clearly a difficult route for ordinary people and has not been used to date.

As my hon. Friend said, there has been intent in the past to reform the registration service, but previous Governments could not find the time to follow through proposals laid out in the mid-1980s and in early 1990. More recently, the present Government's consultation paper, "Supporting Families", published in 1998, recommended a review of the civil registration service in England and Wales, and the Registrar General was asked by the Government to conduct that review. His consultation paper, "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service", was published in 1999 and, as my hon. Friend said, almost 1,000 responses were received. It was followed in January 2002 by the White Paper, "Civil Registration: Vital Change", which set out the plans for reform.

The Government's proposals will give more choice in the use of registration services: choices about where and how to register a birth or death and where one can get married, as well as wider choices about baby naming and marriage reaffirmation. The proposals will improve the services that users receive.

Central to the modernisation of the registration service is the reform of the status of registration officers, making them local authority employees. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is the proper way for the reforms that he wants to be introduced. We plan to make the legislative changes needed to implement the White Paper proposals using the order-making powers that exist under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. That contains wide powers matched by tough safeguards. It allows us to reform burdensome and outdated legislation for regulatory regimes such as that relating to civil registration. In future, within a framework of national standards, local authorities will be able to develop face-to-face services to meet the current and future needs of their communities. To achieve that, local authorities will need staff to be flexible, and will not want the hindrance of the current outdated restrictions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the Registrar General, through the Government, to lay down minimal standards for the provision of services throughout England and Wales?

I can tell my hon. Friend that the Registrar General is conscious of the integrity, future and standards of the service over which he presides. That sort of concern will play a part in the way that we reform the service in future.

My hon. Friend questioned the process by which we shall have to undertake the reforms. I want to make it clear to him that regulatory reform orders are scrutinised by the House of Commons in the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform and by the House of Lords in the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. As the first step required by the 2001 Act, we plan to publish a detailed consultation paper next month. The publication of that document will be followed by a three-month consultation period, which is required by law. The consultation will include the proposals necessary to make legal changes to the Registration Acts and other legislation. The determination to change the employment status of registration officers, which was announced in the White Paper, is settled. The consultation document will consider the best way of achieving that.

As I said earlier, the law restricts registration officers in the range of duties that they may perform when acting as statutory officers. The White Paper proposes that registrars should become local authority staff and thus obtain the full employment rights held by that group of employees—my hon. Friend's objective. There will then be no need to involve outside bodies in disciplinary matters, and responsibility for disciplinary action will be placed firmly where it belongs—with the local authority responsible for delivering the registration service, which we want to reform. The authority will have responsibility for all aspects of disciplinary action against what will then clearly be its employees.

The regulatory reform order should provide an opportunity to reform and modernise the registration service. It will allow for the staged implementation of reforms, and I intend the transfer of registration officers to local government employment to be completed at an early stage of the implementation process.

More widely, the Government recognise the importance of all workers having appropriate employment protection. The Department of Trade and Industry is reviewing employment status and employment rights. My hon. Friend referred to that review, which is considering the position not only of certain officeholders, such as registration officers, clergy and, in some cases, coroner's staff, but of a much wider group of workers, who are not confined to specific sectors, such as casual and agency workers, and those with atypical working patterns.

The discussion document that was published last July examined the issue. It sought views on whether there were problems with the present coverage of employment rights and on possible ways to tackle them, including non-regulatory action and the extension of employment rights to certain groups of workers under section 23 of the 1999 Act.

The Society of Registration Officers has played an active part in the process. It attended a round table discussion that was held in November 2002 as part of a wider consultation on the interests of the larger group of workers that I mentioned.

The responses to the DTI discussion document are being analysed, and the DTI aims to publish its response later this year. I should, however, make it clear that because the discussion document was broad, sought views on a broad front and proposed no specific changes, any proposed regulatory action under section 23 of the 1999 Act would require further consultation.

I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the Government plan to issue the consultation document on civil registration reform next month. I hope that he accepts that that is the proper place to deal with his long-standing concerns, and that his proposals are part of a package of reforms that we are looking to put in place. I also hope that he accepts that the issue of the consultation document will maintain the significant momentum that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was keen to see behind such reforms, and that it will properly settle the inconsistencies in the present position, which have caused concern.

I ask my hon. Friend not to lose sight of one important point that I tried to make. Registration officers feel that their employment rights should be protected before, not after, they are officially transferred to local authorities in a large-scale upheaval. I respect my hon. Friend's point about officers' rights being fully protected once they are transferred, but there may be cases of unfair dismissal during the transfer process.

I took careful note of my hon. Friend's point, and I hope that he sees from my comments about the process of reform by means of order-making powers that the issue of employment status will form part of the early changes that are brought into effect. I hope that that meets the concerns that he and the society have. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, I will ensure that that is given full ministerial attention. In that way, we can achieve the objective that we share, which is to ensure that, almost 170 years on, registration officers have the employment rights that everyone has now accepted they should have.

The Minister has finished in the nick of time, and we are grateful to him for his response. We now move to the final debate in Westminster Hall today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to have secured this debate on children's centres and early years learning in south Somerset. I am pleased that, for both of us, there is some life outside the Finance Bill proceedings at this time. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), and thank her for her participation in the debate. I hope that it will be enlightening. There is a great deal of common ground between the position of my party and that of the Government, so I hope that it will not be a contentious debate on most issues, although obviously I want to press the Minister about my concerns, particularly as they relate to south Somerset.

I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is with us. He represents the other part of south Somerset and is therefore here to ensure that the interests of the whole area are fully represented.

There is a great deal of shared concern on the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches about early years education. That has been a priority for the Liberal Democrats for many years. We are pleased that the Government have not only increased the provision of early years education, particularly for three and four-year-olds, but recognised what is increasingly obvious to me from my experience in my constituency: the need for investment in all aspects of early years education, not only in education itself, but in social skills and health care support, to ensure that every individual has the best start in life.

The commitment to early years education and to some of the Government's measures, such as sure start, underline the Government's commitment and the Liberal Democrat commitment to equality of opportunity. It is increasingly obvious to me from experience in my constituency that many young children arrive in our primary schools having already fallen behind many of their peer group, not just in relation to issues of education, literacy and basic numeracy, but particularly in relation to the social support that they may not have received in their upbringing, and the health and other support that also makes a great deal of difference in the very early years. Many young people who fall behind before they even arrive in our formal education system never catch up. They often end up being the individuals who fall out of the education system and end up in unemployment and poverty and reliant on state benefits.

I therefore very much welcome the fact that the Government are investing additional resources in schemes such as sure start, which are designed to ensure that there is not only additional provision in the early years, but support in areas such as child care, support for families and support for good parenting. In an ideal world, the state would not have to interfere or involve itself in all those matters, but in the real world I fear that a role for the state in that area is inevitable if we do not accept the relative neglect of a large portion of our population. Often those children do not receive the support in the early years that many of us benefited from both because they live in families that are in dire poverty and, increasingly, because many children are brought up in homes with only one parent. In some cases, that can mean that they do not enjoy all the advantages that many others in society do.

Two aspects of Government policy on early years learning and child care are particularly welcome. The first is the provision of free places for three and four-year-olds whose parents want to take them up. The second is the Government's sure start initiative, to which I should like to return later, particularly with regard to children's centres.

I pay tribute to the people in south Somerset and the rest of Somerset who have led the work locally to put Government policy into practice and who have worked on initiatives that must be regarded as being locally led rather than Government led. The Minister will he aware of the excellent work of the early years development and childcare partnership in Somerset, which was recognised by the awarding of an MBE to Paddy Macmaster, who leads the partnership. I pay tribute also to the work of John Kirby of the local education authority, who heads up the partnership for Somerset county council, which has a good reputation in the early-years scheme.

The Minister will also be aware—I shall lean on the good news before dealing with those aspects of Government policy about which we are more concerned—that a new neighbourhood nursery early years centre in Chard will open officially on 15 June in what will be called Clare house. The neighbourhood nursery was created by the former Chard pre-school and schools out group. It involves a new building at a cost of more than £600,000.

The building design is innovative, and I hope that the Minister or one of her colleagues will have the chance to see it soon, because it was assembled in an extraordinarily short time. It will provide for 66 children from birth to the age of four, and a total of 100 children if one includes the out-of-school club. Sure start family support services will also operate from the building. I hope that the centre will provide important training in parenting skills and social support, which is so important if children are to succeed in education.

The neighbourhood nurseries initiative in Chard was funded in part from the Government's central pot, some of which comes from the lottery, and about £150,000 was provided by South Somerset district council. I recognise the work done by Councillor Jill Shortland in fighting Chard's corner and lobbying to raise the ambitious target of more than £600,000, a sum that seemed unachievable a couple of years before.

In praising the Government and the county and district councils for their work, we should not lose sight of the fact—it is relevant to many other aspects of early years education—that the scheme was led locally by those who ran the previous early years centre in Chard. In particular, I mention Jeanette O'Dwyer, the manager of Chard neighbourhood nursery.

The provision of early years education and child centres depends hugely on the good will and voluntary activities of a large number of people such as Jeanette and her team; without them, such initiatives would not get off the ground. Indeed, without their local support, we would not be able successfully to bind together the many services required to make a success of early years learning and sure start initiatives. They require not only money and good will, but a close co-ordination of various local services.

We need to celebrate the good aspects of Government policy that have resulted in the development of early years learning in my constituency. However, I want to highlight a number of problems.

First is the slow rolling out in Somerset of free places for three and four-year-olds: Somerset was a long way behind the rest of the country. About a year ago, only 44 per cent. of pupils under the age of five were in nursery and early years learning, compared with almost 60 per cent. in the country at large. The county council says that the Government target will be met by January 2004, which is a few months ahead of the Government's target of April 2004. However, I hope that Somerset and other rural counties will not be left out in future initiatives, particularly because a great deal of the deprivation in our rural areas often seems to be hidden.

The second point—it will be recognised not only by those involved in children's centres, but by those in sure start and all early years learning—is that despite the fact that the Government and others increasingly recognise the importance of early years learning, there is a huge gulf between that recognition and a commitment to deliver the funding. Our early years centres are now inspected by Ofsted, and it is right to ensure high standards; but when pre-schools and early years centres ask what financial support they can expect for things such as capital funding for old buildings that are often falling apart, they often have to rely on discretionary funding and money that is raised locally. That seems unsatisfactory in a sector that is so important. Delivering quality in the early years is just as important as delivering quantity, as I am sure the Minister would recognise. We must ensure that the comprehensive cover for three and four-year-olds is of good quality. We must not simply rely on having delivered numbers; we must support it with the substance of what is achieved.

My third complaint relates to the way in which the Government are rolling out and prioritising the sure start and children's centres across the country, particularly the focus on only the 20 per cent. most deprived wards. The press release issued by the Department in December 2002 to announce changes in Government policy in this area was headed, "A sure start for every child". Even the Minister would be forced to accept that although the idea of a sure start for every child is a welcome aspiration, the Government are nowhere near delivering on it. My constituency would be regarded as, if not relatively affluent, fairly average for the whole country, yet the problem of inadequate early years support, particularly in relation to sure start, is experienced in almost every primary school, not simply in the pockets of deprivation that are found across virtually the whole of the country. I hope that the Government will consider rolling out more sure start moneys across the country. I hope that the money that has been allocated up to 2006 will only be a start and that we can set up sure start and children's centres right across the country in places such as Somerset, not only in our most deprived urban centres.

I congratulate my hon. Friend both on securing the debate and on what he has said so far. He mentioned the subject earlier, so I am sure that he would agree that one of the problems is that we represent very rural areas. Often children who are deprived both financially and through lack of opportunities for socialisation do not show up in the allocation formulae simply because the overall status of a ward or division is not such that it would attract the funds. Do we not need a basic change in the Government's formulaic approach to identify those children and provide for them?

You will not be surprised to hear me say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend is exactly right. He also anticipates my next point. Not only do we need more finance from the Government to ensure that sure start initiatives get to all the children who are living in poverty, but we must look closely at the deprivation we find in different parts of the country. The Minister may be aware that Somerset has been able to pioneer its own information about deprivation that relies not only on the index of multiple deprivation used by the Government but on statistics about domestic violence, youth justice referrals, children out of school, the percentage of social housing in an area, the number of referrals to social services and children on the child protection register.

When that information is used by the county council, it often comes up with a different priority ranking for particular wards from that which would be derived from the index of multiple deprivation. Would the Minister consider allowing local areas that develop statistics that are based on a wider range of information than is available in that index to set their own priorities? It might mean that wards were placed in a different order in the roll-out of sure start services. That would affect a large part of my constituency. Yeovil contains three very deprived wards—Yeovil West, Yeovil East and Yeovil Central—which would come high in the list of the county council's priorities, but which fall outside the 20 per cent. threshold set by the index of multiple deprivation. If the Minister is asked by Somerset county council to contemplate approving plans to allocate money from central Government funds to an area such as Yeovil, even though some of its wards may fall outside the Government's own 20 per cent. threshold on the index of multiple deprivation, can she assure us that she will look sympathetically on any such request, if it is based on that local council's information on deprivation in its own community? Surely the Government should be able to rely on the superior knowledge of local communities about deprivation in their areas?

Later this year, I hope that Somerset county council will introduce proposals for a children's centre in Yeovil, despite the fact that some of its wards are outside the 20 per cent. most deprived on the index of multiple deprivation. My point about requests for funding is therefore a relevant one. and I would like an assurance from the Minister that such a request would be considered sympathetically.

We could debate this issue at much greater length, but I suspect that I have exhausted the time that is available to me. I hope that the Government and the Minister will be able to respond to some of the points that I have made. I also hope that they will be able to ensure that the aspiration behind Government policy for every child to have a good start in life can, in time, be delivered.

What a pleasure it is to be here again in Westminster Hall. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) not only on his good fortune in securing the debate, but on the way in which he made his arguments.

I endorse the hon. Gentleman's congratulation of some local people, many of whom he named, who have contributed to the early years development and child care partnership in his area. He is right to highlight the fact that the Government, and all of us, depend on local people to implement such policies. It is helpful, therefore, when hon. Members give specific support to local people who are doing such work. The Government know that, in dealing with such issues, local people must be strongly involved, so it is good that the hon. Gentleman mentioned those people. I am certain that they will have heard what he said, and will be enthused further by his thanks.

I shall first say a little about the Government's approach to sure start, child care and early years education in general. I was pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman that there is wide-ranging support for those policies on his side of the House. I often find, when discussing such issues, that they receive approval and support from a wide range of people: the sure start programme, in particular, seems to be very popular.

Five years ago the Government launched the first ever national childcare strategy, recognising, perhaps for the first time, the importance of child care to children, families and economic sustainability in some of our poorer communities. We backed it up with financial support for families, and resources for developing services. In parallel with that strategy, we launched the local sure start programme, which was designed to release the creativity of local professionals—the hon. Gentleman mentioned many such people from south Somerset—because we believe that they are the best people to design better local opportunities for children and their families. I cannot do that from Whitehall, and nor can my noble Friend, Baroness Ashton of Upholland.

We also offered every four-year-old a free part-time nursery education place. I was pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman approved specifically of that policy, although I heard what he said about the speed with which he believed that that had been implemented, and about his regret that that had not happened faster. None the less, by April next year, ahead of schedule, all three-year-olds will also have been offered such a place.

Those are significant achievements, but we want to build on them. Our ambition is to provide the integrated support that families want by bringing together the three strands of the programme. Family support will therefore be provided alongside nursery education, with wrap-around care offered for children. The philosophy will be that which underpins our local sure start programmes, ensuring we involve families and empower them. The programme will be available to local communities to shape, and will not be imposed on them from Whitehall.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is especially interested in children's centres. The idea of children's centres is to join up aspects of education, care, family support and health, and to provide a better all-round service for children, their parents and communities. In essence, each children's centre will offer some sure start local programme services that are linked fully with high-quality early education and full day care. The centres will also have strong links with Jobcentre Plus to enable parents who are working or who want to undergo training to obtain affordable child care.

The Government believe that children's centres are important because we know that investment in high-quality and integrated children's services leads to positive effects for children, families and communities. That is particularly important in the more disadvantaged communities. The hon. Gentleman had something to say about how we define disadvantage. A line always has to be drawn. Whether using the index of multiple deprivation or another method, we must identify the most disadvantaged communities. Setting aside the issue of which areas are most disadvantaged, we know that positive effects can be obtained through such interventions. Educational outcomes for children and for parents are improved, enabling parents to work and study and helping lone parents to access work—often for the first time—or training opportunities. Local crime rates are reduced and health outcomes are improved. All of those effects ultimately reduce child poverty.

Each children's centre will offer a range of services to pre-school children. It will include good-quality early education combined with full day-care provision—by that, I mean a minimum of 10 hours a day, five days a week for 48 weeks a year.

I refer to defining the areas of deprivation where children's centres may be established. Does the Minister agree that when counties have collected specific information on deprivation, such as Somerset's own health and social needs analysis, that adds to the Government's statistical database in terms of the indexing of multiple deprivation? It would therefore make sense for the Government to take into account that information and allow local areas to set their own priorities for the wards that they consider to be the most deprived. Can the hon. Lady and her officials reflect on that matter and perhaps even write to me about it?

I can certainly write to the hon. Gentleman, but I have an answer to his question. Whether he will be satisfied with it remains to be seen. He may have seen the guidance that has been with local authorities. Some of the people to whom he has referred will certainly have seen it. That guidance allows children's centres to be established outside those areas. It does not specify that the centres must be in 20 per cent. of the most disadvantaged wards. There is certainly some room for manoeuvre.

I understand that the guidance sensibly gives some latitude, particularly where there are boundaries with problems, such as when an area of deprivation finds itself within an affluent area. There is some flexibility for the local authority to redraw the boundaries. However, the fact that there is not flexibility for the local authorities to use their own measures of deprivation to inform the prioritisation process is a matter on which I want to press the Minister.

Given that local authorities have the discretion to decide where they will place the children's centres, there is a little more latitude than the hon. Gentleman may be assuming. In any event, I assure him that I and my ministerial and official colleagues will be prepared to listen to what his local authority has to say on the matter and to react in the most positive way possible. That is commensurate with the fact that he must remember that we have an overall policy aim in mind, which is to focus initially many of the tremendously important services that can be of great value on those who need them in our most deprived communities. We are not for a moment pretending that rural areas do not suffer deprivation. If we did, there would not be any sure starts in rural areas—and, of course, there are. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some cause for at least writing a few letters to me, if not some cause for optimism more generally.

We envisage children's centres acting as a service hub within the communities that they serve and we are sure they will do so. They can be a base for child minder networks, for example, and a link to local neighbourhood nurseries, out-of-school clubs and extended schools. There is no reason why such centres should not become the hub of a lot more than just the basic services and the core offer—as we call it in the horrible jargon—which we intend the centres to offer.

We also expect children's centres to play an important role in training the child care work force, as there is a great need for that. As the hon. Gentleman said, quality as well as quantity is important. We expect children's centres to be able to identify children with special needs and disabilities and to begin to address their needs; to visit families in the area with new babies in the first two months of their life to provide information about available services and support; to provide information and guidance on issues that matter to new mothers, such as nutrition, hygiene, safety and breastfeeding, thus reducing the number of children under the age of three who are admitted to hospital; to provide antenatal care and support for mothers to be and their families in the local area; and to encourage the use of libraries, which might not be at the top of the list of what one might expect a children's centre to do.

The hon. Gentleman asked how many children would be reached by children's centres—would it be everyone in the 20 per cent. poorest wards? He will recall from the spending review that we expect to reach at least 650,000 pre-school children in the 20 per cent most disadvantaged wards by March 2006. That is the target. In this context, "reach"—a word that can mean many things—means the number of children who might potentially use health, family support or parental support services provided by, or through, the children's centre. We anticipate that 350,000 of those children will be served by existing sure start local programmes and the other 300,000 will be children who do not currently have access to sure start-type services. That may give the hon. Gentleman more idea of the scope for going beyond what he sees as the restrictions.

I am often asked how a local area, partnership or facility achieves children's centre status. The majority of children's centres will be developed from an existing sure start local programme, an early excellence centre, or a neighbourhood nursery. However, we also expect local authorities to draw on the skills of other providers in the maintained, voluntary and private sectors in order to create children's centres. It is not a requirement that children's centres be newly built for the purpose, although we expect that some will. Equally, it is not essential that children's centre services are coordinated in the same building. For example, that might not be possible in a rural area such as the hon. Gentleman's; a network of existing providers may supply the services, perhaps on a mobile basis. We want to be as flexible as possible.

The strategic responsibility for developing children's centres rests with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman's local authority has the leeway to take its own decisions; it has the guidance. In recent weeks, authorities have been identifying existing provision, which already offers the required services—the core offer—and which could therefore be designated as children's centres at an early stage. We are already receiving proposals from local authorities and assessing them in the sure start unit, and recommendations will be made to my noble Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland later this month. Local authorities will continue to work over the summer on their strategic plans, which will need to be submitted by 15 October.

It is therefore possible that the Government's vision of every parent being able to access good-quality, affordable provision will reach beyond the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards. We are committed to targeting specific resources on disadvantaged areas but there is no reason why other people and children should not have access to them. We recognise that there are pockets of deprivation in areas of relative affluence to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We will give local authorities the flexibility to locate centres in such areas when there is a case for doing so. We hope that many local authorities will work with local partners to replicate the children's centre model as a means of mainstreaming sure start.

Somerset county council has been notified of its indicative funding allocation of £1,008,600, of which £708,000 is for capital development. With that money it has been asked to develop children's centre services to reach almost 2,500 pre-school children within its eight most disadvantaged wards, and to create 105 new child care places. We look forward to seeing its ideas when the returns come in. We hope to ensure that the maximum possible benefit for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and local children and parents is obtained from spending that money. Working together with the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred at the beginning of his speech will make a real difference to those children and parents, and to the whole of his constituency and that of his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).

I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Yeovil, but if he wishes to write to me I shall be happy to consider what he has to say.