I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and hope that at the end of it the Government will give some good news on their future strategy towards non-proliferation. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and welcome her to the debate.

On 14 March, the House voted on the Trident issue after a long debate. An unprecedented number of Labour Members voted against a renewal of the Trident nuclear submarine system. That reflected public opinion and the views of the large number of people who contacted MPs about the issue. Nuclear arms and proliferation is not a dead issue; it is very much a live one. I want to tease out the Government’s view on the non-proliferation treaty system and what their strategy is leading up to the next five-yearly review in 2010.

It is worth setting out some of the background to the non-proliferation treaty. It was envisaged in 1968 and was promoted by Ireland, among a number of other non-aligned countries, many of which had completely neutral foreign policies. I shall quote from the original documentation. The five declared nuclear weapon states, which were the United States, the Soviet Union, France, China and the United Kingdom, all eventually signed the treaty and agreed that nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices could

“not in any way assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to…acquire nuclear weapons”.

They agreed not to receive, manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons or to seek to receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Some important statements were made and considering the treaty was signed in 1968 at the height of the cold war, it was a seminal document that countries had courage to sign up to.

The second pillar of the non-proliferation treaty was disarmament. The five declared nuclear weapon states were committed to a process of long-term disarmament. That is the heart of the issue: the five declared nuclear weapon states agreed that they would not provide the technology to enable the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the other countries who signed and who were not nuclear powers agreed not to adopt nuclear weapons in any way.

The third pillar of the treaty was the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I am completely opposed to nuclear power because it is dangerous and dangerously polluting, but it is not illegal under the terms of the NPT for a country to develop its own nuclear power industry. That is one of the issues that is at the heart of the current debate concerning relations with Iran.

My hon. Friend and I have slightly different views on nuclear power, but not on nuclear weapons. It has effectively been proposed that there should be multilateral control of Iran’s ability to reprocess material for use in its nuclear industry. If that can apply to Iran, why cannot it apply to every other country, so that we develop the ability of individual countries to use materials, which could be used against the betterment of man, more positively?

Indeed. Negotiations with Iran are based on Iran’s wish to develop its own nuclear power industry and on whether that is a precursor to developing nuclear weapons. Clearly, nuclear power and nuclear weapons are inextricably linked; it is impossible to have nuclear weapons without nuclear reactors and a nuclear power industry, but it does not follow that by having a nuclear power industry and nuclear power reactors we get nuclear weapons. I disagree with my hon. Friend on very few things, but we do disagree on that particular subject. However, I am sure that we completely agree on the issue of nuclear weapons, which is important.

I shall set out what has happened since the NPT was signed. It grew from quite small beginnings, but there is now an impressive list of countries who have signed the non-proliferation treaty. It almost reads—I stress almost—like a list of members of the UN. The list is formidable in every conceivable way and we should be proud and supportive of that. Over the years since the original NPT was signed, countries that have tried to develop nuclear weapons have subsequently renounced the use of nuclear weapons completely. I am thinking, for example, of South Africa, which under the apartheid regime and possibly with the assistance of Israel, tried to develop a nuclear weapons system. There are uncorroborated reports that South Africa may have tried to test such weapons and it was certainly attempting to develop a weapons system. It is to the eternal credit of the African National Congress Government and former President Nelson Mandela that South Africa completely renounced the development, use and consideration of nuclear weapons in any way. We should remember that as one of Nelson Mandela’s great contributions during his time as President. Argentina and Brazil also decided that they would not pursue any nuclear weapons options and a number of the former Soviet republics, particularly Ukraine, have done likewise. That has encouraged the development of nuclear-free zones around the world, particularly in Latin America. There is also an African nuclear-free zone and a developing central Asian nuclear-free zone.

Some countries have developed nuclear weapons and they are either not signatories to the NPT, have renounced the NPT, or never sought to sign the NPT in the first place. One such country is Israel, which it is reported has around 200 nuclear warheads. The reason that we know about Israel’s nuclear weapons programme is that Mordechai Vanunu bravely told the world about it, after which he was spirited out of Britain into Italy. After the revelations that he made to The Sunday Times, he was taken from Italy to Israel where he was tried at a military court. He then spent 18 years in prison as a result, 13 of which were in solitary confinement. When he was finally released from prison, he was put under restrictive powers by the Israeli courts and has now been sentenced to a further period of imprisonment for talking to foreign nationals while living utterly peacefully in Jerusalem. Indeed, I am one of the people whom he has met since he came out of prison. I hope that the Minister will indicate whether the Government continue to think that Mordechai Vanunu should be given complete freedom to travel and to lead a normal life.

Order. We may have to suspend the sitting because there is a problem with the sound. I am now informed that the sound is back on.

It would indeed be a shocking business if there were an attempt to silence a debate on nuclear weapons.

It’s not MI5 is it?

My hon. Friend tempts me down the road of conspiracy theories.

Tragically, India and Pakistan have both developed nuclear weapons. Both have a delivery system and a testing capability and the nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan in 2002 was one of the most serious threats to world peace since nuclear weapons were developed. I hope that India and Pakistan will eventually sign the non-proliferation treaty and undertake mutual nuclear disarmament because their weapons are designed as much to attack each other as anyone else. Obviously, I hope that that happens, but I must say that the existence of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan is encouraged in part by the rewarding of nuclear technology to India by the United States, after President Bush’s recent visit. If we are serious about the non-proliferation treaty, countries that develop nuclear weapons should not be rewarded for doing so, but should be put under the utmost pressure to undertake nuclear disarmament.

Allegedly, North Korea has also developed nuclear weapons, around which there has been a great deal of publicity. Nuclear weapons were an aim of the North Korean regime, which has carried out a nuclear test, although there are doubts about whether it was a fully-fledged nuclear weapon. Clearly, however, North Korea had an aim and a wish to develop nuclear weapons, which is quite bizarre for a country racked by such poverty, economic difficulties and isolation. It must also be said, however, that the talks with North Korea undertaken very patiently by the six-party group have had a very interesting effect. Only last week, we saw the first delivery of fuel oil shipments to North Korea, in return for which it deactivated part of its nuclear development programme. North Korea is to be congratulated on that, and the rest of the world should use this opportunity to develop engagement rather than hostilities with North Korea, in order to encourage it down the path of disarmament. Surely, that would be a good way forward.

Lastly, I want to mention Iran, which, I suspect, will dominate much of the debate. Obviously, Iran is an oil-rich country and, at the moment, wishes to develop a nuclear power industry so that it has energy supplies for the future. That is its stated aim. I do not agree with nuclear power, but Iran is legally entitled to develop it. It is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty and is now judged to be in breach of a supplementary protocol, which allows instant inspections of its facilities. As a result, sanctions have been applied and Iran is becoming increasingly isolated throughout the world. The rather bellicose language used particularly by the United States towards Iran is unfortunate and dangerous for the region as a whole.

I share my hon. Friend’s abhorrence of nuclear weaponry and have no time for nuclear power, which, as he said, Iran is in the process of developing. Is it not incongruous that, under the aegis of the United States, the International Atomic Energy Agency has withdrawn from Iran technical co-operation on 55 fronts, which means that it has to turn to other countries for high-class technology and expertise, which might not be up to the standards that we are used to in the west? For example, if those involved in Chernobyl were to advise Iran, would we not have fears about their knowledge not being quite up to the mark? Someone once said of the control room at Chernobyl that it looked like someone had thrown dials into a bag and tossed it against a wall.

My hon. Friend is far more of an expert on this subject than I am, and there is a great deal of merit in what he says. If a country develops nuclear power, but there is an accident or disaster, we all suffer. Nuclear fallout does not respect national boundaries. I can think back to debates in this House after the Chernobyl disaster, when a lot of people happily sat back and said, “Well, it is all the fault of Soviet technology”. The reality was that thousands of people were terminally affected by the fallout—not only those around the plant, but in Scandinavia and, indeed, this country, despite the fact that we are a very great distance from Chernobyl. That is the reality of a nuclear power system failure.

Therefore, if Iran is denied high-quality nuclear technology, and resorts to that which has far less certainty and safety, we are all at risk, not least the Iranian people and those in neighbouring countries. I urge the Minister, in her response, to tell us that the attitude taken—

Order. We have had a request from the sound person: the position where the hon. Gentleman is standing is creating a problem, so will he move to the next microphone? That should solve the problem.

To the left or the right?

I leave that entirely up to the hon. Gentleman.

I can assure the audience that this is a tactical move to the right only.

When the Minister replies, I hope that she will help us on the question of relations with Iran. During the hostage crisis earlier this year, I was quite relieved that the bellicose language used against Iran up until that point was toned down a great deal. In the end, diplomacy triumphed and there was no military stand-off. Surely, that must be the way forward, and I hope that she will tell us that the Government intend to engage with Iran, rather than continually attack and criticise it. I accept that there is much to criticise in Iran concerning human rights and political rights and developments, and it is correct that those criticisms be made, but to start a quasi-military or, ultimately, military conflict would be disastrous for the whole region, particularly given the horrors in neighbouring Iraq.

The hon. Gentleman has secured a very important debate at a key time in our history. Actually, it is a historic debate on a very important question. Does he think that the question of Iran, and of the middle east generally, shows that the British Government and the Americans do not understand the political dynamics in those areas? Is he aware of comments made by the Iranian envoy to the IAEA, Mr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh? He said:

“Britain does not have the right to question others when they’re not complying with their obligations”—

under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Does that not pose an important question?

Indeed. I shall return to the NPT system in a few moments, but yes, that is an important point: we should abide by the NPT, if we expect others to do the same. The other point that the hon. Gentleman made concerning internal politics in Iran is an important one as well. We hear some incredibly simplistic reports of what goes on in Iran, and everything that the President says and the language that he uses is taken as the gospel according to the whole country. It simply is not like that. There are different power centres in Iran; the political President is one, but there are many others. We should try and understand a little bit more about the country. I commend to anyone interested in Iran Rageh Omaar’s films on the BBC about life and attitudes in Iran. It is a huge, proud and important country resting on the Persian tradition, and the simplistic remarks about and attacks made on it do no good at all; in fact, they do a great deal of harm. We should have some respect for the history and position of that country.

The purpose of this debate is to tease out the Government’s position on the development of a peaceful nuclear process. The Government are quite keen, apparently, on developing nuclear power stations. I am not! But in a sense that is a separate debate from the one surrounding nuclear weapons. However, the assertion that we have an independent nuclear deterrent has been questioned by many of us for many years, both in this House and in the wider peace movement in this country. I do not believe that we have an independent nuclear deterrent, but that it relies entirely on technology and information from the United States to be fired or used. In reality, we are a subdivision of the US when it comes to nuclear weapons. However, that does not stop us spending vast amounts of money on our existing nuclear weapons, the development of the Aldermaston facilities and the putative replacement of the Trident system, which could cost as much as £70 billion. That was one of the big issues—it was not the only one—in the debate on 14 March.

I hope that the Government will recognise that if we are serious about our signing of the NPT all those years ago, committing us to long-term nuclear disarmament, as well as committing all those declared non-nuclear-weapon states to not developing such weapons, it is up to us to use this historic opportunity to say that we will go no further with the Trident project and that instead we will accept the terms of the NPT.

I had the good fortune, because I am one of the national vice-chairs of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, to attend the NPT PrepCom—the preparatory committee meeting—in Vienna in April and early May this year, and I did so with great interest. I spoke at length with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) at a seminar that was conducted in parallel to the conference and I listened very carefully to the statements made by the Russian delegation, the United States delegation, many other delegations, the European Union and the British representative who spoke at the same session.

Let me quote from the statement made by Ambassador John Duncan, the head of the UK delegation to the first preparatory committee. He said:

“Mr. Chairman, you will be aware that at the end of last year we published a White Paper explaining the reasoning behind the UK government’s decision to maintain a nuclear deterrent.”

He went on to explain that the UK Parliament voted to support that decision. He said:

“Firstly, I should make clear what we have decided. The UK has decided to begin the concept and design work required to make possible a replacement for our current ballistic missile submarine fleet; and to maintain the option of using the D5 missile beyond its current life expectancy.

This does not mean that we have taken an irreversible decision that commits us irrevocably to possessing nuclear weapons in 40 or 50 years’ time. Indeed, our White Paper is clear that the UK remains committed to the goal of a world free from nuclear weapons.”

The next part was, to me, the most interesting. Ambassador Duncan said:

“Mr Chairman, some suggest that it is hypocritical for the UK to maintain its nuclear weapons while calling on others to desist from their development. Let me make clear that the UK does not belong to an opposite camp that insists on ‘non-proliferation first.’ The UK fully accepts the proposition that progress must be made on the disarmament and non-proliferation tracks in parallel. The UK White Paper on the nuclear deterrent makes clear our continuing commitment to meet our disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT.”

The interesting thing was that nobody, at that stage, had accused Britain or anybody else of being hypocritical; it was the ambassador who brought up the question of hypocrisy, which was somewhat surprising to us. He then fairly pointed out that Britain had reduced its number of nuclear warheads considerably.

I was interested in Ambassador Duncan’s statement and I was obviously pleased that he was at the committee and able to make the statement, but if he or, indeed, the delegation recognises that we are likely to be charged with hypocrisy, let us lance the boil and not go there. Let us say that we fully support all the principles of the NPT, which includes us not developing nuclear weapons or continuing with the replacement of Trident.

As I understand it, the 14 March vote was a vote in principle; it did not commit us to expenditure. I would be grateful if the Minister, when she replies to the debate, could explain exactly how much money has been spent on the development of a possible replacement for Trident and what is being invested now at Aldermaston in the development of further nuclear bomb-making facilities.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was lucky enough to hear the speech by the previous Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), at the Carnegie foundation in Washington, in which, again, it was pointed out that nothing was for ever in terms of British foreign policy, warheads and so on, and that we are now moving to a state in which, independently, there is consideration of how far we can go and the fact that the deterrent effect may be different in different countries. So there was a chink of light from the previous Foreign Secretary, too. I just have this wonderful feeling that something is opening up and I am sorry that she lost her job.

I have always known my hon. Friend to be a brilliant man, but he has read my mind on this occasion.

Or even the script.

Not the script because there is no script—I cannot do scripts. I was indeed about to refer to the speech by the former Foreign Secretary to the Carnegie international non-proliferation conference on 25 June. In my view, it is a very interesting, very seminal speech and extremely well put. I shall quote a couple of extracts from it, because I think it important that the House understands what she said.

My right hon. Friend talked about the possibilities of long-term nuclear disarmament and quoted Kofi Annan. She went on to say that

“there are some very specific triggers for action—key impending decisions—that we are fast approaching.”

She drew attention to the fact that START—the strategic arms reduction treaty—expires in 2009; there is not long to go. She said:

“We will need to start thinking about how we move from a bilateral disarmament framework built by the US and Russia to one more suited to our multi-polar world”.

That was an interesting use of language. She went on to say:

“And then in 2010 we will have the NPT Review Conference. By the time that is held, we need the international community to be foursquare and united behind the global non-proliferation regime. We can’t afford for that conference to be a fractured or fractious one: rather we must strengthen the NPT in all its aspects.”

Towards the end of the speech, my right hon. Friend said:

“What we need is both vision—a scenario for a world free of nuclear weapons. And action—progressive steps to reduce warhead numbers and to limit the role of nuclear weapons in security policy. These two strands are separate but they are mutually reinforcing. Both are necessary, both at the moment too weak.”

In the historical context, my right hon. Friend drew a parallel with people who have stood against impossible odds and achieved something. She cited the example of those who campaigned for the end of the slave trade and quoted William Wilberforce. She cited those who sought the millennium development goals to make poverty history in our society and in our world. Her words at that conference were prescient and important.

Nuclear weapons were used once in anger—in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. They were mere fireworks compared with the weapons that are now available in the world. Every year on 6 August, Hiroshima day, we have commemorations around the world—I always attend the one in Tavistock square in London—and every year we have aged Japanese guests who come along, who are dying of cancers, as others are dying of cancers, as a result of weapons used more than 60 years ago that are mere fireworks compared with what is now available. Those people are living the legacy of the only use of nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have dedicated themselves as cities of peace. We should pay tribute to Mayor Ito of Nagasaki, who was tragically murdered earlier this year. He campaigned for peace on behalf of his city.

We came very near to nuclear war in 1962 in the Cuban missile crisis. We came very near to nuclear war between India and Pakistan in 2002. Is it really conscionable that in the 21st century, with all the problems of poverty, hunger, malnutrition, the AIDS pandemic and the lack of sanitation around the world, we should be thinking of spending billions of pounds on developing weapons of mass destruction? Why do we not accept in its totality the NPT that came into force in 1970, the reasons that we signed it and what it commits us to? Why do we not say that our intention, our purpose, is to bring about long-term nuclear disarmament and start by setting an example by saying that this country will not proceed any further with the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons? We could use that to encourage others.

The six-party talks have shown, in the case of North Korea, that it is possible to make progress. There are many people in this Room who would recognise that it is quite possible and, indeed, probable that progress will be made with Iran. If, however, we decide to go ahead with the new generation of nuclear weapons and the US, Russia, France and China do the same, who on earth are we to go to the NPT review conference in 2010 and proceed to lecture people in the rest of the world about why they should not develop nuclear weapons?

This, essentially, is a moral quest with a moral purpose. Millions out there would like to see a better world, as do many in here, and we do not believe that nuclear weapons bring about peace, justice or security. Instead, they bring about danger, the possibility of proliferation and, by their very manufacture and existence, the danger of pollution. The NPT was a seminal treaty, which was promoted by countries that did not have nuclear weapons, did not want them and did not want anybody else to have them. Although the PrepCom meeting in Vienna eventually concluded with a degree of harmony and good purpose, there is no guarantee that the review conference in 2010 will achieve the same, unless the UK, as one of the five declared nuclear weapon states, does all that it can to develop the process of nuclear disarmament. That is why I called for this debate, and I look forward to the contributions of others and to the Minister’s reply. This is an issue for our time; it is one that will allow us to make a real contribution and bring about a more peaceful world.

In politics, timing is everything, so why on earth would Britain broadcast the message this year that it is time to ramp up the nuclear weapons race? The Government have shown to our cost that, as I said earlier, they simply do not understand the dynamics of politics in the middle east and North Korea or the evolving terrorist threats. The awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons makes any decision that the Government take a historic one for this country and the world. We have the opportunity to set an example—good or bad—but I am afraid that Parliament has not truly debated or consulted on that decision in the wide manner that its importance demands.

Britain had a unique opportunity, as the bishops’ conference put it, to jump start

“an approach to security and legitimate self-defence without the unconscionable threat of nuclear destruction”

and

“give a new impetus to the wider process towards total nuclear disarmament.”

The question is whether we should trust the Prime Minister or have a proper, full debate on such a historic decision, rather than just pushing it through, with the Whips driving MPs through the voting Lobbies. All MPs worth their vote want eventual nuclear disarmament, which is our legal responsibility under the NPT. We signed up to that and we should follow through or explain why we will not. The answer to the question whether we should have a proper debate is, of course, a no-brainer, but MPs on both sides of the House were railroaded when the issue was discussed this spring.

Of course, the Government have a grave duty to maintain security, but the burning question is whether their, and indeed the Opposition’s, strident push for even more destructive nuclear weapons platforms and capabilities would provide that security or facilitate less stable countries—some with desperate and dangerous leaders—in taking up the nuclear option. Do such weapons defend us against the evolving, asymmetric threats of terrorism? Mutually assured destruction—MAD—simply does not work as a deterrent against terrorist threats; we can ask any suicide bomber that and we will get a very clear answer.

We have seen a litany of disastrous weapons and major systems procurement decisions in the past decade, and overstretch in the conventional forces is certainly no illusion. Some MPs could therefore be forgiven for thinking that spending money on proven conventional forces would be a lot more effective way of creating a safer world and a safer Britain. The point, however, is that society needs to have a comprehensive debate, and it has not yet had one. Tony Blair said that the cost was about £20 billion over the relevant period, so pundits watching the issue would not be surprised if the cost escalated to £40 billion, given what we all know about cost estimates for major weapons, platforms and systems.

As I said, we could spend some of that money on conventional arms. We could also spend it on tackling climate change to help save the planet from certain and serious damage. Equally, we could spend it on international development to remove some of the inequalities around the world, which drive terrorism in the first place. Trident also raises key domestic questions, and there are serious domestic calls on the money involved—the health service, education and tackling law and order spring readily to mind.

MPs really can make a difference; we all know that, which is why we come here. However, we need the courage to put our country first, to put people before politics and occasionally to ignore the party Whips and do what we think is right so that we can force the Government to make good decisions, particularly when the matter is so historically important. I made a mistake believing and following the Government on Iraq, but I will not make that mistake so easily again.

Let me make it clear, however, that I am not advocating nuclear disarmament now, unlike the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who made an excellent speech. I am not a disarmer by nature and I believe in strong defences. I am arguing that now is not the right time to make a decision; in fact, it is totally the wrong time. A decision is not necessary technically and the systems can be extended beyond 2020, when, if we want to look at a nuclear option for the future, there will be new, cheaper and more effective technologies that can be better targeted. There are also better ways to spend the money right now. We as MPs can send a historic message to the rest of the world and really make a difference if we have the courage to do what is right.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) not only on his speech but on the campaign that he has supported for many years to keep Trident and nuclear weapons on the political agenda.

My constituency boasts Michael Foot and Llew Smith as my predecessors, and they were unilateralists, who campaigned for unilateral nuclear disarmament for many years. I was a multilateralist until relatively recently, but what changed my mind primarily—other than the campaigns by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—was the reduction of nuclear weapons across the world, including in Britain, Russia and America, as well as the existence of parts of the world without nuclear weapons. Now seems to be the time to take the next step.

The issue of a free vote has been mentioned. As an independent MP, I believe that the most important point is that all hon. Members must go out into their constituencies and listen to their constituents. Then, I would urge the Government to bring the issue back to Parliament and to give Parliament a free vote.

Many things have been said about Trident, nuclear power and nuclear weapons in the past months, including during election campaigns for deputy party leaders. Many Ministers have indicated that there should perhaps be a rethink, and they should be listened to. The most important thing is that we lead as a country to show that there is another way. We must use the disarming of Trident as a negotiating point with countries such as Iran to persuade them that disarmament is the right thing to do.

The Government held a debate that took a matter of hours, but this issue needs debating over a long time. CND has said that the move to renew does not have to be taken for six, seven, 10 and maybe 15 years, so let us have a debate. Let us not fail to talk about this issue for the sake of a matter of months.

The safeguard that nuclear weapons give is a false one. I have written many questions to Ministers asking under what conditions this country would use nuclear weapons, and only two answers have come back. The first is, “It is only a deterrent,” but if that is the case, what is the point? The second is, “We’d only use it as a retaliatory measure.” I am sorry, but it gives my constituents no pleasure to think that if 300,000 people were killed by a nuclear strike in this country we would feel better if we killed another 300,000 in another country. That, to me, is no reason for using nuclear weapons.

A point has been made about cost. Estimates from £20 billion to £100 billion have been made—unimaginable, unreachable sums of money. We talk about postcode lotteries for health service care, including cancer treatments. Flood defences, which are in the news at the moment, are among the things that the money could be much better spent on. I urge the Minister and the Government, and all hon. Members, to push for the Trident debate to come back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity, and to make sure that there is a free vote so that our consciences can lead the way.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on bringing the issue back to the House for debate, and particularly on the questions that he has posed for the Minister to answer. I hope that the Minister, whom I congratulate on her new post, will take up and answer some of the questions that have been put. We appreciate that perhaps subtle but important changes have occurred in the Government in the past few weeks; perhaps we shall receive answers to some of the questions that were not answered in the previous debate in the House.

A question that Members of Parliament are often asked is why they got involved in politics. Two issues in particular provoked me as a young child. One was the famine of 1962 or 1963 in India, and the second was the Cuban missiles crisis. In one case I could not understand how we in the west could be so rich and not help; in the second I could not understand how we in the west could be so mad that our system of defence was, as mentioned earlier, based on the principle of mutually assured destruction. I began to question at an early age the purpose of and need for nuclear weapons. It struck me that there was no moral argument for them. They were just a reaction—a fearful reaction—to the other side.

The politics that brought about the nuclear arsenals that were built up in the 1950s and 1960s has changed. However, the thinking of some of today’s politicians does not appear to have moved on. I think in particular of one Conservative defence spokesman whose argument for maintaining the nuclear deterrent seemed to be that in the early 1980s it was good for hitting the left with, and was popular with voters; it was a policy that should be continued because he was convinced of its popularity with voters. That is virtually verbatim what he said—but I hasten to add that it was not the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who will probably give us a slightly modified view. It struck me as a rather bizarre argument. Part of the difficulty is that many of the arguments for maintaining nuclear weapons are bizarre.

In relation to the current debate, Gorbachev said:

“A responsible course of action for the Government would be to postpone the decision on the future of the UK nuclear arsenal at least until the next review conference of the NPT in 2010”.

That is an argument that we agree with. If hon. Members do not agree with or want to believe that source, they can always listen to Kofi Annan, who said:

“No state should imagine that, by pushing ahead with a nuclear weapon programme, it can pose as a defender of the NPT; still less that it will persuade others to disarm”.

That is the argument that the Liberal Democrats have put, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) put a similar one. There is no need at this point for the House to have taken its decision to replace our nuclear deterrent.

The Liberal Democrats accept, in the current environment, that there is still the need for a minimum nuclear deterrent, but they also recognise what was particularly highlighted by the hon. Member for Islington, North—that we have legal obligations under the nuclear proliferation treaty to move forward to nuclear disarmament. Even the Government’s own documents have cited the need for nuclear disarmament, although that seems to be contradicted by their actions and other statements.

I want to return to previous debates and some questions that were put to the former Prime Minister. In December he said that under article VI of the NPT

“we can maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. We are under an obligation, which we are fulfilling, to pursue multilateral negotiations, but there is no obligation on us to disarm unilaterally.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 26.]

He also stated:

“The evidence is that the non-proliferation treaty works best in circumstances in which there is a multilateral mood for disarmament. That is the reason why we believe it is better to pursue such a course under the terms of that treaty.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 35.]

He indicated that the deterrent is best achieved by co-operation with other states. Perhaps the Minister could explain how, in advance of 2010, the Government intend to promote effective and committed co-operation with their NPT partners.

In December the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, asked the then Prime Minister to

“confirm that the Government remain committed to the goal of global nuclear disarmament and will make renewed efforts to secure international negotiations as called for under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 32.]

The Prime Minister refused to confirm that. He talked of unilateral disarmament, but not of the need to make renewed efforts on the international stage. Will the Minister advise us of the efforts that the present Government intend to make to promote the NPT, and what negotiations they will enter into with other countries, to bring that about?

We accept that there are difficulties over international peace; there are concerns about Iran’s intentions and about North Korea and its intentions. However, we must ask what is the best way forward. Is it to say that we will go ahead willy-nilly with the replacement of the Trident system? Is it not better to be more thoughtful and send out a message that we believe that we still have the right to a minimum nuclear deterrent, but that we recognise that we have obligations under the NPT which require us to try to move forward with multilateral disarmament, and which we will honour by making a commitment to reduce our nuclear defence capacity by 50 per cent., with a view to obtaining further negotiations with the other relevant countries and creating a situation in which Iran can be engaged in a non-proliferation treaty and North Korea can feel assured that there is movement towards that? We could then move on to consider other countries that have developed nuclear weapons, and what can be done to reduce the absolute risk of a nuclear conflict.

We should not doubt that such a conflict is a possibility. In the conflict between Pakistan and India a year or so ago, both those countries came perilously close to a nuclear exchange. That would have been a disaster.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. He has long had an utterly consistent approach to these matters, and it will not surprise him that he and I disagree on one or two significant points. He has kept his CND badge polished and on public display even in recent years when it has become somewhat unfashionable among leading members of his party to advertise one’s previous membership of that organisation. He is right to point out the importance of this topic.

The non-proliferation treaty represented a bargain in which the non-nuclear states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons, and to put their civil nuclear programmes under international safeguards. The nuclear states agreed to take action to prevent proliferation, to pursue disarmament negotiations, under article VI, and to allow the easy dissemination of civil nuclear technology. Any assessment of the NPT has to take all sides of that bargain into account.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North that the UK should give up its nuclear deterrent. Neither do I agree that there is a comfortable way out of taking the difficult decision whether to renew Trident by postponing it. The Minister will have chapter and verse, but my clear memory of our debate earlier this Session on the renewal of Trident is that all the expert advice from defence chiefs and others was that the lead-in time for the development of a renewed Trident system meant that the decision had to be taken this Parliament if we were to be in a position to renew the deterrent when the current Trident system is likely to become obsolete. For those reasons, I differ from both the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).

It is a pity that earlier speakers did not mention that the UK has reduced its nuclear arsenal by 70 per cent. since the end of the cold war, or that we are the only one of the original five nuclear powers to have limited ourselves to a single delivery system. The US, Russia, China and France have maintained more than one such system.

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that we have not become less secure as a result of reducing our nuclear weaponry and launch systems? Does he not, therefore, see any illogicality in his argument? The Opposition have a debate in the main Chamber this afternoon on reducing global poverty; does he not think that some of the £20 billion that we are to spend on ramping up our nuclear systems would be better spent on reducing global poverty, as it is global poverty and inequality that are driving terrorist growth?

The growth of terrorism derives from several factors. My hon. Friend might be right to attribute it, in part, to global poverty, and I do not seek to deny the importance of taking national and international action to address that. He knows that our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is in Africa this week, highlighting the importance of international development and our party’s commitment to acting to improve the lot of people in the poorest countries. However, any responsible Government, and any party aspiring to government in this country, have to keep at the forefront of their mind their prime duty of looking after the security of the UK population, both nationally and internationally. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the remarks of the Bishop of Rochester a few months ago, when he acknowledged that the

“cost of replacing or renewing Trident is often cited as a reason for not doing so.”

He also acknowledged that that money could be spent on

“international development or environmental projects”,

but concluded that

“the cost of Trident is very small compared to the UK’s GDP and is a small price to pay for the security on which many other social goods depend.”

I hesitate to disagree with a bishop, but something has to be said here. Is not the argument that he has put, which the hon. Gentleman is also putting, one for every country in the world to develop nuclear weapons? Are we made more secure by having nuclear weapons? Is Sweden made more secure by not having them? Surely that is the question that has to be answered.

The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s case is that he sidesteps the fact that the NPT acknowledged that some states were in possession of nuclear weapons, and sought to create a framework under which those states could combat proliferation and work, over time—no deadline was specified in article VI—to reduce their nuclear arsenals and the threat of nuclear war. The treaty also acknowledged that other states did not possess nuclear weapons. All signatories undertook duties to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, but the treaty accepted the reality that they were possessed by existing nuclear states and sought to stabilise that position. I have heard no persuasive argument that the UK’s unilateral disarmament would discourage nuclear proliferation by others. The NPT system has worked pretty well on the whole. In fairness, the hon. Member for Islington, North made some of these points in his speech. South Africa voluntarily gave up its potential nuclear capability, and the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus gave up stocks of nuclear weapons that they had in their territories.

The Government need to mount vigorous diplomatic action regarding the weaknesses in the current non-proliferation regime. In today’s world, we face new, and probably growing, dangers from nuclear proliferation, partly because access to nuclear technology is a lot easier now and partly because it has been around for about half a century and is more familiar to people and organisations than was the case even before the internet made it possible for complex, advanced technology to be transmitted from continent to continent at the click of a mouse. We have also seen the growth of a vigorous black market in nuclear technology in recent years. The Minister will know that A. Q. Khan’s group in Pakistan is believed to have sold nuclear know-how to Iraq, North Korea and Libya. We have also seen, through the examples of Iran and Libya, that countries have been able to conceal nuclear programmes successfully not just for months or years, but for decades.

The Government should press for international action to strengthen the safeguards in the treaty against nuclear proliferation. For a start, countries will be less likely to conceal what they are doing if their programmes are likely to be detected, so we must beef up the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectorate.

There are only about 650 inspectors, whose job it is to police 900 or so nuclear facilities worldwide. By way of analogy, I should point out that Disney World employs more than 1,000 people on security duties for one site. The Government need to consider some serious questions. Is the number of inspectors large enough? Is the IAEA budget of $120 million a year adequate in the face of the growing threat of proliferation? If it is not, what action do they intend to take to bring together their international partners to strengthen the arm of the inspectors?

Secondly, as the hon. Member for Islington, North said, we need to have regard to the importance of the additional supplementary protocols to the NPT. I gather that, so far, only 69 countries have both signed up to such additional protocols and, crucially, brought them into force. The protocols give additional rights of inspection to the IAEA, and there is now a strong case for international agreement to try to make additional protocols the norm for all signatories to the NPT.

We do not have time today to go into the Iranian political and diplomatic situation in detail. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is clear that Iran is no longer implementing the supplementary protocol that it had agreed. The additional protocols do not give the inspectorate the authority to explore some serious matters such as high-explosives testing or the design of missile warheads. In cases such as that of Iran, we need to have a system of additional obligations approved by the Security Council that can be imposed on countries that renege on the supplementary protocols that they have previously agreed to implement.

The North Korean case exposed another possible loophole in the NPT. North Korea was able to build up its civil nuclear programme, give the required three months’ notice of withdrawal from the NPT and then move rapidly towards a weapons programme because it had acquired the knowledge of all the sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. If we are to address that problem in the current treaty framework, we also need to address the clear obligation in the treaty for the developed countries, in particular the nuclear weapons states, to facilitate the transfer of peaceful, civil nuclear technology to other countries that have agreed not to go down the path of developing nuclear weapons programmes of their own.

I fully understand the wish of many countries in the developing world to develop their own civil nuclear programmes. There is a duty on the existing nuclear weapons powers to live up to the expectation of the treaty that everything possible would be done to facilitate the transfer of civil nuclear technology. That could be achieved in various ways: there could be some kind of international partnership whereby a small number of states produce nuclear fuel that could then be made available to others; or there could be a network of fuel banks managed and policed on an international basis. That might enable us both to meet the developing countries’ need for nuclear energy and to prevent countries such as North Korea from getting access to the sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle that might make possible the rapid development of a weapons programme in the future.

Finally, I hope that the Minister will say something about the Government’s approach to the black market in nuclear technology and nuclear weapons. United Nations resolution 1540 calls on every member state to criminalise proliferation action of that type. There is a need for even better intelligence co-operation against proliferation than is in place and for tighter controls on existing stockpiles.

Will the hon. Gentleman be able to say anything about his party’s position on the expiry of the strategic arms reduction treaty in 2009 and the danger that between then and the NPT conference there could be the development of a new arms race between Russia and the United States?

I hope that the British Government will do everything possible to try to prevent the development of such an arms race. A new arms race between Russia and the US is in the interests of neither of those countries, nor is it in the interests of world peace. I hope that the recent contacts between the US and the Russian Government about the controversial issue of the anti-missile system lead to an agreement that will defuse the risk of such an arms race.

The NPT and its associated system of controls has, on the whole, served the world well. I hope that the Government will be prepared to acknowledge that in the new situation, given the growing risk of proliferation that we now face, further action is needed to strengthen the existing safeguards. That represents a way forward that is in the interests of the security of the United Kingdom and of international peace.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this debate. I thank him and other hon. Members for their kind words of welcome. Many thoughtful and considered contributions were made and we heard many sincerely held views. I shall do my best to respond to all of the many points that have been made. I ask hon. Members to bear with me and wait until I have got well into my speech before attempting to intervene if they fear that I am not going to respond to a particular point. I shall happily take interventions at that stage.

From the Government’s perspective the timing of the debate could not be better, because, as has been mentioned by several hon. Members, just a month ago the then Foreign Secretary spoke to the Carnegie international non-proliferation conference in Washington to call for a renewed commitment to a world free from nuclear weapons. She received a standing ovation for her speech—my aspirations this morning are somewhat lower, none the less I shall refer to the plan that she set out. The Carnegie speech set out how we as a Government want to reinvigorate the international approach to nuclear disarmament, with the explicit goal of reinforcing the NPT process in the run-up to the review conference in 2010, to which several hon. Members have referred.

I believe that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that the UK has an exceptional record in meeting our NPT disarmament commitments, and we should be clear about that. What are those commitments? Article VI imposes an obligation on all states to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures for cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament. The NPT review conference in 2000 agreed by consensus 13 practical steps towards implementation of article VI. The UK remains committed to those steps and is making progress on them.

We are disarming. The House heard in March of our decision to reduce the UK’s stockpile of operationally available warheads by a further 20 per cent. to less than 160. Significant as that is, it is just the latest in a series of dramatic reductions in the UK’s nuclear weapons. Since the end of the cold war, the explosive power of UK nuclear weapons will have been reduced by 75 per cent. UK nuclear weapons account for less than 1 per cent. of the global inventory.

We have withdrawn and dismantled our tactical marine and airborne nuclear capabilities and, consequently, have reduced our reliance on nuclear weapons to one system: submarine-based Trident. As hon. Members have said, we are the only nuclear-weapons state to have done that. We have also reduced the readiness of the remaining nuclear force. We now have only one boat on patrol at any one time and it carries no more than 48 warheads. We have not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1991, and we have signed and ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. We have ceased production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. We have also increased transparency of our fissile material holdings, and we have produced historical records of our defence holdings of both plutonium and highly enriched uranium.

Our decision to renew the Trident system did not reverse or undermine any of those positive disarmament steps. The UK is not upgrading the capabilities of the system, and there is no move to produce more useable weapons and no change in our nuclear posture or doctrine. The UK's nuclear weapons are not designed for military use during conflicts. They are a strategic deterrent that we would contemplate using only in extreme circumstances of self-defence. Over the past 50 years, the deterrent has been used only to deter acts of aggression against our vital interests, never to coerce others. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), because we are not ramping up our weapons.

Hon. Members referred to timing and whether we needed to make a decision now. The issue was debated at length during the Trident debate, so I do not intend to go into it in great detail today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) the then Foreign Secretary, said specifically that it would mean a decision to begin a process to design, build and commission submarines to replace the existing Vanguard class boats. That will take some 17 years, so the decision was necessary. It was discussed at great length, and it was appropriate to make it. I shall speak about the cost in a moment.

If replacing Trident will not increase our capability, why are we doing it?

Because we are maintaining the existing situation while reducing the number of warheads. Renewal is simply about maintaining the minimum nuclear capability necessary for our security, while we continue to pursue in good faith the conditions for a world free from nuclear weapons. The simple truth is that the UK is implementing its obligations under the NPT, while those states that are developing illicit nuclear weapons programmes are not.

A number of hon. Members referred to cost. The average annual procurement cost represents less than 0.1 per cent. of gross domestic product, and we believe that that price is worth paying to maintain our capability. Since coming to power, the Government have increased investment in many of our public services and elsewhere, so this is not something that should be offset against this matter. Our annual expenditure on capital and running costs of the Trident nuclear deterrent, including the cost of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, from its entry into service in 1994-95 to 2004-05 is in the range of 3 to 4 per cent. of the defence budget.

The UK is not the only nuclear weapons state to have been disarming. We have welcomed the series of bilateral agreements since the end of the cold war that have greatly reduced the major nuclear arsenals. By the end of this year, the US will have fewer than half the number of silo-based nuclear missiles that it had in 1990. By 2012, US operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads will be reduced to about one third of 2001 levels. Under the terms of the strategic offensive reductions treaty, Russia is making parallel cuts. The French have withdrawn four complete weapons systems.

Last year, Kofi Annan said that the world risks becoming mired in a sterile stand-off between those who care most about disarmament, and those who care most about proliferation. He was right. The dangers of such mutually assured paralysis are dangers for us all. Any solution must be a dual one, with movement on both proliferation and disarmament—a revitalisation of the grand bargain that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North set out so well at the beginning of his speech, and which was struck in 1968, when the non-proliferation treaty was established.

Today the non-proliferation regime is under pressure, as a number of hon. Members said. We have seen the emergence of a mixture of further declared and undeclared nuclear powers, and two more countries—Iran and North Korea, which are both signatories to the NPT—present further challenges to the international community. Their actions have profound and direct implications for global security, and raise the serious prospect of proliferation across their region.

The Government welcome Iran’s discussions with the International Atomic Energy Association about resolving outstanding safeguarding issues, and we hope for rapid progress. Iran’s suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities required by UN Security Council resolution remains crucial to restoring international confidence in Iran’s nuclear intentions. It is not complying with that requirement and that is why we are discussing a possible sanctions resolution with our E3 plus three partners. As the UN Security Council has repeatedly made clear, if Iran meets the requirements for a suspension, that will open the way to negotiation with the E3 plus three about a mutually acceptable long-term arrangement. We are working hard to ensure that the matter is taken seriously.

We are not party to the six-party talks process, but we welcome the recent progress and sincerely hope that there will be further progress.

The Minister is talking about NPT signatories, but will she say what strategy the Government intend to pursue to try to persuade India and Pakistan to become signatories to the treaty, and explain the situation in Israel, which I understand now has more than 200 warheads, rather more than there are in this country? That is clearly a factor, but not the only one, in the middle east region.

As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the Government want universalisation of the NPT, and we want everyone to sign up to it. I shall refer to our general approach in trying to reinvigorate the process later in my speech.

Our efforts on non-proliferation will be dangerously undermined if others believe, however unfairly, that the terms of the grand bargain have changed, so we must do more than just have an exemplary record on disarmament to date. As my right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary made clear in her speech in Washington, we need a renewed commitment to a world free from nuclear weapons, and a convincing plan. The point is not to convince the Iranians or the North Koreans and I do not believe for a second that further reductions in our nuclear weapons would have a material effect on their nuclear ambitions. The reason for doing more is that the moderate majority of states—our natural and vital allies on non-proliferation—want us to do more, and if we do not do so, we risk helping Iran and North Korea in their efforts to muddy the water and to turn the blame for their own nuclear intransigence back on us.

I shall deal with the point that the hon. Member for Castle Point made about terrorism. International terrorism is a serious and sustained threat, and we must do everything we can to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with it. However, it is not a matter of choice; we do not have to—nor should we—choose between addressing terrorist threats and nuclear threats, and we cannot choose between dealing either with those threats or with the challenges of climate change. We have to deal with all of them, and we will continue to do so.

The Government are committed to an effective IAEA. We do not accept that it has insufficient resources to carry out its responsibility, and we will continue to make significant voluntary contributions to it to ensure that we provide it with appropriate support. This year’s settlement provided a real increase to the budget of 1.4 per cent.

The Minister mentioned making progress with the NPT, and that we have only one system—Trident. The Government document on the issue said:

“We are the only nuclear power that has so far been prepared to take such an important step”—

having just one weapons-based system—

“on the route to nuclear disarmament.”

If the Minister says that she is in favour of progressing the NPT, and the Government document says that they are in favour of further nuclear disarmament, are any of the weapons systems that we want to replace up for negotiation?

We have set out our replacement for the Trident system and design. That is what we are discussing. Our position is that disarmament should be multilateral, and I shall come on both to address what we consider to be the important next steps and to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions about our plans moving towards 2010.

Let me just outline the key components. First, we will continue to call for significant further reductions in the major Russian and US nuclear arsenals. We hope that the existing bilateral treaties will be succeeded by further clear commitments to significantly lower warhead numbers, including tactical as well as strategic nuclear weapons. We are clear that when it becomes useful to include in any negotiations the 1 per cent. of the world’s nuclear weapons that belong to the UK, we will willingly do so.

Secondly, we must press on with the comprehensive test ban treaty and with the fissile material cut-off treaty. Both treaties limit in real and practical ways the ability of states that are party to them to develop new weapons and expand their nuclear capabilities. The treaties play a very powerful symbolic role, too, signalling to the rest of the world that the race for more and bigger weapons is over, and that the direction from now on will be down not up. In other words, they are exactly the sort of

“effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race”

that article 6 requires us to negotiate. That is why we are so keen for those countries that have not yet done so to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty, and why we continue to work hard for the start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty in Geneva.

Thirdly, we should begin now to build deeper relationships on disarmament between nuclear weapon states. For the UK’s part, we have made it clear that we are ready and willing to engage with other members of the P5 on transparency and confidence-building measures.

Finally, we have also announced a series of unilateral activities that the UK will undertake as a “disarmament laboratory”. We will participate in a new project by the International Institute for Strategic Studies on the practical steps required for the elimination of nuclear weapons, and we will undertake further detailed work at the UK’s Atomic Weapons Establishment on the nuts and bolts of nuclear disarmament. That work will examine three discrete issues related to the verification of disarmament, the authentication of warheads, chain of custody problems in sensitive nuclear weapons facilities, and monitored storage of dismantled nuclear weapons.

I shall now deal with the other points that Members have raised. We are committed to all the NPT’s three pillars: disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear power. The former Foreign Secretary set out that commitment very clearly in her speech in Washington, and if Members have not read it, I commend it to them. The UK is showing leadership. We are taking forward the practical work that I have just outlined, and we are working with EU partners on proposals to make withdrawal from the NPT more difficult. It is crucial for international security that states cannot just walk away and develop nuclear weapons. We are also working with Germany and the Netherlands on a uranium bond proposal that would offer countries wishing to develop their own civil nuclear industries guaranteed supplies of nuclear fuel in return for agreed safeguards.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North raised the issue of Mordechai Vanunu. My hon. Friend will appreciate that we are talking about an Israeli citizen in Israel. However, I can assure him that during Mr. Vanunu’s detention and subsequent to his release, we have raised the issue of the restrictions on him with the Israeli authorities.

In article six, there are two key words: “good faith”. The UK’s record is one of good-faith disarmament. That is why we are recognised as the most forward-leaning nuclear weapons state. I have described today our determination to reinvigorate the global approach to nuclear disarmament, and the practical steps that we are taking to help achieve a world free from nuclear weapons. It should be clear that this Government are acting, and will continue to act, in the utmost good faith in fulfilling our disarmament obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to debate Anglo-Saudi relations under your chairmanship, Miss Begg. Before I start, I should state that I am a member of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia. I am pleased to see that our chairman, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), found the time to attend the debate, and I welcome him.

There are 20,000 British citizens living and working in Saudi Arabia, which is by far our largest export market in the middle east. The Saudi royal family have close contact with our own. I am pleased that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office acknowledged the country’s importance, and that quite a number of Ministers have visited Riyadh during the past few years.

I have studied the middle east during the two years that I have been an MP, and I have been increasingly interested in Saudi Arabia’s role in that part of the world. I thank Prince Sultan al-Saud, the head of the political desk at the Saudi embassy, and His Highness Prince Mohammed, the ambassador, whom I have met on a number of occasions. They are great representatives of their country and do a tremendous job here in London. I thank them for that and for the assistance that they have given me.

Saudi Arabia is a key strategic ally, and one that is growing in influence. It has displaced the United States as well as the historical Arab diplomatic heavyweight, Egypt, as the regional power broker in the middle east. For example, at the 2002 Arab League summit in Beirut, the Saudis first proposed their peace plan for the Israel-Palestine conflict and managed to secure the support of the other Arab League members in that extremely important initiative. I shall discuss it later, but needless to say, it offers recognition and peace to Israel if it withdraws back to its pre-1967 borders.

The Saudis have also been involved in trying to bring Hamas and Fatah together in Palestine, applying pressure to get those two increasingly conflicting and hostile groups to work with one another to ensure peace in the Gaza strip and throughout Palestine. Saudi Arabia has also tried to create peace between the Sunnis and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

It is not well known that the Saudi king, Abdullah, has been instrumental in trying to convince the President of Sudan to accept a multinational force in Darfur. That is encouraging. As the Minister will know, in the ’70s, ’80s and even the early ’90s, Saudi Arabia was not a big diplomatic player, tending to focus instead on domestic politics. Considering all the incredibly important initiatives that it is pursuing, not just near its borders but in other countries throughout the middle east, it is clear that it is playing an increasing role in negotiations and diplomacy. Saudi Arabia is a moderate, stable ally of the UK and a key strategic influence that we must cultivate.

I thank the Foreign Office—I do not normally go out of my way to do so—for its initiative on one issue. The United Kingdom is the first Christian country to organise an official Hajj delegation to assist the 20,000 British Muslims who go to Mecca every year. FCO staff have met members of the Muslim community at the Islamic centre in Regent’s park.

I am glad that my hon. Friend touched on the issue of religion. Does he share my concern that Saudi Arabia, mostly through the religious police, continues to repress religious minorities, not least Christians? They are mostly expatriate Christians, but also Saudis who have converted to Christianity from Islam. Is he aware that under Saudi law, people can be put to death for changing their views, minds and hearts about what religion to follow? If they leave Islam to convert to Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, they can be put to death. Will he condemn that policy?

I was rather hoping to concentrate on the positive side of our relations with Saudi Arabia. My hon. Friend has thrown me something of a googly, but I thank him for his intervention. Of course we regret persecution of Christians anywhere in the world. I know that the FCO does its utmost in many countries to voice concerns where there is systematic persecution of Christians.

I did not wish to throw my hon. Friend a googly—I was hoping that it would be a straight ball, which he usually hits to the boundary for a six—but it was a serious point. Last year, four east African Christians were detained for more than a month in very poor conditions and then deported, which has caused severe hardship to their families, as they were in Saudi Arabia raising money to send back home. Does not an inconsistency lie at the heart of the Saudi Government? Whether in Kosovo or elsewhere, they fund the building of mosques throughout Europe, where we allow religious freedom, but they will not allow even small groups to meet for Christian worship in Saudi Arabia.

If my hon. Friend has any examples of people being persecuted because of their Christian faith, I shall be happy to discuss them on his behalf with His Highness Prince Sultan at the embassy.

It is right and proper to raise the question of persecution in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else, but I point out that Saudi Arabia is a young and growing democracy. This country, a long-standing democracy, has persecuted people because of religion—we need look no further than Northern Ireland.

I concur totally. It is true that we in the west like to think our values and codes are relevant throughout the world, but we must understand that different countries operate differently, and their societies are at different levels of development. We cannot compare them with us according to our western values and principles.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

If he will allow me, I shall give way in a moment. The Foreign Office meets the Muslim community at the Islamic centre in Regent’s park, the Saudi ambassador attends and the FCO provides tremendous help in sorting out the logistics of ensuring that 20,000 British Muslims have a safe and secure trip to Mecca. I thank the Foreign Office for that work.

To turn briefly to the defence industry, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Saudis for entrusting us with their security. Over the years, they have spent a great deal of money purchasing British defence machinery. Tens of thousands of British jobs depend on those exports. We have secured exports worth billions of pounds to this country.

Margaret Thatcher, the then Conservative Prime Minister—I have to put in a plug for her—did a tremendous job in the ’80s on securing those contracts, as did her Ministers. I am pleased to see that the Labour Administration have continued such important negotiations in trying to secure further contracts. In June, I believe, the Secretary of State for Defence went to Saudi Arabia to discuss a contract for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets. I should be grateful if the Minister gave me an update on how those negotiations are going. The contract is worth billions of pounds; securing the sale of those 72 Typhoon jets would be a tremendous boost to our economy.

I shall come to our other opportunities with Saudi Arabia, but I should first say that the Prime Minister should appoint a special trade envoy to the kingdom. He has appointed quite a few envoys recently; there is even an envoy for forests, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), whom I saw speaking in this Chamber the other day.

Why should the Prime Minister appoint an envoy to Saudi Arabia? Well, he has appointed an outsider, now Lord Jones of Birmingham, as global trade envoy. One can generally be pleased with that appointment, although I have some issues with the individual. The general concept of having somebody from outside in such a position is a good one. We need a special envoy to Saudi Arabia because of its huge size and the huge potential of our contracts with it. We need an outside expert who knows Saudi Arabia extremely well; who knows the culture and has a long-established network in the country.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to Comrade Jones, as we know him, who is doing a wonderful job for us. The hon. Gentleman has also mentioned cultural links, and it is important that we recognise their effect on jobs. Will he also mention sporting links? The Saudi people have a great love of horse racing and football.

I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he is one of the very few socialists whom I genuinely like—[Laughter.]

Miss Begg, can that be struck from the record?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Saudi Arabians participate greatly in horse racing in our country. They are also becoming better at football; I wish them every success in the World cup. We look forward to their continuing sporting links with our country.

I come back to my point, which I make seriously to the Minister. If the Prime Minister is to start appointing outsiders as envoys, he should please consider having a special envoy—if not to Saudi Arabia, then at least to the middle east. Such a person could be responsible for nurturing trade with those vital countries.

I take the Minister back to 1990, when we first saw tremendous co-operation from Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war. She showed herself to be a great beacon of stability and hosted tens of thousands of our troops on her territory. That was not easy to sell domestically, given the nature of the country, yet she realised at the time the importance of standing shoulder to shoulder with Britain, following the United Nations Security Council resolutions and making sure that Saddam Hussein was expelled from Kuwait.

My hon. Friend has mentioned Saudis on Saudi soil, and obviously that is logical. As a fellow Shropshire Member of Parliament, may I ask him whether he is aware of Saudis on Shropshire soil? Some 40 or 50 Saudi nationals are training at the Defence College of Aeronautical Engineering at RAF Cosford in my constituency in the county of Shropshire. Does he join me in welcoming those people to Shropshire and hoping that that trade and exchange will continue?

I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend’s statement. What he has mentioned is another example of how much the Saudi Arabians entrust us with the training of their pilots in the defence industry.

The Saudis not only hosted us in 1990 but participated with the allied troops in liberating Kuwait. However, if we move 13 years forward to the second Gulf war of 2003, we see a slightly different situation. Having spoken to my Saudi friends, I know that Saudi Arabia warned against the invasion. They lobbied heavily and extensively. They warned the allies not to invade Iraq as they felt that it would lead to certain problems down the line. Being local experts and knowing the area as they do, they also suggested that we, having taken over the country and occupied it in March-April 2003, should keep some of the principal state apparatus intact to manage the society and country effectively.

That, of course, was not done—primarily because the Americans wished to start anew. I regret that, and feel that Saudi Arabia should not have been sidelined. Her advice should have been clearly taken on, both in the run-up to the war and following the subsequent occupation. We could have avoided many problems if we had listened more carefully to our Saudi allies before, during and after the invasion.

The invasion has left our friends, the Saudis, with a tremendous headache, as they now neighbour such a volatile and unstable country. The Minister will know that Saudi Arabia’s border with Iraq is longer than 900 miles. The Saudis have spent tens and tens of millions of pounds on constructing what is in effect a Berlin wall on that frontier and trying to police those hundreds of miles of desert with barbed wire fences and radar to stop the insurgents from coming across the boundary and infiltrating Saudi Arabia.

A critical advancement of Anglo-Saudi relations is our understanding of their peace plan for the Palestine-Israeli conflict, on which I want to focus with the Minister. As I said, in Beirut in 2002, the Saudi Arabians put to the Arab League their peace initiative for Palestine and Israel. Five years later, at the Arab League Riyadh summit of 2007, Saudi Arabia again managed to get the league to reaffirm its commitment to the peace plan. It is extremely important that the plan should be debated and implemented; extremist Muslim organisations such as Hamas will only continue to get stronger unless the terrible tragedy is rectified.

The Saudi proposal would give Israel peace and recognition if she withdrew to her ’67 borders. It calls for an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Let us pause for a moment and think about that—it is extraordinary that a country such as Saudi Arabia, together with her Arab partners, should come forward with a plan so revolutionary and imaginative as to say, “If you withdraw to your pre-’67 borders, we—all of us in the Arab world—will guarantee you recognition and give you peace.”

For me, that is breathtaking and something that our Parliament here in Britain should deliberate on and discuss far more extensively. The Saudi peace plan is so inspiring. If we are to have peace in Palestine, we need to ensure that the Arab League supports it and that it is in favour of the initiatives that we take.

rose—

I shall give way in a second.

The peace plan is extraordinary. It goes on to say that there has to be an agreed and just solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees. The Saudis say that we must recognise the injustices that have been perpetrated on the Palestinian refugees. What are the options for those refugees, if we go back to the pre-1967 borders? Some may return to their lands; others may wish to seek compensation. An international committee will have to deal with that compensation—perhaps there could be funding from international bodies such as the UN, who knows? The other alternative is that some refugees will simply not go back. They have made their homes all around the world, in Europe and north America. They may not go back to their lands. However, a vital part of the peace initiative is justice for the Palestinian refugees. I cannot emphasise enough my thinking that that initiative should be taken forward.

Our former Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, is heading the Quartet’s look at the peace initiative, representing the US, Russia, the EU and the UN. I hope that Mr. Blair will attend the next meeting of the Arab League, and I shall be writing to him to ask him to do so. I hope that he will listen to the Arab League about the peace initiative. My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that no British Prime Minister has ever attended the Arab League, yet it will invite any international statesman who wishes to attend. Recently, the Norwegian Prime Minister attended a meeting. Our former Prime Minister should attend the Arab League meeting, listen to the peace initiative and show that he is willing to take on its views. I will give way to my hon. Friend; I am being generous with him, as always.

I thank my hon. Friend; I was about to say the same thing, before he mentioned it. On the issue of the wider Arab countries, does he agree that the stability of the region as a whole, including the Palestinian territory and Lebanon, would be better served and helped if those Arab countries financed the building of schools, hospitals and infrastructure rather than financing the army and equipping militia groups and terrorist organisations?

I concur that it would be interesting to know—we should try to find out more about this—how much money the Arab League gives to educational projects in areas of conflict such as Palestine. We in the European Union, and particularly in Britain, play our part in financing Palestine and the Gaza strip and in giving development aid to that territory. We have to do everything possible to ensure that the Arab League and wealthy states, such as Saudi Arabia, play their part in financing vital educational and humanitarian projects in those areas of conflict. I agree totally with my hon. Friend.

I want to talk now about how Saudi Arabia is fighting the war on terror. In April 2007, Saudi Arabia announced the arrest of 172 suspected terrorists. The Interior Ministry said that detainees had reached

“an advance stage of readiness and what remained only was to set the zero hour for their attacks”.

In this country, we have recently had to make a number of arrests, regrettably, due to the increasing threat to our security. When people are arrested on suspicion of terrorism, it receives a great deal of media attention and coverage. It is difficult to imagine having to arrest 172 suspected terrorists. Many terrorists are infiltrating Saudi Arabia who have been trained in Afghanistan, Iraq and other parts of the world. Saudi Arabia is facing a hugely difficult situation in trying to cope and grapple with that. Ultimately, as we all know, it has been ramped up since May 2003 following our invasion of Iraq.

According to official figures, about 144 foreigners and Saudis, including security personnel, and 120 militants have died in attacks and clashes with police since May 2003. Those are significant figures, as the Minister will acknowledge. In May 2003, al-Qaeda suicide bombers hit western housing compounds in Riyadh. In May 2004, 22 people, including an American, a Briton and an Italian, died in an attack on an oil company and housing compounds in al-Khobar. Days later, gunmen killed Simon Cumbers, an Irish cameraman working for the BBC, and seriously wounded his British colleague, Frank Gardner, as they filmed in Riyadh.

I have it on good authority from my contacts in Saudi Arabia that over the past five years they have foiled 180 separate plots of insurgency within their country. No one can doubt the Saudi Arabians’ effort in tackling international terrorism. The Minister knows, far better than I do, the help that our country gets from intelligence from Saudi Arabia. He knows, far better than me, a mere Back Bencher, what happens in the communication between Saudi Arabia and our security forces. I would bet my bottom dollar that the help that we are getting from Saudi Arabia to deal with insurgency and terrorism internationally is phenomenal. I am convinced of that. We owe a debt of gratitude to our allies, who show so much confidence in us and are prepared to share so much with us to enable us to deal with the increasing threat of terrorism.

I come now to the Gulf, which is a hugely important territory of water, and, in particular, to the strait of Hormuz. As the Minister knows, that strait is pivotal in securing oil supplies not only for us but for the entire world. Saudi Arabia’s eastern fleet patrols that part of the world. Up until now, France and the United States have been leading the way in supplying Saudi Arabia with all the necessary vessels for its eastern fleet. We must do everything possible to provide Saudi Arabia with British ships for that fleet. We have the best naval vessels in the world, far superior to those of the French and the Americans, so we should be saying loudly to the Saudi Arabians, “Buy British. Buy your vessels for your eastern fleet from the United Kingdom.”

In March 2007, Jane’s Defence Weekly stated that the royal Saudi naval force had an interest in type 45 air defence destroyers. According to that journal, between two and four ships could be purchased. That would realise, for us, up to £2.5 billion, providing a great many more jobs and more investment in our country. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me an update on that, and assure me that everything is being done to ensure that Saudi Arabia seriously considers British naval capabilities for modernising, upgrading and expanding her eastern fleet, which will inevitably do a great amount to help us safeguard the future and safety of the strait of Hormuz.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that I am nearing the end of my speech, but I come briefly to the domestic front. Regrettably, I must say the most controversial thing that I shall say—even I have to be controversial at times. I am absolutely appalled by the honour of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie, and I believe that it should be rescinded. I should like to know who made the recommendation of a knighthood. In my estimation it was such crass management, such ineptitude, that it must have been either a deliberate provocation or incompetence of an unimaginable scale. Who suggested that our sovereign give such a huge honour to such a man? Not only is his writing appalling, but the fact that he has insulted Islam means that the honour is a deliberate provocation of Saudi Arabia and other moderate allies.

The honour gives succour to the fanatics in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries to fight the regimes in place, such as King Abdullah’s and the Governments who want to align themselves and show solidarity with the west. Ultimately, they will say, “There you are—you are negotiating and dealing with people who deliberately give honours to people who blaspheme against our religion.” I am sorry to end on a relatively negative note, but we must be extremely careful not to upset our key moderate allies.

I end by saying to the Minister that I shall continue, as long as I am a Member of Parliament, to promote Anglo-Saudi relations. Why? Because I genuinely believe that Saudi Arabia plays, and will continue to play, an increasingly important role in the stability of the middle east and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope that we will continue extensive ministerial visits to Riyadh and that we will invite senior members of the royal family to our country. I hope that the Minister can assure me that there will be a visit before too long. I would also be extremely grateful if he could assure me that everything possible is being done to ensure that our countries are brought ever closer together.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this important debate. I intend to make a brief speech, which is no reflection on the debate or on Saudi Arabia; it reflects the fact that the hon. Gentleman has covered many of the issues involved eloquently and comprehensively.

I first visited Saudi Arabia approximately two years ago with the all-party group. I was stunned by the manner in which the Saudi Arabian people received us and behaved during the visit, which was nothing but courteous all the way. From the outset we met enthusiasm, particularly from young people. I said earlier that Saudi Arabia is striving for democracy, and the young people whom I met have a great appetite for it. They recognise the benefits of the current system but feel that there is a need for change. They are definitely up for change, and that particularly came across in the universities, where we went to see young people. The facilities that they have and the quality of the training and education are second to none, and the young people reminded us at every opportunity that that education system is based on the British one and that they are striving to achieve the level of education that we have.

Another thing that we saw in Saudi Arabia was the role of women. You may be aware, Miss Begg, that women are not treated very well there, judged by our standards and values, but, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier, it would be wrong for us to impose our values on another country. It will have to learn from its own mistakes, as we in this country did. The women there are looking for radical change. For instance, they are not allowed to drive cars, which is one thing that they are now saying that they would like to do, rather than having to depend on their husbands or brothers to drive them around.

If we look at the history of Britain—it is true of any country—we see that we have made an awful lot of mistakes that we are not proud of. When people set out to discredit Saudi Arabia, particularly in this country, they should remember that we do not have a perfect history and that we learned only from history. For us to lecture other countries that are trying to achieve the level of democracy that we have would be wrong. We should be doing everything that we can to help people in Saudi Arabia, particularly young people. If there is going to be change and transition, it should be peaceful.

When we were over there, we met the Saudi chamber of commerce. It was extremely disappointed by the lack of interest from British companies in securing more business from Saudi Arabia. It asked us to encourage the British Chambers of Commerce to be more proactive in encouraging British companies to do business there—not just the BAE Systems of this world but other companies in the UK that would benefit from working alongside the Saudi Arabians. That was encouraging.

One downside was that we were there just at the time when British Airways unfortunately decided to withdraw from Saudi Arabia. That sent a profound and unfortunate message to the Saudi Arabians that Britain did not want to be part of the new business culture there. It was a rather unfortunate incident. When British Airways pulled out, other companies moved in, and there are lessons to be learned from that.

I am proud of the role that BAE Systems has played in Saudi Arabia and of the jobs that it has created in this country. Just outside my constituency, the shipyards on the Clyde are building ships for BAE Systems and other systems that can be used in defence mechanisms in Saudi Arabia. That is creating a great deal of wealth for the country, producing apprenticeships and giving training and good-quality paid jobs to people who might not otherwise have got them.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about British Airways pulling out of direct flights to Saudi Arabia, has he, as chairman of the all-party group, had the opportunity to communicate our frustrations to British Airways? If not, is he prepared to meet British Airways with me to ask it to explain why it cut that service?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention. At the time, the then chairman of the all-party group wrote to British Airways expressing our displeasure at the way that it had behaved. I would be more than happy to arrange yet another meeting with BA to see whether it will reconsider its position. My concern is that the market that was there for British Airways may now have gone. I may be wrong, but I think that it is Lufthansa that has moved in and taken up that market. I am more than happy to try to arrange a meeting with senior people at British Airways to attempt to re-engage that market because, if nothing else, it would send a clear message to the Saudi Arabians that British companies want to do business. I can think of no better way to communicate that than for British Airways to fly the British flag into Riyadh, which would send a clear message that things had changed.

On the whole question of jobs and BAE Systems, I think that this country would be worse off both financially and in job terms if we were to try to distance ourselves from Saudi Arabia. People will always think of reasons to find fault with other countries, but that is not helpful in the present instance.

On the peace initiative, I would like our new peace envoy to visit Saudi Arabia and do all that he can to ensure that peace can be sought in the unstable region that is the middle east. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that there will only be peace in the region if Saudi Arabia is at the heart of it. In my view, Saudi Arabia is the only country in the middle east that can deliver a sustainable peace and act as an honest peace broker in that region.

I am confident that, if Britain tries to exclude itself, whether it be in relation to jobs, education, universities or whatever, other countries will move in and fill the vacuum. We are extremely proud of the young people who are now being educated the length and breadth of Britain. Saudi Arabian students have a big interest in Edinburgh, for instance, which is greatly appreciated.

I said that I wanted to be brief. The only thing left to say is that I would like to see what the Government can do to embrace Saudi officials and diplomats and to ensure that they are friends of this country and welcome here. Any formal visits that can be arranged should be arranged. The Government should be doing all that they can to encourage Saudi Arabians to come here, and to encourage British companies to go to Saudi Arabia and learn and share our common interests, so that both countries can develop and grow for the future.

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing the debate, especially in light of recent tensions between the two Governments; the debate is timely to say the least. He gave an eloquent although, I am bound to say, rather partial account of the current state of our relationship with the Saudi Arabian Government.

Let me make it clear at the outset of my remarks that we should not underestimate the importance of Saudi Arabia. It has enormous influence in the region, as other hon. Members have said, and it has an invaluable relationship with the UK. It is our largest export market in the region—UK exports reached some £1.4 billion in 2002. We also have a close relationship with the Saudis on security matters. Our co-operation on terrorism is well known and highly necessary, as is the Saudi influence in the middle east peace process, to which hon. Members have referred as well. A close relationship with Saudi Arabia is of course worth preserving, not least because the issues that divide us can be resolved only through persistent dialogue.

That said, there is another side to the relationship from the side that we have heard much about in the debate. Before I reach the main part of my speech, let me say that I think that it would be wrong not to talk a little more about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia and how that impacts on its relationship with the United Kingdom.

There is no doubt in the international community that there is still serious concern about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. The incidence of capital punishment in particular is clearly on the increase. This year there have already been 102 executions, compared with 38 in 2006. Discrimination against women has already been spoken of. It continues to be widespread and invidious, as do limitations on freedom of expression.

The hon. Gentleman mentions capital punishment in Saudi Arabia. We have many more debates on the United States in this Chamber than on Saudi Arabia, yet I have never known any hon. Member to criticise the Americans for having capital punishment. For some reason, however, when middle eastern countries are mentioned, capital punishment is always referred to. It is disingenuous of us to treat Saudi Arabia differently from the United States.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I have to say that colleagues and I have a very simple view on human rights, which is that they are indivisible and that they apply to all of us—wherever we are in the world and of whatever religion or faith we are. I am just as keen to make similar points about other countries, including the United States, where the death penalty is still in use. However, the United States is not among those countries that still routinely indulge in amputations—another of the human rights abuses that has been laid at the door of the Saudi Arabian Government by bodies such as Amnesty International.

I want to be fair, however. It is true that Saudi Arabia has now established a national human rights association, but it is also fair to say that in many areas its actions still seem to speak far more loudly than its words. Let me make one further point on that. Amnesty has recently drawn the public’s attention to the example of Rizana Nafeek, a girl of 19 who is being sentenced to death for a crime committed when she was just 17. That is despite Saudi Arabia having signed the convention on the rights of the child, which specifically prohibits the execution of offenders for crimes that were committed when they were under 18. As it happens, it has also signed the international convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Yet, as hon. Members have said, it continues to discriminate against women in many ways. If signatory countries are allowed to behave in a way that flies in the face of the conventions that they sign, as Saudi Arabia seems to have done, that surely undermines the effectiveness of the relevant documents and treaties.

I should like to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing to ensure that Saudi Arabia abides by the human rights agreements that they have already signed up to. Will he tell us his view of countries which sign such agreements and then fail to abide by them?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on the question of discrimination against women. He may recall, however, that it is not that long since we discriminated against women in this country by denying them the right to vote.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He makes a point, but I am not sure that the comparison is truly valid. It is some years since women were denied the right to vote in this country and, although the situation changed all too late in the opinion of many hon. Members, I do not entirely accept the analogy between what happened here and the kind of discrimination to which I am referring. We have heard about the limitations on women’s right to drive; they need written permission from a male in order to drive cars and so on. That is a type of discrimination that is entirely out of place in a modern society.

It would be impossible to discuss the current state of relations with Saudi Arabia without touching on the events surrounding the BAE Systems Al-Yamamah arms deal and the way in which it has affected the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia. The investigation into that deal by the Serious Fraud Office continues to put considerable pressure on the UK’s relationship with the Saudis.

One of the greatest tragedies of the alleged BAE Systems corruption is that it has besmirched the name of a fine British company, its dedicated work force, and the BAE Systems Woodford site in my constituency. I, too, am deeply concerned about the lasting damage done to the reputation of British business abroad and about the impact on British jobs at home. That does not alter the fact that valid questions need to be asked about the contracts and about how our relationship with Saudi Arabia affected the decision to abandon the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the BAE deal with the Saudis. The exact reasons for dropping the SFO inquiry are still somewhat unclear. As the matter has been discussed at great length by my colleagues on the Floor of the House, it is perhaps inappropriate to go into much more detail today. Suffice it to say that allegations have been made by the BBC, The Guardian and others that the deal was not limited to a single company or individual, but reached into the very heart of the Government. If the allegations are correct, the Government certainly have questions to answer and need to live up to some of their promises on accountable government and ethical foreign policy.

One of the reasons for dropping the inquiry was certainly pressure from the Saudi Arabian Government themselves—an issue that we think deserves to be probed further. Mr. Blair himself said that the SFO investigation would have wrecked the relationship with Saudi Arabia if he had allowed it to continue. I understand that the Saudi Arabian Government were reported to have threatened to pull out of the arms deal and to cut off diplomatic and intelligence ties if the investigation continued. Although there is no doubt that the investigation would have put a strain on Saudi Arabian and UK relations, the decision to drop it was in our opinion fundamentally wrong and inexplicable in the circumstances. Not only has the individual involved on the Saudi side of the arrangement now been named and shamed but the US is still determined to investigate the matter further, and, as we know, the US has arguably as much to lose as we do in Saudi Arabia.

The hon. Gentleman says that the individual has been named and shamed, but no such thing has happened. They have not been shamed because nothing has been proven. The BBC and others have simply made spurious allegations. I suspected that the Liberal Democrats would try to rake up the problems of BAE Systems again and I regret that the hon. Gentleman has done so. When we consider all the problems that our constituents are facing in this country—for example, with housing, floods and other issues—for the Liberal Democrats to use one of their Opposition days to debate a probe into BAE Systems was shocking, appalling and a gross abuse of the priorities of the House. I hope that he will move on and concentrate on the positive side of our relations and the vital importance of trade, rather than raking up such regrettable matters.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which was surprising only in the sense that it took him so long to rise to his feet to make that point. In the context of today’s debate on UK relations with Saudi Arabia it would seem ridiculous not to spend at least some time discussing what is currently the single most prominent issue in that relationship, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not. As I said when I started my remarks, this subject has barely been touched on by the hon. Members who have spoken so far. It would be quite wrong for us not to give a proper airing to something of genuine concern.

Hon. Members will know that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is still considering the issues relating to BAE Systems. It should concern us greatly that, although the UK is a signatory of the 1997 OECD convention on bribery, by halting the investigation, the Government are undermining its effectiveness. The chair of the OECD said that the decision by the Attorney-General to halt the investigation was contrary to article 5 of the convention, which states that inquiries

“shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another state, or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved”.

The point is clear: nobody is above the law. An independent investigation needs to take place to determine whether there was any wrongdoing.

Although we do not underestimate the importance of our relationship and ties with Saudi Arabia, particularly in relation to security in the middle east, we stand by the OECD convention that any effect on the relationship between the countries involved should not prevent an investigation from continuing. Given those circumstances, perhaps the Minister will tell us what form the warnings from Saudi Arabia took. What was the Government’s initial reaction when Saudi Arabia threatened to break off diplomatic intelligence relations? Did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attempt to pursue the matter through all available channels before the Government made the decision to drop the inquiry?

In addition, was there any discussion at the time about how credible the threats were? I raise the issue of credibility because it should be said that Saudi Arabia needs a relationship with us perhaps as much as we need one with it. Saudi Arabia has security concerns of its own, on which it needs our co-operation. According to the FCO, Saudi Arabia relies on the UK because we are its joint fourth largest investor. Surely the threat of cutting off all diplomatic and intelligence ties was, if not empty, at least unlikely. Does the Minister agree that the Saudi Government’s threats to withdraw security co-operation unless the inquiry was dropped were simply unacceptable? Does he not think that we have set a dangerous precedent to Saudi Arabia and other countries with whom we co-operate? Have any of the other countries that are being investigated in relation to BAE Systems made similar threats in response to the investigation?

Finally, if, as it seems, our diplomatic links failed on that occasion, how does the Minister envisage the relationship with Saudi Arabia continuing once our Government have accepted the ultimatum? Such questions need to be answered. It is extremely important that there is greater parliamentary accountability on such matters and we need to ensure that there is greater transparency in our Government’s dealings with the Saudi Arabian Government.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing the debate. We look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly in view of the reference on today’s Order Paper to a written ministerial statement announcing a state visit by the King of Saudi Arabia to this country. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us about that.

When introducing the debate, my hon. Friend was right to point to the breadth of interests that bring together the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. We have a long-standing set of relationships with the various countries of the Arabian peninsula, and this debate gives us the opportunity to reassert the importance of those relationships, particularly the one that we have with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. At times, there has been a danger that we have neglected those historic ties and there is certainly evidence that our partners and competitors in France and Germany have mounted a vigorous programme of bilateral contacts with Riyadh and other capitals in the region.

I would like the Government to lead a long-term effort, with cross-party support, to elevate the United Kingdom’s relations with all countries in the Gulf. As my hon. Friend pointed out, such an initiative would cover a wide range of political subjects, such as economic and commercial co-operation, security ties, links between the Parliaments and educational institutions in our various countries, cultural links, co-operation against terrorism and nuclear proliferation, and sporting ties, which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine), who is no longer in his place, mentioned.

The socialist.

Yes, the socialist.

It is not just a question of bilateral relationships. Through our membership of the European Union and NATO, we have the opportunity to strengthen multilateral relations between Europe and Saudi Arabia. I hope that the Minister will say a little about the state of the EU’s negotiations on a free trade agreement with Saudi Arabia and the other countries in the region and on the development of the strategic partnership between the EU and the Gulf Co-operation Council. The development of those twin initiatives would be an important way of strengthening long-term relations, at a time when, for reasons that we all understand—in particular, owing to events in Iraq in recent years—there is tension and suspicion between people and countries in western Europe and those in the Muslim and, particularly, Arab world.

I also hope that the Minister will say something about NATO’s Istanbul initiative, to which a number of countries in the Gulf region have signed up already. It would be to our advantage, and that of the EU, if Saudi Arabia were to participate as well. What are the latest developments on that front?

I shall mention briefly the relationship between Britain and Saudi Arabia on three international issues: the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iraq and our broader efforts against terrorism. I voice, at least in passing, my agreement with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) about human rights. Although we should continue to work for close and friendly relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, British Ministers should not be precluded from raising, with their Saudi counterparts, concerns about human rights. In particular, I am talking about complaints, sometimes from British residents in Saudi Arabia, about legal processes, allegations of torture and, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) mentioned in an intervention, the legal discrimination against minority religions.

I understand the point that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) made about our country’s record; we can look back to the legacy of the penal laws, Test Acts and so on. I also acknowledge the unique sensitivity of Saudi Arabia as the “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”, but nevertheless, it is quite fair that the debate about religious freedom and minorities should be on the agenda in an exchange on human rights concerns.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although some countries are making progress on their human rights record, others are actually getting worse? I would cite Burma—Myanmar—as an example of where human rights are getting significantly worse, whereas I would argue that Saudi Arabia is starting to improve its record. It is looking at these issues seriously and is starting to make improvements.

My hon. Friend’s point reinforces the need for extensive contact and co-operation between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia across a wide range of institutions and covering many different areas of policy, because it is through those relationships that we start to understand each other’s particular political and legal traditions. That will also allow for an exchange of ideas that, I hope, will be fruitful in encouraging developments of the sort to which he referred.

On human rights, the hon. Gentleman need look no further than Turkey, which is being encouraged to join the European Union. Saudi Arabia is a young country whose young people need to be encouraged to make changes. It is not for us to impose change or our values on them, but to encourage and assist those with an appetite for change.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: it is important that human rights are implemented in a way that allows people in a particular country to understand that it is a process of which they have ownership, and not a political model being imposed on them from outside.

I shall turn to the Israel-Palestine issue and take up the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham about the Arab peace plan, of which Saudi Arabia can be considered, fairly, to be the author. It is worth saying also that Saudi Arabia was instrumental in bringing about what turned out to be a short-lived Palestinian Government of national unity and in securing an agreement, earlier in the year, between Fatah and Hamas.

I would be interested to hear the Government’s current assessment of the Arab peace initiative, whether Britain is seeking to encourage further direct dialogue between Israel and the Arab nations and, in particular, whether the Government hope that Saudi Arabia would be included in such discussions. Furthermore, do Ministers envisage a role for Saudi Arabia in trying to re-establish some kind of stability in the Palestinian Administration? For example, does the Minister think that the Saudis might be in a position to persuade the leadership of Hamas to accept the conditions laid down by the Quartet, on behalf of the international community, for direct involvement in the peace process?

The Opposition welcome very much President Bush’s recent announcement of an international conference on the middle east peace process to be held in the autumn. It is very important that such a conference involves Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region. The more that the regional partners feel that they have a role in shaping this process, the greater the likelihood is that the bitter mistrust that currently exists can be overcome. Have the Government had any indications from Riyadh that Saudi Arabia, in principle, would be willing to attend the conference that the United States plans to convene?

On Iraq, the Baker-Hamilton report concluded that Saudi Arabia was capable of playing a key role in reconciling differences between the various Iraqi factions and in building broader support within the Islamic world for stabilisation in Iraq. However, does the current arrangement for meetings of Iraq’s neighbouring countries provide an adequate forum for such influence to be exerted? I noted with interest some press reports from Washington in the last week that the US Administration might be trying to find a way in which to institutionalise to a greater extent such meetings of Iraq’s neighbours. Would the British Government support such a move and do we need perhaps to have some kind of international contact group bringing together the key regional players with members of the United Nations Security Council?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham pointed out, on counter-terrorism, there is no doubt that Saudi Arabia has suffered grievously from terrorist attacks. The attacks on British residents and British visitors to Saudi Arabia attract the headlines in Britain, but many families in Saudi Arabia have lost relatives and friends and been put in fear as a consequence of terrorism. I will therefore strongly support any move that the Government make to strengthen co-operation between the two Governments, which is an essential part of a successful struggle against international terrorism.

Questions need to be asked, however. There are reports that a large proportion of the foreign militants who are targeting coalition troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces in Iraq have come over the border from Saudi Arabia. Anyone who looks at a map will know that that border is not easy to police, but are the Government confident that the Saudi Government are taking all the measures that they can to prevent infiltration across Saudi Arabia’s borders into Iraq?

Does my hon. Friend agree that this would be an opportune moment for the Government to state on the record whether British troops have interdicted Saudi nationals in Iraq and whether they have been detained and/or returned to Saudi Arabia?

It would be helpful to have that information, and the Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments.

We hope and pray that there will be no further terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, but clearly the risk still exists. Does the Minister believe that adequate contingency plans are in place in case of a major terrorist attack on British people and British interests in Saudi Arabia? In particular, is he confident that our embassy in Riyadh has the plans and the resources to be able to cope in such circumstances?

Deepening our links with the many friendly Muslim nations of the Gulf should be one of the prime goals of British foreign policy. Those countries—pre-eminently, Saudi Arabia—are vital interlocutors for anyone who wishes to understand what is happening in the region and they are, in many cases, important allies whose alliance with the United Kingdom goes back over a great many years. Above all, the long-term friendship of their Governments and peoples is essential to ensuring an international understanding that although we are committed to a struggle against international terrorism, we have no wish at all to embark on a clash of civilisations. We need a strengthening partnership between Britain, its western partners and Saudi Arabia and the other nations of the peninsula and the Gulf region. That is very much in our national interest.

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood, and I thank Miss Begg for her earlier oversight of our proceedings.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this important debate. I am delighted to make a guest appearance in a discussion of this area of the world. That does not reflect any ambitions for Saudi membership of the EU; it simply reflects the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East is in the middle east. I respond to the deliberations today as a guest—as the Minister for Europe.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on the way in which he conveyed his argument. I think that I am joined in that by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. His in-depth understanding of and passion for Saudi Arabia were clear to all who listened. Although hon. Members made it clear that there were specific areas of disagreement with his observations, it was clear that he had a real understanding of and passion for that country.

The hon. Gentleman’s comments were amplified by those of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), who is the chair of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia. We had the opportunity—it was indeed an opportunity—to listen to his reflections on the challenges facing Saudi Arabia and his assessment of our bilateral relationship. I will respond, in the time available, to the plethora of specific questions that were asked and observations that were made once I have set out some of the specifics of the important UK-Saudi bilateral relations.

I am pleased—this is not just at the instigation of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—to announce today that Her Majesty the Queen has invited His Majesty King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, custodian of the two holy mosques, to pay a state visit to the United Kingdom from 30 October to 1 November 2007. The visit will further strengthen the good relations that exist between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I want at the outset to outline why the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is such an important ally for the United Kingdom. We have a long history of friendship, understanding and co-operation. Saudi Arabia is an important partner in the region. That co-operation covers bilateral, regional and international issues, including counter-terrorism, energy security, trade and investment, economic reform, Iraq, Iran, the middle east peace process and Lebanon. Our relationship is broadly based and vital to UK interests, and helps us to make progress on our international objectives.

One of the most important of those objectives, which was raised by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North and by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), concerns the middle east peace process. The UK’s clear view is that the Arab world has a key role to play in encouraging progress in the middle east peace process by supporting the efforts of President Abbas, by taking forward the Arab peace initiative and by helping to ensure international support and co-operation in respect of that initiative.

The Arab peace initiative is based on King Abdullah’s proposal and was put forward by the Arab League in 2002, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said. It was then re-endorsed at the Arab League summit in Riyadh in March this year. The action following the Riyadh summit has been positive. The Arab League representatives are due to travel to Israel shortly to continue their work. That picks up on the question raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. King Abdullah also brokered the Mecca agreement in February 2007, which helped to lead to the formation of a Palestinian national unity Government.

Of course Saudi Arabia has a continuing role now and in the future in respect of the middle east peace process, primarily through the Arab League, but it would help if others in the region, particularly Iran, which is not a member of the Arab League, were able to show that there is willingness on all sides to reach consensus. It is unhelpful that the Iranian leadership continues, to all intents and purposes, to call for the active destruction of the state of Israel, continues denial of the holocaust and continues what can only be interpreted as a misguided approach to a nuclear programme. Therefore, although it is right that the Arab League continues to engage in trying to make progress, it is fair to acknowledge the challenge that Israel faces in trying to find concerted, consistent, universal partners in the peace process in that region.

Saudi Arabia shares our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme. Saudi Arabia, like us, has been working to implement the sanctions in UN Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1747 and has been supportive of the sanctions process. If Iran continues to fail to suspend its enrichment programme, we will seek a further resolution, and we look forward to Saudi Arabia’s continuing support in that international endeavour.

On the specific issue of Iraq, Saudi Arabia supports the political process and has used its influence with Iraqi Sunnis to persuade them to engage in the political process. It has a critical role to play in supporting Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s broad-based Government, including through the international compact and the provision of border security. The Saudis fully recognise that the success of the revised Baghdad security plan is critical to the future stability of not only Iraq but the whole region. In response to the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, let me say that the Saudis are always looking at ways to stop terrorists carrying out cross-border terrorism between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and there are also new laws on the funding of groups. We continue to work with the Saudis on such important security issues.

Elsewhere in the region, the Saudis are playing an enhanced role. They are actively involved in efforts to resolve the political crisis in Lebanon, and we have welcomed their constructive efforts, which have sought to bring the parties in Lebanon together. Since last year’s conflict, they have been a major donor in Lebanon’s reconstruction process and they pledged more than $1 billion in loans and grants at the Paris conference on Lebanon. Furthermore, they contributed $1 billion at the Yemen donor conference, which the UK hosted in November 2006.

As hon. Members on both sides have recognised, Saudi Arabia is one of the UK’s key counter-terrorism partners, and we maintain a high level of bilateral co-operation. Saudi Arabia plays a pivotal role, both regionally and internationally, in the global response to the terrorist threat, including in countering extremism and disrupting terrorist networks on its own territory.

Hon. Members have, fairly, commented on the political process and reform in Saudi Arabia. While remaining sensitive to the conservative majority’s views, King Abdullah has introduced significant incremental reforms in recent years. They include strengthening the Shura council, holding partial—only partial—municipal elections, establishing a number of civil society organisations and promoting women’s participation in elections to professional bodies and educational reform.

I heard the point about religious freedom, which was raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), as well as a number of additional points. The annual UK/Saudi “Two Kingdoms” conference provides a bilateral framework for frank and honest dialogue on issues such as economic reform, education, the role of women, civil society and human rights in Saudi Arabia. We continue to support reform in Saudi Arabia by providing funding for specific projects, such as capacity-building for civil society organisations, helping the Ministry of Education and the vocational training agency to strengthen their English language training and encouraging young entrepreneurs.

Saudi Arabia’s human rights record remains poor. Although the pace of reform is slow by western standards, the authorities have to balance their wish for faster reform against the wishes of a deeply conservative majority, many of whose members appear to oppose any reform in principle.

Does the Minister agree that reform in Saudi Arabia can go only at the pace that Saudi Arabia wants it to and that it is our job to encourage reform? However, on the issue of women, will the Minister tell the Saudi Government that women have, with the exception of Mrs. Thatcher, played a positive role in this country and, in particular, in Parliament?

I wonder whether that intervention was prepared when Miss Begg was overseeing our proceedings earlier. Thus far, she has been the only woman to participate in our debate, although I am, of course, delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) are with us.

If colleagues will allow me, I will make a couple of points about our bilateral trade relationship with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia remains the UK’s largest trade and investment partner in the middle east and accounts for 25 per cent. of the Arab world’s GDP, which is more than the other five Gulf Co-operation Council countries and Egypt combined. On the point about an EU trade agreement, conversations continue, and further meetings are planned for October. We would hope to make quick progress on the issue.

Today, the UK’s trade and investment links with Saudi Arabia are stronger than ever and they are growing. Over the past few months, the importance of that relationship has been clearly demonstrated at Government level by a number of high-level visits. Those include visits by the Duke of York, in his role as special representative for trade and investment, and by UK Trade and Investment’s chief executive, Andrew Cahn. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also visited Saudi Arabia in May, in his role as the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Let me respond now to the points raised by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter). In the short time available, I do not intend to rehearse the debate that we had on the Floor of the House, and nor do I wish to add to the detailed responses that the Solicitor-General and the Minister for the Middle East offered on specific points. However, I do want to say on the record once again that the Serious Fraud Office’s decision was taken by the director alone. The Government have given good reason to believe that there is a real danger to our co-operation with a country that is vital to us, and I do not use the word “vital” lightly in describing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s importance to us. It would have been wholly irresponsible of us to ignore that information and wholly wrong not to make the SFO aware of it. The SFO made a decision based on that evidence, and, on balance, we believe that it was the right decision. We are also confident that it is compatible with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention.

The hon. Gentleman reflected his constituency interest in an observation about BAE’s good name, but let me gently tell him that the tone of some of his hon. Friends’ comments in recent weeks—it was perhaps unintentional—does not do an awful lot to enhance the well-deserved good name of BAE in this country and internationally.

Does the Minister agree that the Liberal Democrats can make such comments knowing full well that they will never be in government, whereas he, being in government, must be far more aware of the sensitivities on these issues?

Of course. An expectation of permanent opposition brings one to easy judgments and cheap soundbites, although I have no idea whether that was at play in the Liberal Democrats’ positioning on this important issue.

Will the Minister give way?

As long as there are no cheap soundbites.

Far be it from me to make cheap comments in this important debate. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but will he say on the record whether he agrees that no individual, company or country should be above the law?

I have already said very clearly that the decision that was taken was compatible with the OECD convention and I have no intention of re-running the debate that we recently had on the Floor of the House for a number of hours. I think that hon. Members would thank us for not doing so.

Our bilateral trade with Saudi Arabia is on the up. UK exports of goods and services to the kingdom were worth more than £3 billion in 2006. The UK is also a major investor in the kingdom, and there are more than 150 UK/Saudi joint ventures, with total investments of about $14.5 billion. The amounts earmarked for investment over the present period are staggering. Investment of an estimated $630 billion in Government projects and more than $800 billion in private sector projects is planned over the next 20 years.

Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is important and strategic, and I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham for giving us all the opportunity to rehearse just how important it is to the UK diplomatically and internationally in terms of trade, the economy and jobs.

Mr. Hood, it is always a delight to see you in the Chair and to have the opportunity to raise a subject of great importance. I stand here as a trade union MP, in the sense that I have the support of ASLEF, the train drivers’ union. However, the matter that I want to raise today has enormous importance right across the field of representation.

I and other Labour Members of Parliament are here today because of the existence of trade unions. It is not an accident that trade unions began in the United Kingdom. We have always had a commitment—I think that it exists in the Anglo-Saxon character—that makes us strongly resent anything that happens to the detriment of fair play, in industrial relations or with respect to any organisational change. I think, therefore, that it is important that this country should uphold, as it does, the labour laws that are part and parcel of our commitment to fairness, decency and proper standards.

I want to talk today about a bus company. The way in which United Kingdom companies operate, in the UK and elsewhere, affects their efficiency and their ability to succeed. It is their particular responsibility to ensure that what they do is properly supported by the rules of law and, more than that, that it clearly shows a proper commitment to justice and the general principles on which the International Labour Organisation declarations are based. It is therefore important to raise the matter of First Group.

First Group is a very successful transport company. It has expanded from a very small base into the railway and bus industries. Very many companies are involved with it. It has been extraordinarily successful and, in this country, very well run. It has conducted proper industrial relations. It has a strong and robust connection with the Transport and General Workers Union and it has made its commitment to proper trade relations clear. It is therefore worrying to see, as it begins to expand elsewhere, that that may not necessarily be a tradition that is fully carried out in other countries. We should perhaps today consider some of the things that are happening, which will rebound badly not just on First Group but on the reputation of United Kingdom companies.

We might first refer to passages in the ILO conventions on trade union rights and civil liberties. Members of Parliament frequently mention their commitment to the ILO conventions; I wonder how many of them have read the conventions, including the provisions that state

“that a system of democracy is fundamental for the free exercise of trade union rights”;

that for

“the contribution of trade unions and employers’ organizations to be properly useful and credible, they must be able to carry out their activities in a climate of freedom and security”;

and that a

“free trade union movement can develop only under a regime which guarantees fundamental rights, including the right of trade unionists to hold meetings in trade union premises, freedom of opinion expressed through speech and the press and the right of detained trade unionists to enjoy the guarantees of normal judicial procedure”.

Another paragraph states:

“The International Labour Conference has pointed out that the right of assembly, freedom of opinion and expression and, in particular, freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers constitute civil liberties which are essential”.

A commitment is also made:

“Although holders of trade union office do not, by virtue of their position, have the right to transgress legal provisions in force, these provisions should not infringe the basic guarantees of freedom of association, nor should they sanction activities which, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, should be considered as legitimate”.

That is all very clear and good and is well supported in a Parliament that has grown up because of reaction to the imposition of unfair or unacceptable laws.

Why, then, do I worry about what First Group is doing elsewhere? First Group is a company that because it is successful—I am happy to record that—is expanding. In the United States it is not just expanding into one company; it is expanding into a much larger company than was originally intended. Forty per cent. of the non-management staff of Laidlaw International Inc., which First Student appears to be about to take over, for $2.8 billion, are represented by trade unions. Why should that be a matter for concern? First Group is facing a serious risk to its reputation and it is best to speak plainly. It is because of its continuing aggressive interference in workers’ organising rights, community consensus and the adequate funding of school transport services.

I spoke to trade union representatives who came here from the United States of America, because I am very concerned about the reputation of transport companies, whether they operate in the UK or organise elsewhere. I knew very little of the situation and asked to be given a detailed brief. I was very surprised to see that, in spite of the fact that the company has pledged to support the principles of the ILO conventions on workers’ freedom of association, three different reports produced for the Teamsters union by well respected members of universities—Lance Compa of Cornell, a professor specialising in labour and human rights law, John Logan, a scholar and professor at the school of management at the London School of Economics, and Fred Feinstein, who was on the US National Labour Relations Board, the Government agency that enforces federal labour law—make it clear that there has been a consistent, targeted and deliberate attempt to make it almost impossible for members of the First Student companies to organise, meet together and operate as a proper trade union. There is considerable detail in all the reports, which I will spare you, Mr. Hood, because I hope that we can accept that anyone who wants to know the details will read the “Third Report on Freedom of Association and Workers’ Rights Violations at First Student, Inc.”

Those matters were outlined to me by individual members of the Teamsters union. I was very taken by the representatives who came to the House of Commons. A lady who was a bus driver on a student bus was, apart from her accent, very much like the sort of person I would meet in my constituency. She was a lone mother, entirely on her own, who had found, in her job, a way to combine earning an income and running her family. She ran a bus journey for students, to and fro twice a day. She was not in any way an extreme or difficult person. She was the sort of person one would hope to see forming the cadre of trade union representatives. It is extraordinarily worrying that those workers were subjected to a targeted and consistent programme of something that I will not call persuasion, because it seems to me that persuasion, particularly on the part of management, must be couched in very controlled and considered terms; they were subjected to a very deliberate attempt to persuade them that joining the union or seeking together to create a union in their work place would lead to very direct consequences for them. One threat appears to have been, “We’ll deal with your depot in the way that we dealt with Baltimore,” where, as far as one can see, because the staff voted for trade union representation, they were told that that depot would be shut down—and that is what happened.

We should be quite clear about such matters in this country. If a similar situation arose with a bus company in the UK, I, personally, and, I am sure, many other trade union representatives in this House, as well as those who do not directly belong to trade unions but are concerned about labour relations because of their commitment to fairness, would seek to raise the matter time and again. The UK Government have made it plain that even though they have no intention of interfering with and should not interfere with the commitment of UK companies abroad to the legal systems in which they cease to operate, they nevertheless require those companies to take account of and be responsible to the ILO convention. I have made it clear exactly what that implies. The House of Commons has a direct responsibility to tell such companies, “You may operate in the way you think best in a capitalist system. That is, of course, your responsibility: you are responsible to your shareholders and you have a responsibility to ensure that your performance is acceptable to those who support you. However, because you are a British company, you may not ignore aspects of responsible behaviour that we in this country regard as a norm.” Commitment to the ILO is absolutely essential.

Today, I received from Moir Lockhead a letter that I found rather nowty, as we would say in my part of the country. Let us say that I did not turn up when he wished to talk to a representative of his and independent monitor who

“would welcome the chance…to discuss the implementation of FirstGroup’s workplace human rights”.

He assures me that, within the UK, the company will comply with its commitments regarding trade union organisations.

The TGWU has made it clear that it finds it difficult to understand how a company that is so responsible in the UK and complies with its agreements with the trade unions could go so far to impede the creation of trade union rights within the United States. When we say that it is impossible to form a trade union within that company, we are talking not about the wilder shores of Saudi Arabia, the jungle regions of Colombia or some of the far-flung pits of Guatemala, but about the United States of America—a country that shares with us a common law system, approximately the same language and a financial system based on the capitalism that is now so fashionable. We have always regarded the United States as having direct roots in its relationship with the UK. I therefore feel more than justified in raising the issue of the anti-union behaviour there, which has been aggressive, deliberate, consistent and larded with the sort of threats that I would find wholly unacceptable if they were targeted at members of my constituency.

I finish by making this point. I have in my time—I am only 21, but I have been around for a little while—met trade unionists and seen trade unions being run by people who were venal, inefficient, incompetent, arrogant and unacceptable. I have seen arguments put forward in the name of trade unionism that I found difficult to recognise, but I have also, over a lifetime of commitment to the labour movement, seen trade unions filled with people who were wholly committed to fairness, decency and the improvement of conditions for their fellow workers. I have seen people pay a high price for their trade unionism in this country, and I do not find that acceptable, but we now have a country that accepts the right of workers to organise. It is a very small thing to ask of a successful company in the transport industry that it should comply with the same standards and norms elsewhere, and I am astonished that it has not reached that conclusion of its own volition. The House of Commons would be unwise to ignore the behaviour of such a successful British company, lest it be thought that that is the way in which we operate as soon as we leave UK shores.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has been in the House for a great many years and has a great deal of experience. Any Minister responding to a case made by her would do so with some care and caution. I know that she cares deeply about this issue, and I shall address the two main issues that she discussed—trade unions and the International Labour Organisation conventions, and the company that she talked about.

Let me start with international labour standards, which are set out in various international treaties. Perhaps the most quoted are those that my hon. Friend mentioned—the ILO conventions and the European convention on human rights. The UK was one of the founding members of the ILO and was among the first to ratify its key conventions, including the central ones relating to trade union rights—conventions 87 and 98. We therefore take our obligations seriously. During the 1980s, our reputation was diminished internationally by the removal of trade union rights at GCHQ, and hon. Members will recall that one of the first acts of the Labour Government when they came to office in 1997 was to restore trade union rights at GCHQ, which signalled both domestically and internationally where we stood on these issues.

The ILO has mechanisms to monitor member state compliance with international standards, and there is often debate about whether member states are conforming with the spirit and letter of the conventions. Even this country has been part of those debates over the years, and I am pleased to say that it has never been formally reprimanded by the ILO’s governing body, although there has been debate about laws in this country and others and the extent to which they comply with the conventions. The conventions often focus on broad principles, which is important, because they need to apply to many different settings around the world, with different labour market conditions, in both developed and developing countries.

Over the years, we have engaged in an ongoing and constructive dialogue with the ILO about the conventions, and I understand that its advisory committees have not interpreted its trade union conventions as requiring companies to recognise trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. That is subject to national legal systems and the negotiation that takes place between unions and companies.

Is my hon. Friend interpreting the right to freedom of association? I have never said that there is a right of a particular trade union to be recognised or that the UK should insist on it. That would be absurd and unacceptable. However, there is clear commitment to freedom of association, as he will be able to read. That is the point that I have made and will continue to make.

I accept my hon. Friend’s point. The one that I was making is that when it comes to collective bargaining, recognition is subject to national legal systems and to negotiations between specific companies and their employees.

The ILO conventions can raise issues about conflicting human rights and my hon. Friend mentioned ASLEF. I should point out that UK law limits the entitlement of trade unions to exclude or expel individuals on the grounds of political party membership. Until recently, we believed that that law struck a fair balance between the rights of union members to govern their union affairs and the rights of individuals to hold political beliefs. Earlier this year, the European Court of Human Rights issued a decision in a case involving ASLEF that concluded that that balance was wrong, and we intend to act in response to that judgment.

May I just point out that people must have the right to be in a trade union before they can be barred from one, so the point that the Minister made is not relevant?

My hon. Friend referred in much of her speech to the activities of UK-owned companies operating abroad, particularly those of First Group. She compared its employment practices in the UK and in the US. She also referred to the campaign waged by the Teamsters union to obtain recognition at the company’s operations in the US.

I know that the facts about employment relations in the company—my hon. Friend referred to recognition and the approach taken by the parties to recognition ballots—are contested, and I do not intend to become the judge and jury. She referred to several reports into this situation that had been commissioned by the union, and I accept what she says about them. The company has also commissioned its own report, which I understand reaches a different verdict. That makes it somewhat difficult for those of us outside the situation to come to a definitive judgment about a contested situation over union recognition.

Instead of setting myself up as the judge and jury on the particular specific example that my hon. Friend quoted, I should like to focus on the broader issue of how we believe British companies should behave when operating abroad and what employment practices they should follow. One basic rule is that companies should always observe the employment law of the country in which they operate. We expect foreign companies operating in Britain to comply with our laws, and in the same way we expect UK companies to comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate. Obviously, the legal systems in those countries are designed to ensure that employment rights are enforced.

When it comes to ILO obligations, the United States is not signed up to every convention that we are signed up to, and, in any case, virtually every ILO member state faces questions as to whether it is interpreting its obligations fully. These are not clear-cut issues, and different interpretations of treaty obligations are possible. This is not always as simple as saying that because these questions are raised, the basic international standards are not being observed.

It should also be expected that the terms and conditions of work forces around the world will vary, as will even those between work forces in developed countries. That is because labour market conditions, tax and social security systems and so on differ from state to state.

On terms and conditions for workers internationally, First Group could be used as a template for the way that it treats migrant workers coming into this country because it gives them the same terms and conditions. The Minister is right not to be judge and jury, but given the serious accusations that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has made, would it not be possible for him to act as a honest broker between both parties?

It would not be wise for me to become a mediator between First Group and Teamsters. The issue should be resolved between the unions and the company within the legal framework in which they operate.

Employment practices are a function of each country’s traditions, history and institutional arrangements. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the trade union influence on our party and on the legal framework that we operate in the UK. Some European countries have legally enforceable collective agreements whereas this country tends not to have them. We probably would be concerned if a German company operating in the UK were to say that collective agreements must be both legally enforceable and contain peace clauses forbidding strikes, as is the case in Germany. Such an approach comes from its tradition; things do not operate in the same way in our tradition.

We do not expect British companies to operate in an identical manner around the globe, but we hope that British companies operating abroad respect local practices and traditions. Of course that does not mean that companies should systematically exploit their work forces or deliberately flout international labour standards. There are minimum core standards that should be applied worldwide.

It is in the interests of the United Kingdom, is it not, that companies based in the UK but operating elsewhere should be successful, responsible and highly respected? Have the Government no view on the responsibility that companies have to comply with basic laws?

My hon. Friend rightly says that it is important that British companies operating abroad have regard to some of the things that she mentions. We would expect those companies to comply with the legal systems in which they operate. Some countries have ensured that basic standards are built into their employment law, although that is not the case in others. We would encourage British companies operating around the world voluntarily to apply the basic minimum standards. We cannot compel our companies to operate in that way in foreign jurisdictions, although we have instituted arrangements in our own corporate law and we are party to monitoring arrangements that provide for greater openness and transparency in this area.

The Companies Act 2006 brings the regulatory framework up to date to reflect what we see as the modern business environment. It enshrines in statute the concept of enlightened shareholder value, which recognises that directors will be more likely to achieve long-term success for the benefit of their shareholders if their companies pay appropriate regard to wider matters such as the environment and their employees.

The Government are committed to improving company reporting and transparency, and wish to encourage full and transparent corporate reporting to shareholders in both financial and narrative reporting. By improving the way in which companies report on their activities and by enhancing that transparency, shareholders will be able to hold directors to account more effectively.

We made good progress in the Companies Act in bringing together this kind of commercial success with the kind of sustainability that we see in this shareholder value. The key instrument is the business review, which is designed to encourage directors to provide strategic and forward-looking information. All companies, other than small companies, must prepare a business review as part of the directors’ annual report. From October, quoted companies must disclose information—to the extent that it is necessary for an understanding of the company’s business—on environmental, employee, social and community matters, as well as on contractual and other arrangements. That is of value in adding to the quality of companies’ narrative reporting and promoting responsible business behaviour.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Hood, and to Mr. Speaker for allowing me to raise the Child Support Agency’s extreme shortcomings, and particularly two constituency cases that will more than amplify those. I am also grateful to the Minister for being here this morning. He has the unenviable task of trying to answer for an agency that I believe is completely out of control.

Let me begin with the case of Ms Sonia Poulton, whose story is among the worst cases of officialdom working against the vulnerable and weak that I have witnessed during 15 years in this House. To date, I have written 23 letters and made 14 telephone calls about Ms Poulton and the maintenance of her daughter Shaye. Neither Ms Poulton nor I are satisfied with her treatment by the CSA, and I am staggered by the gross ineptitude that characterises the agency’s dealings with her.

Ms Poulton first approached me on 27 January 2004, three and a half years ago, as her payments from the CSA had ceased owing to a “computer error”. Even three years ago, Ms Poulton characterised her position as “hellish” and stated that

“despite repeated promises from them, the situation has seriously deteriorated”.

That turned out not to be an isolated occurrence. Throughout 2004, the CSA failed to collect payments because it was told that the father of Ms Poulton’s daughter had left his employment with a London local authority. That turned out not to be the case. The local authority for which he worked had failed to fulfil the deduction of earnings order in his paperwork, and the CSA had not chased a response.

Shortly afterwards Shaye’s father did move job and in October 2004 a consolatory payment was promised when my office telephoned the MPs’ hotline. However, Ms Poulton was informed directly by the CSA a little later that an assessment and a consolatory payment could not be made until a month later in November. The CSA informed us that £110 was sent to Ms Poulton on 27 October, but that was never received. Meanwhile, Sonia Poulton and her daughter were plunged into even greater debt. In December 2004, we saw no ray of hope when the independent case examiner accepted Ms Poulton’s case. That move, of course had no effect on the CSA making a payment of £120 on 20 December. It was fitting, however, that Ms Poulton’s first payment of 2004 should come in December.

The case was investigated, and the CSA was found to be at fault. It was ordered to consider—only consider—a consolatory payment and compensation to Ms Poulton. Despite being brought before the independent case examiner, who identified its faults, the CSA compounded its error by writing to Ms Poulton in November 2005 announcing that her arrears amounted to £1,335.86, despite earlier reports that they amounted to £5,191.18. I wrote to the agency demanding to know why Ms Poulton’s arrears had been reduced by a staggering £3,855.32.

Meanwhile, the independent case examiner recommended that the case should be investigated by the ombudsman, and told the CSA that the arrears occurred only as a result of its maladministration, and that the agency should make an advance payment. By December 2006, the CSA said that the arrears had increased to £4,298.30, but in a characteristic sidestep stated that the advance payment was not ready. Ms Poulton was grossly misled by her CSA caseworker, Shaheen Khan, who was based in the Bolton office. Ms Khan claimed that she had spoken to Shaye’s father on 5 January 2007 and established a deduction from earnings order. She claimed that he had submitted the order to his current place of employment and that payments would be forthcoming. Ms Khan verified that both verbally and in writing. Mid February arrived, but maintenance did not. On 21 February, a different CSA employee confirmed that no money had been received by the CSA, and that Shaye’s father had in fact left his employment on 3 October, three months earlier, so it is beyond me how Ms Khan was able to speak to Shaye’s father on 5 January.

On discovering privately that her former partner had left his place of employment, Sonia Poulton raised the issue, and Ms Khan behaved in a deeply inappropriate and impertinent way according to my constituent. The chief executive’s office, no less, subsequently apologised for that behaviour and blamed it on the stress of working in the Bolton office. That particular member of staff’s behaviour, which Ms Poulton reported in writing, is deplorable and worthy of disciplinary action, if it has not already been taken.

On 21 February, Ms Poulton wrote to me to say that she had not received payments since October 2006 because the CSA had told her that the maintenance schedule had expired, and no one had thought to put a new one in place. Although a new schedule was prepared from January 2007, no payments were received. In April this year, I chased the CSA and, believe it or not, it could find no record of those responsible for dealing with Ms Poulton’s case because—you may have guessed, Mr. Hood—the files had gone missing and the computer system had failed.

The CSA admitted that the Hastings office, where Ms Poulton’s case was being handled, was unable to secure a response from the Bolton office, and that if I was unhappy about that, I should write to the independent case examiner. The examiner’s reply in May said that the matter had been referred to the CSA chief executive. One could not have made up this story of incompetence.

Finally, on 11 June, my office was told that Shaye’s father was receiving jobseeker’s allowance, and that no arrears would be collected until his employment recommenced, when a new assessment would be made. Who knows what new and exciting challenges that reassessment will bring. Alison Cox, in the CEO’s office, told us that the Bolton office refused to communicate with the rest of the agency. In fact, when Ms Poulton spoke to Ms Cox, she had more up-to-date information, garnered from her MP’s office, than the CEO of the agency. That of course raises serious questions about the agency’s ability to keep track of cases, and poses serious questions about its internal management.

The CSA’s staff agree that something should be done about the Bolton office. I was advised that staff turnover there is high. Information was excessively difficult to extract and the staff had no concept of the fact that they were dealing with people’s lives. That is, I think, a conclusion that I would have reached independently, although I was grateful to have it confirmed by the impressions of the staff in the Hastings office—I mean that sincerely.

Overall, Ms Poulton’s case is a sorry tale of gross maladministration and lack of consistent information or interest from many of the officers and staff who were duty bound to look out for the interests of young Shaye and her mother. She is still owed thousands of pounds. Will the Minister today guarantee—I do not want mere platitudes—that the matter will be rapidly sorted out?

This case is especially vexing to me, because I have raised it before with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), who said that the agency would

“be able to clarify all the outstanding points.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 580.]

Let us hope that today the Minister, for whom I have high regard, can clarify some of the outstanding points.

Let me now turn to my second constituency case. Mr. David Dalleywater first contacted me in February this year stating that the CSA had written to him claiming that he had not been paying the correct maintenance from 2000 to 2006. He was told that he owed arrears of £8,113.51, despite regularly paying £60 per week to the parent who had custody of his child. Later that month, he received a notice of liability order for the revised amount, which had fallen to £5,413.51. It staggers me that the agency can come up with such differing sums so rapidly one after another. That order was based on a letter of 2004, which my constituent denies ever signing. Mr. Dalleywater made several telephone calls, and was told erroneously, but repeatedly in writing and on the telephone, that he could not have a copy of the letter that he had apparently signed.

I wrote to the agency in February, requesting a copy of that letter. More than a month later on 27 March, I chased the agency, and in the meantime Mr. Dalleywater received a summons to appear in court on 18 April. Despite repeated requests, he had not received an account summary to show how his arrears had been calculated. On 17 April, the CSA relented and let Mr. Dalleywater know that he could have a copy of his alleged letter, providing he wrote again to ask for it. We were told that the CSA was preparing an account summary, which of course prompts the question of how it intended to proceed with a court case without that vital piece of information.

On 30 May, I received a delightful letter from the CSA, featuring “sorry” five times. It apologised for the unhelpfulness shown to Mr. Dalleywater during the CSA’s dealings with him. Although the sentiment is appreciated, it has not and does not clear up Mr. Dalleywater’s case. It is heartening that the disputed letter, of which Mr. Dalleywater finally saw a copy, has been passed to the criminal investigation team; however, the accompanying account breakdown indicated that Mr. Dalleywater owed not £5,413.51, but a staggering £18,094.57. One could not make it up. The CSA was gracious enough to admit that there was a slight discrepancy—in that instance to the tune of a mere £12,681.06. Court proceedings were therefore adjourned until the correct figures were ascertained. One can only imagine what the judge would have said if the agency had turned up with such unreliable figures.

Finally, on 6 July, we received a response stating that Mr. Dalleywater’s total arrears were actually £513.58. How the CSA was able to calculate such wildly different sums—with impunity and claim them all as gospel—is totally beyond me, and no doubt the rest of the House. The letter of 6 July explains the various and tortured routes that the Minister’s staff in the CSA took to arrive at such staggeringly different amounts—in the process, wasting time and taxpayers’ hard-earned money with their efforts.

I have written eight letters and made seven phone calls on behalf of Mr. Dalleywater, and although many CSA staff members have tried to be helpful, there are clearly deep and perhaps insurmountable problems in that faceless and creaking bureaucracy. The only part of the agency that seems to be able to function is the arm that takes people to court. David Dalleywater, like Sonia Poulton, feels that the CSA has treated his case appallingly. He was unable to obtain either direct answers to his questions from CSA staff, or indeed a copy of a letter that the CSA claimed he wrote in 2004.

I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of the CSA’s website statement that the agency can help to

“ensure parents who live apart from their children contribute financially to their upkeep...work out who should pay and how much...make sure more children receive the maintenance they are entitled to...take quick and firm action to make sure payments get made”.

It has failed to fulfil any of those tasks. The Home Office, on the admission of no less a celebrated and illustrious figure than the former Home Secretary, has been declared “not fit for purpose”. However, on the strength of those two cases, it seems that the Child Support Agency is not even fit to open an envelope.

The then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, now the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, declared a year ago that the CSA would be abolished. He said:

“These reforms will address the fundamental flaws in the current system.” —[Official Report, 24 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 602.]

Goodbye to that unhappy agency, to the “troubled history” of the CSA, flawed from day one.

I ask the Minister sincerely not only to abolish the CSA, but to give me some firm pledges today that those two cases will be resolved rapidly, so that the children, particularly, and the parents who have custody of them, receive the money that they deserve.

I am delighted to reply to the debate that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has secured. He has been a doughty fighter on behalf of his constituents, and he and his constituency team have spent a considerable amount of time on the two cases that he has raised. I regret the fact that we are discussing them, because they were not handled in the manner that Child Support Agency clients are entitled to expect.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my sincere apologies. He suggested that he might be fed up with “sorry”, but I genuinely apologise for the situation that arose. He is entirely right to be angry and annoyed about what has happened. He recognises that, coincidentally, upstairs in Committee we are considering the Bill that will replace the Child Support Agency with the new commission. I have come down from that Committee to answer this debate.

With the hon. Gentleman’s permission, and with yours, Mr. Hood, first, I shall run through each case from the agency’s perspective, not to offer excuses, but to lay out the issues that he has highlighted, to explain what we are putting in place to ensure that such cases are dealt with properly in the future, and to give him some comfort concerning the situations that he raised. The hon. Gentleman knows that Mr. Dalleywater’s case is one of a small number in which both parents have a maintenance liability. In a common-sense situation, those liabilities could have been offset against each other, but under current legislation, two maintenance calculations are required, and maintenance is then collected from both parents.

Regrettably, those claims are complex, and unfortunately almost all counter-claims—one parent against another—result in an IT system malfunction. The case is now being dealt with by the agency’s clerical office at Bolton, and I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has some strong views about that office. We established it as a new unit to deal with all clerical cases that, owing to technical issues with our IT system, could not be progressed through the agency’s system. Under the operational improvement plan, the remaining faults with the IT system are due to be resolved throughout 2007.

Mr. Dalleywater’s assessment will now be made clerically, and again, I sincerely apologise for the events that led to his complaint. Our Bolton centre is now urgently considering his case, including backdating. It hopes to resolve all outstanding issues as soon as humanly possible, and I give the hon. Gentleman my personal reassurance that I shall keep on the tail of that case until it is resolved. The current treatment of cases such as Mr Dalleywater’s is inefficient, and it leads to complaints when the agency successfully collects maintenance from one parent but not from the other.

The measures in the new Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill mean that, although the commission will continue to make two statutory maintenance calculations, the lower amount will be offset against the higher. Offsetting statutory maintenance liabilities in such cases makes sense, as the hon. Gentleman will agree, and it will bring about the more efficient use of resources, because there will be only one maintenance liability to collect. In the case of Mr. Dalleywater, such a system would have helped to reduce much of the existing administrative complications that contributed to the complaint. However, in his case, there were some complicating factors that added to the situation.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the letter that was allegedly from Mr. Dalleywater, and I find it amazing that he was not allowed to see that letter without the hon. Gentleman’s precise intervention. That issue will be remedied. One cannot accuse someone of writing a letter, and then refuse to allow them to see the letter that they deny ever writing. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was helpful in resolving that situation.

I now move on to the case of Sonia Poulton, a parent with care who, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has had a tumultuous relationship with the agency since she applied for maintenance in 1998. In the years leading up to the complaint, Ms Poulton’s maintenance payments were disrupted on numerous occasions by the agency’s administrative failings. Again, I offer no excuse, and can only apologise. Arrears owed to Ms Poulton built up during that time, but agency miscalculations resulted in confusion about the total payable.

On 7 December 2006, Ms Poulton received a payment of £1,556, significantly less than she had been expecting after her discussions with the CSA. That provoked the current complaint. The case is now being processed clerically at our Bolton centre, where I understand it is a high priority. Once again, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will keep on the tail of this case until it is resolved.

I am grateful for how the Minister is handling the two cases and for the explanations that she is giving me, but she said that both cases would go clerical. That has happened before. What reassurance can she give me that they will not get lost in the system again? How long does she expect the clerical process to take before the cases are resolved?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my personal commitment to ensuring that the cases are dealt with as expeditiously as possible, the correct calculations are made and the correct information is given to his constituents. I could stand here and say that the cases will be done by the end of tomorrow’s business, but I think he understands why I do not want to do so. I expect the situation to be resolved in a short time. As I said, I do not want to be tied down to a day; he has my reassurance that I shall not give a commitment today that I am not prepared to see fulfilled by the Child Support Agency and the Bolton office. Maybe that is being a hostage to fortune, but I do not think so. I hope that he will accept that in the faith in which it is given.

As I said earlier, processing clerically will slow down resolution somewhat, although it should not slow it down as much as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I have received reassurance in Ms Poulton’s case that maintenance contribution deductions from the non-resident parent’s benefits will start as urgently as possible. I have alluded to our progress in transferring clerical cases back to the IT system. It is anticipated that all clerical cases will be transferred during 2008 and 2009. I appreciate that as Ms Poulton’s case started in 1998, that time scale may seem horrendous, but her case will be dealt with separately. The agency has made further consolatory payments, including reimbursement of Ms Poulton’s bank charges, which I understand were significant and were incurred as a result of the breakdown of payments to her. The agency is preparing new accounts to calculate the non-resident parent’s new arrears balance.

Again, I apologise for all the inconvenience caused by the agency in those cases, and I fully recognise that significant underperformance occurred. I accept that a catalogue of unacceptable errors led to the situation between Ms Poulton and the agency. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the main issues in both cases—enforcement, dual cases and clerical processing—are being addressed through the agency’s operational improvement plan. We aim to make further improvements to the scheme’s structure through the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, which is being considered in Committee. I thank the hon. Gentleman and his constituents for bringing the cases to the House’s attention, and I hope that they are reassured by what I have said and what we have discussed.

I shall highlight some of the improvements that have been and are being made. The Child Support Agency has not performed to the standard that its clients should expect since its inception; the hon. Gentleman quoted the previous Secretary of State’s comments recognising that. As a result, we approved the operational improvement plan, which was launched in March 2006, to improve substantially the service offered by the agency.

The plan’s effects can be seen in the most recent quarterly summary of statistics. Case clearance times have improved—55 per cent. of cases are now cleared within six weeks, and the number of uncleared cases fell by 12 per cent. between September 2006 and March 2007. The agency has also made significant progress in resolving the IT difficulties that have compounded problems in the hon. Gentleman’s constituents’ cases. The most serious defects in its IT systems have been resolved, and the remaining defects are due to be corrected later this year.

The hon. Gentleman was very critical of our Bolton office, but it is now processing more than 35,000 clerical cases. He is right that there were some initial troubles, due largely to the transfer of so much complex work from one organisation to another. However, the Bolton office has now made more than £17.5 million in payments to parents with care and is working hard to get more money to more children as soon as possible. Although I apologise unreservedly for the delays in the cases that he described, we are working hard with the Bolton office to improve substantially and as quickly as possible the service that we offer our clients.

We are also aware that the agency in general and the Bolton office in particular have not provided as satisfactory a level of customer service as we could wish. Under the operational improvement plan, the agency is dedicated to improving client service. A wholesale review of communications, of which the hon. Gentleman was highly critical, is well under way, and noticeable improvements have been made to the agency’s telephony system and service. The operational improvement plan is an important platform on which to build and implement further and more radical changes to the child maintenance system envisaged in the new Bill.

As the House is aware, the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 5 June 2007. It is the next stage in implementing the far-reaching proposals for child maintenance reform set out in the December 2006 White Paper following Sir David Henshaw’s recommendations. It is important that we establish a system that truly delivers for the parents and children who depend on it.

The Minister has given a very reasonable explanation of what the agency is doing, but can she give the House a flavour of how many of the most difficult cases occur in a year? Are they decreasing or not? As for the number of cases in clerical processing, to which the two cases have been added, is it increasing or decreasing?

The latest report from the quarterly summary of statistics indicates an improvement. We hope that that improvement will continue, and the proof of the pudding will be in the next set of quarterly statistics. As for the breakdown of numbers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not having it to hand, but I shall arrange for that information to be given to him.

The hon. Gentleman has helped us focus on the fact that we need a child maintenance system that responds to the child’s needs and can cope with the complexities that can occur during relationship breakdowns between parents. I was astonished by the complexity of the networks, links and information gathering used in dealing with quite straightforward cases. As he illustrated, his cases are that much more complex, resulting in the problems that he described. That is no excuse, however, for such inefficiency. People should have made the difference in determining the outcome for the individual.

I hope that with my reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will see a resolution to his constituents’ circumstances. Once again, I can only apologise that he has had to bring the cases to the House, and for the inconvenience, distress and anguish caused to his constituents.

I am pleased to initiate this debate on Ireland’s membership of the Commonwealth—a business that stands deferred since April 1949. As I hope to demonstrate in the next few minutes, ministerial responsibility has been involved.

You, Mr. Hood, and I are proud of the Commonwealth, which has 53 sovereign, independent member states, only 16 of which have Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. I shall refer to that again, because it is important to place on the record that the overwhelming majority of Commonwealth members are republics.

I am proud of the fact that the Commonwealth is an informal, mutually owned organisation that does an awful lot of good around the world—somewhat silently, but to the tremendous benefit of millions of people. Each Commonwealth country is responsible for its own policies, but they all work together in consultation and co-operation in the interests of their people. They try to reduce conflict and are involved in conflict prevention and bringing peace to the world.

The Commonwealth’s strength is in its diversity and geographical extent—rich and poor, developed and undeveloped, north and south. Commonwealth countries’ common factors include a common language, in many cases, as well as history and democratic values. Such values are the cornerstone of the Commonwealth and are enshrined in the Singapore declaration of Commonwealth principles, made in 1971 and reiterated at Harare in 1991.

The Commonwealth works closely with and in the spirit of the United Nations charter. Many organisations are related to Commonwealth agencies, including the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the scientific and education organisations. Many of us are proud of what is probably the second biggest single festival of sport—the Commonwealth games, which are very important to all the participants and countries involved.

That is the background to the Commonwealth of which you and I are very proud, Mr. Hood. However, in my mind’s eye, each time there is a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, or CHOGM, there is an empty chair, in front of which is a notice bearing the words “Republic of Ireland”. Why do I use the empty-chair analogy? To me, an empty chair indicates the temporary absence of an occupant who will return, or that the attendance of the person for whom the chair is designated has been delayed.

I use the analogy because historians, both in the Republic of Ireland and here, say—erroneously, in my view—that Ireland left the Commonwealth when Taoiseach John Costello decided in August 1948 to repeal the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 and inaugurate the Republic of Ireland on Easter Monday 1949.

However, I think that the historians are wrong: at that time, the Commonwealth, to the extent that it existed, was nothing like the Commonwealth of today. Its only sovereign, independent states in April 1949 were Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, apart from Ireland. The Commonwealth of the time bore no relationship to that of today. There is also the backdrop: at the time, all but Eire had been involved in what was then the recent second world war. Relations between not only Ireland and the United Kingdom, but those other states were still somewhat fraught—something epitomised by the exchanges of Winston Churchill and Eamon De Valera in their two great broadcasts of May 1945.

However, things have moved on, and I raise this matter today in that spirit. It is also important to remember that, paradoxically, some of the great Irish statesmen have contributed to the modern Commonwealth. One is Eamon De Valera, who in 1921 came up with the concept of external association. At the time, the British Government could not get their heads around the idea that a state could be associated with those other states, with their historic ties and traditions, and yet be a republic. Valera’s document No. 2 in the treaty negotiations of 1921 was spurned and rejected.

However, it came alive again five days after the Republic of Ireland was inaugurated by Taoiseach Costello in April 1949, because on 22, 25 and 26 April that year, the Prime Ministers of the remaining countries of what was then called the Commonwealth agreed that in 1950 Pandit Nehru could bring his newly independent India into the Commonwealth as its first republic.

De Valera’s concept of external association was adopted, but unfortunately those dealing with relations with Ireland could not get their heads around the idea that that formulation for India should have been triggered for Ireland in 1948-49. The rest is history; as I have said, the majority of Commonwealth countries take advantage of the concept and are republics within the Commonwealth.

I have mentioned Eamon De Valera, but his adversaries in the Irish domestic situation also contributed greatly to the modern Commonwealth. I refer particularly to Desmond Fitzgerald—father of Garret Fitzgerald—Kevin O’Higgins and Patrick McGilligan. In the dominion conferences of the ’20s and ’30s—after the creation of the Irish Free State and with the support of W.T. Cosgrave, the Free State Premier—those men tried to stretch the envelope of their independence and enthusiastically interested the other countries in doing so.

The Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 stated that the Irish Free State would have the same status as Canada’s. That was seized by the plenipotentiaries who signed that treaty, but they went on to try to increase and build on it. They argued and persuaded Canada and Australia to seek greater independence; that was reflected in legislation such as the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. However, the culmination was the Statute of Westminster 1931, which is still the cornerstone of the independence of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries.

When Eamon De Valera came into office in 1932, he was able to abolish the oath. On the occasion of the abdication, he was able to alter the Irish Free State’s head of state position—he did away with the post of Governor-General, created the office of President, and moved things on a ratchet towards a republic, which he desired and for which he had a mandate. He also introduced the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936, which reduced the role of the monarch to a residual one, by which diplomatic representation was notionally done through the King and the signing of treaties. In every other respect, Ireland had moved to being a republic, although it was not declared as such.

I have given that history because when we come to 1948-49 there was the apparent breach that I mentioned. As I said, the formula extended to Pandit Nehru was unfortunately not extended to, offered to or taken up by Ireland, although in retrospect it should have been. I do not think that it is too late for that to happen.

It is also interesting that Clement Attlee was somewhat exercised by the Taoiseach Costello declaration. However, he had the good counsel of the Canadian External Affairs Minister, the great Lester Pearson, and that of Prime Ministers Chifley of Australia and Fraser of New Zealand. My predecessor, the late, great Hugh Delargy, MP for Thurrock, helped persuade the British Government to pass the Ireland Act 1949, which decided not to treat Irish men and women as aliens, but to give them special status, which they enjoy today. I should say in parenthesis that as a consequence, many Members of this House of Commons hold Irish citizenship or are entitled to; some Ministers do, I think.

A special relationship was created, anyway, but the terminology was not such that that Ireland was in the Commonwealth and, as I have said, that was followed by non-attendance at Commonwealth councils, at CHOGM and so on, which I regret. It should have been, as the spirit was that the franchise was as available to people of the Republic of Ireland as it was to citizens of the United Kingdom.

By the mid-1950s, Ireland had joined the United Nations under External Affairs Minister Frank Aiken and since then it has not only been a great player in the United Nations but has been great friends of the Secretary-General, particularly using its small but highly skilled armed forces in the delicate matter of peace operations. It has contributed enormously to that, and I mention it because part of the role of the Commonwealth is peace, conflict prevention, keeping potential adversaries apart and trying to keep safety. Of course, Ireland has had a distinguished role in the European Union. It has held the presidency very successfully on a number of occasions. Ireland has a small population, but with great professionalism it punches above its weight in the United Nations, the European Union and many other councils. The missing element in my view, to our disadvantage, is its lack of membership of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth is run by a small secretariat. It is not the British Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth—it has not been the British Commonwealth for decades. Its secretary-general has never been drawn from the United Kingdom: the present one is a former and distinguished Foreign Minister of New Zealand. I hope and think that one day the natural supply for the role of secretary-general would be professional diplomats from the Irish Republic or even a retired Taoiseach who has done so much to bring peace in our islands and throughout the world.

What do I want from the debate? I trust that it will not be seen as presumptuous, but I hope that the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association might reflect on what I have said and extend invitations to members of the Oireachtas to any of its future conferences. It might also raise the issue in the international conference of the CPA. I hope that both the secretary-general of the CPA and the secretary-general of the Commonwealth, Don McKinnon, will also take on board some of my remarks.

I hope that the high commissioners in London of the Commonwealth countries, particularly those of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, because of their historic role and because so many of their fellow countrymen and women are part of the Irish diaspora—the Irish diaspora are in every corner of the Commonwealth, playing a full part in business commerce and public life—will reflect on what I have said. I hope that the Irish embassy in London will reflect on what I have said. I hope that it will not be too presumptuous to ask the Minister if—if I can persuade him that I have a case— to refer the matter to our Prime Minister. We are in a new era of relationships. I do not say that this should come about because of the Good Friday agreement and the success of 8 May this year, with the new dispensation for north and south, Catholic and Protestant, republican and Unionist. The time is right for Ireland to take its place in the club in which it has not taken up its seat.

This case needs to be remedied. I hope that those countries that are not independent sovereign states in the Commonwealth, such as our friends in the Isle of Man, might discuss the matter in their legislatures. At least they can use their good offices to invite, particularly the Isle of Man, which shares the Celtic, Viking heritage of the Republic of Ireland and whose language was rescued by Eamon De Valera in the early 1950s. I hope that everyone will reflect on the point.

This is not the first time that I have raised this point. I raised it with a Minister a long time ago—not this Minister. That Minister was a mediocre one, who pompously said, “It is a matter for the Irish Republic to apply.” That made me very cross, and still does today. I know that we will get a different response, however. One of the things that all organisations do—it does not matter if they are the Boy Scouts, the Townswomen’s Guilds, the Reform Club or a workingmen’s club—is to extend invitations to people who they think can contribute and whose presence would be valuable. They do it as a way of extending to those people their respect for them. That is why I think that an invitation should be extended to the Irish Republic.

There might be a residual one or two people who do not think that such an invitation ought not to come from the United Kingdom. So be it. Let this Minister say that he will work with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Caribbean countries and the countries around the world to see whether they should take the initiative of inviting the Irish Republic to take its natural place in the Commonwealth of nations.

I am delighted to appear before you, Mr. Hood, for the second time today on a matter of great importance to the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) not only on securing the debate, but, more significantly, on the way in which he made his case.

My hon. Friend will remember that he and I shared a portakabin, which masqueraded as an office, on the roof of the Palace of Westminster for five years. We spent many a long evening—

You’ve done better than me, though. [Laughter.]

Order.

We spent many long evenings talking about many different issues. If only I had known about my hon. Friend’s interest in and passion for this subject, it would have saved us a huge number of other less riveting debates and conversations on which we were unable to find any great unanimity.

My hon. Friend’s comments encourage me finally to get round to reading a book that I bought some time ago, an Attlee book. I think its proper title is “Empire into Commonwealth”. My hon. Friend referred to Clem Attlee, and I shall undertake to read it over the summer recess. Whether it will make me less or more mediocre, I am uncertain, but I shall read that work of Attlee’s.

My hon. Friend was right to refer to the fact that many Members owe some affection to Ireland. I remember growing up and thinking about whether I would play international football for Scotland or Ireland; I then realised that it was not an issue of nationality but a rank failure of any ability that meant that I was incapable of playing for either of those two great nations.

I should start by formally putting on the record Her Majesty’s Government’s welcome to the new ambassador to the United Kingdom from Ireland, Mr. David Cooney, who started work yesterday, I believe. I look forward to meeting him and discussing the many different issues that commonly concern us.

I offer my next observation with a sense of great trepidation. My notes say that I should say, first of all, that it is of course for the Government of Ireland to decide whether or not they wish to join the Commonwealth. That was a prophetically drafted first sentence. However, perhaps I could add an additional comfort for my hon. Friend that although it is not for the UK to invite a new member to the Commonwealth, as he implicitly acknowledged when he said that at one time it was Britain’s Commonwealth but that it is now a collection of states that share a common sense of values, the Prime Minister will discuss possible new membership criteria for the Commonwealth with his fellow heads of Government at the next CHOGM. That might offer some hope to my hon. Friend, although I understand that it does not capture the kind of thing that he is talking about. It is largely about whether there is consensus on the sort of membership criteria that allow countries without a constitutional link, such as Rwanda and others, to apply to join the Commonwealth.

Let me set out some of the areas where we have close co-operation with Ireland while it remains outside the Commonwealth, and say a few more words about that. My hon. Friend is right that there was a degree of excitement and speculation about possible Irish membership of the Commonwealth after the recent visit by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not know whether the Irish Government intend to join the Commonwealth, or even whether they are considering that step. Nothing that I have seen or read suggests that to be the case.

As he said, Ireland left the Commonwealth in the 1940s because it wanted to make a decisive break with Britain’s colonial past. India faced a similar choice but took an entirely different route. As a result, the modern Commonwealth was born. The UK understands the motivations of both countries in taking those decisions, but, now as then, they must themselves decide on their relationships with the Commonwealth. I hope today to show that, since that decision to leave in the 1940s, Ireland, the Commonwealth and the UK’s relationship with both have evolved and improved.

The Commonwealth would find the Ireland of today not just prosperous but booming, with an economy and a culture that is the envy of many. That is clear to any of us who visit Ireland on official visits, although I have not had the opportunity to do so recently, or who go to Donegal, as many of us do and as I do in my annual holiday. Over the years, the transformation of that part of Ireland has been remarkable and is emblematic of the transformation that continues across Ireland.

Equally Ireland, in its assessment of the Commonwealth, would share my hon. Friend’s perception that it has changed unrecognisably. It has come of age based on values, not on some historical relationship. Ireland would be unlikely to see any traces of colonialism and would instead see a modern, vibrant and international organisation, as he eloquently said.

Many nations are keen to join the Commonwealth, because it brings together states because of who they are, not what they want. It spans divides of wealth and size, as my hon. Friend said, and its members share a cultural and emotional bond and strong people-to-people links. More than 80 Commonwealth organisations link groups of people such as nurses, young people, lawyers and many others. The Commonwealth gives all its members an equal voice and, as he alluded to, is a unique forum in which to be heard. It is a forum where Asia and Africa can meet and learn from each other, where small island states have as much influence as anyone else and where developed and developing countries and emerging powers such as India can find common ground. Its members span all five continents and are all committed to the democratic values set out in the Harare declaration. Tolerance, justice and democracy are the Commonwealth’s guiding principles, and it keeps to them, suspending members who fail to respect Commonwealth values.

We have a unique relationship with Ireland, based on our shared history. Were it to happen, Irish membership of the Commonwealth would provide a new context for that relationship.

I assume that the answer to this question will be “yes”. Would my hon. Friend the Minister welcome Ireland’s interest in returning to the Commonwealth, or taking up its seat in the Commonwealth, as I do not actually accept that it left?

My hon. Friend successfully had a guess at my response. If Ireland were to choose to apply to join the Commonwealth, it would have much to contribute in the ways that he has said: its skill and expertise in diplomatic arenas and the way in which it is outward-facing and has so much to contribute, as it has shown over many years. I know that he would expect me to add the comment that it is not for the UK to initiate an application, it is for Ireland itself to come to a decision if it chooses to do so.

I am sorry to be a nuisance, but I said that I hoped my hon. Friend would discuss the matter with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other players in the Commonwealth, because it might be appropriate for them to take the initiative.

Of course that may be appropriate. My hon. Friend is not being a nuisance; having spent five years with him on that rooftop I can say that on some occasions he was a nuisance, but not today. But in trying to offer him hope on that specific point I say to him that, if Ireland were to make an application, we would of course enter into discussions and debate about specifics, timings and so on.

My hon. Friend’s introductory comments were fascinating. We have all listened to hundreds of speeches in the House, and I know that my hon. Friend does not welcome false praise, but his speech was one of the most interesting that I have had the opportunity to listen to in the past four or five years. I hope that he takes that in the spirit in which I offer it.

On our close co-operation, there has been landmark progress in Northern Ireland, as we all know, which has led to the re-establishment of the devolved Executive there. I remember watching the rugby match at Croke Park between England and Ireland and cheering—I shall not say who for, but it was a good afternoon’s rugby—and witnessing a Taoiseach address both Houses of Parliament for the first time ever earlier this year. I agree completely with the Taoiseach’s words in that address that

“the relationship between Britain and Ireland has changed fundamentally for the better”.

We now have an effective relationship with Ireland, both bilaterally through the institutions of the Belfast agreement, including the British-Irish Council, and internationally, notably through the EU and the UN, as my hon. Friend said.

The UK and Ireland recognise that in an ever more connected world, being active internationally is the best option for shared prosperity and progress on the global stage. If Ireland decided to join the Commonwealth, it would find a forum to discuss and pursue issues of international development, trade and climate change without the traditional north-south fault lines that have characterised so many conversations in the past. Ireland would have an enormous amount to contribute to those conversations.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Commonwealth is a modern organisation that provides the UK and all its members, on an equal basis, with the opportunity to find common solutions to common problems. Contrary to some assertions, it is far from seeing itself as a rival to the EU. That is an important point. In fact, both organisations are engaged in common work in Africa, for example, and hope to extend that joint work further. The UK, like Cyprus and Malta, finds membership of both organisations valuable.

We welcome our international co-operation with Ireland and look forward to even greater engagement in the coming years on global issues of concern to all our peoples. While I cannot offer my hon. Friend the specific good news that he wishes for, everyone in the House knows how dogged and determined he can be. Ministers sometimes welcome it and occasionally they welcome it a little less, but dogged and determined he is, and often successful. The only suggestion that I make to him is that, having raised the issue here in the House, he raises it with the many good friends that he undoubtedly has in Ireland. It is in Ireland that any application to join the Commonwealth must originate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o’clock.