It is a great pleasure to introduce the debate this morning.

Many of us are concerned about the general threat not only to green belt land, but to open land generally, to areas of special scientific interest, to land that is not available or intended for development and to other areas throughout the country. People are rightly concerned about that problem, as they value open spaces. It is important that the planning system is rational and logical, and that it is not flouted, so that there can be a proper planning process that ties in with local plans and the provision of local services.

A particular threat to green-belt sites and to other areas of open land is posed when groups of people buy agricultural land outside the proper terms of the planning system and use it to establish a settled community. That threat is often associated with the travelling community. This has happened on seven different sites in my constituency, which has caused great concern to local residents, to my local authority and to various statutory agencies.

It is important to say at the outset that this debate is not about discriminating against minorities. I wholeheartedly support cultural diversity, and I recognise that people choose to live different lifestyles. That is their right, and it is as it should be. I welcome a United Kingdom in which that is the case. However, it is equally important that all members of society obey the law and are subject to it, whether they are part of the settled community or the travelling community. Most people abide by the planning laws, which are very tight. They may resent aspects of those laws, as they often deny them their wishes for their homes or their businesses, but it is important that people believe that the law is properly and universally applied. If it is not, huge and understandable resentment builds up, which is a great threat and a great worry to the travelling community.

I welcome the Minister, who is new to her post. We look forward to hearing what she has to say. I hope that she will confirm that the Government recognise that this is a real and serious problem, which is getting worse, and that it is urgent and needs to be dealt with Her predecessor, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), acknowledged that this was a serious problem in his contribution in the main Chamber on 21 March 2003 at column 1264. He rightly commended the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) in introducing his Greenbelt Protection Bill. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is in this Chamber this morning, and he will say more about his Bill.

The previous Under-Secretary acknowledged that my hon. Friend's Bill had considerable cross-party support. That is clear from looking at the list of sponsors of the Bill. It was acknowledged at that time that there had been considerable consultation and that the problem was relevant to a wide part of the country. However, in a brief contribution on 21 March when the hon. Gentleman talked out my hon. Friend's Bill in spite of a request not to do so, he said that he had certain problems with it. He did not specify what they were or say what the Government were intended to do about this problem. We are all happy to debate these issues this morning, but we would be especially pleased to know the Government's thoughts or proposals on what we can do about the problem. We want positive engagement on a real and serious problem that is of huge concern and significance to our constituents.

The first part of the Greenbelt Protection Bill was about providing sufficient authorised sites for the travelling community. That is important because previous planning decisions have granted encampments that have gone against the legitimate planning process and the appropriate use of land the right to continue. Cases have been won on appeal largely on the ground that there are insufficient authorised sites for travellers. I accept that setting up an authorised site will not be popular with those people living in close proximity to it. However, it is surely better that the best possible site is found, with the agreement of the local authority and after as much consultation with local people as possible, rather than have sites springing up in inappropriate places. We need guarantees on how many authorised sites and places are required. Is there a cap on the total number of sites that will have to be provided?

Many of the travellers in unauthorised settlements in my community come originally from other countries—there are a quite a few from Ireland. Is there a limit on the total number of sites that local authorities in England have to provide, or is it limitless? Can any number of people come into this country claiming to be travellers, so that they have a right to settle in authorised sites or, if there are none, can win the right, through the planning process, to establish an illegal encampment? That is a serious issue. Local authorities would be prepared to act reasonably, together with the Government, and to work on planning sufficient authorised sites, but they need some finality. They need to have the total picture, so that the provision of authorised sites does not escalate out of hand.

I would be interested to know whether there are reciprocal rights. Given that travellers from other countries can come to this country, is there a duty on the Government of Ireland to provide sites in Ireland for English travellers? Is it only this country that provides for travellers from elsewhere? Those are legitimate questions that should be answered.

The term "traveller" is often used in two distinct ways. There are travellers who genuinely travel. They move around from county to county. In years gone by, travellers typically came through my county during the summer, spent a few months at different sites and were involved in agriculture—perhaps, picking potatoes. They moved around different sites over a period of time. In areas close to my constituency, some people have homes but take off for the summer in a caravan, travel around and then return to their homes at the beginning of winter. On the seven permanent sites in my own community, at least some members of the families are there all the time. I wonder whether the term "traveller" is a misnomer in relation to the planning process.

I have studied the current definitions of travellers and gypsies in the relevant Acts. The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 defines gypsies in section 24(8). My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay defined travellers and gypsies in clause 5 of his Bill as

"persons of nomadic habit who wander or travel for the purposes of making or seeking their livelihood, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such."

The key words are

"persons of nomadic habit who wander or travel".

Given that groups of travellers are winning planning appeals on the basis that they are travellers as so defined, it is a concern if it transpires that they have established permanent residences. Hon. Members may be interested to see the photographs that I have passed to the Minister and to the official Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). The photographs are of one of the encampments in my constituency, and clearly show that some of the buildings are made of brick: they are of a permanent nature, and could not be described as a static caravan, for example.

What further check is made to confirm that people are genuinely travelling and, if they are not, is there any comeback in the planning process? If an appeal against a planning decision is being considered, should there not be a requirement that a family is genuinely travelling? Such a requirement should apply to the whole family—I do not believe that it is reasonable to argue that it is a family of travellers if only one member of the family travels. One of the reasons that such decisions are often overturned on appeal is to ensure that the children stay in local schools so that they can continue their education in one place, which we would all support. However, if that is the case, it seems to me that such families are not travellers. If the term "traveller" is used in a vague and undefined way, that raises serious questions.

The first part of my hon. Friend's Bill sought to ensure that local authorities provide the necessary number of authorised sites for travellers. The Government should give a commitment to say what is an acceptable number of authorised sites, so that local authorities have greater certainty in dealing with illegal or unauthorised sites. The Greenbelt Protection Bill also sought to give greater powers to local authorities with regard to the planning process. Specifically, it would have introduced powers to enable local authorities to apply more easily for injunctions to be served on persons unknown, which, in effect, means that they would be served on the land itself. Under the current system, it is difficult to serve an injunction when the local authority does not have a named individual on whom to serve it. That provision would have assisted local authorities greatly in taking action in such circumstances.

The Bill would have given local authorities the discretionary power to issue a notice to remedy, which would have ensured that the site was put back to the state in which it had been originally before the unauthorised development. It is clear that current planning law is inadequate. Any local authority planning department that has had experience of unauthorised development will say that its hands are tied and it cannot deal with the problem. As I said at the beginning, we are eagerly looking to the Minister to hear what the Government intend to do about the matter.

I am concerned about the numbers of travellers allowed on specific sites. I read the appeal decision on the Greenacres site, just outside the village of Billington in my constituency. It gave 21 named individuals and their dependants the right to be on that site. Only last week, one of my local police officers said that he believes that there are about 90 people on the site. A check should be made to ensure that, if permission is granted for a certain number of people to be on a site, that decision is not abused. If it is abused, there should he some comeback. A site that has the capacity to take 21 named individuals plus their dependants is clearly not suitable to take 90 people, which is what has happened on that particular site.

The planning appeal decision to which I referred names the 21 individuals. The Government must make it a requirement that the register of individuals is kept up to date. If other individuals are permanently on that site, we need to know who they are. We must have their names and be able to identify on which plot of land they are resident. Often, a field is bought and immediately sub-divided into 20, 30 or even more sub-plots of land, as a result of which there are great difficulties in establishing the ownership of particular plots, who is resident on which plot and so on.

I am pleased to introduce this debate. I called for it because great distress and upset are caused when illegal encampments are established. It is clearly an inappropriate use of land. In many of our constituencies there are significant development pressures. Huge numbers of new houses may be planned. My constituency is about to come under massive pressure because of the housing that the Government intend to build. I am alarmed that they are planning to double the number of houses by 2031. For that reason alone, unauthorised encampments must not be allowed to spring up all over the place when there are already huge development plans in the pipeline.

The site at Greenacres outside the village of Billington was built on top of the national United Kingdom gas main—a 24-in pipeline. Planning terms are usually so tight that any farmer over whose land the pipeline runs must have written permission every year from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs just to plough that land. Septic tanks have been sunk some 15 ft into the ground on that site. No structure is allowed to be built within 70 m of the United Kingdom national gas pipeline. However, the Minister will see from the photographs that I have given her that permanent structures have been built on top of it. There cannot be a greater illustration of the inappropriate use of land than that. How does the local farmer feel about still having to obtain written permission each year to plough his land, when such a worrying, massive abuse of the planning process is occurring? What do the Government intend to do to assure my constituents, and the country as a whole, about the safety of the UK gas pipeline?

Inappropriate land use is the major reason why I am worried about such issues. I have spoken to about 90 people on one site. Another site on the border of my constituency, at Jockey farm on the A5 south of Dunstable, has several hundred residents. If unauthorised and illegal encampments keep springing up, how can local services be properly planned and provided? How can we ensure that there is the right number of GPs and school places if there are illegal sites with significant numbers of people? Proper planning processes by which the local education authority and the local medical authority assure the provision of vital services cannot function in such circumstances.

Crime is often associated with the sites. That contentious issue needs to be handled sensitively and responsibly. We would be negligent if we did not face up to it. Many members of the travelling community are wholly law-abiding. They are decent, honest people who work hard to provide for their families. They are upright members of their communities and contribute to the common good. However, we would be ignoring reality if we did not acknowledge the fact that the establishment of such communities outside the law often leads to other instances of lawlessness. My local police have tracked down significant increases in fly tipping that are linked to the establishment of illegal encampments in the community.

Many businesses operate from unauthorised developments without the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—if I may put it that way. They do not pay their fair share of taxes, and their vehicles are not taxed. Such practice undermines local legitimate businesses that are doing the right thing and paying their taxes. Such activity is a great worry. My local police told me about a motoring offence that was caused by a resident of an encampment in my community. When the local constable tried to enforce a warrant for that resident's arrest, he found that it had to be issued under three different names. That brings me back to the need for a register of names that is linked to specific plots of land and the requirement for changes or additions of a permanent nature to be notified to the local authority. After all, the settled community must do that. If our constituents move to new premises, they must notify the local authority accordingly. The same rules should apply to the people on these sites.

I shall draw my remarks to a close by reiterating my hope that the Minister will understand the strong feelings of my constituents. I have been sent here on their behalf to express their concerns. We accept that there might be better ways to resolve the problem than were first put forward in the Greenbelt Protection Bill. I am happy for the Minister to tell me about those, but the Government must recognise that there is a serious problem, and they must show their strong intention to do something about it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate. I have had some experience of these matters. Many years ago I lived in the old county of Westmorland, some 10 miles from the then county town of Appleby. Those who know that area will be aware that there is a horse fair in Appleby once a year in mid-summer and another later in the year in Brough, which is a few miles further down the Eden valley. Appleby is taken over by travelling people when the horse fair comes to town, and then they move on beyond it.

The caravans used to come along the lanes to within two miles of where we lived. For two or three weeks the whole town would be completely different, almost acquiring the character of a wild west frontier settlement. Then the fair would go. I suppose that most people imagine that travelling people go to a place, often for historic or traditional events, and then move on to somewhere else. People living in such localities accept that as a natural part of the rhythm of country life.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the difficulty occurs when people who are not really travelling people—and others, too—turn what appears to be a temporary location into something more permanent. There is such a location in Twin Oaks, in my division, some distance from Braintree. It has been there for many years, during which time there has been long-standing litigation with the local authority that continues to this day.

I distance myself slightly from the hon. Gentleman on the question of crime. I practised in the criminal law courts for many years—indeed, I still do. One of my first instructions was to prosecute a gypsy woman for selling lucky white heather. As a result, I probably did not have so much good fortune in the years to come. I often get the impression that itinerant people commit the crimes to which the hon. Gentleman referred: they may have no road fund licence, or may be dumping in farm gateways. However, it would be wrong to suggest that crime is any higher among travelling or nomadic people than it is among other people. That is not the main problem. We are talking about the alteration of the character of the countryside by the establishment of more permanent communities, which must be avoided.

I spoke in the House in April about the purported speculative sale of land through the internet, which is another example of unauthorised use of countryside land that hon. Members may have encountered. Earlier in the year in my own division, the villagers of Stisted and those in the neighbouring village of Greenstead Green, were greatly assisted by a kinsman of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) who lives in Greenstead Green.

A parcel of land of some 50 acres was sold by a local farmer, who I am told believed that it was to be used for grazing horses. Soon afterwards that land was offered for sale on the internet in small parcels of up to one fifth of an acre. I am advised that the agricultural value of that land would be in the region of £2,500 to £3,500 per acre. However, sites of one fifth of an acre were being offered for sale at between £3,000 to £6,000 per acre unseen. There were specific instructions to the effect, "Do not come to look at the land unless you bring the money with you. You do not need a solicitor and you do not need to consult the local authority."

Those internet advertisements did not specifically say that the land was available for building development: indeed, they stated that it was not. However, there was an implication that, at some time in the future, the land would be available for development. The land is three or four miles from Stisted in an out-of-the-way rural situation. It is a long way from anywhere where one would anticipate that there might be building development this century. The problem is that an opportunity for unauthorised development must have existed. Limited development can take place on agricultural land under a general development order.

It is possible for landowners—including owners of small plots—to erect a shelter for creatures or habitation for a forester. Abuse could occur if someone brought a sheep on to the land to justify the erection of a structure to house it. To give an absurd example, someone could plant a Christmas tree and then erect a chalet for a part-time forester to tend it. That may be stretching the point too far, but it opens up the realm of argument for those who want to be difficult. If plots of land were fenced off one against another, people could place buildings, sheds, caravans or huts on them.

It may help the hon. Gentleman to make his point if he refers to the letter that he has received from my cousin about the case that he cites. My cousin praises Braintree district council for its swift action in issuing an article for direction and writes:

"This is a major step forward and is likely to mean that the area will not end up as a shanty town, which it otherwise almost certainly would have, with "temporary" caravans, camper vans, sheds in connection with pseudo smallholding activities."

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his cousin for the common approach that has been taken on that issue. I referred to the incident that occurred at Stisted, but a number of sites throughout the eastern counties have experienced similar problems. In those cases, the local authorities have issued—and the Secretary of State has approved—an article 4 directive to prohibit the effect of the general development order, so that any development, including a fence or a shed, requires the consent of the local authority.

The difficulty occurs when there is a defiance of such a direction. If plot holders start erecting sheds and caravans, there must be enforcement of any prohibition. No law is worthy of its name unless there is the willingness to enforce it and the financial ability so to do. In the case of Twin Oaks, it has been the experience of my district council that considerable sums of money have been spent over the years on a single site. If a district council in a rural area had to take a large number of enforced proceedings against plot holders throughout its district, the cost to the council would be overwhelming.

The Government should tighten the law as far they can and assist local authorities to impose articles for direction. If need be, they should modify the general development order regulations, so that it is not easy for those events to occur in the first instance. Thereafter, central Government must provide sufficient income to local authorities so that proper enforcement can be effected. I gain the impression that there may be less enforcement of those and similar matters by local authorities throughout Essex, because they are costly enterprises for them to pursue. That is a real problem.

A hundred years ago, country people wished to move to the towns. It was in the towns that one was up to date, so people gravitated towards them. Now, the reverse is true: people want to move out of the towns into the countryside. They want to spend their leisure time or their retirement in a rural idyll. However, they still want to work and earn their money in the larger towns and cities. That has a consequence for country people. It pushes up the price of property and the price of land that has the potential to be developed. One of the farmers in my division told me honestly that the best crop he had ever brought forth was a housing development. For those farmers who have land close to urban areas, it is a real and tempting prospect to convert the land from corn, barley or cabbages to houses.

There must be a limit on where development can take place, and housing developments must be planned in a way that benefits local communities. There is also the massive problem of how local country people can afford to live in the countryside where generations of their family lived, but that is a question for another day. Today, we must consider how the Government can assist local authorities to prevent the explosion of shantytowns across the southern and eastern counties.

I want to bowl the hon. Gentleman a fast ball; he can bowl it back to me if he does not want to answer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), when discussing the problem, both said that planning law could not be strengthened sufficiently without the use of criminal sanctions in one form or another. Does the hon. Gentleman think that criminal sanctions will be necessary to enforce any change in the planning laws?

That may well be so. Of course, there are heavy financial sanctions, and failure to pay could, in some cases, ultimately lead to a criminal sanction, although that would be very far down the road. If a landowner or landholder breached an injunction, he or she would be in contempt of court, and that carries a criminal penalty of imprisonment, so such sanctions are already in the background. It may well be right to consider whether, in appropriate cases, the use of such sanctions can be developed further.

In closing my remarks, I again urge the Government to give full consideration to tightening the law and to providing additional resources, in the hope that we can have a proper countryside that is fit not only for town people to move into but for country people to live in contentedly.

May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on introducing the debate, and thanking him for his many kind words?

I rise today to try to get the Government to realise the extent of unauthorised development in our green belt and on greenfield sites; it is extensive and grey. Also, they should realise that that is causing much resentment among residents, as the culprits appear to be getting away with it. I ask the Government to stop daydreaming and start doing something about the problem and addressing these real issues.

In my constituency, we are concerned—as all Members of Parliament are for their constituencies—about the various threats to our green belt. The main threat is that the Government are forcing thousands of new houses on councils by way of centralised house-building targets. That is greatly resented in my part of the world, first, because it is undemocratic—local politicians should decide the right level of local development, not bureaucrats sitting in Whitehall—and secondly, because it places further strain on our already overstretched infrastructure. We do not have enough police officers, there is little investment in our roads, and we do not have enough GPs, because Government bureaucracy and targets get in the way.

A lesser known but growing danger is posed by unauthorised development, especially by the travelling community, which buys and quickly develops land without planning permission. There was a good recent example at Sadler's Farm roundabout. I have cited that example previously, but I make no apologies for citing it again, because it illustrates the case well. It involved a large field next to a roundabout in the green belt that was bought by the travelling community. There is nothing wrong with that. It is still within the law, but one Friday a 6 ft earth mound was created around the perimeter. On the Saturday, hardcore was laid, arid on the Sunday, caravans and vehicles, including heavy vehicles, moved in. By the time the council reacted with stop and enforcement notices on the Monday, it was too late. Consequently, we have entered a lengthy planning and appeals process. Meanwhile, the illegal development continues to this day. Similar situations have occurred in Hovefields in Wickford and Oak road in Crays Hill. All three areas are in my constituency.

Such unauthorised development often occurs in highly visible areas of the green belt and causes a good deal of resentment among other residents. When trying to combat the situation, Basildon council, whether Labour or Tory, has found the existing law inadequate. I stress that I have not played politics with this issue. I made it clear to all constituents who wanted to listen that even when the Labour council was in power, it was not its fault that nothing could be done. It was dealing with inadequate laws and could not legitimately move the people on.

That is the key problem: the law has not kept up with developments. It has failed to recognise that we are no longer dealing with established gypsy communities, with their horse and home, which broadly obey the law once it is pointed out to them. Today, there is a new breed of travellers. They are wealthy, cash-rich, unscrupulous, and determined in many cases to exploit the law. They buy land and pay for expert advice. The current laws cannot cope with this new onslaught—they are simply inadequate. The situation is as simple as that. The law has not kept pace with developments.

Let me make it clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire did, that no one wants to discriminate against a minority. However, it is only fair that all those who live in a community should abide by its laws and regulations. Otherwise, it is the majority who are discriminated against. I should add that, partly because of our historic links with the Pilgrim Fathers and the Mayflower, our community recognises more than most that the mark of a civilised society is the extent to which minority interests are respected. We have no problem with law-abiding travellers. Indeed, the latest figures show that there are about 100 authorised sites for the travelling and gypsy communities in our district. That is many more than neighbouring authorities have. Indeed, some authorities have no authorised sites whatever.

I believe that the Conservative Government in 1994 were wrong to abolish the statutory duty on local authorities to provide authorised sites. It is only right that the way of life of law-abiding travellers be recognised, as I have said previously. However, for reasons that I cannot explain, there has recently been an increasingly large number of cases in which travellers new to the area buy and speedily develop land without gaining planning permission, and subsequently do not live in harmony with their neighbours. Needless to say, that causes much concern and anger not only among the settled community but among the more established gypsy communities. I have held public meetings where the more established gypsy communities have sat in the front row and been just as vocal as established residents in their complaints about the new travellers who are developing land.

One can understand why: once these developments take place, the lives of neighbouring residents can be made a misery. Many residents complain about the local area and ditches being swamped with refuse, rubbish and excrement, which has caused flooding. They are intimidated to the point of people being fearful to leave their home because crime is generally on the increase. Nearby narrow lanes are plagued by under-age youngsters driving recklessly, or by noisy lorries, often during the early hours of the morning.

As the Minister can well imagine, I have received many letters about the issue. Feelings run high. If hon. Members will forgive me, I will quote from a few of the letters that I have received. Obviously the names are withheld because of the fear of intimidation. A lady in Wickford writes:

"Here in Wickford a well organised group of travellers has bought various areas of greenbelt, moved in with JCBs and totally decimated the entire areas covering them with tonnes of building rubble".

Another lady in Wickford writes that

the situation is already causing problems with flooding to the local area, congestion on what is an unmade road. There are no drainage facilities which raises environmental concerns."

A resident of Crays Hill recounts that

"as we walked through the Spinney in Oak Avenue, we came across two very unpleasant heaps on the path along with paper, flies etc. There was also about 50 empty beer cans and evidence of drug taking."

A resident of Bowers Gifford writes:

'I would like to use the Human Rights Act to ensure my right to a secure and settled family life but fear that if I did, as soon as this action became public knowledge I might not have a home, family or even a life."

Those are not isolated examples. They give a flavour of the strength of feelings in certain parts of my constituency. The law is failing these people. It has not kept up with events. It cannot deal with determined individuals who buy land and then speedily develop it without authorisation. I stress the term "buy land", because all too often in these debates when I have made the point that travellers buy land, section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is quoted at me—but that deals with trespass, which is totally irrelevant.

Two key problems face local authorities when they try to deal with this situation. First, they have difficulty in acting quickly to prevent unauthorised development. If an injunction is granted it can be hard to serve it on the owner or the occupier, as they can often be difficult to pin down, particularly if land is be mg quickly sold and subdivided and individuals are being unto-operative, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Secondly, although local authorities can issue stop and enforcement notices, rights of appeal and retrospective planning applications prolong the issue unnecessarily. As a result the planning and appeals process can take many months, if not years. Even when all options have been exhausted, local authorities must often resort to the courts to reinstate the land. That in itself can be a long process that does not necessarily result in the clearance of the land.

I can illustrate my hon. Friend's point about the length of time with a brief example from my constituency. My local authority told me yesterday that the planning process for two developments outside Tilsworth village has taken four and a half years. Obviously within that time the development has become so established that there is little prospect of doing anything about it.

I thank my hon. Friend. That is a good illustration. I can point to a number of cases in my constituency that have taken that long, if not longer to deal with, irrespective of which party was in control of the district council at the time. Even when court decisions go as the council wishes there is often a time delay, but court decisions sometimes go against local councils even though a planning and appeals process decision was in their favour. Some planning departments believe that that is because there is inadequate provision of sites.

I presented the Greenbelt Protection Bill to Parliament in March and June because of the growing problem in my constituency. The Bill would have dealt with the issues head on and was the product of a long consultation process that included numerous discussions, meetings, site visits and public hearings with residents, travellers, councillors, police and Basildon council planning department. Local authorities backed the Bill; the Association of Essex Authorities fully endorsed it; my party's Front-Bench spokesman backed it; and it had good cross-party support, as its list of sponsors shows. I thank those hon. Members for their support.

However, the Government blocked the Bill on both occasions. Although it was the fourth item on the Order Paper in March, the Bill was discussed, but the Government talked it out, despite my objections. In June, they simply objected to it. That is a great shame, because it would have dealt with the issue directly and fairly in three ways.

First, the Bill's objective was for shared responsibility for site provision for the travelling community. It would have dealt with the matter by introducing a requirement that all local authorities provide authorised sites. The target figure would have been identified by the Government in consultation with regional bodies, county councils and local authorities. It would have taken account of local need by considering the generation of new sites, the likely levels of immigration, outstanding commitments and the ability of the local infrastructure to cope with additional growth. The sites themselves would have been provided by public or private means; the targets would not necessarily have cost councils any money. That was the carrot. Two elements of the Bill would have given local authorities much greater powers to deal with those who then transgressed the law.

Secondly, the Bill would have introduced powers to enable local authorities more easily to obtain an injunction by allowing it to be served on a landowner whose identity is unknown to the local planning authority. Although there is a similar, lesser power, it is hardly ever successfully exercised by local authorities because of the heavy burden of proof required. By removing that burden of proof and serving the injunction in effect against the land, local authorities would have been able to obtain an injunction far more speedily, and thus nip any unauthorised development in the bud. The injunction would have been registered with the Land Registry as a charge against the land and local authorities would have had the power to enforce the injunction against any new owner or occupier, so dealing with the issue when land is quickly sold on.

Thirdly, local authorities would have been given a further, discretionary power to serve a notice to remedy, the aim of which would have been to reinstate the land to its original condition, with the guidance that it should be used only when, in the local authority's opinion, sufficient harm was being caused to the green belt or greenfield land under its control. The aim of the guidance would have been to ensure that when there had been a minor breach of planning laws—for example, Mr. and Mrs. Smith getting their extension plans wrong by 2 ft or 3 ft—the power would not have been available to local authorities, but when a greenfield site was developed there would be little doubt that it represented significant harm and the power would then have been available to local authorities to deal with that set of circumstances. If the land had not been made good within a specified time, the local authority could have arranged to put it right, the costs being reclaimed from the perpetrators where possible.

To be fair to the travelling community, those additional powers would have been available only if the site targets had been met. That is important. There is no point in moving travellers on if there are no legitimate sites for them to go to. That would also have dealt with the issue of courts saying, "Despite the planning decision going in favour of the council, we rule against you, because sufficient sites are not available," which happens time and again, despite planning and appeals judgments going in favour of councils. The Bill would have dealt with that head on.

The additional powers would have been available only if local councillors wished to use them. They would not have been mandatory; there would have been no automatic instigation. Democratically elected local councillors would have been making those decisions, so there would have been an element of discretion at the coalface. That is very important.

By ensuring that a sufficient number of authorised sites were provided while also giving local authorities additional powers to combat large-scale unauthorised developments, whether or not they were by travellers—I wish to make that point clear—the proposals would have created fairness for all.

I ask the Minister to take a fresh look at the Bill. Although the Government have objected to it twice, it will come before Parliament again this Friday, 11 July. Although it is now 22nd on the list—and we all know what that means—there is a final chance for the Government not to object to it. That would send out a strong message to all the many concerned residents that this Government are finally taking this issue seriously. That would have the full support of the Conservative party.

The Minister is new to her position, and I urge her to recognise that there is widespread disillusion throughout the country with the law as it stands, and that it is in desperate need of updating. This is a golden opportunity to take a fresh look at the situation.

My Bill is far from perfect. I have no doubt that it has many flaws. However, by not objecting to it, the Government would at least give a Committee the opportunity of scrutinising it carefully in order to try to improve the present inadequate set of rules and regulations, that is creating much unfairness and discrimination against the law-abiding majority. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether the Government will take a fresh look at the Bill in order to create fairness for all.

My hon. Friend has put a great deal of thought into this matter, and done a lot of research. Why did he come to the conclusion that criminal sanctions were necessary to back up this Bill?

I believe that they are a distinct possibility. The clauses that have been put in the Bill are guarded and measured, and they try to be as fair as possible, but at the end of the day a line must be drawn in the sand to make it clear to perpetrators—whether or not they are travellers—that we are not prepared to tolerate any more injustices, because if we do we will be creating discrimination against the majority.

The Bill would have given travellers and the travelling community plenty of opportunity to establish themselves in authorised sites that would have been well run, clean and properly maintained, thereby recognising the traveller way of life, while at the same time giving the authorities greater powers that would have included criminal sanctions if a minority of travellers were still breaking the law.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire for allowing me to contribute to his debate. I want to use the opportunity to make the point that I have made several times, especially at public hearings, that we are dealing with a minority in the travelling community. I am not branding the whole travelling community as a law-breaking section of our society. That minority are, however, quite powerful. They know the rules and how far they can push them. They knows how they can exploit the law and break it, which is why criminal sanctions should be considered as a final deterrent.

In conclusion, I repeat that I urge the Minister to take a fresh look at the Bill. I firmly believe that it would create fairness for all. It has been carefully considered, and party politics has played no part in it. Labour councillors on my district council have recognised that, and have said so publicly. It has tremendous support from outside organisations, and indeed has cross-party support. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate on a difficult and thorny problem affecting parts of the country. The problem that he outlined is not the only one: there are others in other areas, as we heard from the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst).

The scale of the problem is the most worrying aspect of it. Government figures show that there has been a 70 per cent. increase in the number of travellers or gypsy caravans in the past 20 years. During the same period, there has been a reduction in the numbers on unauthorised sites, while in recent years, the number of authorised sites being created has fallen, largely as a result of the changes made in 1994 when the statutory duty on local authorities was removed. I hope that the Government will do something to reverse that trend. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was honest enough to say that that move in 1994 was wrong.

Another problem arose as a result of similar legislation—Department of the Environment circular 1/94—that was also introduced in 1994. In effect, it put the onus on local authorities to err on the side of travellers who had made themselves more permanent dwellings. When inspectors and the courts have to deal with travellers, they come up against the problem of a lack of provision elsewhere, which is why travellers are allowed to get away with abusing the planning system.

The Government clearly have grounds to act. It would be a step forward if they reversed the decisions taken in 1994. The jury is still out on whether they need to go as far as the hon. Member for Billericay would like them to go, but steps clearly need to be taken and the problem analysed.

I have not had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on her appointment since she has been in post. I do so now. Will she give us the Government's figures and projections for the scale of the problem? If numbers were to grow at a rate similar to that at which they have grown in the past 20 years—I do not know whether that is a reasonable assumption, but it is the only figure that we have—some 7,500 additional authorised pitches would be required.

The rate at which local authorities currently establish authorised pitches is far too slow to deal with development on such a scale. How does the Minister aim to assist local authorities to provide the very necessary pitches? The Government might consider specific funding for local authorities for that purpose. The problem does not affect all parts of the country equally. Some local authorities have a bigger problem than others, and some take a more responsible attitude.

How will the Government help local authorities to address the need for more authorised sites? There is a gypsy sites refurbishment grant for this year, but it is limited and only for the provision of transit and emergency stopping places, not for the semi-permanent or permanent authorised sites. There is no Government support for local authorities to deal with the problem.

The hon. Gentleman has illuminated the debate by referring to the 70 per cent. increase, of which I was not aware, but which does not surprise me. Does he agree with me that we must define the scale of the problem? We need to know how many people are allowed to come into this country calling themselves travellers. Does he think that we need to consider the definition of "traveller", given that he acknowledged that the issue is largely about people who set up in permanent encampments? Is not there a problem in how "traveler" is defined and should not the Government look into it?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am perturbed that he feels the problem is just about people coming into the country. They come from a variety of backgrounds, and many are from this country in the first place. It would be difficult to define what constitutes someone who travels. In effect, it is self-defined by people who seek that lifestyle and it is difficult to determine their background and where they come from. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he made a stab at a definition in his contribution.

The Government say that at present there are about 3,600 unauthorised pitches at any one time and the number varies seasonally—there are about 800 fewer in the winter. However, their figures show that 2,000 to 2,500 more sites are needed to deal with the problem of unauthorised pitches, which is fewer than the scale of the problem would suggest is required. Why is there a discrepancy in those figures?

The previous Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), promised in March that PPG 2 on green belt policy would be revised. When will that be done?

The hon. Member for Braintree mentioned the problem of the subdivision of sites sold and the resulting abuse, which will cause increasing problems for local authorities throughout the country. Although the Government have acted to support local authorities as and when necessary, there would be a problem if people who subdivided the land and bought parcels of it were to push the issue, especially if small district councils were involved, because the cost of enforcement would be great. South Shropshire local authority in my constituency covers a huge rural area but has one of the smallest populations of any district council. It got a planning enforcement officer only about two years ago, and had to raise council tax that year by about 2 per cent. in order to afford that post.

The abuse of car boot sales is another problem of unauthorised development in the green belt, a small part of which stretches from the west midlands into my constituency, which is mostly green fields. A gentleman in the area has bought or leased six or seven adjacent fields. He has permission to hold 12 or 13 car boot sales a year, but that is for each field, so he is able to hold more than one a week on the same lane, and the residents are understandably distressed by the continual invasion that they suffer as a result, especially at weekends. That is another abuse of the planning system and the rights that are granted. About 18 months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister agreed to look into the problem, but I am afraid that we have not heard anything yet. I would welcome news from the Minister that it will be dealt with.

I shall draw my remarks to a close to ensure that the Minister has time to get back to me on these serious points.

I shall begin by declaring an interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on taking a serious interest in this subject. In his constituency, he faces a larger growth in developments on greenfield sites and the green belt than almost any other Member of Parliament. Any development, but especially unauthorised development, must be of particular concern to him. I also pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). He and I have had long discussions, and he has done a great deal of work to produce his Bill. I hope that, even if his Bill does not reach the statute book, some of his ideas, which are innovative and arise from many hours of discussions with various experts, will eventually be successful. Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on the measured way in which he commented on the subject. There have been good, levelheaded, constructive contributions to the debate.

Much of today's debate has centred on gypsies. I want to make it clear, as my hon. Friends have done, that we do not want to discriminate against gypsies. Indeed, we want to ensure that they have a reasonable standard of life. As has been made clear, they have rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Library brief SN/SC/1127 of 2 July 2003 quotes my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) from a debate on 10 July 2002. He made the shocking claims that only 2 per cent. of travellers live to see the age of 65, and that the traveller infant mortality rate is almost three times the national average.

Clearly, something is wrong in the provision of gypsy sites. We need carefully to consider that provision because, if we are to deal with unauthorised encampment, the only way we can humanely move people on is to move them on to authorised sites. The Government commissioned a report from the university of Birmingham, which is due to published shortly. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm when that will be published. I must add that I welcome the Minister to her post. She has inherited the problem of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. She is the fifth planning Minister with whom I have debated, and I hope that she is successful in that difficult endeavour.

Current guidance is now eight years out of date. The Government have pledged to issue new guidance, and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us when that will be issued.

The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) quoted many figures. I want to quote from the document in which he found most of those figures—"Managing Unauthorised Camping Operational Guidance". At paragraph 2.9, it says:

"In order to accommodate the desire for nomadism, between 2,000 and 2,500 additional authorised transit/mobility pitches are estimated to be needed before 2007."

It would be useful to have the Minister's view on how many more authorised sites should be provided to accommodate existing need. We do not want to encourage a growth in the number of travellers, as they impose additional costs and burdens—school places and health provision are difficult to plan unless there are authorised sites. How do the Government intend to deal with that problem? They have provided grants through statutory instrument—I took part in a Committee on one that related to the refurbishment of sites. However, I am not aware of grants for the creation of new sites either in the public or private sector.

The gypsy problem is sometimes related to the planning problems of unauthorised development in the green belt. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, have cited outstanding examples of people buying and subdividing land. The hon. Member for Braintree cited the example given by my cousin, in which Gladwish Land Sales Ltd. bought a 40-acre plot and subdivided it into plots of one fifth of an acre. The fear was that those who bought plots would start unauthorised development by putting up fences and putting in roads, hard-standing for caravans and so on, and that the whole area would become an eyesore.

In an excellent Adjournment debate on 5 June, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) cited the terrible example of Deer's Leap just outside Edenbridge. He said that load after load of hard-core to create hard-standing was brought to the site and that in a short time

"the lush open meadow of Deer's Leap in the green belt had become an environmental eyesore of a caravan encampment with all the trappings of permanence."—[Official Report, 5 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 377]

The council applied for an article 4 direction. As the Minister will know, such a direction takes away permitted development rights under part 2 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. As I understand it, the problem with an article 4 direction is that the council can issue a direction, but it has to be confirmed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In the dreadful case of Deer's Leap, it took the Department four months to confirm the order. It is a useful planning tool, but the law should be altered so that a local planning authority can issue an article 4 direction that takes effect immediately and has to be confirmed by the Department within a reasonable time, such as two months. That would be a useful method of dealing with the problem.

I outlined another solution when I cited my cousin's case to the previous Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), when he was in post. Planning permission is required for a change of use from agriculture to gardens and amenity land. There could be a minor change in the law, so that if plots were of an inadequate size to be viable for agricultural purposes—that would certainly be true in the Braintree case—planning permission would be required to subdivide the land. That is a germ of a solution.

In reply, the Minister said that

"if the problem is occurring on farm land, those affected could ask the local planning authority to consider whether anything has occurred to create a situation where agriculture realistically could no longer be carried cut, and therefore whether an unlawful material change of use … has occurred … If no application for change of use has been submitted, the local authority may decide, subject to its own legal advice, that enforcement action would be feasible and appropriate."

From my planning experience, I think that that would be quite difficult to obtain at the moment, but there is a germ of an idea as to how such action could work.

A stronger sanction needs to be introduced into the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay was on the right lines with his Bill when he said that we should introduce into planning law the concept of a notice to remedy when significant harm had been caused. He defined significant harm. He said that a notice could be served on a person whose identity was unknown to the local planning authority. That concept is not new; it exists in injunction law, whereby an injunction can be served on a person or persons unknown.

My hon. Friend went on to describe the would-be criminal sanctions. We need to think carefully about bringing criminal sanctions into the planning law, which has not hitherto had such sanctions. That would be a departure. I am not saying that it should not happen, but we would need to think about it carefully. My hon. Friend cunningly suggested that if the person on whom the notice was served refused to reinstate the land, the local authority should be entitled to do that work itself and to charge the person who created the problem. The fine and any costs could be registered under the Local Land Charges Act 1975.

We must seriously consider all those matters when the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill returns to this House and is recommitted to a Standing Committee in September or October. I undertook in my letter to the previous Under-Secretary that the Opposition would co-operate with the Government in drafting and agreeing relevant amendments.

The subject of unauthorised development in the green belt and on greenfield sites will not go away. Such developments cause significant, serious and sudden problems where they occur. The Government must address the issue, and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill offers an ideal opportunity for them to do so. I hope that we shall hear some encouraging news from the Minister.

I thank the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for raising the important issue of gypsies and concerns about unauthorised encampments, and congratulate him on securing the debate. There have already been Adjournment debates on some of the issues, including one initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on 4 April.

Hon. Members will understand that I cannot comment on specific planning cases, but a wide range of issues have been raised in the debate, and I will try to comment on as many of them as possible. I shall not pretend to be able to answer some of the detailed questions raised by hon. Members, partly because they involve complex issues that require detailed consideration, and research is under way in some of those areas, and also because, as hon. Members have said, I am relatively new to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am keen to examine the issue further, and am therefore happy to have further discussions with individual hon. Members on particular points that they raised, and to respond to them later on those issues.

As many hon. Members have made clear, it is important to ensure that, in an inclusive society, people have the right to a nomadic lifestyle. However, that lifestyle incurs responsibilities, including the responsibility not to behave in a way that causes nuisance and distress to the settled community.

A series of issues have been raised in relation to planning. The planning system must be fair both to the settled community and to members of the gypsy and travelling communities. Planning policies concerning the provision of suitable locations for gypsy sites, whether they are provided by the local authority or privately, are set out in the Department of Environment circular 1/94 "Gypsy Sites and Planning", which is nine years old. That circular recognises special accommodation needs, and also the desire of many gypsies to buy their own sites arid to develop and manage them. However, such sites constitute development and therefore require planning permission, just like any other development. Gypsies have a right to buy sites and to develop them, but that must be within planning law.

The circular encourages local authorities, when formulating their development plans, to discuss accommodation needs and offer advice and practical help with planning procedures to members of the gypsy community who wish to acquire their own land. Failing that, local authorities should identify clear and realistic criteria for suitable locations as a basis for their site provision policies.

The planning inspectors and the courts will take seriously the question whether there is somewhere else for people to go. That is the crux of many of the issues and the cases that we are discussing. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was right to draw attention in his Bill to the need to provide more authorised sites across the country, or to find areas that may be suitable for gypsy communities to buy and develop under the existing planning regime.

The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to the report commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the initial findings of which were published in October 2002. The report concluded that the number of residential pitches and transit sites should be increased. We are considering its recommendations and will shortly receive the full report, which will be examined in detail. I am happy to let hon. Members know when that report is likely to arrive.

We need to consider the report's recommendations in some detail. We appreciate the reasons behind the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Billericay, but we cannot support specific aspects of it at this stage. There are important arguments for the reintroduction of a duty to provide sites—to take one of the interesting issues that the Bill raises—and I am keen to consider that further. There was a duty to provide sites under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, but that was broadly thought not to have worked, because the provision of sites did not keep up with need at the time.

We must consider the issue further, because arguments that applied in 1994 may not apply today. We must also remember that local authorities have the ability to provide sites. They also have an incentive to do so, given that planning and courts decisions will depend on whether alternative sites are available. However, there is still under-provision. We need to consider the broader context, but I am happy to discuss these issues further once we have received the full research report.

We recognise the need for investment in some of the sites. That is why we have made £17 million available in the past three years, via the gypsy site refurbishment grant, to bring unused and underused sites back into full use. There will be a further £16 million in the next two years. That money is not only for existing sites; it can also be used for the creation of transit and emergency sites. We need to consider that further, and to study the research when it comes through.

We all recognise that the level of provision underpins many of the planning and enforcement issues, because planning and enforcement decisions are much easier if alternative sites are available.

Does the Minister accept that, despite more money being provided to deal with the problem, and despite the Government's general recognition that it is an issue, far too many local authorities still have no authorised sites? That is causing a real problem. If the responsibility is to be shared, and if we are to stop courts making adverse decisions against councils that have won planning decisions because there are no authorised sites, we are not going to make much progress. I urge the Minister to address that point. If I may be so bold, I also urge her to deal with the other two points that I mentioned in relation to my Bill: speeding up injunctions, and a notice to remedy.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why I said that I am keen to look into the matter further. However, we also need to recognise that it is the same local authorities—those that have decisions made against them and have planning decisions overturned because there are no alternative sites—that are making the decision not to provide alternative sites. They are either not providing authorised local authority sites or not ensuring that there are other sites available that local gypsy communities can purchase and develop under the existing planning regime.

It is within the power of local authorities to take action in that regard, which is why we need to go into the issue a little further. The question is not simply whether we can impose a duty on local authorities and whether that will solve the problem. Local authorities face difficulties in dealing with unauthorised encampments, and could act differently.

rose—

rose—

I am conscious of the time, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate.

I am grateful to the Minister. She has told us that she is keen to consider the issue further. In the remaining two minutes, could she admit that there is a real problem, and give a personal commitment that, once she has considered the research report, she will come forward with proposals of her own to deal with it? Those proposals should include finding out the scope of the problem, the number of people involved, and whether a nomadic lifestyle exists or not. It should also involve finding out whether adequate sites are provided in an area so that a local authority knows its legal position.

As hon. Members are aware, I have very little time in which to respond. Specific questions were asked. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) asked about planning policy guidance 2, and I will write to him about that and about the figures.

On the general issues, I undertake to share with hon. Members the full research report once we have it. When we have had a chance to consider it, I shall be happy to discuss the issues that it raises.

Hon. Members have put other questions about planning and enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) has already discussed sub-plots with my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree. We are carrying out two reviews: first, the review of permitted development rights, which has implications in this area; and, secondly, the review of planning enforcement issues, during which a major consultation has taken place that has also raised many issues. A considerable amount of work is under way in this area, which we shall examine.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to hold this debate, and congratulate the new Minister on his appointment. The debate follows an early-day motion that I tabled. It has been signed by 199 hon. Members from all parties.

Group B streptococcus, sometimes called group B strep or GBS, is the most common cause of life-threatening infection in newborn babies in the United Kingdom. I suspect that I am not alone among hon. Members in not having heard of it before becoming a Member of Parliament and holding surgeries. We all know about conditions such as Down's syndrome, spina bifida or epilepsy that can affect young children. We are familiar with infections such as HIV, which are screened for during pregnancy. GBS is less well known. It needs to be discussed and understood more fully.

I pay tribute to two brave parents, Craig and Alison Richards, who came to my surgery to explain how their son Owen had died soon after birth with a GBS infection. I also thank Jane Plumb and the charity, Group B Strep Support, which is doing excellent work in raising awareness and helping parents. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) here, as I know how much he supports her work. Jane also lost her baby and is determined to ensure that other parents do not suffer in the same way. That should be our goal, too.

It is impossible to imagine the pain of parents who have suffered such a loss. They go from the high of seeing their new child born to the low of watching their child die, often in only a few hours. The early-day motion and the recent other publicity on GBS have led to many parents writing to their MPs, to me or to the Minister. They are all desperate to see something done. I want to use my time today to set out the facts about GBS, and to ask questions about what the Government propose to do about it. I do not expect the Minister to have all the answers today, but I hope that this debate marks the start of a process of giving the condition far greater attention in Whitehall and the NHS.

We are talking about largely preventable illnesses and deaths. It is estimated that GBS infects up to 700 babies a year—that is one in 1,000. It can cause septicaemia, pneumonia and meningitis, typically in the first days of life and up to the age of three months. About 10 to 15 per cent.—perhaps as many as 100 babies a year—die from the infection. It is difficult to deal with, because GBS is carried by up to 30 per cent. of adults without symptoms. It is a normal part of our systems that cannot be eradicated. It usually lives in the intestines. Up to 25 per cent. of women carry it at any time without problems or symptoms.

The problem is even more difficult to deal with, because babies are usually exposed to GBS shortly before or during birth. That happens to thousands of babies with no ill effects. It is not clear why some babies develop infections when others do not. A further twist in the tale is provided by the fact that, until now, a reliable test to find out whether an adult is carrying GBS has not been available to the general public. The available test gives positive results correctly 50 per cent. of the time. The Minister will know that that is no good. Results that should have been positive were wrong as often as they were right.

On the positive side, it is known that GBS infection can be prevented by giving women who carry it intravenous antibiotics from the onset of labour, or from when their waters break until the baby is born. According to Group B Strep Support,

"The recommended use of intravenous anti-biotics reduces the likelihood of early onset GBS infection developing in a baby born to a mother carrying GBS … from around 1 in 300 to less than 1 in 6,000."

Risk factors can also show that a baby is at greater risk of developing GBS. They include waters breaking early, high maternal temperature during labour, or pre-term labour. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that what is needed is relatively simple: an accurate test to find out whether pregnant women are carrying GBS. That could then be combined with the risk factors to ensure that antibiotics are given. Better still, all mothers carrying GBS could be offered the antibiotics. In that way, we could radically reduce the number of babies who die each year. That is what the issue comes down to.

Until now, reliable tests have been available in the UK only for research purposes, despite the fact that they are not that difficult or expensive to carry out. I will spare hon. Members the details, but it is a matter of taking swabs and placing them in an enriched culture. They have been available in other countries for some time. The US now routinely screens pregnant women late in their pregnancy. The new tests are very accurate and are now available in the UK. OmniLabs Pathology Services is offering them for £18 per test. Nothing comparable is available on the NHS and women can obtain the new service only on the authorisation of a health professional, not all of whom are fully briefed about this vital issue. There is a strong case for urgent action.

I must say to the Minister that the letter that I first received from the Department of Health about the issue on 28 April this year was slightly complacent. It was all about the work of the UK National Screening Committee, rather than GBS. I should have thought that, when a condition is killing 100 babies a year, it would receive more attention. GBS was mentioned just once. The letter explained that

"The current position on screening for GBS is that it should not be offered to pregnant women except in the context of a research project approved by an ethics committee. However, evidence on screening will be reviewed by the NSC by March 2004 following a Paediatric Surveillance Unit Study."

At present, we do not even seem to be doing enough for pregnant women who display the early warning signs or the risk factors. In the case of one couple who e-mailed me, their first child had a GBS infection but survived. The second died. I shall tell the House what happened, because it brings home the problem. The e-mail said:

"My wife gave birth to our second child, a beautiful girl called Erin Clare on the 29th May 2003 … She was 3 weeks premature. Erin died … on the 2nd July 2003 from subdural hemorrhage and group B Streptococcus septicemia. This is extremely painful for us as our first child, Thomas spent 3 days in intensive care due to this infection, he fortunately survived and is fit and well. Despite us telling the maternity staff … of this fact when my wife was admitted to have Erin, no antibiotics were given during the period her waters had broken or during the labour."

That brings home the point that the parents are legitimately asking why antibiotics were not given automatically in the case of the second child.

Testing is routine in the USA, Canada, Australia and parts of Europe. In the United States, the use of antibiotics for at-risk pregnant mothers has brought down the death rate by 70 per cent. We must use their experience rather than feel that we have to replicate all the research. As Robert Feldman, the chairman of the medical advisory panel of Group B Strep Support, said:

"why do the UK authorities feel they have to undertake detailed, costly and complex independent assessments of the need to screen for GBS carriage (including performing research much of which has already been done elsewhere) when so many other countries have already adopted screening and seen the incidence of GBS infections fall?"

I accept that there are some differences among medical practitioners about the matter. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists wrote to me, welcoming the debate that I have helped to start. However, it said:

"Before recommending routine antenatal screening of all pregnant women in the UK, clear evidence is required to demonstrate that it does more good than harm and that the benefits are cost-effective."

Surely, again, the answer is to look at the evidence from abroad, rather than waiting too long for our homegrown evidence. In fact, the letter provides a clue about what should be done. It opens with the sentence:

"GBS … can have … fatal consequences for newborn babies if not identified promptly and managed appropriately."

I absolutely agree, but waiting to treat sick babies is too late. How can we identify the babies at risk without screening the mothers while they are pregnant? How can we manage the problem without more training and dissemination of information? Robert Feldman says:

'I challenge anyone to produce a scientific paper showing that it is not clinically effective, and I can produce several to show that it is. The same significant drop in rates of neonatal GBS infection has been shown in lots of studies. As to cost effective: it depends how much value you put on babies" lives. I suppose if you value them at £0, it isn't cost effective. But there are lots of more expensive tests available to pregnant women, often for conditions that are much rarer or that can't be treated."

This condition can be treated.

Let me ask the most important questions on the issue. First, why is there no proper provision for telling pregnant women about the risks of GBS infection? The number of children who suffer from infections and of those who die justifies more information being given. That is illustrated clearly on all the relevant websites, many of which I have visited.

Secondly, why is no comprehensive briefing and information given to the relevant health care professionals—the GPs, midwives, community nurses and others? I have received letters and e-mails from parents who have had problems with that, saying, "Why was the proper information not given to our health professionals?" So much information is provided about the different syndromes from which children suffer. There are reams of information in general practitioners" surgeries about what to do and what not to do during pregnancy. GBS, however, seems to be ignored.

Thirdly, will the Government consider a comprehensive screening programme, especially now that a proper, reliable test is available? In an ideal world, such a test should routinely be offered to all pregnant women. That would cost money, although as it became standard, the costs would fall. In the short term, however, should not GPs, midwives, community nurses and others advise mothers about the availability of the test?

Let me add a word about the cost. At present, the 600 babies a year who get a GBS infection and survive must cost the NHS a small fortune. Much of the cost of the additional care, medicine and attention that they receive is preventable, to say nothing of the pain that the child will suffer, or the parents" anguish.

I know a little bit about this, being the father of a 15-month-old baby with epilepsy and cerebral palsy. He is in and out of hospital on a monthly basis with endless complications and infections. I have cost the NHS a small fortune. I will always be grateful to it for the care that we have received, and for the vast amount of equipment, medicine, syringes, pumps, specially designed chairs and other paraphernalia that are stacked up in my kitchen now that my child is back at home. His case had nothing to do with GBS, or any preventable illness, but it reinforces in my mind the need to keep children and their parents out of hospital if that is possible.

Group B Strep Support's aim, which I support, is for the routine test to be offered to all pregnant women, with those who are found to have GBS at the 35 to 37-week stage being automatically offered intravenous antibiotics. Even if the Government moved to an interim stage, offering antibiotics to those who tested positive and showed a risk factor, the lives of perhaps half the babies who would otherwise die each year—around 100—would be saved.

Why does not the Minister go the whole hog and try to cut completely the dreadful figures for babies getting infections and dying? I hope that he will give us some clear answers. What is the Government's attitude to the new test, which is now available? What estimates have they made of the cost of introducing it? When does the Minister believe that decisions will be made about this vital issue? Why is the handling of GBS so different throughout the country? From so many of the communications that I have had, it emerges that there is no proper nationwide programme for dealing with the condition.

I hope that the Minister will show great urgency over the issue, will tell us that action will be taken and will, at least, set out a timetable for making the right decisions. I look forward to hearing his reply.

We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) for securing the debate.

I was contacted at around the same time as the hon. Gentleman by two of my constituents from Abingdon who raised concerns about the infection and the effect that it can have on families and society as a whole. I wrote to the Department of Health and received a similar—I suspect identical—reply to the one sent to him.

I should like the Minister to tell us why the Government have not yet instituted a screening programme, and what is their policy. For a screening programme to be introduced, there must be a sufficiently specific, sensitive test that is acceptable and safe. I understand, and I should be grateful if he would confirm, that the low vaginal swab with enrichment meets those criteria. Is there an efficacious intervention after screening that would make it useful for that to be carried out? I believe that there is. There is good evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis would be efficacious for those who have been positively identified as carrying group B strep. The risks are minimal, although the Government, in their letter to me of 8 April—and to the hon. Member for Witney—talked in two parts about risk. The risk of antibiotic anaphylactic reactions is small compared with the benefit. The key question is whether it is cost-effective.

Will the Minister clarify the best estimate of the cost-effectiveness of a screening programme? The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says that 7,000 colonised women would need to be given prophylaxis to prevent one neonatal death from GBS, and that that would require the screening of 24,000 women. It is capable of producing a cost-effectiveness analysis of the programme, but the latest evidence should be made explicit now. The Government can then say that that is why they will not introduce the programme or that they may consider doing so when the National Screening Committee has finished its work. I should be grateful if the Minister could be explicit and specific on that issue.

I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) for welcoming me to my post, for taking the matter so seriously and for organising the campaign. I must confess that, until I took up my job and read the letters to Members of Parliament from the many constituents who have been following his campaign, I was not aware of the seriousness of the issue. I assure him that I shall take it extremely seriously.

I wish to make a promise at the outset: I have an open mind about the matter. I shall be detailing some of the work that I have asked to be done thoroughly and openly. If the results of that research show that the Government's position needs to change, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will change. I shall take his comments and the results of the research seriously. I also thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for his speech. If I do not deal with the matters that he raised in sufficient detail, I shall write to him and to the hon. Member for Witney. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on his role in the campaign. I shall copy to him any letters that I write as a result of the debate.

I wish to summarise the Government's position. We understand completely the heartache caused by a losing a child, and we want to minimise it as much as we can. The high point of my emotional life was the birth of my daughter, and I cannot imagine the pain that I would have felt if I had lost her soon after birth. I fully sympathise with people who have experienced such problems.

As a Minister, I must ask myself whether the introduction of a new process that will involve the routine screening of all women and—as implied by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon—the possible use of prophylactic antibiotics could do more harm than good. The hon. Gentleman said that the risks of anaphylactic shock as a result of prophylactic antibiotics is minimal. We estimate that one in 100,000 mothers will die as a result of prophylactic antibiotics. Given the number of people who we estimate will be receiving prophylactic antibiotics, that means that approximately three mothers will die every two years.

I must be sure that, if the Government introduce the use of prophylactic antibiotics, the benefits will outweigh the fact that three mums will die as a result of the policy. In addition, significantly more mums will have anaphylactic shock during labour, and their babies might be affected by the process. I must be sure that by doing this we are going to save more babies than we harm. That is why the Government are saying that we are not yet convinced of the need to introduce a routine screening and prophylactic process. We have asked for the necessary research to be done, and I assure hon. Members that I will look at that carefully and with an open mind.

There were 377 cases of group B streptococcus in babies out of nearly 600,000 births when we last did a survey in 2001. Of the babies affected in 2001, 39 died. That is the number of babies that we have the potential of saving if we can find the procedure that will save all of them. We estimate that prophylactic antibiotics might save 50 to 60 per cent. of those 39 babies, so we can say that about 20 babies might be saved. However, the use of prophylactic antibiotics would put at risk 16 babies as a result of their mothers going into anaphylactic shock. I hope that hon. Members are beginning to see the tight balance that we will have to strike when the research comes through.

The UK National Screening Committee advises Ministers about all aspects of screening policy. In forming its proposals, it draws on the latest research evidence and the skills of convened multidisciplinary expert groups. It assesses proposed new population screening programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria. The condition, the test, the treatment options, the effectiveness and the acceptability of the screening programmes are all matters that the NSC advises me on. Assessing screening programmes in this way is intended to ensure that they do more good than harm, and at reasonable cost.

It was said that in the private sector the test costs about £18 a time. If we were to do that nationally for 600,000 people, the price would come down, but even if we could say that it will come down to half that price, we are still talking about £6 million. That is not an insignificant price: I accept that in the context of saving babies" lives it does not look like a great cost, but it is still a significant amount of money.

In the case of group B streptococcus, the NSC currently advises that routine screening should not be offered to all pregnant women. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that routine screening, and treating those carrying the organism with intravenous antibiotics during labour, would be beneficial. There have been no randomised controlled tests comparing different screening strategies—for example, comparing antenatal screening with no antenatal screening, or comparing outcomes of screening with current UK clinical practice. In more than half of all neonatal infections, it is not possible to identify the organism responsible through laboratory culture tests. No study has yet been able to show an impact on neonatal infections overall from screening for group B streptococcus.

Further research is needed in the UK setting. That is being considered. The NSC has commissioned an assessment of the existing evidence of screening for group B streptococcus in pregnancy against the criteria used to assess potential screening programmes. I have asked for that to be done thoroughly and as quickly as possible, and I have asked the NSC to consider the recommendations at its December meeting.

The health technology assessment research and development panel considers research into screening for group B streptococcus to be a high priority for further research, and it will consider more detailed information on commissioning further research at its December meeting. The HTA programme is also currently considering detailed proposals for research into the effectiveness of a rapid test for group B streptococcus carriage that could be used during labour.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has commissioned a draft clinical guideline on the prevention and treatment of early onset neonatal group B streptococcus disease. The draft guideline, which is currently on the RCOG website, is expected to be finalised by the end of 2003. I hope that that will give some reassurance about what we are trying to do to ensure that professionals have advice about this situation.

That guideline currently states that routine screening for antenatal GBS carriage is not recommended. The draft guideline by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on antenatal care does not recommend screening all women for GBS as part of routine antenatal care either. We are aware that antenatal screening takes place in the United States. The US guideline recommends screening at 35 to 37 weeks. It involves rectal and vaginal swabs and treating all carriers of GBS thus identified with intravenous antibiotics during labour to reduce the risk of early onset GBS. Other strategies employed include giving out antibiotics in labour to those women with risk factors for neonatal infections without screening, or a combination of the screening and risk factors approach.

Research in the United States population may not be applicable to the different circumstances of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman said, we should not reinvent the wheel and repeat the research, but the screening procedures used in the US and Australia reduce the level of GBS in those countries only to the level that we achieve without any screening programme. There is clearly something different about the US situation. We have to find out what it is. It might have something to do with the more routine prophylactic use of antibiotics in food or the antenatal care in the US. The fact remains that this screening process and the use of prophylactic antibiotics only brings the US to our level. We have to understand that before we can move forward. We do not import the foreign learning because we are not convinced that it will apply to the United Kingdom.

I am grateful to the Minister for his open-minded approach. He has clearly thought about this a lot. Will he undertake to hold a meeting with mothers who have suffered in this way and who are quite anxious to come to Parliament to make their views known? Perhaps he could do so when some of the evidence of the research is available. He could explain to them some of the points that he is making now. Will he keep his mind open in the meantime?

I am absolutely happy to do that. I invite the hon. Gentleman to lead that delegation. As soon as he thinks that the time is right, I will be happy to talk to him and other colleagues who are here today if they wish to join the delegation.

The screening test that is used in the United States is unpleasant—it involves rectal and vaginal swabs—and a substantial number of carriers may be missed. We would have to introduce a screening programme for all pregnant women, which would involve 650,000 sets of rectal and vaginal swabs each year. We would end up identifying about 160,000 women a year—a quarter of all pregnancies—who would require prophylactic antibiotics.

I recently appeared before the Health Committee Maternity Sub-Committee. Its message to me was that it wants births to be as natural as possible. It wants women to have as much choice as possible. It wants them to be able to have home births or to move around the ward when they are in labour. If we start down this route, 160,000 women will immediately be put on intravenous drips during labour. Many will not want that. They will find it restrictive.

In the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and the Minister's reply, mention has been made of the disparate way in which the matter is handled throughout the United Kingdom. I am still awaiting a reply from the chief medical officer on behalf of the group whose headquarters is in my constituency. Would the Minister say a little about the alternative ways in which it is handled throughout the country?

I will certainly ensure that the chief medical officer replies to the hon. Gentleman. I will undertake to get hold of that letter and circulate it among the three hon. Members present, if that is an acceptable way of dealing with the matter.

It is estimated that one in every 10,000 women treated with prophylactic antibiotics would have a serious anaphylactic reaction. That means that 16 babies would be affected by their mother going into anaphylactic shock during labour. I was flicking TV channels last night and saw one programme that showed a woman doing just that. It was extremely unpleasant, and she came close to death. We would have to take that into account if we introduced the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics, and

It being half-past Eleven o"clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting until Two o"clock.

I am delighted to introduce today's debate but the circumstances, as ever, are difficult. This is the first opportunity we have had to acknowledge the 15th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster. On 6 July 1988, there was a massive explosion on the Piper Alpha platform. A gas processor had exploded and set off a chain reaction that destroyed the platform and killed 167 men. The 15th anniversary was last Sunday. I wish to express in the strongest possible terms my sympathy for relatives who lost loved ones and for those survivors whose lives were so tragically affected by the Piper Alpha disaster.

It is also appropriate to remember other workers who died or who were seriously injured in offshore accidents. In a little more than 20 years, from 1980 to 2001, there were 1,377 serious injuries and fatalities; there were 376 deaths, including the Piper victims, and 104 people were killed in helicopter incidents. So far this year, there has been one death, which is tragic enough. An oil worker died on an Ensco rig in Morecambe bay.

The oil and gas extraction industry is very dangerous. At the time of the disaster in 1988, I was a young and inexperienced Member of Parliament. I was overwhelmed by the impact of the disaster, which had happened more or less on my doorstep. I met many relatives and survivors repeatedly, all of whom live each day with the painful memory of their loss. Everyone responded differently to the disaster. Some were angry, many people became involved in long-term campaigns for changes in offshore safety, while many others campaigned for prosecutions for unlawful killing. Many people did not want to be reminded of the disaster, however, and kept their feelings to themselves. It is important to respect that.

Such matters highlight our difficult job as parliamentarians. We need to analyse the errors that led to the Piper Alpha disaster and ensure that systems are in place to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. I want to reflect a little on what led to the disaster, the disaster itself, the response and some contemporary issues that have a bearing on safety in the North sea today.

Long before I had heard of Piper Alpha, I was well aware of the safety problems of the oil and gas industry. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a practising solicitor in north-east Scotland. I dealt with many personal injury cases that arose from offshore work. For lawyers, the injuries were not that different from injuries in an industrial environment. What was different, however, was the apparent lack of an offshore safety culture. I heard many times about a pressured working environment in which tight deadlines were imposed, risks were taken constantly and access to proper medical facilities was limited. The industry had a frontier mentality. Huge investment in platform construction and infrastructure meant that the race to begin and maintain production was intense.

I discussed regularly with insurance companies the appalling tales that I had heard about the industry. I remember vividly one specific discussion. My client had been working on a drill floor and was badly burned by acid. He was taken for a shower and then to his bunk. The drilling did not stop and the offshore installation manager refused to arrange for a helicopter to take him ashore for medical treatment. He had to wait for the next scheduled flight. When I asked the insurance company representative why there was no pressure on the industry to improve its safety procedure, he was blunt. He said, "They don't want anything to interfere with production. They will pay the higher premiums— it's much cheaper for them." That was the approach of the industry in those days. That cynical view suggested that the many injuries and fatalities that occurred in those early years were accepted by the industry as inevitable.

If the Government had been more vigilant, things might have been different. Safety inspections at that time were carried out by officials at the Department of Energy. Ten months before the tragedy on the Piper Alpha there was another death on the platform—a Mr. Sutherland was killed. There were inspections following his death and later that year, in June 1988, there was a further inspection. Apparently, the inspector noticed a few points, but none of the serious problems that led to the disaster. Paragraph 15.48 of the report of Lord Cullen's inquiry stated:

"Even after making allowances for the fact that the inspection in June 1988 proceeded on the basis of sampling, it is clear to me that it was superficial to the point of being of little use as a test of safety on the platform. It did not reveal any of the clear cut and readily ascertainable deficiencies."

What Lord Cullen said about the inspection on the Piper Alpha could have been said about any number of offshore platforms. There was no effective control of safety standards offshore. I firmly believe that if the accident had not happened on the Piper Alpha, it would have happened elsewhere in the North sea. The substantial change and improvement and investment in health and safety that the industry so desperately needed, were forced on it by the scale and impact of the Piper Alpha disaster. It was also the first major event to expose to the Government the weakness in the industry's approach.

Basically, the industry's view was that, as long as it was close to Government, and they approved of what it was doing or at least were prepared to turn a blind eye, everything was okay. That showed that the policy of engaging with the Government was working and delivering for the industry. The fact that the approach to health and safety was fundamentally wrong and that the operators were taking massive and potentially very expensive risks in pursuing the policies never seemed to occur to anyone in the industry or in the Government.

There are many reasons why the Piper Alpha disaster happened. Lord Cullen's inquiry picked up most of them but steered clear of some of the more controversial reasons. For example, he highlighted the strategic issues, which applied to the industry as a whole—the lack of a safety culture offshore, the inadequacy of safety training, the poor inter-platform communication and the poor communication between land-based emergency services and the platforms. He also recognised the conflict of interest between the Department of Energy's departmental responsibilities for production and for safety.

As for the Piper Alpha, Cullen highlighted a number of problems, such as the failures of the safety audit and risk assessment system, the failure of the permit-to-work system, the fact that there were no adequate firewalls or explosion barriers, the failure to maintain the deluge system and the common practice of switching off the system. In the inspection that took place in June 1988, just days before the disaster, none of those items was picked up, which is a major criticism of the safety system at that time.

However, the matter that Lord Cullen spent less time considering was the immense economic pressure on operators at that time and the culture that existed in the offshore industry. The North sea was a relatively new oil province and the cost of exploiting our oil and gas resources was enormous. The Piper Alpha platform cost more than $1 billion. There was enormous pressure to recover the financial outlay. The Government were also under pressure. They wanted to start collecting the revenues. In the financial year 1988–89, when the Piper Alpha exploded, a total of £3.6 billion was paid to the Exchequer in oil taxation and gas levy. That was a fairly low take from the North sea.

A couple of years previously, the Exchequer received more than £12 billion, so it was a huge investment for the Government. The take was low in 1988 because of a collapse in oil prices and many thought that the price collapse in 1985–86 contributed to the disaster. Neither the oil industry nor the Government had any incentive to pay proper attention to safety offshore. As I said, there was a frontier mentality. Employment in the offshore oil and gas industry was like no other employment in the United Kingdom.

All Lord Cullen's recommendations were implemented. In particular, health and safety was transferred from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive, and a new offshore safety division was established. Every installation was required to produce a safety plan. They were based on a goal-setting approach with proper risk assessment and involvement of the work force. Cullen's findings fundamentally changed the approach to health and safety offshore. They also had a major impact on every other area of health and safety in the UK and other parts of the world.

There is no doubt that Lord Cullen's recommendations have led to huge improvements in safety offshore, but the situation is not perfect. There are still serious accidents and deaths. Available figures show that, between the Piper Alpha disaster and 2001, there have been a further 68 deaths. Subsequent to the 2001 published figures, there have been other deaths; I mentioned one that occurred earlier this year on the Ensco rig at Morecambe bay. There has been a combined total of 780 deaths and serious injuries offshore in that time. The figures are still far too high. It is important to recognise that the oil industry has made tremendous efforts to improve the safety system offshore since Piper Alpha. The relations between the Government and the oil industry in respect of safety are now encompassed in Pilot, which was created by the Government to be their point of liaison with the oil industry for several reasons, particularly safety.

The initiative that is now being led by Pilot is the step change limit safety strategy. The step change initiative was launched at the 1997 Offshore Europe conference. It set a target of a 50 per cent. improvement in safety. The success of the initiative is monitored by the HSE's safety statistics. Statistics published in March 2001 showed that the all-injury rate had improved by 35 per cent., and the fatal and major injury rate by 16 per cent.

Those statistics are significant. They note the positive results due to the implementation of step change and highlight the fact that much remains to be accomplished. The programme has set out objectives for 2003, which include a common emergency telephone number, a drive for personal responsibility—always difficult in an environment such as the North sea—and a review of incidents with a high potential for serious injury or damage. I strongly support those efforts. They have led to positive improvements in the safety regime, but it is obvious that the industry needs to do more. Having said that, I recognise how stubborn a problem that is, and how difficult it is to move forward in the environment of the North sea.

That outline of the background and history of the matter takes us at a swift canter to where we are today. I mentioned the progress that has been made on safety, and it is a tragedy that it took the Piper Alpha disaster to change some of the fundamentals of the industry. At the same time, we have to recognise the progress that has been made. There are a number of issues that have a bearing on safety that need to be considered.

The momentum towards introducing an offence of corporate killing arose in 1988. It is interesting to look back at that period, because at that time there were a number of high profile disasters, including Piper Alpha, the Zeebrugge ferry, the Marchioness on the Thames and the Clapham rail disaster. All those led to a demand for the creation of a new offence, corporate killing. The Law Commission considered that matter in 1996 and made positive recommendations. They have not yet been implemented, but I was pleased when the Home Secretary announced two months ago that he would introduce such an offence. It is an urgent issue that represents unfinished business from Piper Alpha. It is important that it is implemented.

Another major issue arises from the fact that the North sea oil and gas industry is now mature. Some will say it is in decline—I prefer to be more optimistic. Records show that we have produced about half the oil that has been, or is likely to be, discovered. It is a mature province. Things are changing. There is more economic pressure in the North sea and many of the older-established companies are moving away or, in most cases, disposing of their assets. New entrants are coming into the North sea. That raises the potential for some exciting opportunities, but risks are attached to them.

Many of the new entrants do not come into the area with the same culture as those who lived through the period of the Piper Alpha. I am not making any allegations against, or suggestions about, those companies, but I sound a warning that, as we go through a period of change and new entrants take up their places in the North sea oil industry, all sides should work to ensure that there is no slippage of safety as a result of that changeover. It is important that they are in tune with the North sea safety culture.

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the new generation of independents that is coming in is taking over equipment that is 20 years old or more? How does he think that that should be addressed? Some of the large companies that owned that equipment for many years have been able to put in considerable resources.

That is an important point. I am fairly sure that that will be the least of our worries; it should not be a problem if the safety inspectorate is doing its job. It is also unlikely to be a problem because there was massive investment in the North sea industry's infrastructure and platforms, particularly following the Piper Alpha disaster: throughout the 1990s, there was substantial expenditure on safety equipment and safety measures by the North sea oil and gas industry. However, it will be a problem if there is not sufficient investment to maintain that infrastructure. That is where monitoring is needed.

It is important to recognise some of the problems that affect the offshore work force. It is clear that there is a decline in that work force. Major companies have announced substantial redundancies in the past few months. Some are a result of the change in ownership of platforms, but all have an effect on morale. Those redundancies do not only affect the people in those companies, because—this may sound like a foolish thing to say—the North sea is a small village and news travels fast. If one company is affected, people begin to worry about how their company's business will be affected. There is a knock-on effect that must be recognised.

It must also be recognised that the oil industry is not very good at communicating, particularly with its own work force. I have recently had discussions with several companies about their failure to communicate properly with their work force about changes in the business that affect that work force directly. I hope that the Government's information and consultation proposals announced earlier this week will take root in the North sea and that if the industry will not provide its own means of communicating directly with its work force, the work force will take advantage of the facilities in the legislation that will be introduced, to establish its own processes with management. It must be emphasised that this is about maintaining morale. If anyone who works in the environment of the North sea industry feels that their job is under threat, that has an impact. If they feel that the future of the industry as a whole is under threat, that is even more devastating.

Also on communication, there has been considerable recent discussion—and concern—about proposed changes in safety systems. BP has pressed ahead with what it calls its jigsaw proposals. Basically, they are an examination of its safety systems. The original proposal was to replace stand-by vessels with helicopters. The situation has now moved on, and we have a proposal for a mix of helicopters, stand-by vessels and other emergency response vessels. I have supported BP's approach on the simple basis that if a company is prepared to spend £10 million just on examining its safety system, that is welcome expenditure and we need to learn the lessons that come from it. At the same time, what is proposed needs to be properly attested by the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that it meets North sea safety requirements.

It must also be recognised that those proposals do not only affect BP employees and the people who work on BP platforms. There is concern that that safety system might be rolled out across the North sea: BP is in discussion with other companies. That has an effect on employees whose employers have not yet taken the opportunity to explain what this is all about. Any threat to safety—that is how it will be seen by some employees—will cause concern.

I am conscious of the clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to raise the issue of the working time regulations. The Minister will know that last week the Department of Trade and Industry made an announcement introducing regulations that will implement the horizontal amending directive, which will affect a number of industries including the North sea industry. There is some uncertainty about the regulations. I was heavily involved in negotiations and discussions with the industry and trade unions, and I frequently spoke about them to the Minister responsible for employment. I therefore know most of the background.

The expectation of the offshore work force was that there would be changes to the holidays. However, the unions" interpretation of the regulations is that the work force will not get any extra holidays as a result of the published regulations. That is not my interpretation, and I know that the Minister with responsibility for employment is to write to the oil industry to say that his interpretation is that there will be two weeks extra holiday for workers. Doubts need to be cleared up. If the expectations of the offshore work force are not met, when they have been led to expect additional holidays, it will affect morale, which could affect safety. Any uncertainty needs to be cleared up quickly.

Finally, safety representatives are one of the key elements of the offshore safety system. I raised a worry with the Minister's predecessor that had been raised by one of the trade unions. I will not go into it in detail because of time. However, I received a letter from the Minister just half an hour ago setting out his position. I had referred to the employment tribunal case of Mr. Stephen Hayward v. Eurest and Maersk Company Ltd., which prompted major concern for the unions about working practices offshore. The case revolves around the protection that a health and safety representative has when he or she raises safety issues on an installation. Mr. Hayward was an employee of Eurest and Maersk Company Ltd. decided that it wanted him off the platform, and the tribunal decided that because Maersk was not his employer, part of his case could be found against him. The unions are worried because it was always understood that the health and safety representative regulations would give protection against any detriment, and Mr. Hayward regards being removed from his platform as a detriment. His employers had no control over where he was.

Every offshore installation is regarded as being in the same legal position as a vessel, where the master is in control. The offshore installation manager—the OIM—on that platform, who was a Maersk employer, could therefore decide that someone whom he did not employ should leave the ship. That undermines the protection of safety representatives. The unions raised that issue with me in the context of the review that is being conducted of the health and safety representative regulations. It has been a long-standing grievance of the offshore unions that union-appointed representatives do not have the same rights as those of unions onshore do. In the unions view, they need more protection.

I should close, as I have spoken for longer than I anticipated, for which I apologise. The Piper Alpha disaster changed the fundamentals of the oil industry, not just in the North sea but around the world. It taught us never to relax on safety issues. There have been massive improvements in safety since the disaster, but the accidents continue. I have expressed some concerns today, but I know that not all of them fall within the Minister's brief; I do not expect him to respond to all my points. However, with the will of the oil industry and the Government, and the proper involvement of the work force, we can continue the improvement.

rose—

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I remind Members that the object of an Adjournment debate is to enable the Member who secured it to hear what the Minister has to say. I have no power to impose limits on speeches, but I ask Members to be brief so that we can do that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on securing the debate. It is highly appropriate that it is being held around the 15th anniversary of Piper Alpha. I apologise in advance to hon. Members for the fact that, due to a medical appointment, I cannot stay until the end of the debate. No discourtesy is intended.

I feel strongly about what the hon. Gentleman said about the impact on young MPs. I was a young MP when the Piper Alpha disaster happened. It had a huge impact on how we regarded things and there was a sea change in attitudes to the oil industry. I was involved with the Energy Committee and ensuring that the Cullen recommendations were implemented. However, the impact on us as Members of Parliament is nothing compared with the enormous impact that the disaster had on the relatives of those who died and the survivors, who were greatly affected and have lived with it for the past 15 years. On the 10th anniversary a powerful, moving film by Ed Punchard, one of the survivors, was shown in the precincts of the House.

Looking back at what was said in the debates and questions that surrounded the 10th anniversary, it is disappointing that one issue is, as the hon. Gentleman described it, unfinished business that has yet to be resolved. Five years ago there was some optimism and belief that corporate killing would be dealt with properly—that was not the case throughout the 1990s. Despite the welcome indications that action is about to take place, I am disappointed that, even on the 15th anniversary of that horrendous disaster, that issue has not been dealt with properly. I hope that the Minister will give us some information about a timetable for dealing with it. That is not the only thing outstanding from Piper Alpha, but it is probably one of the most important.

I endorse just about everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I also agree that the importance of the step change initiative launched in 1997 cannot be underestimated. Two aspects of that initiative made it particularly important and successful. First, it was carried forward at a high level in the oil industry. The chairman of the initiative was George Watkins, the managing director of Conoco in the North sea at the time. George has recently retired and we should all compliment him on his career generally and on the step change initiative in particular.

Secondly, Rab Wilson, who as many of us know is a union official with long experience in North sea matters, a couple of years ago said:

"Step Change is a breath of fresh air. It has created an open, transparent and inclusive mechanism for dealing with safety issues in the offshore sector. We are now all very much partners in developing a new safety culture for our industry."

That endorsement is welcome, because such things were absent in the years before Piper Alpha. That is the single most important lesson that the industry learned from those horrendous events.

The hon. Gentleman put his finger on a matter of current concern, which is that the change in the ownership structure of the North sea brings with it a fresh challenge. I, too, welcome the introduction of new, aggressive exploring companies into the North sea, not least because the track record of the older, more established companies in the development and appraisal of exploration wells has not been good of late. In fact, they have been drilling next to no wells. When the cross-party energy group met last week it discussed the number of new companies coming in. All hon. Members who are concerned about offshore employment, and those who have many constituency and wider economic interests, welcomed the optimism of such companies about the opportunities that undoubtedly still exist in the North sea and will, in my view, continue to do so for the next half century. The implications for safety are important. The hon. Gentleman was correct to stress that in his remarks.

I do not claim that the Health and Safety Executive is not apprised of that process. On the contrary, it released a statement a few weeks ago saying that it would launch a specific campaign on that issue. The Financial Times said:

"The HSE's growing concern at the delays comes 15 years after the explosion on the Piper Alpha oil platform killed 167 people and on the 10th anniversary of offshore safety regulations introduced as a result. It also comes as larger companies shift their attention from the maturing North Sea, with its ageing infrastructure, to promising new regions, and as a new generation of independents takes their place. Many operators are also seeking efficiencies as production declines."

So the Health and Safety Executive seems to have been apprised of the changing ownership environment. The Minister might want to say more about that concern.

I also want to allude to another Financial Times article, which had the headline, "Spectre of Piper Alpha haunts North Sea" and was published on 3 May. It pointed to a number of trends and factors that could affect safety, including the tendency for tighter margins to allow routine maintenance schedules to slip, and the fact that oil production is now less labour-intensive per barrel, so maintenance staff may also be sacrificed in the drive to be more efficient. In addition, as has already been said, despite technological innovations and new preventive measures, much older equipment—some of which has been in use in the field for many years—has a tendency to break down more regularly. Other faults can lie hidden unless specialist testing is used to reveal corrosion and other fractures.

The article raised a substantial concern: it claimed that there was under-reporting of injuries, which could mask the true extent of safety regime failure in the North sea. It cited the example of staff being moved to office work onshore rather than being reported off work for extended periods. I am not claiming that that practice is widespread; none the less, that article, in a reputable newspaper, caused me some concern. I hope that the Minister can address not only that point but the wider issue of how the Government regard the changing ownership structure of the North sea and the ramifications that that will have on safety.

The concern that many of us have about these issues is long-standing, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central was absolutely right to seek the debate. We should not take the fact that only a few hon. Members are present as an indication of lack of concern. However, it is important that we, as representatives, do not allow a culture to come about in which it takes another major incident or disaster for everyone to demonstrate how concerned they have always been. There is a responsibility—it has been discharged by the hon. Gentleman and all of us—to ensure that concerns are raised and questions asked, not necessarily because we believe that wrongful actions are taking place, but because we want everyone to know that their representatives are vigilantly monitoring what is going on. I know that the new Minister will take the opportunity to demonstrate that the Government are apprised of the issues and intend to take effective action.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on securing the debate at this appropriate time. I apologise, not for being unable to stay until the end of the debate, but for missing the start because, as I explained to my hon. Friend, I had an engagement elsewhere. I add the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) who, because of her responsibilities as a member of the Chairmen's Panel, is chairing a meeting elsewhere; otherwise, she would have been here too.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central on his comprehensive speech. I shall try to keep my remarks fairly brief, because I shall cover similar areas. It is wholly appropriate that we commemorate Piper Alpha and the victims—those who tragically lost their lives and those who were physically or mentally scarred but survived the terrible tragedy. We should also remember the suffering of friends, families and relatives. Also, because it was one of the greatest disasters of its kind, we should commemorate all others who have been victims or relatives, or who have been scarred, in other tragedies in the North sea offshore sector.

In Aberdeen city there are memorials both to Piper Alpha and to offshore workers more generally, but surely the best memorial of all must be the fact that we are trying to improve safety and to reduce the risks of other large-scale disasters occurring, and trying to reduce accidents in general, be they fatal or serious, or minor. In building a safety culture, it is crucial that one is concerned about all levels of accident.

My hon. Friend mentioned the work of Lord Cullen. We all pay tribute to what he did and the way in which that helped to effect a fundamental change in the ethos of the industry. I pay tribute to the decision of a previous Government to bring a section of the Health and Safety Executive up to Aberdeen. Many of us campaigned for such a decision and it has helped to improve safety. I add my voice to those that we have already heard on that.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned the work of the oil and gas industry taskforce, which became Pilot, through the step change programme. That was an excellent example of Government, management, oil companies, industry organisations, trade unions and the work force working together. Indeed, that has applied generally in Pilot. The step change work on improving safety has been very valuable.

My next point may be slightly biased, but justifiably so. As a former governor and a current fellow of Robert Gordon university, I pay tribute to all the work that it has done—for example, on initiatives such as the offshore survival centre. We also pay tribute to many other groups.

The atmosphere has changed enormously. In the early days of the offshore industry, there were many more divers than there are now. One heard stories of people who had had only a short period of training being asked to dive to depths to which trained military divers would not go. Those people were a danger to themselves and everyone diving with them. The enormous change in the industry's attitude to that most hazardous of activities is very welcome.

My hon. Friend referred to the situation in which one company was looking at changing from support vessels to helicopters. There was a lot of concern about that, and I am glad that it was fully discussed. The decision was that there would be a general shift to helicopters, but support vessels would be kept That was a good example of people working towards consensus. The greater the diversification in the different forms of safety support, the better one can cope with different forms of tragedy or disaster. That makes every sort of sense and I welcome it.

I also welcome the ingenuity and inventiveness that the industry has shown in trying to find new methods of improving safety. I am thinking of positioning watches and the global positioning system, whereby people who go overboard can be easily and quickly located. There are also lightweight survival suits, so that people will work in the suits, rather than being tempted not to use them. My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, Central and for Aberdeen, South and I feel that it might be helpful for other industries, such as the fishing industry, to consider whether they would be wise to adopt similar safety measures.

The whole ethos and attitude has improved. It is good to go to different places and see the chart showing how long it has been since there was an accident. There can be a slight reporting problem, in that if the installation claims that it has not had an accident for 120 days, there can be the temptation not to register something because it would spoil the record. However, I think that everyone realises the seriousness of the issues and I welcome the change in ethos and attitude.

Sleep and rest are an important part of safety offshore. In the tragic case that was before the courts last year, in which a driver had fallen asleep at the wheel and caused a major rail disaster, the judge said that shortage of sleep could be a greater danger than drink or drugs. It is therefore important for people to have proper rest times. As has already been mentioned, constituents and trade unions have expressed great concern to me and my hon. Friends about the horizontal amending directive—sometimes called the working time directive. I notice from the Government's response to the public consultation that widespread concern has also been expressed to the Government about it.

The Government have indicated in that response that they will accept the 52-week reference period—the longer of the periods that might have been adopted—and that guidance will be sought from Europe on working time and the definition of working time. There was great effort to try to reach some form of consensus in relation to the four weeks, and it is unfortunate that that was not possible. Great concern has been expressed about that. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), will be putting out a letter strongly recommending that, at the very least, a two-week period of additional holiday should be given in relation to the general agreement on four weeks" holiday.

I urge the oil industry to view that recommendation sympathetically, for two reasons in particular: first, because of the importance of co-operation with the industry in relation to safety, and the importance of morale and other issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, and secondly, because I am gravely concerned by the reports in our local newspapers today that safety representatives have been resigning in quite large numbers because they feel that there has not been a proper response from the industry. If that is the case, it would be the cause of grave concern—it could undermine the safety forums, which have been an important part of offshore safety. I join the trade unions in urging safety reps not to resign, but I also urge the industry to think very carefully about how it should respond, and to take the general safety implications into account.

There are difficulties in the industry, and at times that means that people have to work abnormally long shifts—sometimes several close together. However, taking the rail disaster as an example, we must never permit commercial considerations to come above safety considerations in the dangerous environment of the North sea, and in a dangerous industry such as offshore oil.

I believe that most good employers will say that good safety practice and the welfare of their staff is their top priority. Sadly, even in an industry such as the offshore oil industry, there are some bad employers. That is why, a few years ago, I tabled a private Member's Bill in which I sought to update the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. That Act was originally passed under both Labour and Conservative Governments, with cross-party support, but the fines that it imposes are now out of date, and it does not permit the possibility of imprisonment where there has been criminal negligence. That has been criticised by judges in a number of cases.

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) reintroduced that Bill this year. Sadly, because these things sometimes get tied up between the usual channels, it again does not look as if it will progress. It is vital for that Bill to pass. There should be realistic fines for those who demonstrate bad practice, either in relation to health and safety or in not providing properly for the insurance of their staff.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central mentioned corporate manslaughter; he has raised the issue over many years. Like him, I welcome the fact that the Government intend to make progress on it. That is vital.

I want to finish on a positive note. As regards safety, there has been an important improvement in attitudes, performance and co-operation. Much has been achieved, but we need to achieve much more. To repeat, improving safety offshore is the best possible memorial not only for the victims of the Piper Alpha disaster but for all victims.

Before I start, I must mention my entry in the Register of Members" Interests. First, I benefit from shares in Shell. Secondly, as one of the vice-chairmen of the all-party group on the offshore oil and gas industry, I went to the offshore Norwegian sector conference in Stavanger last autumn. The visit was organised by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, and supported by several oil companies. My main interest in the debate, however, relates to my constituency, which is another north-east constituency. Many people there work in the industry or are otherwise involved in it.

Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on taking this opportunity to mark the 15th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster. I certainly remember the night of 6 July, because I was living in Aberdeen at the time. At about midnight, there was a report on the BBC news. It was in that classic style that the BBC has when it knows that there has been a major disaster but does not have enough information to give the full story. However, one could read between the lines that something had gone dramatically wrong in the North sea that night. Indeed, if one lives in Aberdeen, one knows very well when something has gone wrong, because helicopters start flying over the city. As one lay in one's bed, having heard the news, hearing the helicopter traffic in the middle of the night, one knew that other people were suffering quite badly. The next day, we realised the full impact of what had happened: 167 people died.

Piper Alpha was a major tragedy for everyone involved—the families, the relatives, the friends and those who survived. Furthermore, the North sea is a big village, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central said, and the tragedy must have hit everyone working in the sector. They had to go to work the next day, while families and friends stayed at home. That must have put everyone under great stress. The disaster really was a dramatic moment in the life of the North sea and of those affected.

As others have said, such events should not make us lose sight of the fact that every death and serious injury has a major impact on the individuals involved. Every incident is one too many, and we must prevent people from losing their livelihoods as a result of unnecessary accidents offshore. That is why we must pay tribute to the work of Lord Cullen. Often, when there are calls for major judicial inquiries, people say, "It's going to take a lot of time, money and effort." However, we can be proud of what Lord Cullen did. He focused minds on how to improve safety by thinking of it in terms not of a box-ticking exercise but of safety at each installation. That was a real sea change in improving the safety culture.

Like others who have visited offshore installations—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) mentioned this—I have seen the safety on board and the pride that people take in the safety culture. Obviously, when one goes on a day visit, one may simply be getting the best impression from people, and things may sometimes be different. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that people must resist the temptation not to report something.

There is also a temptation for people to say, "We"ve been safe for so long. This is a safe environment." However, the North sea is still a very hostile environment. When safety is managed and there are no accidents, the day-to-day reminders of the danger are not there. That should not, however, take away the recognition of how hostile the environment is.

I went on an interesting visit to a construction yard, where I saw the benefits of bringing the safety culture onshore. Safety has been improved offshore, and the same language has now started to be used onshore. At one time, people offshore used to say, "It's a very hostile environment, and we, have to accept risks." In the same way, people onshore said, "We can sort out safety offshore, but construction is inherently dangerous." Bringing the offshore permit-to-work regime onshore and into the construction yard could improve safety there, too.

Even more positive encouragement for accepting such a safety regime and understanding its processes came about when people started to discover the economic benefits of being safer. Not only were they not incurring losses because there were fewer accidents, but the safety regime resulted in an increased understanding of industrial processes. There is much to be said in favour of positive offshore experiences.

It is a time of change in the North sea, and change can be dangerous if it is not handled carefully. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of how that safety culture will be continued by the new operators in the North sea, and how those who have not experienced what we have been through will be taking on board not only the letter of what is involved but the full culture behind it.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) touched on the attempt to improve the maintenance regime, and the concerns of the Health and Safety Executive about slippage on maintenance. In April 2004, it will be starting a campaign. Even now, if progress has been made, an update and feedback on the campaign to improve maintenance and to ensure that there is no slippage would be useful.

It would be helpful also to hear about the maturity of some of the platforms, a subject raised by others. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central was right to say that much has been invested in those platforms and their maintenance. However, the HSE has expressed concerns about attempts to suppress and to control leaks of hydrocarbons, because they could be the precursor to something major. I wonder whether information on the leaks has been broken down, so that we can say whether they occur in older installations or equipment, or whether they occur across the board in the North sea.

Progressing those matters is important. People lobbied BP and its jigsaw project because it represented change and there was concern that it made matters more dangerous. The lobbying helped to trigger more communication, so that both sides understood what was going on. None the less, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, the location wristwatches that he is keen to see, and the new lightweight survival gear, were the result of the thinking behind the jigsaw project. They were part of the package to make jigsaw work.

I welcome that initiative and the thought that is going on. However, concern is sometimes expressed about the changing nature of some of the training. Because of a greater analysis of safety matters, attempts have been made to narrow down who should receive specialist training on some safety aspects offshore and survival training.

A friend's wife telephoned me to say that she had just heard from his company that the helicopter in which he was travelling had ditched in the North sea. It was a traumatic moment for everyone. The helicopter turned over. My friend said afterwards that the survival training gave him all the necessary instincts, but he was not sure that a video would have got him through it. The fact that people go through the more risky aspects of surviving offshore and experience them first hand helps.

When I was forced by the air cadets from Portlethen to take part in a safety training exercise at RGIT Montrose's former facility at King street, we had to jump into a pool with a wave machine. I understand that the wave machine is not used any more because of the safety risks. People are concerned that the training could be more dangerous than the benefits to be gained from it. It now takes place in a calmer pool. However, those who work offshore are worried that the loss of some of that training is not being carefully thought out. Perhaps the Minister could deal with that point.

Concern has already been expressed about the working time directive. If benefits are to be gained from the aspects of the directive that could impose costs on the industry, the Minister's role in Pilot and in negotiations with the Treasury is important. There is an overall economic cost of operating in the North sea and there is an overall world price for the product that comes out. If investment is to go in, the bottom line has to be balanced. If we, as a society, want to make regulations to benefit the quality of life of those working in the North sea, and if they involve costs, the Treasury must understand that in negotiations about the tax regime. The regime must remain competitive for future financial investment.

The other development that could improve safety is the work being done with Norway to try to improve understanding of regulations across the border. Norway's safety regime is very different from ours, and many of the developments that we want to encourage transcend the border. People face an added risk if they are operating in two safety regimes at once or trying to understand a box-ticking safety regime and a safety case culture. I hope that the Minister can update us on the attempts of the partnership with Norway to clarify regulations as they apply across the border.

Finally, I welcome the introduction of an offence of corporate killing. It is long overdue. It is easy to say that it should have come sooner. There is a sense of injustice that, out of 8,000 serious injury prosecutions, only four have been against senior management, and of 900 prosecutions for deaths—not in the North sea; these are general prosecutions to do with safety—only nine have been against senior management. The treatment of senior management must be seen to be part of the just resolution of an incident, and of any steps to prevent problems from occurring.

Like others, I welcome this timely reminder of what we went through at the time of Piper Alpha. We all wish that we had never had to go through it, but perhaps we can derive some benefit from the experience if we realise that, although it is safe now, it will not always be so. We should remember the lessons and continue with a dynamic learning process as we find new ways of being safe.

The North sea is of major benefit to our economy and can provide many jobs in the constituencies of those who have spoken and in other constituencies across the United Kingdom, but not at any price. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, the best memorial to the lives of those lost on Piper Alpha will be to maintain vigilance and to ensure that our safety regime is the best in the world, so that we will never again pay such a high price.

I join those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on securing the debate in such a timely fashion. It is excellent that it is possible to debate issues such as the future of health and safety almost exactly 15 years after the Piper Alpha disaster. It is right that we should remember the 167 people who lost their lives on that terrible evening. Thankfully, 62 people were saved, many of them from the cold North sea. Ironically, many of them had abandoned the emergency procedures that they had been given and had simply run for their lives and jumped into the sea. It must be a terrible time both for the bereaved families and for the lucky ones who are thinking back to those terrible events. I join in the comments that have been made by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). It is good that we are able to audit how far we have come and how far there is to go.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine spoke about training and the need to look at modern technology with a view to improving safety. I would agree with that. He was also right to pay tribute to the Cullen inquiry, set up to investigate the causes and circumstances of the disaster. As has been said, it pinpointed three areas in which progress was needed. Workers on the platform that night were not adequately trained in emergency procedures, and the management were not really trained to provide leadership during a crisis. We should consider how far we have come in that regard, and how far we should go. There had been a relaxation of the approved maintenance paperwork system and a reliance on informal communication, which Lord Cullen believed to be quite wrong—another important area. Measures that had been identified in previous risk assessment audits were simply not implemented.

The inquiry concluded that there were significant flaws in the health and safety measures on Piper Alpha, which were the cause of the tragic accident. Lord Cullen made 106 detailed recommendations, all of which were implemented. The four sets of regulations that followed were widely welcomed. I believe that it was the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North who made the important point that the old Department of Energy was not the right place for dealing with the whole question of safety. The transfer of those regulations to the Offshore Safety Act 1992 was therefore an important moment because it created a much clearer and more transparent safety system and put the matter in the hands of the experts in the Health and Safety Executive. I echo the praise given to the step change in safety campaign.

Several other regulations have built on health and safety legislation's beneficial effect. In the 10 years since the disaster, the number and rate of fatalities and serious accidents have declined. However, I am concerned that these trends may not be continuing as we would all wish, and I want to ask the Minister some questions to see what reassurances can be given.

The most recent figures from the offshore safety statistics bulletin show that the combined injury and fatality rate has increased from 240 per 1,000 workers in 2000–01 to 249.9 per 1,000 workers in 2001–02, which is obviously a move in the wrong direction. Moreover, there was a 4 per cent. increase in major injuries in 2002 compared with the previous year.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and other hon. Members referred to recent articles in the press that questioned whether the lessons that were quickly learned after the Piper Alpha disaster are now being forgotten and whether there is some slippage. What is the Minister's view of comments such as those of the general secretary of the offshore industry liaison committee, which were reported in the Financial Times?

"All the elements that were there in 1986–87 and led up to Piper Alpha are there now."

Is that unduly alarmist? That is a much more forceful comment than that of the head of the HSE, who said:

"There is a slight decrease over time but the fatal and major accidents clearly are worryingly high and stubbornly flat."

He gives the impression that there has been an improvement, and that there is a problem that needs further work to address it, whereas the comments of the OILC seem to go much further. What is the Minister's view?

A key concern has emerged, which hon. Members have mentioned, that the large companies are moving on and a new generation of independents is establishing itself. As the hon. Members for Aberdeen, Central and for Banff and Buchan said, adventurous companies moving into the sector may be a very good thing and may provide employment for many years to come. However, there is a concern, to which hon. Members have obliquely referred and which has been expressed in newspaper articles, that there is a danger that corners may be cut in health and safety to control costs. That would be a concern in the North sea, especially as much of the equipment is ageing. What does the Minister think will be the effect of the change in ownership on safety in this sector?

I am also concerned about the health and safety statistics, which are criticised. Under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995, employers, both onshore and offshore, and responsible persons who have control over employees and work premises, are required to notify and report to the relevant enforcing authority fatal and non-fatal accidents causing injuries, and all occupational diseases and dangerous occurrences even when there is no injury.

A forthcoming book by Dr. Charles Woolfsen and Professor Matthias Beck, "Corporate Social Responsibility: Failures in the Oil Industry", will argue that there is widespread under-reporting of lost-time incidents in the North sea and that there has been no significant improvement in the past five years. I should be grateful if the Minister would address the issue so that we may judge how well the reporting systems are working.

There have been some press reports about the HSE, and I want to give the Minister an opportunity to discuss them. I have received a letter from Prospect, the union involved, about cuts in HSE funding and fewer inspectors. That is worrying, as the HSE must recoup the £1.3 million that it was encouraged to overspend in the past year and the Minister will be aware that there is an early-day motion on the subject. Press reports say that Ministers do not agree with that analysis; it would therefore help if the hon. Gentleman would place on the record exactly what is happening in the HSE and reassure us that the programme for the North sea that is due to start in 2004 will go ahead, with enough inspectors for an effective campaign.

Will the Minister comment on the progress that has been made to reduce the number of hydrocarbon releases? During 2001–02, there were 241 reported offshore hydrocarbon releases—11 per cent. fewer than the previous year. That is welcome news, but the HSE's stated aim is to reduce the number of releases to 50 per cent. of the 1999–2000 baseline figure by 2004. Progress has been made, but is the Minister confident that it is a realistic target that can be met?

There have been significant improvements since 1988. However, just because 15 years have elapsed since the dreadful disaster, the industry must not let itself believe that such an accident could never happen again, as it was complacency as well as poor practice that caused the accident. It is extremely important that improvements continue. More than 23,000 people work offshore, so the health and safety issue has not diminished in importance. Many lessons were learned from the Piper Alpha disaster, and we must never let them be forgotten. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central, who secured the debate, has spent 15 years bringing these issues to the attention of the House and I pay tribute to him for all that he has done.

I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) for securing this important and timely debate, and for his sustained support over the years for the survivors and bereaved families of the Piper Alpha disaster, in the House and elsewhere. His support for those families and his consistent campaigning on the issues, which he brings to the attention of the House today, are well known. It is a responsibility he shares with other hon. Members, many of whom are present for the debate and some of whom could not attend. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that people should not be misled by the number of Members present: it is not the number but the quality of those present that is important, given their collective knowledge of the issue.

I hope I am not being too unctuous in congratulating my hon. Friend on setting out in his introductory remarks the historical and current circumstances that inform the debate, which comes almost 15 years to the day after the most appalling industrial accident in this country's recent history. Even now the events of that day in July 1988 remain vividly in the minds of those who were present and survived and those who lost loved ones. I extend my sympathies to all of them.

Despite my accent, I do not have a significant proportion of constituents who have connections with the North sea. At one stage quite a few people from the west of Scotland worked there, but less so now. During my two years in the Northern Ireland Office, I was the Minister with responsibility for victims. I spent a lot of time with people who lived through the trauma and tragedy of bereavement, which they carried with them for 30 years. I will never underestimate the effect that the loss of a loved one can have on a family, particularly when that life should not have beer lost.

The Piper Alpha disaster was a wake-up call for both the offshore oil and gas industry and the Government of the day. The costs were huge: 167 lives lost and over £2 billion in damage and lost production. Those figures emphasise in the starkest possible fashion the importance of safety to the well-being of what was and remains one of the key sectors of the UK economy. The industry today employs up to 25,000 people offshore and supports up to 300,000 jobs onshore. Offshore investment was about £8 billion in 2002.

The disaster, which was by no means the first in the North sea as my hon. Friend reminded us, led to one of the most radical reforms ever made of a regulatory regime. Lord Cullen's public inquiry and his contribution in this area, as in other areas of public safety since then, should never be underestimated. His report, published in 1990, produced 106 far-reaching recommendations. All were implemented, some by the Government and others by the industry.

A great deal has been achieved since the report. It is worth taking some time to record those achievements and the step change—I will use that term again later— in health and safety in the North sea. Responsibility for regulating health and safety in the offshore oil and gas industry was transferred to the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive in 1991. The earlier prescriptive health and safety regime was replaced by a new goal-setting series of regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

Lest it be misunderstood, I should point out that that regulatory regime, although it has to be constantly reviewed, has served industry and the people in the UK very well since then. It includes a mechanism to update the fines to ensure that they reflect current money values. Some of the concerns that have been expressed about the level of fines imposed have more to do with the failure of judicial authorities to exercise their maximum powers. That matter has been recognised.

The cornerstone of the new regime are the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992, which came into force in 1993. They implemented Lord Cullen's key recommendation that offshore duty holders should systematically identify major hazards, assess the risks and set out the necessary controls in a safety case submitted to the HSE. No installation can operate in UK waters unless the HSE formally accepts a safety case for it. It is not just a matter of legislation; the industry's whole approach to health and safety was galvanised by the Piper Alpha disaster and the subsequent report. The offshore industry spent more than £2 billion on health and safety improvements between 1988 and 1998.

There is no doubt that the offshore industry is now safer than it was 15 years ago, or even 10 years ago. The latest figures show a drop in annual injuries overall from 595 10 years ago to 181 today. Figures for major and significant hydrocarbon releases—events with a potential for major accidents—show an encouraging reduction of 44 per cent. from the 2000 benchmark.

We cannot be complacent. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) reminded us, the North sea and other offshore areas remain hazardous places in which to work. There are hazards from the hostile environment and from the possibility of helicopter crashes, ship collisions and structural collapse as well as from explosion, fire and well blow-outs. The potential for a major accident remains. There is evidence of that from other offshore provinces, such as the complete loss in 2001 of the giant production installation, P36, off the coast of Brazil, on which 11 people died. To control that potential demands constant and close attention from duty holders and the Health and Safety Executive, as the industry's health and safety regulator.

The changing offshore environment continues to produce new challenges for health and safety. The most important of them have been mentioned in the debate, and I shall deal with some of them. I refer first to ageing infrastructure. Much offshore equipment is now past its originally intended design life. Informed decisions must be made about its continued suitability. North sea platforms are large and complex, and the backlog of maintenance to older platforms has been growing. Maintenance programmes must ensure that safety-critical equipment remains fit for the purpose, irrespective of whether the field is up for sale by its owners or close to decommissioning.

I come now to staff reductions. The UK continental shelf is a mature oil and gas province. That puts pressure on operators to cut costs, especially staffing costs, but that must not compromise safety. New players are entering the UK continental shelf to take over acreage and some assets from the more established oil companies. They are new to North sea conditions and to the Health and Safety Executive. They bring new ideas and approaches, some of which it is now appropriate to welcome. Early signs are that safety is a high priority for the new operators. The challenge will be to ensure that their commitment is maintained.

Questions have been asked about how the health and safety regulator and others meet the challenges. The main responsibility for ensuring health and safety rests with those who create the risks, such as the offshore operators, owners and other employers. However, everyone in the industry has a part to play—by that I mean duty holders, the work force and the regulator. The industry has recognised that the way ahead lies in everyone working in partnership. The industry's step change programme has been welcomed by all parties. It is based on a partnership between duty holders and the work force. That partnership now extends to the Health and Safety Executive.

The work force have a key role to play. They are closest to the hazards and are often best placed to alert managers to problems and to ways to improve safe practice. They have the benefit of an excellent network of safety representatives and safety committees covering all staffed installations. I commend their commitment and initiative, but the network can only work effectively in an atmosphere in which everyone encourages open discussion of health and safety problems and solutions. Evidence suggests that there is still some way to go to ensure a fully effective safety culture in all companies that work offshore.

I have spoken mainly about activities aimed at preventing another Piper Alpha. Indeed, helping industry to reduce the risk of catastrophic accidents in all industries, not only offshore, is a key part of the Health and Safety Executive's functions and absorbs a significant proportion of resources.The commission and the executive also evaluate the impact of the offshore regime, and are considering changes that may be needed to ensure that it remains fit for the purpose. An independent evaluation of the offshore regime in 1999 showed that most stakeholders felt that the new regime helped them to manage the risks effectively. More work is needed in that area, but it is telling that the concept of the safety case has been widely accepted throughout the world as a risk management tool. Countries such as Australia and Brazil have incorporated safety cases into their regulatory regimes, after seeking advice from the United Kingdom. Several of the world's largest oilfield companies have extended voluntarily the safety case approach to their global operations.

Offshore health and safety is not only about major hazards: occupational health and safety is equally important. Although injury rates have improved since Piper Alpha, they have not improved fast enough recently, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) pointed out, and not as well as in some other offshore provinces. Sadly, seven people died on the UK continental shelf in the two years between 2000 and 2002, all but one in drilling and drilling-related accidents. There was a further drilling-related fatality as recently as May 2003.

To ensure that I have achieved the objective that you have set for the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be better if I turn now to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central and others. If I fail to answer any of them in the time available, I undertake to write to hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central, the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) and, last night in the Lobby, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), raised the issue of corporate manslaughter. As a Scottish lawyer, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central, I think that we should call it corporate culpable homicide but, to be inclusive, we shall call it corporate killing—the phrase that has entered common usage.

Order. As a Scottish Justice of the Peace, I understood exactly what the hon. Gentleman meant in the first place.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we can run a seminar for the other hon. Members present when we have concluded the debate.

The issue of corporate killing is a manifesto commitment. I was pleased that the Home Office announced in May of this year that it would publish a draft Bill on corporate manslaughter. A timetable for the legislation and further details are to be announced this autumn. I look forward to the proposals for a change in the law. Those of us who recognise the challenges posed by a change in the law do not underestimate the difficulties of producing legislation that will attack the problem. It will have to be discussed with some care and consultatively with all parties in the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central referred to the importance of communication between employers and employees. I have already made some remarks about that in the context of health and safety. Everyone who works in an offshore installation or is associated with its activities has a role to play in ensuring health and safety. We can never underestimate how important it is for operators, employers, workers and their representatives to work collaboratively. I endorse fully what my hon. Friend said about the need for communication between employers and employees.

Such communication has been reflected in the discussion about the BP jigsaw project, which was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, Central and for Aberdeen, North. All hon. Members should be reminded that offshore duty holders are required, through regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, to make arrangements that provide a good prospect of rescuing and recovering persons who have to evacuate or escape from their installation or enter the sea close to their installation, and taking them to a place of safety.

The BP jigsaw project represents a radical new approach to providing rescue and recovery of persons who have had to evacuate or escape from offshore installations. Of course, the Government and the Health and Safety Executive are aware of the concerns of those who work offshore. I confirm that BP will be able to proceed only if it can demonstrate to the Health and Safety Executive, through a revised safety case submission for each of the affected installations, that the legal requirements for rescue and recovery are satisfied and that the current standards of performance are equalled or bettered.

I turn now to the working time directive. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central is right that in June 2000 it was extended to include those working offshore. Member states have until 1 August 2003 to implement the directive and, like other hon. Members, I welcomed the laying of amending regulations on 4 July to extend the working time regulations to cover offshore workers. As my hon. Friend said, the DTI and the Health and Safety Commission are discussing arrangements for the Health and Safety Executive to enforce the regulations offshore, subject to the provision of additional resources.

I share everyone's concern about fatigue and its cumulative effect on health and safety offshore. The Health and Safety Executive has published guidance on the topic. It has sufficient powers under health and safety legislation to deal with any perceived risk to the offshore work force from staff working when over-tired. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North about the importance of safety representatives.

We want to encourage more people to act as safety representatives, and I join my hon. Friend in urging people not to resign if they are thinking of doing so. I was also aware of reports in the press this morning on that subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South raised that issue with me last night when I was speaking to her in the Lobby. I was aware of those deep concerns. If the reports turn out to be true, we have a duty and responsibility to urge people not to resign from their positions, but to continue to engage in dialogue.

The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for North-East Hertfordshire referred to under-reporting. The Health and Safety Executive takes claims of under-reporting seriously, because they grossly undermine the health and safety regime. All such reports are investigated thoroughly. It believes that there is no evidence of significant under-reporting—although I await publication of the book to which reference was made. It takes the view that such allegations are mostly hearsay. If there is evidence of under-reporting, it should be brought to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive, which will carry out serious investigations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central wrote to my predecessor and other Ministers about the lessons to be learned from the issues raised by the case of Stephen Hayward at the employment tribunal. I wrote to my hon. Friend, stating that I recognised his concern that the absence of appropriate protection for offshore safety representatives may provide a means for unscrupulous operators to obstruct their work. That would be detrimental not only to individual safety—as occurred in that case—but to offshore safety.

Since I became Minister, I have taken a personal interest in the case and have reviewed all the paperwork relating to it, including Mr. Hayward's earlier correspondence with other Ministers, and with me when I was in another Department. I have written to my hon. Friend. I will not go into the detail of the case during the debate today, but dialogue will continue between us. I will continue to maintain the level of vigilance on that issue that he expects of me as a Minister. If there are issues and lessons to be learned from that case, I will ensure that I respond to them appropriately.

I may have time to deal with the problem of ageing installation structures to which a number of hon. Members referred. The effect of the ageing of offshore installations is a key issue for those considering safety of offshore operations. It will become more significant as installations become older, and as many continue in service beyond their original intended design life. As currently advised, the Health and Safety Executive sees no reason why older installations should not remain in service, provided that adequate safeguards exist to ensure that inspection, maintenance and assessment arrangements are appropriate and carried out conscientiously by operators. The executive is acting on such concern and implementing a key programme for this year that will specifically look at how companies ensure the integrity of the safety-critical elements of their installations.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine asked for details about the key programme. It is a three-year programme that will focus on inspections of the status quo, increased investigations and reports on incidents, sharing best practice.

These are early days for me as the Minister with responsibility for health and safety in the North sea and other places, and I have found this debate most instructive. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central for providing me with an opportunity to make a contribution to it. I accept that the Government have a key role in helping to secure a safe and clean offshore industry, but there is no reason why it should not enjoy a long and safe future.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate to raise important issues and concerns in my constituency about proposals for massive housing development in Northamptonshire.

First, I will outline the background. In March 2001, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued proposed changes to regional planning guidance. RPG8—as a draft for consultation—covered the period up to 2021 and superseded previous regional planning guidance for the east midlands.

Page 6 of the guidance identifies:

"Other areas where further development and research will be required".

It then lists a number of points about, for example, waste, minerals, employment and the Milton Keynes and south midlands study.

Page 98 of the report states:

"Milton Keynes has been identified as an area for possible major development within the Regional Guidance for the South East. The potential for this and development within the wider sub region is to be studied across regional boundaries, to examine the Corby/Bedford/Milton Keynes/Northampton quadrangle".

I am not sure how Corby and Northampton suddenly entered the frame: perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten me.

The study, undertaken by Roger Tym and Partners, was launched by my noble Friend Lord Rooker on 18 September 2002, in Northampton. A four-page summary document—which was not very informative—was available at the launch, and copies of the full report were to be made available shortly afterwards.

Despite repeated requests for a copy of the study, I have only managed to obtain a photocopy of the original report, and most of its maps are unreadable. To this day, I have never received a copy of the actual published document. I also want to put it on the record that, to the best of my knowledge, during the period of the study, I was never at any time contacted by Roger Tym and Partners or its agents or employees.

We are talking about 29,000 houses in my constituency—possibly more, if we knew the exact location of the 13,000 proposed for the Daventry district, which I cannot tell from my map. Is it 29,000 or could it be 40,000? Not a word or a whisper have I had—just a pathetic photocopy of a document. I hope that Roger Tym and Partners does a little better if it has an opportunity to carry out any studies in future.

The report proposes a corridor development, which would include Corby, Kettering, Northampton and Wellingborough. The size of the development in Northamptonshire over a 30-year period to 2031 is 167,000 houses: 29,000 for Kettering, 28,000 for Corby, 25,000 for Wellingborough, 13,000 for Daventry, 12,000 for East Northants, 11,000 for South Northants and 49,000 for Northampton. That is a large-scale development. In the case of Kettering, the proposals represent a doubling of the annual rate. The trend for Kettering between 1991 and 2001 is 405 units. For Daventry, during that 10-year period it is 541.

We must acknowledge the growth trends in our area. This debate is not about choosing between zero and 167,000 houses; the right figure might be somewhere between 60,000 and 167,000. Over recent months, I have sought answers to a number of questions. I shall put some of them to the Minister today in the hope that she will get back to me with some answers. Why was Northampton chosen for inclusion in the study area? How was the figure of 167,000 arrived at? What evidence is there to suggest that any development will ease pressures in the south and south-east, or that people will want to relocate to the midlands? What evidence suggests that businesses want to move and set up in the south midlands? Those are important questions.

For many, the prospect of 29,000 houses being built in the borough of Kettering over the next 30 years came out of the blue. The consultation process was totally inadequate, and the whole thing was presented as a fait accompli. I was told by a fellow Member in February this year that it was a done deal. I recently heard that a local council leader said:

"Even if there was a change of government in two years time, it will have progressed so far that they would not be able to stop it".

That is unacceptable, and it is no wonder that many of my constituents are appalled at the manner in which this has been done, with an apparent disregard for local feelings, local concerns and local democracy.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement on 5 February 2003. Since then, I have submitted a number of written questions—I have copies if the Minister would like to see them. The replies read like a directory of quangos: the East Midlands Development Agency, the Housing Corporation, the shadow regional housing board, the regional housing board, English Partnerships. We are talking about 167,000 houses. Welcome to quango city.

Where is the local democracy? Who speaks for local people and represents their interests? Which hon. Members did Ministers speak to before the done deal was announced? There are serious concerns about the level or lack of consultation with local councils, health trusts, local people, businesses and other organisations. I have been seeking further details for several months, and I have tried to keep my constituents informed as much as possible, producing five briefing notes on the issue. I have spoken often to the local media, and asked them to give it due prominence. I have recently sent a six-page submission to the Government office for the east midlands on the revised RPG8. I know that others in the local community have also taken part in the consultation process.

I welcome the fact that the next stage will involve further consultation. A sub-regional spatial strategy is due to be launched on 18 July 2003 for a 12-week consultation period. It is anticipated that an examination in public will be held in December this year, with a final report prepared by summer 2004. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that there will be genuine, meaningful consultation and that the views and concerns of constituents and others will be taken into account? Will she commit to the Government giving this subject the widest possible publicity to encourage debate and contributions as part of the process? A reporter from the local Evening Telegraph is present today. I applaud the interest that that newspaper has shown in this matter and the publicity that it has given to this important issue.

Can I ask my hon. Friend and her colleagues in the Department to remind the Government office for the east midlands, the East Midlands Development Agency, the Housing Corporation, the shadow regional housing board, English Partnerships, the Local Government Association in the east midlands and the plethora of consultants and advisers that they have a duty to listen to and take on board my views and those of local people?

There is already concern that the next step in the process will be to set up a development corporation or a regeneration company, or some other form of quango. I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend that local people will not be marginalised or excluded from the process. Let us make that clear and get it on the record. Hon. Members and democratically elected local authorities speak for local people, whose voice must be heard if the process is to have any legitimacy. I am not alone in expressing serious concerns. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), has also expressed his concerns publicly, although he is unable to attend the debate today.

Large-scale housing growth may be right for some areas. There is a problem of housing shortages in the south and south-east, because there are more single-person households and people are living longer. More affordable housing is needed as house prices continue to rise beyond the reach of those who want to get on the first rung of the ladder. Hon. Members and people outside are aware of those needs and they understand the pressures. However, there are many serious concerns about the scale of the development that is proposed.

Kettering and other areas in Northamptonshire have expanded over many years. Corby and Northampton are designated new towns, Wellingborough grew significantly with a London overspill population in the 1970s and Desborough, my home town, is a strategic development area, in which work is in progress on a large housing development. Milton Keynes is a new city. The area has grown and it will no doubt continue to grow.

It is right to consider the scale of future development and associated pressures on jobs, health care, education, transport links and public services. We want somewhere for our children to live. We cannot keep the area secret for ever. People are bound to find out how good it is and will want to move there. We have kept it secret for a long time. We want there to be growth with the co-operation of local people and the consent of the local authorities. However, we want it to progress at a rate that is consistent with local needs. Local authorities must take account of growth pressures when they draw up their local plan, but such provision should be made on current trend and existing growth patterns. Growth should not be artificially imposed.

It is important that there be safeguards in any growth process to protect the countryside, preserve the environment, enhance the quality of life of the people who live there already and, importantly, to conform to our own policies on sustainability. Those points are recognised in a letter that I received recently from the Minister for Housing and Planning. He states:

"The Tym & Partners recommendations were reviewed in a subsequent study by DTZ. This growth area assessment looked at technical aspects and concluded that higher levels of growth in Kettering could have negative impacts"

Many hon. Members would agree with that. I have pointed out some of those negative impacts.

Importantly, the letter continues:

"When the regional planning guidance alterations for"

the Milton Keynes-south midlands

"area are launched for public consultation on the 18th July these are likely to adopt a trend based growth for Kettering rather than a higher growth scenario."

It seems that the Government are listening, and I welcome that. I trust that common sense will prevail.

I fully endorse the comments in the letter, and I will continue to press the case for trend-based growth for Kettering, as it gives more say to local people, recognises local needs and gives more democratic accountability on the issue of where we want and need houses. Trend-based growth will bring decision-making closer to local people, rather than making it part of a grand scheme for a wider area. I welcome the fact that we are now seriously considering such growth at current levels. I will continue to press for that, and I think that local people will endorse that view.

I thank the Minister for her time today. I recognise that she has not been involved in the process to date, but I trust that she will take note of the serious matters that I have raised.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) on securing the debate and on choosing to raise a subject that is clearly important to him and his constituents. He has been assiduous in championing the views of the people of Kettering, not only on this subject but on wider issues, too.

I want to respond directly to some of my hon. Friend's points about where we are on the issue and the consultation process ahead, but let me start by outlining some of the background to the growth area proposals, and by saying how they were conceived. The origin was in the discussion held about the future development of the Milton Keynes area during the public examination of regional planning guidance for the south-east in autumn 2000. It was recognised that the Milton Keynes and south midlands area, including Northamptonshire, had already demonstrated considerable economic success. From 1990 to 2000, employment growth was more than three times the national average. The discussion centred on the need to provide adequate levels of housing for the local population and to match the expected increases in job creation in the area.

When the final version of the regional planning guidance for the south-east was published in March 2001, it was stated that an inter-regional study should be undertaken to consider the further development potential of the Milton Keynes sub-region. The study was intended to consider growth potential in the 30 years to 2031, in order to inform the next reviews of regional planning guidance for the south-east, the east of England and the east midlands.

Each region has its own regional planning body, which is part of the relevant regional assembly. As my hon. Friend will know, those assemblies will include elected local councillors. The bodies advise the Government on strategic planning and transport issues, and are responsible for drawing up regional planning guidance. The three regional planning bodies that were involved in this case, along with Government offices and other key stakeholders, commissioned a feasibility report—the Tyms study to which my hon. Friend referred, which was completed last September.

That report considered the potential of the area to accommodate sustainable growth and recognised the need to create jobs in the growth areas and to integrate transport and other essential infrastructure with housing development. As my hon. Friend is aware, it proposed building 167,000 houses in four towns over 30 years.

In February, the Government published the sustainable communities plan, which identified four growth areas—Milton Keynes and the south midlands, Ashford in Kent, the London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor, and the Thames gateway. Northamptonshire, of course, is part of the Milton Keynes and south midlands area. My hon. Friend is right that the Tyms study alone was clearly not sufficient basis for decisions of such magnitude that would affect such a broad area over such a long period. That is why it was necessary to carry out considerable further assessment of the practicalities and considerable consultation with local communities.

The regional planning bodies have therefore undertaken further detailed assessment of the proposals. They have considered the effects of the different growth levels on Kettering and the other towns involved, on the capacity of existing infrastructure and on the environment. That work is informing the preparation of a draft alteration to regional planning guidance in the three regions, which the regional planning bodies will publish on 18 July. I can tell my hon. Friend, therefore, that the regional planning authorities are already taking into account many of the issues that he raised, including the capacity of towns to accommodate further growth. It is clearly important that such issues are properly investigated.

The regional planning authorities will publish their own recommendations on the number of houses that should be required in their area. That will be followed by a 12-week consultation period, that will end on 13 October 2003. The consultation period is important, because it will give members of the public and local organisations a full opportunity to make representations about the proposals. An independent panel will deal with the issues that arise from the consultation at a public examination, which is expected to be held in March 2004. We expect a final version of the proposals, which will be formally incorporated into regional planning guidance documents, to be published in December 2004. It will include any necessary changes that arise from the public examination or from the further round of public consultation that will take place after the independent panel has published its report. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial for there to be the widest consultation on the growth proposals at all stages of the planning process. It is important that up-to-date and accurate information is available to the local media and local organisations, including electronically.

We must be clear about the fact that growth requires investment, by which I do not mean simply investment in housing. Too often in the past, developments have been simply about bricks and mortar. It is right to invest in sustainable communities and to ensure that new communities and growth areas have effective infrastructure and the facilities that will make them sustainable in the long term.

The Government have announced that £164 million for essential infrastructure works will be made available for the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area, the London-Stansted-Cambridge growth area and the Ashford growth area over the next three years. That money is in addition to the funding that is available through mainstream programmes. It is intended to deal with issues such as site assembly, the remediation of brownfield land, delivery mechanisms, additional affordable housing and essential local infrastructure. It is another indicator of the Government's commitment to supporting the development of growth areas and achieving a change in our approach to housing and communities as a whole.

The Northamptonshire Heartlands primary care trust is spending an extra £63 million to improve health care in Kettering, Corby, Wellingborough and the Nene valley. It is also proposed to create a diagnostic and treatment centre at Kettering general hospital, which will significantly increase the capacity for treatment and reduce the length of time that patients must wait in accident and emergency before having their condition assessed.

Northamptonshire local authorities and other local bodies have forwarded 33 bids for key infrastructural works to support the proposed new development, and an announcement on those bids will be made shortly.

Clearly, it is important that any investment in sustainable communities considers not only immediate housing issues but broader issues, such as community facilities and designing communities in such a way as to ensure that they are sustainable in the long term. That is why the sustainable communities plan has allocated £200 million to hell) local authorities to improve the quality of life in local communities and to promote better design of buildings and public spaces.

The growth proposals for the Milton Keynes and south midlands area were initiated as a response to the need to provide adequate housing to match the potential increases in job creation in the area, not as an approach to establishing isolated dormitory areas for long-distance commuters working in London. With all the growth areas, we intend to ensure that transport and other essential infrastructure is provided with new housing, and that places are built to the best possible design standards.

The sustainable communities plan is a broad programme of action to deal with problems of housing affordability in some areas and abandonment in others; to ensure decent homes and a good-quality local environment in all regions; and to create balanced sustainable communities where people want to live and where they can work and spend their leisure time. We need to respond to housing pressures wherever they occur and to provide the opportunity for everyone to have a decent and affordable home.

I assure my hon. Friend that the regional planning bodies and regional assemblies are taking account of many of the points that he has made on behalf of people in Kettering. I assure him that once the revised proposals are published on 18 July, both he and people in the Kettering area will have a chance to comment on them and to respond in detail to the consultation. The Northamptonshire growth area proposals are being developed in partnership with Northamptonshire local authorities and local organisations. The truth is that they simply could not be developed without effective partnerships with local organisations, including elected organisations. The 12-week public consultation will be important, but there will be further opportunities as part of the process of the independent panel assessment and the consultation process after that.

I know that my hon. Friend will continue to raise the issues that are raised with him by constituents and members of his local community, and will continue to champion their interests. The growth proposals provide great opportunities for the Milton Keynes and south midlands area to benefit from the most modern approaches to sustainable communities, and to modern design and infrastructure, which underpin long-term sustainable communities. I hope that people in his area will take part in the consultation, express their views and look towards the advantages that many of the growth proposals could bring, not only to Kettering but to the wider area and to people who will be able to live in modern sustainable communities in the next few years and for many decades to come.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising these important issues. He will continue to do so, and I certainly expect to discuss them with him further in months to come.

I congratulate the new Minister on his appointment, on what I believe is his first outing in Westminster Hall. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), my near neighbour, on taking his first step on the Government ladder.

Half the pensioners in Britain have chosen to use a pension book to collect their pension from the post office. However, the Government have decided to remove that choice from the 4.5 million pensioners who have chosen to use that method. Over the next two years, the Government plan to write to all pensioners who have a pension book, telling them that they must choose one of three accounts into which their pension will be paid. Keeping the pension book appears not to be an option. The three sorts of permitted accounts are: a current or savings account at a bank or building society, a basic bank account, or a Post Office card account.

The Government's advertising claims that people will still be able to collect their pension at the post office. That is true, but there is a catch for many people in Scotland: the three main Scottish banks—the Royal Bank, the Bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale—do not have an arrangement with the Post Office whereby people who hold current or savings accounts with them can withdraw money at the post office. Customers of those banks who do not read the Government's leaflets very carefully could easily choose to have their pensions paid into their current or savings accounts but find, much to their disappointment, that they cannot collect their money at a post office.

The three main Scottish banks account for the vast majority of personal banking in Scotland. In my constituency, the only bank that allows customers to withdraw money from current or savings accounts at a post office is Lloyds TSB, which has only four branches in one constituency—many fewer than the three main Scottish banks. The three main Scottish banks do allow customers to withdraw money from a basic bank account at the post office, but such an account has very limited facilities.

In a rural constituency such as mine, being able to collect their pension from the post office rather than a bank is an important option for many pensioners. There are far more post offices than bank branches. For people living outside towns, the nearest bank might be many miles away. On many of the smaller islands, there is no bank, but there is certainly a post office.

I explained the drawbacks of the bank account option for many pensioners, and will now talk about the Post Office card account. The account had tremendous potential, but the Government failed miserably to market it properly or to provide it with the facilities that such an account should have. It is option No. 3 in all the Government's literature. It is option No. 3 on every leaflet, on every form to be filled in, and in every letter sent to customers, but the letters quite clearly direct people towards bank accounts. I have spoken to several child benefit customers who thought that they had no option other than to nominate a bank account for their child benefit. That is the typical impression that the letters and forms give. The Post Office card account option is there if one knows what one is looking for and is searching for it, but the user who is not searching for it and who receives the leaflet without knowing the background assumes that they must use a bank account. The marketing of the account has been so poor that it is unsurprising that people have that impression.

The Government decided to start the process by targeting child benefit customers rather than pensioners. Of the 2.5 million child benefit customers who have been contacted so far, more than 2 million have responded. Of those 2 million, 86 per cent. have opted for a bank account, which is not surprising given what I said about the poor marketing of the Post Office card account. It is, however, very worrying for the survival of the rural post office network.

Many sub-postmasters in my constituency have told me that one has to be very determined to open a Post Office card account, which is certainly true. I will take hon. Members through the process. First, the pensioner receives a letter from the Government telling them about the changes. The pensioner has to hunt through the letter to find the Post Office card account option. Next, they have to phone the so-called helpline, which goes through to what is called the customer conversion centre, but I have no idea why it was given such a sinister-sounding name. That was certainly a marketing failure. It is clear from correspondence and conversations that I have had with people who have phoned this so-called helpline that it would be hard to find a more unhelpful line.

A copy of the script used by the Department for Work and Pensions call centre was placed in the Library a few months ago, and I have a copy of it. I would have expected it to start with a friendly response from the call centre operator, for example, "Hello, my name's Alan. I'm so pleased that you have chosen to open a Post Office card account. I'm here to guide you through the process." Unfortunately, that is not what happens. The first line of the script is, 'I know you have asked for a Post Office card account, but—". That ominous start sets the scene. The customer conversion centre operator then tries to persuade the pensioner to choose the bank account option instead.

I quote from a letter from a sub-postmaster on one of the islands in my constituency telling me what happened when one of his customers telephoned the helpline. The letter states:

"We know of one customer who came to open a Post Office Card Account and, when we advised her we could not do this because she did not have the correct forms, she went off to phone the Helpline. Two hours later she phoned us up to tell us that she had been treated like an idiot on the phone and that if this was the attitude of the Post Office, she was going to have her pension paid into her Bank Account as it was so much easier. It turned out this Helpline she phoned was actually the DWP and not the Post Office, so what hope have we got of keeping customers if this is the attitude they are being met with on the phone."

I can only agree with the sub-postmaster.

If the pensioner is determined that they want a Post Office card account and resist all the call centre's attempts to talk them out of it, they are sent a pack. One of the forms in the pack is called the personal invitation document, which the pensioner has to take to the Post Office, together with proof of identity. The Post Office then sends the application back to the Department for Work and Pensions. The pensioner has to keep one of the forms—a letter notifying the Government of their Post Office account number, which of course they do not know yet because the first letter is only an application to get a Post Office card account, not a form to enable them to have their pension paid into it; that comes later. According to the procedures, the DWP should then send the pensioner another pack with their Post Office card account number and PIN number.

At that stage, one of my constituents received a letter, which states:

"Thank you for your recent contact requesting a Post Office card account. We have noted this on your records. We will contact you at a future date. Please continue cashing your benefit in the usual way until you hear from us. In the meantime, if you change your mind and want your benefit to be paid into a bank or building society account please contact us".

The DWP does not give up; at every stage it tries to persuade people to change their mind and go for a bank account.

Presumably, the pensioner will eventually receive the second pack. They will then have to fill in the original form that they had to keep from the first pack and return it to the Post Office with the new Post Office card account number. Eventually the determined pensioner has made it to the end of the process and gets their pension paid into the Post Office card account, but I am still puzzled about why the Government make it so difficult.

I have another letter from a child benefit customer from Benderloch in north Argyll, who writes:

'I am a reasonably well educated person but have found it necessary to visit the post office on three occasions where a very helpful employee has tried to guide me through the system. Although she has done everything her training taught her there are aspects of this changeover which are complete news to her. With every piece of correspondence received I have been asked if I wish to change my mind and have my child benefit paid into a bank account instead. There then follows instructions on how to do this.

I first received the invitation to change my method of receiving payment over 6 months ago, and have only now received my card and pin number and have completed yet another form to send off to have the card activated. I would be grateful if you could find out for me who is responsible for setting up this system of changeover and what is their training?"

Perhaps the Minister will respond to that later.

By 27 June, the DWP had written to 272,000 pensioners but only just over half of them had responded. Of those, half nominated a bank account and the others responded requesting a Post Office card account. We do not know how many such requests succeeded, as there is clearly a difference between requesting an account and actually getting one. I tabled a written question to the Minister asking how many have succeeded in getting a Post Office card account, and it would help the debate if he could answer my question today.

It must be of concern to everyone that almost half the pensioners to whom the Department for Work and Pensions have written have not yet responded. How will those pensioners be paid in future? If a frail, elderly pensioner does not respond to the letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, what will happen when their current pension book expires? I hope that they will be sent another book. Will the Minister answer that question?

Another question I should like the Minister to answer is what pensioners who cannot use the telephone for health reasons should do? There is a text phone for people with hearing difficulties, but stroke victims, for example, might not be able to speak properly on the telephone, or people in poor health might not have the strength to argue with the customer conversion centre. What system is available to people who cannot telephone the customer conversion centre, but still want a Post Office card account?

Even after the determined pensioner has managed to open a Post Office card account and get their payments paid into it, some problems will still arise. We all fall ill at some point. Under the current pension book system, a pensioner is allowed to nominate someone else to collect their pension, in any particular week, by signing the counterfoil on the pension book. A different person can be nominated each time.

Under the new system, a pensioner can nominate only one other person to collect the pension on their behalf, and that nominee will be sent an additional card and PIN number. However, there is no emergency provision for a pensioner who falls ill to nominate someone else, if the nominated person is not available. That means that the pensioner would not be able to collect their pension from the post office.

Such a situation could easily arise. For example, some pensioners rely on several different carers or, even if a pensioner has only one regular carer, that carer will sometimes go on holiday. In either case, the pensioner is left with no option. Moreover, when the carer changes, the new carer will have to go through the process of being nominated and sent an account number and PIN. During that period, the pensioner will not be able to get their pension.

There is also concern about pensioners who forget their PIN numbers, because there is no way to access the money without the PIN. We are discussing frail, elderly people and, for some, the illnesses of old age will result in a failing memory.

We all know what will happen. Pensioners will become desperate and will give their card and their PIN number to other people. On some occasions, that is the only way in which they will be able to collect their pension. That is a far greater security risk than the current pension book system. The Government are presenting the new system as a security improvement, but I fear that security will get worse, because pensioners will be forced to reveal their PIN and give away their card.

The Government should give freedom of choice and allow pensioners to keep their pension book if that is what they want. The Post Office card account should be viewed as an additional option for those who want it, not as a replacement for the pension book. I fear that the Government have missed a great opportunity with the Post Office card account. The Post Office has a first-class reputation—a far better reputation than the banks. It also has a network throughout the country in rural areas and islands where there are no banks.

The Government should use that opportunity—they should promote the Post Office card account positively, and should give it more facilities, such as paying interest on it and making cheque books available. However, the tremendous opportunity to extend banking facilities into rural areas and small islands via the Post Office card account has been lost. Instead, the reverse will occur, and the difficulties that people face in opening a Post Office card account will lead to post offices losing a large proportion of their business, which in turn will inevitably lead to the closure of many small rural post offices that are already struggling to survive.

Many rural post offices are attached to the only shop in the village, and the shop is dependent on the custom of those who come into the post office. The loss of post office business will mean the loss of the shop, and also the loss of skilled employment in the village post office. The village post office network also has an important social function—the staff know all their customers personally, and if a pensioner does not come in on their regular day to collect their pension, they can get in touch to see whether that pensioner is all right. All that will be lost. Unless the Government act now to promote the Post Office card account, we will see widespread closure of the rural post office network and subsequent rural depopulation. The west highlands and the islands have suffered population decline for centuries. The post office network is an integral part of the infrastructure, and unless the Government alter their approach towards it, they will go down in history as yet another Government whose policies failed the west highlands and contributed to population decline.

Finally, I quote from another letter that I received:

"Dear Mr. Reid,

I have come to the conclusion that there is a room full of civil servants inventing ways to make opening a post office card account very difficult."

The lady then goes on to explain all the difficulties that she had. I ask the Minister to address the concerns that I have raised. He is new to the job and does not carry the baggage of the decisions of the past, so I hope that he will encourage his Department to take a positive approach towards rural post offices. For a start, he could allow pensioners to keep their pension books if they want to do so, and could start a campaign to promote the Post Office card account positively. I look forward to his reply.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on having secured the debate on such an important subject. We share his desire to ensure a vibrant and sustainable post office network, serving communities throughout the country. That is why we are investing £2 billion in the network, including £450 million to protect the rural post offices to which he referred.

We also share his view that pensioners and others who wish to continue to receive their payments weekly in cash at the post office should be able to do so. That is why we are working with the post office to ensure that customers have a range of choices as to how they are paid their pensions or benefits, and changing the way in which we pay benefits and pensions. I know that change can be unsettling, even frightening, so let us be clear why we are doing it. We are making the way in which we pay our customers more modern, more efficient and more secure. We are increasing customer choice, providing better value for the taxpayer and, perhaps most importantly, challenging the financial exclusion that deprives many people of the opportunities to share as fully as they might in growing prosperity.

We are also seeking to devise a method of payment that is safer and less prone to fraud—order books are stolen from 100 pensioners each week—and that is why our proposals for direct payment have been welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers. My hon. Friend who recently became the Minister for Pensions issued a press release pointing out that it is an anti-mugging proposal. I would add that it will save the taxpayer an estimated £80 million a year in order book and giro fraud.

Direct payment fits with what people want. The number of customers paid in that way increased by nearly 1 million last year, not as part of a process of persuading them into having Post Office card accounts or bank accounts but because that was their choice. It is not a trend that we could stop even should we wish to do so. People want choice, privacy and the opportunity to benefit from the range of banking and a financial service that is taken for granted by most of us and our constituents.

Direct payment will provide customers with more choice about where to collect their money from, including the post office if they wish. They will be able to use a current account, a basic bank account or a Post Office card account, as has been pointed out. Many pensioners will have no difficulty with the change. Over half of all pensioners are currently paid directly into an account and have no problems, and some 90 per cent. of pensioners already have a bank account.

On Monday, I placed in the Library the latest figures on take-up of direct payment options by our customers. So far, more than 450,000 people, including more than 74,000 pensioners, have requested a Post Office card account. Earlier this afternoon, I met David Mills, chief executive of the Post Office, and his new chair, Mike Hodgkinson. He shares our vision that high-quality banking services—and financial services generally—are a key part of the future of the Post Office. The widespread public trust invested in the Post Office, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, gives it an opportunity to be a main vehicle for the extension of banking services to its customers. The Post Office, as he also pointed out, has 50 per cent. more branches than all the banks and the building societies put together. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I were pleased to launch universal banking services officially, earlier this week. It is a tremendous achievement that that service is now in place, because it offers real choice to our customers.

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there are a number of options for customers: the general, standard bank account, the basic bank account and the Post Office card account. Over the two years, as he is aware, we shall contact all our customers in a phased programme to make them aware of the ways in which they can switch to one of those options. I must emphasis that only the way in which we pay benefits and pensions is being affected—customers will still get their money as regularly as they do now, including weekly payments for pensioners, if they wish to receive them in that way.

The hon. Gentleman expressed his concerns about the process of opening a Post Office card account. He has explained the mechanisms that a person must go through. First, they must phone the customer conversion centre to discuss the options. He was concerned that the customer conversion centre tends to emphasise options other than the Post Office card account; however, we are trying through the process and through the script that has been placed in the Library to ensure that people are aware of the full range of options available. The fact that the Post Office card account is No. 3 in those options in the script that he has seen is merely a way of trying to ensure that customers also consider the other options available to them, which may be more appropriate for some of them. The three-step process that he set out is similar to the process that one would have to go through for opening an ordinary bank account, with the possible exception that the first two stages might be carried out in a single visit to a bank branch.

We want people to choose the account that suits them best—we are not trying to push people towards a particular type of account. Some people will feel most comfortable with the Post Office card account, which is simply an account into which we will pay benefits and pensions and from which a person can draw cash at a post office, during opening hours, in any amount they wish. Others will want something more. The Post Office card account will not be able to receive payments of wages or occupational pensions, so it may not be suitable for someone who is anticipating moving off benefits and into a job. It has no direct debit facility, so it cannot be used to access some of the available savings that the rest of us take for granted with, for instance, some utility bills. For some people, therefore, a Post Office card account will be too limited. We want to ensure that they know what their choices and options are. Although still using their post office to get access to their cash, people may want to do so via a current account or basic bank account.

That view is shared by Age Concern. In a recent memorandum to the Trade and Industry Committee, it said:

"Although we are aware that a number of organisations and individual sub-postmasters are promoting the Post Office card account on the basis that this is the way to save the post office network, Age Concern does not subscribe to this view. Apart from wanting people to be able to choose the type of account that suits their needs, we do not think that too much reliance on Post Office card accounts would be in the long term interests of the commercial future of the network."

Since the Minister quoted Age Concern, I draw his attention to a letter from Age Concern Scotland, urging MPs to sign the early-day motion that supports allowing pensioners the option of retaining pension books. Age Concern therefore also wants pensioners to have the right to keep the pension books.

I will come back to the situation in Scotland in just a moment. The hon. Gentleman raises some important points. I understand his concerns.

For some people, the Post Office card account could be the right choice and they will perhaps later make the transition to a basic bank account or a current account. We must remember that 90 per cent. of our customers, including pensioners, already have a bank account, although they may not use it at present for receiving benefits.

The provision of banking services at the post office is a matter for Post Office Ltd. However, the Government are keen that as many accounts as possible should be accessible at post office branches. That touches on the hon. Gentleman's concern about the situation in Scotland. For some time, Post Office Ltd. has had arrangements in place with some banks to allow their customers to access funds from their current accounts over the counter at post office branches. At present, the following account providers have such an arrangement: Alliance and Leicester, Barclays, the Co-op bank, First Direct, although only in Scotland, Lloyds TSB and the internet banks cahoot and smile.

The chairman and chief executive of the Post Office tell me that Post Office Ltd. is keen to see more banks join these arrangements and is currently in negotiation with a number of banks. Following the introduction of universal banking services, HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland, the Clydesdale and many other providers have all made their basic bank accounts accessible at post office branches.

The hon. Gentleman made the important point that a full range of services is not available for customers in Scotland at present. Basic bank accounts are provided through some of these banks and there is the provision of the Post Office card account. However, there is no provision of services through post offices of normal current accounts. The Post Office is concerned about that, as are the Government. I am planning to have further discussions with some of those banks to see whether we can extend to customers in Scotland the facilities that are available elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The banks will decide whether they want to respond positively to those suggestions. We will make the case that given the trust and the network available to Post Office Ltd., this is a commercial opportunity that they would be wise to consider seriously.

As well as being concerned about the difficulties of going through the customer conversion centre, the hon. Gentleman asked about the training that is available to staff. All customer conversion centre staff are fully trained, and calls are monitored to ensure that customers are presented with sufficient information to enable them to make an informed choice. These safeguards are in place to ensure that customers do not receive biased information, as he suggested might be the case at present. A high-quality service is provided and few customer complaints have been received. There were only 16 in the week of 21 to 27 June, out of more than 225,000 direct payment invitations issued. If he has examples of complaints, I would be pleased to receive them.

The hon. Gentleman was worried about whether those people who cannot access a bank account would have access to their payments. Where people are unable to access their payments through a bank account or through the Post Office card account, perhaps owing to infirmity or disability or because they rely on a changing pattern of carers, we will devise an exception service to ensure that they receive the payments to which they are entitled. We have not yet worked out the details of that exception service, because we first want to see how many people are unable to access their payments through bank accounts or Post Office card accounts, and also because we want to see what the appropriate measures would be.

We are making sensible changes. We are addressing some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises, including those of people who forget their PIN numbers. There will be an opportunity to change a PIN to a more memorable one. We are looking at these issues to ensure that we can provide direct banking services and a real choice to all our customers. The fact that at present 450,000 people have chosen a Post Office card account suggests that it is feasible to pursue that option. Not only will this provide people with more dignity and independence in the way that they receive their benefits, it will enable us to secure the future of the post office network.