I welcome you to the chair, Mr. O’Hara. This debate is critical for Parliament because knife crime is on the increase up and down the country. I am sure that many Members in the House can give us their direct experience of what is happening in their constituencies. However, there has been a double impact for me. Over the past three months, five teenagers have been murdered on the streets in my constituency, which is totally unprecedented. Not only were there no teenage murders last year, but when we compare our recent figures with the overall figures for London—11 murders this year—we have faced an almost indescribable situation. A combination of fear and incomprehension has traumatised the community—whether it be the family, neighbours, or people who never knew any of the victims. Although we have been making steady progress in reducing the fear of crime in my community, recent events have changed that markedly and we are beginning to see real concerns expressed locally.

The hon. Gentleman is right to bring this important debate to the House. However, the debate is not new; the Government have been aware of the problem for some time. Although they have taken some excellent measures in law and order, this matter is one on which they have been found wanting. Did the hon. Gentleman see the 20,000-plus “knives or lives” petition that I took to No. 10 Downing street last year? Does he agree with the tougher penalties and honest sentencing policy of Gerard Batten, the London mayoral candidate for the UK Independence party?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I will outline some of the proposals that have been made by my constituents and the ones that I will be recommending to the Government. I know that there has been a constant debate in Parliament, and I hope that by continuing the dialogue we can get the Government to do more. The essential message that has to go out from today’s debate is that we must do more to address the problems.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing this debate. Does he share my concern that knife crime and its consequences are spreading to virtually every constituency in this country? One of my constituents was killed in a knife attack just before Christmas. There have been other such attacks in areas that have been described as “leafy suburbs”. The problem is spreading across the whole country and the trend is very worrying.

I agree that the trend is very worrying. It is important that Parliament takes note of that and that hon. Members bring their experiences to the Government so that they can be addressed. That is what I hope to do this morning.

It is important that we state that the vast majority of young people are good, law-abiding citizens. In most cases, young people are the victims of violent crime and not the perpetrators. It is important to put the issue in context before we go on.

The nightmare in my constituency began in the early hours of 1 January when Henry Bolombi, a young man aged 17, died in a knife attack. He was returning from seeing in the new year at Trafalgar square when a row broke out between two groups of youths at a bus stop. Currently, a 20-year-old and a 14-year-old have been bailed in connection with that murder.

On 21 January, Louis Boduka, again 18 years of age, was stabbed to death in my constituency following a daytime street brawl. A 17-year-old who vehemently denies the charges is likely to go on trial sometime later this year. On 15 February, Ofiyke Nmezu, who was only 16 years old, was struck on the head during a street attack in Ponders End in my constituency. A week later, he died in hospital from a fractured skull. A youth from Essex, aged 18, has been charged and will appear at the Old Bailey in June.

I continue. On 13 March, Michael Jones, aged 18, was found with fatal head injuries following an horrific attack in the flat that he shared with his mother. A 45-year-old local man has been arrested and charged. That crime was quite distinct from the others. Finally, Rastafarian Bakari Bernard-Davis was stabbed to death in the street on the evening of 31 March. Two black youths were seen running from the scene of the crime, but, as yet, no arrests have been made.

What we have here is four street attacks in my constituency. Three involved knives and the fourth involved a young man being hit on the head with a blunt weapon. Three of the attacks may be gang related, one possibly has a drug intention behind it, and one may have been racially motivated.

As a consequence of recent events, I undertook an impromptu postal petition, which managed to gain 750-plus returned signatures—unlike that of the 20,000 of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). The petition, which was put together as a matter of urgency because of the developing situation, said:

“The residents of Edmonton demand action to reduce the guns/knives on our streets and stiffer penalties for those caught in possession of a lethal weapon.”

I then followed that up with a crime survey, which elicited from my constituents a number of letters, expressing concerns about what had happened. Miss. M. from South Mall in my constituency said:

“Five young lives taken away, it saddens all residents and there is so little that we can do.”

That is a challenge to us all. Miss. B. from Osward place in my constituency said:

“I’m a 16-year-old girl and I find it disturbing to hear about all the deaths recently. I have to travel to and from college and I get scared knowing it’s not safe…Being a teenager, I don’t think I need to feel this way. I hope no one else has to get killed.”

The events are doubly shocking and, as I mentioned earlier, unprecedented. According to all the figures, crime is falling both locally and across London. For example, Enfield is the 11th safest of 32 London boroughs. In 2006-07, in terms of crimes perpetrated by 1,000 residents, Enfield had a figure of 95.6 compared with 122 for London. Even the figure for England and Wales, at just over 100, was higher than that for my borough. There was a 10 per cent. fall in the number of offences committed in the London borough of Enfield between 2003 and 2007. Violence against the person in the year to October 2007 fell by 19 per cent. in Enfield, compared with just over 7 per cent. across London. The fall was 21 per cent in my constituency. Therefore, we had a higher fall in the number of crimes of violence against the person in the year immediately before these events.

Fear of crime, which is almost as important as crime itself, has also shown a downward trend. In my borough, 60 per cent. of people believed that it was not safe to go out at night in 2003. By 2007, that figure had dropped to 47 per cent. The percentage of people who are scared of going out during the day has fallen from 18 per cent. to 8 per cent. Again, those are positive figures. The position is similar across London. Murder reduced by 18 per cent. between 2002 and 2007 and knife crimes of all types, from the smallest use of a weapon through to the most serious crimes, went down by 30 per cent. in that period.

A number of London initiatives that I would like to see in place in my borough have had a dramatic impact. For example, Operation Blunt introduced a knife amnesty. I know that there are some concerns about knife amnesties, but they have made progress in reducing the number of weapons on the streets. A lot of the operation is intelligence-based enforcement—getting into the gangs, finding out what young people are doing and being there when there is likely to be a confrontation between young people. That is the essence of the operation, and it has been successful.

Operation Shield makes great use of portable metal detectors, the so-called arches and wands, and the initiative has been successful. It is used sometimes in schools, although I understand that there are concerns about the use of the detectors in schools, and certainly in train stations, bus termini and shopping centres. That is a helpful development. Of course, the Mayor’s gangs, guns and weapons reduction board, which co-ordinates activity on youth crime, is important and does essential work in spreading best practice to address the problem.

I know that detection rates are always a matter of controversy, but the Metropolitan police has had considerable success. It increased the crime detection rate in general from 17 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the two years from 2005 to 2007, and the detection rate of street murders is more than 90 per cent. It looks likely that people will be brought to justice for most, if not all, of the relevant crimes that have been committed in my constituency.

It is important to examine some of the research that has been carried out on gang culture and the violent use of weapons. I have come across two recent studies that throw that into sharp relief. The first was by a charity called the City Bridge Trust, which carried out a comprehensive research project including a literature review, a survey of schools in its local area and a discussion with people involved in the issues of young people, gangs and the violent use of weapons. It found, first, what we would expect: that knife crime affects young people, mainly those from black and ethnic minority communities and deprived areas. I do not think that there was any surprise in that. I found it more surprising that knife crime is four times more prevalent than gun crime. The most shocking statistic that I came across was that one in four of the 16-year-olds surveyed carried a knife, and one in five claimed to have used it at some point.

The hon. Gentleman has explained eloquently that knives can kill just as easily as guns. In fact, more young people are murdered with knives than with guns. Knife crime and the carrying of knives is often dealt with in magistrates courts, where the maximum sentence is only six months, which in reality means serving only three months because of dishonest sentencing. That is simply inadequate to provide the necessary deterrent. Will he encourage his Front-Bench colleagues to do something about that?

The hon. Gentleman is in a great hurry. If he will allow me, I would much rather state my case. It is important that any judgments that we make are evidence-based, and I should like to set out some of the evidence before I draw conclusions. However, I have some sympathy with his points.

I mentioned the shocking number of young people who both carry and claim to use knives. Numerous studies have suggested that knives hold a great fascination for young people. Whether that is because it gives them status, because they think that they are a fashion accessory, as many people have claimed, or because it is simply a matter of street cred, that is clearly true. That places an onus on our education and youth services to address those issues.

The research also shows that the motivation for carrying knives is primarily fear. Many of the young people carrying knives do so because they have been threatened with a knife at some time. We must address that spiral. We must also examine the impact of gangs, drugs and alcohol as a motivator that fuels the aggression that is shown in some instances. That was one of the themes that emerged when NCH, the children’s charity, surveyed young people. It interviewed roughly 100 young people up and down the country about their attitude to violent weapons. Its findings accorded with the other study that I have mentioned, because 63 per cent. said that image and peer pressure led to young people carrying weapons. Some 41 per cent. said that they knew someone who had been affected by knife or gun crime. NCH’s position on its study is that it is important for young people themselves to be involved in the design of services aimed at them and in how we address the motivating factors that lead them to carry knives and guns. I shall return to that theme. What have the authorities done to respond? I shall start by addressing the point that the hon. Member for Castle Point raised.

As this is a Chamber of the British Parliament, it is worth saying that Glasgow is the city in this country that has the highest level of knife crime, and has had it for a very long time. Until quite recently, knives, rather than guns, were the weapon of choice for Glasgow’s gangs. That shows that the demography of knife crime is more complex than one might think from reading the Evening Standard.

I agree entirely. We can learn a great deal from the long experience in Glasgow, especially about the interaction between different gangs and geographical locations. We appear to be repeating some of the experiences there, so we need to examine Glasgow carefully, especially in relation to gangs and knives and in relation to drugs and alcohol as a fuel for the activities in question.

I return to what the authorities are doing. We have set up safer neighbourhood teams, which have been warmly welcomed across the House and contributed significantly to reassuring the public and reducing crime levels. In my area, there have been increased patrols by safer neighbourhood teams, and the police in general have been much more visible and on the streets. That is clearly an attempt to reassure the public that there is a response to the increase in violence that we have seen locally.

Since this Monday, local resources have been reinforced by the Metropolitan police in an operation that is intended to prevent, deter and disrupt gang, criminal and violent activity in the communities in my constituency and, I hope, lead to the arrest of some of those responsible. Again, these measures have the dual purpose of getting to where the violent crimes are perpetrated and reassuring the community about what is being done.

There has been a significant increase in the use of portable metal detectors. Last week, at one of the busiest stations in my constituency, such detectors were on show and my understanding is that they were very successful in detecting a number of weapons that were being carried and, it must be said, not just by young people. Those detectors are having some success.

We have safer schools teams in Enfield and one of the largest safer schools projects in London. Those teams have been going out to schools and redoubling their efforts to try to get some of these messages across to young people. I will return to that critical activity at a later stage.

My local authority has also set up a commission that is very much based on the one set up by Lambeth for very similar reasons: to look into the causes and effects of the significant increase in violent crime locally and also the policies that are necessary to try to address it. Furthermore, my local authority is co-ordinating a summit to discuss the relationship between crimes and drugs. We are acutely aware that drugs fuel criminal activity and there is some evidence to suggest that they also increase the level of aggression that is shown in some of these instances of knife crime.

I now to come to some of the areas that the Minister may be able to look at in addressing the crime issue. NCH, the children’s charity, says that it is quite important that, in future, the under-16s should be included in the crime survey work that is carried out nationwide, so that we can have a better handle on the figures and also a better understanding of what is happening out there in the community. Is that idea something that the Minister has looked at?

Many people also believe that there should be a lower criminal age for the possession of violent weapons. I know that that issue has been discussed in the House and it is an issue that we need to address. If we look at the ages of the people affected and, indeed, the ages of the people carrying out these crimes, we see that some children under the age of 16 are involved, so we need to get a handle on what is happening to very young people in our community.

I refer again to my petition. I did not want to mention the mayoral election at the moment, but all the major candidates are suggesting that we need tougher sentences for the possession and use of knives; indeed, in the debates that we have had in the House recently similar recommendations have been made by individual Members. Could the Minister comment on the balance of judgment required, in relation to whether we need to send out a signal about the seriousness of the crimes that are being committed?

I want to see even more arches and wands used in our community. Shopping centres, railway stations and similar areas need to be targeted. If we are to believe the statistics, many people carry weapons. According to the statistics, 40 per cent. of young people carry weapons at some point during the day or in the evening and we need to take some action on that.

There is also a great need for more research on alcohol and drugs, and their role in violent crime. A phenomenon in my constituency would not be found everywhere, because it is located mainly in the Somalian community, and that is the use of a mild drug called khat. The police in my area report to me that the combination of khat and alcohol is leading to much greater levels of aggression among Somalian youth than they have seen in the past. That is a subject where more research could be carried out. The Minister may be able to comment on the fact that the Government have funded 15 local authorities to conduct research into gang culture in their communities.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on this point, and he is making a very significant speech on this issue. Does he agree that it is also important not to allow the media or anyone else to characterise the Somalian community and Somalian youths as intrinsically violent or drug-obsessed? Often, Somalian youths have suffered very bad discrimination and many of their families have suffered in war-torn Somalia. The Somalian community needs to be recognised and supported and, in particularly, we should recognise the role of the very strong Somalian community organisations that are doing their best to ensure that young Somalian people achieve something in their lives.

I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the strengths of the Somalian community organisations and about their work; that has certainly been my experience in my constituency. Also, I certainly agree that many young Somalians have been traumatised by their experiences back in Somalia, where there is a vicious, ongoing civil war.

I know that khat is not yet an illegal substance and that it is relatively new in this community. By itself, khat really is relatively harmless, but in combination with alcohol there is cause for concern. I hope that the Minister will look at that issue.

Fifteen local authorities have been funded to conduct research into gang culture. The one plea that I make to the Minister today is that that research programme should be extended to include other local authorities. Certainly, I make a strong case for my local authority to be included, as it needs to look at the gang culture locally and it requires the research materials to address that problem in the future.

We also need to take stronger preventive measures. I will not go into those measures as time is moving on, but we need to do more in our schools, pupil referral units and in the criminal justice system itself to divert our young people away from gangs and the gang culture that lead to the levels of violence that we now see.

We also need more comprehensive youth services and I shall touch on this issue briefly. I am not sure that the Minister will be able to respond to this point, but it is important to put it on the record. This process is not just about banging down on young people; we have a responsibility to them, too. In my view, in the past, we have not exercised that responsibility effectively and we need to look at what we are doing in terms of providing youth services. Since 2000, local authorities have certainly been spending a lot more on dedicated youth services than they did before. However, the question still must be asked; are they doing anything like enough?

I could point to many examples of very good practice in my local area. The Edmonton Eagles boxing club is one example, but its work is repeated in karate, judo and other such clubs up and down the country. They do excellent work in diverting young people into sports activity. That activity gives them self-confidence and the ability to gain from the sport they undertake, and I hope that it will have a positive impact on their life.

Community theatre is another example of youth services. In my area, there is a local community theatre group called Ghetto Youth theatre. In fact, it has written, produced and performed a play about knife and gun culture in our community, and that play is taken out to schools and community centres across Enfield. It does a great job in getting the right messages across.

Of course, the Government have put a high priority on youth activities. I could go into detail about the £150 million that the Government have set aside related to their “Youth Matters” Green Paper. That money will be spent this year and next year, and much of it will go directly to young people to give them a voice in their local communities, which is all to the good.

In 2006, the Government laid a duty on local authorities to secure access for young people to “positive activities”. We are yet to see that programme bed down, but I must say that “positive activities” is a rather nebulous form of words in relation to the responsibilities of local authorities. The term should be better defined.

The Government have also recently introduced their 10-year youth strategy. Again sums of money are attached to that strategy, and I think it will be some £180 million in the next three years.

One could go on and on. Various sums have been provided. Indeed, even the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families announced an initiative on children’s play areas. I mention that because my local authority was fortunate enough to receive funding for that. We will get £2 million and some revenue support to provide play activities in the most deprived communities in my constituency. They will focus particularly on eight to 13-year-olds, but, of course, that is an important group. They will be coming up to the danger zone, if I can call it that, in which the attractions of gang and youth culture begin to take them away from the positive activities that we are trying to engender.

Many other funding schemes are available up and down the country. What we lack, and what I would like to lay on the table for discussion, is a comprehensive local youth service that reaches all the community, not one that involves our saying, as I often do when young people ask, “Where are the youth facilities?”, that there is a community centre two, three or four miles down the road. That is not an adequate response. I recognise that there would be a cost in delivering such a service, but it should be a Government aspiration. I shall quickly suggest some ways in which it could be provided.

First, the local authority should have a duty to draw up a youth strategy. Some years ago, the Government suggested a duty to draw up a homeless strategy. It has been successful, and most local authorities could have similar success if they were to draw up a youth strategy and try to deliver it to local young people.

Local authorities should also have a duty to engage with representatives of young people. We have set up various youth parliaments and organisations. They all exist on a shoestring, and three or four interested young people usually get involved. We need to be much more serious about hearing young people’s voices in all of this. We should be providing small grants for youth organisations. Rather than giving money to adults, professionals or the local authority, let us start giving some limited finance to young people themselves.

We need more community organisations, such as boxing clubs, judo clubs and community arts groups. They will engage young people on territory on which they can be engaged, and would deliver value for money for the Government. I hope that we would begin to see signs of reduced friction and tension in local communities and a reduction in violent crime as a consequence.

The appeal I make to the Minister is that we need the stick, but let us also have the carrot. In the long term, the carrot is much more important, although I understand the need to reassure communities that action is being taken. I hope that he will engage with the debate that is about to take place, and that Parliament and the Government working together can begin to address the real concerns up and down the country about violent crime in our communities.

rose—

Order. Before we continue, I wish to make two brief statements. I remind Members that the winding-up speeches must start no later than 10.30. Secondly, I compliment the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on refraining from straying into issues that are sub judice. It is important to observe the sub judice rule and not discuss matters that are before the courts.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this debate, on the careful, thoughtful and intelligent way in which he introduced it, and on the positive messages in his contribution.

It is right that we should discuss knife crime and particularly its effect on young people. It is horrendous and awful, and disfigures communities. However, it is important to remember that young people are not all violent. They do not all carry knives or commit crimes. As my hon. Friend pointed out, they are actually more likely than older people or anyone else in society to be the victims of crime. Young people walking around often have a far greater sense of fear than adults do. I know young people in my constituency who are simply not prepared at night to walk down certain roads or even to cross certain roads because they feel that they would be in an area that is controlled by someone else. They feel that they are at risk. That is something within youth culture of which older people are almost oblivious—they simply do not notice that kind of thing. Many young people growing up in our big cities experience real fear, and we should have some consideration for that and concern about it.

We should also recognise that many young people, particularly teenagers, socialise on the streets. They hang around on the streets and chat to each other. Every teenager for ever has done that. There is nothing wrong with it; it is part of growing up, part of life. How many adults, when they see a group of teenagers standing around on a street corner, immediately have photo images running through their mind about knives, guns, drugs, violence and so on, and cross the road and walk away in fear? In reality, the danger to them is minimal. They ought to just walk by and say, “Hello, how are you doing?” The general approach should be to talk to people. It is a form of human interaction that goes a long way and has been around for a long time. It is possible for adults and teenagers to interact. I know that some people think that that is difficult, but it can actually be achieved. There needs to be a much more positive approach in society towards young people and their concerns, fears and hopes.

My hon. Friend described very well the tragedy of the five deaths from knife crimes in his constituency. Fortunately, I have not had as many in mine, but two young people have died from knife crime in the past year. I want to say a little about them. Their lives should be remembered, and the community response should be remembered and understood.

Last summer, a young boy, Martin Dinnegan, was walking home from a youth club. He came across a group of people and was stabbed to death on the street within five minutes’ walk of his home and within three minutes’ walk of the youth club that he had just left. An awful situation: a 14-year-old boy who was doing well at school, and who had a supportive family, great hopes for the future and a great life ahead of him.

Several things were interesting. First, because we now have safer neighbourhoods teams in London and the relationship between the local community and the police is much better than it used to be, a great deal of evidence was provided very quickly. That assisted the police in making arrests. I compare that case, which is before the courts and therefore sub judice, with the stabbing of a young Somali boy in my constituency five years ago. There was much less co-operation with the police because there was not the same relationship with them. That is an important thing to remember.

The response of the community was also interesting. There were two church services. One was a service of peace at St. Mellitus church, led by Father David Ardagh-Walter, which was about peace in the community. It was followed by a peace march attended by 2,000 people. They marched down the road, and, after a period of silence, messages were given by the local police commander, the Mayor and myself to the assembled crowd.

The response in the community was good, and we have had a series of meetings since then to talk about knife crime, punishment, understanding, and building and providing a much better youth service. The role of Martin Dinnegan’s family and his parents, Jim and Lorraine Dinnegan, has been fantastic in trying to build good community relations, even though it is unbearable to think of losing a 14-year-old son in those or any other circumstances.

An even more recent tragic stabbing was that of a young man called Nassirudeen Osawe, who was walking through the Angel in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), although he and his family lived in mine, when he was stabbed to death for no apparent reason or motive. The case is now before the courts and various people have been apprehended as a result. Nassirudeen, a young boy who lost his life, was, tragically and ironically, from the same school as Martin Dinnegan, St Aloysius college in my constituency. He was a very promising and artistic youngster. This was yet another death. Another family is totally bereft, bereaved and uncomprehending of what has happened around them.

I attended the funeral of Nassirudeen, which was held at the East London mosque, and a large number of young people were there. Something poignant happened when they filed past the open coffin of Nassirudeen Osawe: they saw the reality of what happens when young people carry knives and are incapable of communicating with somebody else other than by the use of violence. The result was the tragic loss of this brilliant young man. It is an appalling tragedy. My heart goes out to his family. However, again, they are making a great contribution to the community and are doing their best to bring people together to try to create some sense of understanding of the dangers of violence in our society.

The activities that have happened locally as a result of those two deaths have, in some ways, been positive. There is increased co-operation with the police through the safer neighbourhoods team. I thank Commander Bob Carr of Islington police and his colleagues in particular for the work that they have done supporting all the community organisations and initiatives. I want Islington council to understand the need to invest more money in youth services and to welcome the initiative by the Mayor of London to improve and increase youth provisions and services all across London.

Young people growing up in our society are subject to many pressures, including the pressure to conform, and to the glamour of violence, knives and guns. They feel that a knife gives them protection. If young people are asked, “Why do you carry a knife?”—and many of them do—they say, “It is for my protection.” It should be pointed out to them that it is more likely that they will be killed by their own knife if they get involved in a fight: somebody will take it from them and they might well end up being the victim of their own knife. We have to get a message across to them that carrying a knife is dangerous and is going to result in somebody getting hurt and possibly dying as a result of that.

The debate is also about the degree of violence that young people in particular are subjected to through television and in the media all the time. Violence is glamourised; the idea is that someone is big, powerful and strong if they kill somebody in war, a fight or a gang brawl. We need to promote the idea of community, peace, understanding and reconciliation between people.

We must also look at the way in which people live in inner-city areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton mentioned the perceptions of gang culture around the place. In some ways, a gang can be quite benign: it can be a group of young people, who do not necessarily mean violence or harm, getting together and simply calling themselves a gang. There are plenty of hooray Henrys in Oxford and the public schools who form gangs of all sorts, but they are not seen as threatening. [Interruption.] I do not wish to name names on this occasion, because this is an important debate.

Some people might call the Bullingdon club a gang.

They might, indeed. It is a small gang—

An affluent gang.

Yes.

We have to say to young people that there is no harm in socialisation. As youngsters, I am sure that all hon. Members hung around with a crowd of people that would, these days, be called a gang—it was just a crowd of people we hung around with and went out with or whatever else. We have to recognise that. However, we must also recognise that in the inner-city areas represented by those of us contributing to this debate—four of the hon. Members speaking today have adjoining constituencies in north London—housing is part of the problem. A teenager growing up in my constituency, or those of my neighbours and colleagues, who is sharing a small, crowded flat and has to share his bedroom with one or two siblings of a similar age or even much older does not have space to socialise. They cannot bring their friends home or have them stay over; they cannot do any of things that everyone wants young people to be able to do, because there is simply no space. So they are forced to socialise outside whether they want to or not. Obviously, I do not want to stop people socialising outside, but we need to recognise that housing is part of the problem.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have raised that issue often in evidence to planning committees. Does he think that there is a need to look at the minimum requirement for space standards, which are impossible and build in problems for the future?

I agree; they do build in space problems for the future. In a former life I was councillor in the hon. Lady’s constituency and chaired various committees. I recall doing a study on Chettle Court—she will know the place well—which is a large block of flats built in the late 1960s, early ‘70s. We studied the costs of not providing community space and of providing small flats, and the additional costs over the next 30 years in relation to social work, special youth provision and special centres, and so on. We are building problems for the future by not building good quality homes today. It is so important that we improve the space standards and that, instead of every planning decision revolving around one and two-bedroomed flats, particularly in inner London, we consider the need for family sized accommodation and family homes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and I were Haringey councillors in the 1970s and ‘80s. I recall with great pride that we finally achieved the point at which no families were being housed in tower blocks and every new property was a home with a garden. That did not last long because the Tory Government came along and took the money away. However, we achieved a huge amount there. We should work towards that aspiration.

I shall conclude because I want to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) gets to speak. This is an important debate and an important subject. I say yes to youth provisions, yes to understanding young people and yes to punishment for those who knowingly carry knives with intent and who use them with intent, because I have no sympathy whatsoever for those people. But when we put young people into detention, whether it is Feltham or any other institution, I do not want them to come out in four, five or however many years later—having committed some horrendous crime—as brutal people ready to commit another crime. We must have a criminal justice system that arrests, apprehends, prosecutes and, if necessary, imprisons people, but we should encourage them to come out as better people than when they went in, rather than create the universities of crime that so many of our penal institutions have become. There is a huge debate and a huge issue here. Avoiding the debate will not solve the problem. Having the debate and meeting the needs of young people will do some good in that direction.

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to a debate on teenage knife crime, because it is such a huge issue for my constituents in Hackney.

Knife crime in England and Wales is, in some ways, young persons’ crime. It is an issue in Hackney because Hackney is a young borough. Under-18s comprise a quarter of our population and we have all the indices of poverty and deprivation: 60 per cent. of my people live in social housing and we are consistently in the top 10 in the country in respect of the unemployment rate. Unemployment hits young people particularly.

One of the characteristics of inner London is that terrible poverty and often shockingly high levels of deprivation, as some colleagues from outside London would acknowledge, go cheek by jowl with great wealth. It is not unusual in Hackney for Victorian or Georgian squares with houses worth £1 million to be next to estates that are still sinks of grim poverty, despite the money that the Government have spent on refurbishing them. When I see some of the savagery of the crime on London’s streets, there is a sense—this is not an excuse—of two nations living side by side in mutual incomprehension.

The other issue in Hackney relating to teenage knife and gun crime is the number of young people who fall through the education net. A former director general of the prison service, Martin Narey, said that on the day that a child is expelled from school, we might as well give them a date and time to turn up at prison. The route from educational failure and exclusion to life on the streets, gang culture, knives, crime and prison is direct. I do not expect the Minister to respond to the education and youth service issues that I want to raise, but provision for that must be interlinked with a long-term strategy to deal with the problem of knives and guns.

In Hackney in 2007-08, knife crime fell by 23 per cent., but my constituents do not believe that, particularly at election time. One issue with knife and gun crime is that the perception of crime is as much a problem as the level of crime. I could not walk through Stoke Newington and convince people that knife crime has fallen by 23 per cent., but it has. However, no matter how low the level of knife crime, it is still too high, particularly because it is a young person’s crime. We have had two fatal stabbings in Hackney so far this year.

Although 10 to 17-year-olds make up only 11 per cent. of Hackney’s population, they are responsible for 28 per cent. of reported crime. Why are young people carrying knives? I have been to schools and youth clubs and asked them why, and have tried to counsel individual young people who are brought to see me by their mothers, and they say that they carry knives to protect themselves. One simple thing that we could do is to go into schools and make them understand that carrying a knife does not protect them, but puts them more at risk, not least because it is a random weapon. A slip of the wrist or of the weapon and what was intended to frighten someone can end in murder.

Politicians have a tendency, and the media more so, to demonise young people involved in street culture, but we must remember that some—I am the parent of a 16-year-old— if not all of them, are quite frightened. They may look scary strutting along with their hoods and glaring menacingly, but they are frightened, and as much as we want to relieve the middle-aged, middle-class electorate from fear, we should consider how we can relieve young people from the fear that causes them to cling to their gangs. For many of them, the gang is their family because of family breakdown in inner cities. Young people who would once have found role models as apprentices in manufacturing industry now find their role models in street gangs. It is no coincidence that some of the centres of gang and gun crime—Brent, Hackney and parts of south London—were centres of manufacturing industry 20 years ago. As manufacturing industry and the possibility of employment for unskilled and semi-skilled males has declined, we have seen the rise of criminality almost filling that vacuum.

I want to stress that some young people, scary as they may look to us, are frightened. I had occasion to take issue with the Home Secretary, who is a wonderful Home Secretary in many ways, for saying that she would be frightened to walk the streets of London. I insisted that middle-aged ladies like me and the Home Secretary are perfectly safe on London’s streets. The people who are genuinely at risk are people of my son’s age.

I live on a street in Dalston in Hackney. At one end is the London Fields gang and at the other is the Holly street gang. I remember some young people at the Holly street end saying that there is nothing to do and when I said that there is a sports centre and a new lido at London Fields park, they replied that they did not dare to walk to that end of the street because it would take them into another gang’s territory. Those areas are less than quarter of a mile apart, and those young people live in fear.

I congratulate the Government on their legislative programme covering gun and knife crime. The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 raised the legal age for buying a knife from 16 to 18. That was important. It made it illegal to use others to hide or carry a knife intended for unlawful use. It increased the maximum sentence for carrying a weapon in public from two to four years. It allowed teachers to search pupils if they thought that they might be carrying weapons. The Knives Act 1997 prohibited the marketing of knives in a way that suggests that they could be used for combat. It is illegal to carry a knife in public without good reason or lawful excuse, and the stop and search laws mean that the police can stop people if they believe that they are likely to be carrying knives.

I welcome the Government’s legislative changes, and I am not against increased sentencing, which is what people called for, but ultimately it is not legislation, or even doubling or tripling sentences that will make a difference. One thing that will make a difference for both knife and gun crime is certainty of prosecution, so for some time I have tried to stress to Ministers not just the sentencing framework, but the protection that we give to witnesses and the extent to which we build confidence in the community. In many ways, knife crime is like gun crime. In those small networks of young people, it is no secret who has committed the offence, but they are often too terrified to come forward and to be witnesses.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), I believe that although legislation and law enforcement must be the short-term answer, particularly because we want to build confidence in our communities, we must consider youth services. I have been an MP long enough to have seen during the 1990s the collapse of the youth service as local authorities such as mine came under financial pressure. It was a non-statutory service, so it was easy to cut. A project here and a project there, however lovely, with short-term funding that has to spend the first 12 months setting itself up and the final 12 months looking for other funding to replace its term-limited funding, is no substitute for a stable youth service that knows its community and whose youth workers are out on estates and streets engaging with young people and bringing them to the services and facilities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if there were a statutory requirement for a youth service which was clearly defined with ring-fenced funding accordingly?

If we are talking about joined-up government and are concerned about knife and gun crime, the Government should consider making a youth service a statutory provision. It is precisely because it was not statutory that it collapsed in Hackney. It was replaced with many different little projects, but a patchwork of projects with time-limited funding is not the same as a stable youth service that can offer continuity and personal relationships with young people and communities going forward.

As with so many things, education is at the heart of the matter. Young people who become involved in knife and gun crime have almost invariably fallen through the education net. We must focus on educational underachievement, especially of young black men and Asian men. The idea has always been that a colour-blind approach is helpful when talking about deprivation and so on, but what has happened is that despite the money that has been pumped into schools in London and so on, young black men and some recent young male asylum seekers remain at the bottom of the education pile. Starved of any opportunity for self-esteem and pride in themselves within formal education, they look for that self-esteem and pride in the negative culture of the world of gangs.

This is a serious problem. Sadly, people’s fear and perception of the prevalence of the problem is greater than the figures, but that does not mean that we do not have to deal with people’s fears and reassure them. The Government have done a lot through legislation and there may be more that they can do. We need to consider the long-term strategic issues on the provision of youth service and education.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing such an important debate. So far, I have not disagreed with anything that has been said—there is a lot of sense in this room.

Like all MPs, I dread getting a phone call from the police; one knows that it will be bad news and that there will have been an incident. In December 2006, I received a call—not one of the worst that I have received—about 60 to 80 youths rampaging up Lordship lane, which resulted in a number of stabbings. Mercifully, none of the stabbings was serious in the sense that none was fatal, but the fact that that is happening must be of concern to hon. Members from all parties. Such violence has spread way beyond the areas where one would traditionally expect there to be trouble; the problem goes right across my constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green, from the wealthy, leafy side to wards with some of the highest levels of deprivation in the country. The fear is the same across all of those areas and some of the incidents are the same, too.

As a Liberal Democrat, I believe that our approach should be the three Ps: prevent, protect and punish. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that education should be at the highest end of the spectrum of issues. Some good initiatives are taking place. For example, during anti-crime week, I visited Woodside high school, which is a big secondary that faces many challenges. Everyone worked together: the police, the young people, and a theatre group—the Comedy Store, which did a role model play. Once young people talk openly, it becomes clear that they are petrified. The event at Woodside was a bit difficult at first and the first half hour went a bit slowly because having police in the room is not necessarily the natural environment for people to express openly who is carrying and who is not. Nevertheless, as the morning progressed, the fears came out and, above all, young people said, “Well, I carry because I’m scared not to. If I knew that there were not knives on the streets, I would not need to carry a knife.” I think that that set the task that we faced.

Other hon. Members have also mentioned that it is helpful to communicate about the issue through drama, and in the case I mentioned that was done through the Comedy Store. Police and politicians talking to people is good and engaging, but the role model play made it clear—I watched the performance and thought it was fantastic—that if someone carries a knife, there are two outcomes. The first outcome is that the person carrying a knife may end up injured or dead, and as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, that could be a result of their own knife. The second outcome is that they will end up with a custodial sentence, which will ruin their life just as surely as anything else. The role model play was a good way of getting that message across.

Having a police officer in each school can be a good measure—we certainly have experience of that in Haringey—but it can depend on the police officer and how far they engage with the young people. At Woodside, the police did a lot of good work. I am concerned, and perhaps the Minister will address this, that the Government are not doing enough in terms of funding. The Connected fund supports community-based work to tackle gun, gang and knife crime and has been providing grants. In the Home Office’s most recent report the fund is feted as a flagship of Government effort to educate, engage, and dissuade young people from carrying knives. However, the last round of grant application finished in May 2007 and I do not know what further work is being done or what is happening in relation to that. Will the Minister elaborate on the current state of the fund and say when and if the next round of grants will come forward?

As hon. Members have said, prevention is definitely about investing in youth services. In Haringey, our youth service has been decimated, and those involved have almost an impossible task. Yet it is crucial to get into the communities and work with the young people who need that kind of attention. In autumn 2007, a MORI survey on youth crime commissioned by the Youth Justice Board showed that 43 per cent. of young people think that their peers commit crime because of boredom. We should listen to young people and to do that we need to invest in them. The issue is not just about banning violent computer games or censorship; it is about giving people pathways, aspiration, hope, and care and attention. Banning things often makes them more glamorous.

We need modern heroes who are both cool and positive for young people to aspire to—the role models who go around the schools have not always been that. Sports facilities and somewhere for young people to hang out are also important, as hon. Members have said. However, that does mean the yesteryear thing of a church hall with a table tennis table, which has limited attraction.

Probably zero attraction.

Or, as the hon. Gentleman said, zero attraction. Young people need somewhere to hang out; in fact, a commercial enterprise has opened a non-alcoholic pub that is incredibly successful. I do not know where that is, so if anyone knows, I would appreciate it if they could tell me. When I visit schools, the sixth formers all say that they want somewhere to hang out so they can be warm. They do not particularly like being out on the street when it is freezing, and there are ideas to deal with that that could be utilised, such as having non-alcoholic pubs.

Sports facilities are important, but unfortunately even in Haringey, £32,000 to develop youth sport will not go a very long way. We need to devote the funding to the need. In terms of prevention, most of all, young people need someone who cares about them when they come home, and when they are at school. Young people also need someone who cares about their achievements and what they are doing and someone who knows when they are getting into trouble. Ideally, of course, that should be a parent, but it can be any adult. Quite often the sports coaches at New River sports centre take on youngsters and encourage them to become coaches. They take an interest in an individual young person and that makes the young person want to do well and to achieve. Such schemes turn lives around and many of the volunteer coaches from that sports centre go on to have careers. Such things are really important.

As has been said, protection relates to the issue of fear. When I met Haringey youth council and youth parliament, young people said that fear of crime is their number one issue and that they are afraid because they are vulnerable to others carrying knives. Young people also think that carrying a knife gives them status. As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, if someone comes from a deprived area they might not have much, but with a knife they feel like a big guy and can say to themselves, “If I can show that I’m a man, who’s going to diss me now?” We have to show that that is not the case. Some kids do not even realise that plunging a knife into someone’s leg can be fatal; they do not necessarily know that there is an artery there that can kill someone because they think the leg area is not the same as the chest.

On action to get knives off the street, yes, random arches are good at stations, but I worry that they are of limited use in schools where there is a real problem because the knives would not be taken into school. But, random use outside nightclubs is good. Intelligent stop and search should be used because at the moment it does not target carrying and barely picks up on knives. As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, we need information from the community. The community knows who carries a knife and if it trusts, it will share that information. The police can then stop the relevant person. If we can remove knives from the streets, kids will not feel the need to carry them, and if that confidence is there, the intelligence will be forthcoming. The knife amnesties that bring in 90,000 knives are great, but there is not a corresponding drop in knife crime. We need to think about how those things are working.

Will the Minister give the prosecution rate for young people carrying knives? In the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 I argued for longer sentences—the third of the three-piece punishments—and we have to send out a message on that. However, I have been unable to obtain the figures on how many young people who carry knives are prosecuted and what sentences they receive. More to the point, just arresting people, particularly young people, and putting them in prison will not help to change behaviour, and changing behaviour must be the goal of any punishment, penal system or messages that we send. We are here to help young people on to good pathways and into good lives, not to harm them permanently. We owe it to our young people to ensure that we keep the focus on all those strategies.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate, as it is very timely. His contribution was serious, sober and touched on a number of extremely important points that lie behind not only knife crime, but the crimes of violence that affect too many of our communities.

It is telling that the hon. Gentleman highlighted the five victims in his constituency, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) highlighted the two victims that there have been in his area in the past year and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) highlighted the two fatal stabbings in her community. These crimes touch many different people. Let us not forget that all the people involved were brothers, sisters, sons, daughters and friends. They have all left loved ones behind, and that loss has a continuing impact on the close relations and friends who are touched by these appalling incidents. The hon. Member for Edmonton summarised very clearly the sense of trauma that the incidents have engendered in his area. When we read the record of the debate, we will read the testimony that he offered from two of his constituents on their experiences, feelings and real sense of fear. That was extremely moving and highlighted extremely well the personal impact that these crimes have on so many people.

It is important to stress that although all the contributions thus far in the debate have centred on London—apart from the Minister, all those present are London Members—the issue does not only touch London. Many other cities, communities and areas are touched by the impact of knife crime and crimes of violence.

The hon. Member for Islington, North highlighted some of the intergenerational aspects of the issue, which I believe are very important. Young and old do not necessarily mix as well as they should do. Research bears that out: young people in this country spend more time with their peers as opposed to their families than young people in any other country in Europe. That is a fundamental issue. The fragmentation that we see in our communities and societies lies behind some of the factors and features that are, sadly, displayed on our streets in the violence that takes place.

Another issue is housing and people having a sense of space. We need to ensure that people have decent homes. High-rise living has an impact, in that it does not engender a sense of belonging, of community, of ownership. I fear that the mistakes of the 1960s are likely to be made all over again as a result of some of the applications that have been continuing to come through in recent months.

The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington highlighted education. Education provides hope, aspiration, self-worth, confidence and a deliberate career plan. One of the problems with the gang culture is that some organised criminal gangs target the most vulnerable members of society. They use lack of opportunity as a means to take young people down an alternative career path involving drugs and violence. They actively try to undermine the social pressures and social norms of family that usually take people down a very different path to a very different life outcome. We need to focus on education in trying to combat some of the themes underlying the debate.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) talked about listening to the voices of young people. I could not agree more. It is extremely important to restate that young people are most likely to be the victims of crime, rather than the perpetrators. We must ensure that we listen to their voices and their fears, hopes and aspirations because, sadly, too many of them are falling victim to these pernicious offences and live in fear of going out into their communities. We have heard many such stories this morning.

The number of homicides in which sharp instruments such as a knife are used has increased by 40 per cent. since 1997, with 185 killings in 2006-07. More than 230 violent crimes involving a knife are committed every day. One of the most disturbing aspects of that rise, and the reason why today’s debate is so prescient, is that both the victims and the perpetrators of these appalling crimes are becoming younger and younger. In a study conducted for Hampshire police, one in five 15-year-olds said that they had carried a knife at some point.

According to research on the views of young people conducted recently by the children’s charity NCH, which was referred to, 63 per cent. of respondents said that a main reason why they thought that young people got involved in gun and knife crime was to protect themselves. The NCH report notes that

“becoming a victim of crime, particularly violent crime, is a real fear for children and young people growing up in the UK today.”

Should that be surprising when infants, toddlers and children are exposed to violence at an extremely young age? I am very disturbed by research coming out about the number of very young children—children under the age of 10—who are exposed to violence. A study by Cardiff university showed that the number of under-10s attending accident and emergency departments as a result of crimes involving a violent attack had almost doubled in the past year. What path are we setting young people on if, at the very start of their lives, rather than receiving support, nurturing and protection, they are becoming victims of violent offending?

The risk is that, for some young people, that desensitisation to violence can lead to the use of extreme violence becoming an accepted social behaviour. That risk is heightened by social and economic deprivation, family breakdown, lack of values and structures, under-achievement in schools and poor job prospects, leading to involvement in the drugs trade, with territorial rivalries between gangs seeking to exercise control over their areas through the use of violence.

In evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, Superintendent Leroy Logan, deputy borough commander of Hackney police, warned of an increase in “postcode violence” driven by the “paranoid misguided loyalties” of young people who feel threatened by the presence of strangers in their area.

Prevention through education, which has been advocated, will work only if young people’s experience of being in their communities is not one of risk and danger. That is why policing and enforcement are an essential element in combating this serious problem, and that is where the Government have failed by not providing any deterrent, with just two people out of 6,000 convicted of carrying a blade in a public place receiving the maximum sentence. Detection is not leading to meaningful detention and sanction. Also important is the continued failure by the Government even to recognise that crimes against young people exist, with under-16s excluded from the British crime survey. Just thinking about change in that respect is not good enough—the Government need to make the change.

However, even when the Government do implement measures, they are not monitored properly. For example, new powers were introduced to screen pupils randomly using metal detectors in October 2006, with a right for schools to carry out searches of pupils suspected of carrying a weapon since May 2007. A parliamentary answer that I received on 17 March shows that there is no monitoring and no collection of information on screening, searches or the number of weapons recovered. That is despite the fact that having a bladed article on school premises is an offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and despite the fact that the Government are supposed to be collecting information to inform policy making in this important area.

Knife crime among teenagers is a complex issue, and time does not allow me to deal with a number of the causes or solutions. The key, however, is its impact on our communities. The Government are often quick to legislate but slow to enforce. We do not have that luxury on this most serious of issues. Too many young lives are being blighted by knife crime. Too many young people continue to carry weapons—and too many people continue to get away with it.

Taking action is different from talking about action. Cutting crime means curbing the causes of crime, and delivering change involves more than delivering plans. The question is whether the Government recognise that, and whether they really will bear down on this appalling crime, which affects too many people every year.

It is a pleasure, Mr. O’Hara, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this debate, and on setting the tone of our discussions. He has obviously done a lot of work on the subject. I know that knife crime greatly affects his constituency. Indeed, it has affected him not only as a constituency Member but as an individual. Knife crime affects us all.

The important thing to have come out of this debate is the realisation that too often debates on crime are a caricature; one is either a hanger and flogger, or one is a wishy-washy liberal. I thought that most contributions to the debate showed the futility of that argument and its ridiculous nature. Clearly, if someone is running around stabbing people, we need others to stop it. We need the police to respond in an appropriate way, as they do, and to bring it to an end.

Tough enforcement of the law in our communities is essential; it is part of what is going on. I have not heard anyone suggest otherwise today, but the debate is often caricatured by whether or not one is a tough enforcer. Frankly, no one with a half-decent sense of the issue would say that enforcement does not play an important role. However, enforcement alone will not solve the problem. Alongside it, we need other things to happen—diverting young people, preventing crime, tackling poverty and inequality, and the other issues mentioned today.

Let us lay the matter to rest. We should try, once and for all, to lay aside that sterile debate. As far as I can see, we have a sense of unity today; it is about putting all those things together. One without the other will fail. The important thing is how to bring those factors together. That is the first important point of principle.

The second is this. We all meet large numbers of young people. Last week I met a lot of young people from NCH—the charity recently published a report on tackling violent crime—and I discussed the problem with them and dealt with a series of questions. They and all the other young people that I meet in my constituency and across the country do not believe us when we say this, so I say it again and hope that it will be picked up: the vast majority of our young people are decent and law-abiding, growing up in difficult times. They do not break the law, they do not go around stabbing people, they do not commit violence, and they do not threaten elderly people. In fact, huge numbers of them help others in caring roles and in many other voluntary ways.

We should say so and be proud of the fact. There should be as much publicity and comment about them as there is about the small number who cause such immense problems in our communities—and not to those who are most scared, namely the elderly, but to young people. It is they who demand that we do more to tackle the problem because, by and large, it is they who are the victims of such crime. I say that with some passion because although it has been said here this morning and it is repeated in many other forums in Parliament, it is rarely commented upon. That almost creates a sense of despair among our young people.

I turn to some of the specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton. He and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) spoke about including under-16s in the British crime survey. We are considering whether to take that forward. I understand that under-16s can be charged with possession offences, an issue raised by my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and others.

I met Assistant Commissioner Alf Hitchcock, the spokesman on knife crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers, and discussed the need to ensure that the courts have the right guidelines. Guidelines on possession offences may not be necessary for first offences if there are no aggravating factors, but they need to be sufficiently clear for the courts to know that we regard possession as a serious offence and that they should deal with it appropriately. As my hon. Friend knows, we have increased the maximum sentence available to the courts, which they can use if they wish.

On the question of arches and wands, we made a statement a few weeks ago in which we outlined a starting point of 350 wands, 8 arches, but we hope to extend and expand the number. On CAT scanners, my hon. Friend will know from the drugs strategy that we are considering that question. We want to do some research on the matter because there are differing views about the way forward. We want to know whether there is a particular problem that needs to be addressed through CAT. If it appears that we need to take matters forward, we will, but a comment in the drugs strategy document says that we recently considered the subject.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke not only about neighbourhood policing but about broader social issues. I agree with him. As I said earlier, tackling the problem is not only about enforcement. There are housing issues, and we need to ensure that every young person has opportunity. We should not concentrate only on the bright academic young people in our communities; we need to ensure that all young people have opportunity. I am encouraged by some of the statements that the Government are now making on the importance of vocational education, and ensuring that those who can do with their hands are regarded as being equally important as those who do with their brains. That would be an important step forward.

I also agree with what my hon. Friend said about rehabilitation in prison. People sometimes have to be locked up, but the idea that we should throw away the key is not appropriate in a civilised society. We need to ensure that, as far as possible, people do not re-offend after leaving prison.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about the importance of schools.

I thank my hon. Friend for dealing with specific issues. One of the common themes that has come out in the debate is the need for a comprehensive youth service. I know that that is not my hon. Friend’s responsibility, but I ask him for two things. First, the subject goes across all Departments, so we need joined-up government for youth provision at a local level. Secondly, will my hon. Friend take what has been said here to those Ministers responsible for youth provision, and ensure that they understand what we mean?

My notes say that I should next respond generally to the fact that the hon. Members for Hornchurch and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) and my hon. Friends all spoke about the importance of schools and of youth services.

I shall do what my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton asks. I know that the Department for Children, Schools and Families is investing significant sums in youth services. We need to work in a joined-up way. I will talk to ministerial colleagues and write to my hon. Friend about our discussions, and I shall copy that response to the other Members here today.

We are going to take tough enforcement action. We are taking action on prevention and diversion. We are also considering communication. In a few weeks’s time, there will be a new advertising campaign. The hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green and for Hornchurch and others spoke of listening to young people. We developed our advertising campaign with young people; it is about getting across the message that carrying a knife can increase the chance of being a victim of knife crime. It will be launched in a few weeks’ time.

The weekend before last, a group of young people came together to develop the work needed in that respect. We hope that it continues make a difference, alongside the other things that are being done.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss tuberculosis today and delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reply to the debate. I am sure that she is aware that it has come about as a result of the report, “Putting Tuberculosis on the Local Agenda”, which was published by the all-party group on global tuberculosis, which I co-chair with the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and for St. Ives (Andrew George). The group is supported, and was inspired, by RESULTS UK. The report was produced in conjunction with the British Thoracic Society, with which the group works closely on the issues.

TB is a common and deadly infectious disease. It most commonly attacks the lungs as pulmonary TB, but it can affect any part of the body, including the brain, lymph glands, intestines, kidneys, spine, bones, joints and even the skin. During the Victorian era, it was so much part of life, so inevitable and so little understood that its existence was completely accepted as a fact of life. In the early 19th century, it may have accounted for one third of all deaths. Indeed, some argue that the UK gave TB to the rest of the world, emerging as it did from the cramped living conditions of the industrial revolution. They say that we exported it with our engines and armies and rolled it around the world.

Many people today can still remember friends and family who were struck by TB in this country up until the 1950s, and people live with the consequences of having TB. When antibiotics came, everybody thought that TB would be consigned to the history books and that it would be a disease of the past—that was a strong belief in this country.

One of my first jobs was as a social worker—I worked in a TB hospital in Sully in south Wales. At the time, my colleagues and I thought that the people we saw would be the last to have TB. The hospital is now closed, and we thought that there would be no need in future for the treatment that we gave to people but, sadly, today more than one third of the world’s population has been infected by TB and new infections occur at a rate of one per second. The emergence of drug-resistant strains has contributed to the new global epidemic and, in March, the first UK case of extensively drug resistant tuberculosis was reported in Glasgow; it was noted with a lot of publicity and is of great concern.

The all-party group began to work with the British Thoracic Society in early 2007. The society expressed concern that the chief medical officer’s action plan, “Stopping Tuberculosis in England”, and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, “Clinical diagnosis and management of tuberculosis, and measures for its prevention and control”, which were published in 2006, were not being implemented. At the same time, rates of TB were rising. Since the Health Protection Agency’s new surveillance system was put in place in 1998, the incidence of TB has increased by a remarkable 42 per cent., from 5,658 new cases in 1998 to 8,051 in 2006. The group is pleased that the trend appeared to stabilise in 2007, but we do not know whether that was a one-off or whether the trend continues. However, we now consistently see, year-on-year, more new reported cases of TB than hepatitis C and new diagnoses of HIV. Actually, in some parts of the country, particularly London, the rates of TB are equivalent to those found in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The situation is serious.

The report is made up of two surveys, both of which were carried out in 2007. The first was an online survey and the second a paper survey that was sent to all primary care trust chief executives. It followed the publication of the Department of Health TB toolkit in June 2007, “Tuberculosis prevention and treatment: a toolkit for planning, commissioning and delivering high-quality services in England”, which was a guide to help PCT commissioners to implement the NICE guidelines. The group was pleased with the response to its survey. More than 70 per cent. of PCTs responded, which was excellent, and we intended the survey to be sent out in both England and Wales.

rose—

I am pleased to give way to a fellow member of the all-party group.

On the role of PCTs, do my hon. Friend and the Minister agree that it would be useful if they or other bodies encouraged ethnic communities to desist from stigmatising those with TB and their families? I have some experience of that: one or two of my constituents have put off seeking treatment for TB because they did not want the extended family or community to know about it. It would be useful if PCTs could persuade communities to desist from such behaviour.

Stigma is an important issue in relation to TB. It prevents people from seeking treatment and makes them hide their condition from their family and friends. PCTs need to take that important issue on board.

As I was saying, we intended the survey to cover England and Wales, but because of the different health structures in Wales, we need to have a specially worded survey. We hope to include it in our next survey, but I have had a number of discussions with key professionals in Wales. As a Welsh MP, I am pleased that we will be able to include Wales in our next survey.

The report gives us a pretty good picture of the state of TB services throughout England. I do not intend to go into the details of the results of the survey. I have written to request a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I hope that she will agree to it. Also, the British Thoracic Society has asked for a meeting with the chief medical officer. It is important, however, to draw attention to some of the report’s key findings, and to the chief medical officer’s foreword to the TB toolkit, in which he says that

“we strongly recommend that all PCTs plan for TB service provision. This applies just as much in low TB prevalence areas, since population shifts can rapidly change the prevalence of the disease in areas where it has historically remained low”.

It is therefore important that the recommendations are followed even in areas where there are low TB rates.

This Victorian disease is on the march again. Not a single PCT thought that there would be a fall in TB in its area, yet the overwhelming majority—68 per cent.—said that they had no plans to deal with the expected increase in cases. That analysis was supported by hospital-based TB clinicians, 88 per cent. of whom believed that TB cases were set to increase in the next five years. For TB to be controlled, the Government must take real leadership and co-ordinate a response at all levels of our health service. PCTs must implement national guidance to allocate TB resources appropriately, strategic health authorities must ensure that TB is given the priority that it requires, and the Government must put systems in place at national level.

Step 1 of the toolkit is to identify an appropriate person as the TB lead, regardless of the incidence of TB within the PCT area. That individual will be in a position to take strategic decisions and influence commissioning at board level. The all-party group’s survey found, however, that 50 per cent. of primary care trusts had not taken even that first step and had not identified a lead. In those that had, the position was often filled by people who did not have a strategic role and who could not influence decisions, such as nurses, health visitors and even a hospital-based clinical lead not employed by the PCT. Will my right hon. Friend therefore look at the local uptake of national guidelines on TB and ensure that the Department drives forward implementation? The key point about TB patients is that if they are not looked after well, their family and local community will have a higher chance of catching TB, given its infectious nature. That is why it is so important to treat the disease early.

The next important thing to do, after identifying a TB lead, is to ensure that there are properly funded TB services. Delays in diagnosis can lead to drug resistance and increased expense. Our report found that PCTs were not identifying appropriate funding, and three quarters of hospital-based TB clinicians have seen no increase in resources since the action plan was published four years ago. Similarly, the jobs of many TB nurses are under threat or review, and many nurses complained of being under-resourced.

Why are PCTs failing to allocate the appropriate resources to TB? We suspect that it is because of the clear lack of priority afforded to the disease. Areas with high incidence rates are usually poor, with many competing priorities, while those with low incidence rates are not putting plans in place, despite the chief medical officer’s warning. TB rates have recently stabilised to some extent, and we welcome that very much, but there is no room for complacency. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that regional directors of public health make PCTs give TB the priority that it should have.

I want now to raise a number of issues relating to leadership. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making TB prescriptions free on the national health service from September 2007, which will certainly remove some of the barriers to seeking treatment.

Secondly, it is right that local decisions should be made by local health authorities, but some problems must be addressed centrally. For example, a fifth of patients with suspected TB are not seen by the TB team within two weeks of presenting themselves, as directed by the chief medical officer. We have had a big drive on waiting lists, and the issue clearly needs to be addressed.

There is also an issue about whether screening policy is any use. There needs to be a debate about that to decide whether it is. If it is any use, it needs to be improved.

Another big issue is that the majority of PCTs are not proactive in raising awareness of TB, which can lead to delays in diagnosis and unnecessary deaths. For example, a little girl from London was diagnosed with TB only two days before she died at a hospital in the south of England, and the same happened to two health workers in Nottingham. We want to see the same investment in awareness-raising for TB as for other comparable communicable diseases, such as sexually transmitted infections and hepatitis C.

To conclude, the all-party group plans to produce a report annually. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me a personal assurance when she responds that more will be done to ensure that PCTs prioritise TB and that national guidelines are implemented through the director of public health and the other means available. Guidelines on what should be done have been set out nationally, and we are now looking for implementation and for PCTs to take this deadly disease seriously.

I urge the Minister to make a commitment that the Government will use awareness campaigns, in particular, to prevent this disease from getting out of control. I should emphasise—this is what makes the global situation so sad—that TB is easily cured, but it is important that we have early intervention. I remind her that the incidence of TB in New York in the late 1980s and early 1990s was similar to that in many of our cities now, but the administration there sat on their hands, not realising that they were on the brink of an epidemic that ultimately cost them billions of dollars in public money to resolve. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to continue leading on this issue.

I end, however, by saying what a great job the British Thoracic Society is doing in highlighting these issues with the all-party group and RESULTS UK.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on securing the debate. I know of her passionate work as one of the chairs of the all-party group on global tuberculosis and I am aware of her concern, which she reiterated today, that the fight against tuberculosis should remain a priority in this country.

My hon. Friend reflected on the history of the disease. When I was a child, TB was present in my extended family before immunisation was introduced, and I remember subsequently having vaccinations. As she rightly said, all of us, but particularly those of us of a certain age, remember the challenge posed by this disease.

My hon. Friend is right that TB is a massive international health problem. The World Health Organisation estimated that 1.6 million deaths resulted from TB across the world in 2005. In England, the development of drugs to treat TB, together with improvements in housing and health throughout the 20th century, led to a steady decline in the number of cases. That was reflected in an all-time low of 5,000 cases in 1987. However, she is right that there has been an upward trend since the 1990s. In 2006, more than 7,500 cases were reported in England, with the London region accounting for 40 per cent. of all cases. Although the overall rate in the UK is low, at around 14 cases per 100,000 of population, TB remains a concern because the incidence is increasing and rates are high in certain inner-city areas, as well as among people born abroad.

As my hon. Friend said, the chief medical officer published his action plan in October 2004, which included key recommendations for action. He acknowledged that TB is so common in certain parts of the world that we must expect a continuing influx into this country of people who were infected, or who developed the disease, abroad. She touched on that when she urged us not be complacent about the challenges that we face. Although measures are in place to detect active disease in migrants entering the country for six months or more, who are subject to immigration control, such measures are unlikely to solve the problem of TB in this country. That is because about 80 per cent. of cases of active disease among such people occur only after they have been resident in this country for two years or longer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) touched on an important point when she stressed the need to encourage those who fear that they have the symptoms to seek diagnosis, advice and treatment. As she said, they should not be put under unjustifiable pressure to feel that their symptoms are somehow shameful and that they must conceal them.

In considering all those points, it is right to focus on strengthening services to improve early detection. That includes raising awareness among the population and health care professionals, especially in the primary care setting, of the need for the highest awareness of TB, on a continuing basis. The Government strategy needs to drive early detection and diagnosis, and to ensure that patients complete their courses of treatment.

Our strategy is to help to strengthen NHS provision across the board. To help to implement the TB action plan the NHS, the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency have been working closely together, to make sure that we bring our resources to bear on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North mentioned the TB toolkit that we published in June 2007 for the NHS, to help commissioners take local demographics into account when planning TB services, respond quickly to changes in demography that may have an impact on risk in the future, and be very aware of the risk. The toolkit’s commissioning section is a practical guide for PCTs to use, so that they can ensure that an appropriate range of services is being commissioned and provided within that rational framework. The delivery section discusses a number of best-practice issues, including the use of specialist centres providing a multi-disciplinary team approach, with TB nurses co-ordinating a package of care. It also recommends that TB services should follow the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance on diagnosis and treatment of TB, which was published in March 2006.

Against that background, I want to discuss the recommendations in the excellent report by the all-party group on global tuberculosis and the British Thoracic Society. I welcome the recommendation regarding a national TB awareness campaign tailored to local circumstances and aimed at health care professionals and the general public. When my hon. Friend was talking about the report and the results of her survey, and despite the need for considerable improvement, to which I shall return, I felt, like her, very encouraged that there was a quite high response rate within a short time, and awareness in many PCTs of the issues and what needs to be done. I am pleased to say that the Department is providing funding this financial year to take exactly such action as she mentioned with respect to local circumstances and work with health care professionals and the general public. We have also commissioned market research to help us to shape such campaigns nationally, to complement what is happening locally. That research will be translated into carefully targeted messages for health care professionals, and we have funded the UK charity TB Alert to work with PCTs to develop awareness campaigns targeted according to local demographic needs.

The report recommended that PCTs must ensure, as my hon. Friend mentioned, that there is a clearly identified individual within their organisation with responsibility for service provision for TB. I agree wholeheartedly with that recommendation of my hon. Friend and the report; it is one of the key recommendations of the TB toolkit and we intend to take it forward. [Interruption.] It is unusual to be heckled by the intercom system.

I thank my right hon. Friend for what she is saying. What can we do about the fact that 50 per cent. of primary care trusts have not identified a lead?

The Department is focusing on that work now, and will continue by engaging with PCTs to arrange workshops and discussions with health care professionals, to make sure they know the existing prevalence of the disease and the indications of future risk; the fact that it is a public health priority requiring them to carry out a proper assessment of the risk in their areas; how they should respond to it; and what the public awareness campaigns are. A key factor is the Department’s active role in connection with the basis of the recommendations in the toolkit and the report. [Interruption.]

Order. I think we should soldier on, despite the noise from the intercom.

Yes, of course, Mr. O’Hara. I want to reinforce our recommendations to the NHS to follow the toolkit, and to welcome the important points in the all-party group’s report, endorsing the advice, and my hon. Friend’s comments. Although, of course, the management and organisation of local NHS services is a matter for NHS managers, we shall expect and encourage the local management and organisations to focus on the implementation of the recommendations, and to put sensible plans in place.

I can assure my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North and for Keighley that the Government take the matter of TB very seriously and that, despite our recognition of the devolving of responsibility for many decisions to PCTs, it is still important for the Department as a whole to stay focused on the matter and to encourage PCTs to do likewise. As I have said, our key strategy is to support the NHS and encourage the strengthening of TB services. To promote the use of the toolkit we supported a series of interactive workshops through the strategic health authorities in England and with PCTs. At those events commissioners, TB service providers and other stakeholders are encouraged, using the toolkit, to review and reconsider their local response, not just to current TB issues but to potential future challenges.

Finally, I note that the report proposes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North mentioned, repeating the survey on an annual basis. The timing of the survey was soon after the launch of the TB toolkit last year, and so perhaps we should not be surprised about how far we have to go, and how encouraging the results are; some PCTs have not implemented the recommendations. I shall certainly be interested to see from future surveys how well we have progressed in the work with PCTs, to ensure that the right services are being commissioned; I shall be interested in an assessment of that, and in the chance to consider how effective the changes in the local health service have been, alongside the work identified by the Department. My hon. Friend has clearly identified a major public health issue, which needs to be reinforced through the regional directors of public health; I intend to do that.

May I say what a pleasure it is to see you chairing our proceedings, Mrs. Anderson? I am most grateful to the Minister for being here to respond. I shall examine the bilateral relationship between the UK and Ukraine before considering developments in Ukraine itself. Some 100,000 Ukrainians live here, and a number of organisations exist to link our two countries. I should like to highlight one in particular, the Ukrainian-British City Club, which provides a lively forum for the increasing number of Ukrainians working in the City of London. There are also student groups at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the London School of Economics.

Last year, the British Ukrainian Society was established to act as a bridge between our two countries and as an umbrella for the many bilateral groups here and in Ukraine. It encompasses contact at political and economic, as well as social, cultural and educational levels, and it already enjoys a considerable range of activities. I should declare an interest as the chairman of the society. I am also delighted that a course in Ukrainian language and culture has been established at the department of Slavonic studies at Cambridge.

Many links bind Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Whether in trade, defence, development and business or in our work through the European Union and other international bodies, the ties between the two nations are getting stronger. In recent months, London has hosted a significant number of Ukrainian events. Last month the Foreign Minister, Mr. Ogryzko, was in town. He had successful meetings with the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary. To coincide with his visit, an early-day motion was tabled welcoming the important progress made by Ukraine in its democratic development and hoping that the relationship between Ukraine, the UK, NATO and the EU can be strengthened even further. It encapsulates the views of MPs across the party political divide.

In September, Lady Thatcher held meetings with Yuliya Tymoshenko. More recently, President Yushchenko met my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the World Economic Forum in Davos. It was a very successful meeting. Next month, President Yushchenko will visit Britain. One aspect of his visit will be his desire, which is felt deeply and widely in Ukraine, to publicise the famine that killed millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s: the Holodomor, which was deliberately caused by Stalin. There is a remarkable archive on the Holodomor, and an exhibition about it is being planned with the help of the embassy and the British Ukrainian Society. On Saturday, a concert is being held in London to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the famine.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who has ably and imaginatively chaired the all-party group on Ukraine. He has done an outstanding job of bringing Ukraine alive for Members of Parliament, and I pay unreserved tribute to him for it. I am delighted that an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Kiev will take place in early June to build links between parliamentarians. I also welcome the formation of a new group in the Rada to forge contact and friendship between our two Parliaments.

The relationship between our two countries has never been better. Ukraine vividly caught the UK’s attention during the Orange revolution, when Ukrainians bravely poured on to the streets to fight for democracy. Ever since those remarkable events, Britain has supported Ukraine in its reform process. It is fair to say that no country in western Europe is keener to promote the success of Ukraine than ours. Ukraine’s geopolitical situation is fully recognised. Britain supported Ukraine’s accession to the World Trade Organisation and fully supports its aspirations to EU membership.

I am a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which was established in 1992 to assist in building and strengthening democratic institutions overseas, particularly after the end of the cold war. We are sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and work with political parties, Parliaments and non-governmental organisations to foster democracy through training, experience sharing and mentoring in countries around the world. Since its establishment, the WFD has worked in Ukraine to support civil society organisations, political parties through direct UK political party contact, independent media and free and fair elections.

Despite the hope and optimism that the Orange revolution brought to Ukraine, democracy did not immediately consolidate as many first hoped. I believe that Europe did not seize quickly enough the opportunities to build on the outcome of the Orange revolution so as to entrench it, and we did not sufficiently understand its significance. Ukraine has faced teething problems, learned valuable lessons and managed to overcome many challenges thrown in its way. Through sheer determination, it has transformed itself into a new, functioning democracy. It now boasts a strong record of democratic elections, respect for human rights and free media. Of course there are sharply defined differences of view in the internal politics of Ukraine. The constitutional balance between the roles of the President and the Prime Minister is now under review.

The importance of Ukraine’s development goes way beyond its own national interests. Ukraine’s success provides a positive political and economic incentive to its neighbours. It could be a shining example and model for others in the region. If Ukraine succeeds, it could encourage neighbouring countries such as Belarus and Moldova to choose a similar path to success. It is therefore critical that the democratic underpinnings in place in Ukraine are firmly consolidated. Last week, I received some excellent news about an event that could go some way towards making that happen.

The Foreign Office plans to give the Westminster Foundation for Democracy a substantial amount of matched funding towards a parliamentary strengthening programme in Ukraine—£600,000 in total. It is a clear recognition of Ukraine’s importance that it has been singled out for the programme, and it is a hugely welcome development. As Ukraine is a new democracy, its Parliament has a limited number of people available who are experienced and knowledgeable in parliamentary practice. The pace of development in that field has been inhibited by the lack of programmes to institutionalise the experience and knowledge of Ukrainian MPs and parliamentary staff and transfer relevant knowledge and experience from more developed Parliaments. The WFD has taken the lead to form a consortium of leading UK experts in parliamentary strengthening to address more effectively the issues faced by Parliaments such as Ukraine’s.

Despite the political problems, the country has been enjoying strong economic growth, and the signs of prosperity are apparent. I recently attended a Ukrainian investment seminar here in London. It was evident that despite growing inflation in Ukraine, its economy as a whole continues to go from strength to strength. From January to March this year, Ukraine’s gross domestic product grew by 6 per cent. annualised.

The drive for reform is led in many respects by the Ukrainian business community. Ferrexpo, the UK holding company that owns Ukraine’s largest iron ore exporter, began trading last year on the London stock exchange. Many other companies have been or will be listed here in London. Despite high inflation, the Ukrainian economy demonstrated robust economic growth in 2007, higher than that of most other countries in the region and central and south-eastern Europe—an impressive performance, despite huge increases in the price of imported natural gas and high world crude oil prices.

Investment opportunities continue to look good for exporters and investors. Britain is the fourth largest investor in Ukraine, and there are now more than 85 companies in Ukraine with British connections, representing a cross-section of sectors. Property and real estate, trade, finance, transport and communications and machine building currently attract most of the British investment.

Ukraine is an attractive investment destination for a number of important reasons. Ukraine has a highly educated work force with almost 60 per cent. university enrolment, a large domestic market with increasing purchasing power, an improving business climate, relatively low wages and excellent agricultural, industrial and high-tech potential, in addition to the prolonged period of economic growth that the country has enjoyed. Because all of us as parliamentarians are so acutely aware of it, it is worth pointing out that at a time of pressure on world agricultural production, Ukraine, with its huge agricultural potential, is in an increasingly important position to take advantage of it. It is not for nothing regarded as one of the world’s bread baskets. At a time of world food shortages and ever higher prices, Ukraine has lifted grain export restrictions, which is most welcome.

After 14 years of negotiations, Ukraine has been accepted as a member of the World Trade Organisation. Hailed, by President Yushchenko, as a truly historic moment and a decisive milestone in the country’s development, accession has been a joint accomplishment of the past four Governments, which I greatly welcome. Analysts predict that membership of the WTO will lead to an even greater acceleration of economic growth, resulting from an increase in exports and investment as European businesses are given greater access to the Ukrainian market.

As a result of WTO membership, Ukraine has already started official negotiations with the European Union on creating a free trade zone, which should include not only a free trade area, but energy sphere co-operation and strengthened reform efforts and civil society in Ukraine. President Yushchenko forecasts that the new enhanced agreement will be signed in September. We know that, despite the very considerable burden imposed by the European Commission through the Copenhagen accession criteria, the road to EU membership does encourage the political, judicial and economic reform process.

The EU appears to be suffering from something approaching enlargement fatigue, and the signals to Ukraine have been mixed at best. The Minister will know that enlargement commends itself to all hon. Members in the House, in contrast to attitudes prevailing in some European countries. I hope, therefore, that he will take this opportunity to reiterate our clear support for Ukraine’s EU membership objectives and our intention to work constructively to speed up the process, in the interests of Ukraine and the whole continent of Europe. If flexibility is required, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, it should be supported.

Ukraine’s application to join NATO is another recent development. Despite no specific date for the membership action plan, NATO’s declaration that Ukraine would eventually gain membership has been welcomed. It is the only partner country to support actively all NATO-led operations and missions, as well as practically every international peacekeeping mission under the auspices of the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The aim of NATO enlargement is a broader and more secure Europe—a goal to which Ukraine would certainly contribute.

All in all, in its major contribution to the peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and beyond, Ukraine has proved to be a very valuable NATO partner. However, NATO membership would require broad support in Ukraine. The close historic ties between Russia and Ukraine, and the former’s very specific view of the latter, is a source of tension between the two countries. However, after the past delivery and payment problems with energy supplies, it is good that Ukraine has paid off its gas import debts to Russia, which I hope will result in a generally more comfortable relationship between them.

Undoubtedly, Ukraine has some tough choices ahead, but with its increasing economic prosperity, the chance to showcase itself to the world as host of the 2012 European football championships, and the continuing consolidation of democracy, I am optimistic that Ukraine faces a very hopeful future.

I know that members often say this perfunctorily, but I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for raising this issue. The President of Ukraine will be visiting this country soon, and we are honoured by a small delegation from the Supreme Rada here this afternoon. I am very pleased to welcome them.

I first visited Ukraine in faraway 1960, and subsequently I have returned in different guises and auspices—with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence. I have observed four elections through the OSCE and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, and I have been on visits sponsored by non-governmental organisations. I genuinely regard the country very highly. Since independence, I have noted and observed, with varying emotions, its vicissitudes—particularly its political changes. However, it has a very exciting future, which should be determined by what Ukrainians themselves wish and do, with the help of any individuals, organisations—international or otherwise—and Governments from whom they seek support. The pace and the nature of the co-operation must be at their behest and not forced on them—they should not be arm twisted—by groups or countries. Ukrainians may wish to follow a number of models: first, to move further westwards, politically and in every other sense; secondly, to remain neutral; or thirdly, to move closer to Russia. We all have our own aspirations and preferences, but that is not a choice for us to make.

The history and geography of Ukraine have had an enormous effect on its evolution and, in particular, on its relationship with Russia. Allegedly, Ukraine began in Kiev and Rus at the end of the 10th century. Periods of independence followed, but for most of its history it has been closely linked—willingly, less willingly or unwillingly—with its more powerful neighbour to the east. The collapse of the Soviet Union gave it the opportunity to become independent—but not too independent, as far as Russia is concerned. The Kremlin does not deeply cherish the idea of an independent Ukraine. Any attempt to extricate itself from the Kremlin’s influence will not be greeted with high enthusiasm in Russia. Other countries fall into the same category—notably, Moldova and Georgia, on which the pressure has been ratcheted up at an alarming rate by Russia over the past couple of weeks.

Even Ukraine has suffered excessive interference. The hon. Gentleman talked about the enforced famine in the 1930s. I know full well about the excessive pressure put on Ukraine during the 2004 elections, the persistent threats to cut off energy supplies and, worst of all, the statement made by President Putin threatening to target Ukraine with nuclear weapons if it had the temerity to join NATO. The country faces many political, economic, security and geopolitical problems, but I am very optimistic about how it will evolve over the next decade or so.

Ukraine’s geopolitical problems can be understood simply by looking at a map—it is sandwiched between Russia and Europe. I spoke about the relationship with Russia and the menacing statements that have been made. I recall watching the Central Election Commission’s enormous screen as the results came in of each of the 2004 elections and observing the colours of those who supported Yushchenko or Yanukovych. The results demonstrated a clear dividing line between each of the candidate’s supporters. That is no one’s fault—it is quite natural—but it is the essence of the problem.

Despite the problems, a consolidating democracy is emerging swiftly in Ukraine. I hope that it will not be long before we can designate Ukraine a consolidated democracy. Will the country shift its alliances and join NATO? In 2002, Ukraine announced that it was seeking membership of NATO. We are all well aware that that was not universally endorsed, which is putting it politely. Many hoped that Ukraine, along with Georgia and others, would be offered a place on NATO’s membership action plan. However, such an offer was not made. Will Ukraine be offered a place later this year or early next year, or will the process be further elongated? I will be interested to hear the views of Her Majesty’s Government as we are pretty familiar with the French, German and American positions. The earlier decision was clearly a glass half empty and a glass half full: Georgia and Ukraine would become members of NATO, but not yet. The question, therefore, is how long do they have to wait?

Once again, it is absolutely imperative that the people of Georgia and Ukraine express their aspirations. The people in Georgia have expressed their views very strongly and positively. In Ukraine, however, there is no majority in favour of joining NATO. One of the many conditions for achieving membership is substantial public support. Even though there may not be membership on offer at this moment in time, or even in the months or years ahead, there are many areas of common interest. Further consolidation can be made on those areas between NATO and Ukraine if Ukraine so desires.

The prospects for closer collaboration with the European Union are much greater. Integration has been a priority for Ukraine for some time. There is a partnership co-operation agreement, and we are aware that Ukraine performs an important role in the neighbourhood action plan. I have been looking at a number of documents produced by the European neighbourhood policy and at a progress report on Ukraine, and the response by the European Union has been pretty positive. Many people can express some satisfaction with that.

We heard about other developments in the World Trade Organisation. Again, the pace at which the relationship with both the EU and NATO evolves will be set by the Ukrainian people.

I want to comment on a few further problems—we all have problems—including problems of governance. Progress is being made, but we need to see more reforms in society as a whole. Mrs. Tymoshenko’s party has a very small majority in Parliament and her relationship with the President is not as close as it could be. Hopefully, though, governance and stability will evolve and normalise.

One must not patronise the Supreme Rada of Ukraine; it is a very powerful institution, which has determined its own pace of development. It has far more powers—some of them negative—than we have in this country. There has been a partial easing of the fractured relationships. Earlier this year, the Economist Intelligence Unit wrote about Ukraine’s membership of the World Trade Organisation, and said that it was

“a useful reminder of the common ground between the so-called orange and blue parties.”

I would like to compliment Ukraine on how it has conducted its elections. I headed election observation missions in the 1990s and the country fell far short of international standards. I have just been looking at the various reports of ODIHR and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. I headed the three election observation missions in 2004. When presenting the ODIHR and Parliamentary Assembly’s report after the first election on 31 October, I said:

“With heavy heart we have to conclude that the 2004 Presidential elections in Ukraine did not meet a considerable number of OSCE, Council of Europe and other international standards for democratic elections.”

The committee felt that the election process constituted a step backwards from the 2002 elections. We urged Ukraine to use the period between the first and second rounds to improve election organisation and conduct. Regrettably, it ignored our advice. Therefore, in the second round, I commented on behalf of the international organisations. I said:

“The second round of the Ukrainian Presidential elections did not meet a considerable number of OSCE commitments”,

and concluded:

“I announce that it is with an even heavier heart that we have to conclude that the authorities did not respond positively to our appeal.”

The incredible thing was that a few weeks later, when the results of that election were invalidated by the Supreme Court, the next set of elections were incredibly different. The media became neutral, which is more that we have experienced in the UK over the years and in the forthcoming London election. There was a totally different philosophy in those second elections. With my long experience of looking at elections, I could not believe that one could go from an election with epic proportions of corruption to—within a few short weeks—an election that got very close to meeting international standards. The subsequent elections have had a very good response from the international community.

In conclusion, there are problems within the society that need to be overcome, but there is a strong and vibrant civil society. There are problems with the economy, with modernisation and with the health service. However, there are echoes of those concerns in any country, not least our own. I desperately hope that a population that is becoming more sophisticated, more involved and more supportive of the process of democratisation will make Ukraine a model of governance and society, not just in the region but far more broadly.

Non-governmental organisations can help—we heard about one NGO that is helping and there are others—and Governments must assist economically and politically. We must pass over, where it is required, the expertise that we have acquired—albeit painfully over the years. However, we must ensure that it is not perceived as a master/servant relationship. In the driving seat is the Rada, the Government, the President, the political parties and the people of Ukraine. If they seek assistance, then we will, I am sure, continue to give it. We must recognise that we must not interfere in a way in which that assistance is perceived negatively by those who will seek to damn that assistance.

I hope that the next time that the hon. Member for West Suffolk chooses to raise the subject of Ukraine, we can be delighted to say that progress has been made. More is being made, and very soon Ukraine will be a country that will be seen to be the equal of others in the quality of its people’s lives, of its institutions and of its commitment to democratisation.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Anderson, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for taking the initiative to seek this debate. What he said at the beginning is evidenced by the fact that I and my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who will hopefully catch your eye later, Mrs. Anderson, represent clear evidence of the cross-party support for Ukraine. I am sure that the Minister will endorse that when he speaks later.

Like the hon. Member for West Suffolk, the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), to whom I pay my tribute for his work chairing our all-party group, and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), I am one of the signatories of the motion that welcomes the huge progress that Ukraine has made in recent years and commends the continuing potential for progress that we all know exists. That potential was marked by the bid in Bucharest the other day at the NATO conference and is always subject to discussion among friendly countries in the European Union.

While the hon. Gentleman is paying tribute to people, will he join me in paying tribute to His Excellency the ambassador, Ihor Kharchenko? During his short time in London, he has worked massively to improve and consolidate the bilateral relationship between Ukraine and the UK, particularly in the field of trade.

I unreservedly join in that tribute. We all have contacts with missions, high commissions and embassies from all over the world. The team at the Ukrainian embassy, both at present and under the previous ambassador, have been absolutely excellent at ensuring that they sustain good relations. They are here to support and brief us. There are not many occasions when one appears at an event without suddenly discovering that at one’s shoulder is somebody from the Ukrainian embassy, wanting to ensure that we have not forgotten that they are around and that they deserve to be taken seriously. That is exactly how missions should work.

Other than at school, from maps and so on, I guess that I was first aware of Ukraine’s importance when I became a Member of Parliament and there was a discussion about whether we should have a memorial in Southwark to the people of the Soviet Union who were killed in the last world war. A memorial was erected, and it stands today in Geraldine Mary Harmsworth park, just by the Imperial War museum. It reminds anybody who goes there that 20 million people died in the countries of the former Soviet Union. We remember that every year in May and on other occasions. When there are remembrance services at that memorial, among those laying wreaths are people doing so on behalf of Ukraine. The people of Ukraine played a hugely important part in the liberation army, and they have played a major part in peacekeeping roles throughout the world since. Tens of thousands of people from Ukraine’s forces have contributed, and we need to remember that. They do their bit for world peace, and have done so for the past 50 years.

A second topical allusion is that we stand about halfway between one satisfactory semi-final of the European champions cup—when Manchester United fantastically and mercifully got the goal that took them through to the final—and another semi-final that guarantees an English team going through, with Chelsea and Liverpool playing for a place in the final in Moscow next month. Although no UK team will play in the European championship finals this year, for reasons that I shall not go into, there will be another opportunity in four years’ time, when the championships will be in Ukraine and Poland. I sincerely hope that at least one UK team, if not two, three or four, will be there.

rose—

And possibly Ireland as well, before the hon. Gentleman intervenes. We certainly need to make up for this year’s deficit. I remember from when I was in Kiev that one thing that links us, apart from politics, faith and culture, is the love of and commitment to sport. Such things matter to ordinary people and are much less complicated than elections, parties and democracy.

The hon. Gentleman need not wait so long to see a Ukrainian connection in European football. Andriy Shevchenko, a great footballer from Kiev, sadly plays for Chelsea, but I think that he plays with Ukraine in his heart at all times.

Many Ukrainians in Britain, and Chelsea supporters, are aware of who he plays for, and he is indeed a great player. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not a Chelsea supporter, but my team did get to the FA cup final four years ago.

And lost.

And lost; I am a Millwall supporter. I am not suggesting that we make our winning British club teams even less British by importing more people from abroad, but players from Dynamo Kiev and elsewhere are very welcome, if they can be afforded to come and join us.

My third topical point is that as we all know, we have elections tomorrow, not just here in London but in the whole of Wales and England. One thing that has brought Ukraine to the attention of the British public has been the democratic process, which has been very exciting and dramatic. I want to give a little quiet encouragement. Of course things have been difficult, such as the constitutional arrangement, which has changed and developed since 1991. In a new and evolving independent democracy, that is what one would expect. We are not without our difficulties in our country when it comes to elections, as you well know from your part of the world and elsewhere, Mrs. Anderson. We do not do everything perfectly and we do not get it all right.

The good news, in a way, is that Ukraine, just like us, does not have a straight two-party system. There are blocs, and no party gets an overall majority, so there have to be negotiations. Sometimes they take a bit of time, but the United States does not solve such things immediately, as I recollect from a recent presidential election. I hope that people in Ukraine are not discouraged by that. Politics is sometimes difficult, but persistence pays off. I pay tribute to the persistence of the President, the Prime Minister, present and past Foreign Ministers and others who are determined to make a go of democracy and make Ukraine as credible as any other democracy in Europe. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) paid tribute to the fact that the system has evolved quickly and become one that commands respect, having not originally met standards. We need to flag that up. None of us does democracy perfectly, and Ukraine has shown very well how to make progress.

I wish to make three substantive points. First, sometimes we in Britain—I am sure that this does not apply to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—forget how important a European country Ukraine is. Not only is it the second largest European country, it has a population of getting on for 50 million. It is almost in the big league with Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and obviously Russia, which is both European and Asian. Although we sit off the western edge of the European land mass and Ukraine sits in the heart of the land mass at the other edge of Europe, we would do Ukraine and Europe no service if we neglected its potential and importance.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk mentioned Ukraine’s huge agricultural importance. That is important not just for Ukraine but because of its ability to serve a continent in a day and age when we are all seeking to have food shipped from one end of the world to the other less frequently. It would be far better to ensure that we fed ourselves within each continent as far as possible, and grew our own food for our own people.

Secondly, Ukraine is strategically important to energy supplies not just for its own part of Europe but for Europe as a whole. We all understand that there are private sector interests, but public-led interests are also very much at play. We always want to say to Russia and Ukraine that there must be a negotiated agreement. That may be difficult—of course such things are difficult—but everybody’s interests are served by the security of supply at a time when there are threats and risks to the energy industry and we are all trying to reduce our consumption.

Thirdly, Ukraine is hugely important because of its entrepreneurial spirit. The hon. Gentleman commended the fact that one driver of the ever-closer links between the UK and Ukraine is business interests. I have been hugely impressed whenever I have spoken to business people about their willingness to go and do business in Ukraine, and by Ukrainians’ willingness to come and do business here, including in the brewing, sugar and construction industries. I hope that the building of football stadiums does not mean that the people in the construction industry, whom we need here to do things such as complete the Olympic site, will instead go off to build stadiums in Poland and Ukraine. I hope that we can have a division of labour.

I have two final things to say. First, I pay tribute to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is an excellent organisation. In particular, it has recognised how important support for the deep development of institutional structures in Ukraine is. Members of the Rada are willing to work with Members of the UK Parliament to exchange experience and political learning. I hope that we can go further, and there have been conversations about the issue. There should be co-operation and dialogue between staff in our Parliaments, as well as between our civil servants and researchers. There should be dialogue between the UK’s devolved Administrations and the autonomous region of Crimea, because they have a lot to learn from each other. There should be dialogue between our political parties, and I pledge on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party that we will be happy to continue pursuing such developments, not only around Kiev, but in the east, the north, the south and the west. We must also ensure that more women are involved in politics so that the country becomes a vibrant democracy.

I also pay tribute to the others who are building bridges. The British Council is really valuable in Ukraine, and the BBC now has a significant listenership for its Ukrainian language service. The bridges are becoming ever stronger, and the developments in Ukraine are extremely welcome and positive.

Of course, it is for the Ukraine Government to decide when and how they become more fully integrated into the European Union. However, my colleagues and I hope that it will not be long before Ukraine takes its full place as an independent country in a European Union of independent countries so that people recognise the phenomenal contribution that it has made, is making and will make not only to its part of Europe, but to Europe and the world as a whole.

It gives me great pleasure to follow contributions from three such distinguished and experienced parliamentarians. I calculate that they have no less than seven decades of parliamentary experience between them, which almost—I stress, almost—makes me feel young again. I pay tribute to all three of them. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) gave a measured and comprehensive overview of the issues facing Ukraine. We then had a clarion call for democracy from my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who, if anything, underplayed his role as the OSCE’s chief observer in the elections some years ago. His role in Ukraine was crucial, and his keen observation and willingness to speak the truth will be credited there for many decades to come.

I am also grateful to be following the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), because I want to start where he did by stressing some of the human links between our two countries. He mentioned football, and I first became aware of Ukraine as a result of playing football. I am the grandson of an Irish Catholic migrant to Yorkshire and I remember playing with, and occasionally against, the grandsons of Ukrainian migrants to Yorkshire—as I recall, they did not take any prisoners on the football field. That was my first link to Ukraine and the first time that I became aware of the country.

As the years went by, and the iron curtain fell, I made friends and acquaintances among younger members of the Ukrainian community, some of whom had perhaps come to the west for the first time. When the Orange revolution happened, some of them contacted me in Parliament and asked what Parliament was doing about it. At that stage, the all-party group was not very active, but it was one of those moments in history when there was only one side to be on—the side of counting votes properly and having a proper democratic election. Now, the all-party group has links with politicians of all shades of opinion in Ukraine, and we are delighted to have members of the Tymoshenko bloc and the Party of the Regions with us today.

The Orange revolution was a pivotal moment in Ukrainian democracy. What a joy it was to be alive in Ukraine after that—everything seemed to go right. Not only was there an Orange revolution, but Ukraine qualified for the football World cup for the first time, economic growth took off and the country had not just one, but two world heavyweight boxing champions. It even won the Eurovision song contest, and we in Britain know how hard that is. Obviously, there was bound to be a bit of a reaction after such a honeymoon period.

As other hon. Members and acting members of the all-party group have said, we in Parliament try to do our bit. We are looking forward to hosting President Yushchenko and the Holodomor exhibition in Parliament in a couple of weeks, and there will also be the Inter-Parliamentary Union visit. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey was right to stress the rich variety of organisations in Britain promoting links between Ukraine and Britain. The British Ukrainian Society, which he leads so ably, has taken such activities to a new level in the past year. Similarly, the Ukrainian-British City Club in London brings together young professionals. That highlights what a great asset young Ukrainian professionals in London will be to Ukraine in the years ahead.

I could discuss many of the current issues that have been touched on and which are being fiercely debated in the Rada. As has been said, there is a debate about whether Ukraine should stick with and strengthen its presidential system of government or move to a more parliamentary system. There are debates about the economy, with the Rada ratifying one of the 60 elements that are needed for full World Trade Organisation ratification to take place—the debate on the WTO will probably last as long as our recent debates about the EU. There is also a debate about inflation, which is now touching 30 per cent, and measures have had to be taken in recent weeks to bring it down. Finally, there is the very important debate about NATO, which has been touched on.

I thought, however, that I would make four more general, but crucial points about the future of Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South concentrated on the development of democracy and referred to the OSCE’s judgement that the most recent elections had pretty much met almost the highest standards that one could expect of such elections. Friends of Ukraine in Britain are pleased that those democratic standards are being met, although we would rather that Ukraine reached the point where it did not have to prove its democratic standards by having a general election every six months. It is good that a Government have been formed, and I hope that there will now be a period of stability. The fundamental point, which more than one hon. Member has touched on, is that if democracy and much-needed progress in the judicial system—the country needs to go much further in establishing the rule of law—can take hold, Ukraine will have a competitive edge, particularly in attracting investment. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, the rule of law, democracy and a free media are not nearly as developed in many of Ukraine’s neighbours.

One of the advantages of having frequent elections as part of the democratic process in a young democracy is that the different parties have observed those elections in different regions of the country. This has been the first time that many young people who have supported a political party avidly enough to want to observe the elections have been able to do so. This is the first time, for example, that people from Donetsk have been to the west of Ukraine and vice versa and have taken part in electoral activity as part of civil society. Such things are binding the country together again and giving people a different view. It is also encouraging that although the east of the country generally votes one way and the west votes another, that is by no means monolithic now, and people in both the east and the west are voting against that trend. That can only strengthen democracy in Ukraine.

Finally on democracy, it is significant that the Rada is considering a law on the role of the Opposition. That was highlighted at the Foreign Office conference at Wilton Park, which many Ukrainian parliamentarians took part in, and which I was privileged to go along to for a little while. It took our Parliament centuries to appreciate such things. Hard though it is for me as a Labour politician to admit this, there will be a Conservative Government one day, and Conservative Ministers will have the cars and give the statements—I confidently predict that. It is part of the practice of a mature democracy that we treat others as we would want to be treated if we were in the same circumstances. Things such as the development of Short money and respect for the role of the Opposition are very important, and Ukraine is rapidly developing that culture.

Just a few weeks ago there was a conference in London to promote investment in Euro 2012. It was extremely moving that the shadow Foreign Minister, a member of the party of the Regions, gave a speech, supported by all his colleagues from the different parties in Ukraine, in which he said that the issue was so important that everyone needed to unite behind it, and make 2012 a success. That is my second point. Many hon. Members have mentioned 2012, but it is well worth mentioning that just as we must absolutely get the Olympics right, for the sake of the United Kingdom’s reputation, equally Ukraine, together with Poland, must make sure that 2012 works well. There are reasons for concern at the moment. Michel Platini of UEFA has expressed some concern, and Rada members of all parties, and, indeed, the mayors of the host cities, are all keen to get the infrastructure in place. There may be—I know there will be—points of co-operation between London and Kiev when we are both at the centre of the sporting world in 2012; and reputation, so my friends in investment banks tell me, is the thing above all that determines investment. Ukraine’s reputation is on the line in 2012 and I am sure the nation will rise to the challenge, but it cannot be complacent.

Thirdly, there is the question of relations with Russia. In recent weeks there have been encouraging signs that, despite strong rhetoric from both sides, both nations are capable of doing deals, when necessary. Earlier this week the Russian and Ukrainian Prime Ministers had important talks. Kommersant reported:

“The decision was made to recommend that Gazprom and Naftogaz Ukrainy ‘conclude a long-term agreement on the delivery of gas to Ukraine and its transit through it’.”

In the European Union, where a quarter of gas supplies come by such a route, that will be welcome. The Ukrainian Prime Minister was reported on Ukrainian news as saying that the two countries have prepared a plan for developing co-operation in ten priority areas, and the Russian Prime Minister described the work of the Ukrainian-Russian intergovernmental commission as sufficiently efficient—quite a phrase in itself. Those reports show that business can be done by the two nations.

As other hon. Members have done, I want to say a word about Ukraine’s European Union ambitions. It is perhaps one of the prime purposes of the all-party group to do a bit to advance those ambitions. There are two ways of thinking about the matter. Such ambitions can present a tremendous opportunity for Ukraine, and particularly its young people, in travel and business. However, what Ukraine can do for Europe is also important, as other hon. Members have said. Increasingly, Ukraine is an important actor in the region, in all sorts of discussions on issues including Moldova. Ukraine is a country, as has been said, with a rich history, and there is debate there about how much it should look to the future and how much it needs to come to terms with its history, including such events as the famine. That debate is for Ukrainians to have. However, with its rich history, and given the indisputable claim that Ukraine is a European nation with a place in the history of the continent and which can draw on that history and on the vitality of its young people, it will, before too long, take its place as part of the European Union.

It could be said that it is a tribute to the British Parliament that so many people with such expertise on Ukraine have made their voices heard, and have such an interest. I should prefer to say that it is a tribute to the great nation of Ukraine that so many people in Parliament take such a great interest in that extraordinary and unique country.

It is unfortunate, but it is not untypical of many hon. Members to use football metaphors to describe bilateral relationships. I think that it was Albert Camus who said:

“Everything I ever learned about morality and obligations I learned from football.”

He was a distinguished goalkeeper, though not quite in the same class as my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who represented his country at football—not mine, but his. It was Wales, I think.

Not quite.

But many of us are acutely aware of the contribution that that skill has made. Also, I stress that constant references to Dynamo Kiev are in no way meant to denigrate Shakhtar Donetsk, a team for which those of us who support Celtic have great affection.

When one first visits Ukraine—and there has been much talk of a mature civic society and the civic responsibility of that community—one is immediately struck by the energy of a people who I suggest are almost unique in their determination and pride. My last football reference in this speech will be my appeal to anyone who seeks to understand a little of the Ukrainian psyche to read one of the most extraordinary books ever written: “Dynamo: Defending the Honour of Kiev”. That describes the famous death match when the last remnants of the Dynamo Kiev team were working in a bakery in Kiev and they ended up playing the German air force in a match refereed by a member of the Waffen SS. They were told that if they won the match it might cost them their lives. They went on and won it, and it did cost some of them their lives. We should all recognise that supreme pride and confidence in the nation, and the ability to bring something completely different that is so much a part of modern Ukraine.

When we talk about our country or Government supporting Ukraine’s application to join the European Union, we do not do that out of any feeling of charity. It is not entirely from self-interest; we do it out of recognition of European economic realities. Modern Ukraine is a country of immense potential in agriculture, industry and nuclear technology and there are areas where we have much to learn from it, and much work of value to do with it. The fact that this country is a strong and consistent supporter of Ukrainian accession to the EU is something of which we should not only be extremely proud; we should make the point to our Ukrainian brothers and sisters that it is done from the principle of mutual benefit and gain.

I cannot say how impressed I was when I visited—admittedly only one or two—cities in Ukraine, to see a nation that, although it sounds presumptuous to say so, is emerging, and finding its feet. There is an entrepreneurial community there, and an emerging mercantile community. The politics is transparent and fair, and as we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, it is operated completely honestly. We have in Ukraine a great partner for the future. It is important for Members of this House to put on record our respect for those who brought Ukraine to where it is today, our appreciation for the work that they have done, and our hope for the future that our bilateral relations, supported so ably by many people such as the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), and many organisations, come to fruition, and that we can stand side by side, brother and brother, in an emerging, stronger, deeper and wider Europe. Ukraine has seen great days in a long and extraordinary history. I suggest that its greatest days are yet to come. Let this country stand with that proud nation when that great day comes.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to his hard work as the chairman of the British Ukrainian Society. In his speech he set out very clearly the bilateral relations between our country and Ukraine and an overview of that intriguing country’s history and current situation. Positively, he also pointed out the very good work being done to strengthen links between our countries, and in particular by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and the all-party group on Ukraine that he chairs. It is particularly good to hear that a delegation of MPs will visit Ukraine later in the year.

As with so many Westminster Hall debates about various countries, we should recognise that while the relationship with the country itself is important, we benefit from the presence of many people—in this case tens of thousands of Ukrainians—who live and work and contribute to society in Britain. It is important to be aware of that community and the positive impact that it can have on our economy and society.

So far, we have had an excellent debate, with contributions from the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and the hon. Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound). I confess that I have been somewhat lost along the way with some of the football metaphors, but that aside I have certainly found the debate to be particularly interesting.

In my brief remarks, I would like to touch on the relationship between Ukraine and the various international organisations, on the issue of energy and on a couple of other issues before winding up. First, I would like to share with the Members present today my own experience of Ukraine, which thankfully is slightly wider than just reading a rather excellent novel, “A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian”, by Marina Lewycka.

It should be pronounced ‘Lew-i-za’.

I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s superior pronunciation; no doubt my version will look alright in Hansard, as long as I ensure that I give them my notes. One of the things that brought that book to mind was hearing the hon. Member for West Suffolk talk about the famine in the 1930s, the horrors of which are described in the book. It is clearly quite right that awareness is raised of that tragic period in Ukrainian history. As with so many events of that nature, it is important that, even once living memory fades, the rest of us do not forget because that is the best defence that we have against such an event happening again.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk also paid great tribute to WFD, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, of which he is a governor and director. It is certainly excellent news that extra money has been allocated to help WFD programmes in Ukraine.

My only visit to Ukraine was in 2006 and it was not with WFD but with a programme that was being run by the European Parliament and the National Democratic Institute, which is a sort of American version of WFD. That visit was to assist with running a workshop called “Win With Women”, aimed at women politicians, both current and aspiring, within Ukraine. It had training delivered by women parliamentarians from across Europe and particularly by people involved in politics here in the UK. It is interesting that, in a country that obviously has a very strong woman role model in Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, there are sadly still very few women Members of Parliament; indeed, I think that the situation there is even worse than here in the UK, which itself is obviously not one of the best in the world in that regard.

My impressions of that training workshop were incredibly positive. There was a real feeling of excitement among the women politicians and I may say that there were quite a few very strong voices that clearly will definitely be heard within the Rada. Although it was a very short visit, my impression was that Ukraine is a country that is quite full of character and one that is also increasingly confident.

That was only a short visit, so one of the advantages that I always find of debates such as this one in Westminster Hall is the opportunity to listen to the contributions from many other Members, benefiting from their experiences and expertise on issues. My view is that one always learns something in Westminster Hall and today has been no different.

Moving on to the relationships between Ukraine and various international organisations, obviously the recent NATO summit brought the very welcome news that the negotiations can continue with regard to Ukraine joining NATO. The only slight note of disappointment was that that exciting news was not brought to the House in the form of an oral statement but was released in a written statement. None the less, it is certainly news that is very welcome. Indeed, the future path looks very positive. To quote from the post-summit declaration, there will be:

“a period of intensive engagement…at a high political level”,

with a progress report due by the end of this year.

However, as has already been mentioned by various Members during this debate, it is important that we manage to calm Russian fears about NATO expansion. To do that, we need to demonstrate that NATO is no longer about an extension of the cold war but has moved on to deal with the current challenges facing us, such as the situation in Afghanistan, which is also a worry for countries such as Russia.

That aside, however, it is very important that the post-summit declaration was very clear that it is not up to Russia to exercise any kind of veto over whether or not Ukraine joins NATO. The declaration said:

“We reiterate that decisions on enlargement are for NATO itself to make.”

I wholeheartedly endorse that point.

The recent developments regarding Ukraine signing up to membership of the World Trade Organisation are also very positive, particularly as membership might lead to a free trade agreement with the EU, as we hope will be the case, and in due course towards EU membership, if that is what the Ukrainian people want. It is by no means definite what path they will choose; public opinion is somewhat divided and no doubt they will have very heated and engaged debates about Ukraine’s future, within or outside the EU, as we often have in our own country, especially over the past few months.

I would like to turn now to the issue of energy. From just looking at a map, it is obvious that Ukraine occupies a key position strategically regarding energy supplies. Of course, we all remember very well the dispute between Ukraine and Russia that occurred between 2005 and 2006, when gas supplies were heavily disrupted, not necessarily to the UK but certainly to many of our EU neighbours. Such disputes are obviously a great cause for concern going forward, as competition for energy supplies increases.

Regarding the specific problems that caused that dispute, we would all agree that Ukraine, in time, should pay a market rate for its gas supplies, but a sudden quadrupling of the price was always going to be impossible for the country to bear. A smoother transition and phasing-in of a market rate must be the way forward.

If Russia decides to use its energy supplies as a political tool, that would be a cause for concern. However, before getting overly worried about this issue, we should remember that there is a mutually dependent relationship between the EU and Russia. Yes, the EU needs Russian gas but equally Russia needs the EU market for its gas. That said, if we increase the number of pipeline routes between the sources of gas and the markets for gas, that can only aid our energy security. In the event of future disputes occurring—we obviously would not want to see them happen, but if they did—we obviously have a responsibility to ensure that the rest of Europe is able to receive their energy.

When the Minister sums up, it will be interesting to see if he is able to say whether or not the recent meeting between the Ukrainian delegation and his colleague, the Foreign Secretary, and other members of his Department, brought forward any interesting points about how energy security could be ensured in the future.

I would like to touch briefly on a couple of other issues. The hon. Member for Selby characterised well the internal power struggles in Ukraine since 2004. In preparation for this debate, I printed out a sort of time line of Ukraine and just following that time line since December 2004 is an incredibly complicated thing to do, with various people being Prime Minister or President and elections here and there; the recent political situation looked somewhat like a game of musical chairs. Since the outcome of last autumn’s elections, I think that we can hope now for a period of greater stability, which hopefully will enable the country to focus on the business of governing rather than on internal politicking. Let us just remain optimistic on that front for now.

Finally, the issue of the Schengen agreement is worth raising. Since December 2007, that agreement has been extended and now includes 24 countries, including the eastern European states. So there is a huge border of the Schengen area with Ukraine; the border with Poland alone is 526 km long. It is potentially a huge task to police that border and I would be interested if the Minister had any early assessments—obviously, it has only been a few months since the extension of the agreement—as to how policing that border is working and whether there have been any problems.

In conclusion, the relationship between the UK and Ukraine is hugely important and currently it looks very positive. It is obviously important that the Government should continue to build on that solid foundation, but it is also important for Members of Parliament to play our role and to ensure that, within the communities that we represent, we forge and build links between the two countries.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs. Anderson. I will begin, if I may, by echoing the welcome that has already been expressed by several of my parliamentary colleagues for our guests who are here this afternoon from Ukraine, not least to our sister parliamentarians from the Rada itself. We are genuinely delighted that they are all with us today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing this important debate and on his typically eloquent and wide-ranging introductory speech, which gave us a good summary of the state of British-Ukrainian relations. I would also like to commend him for all that he is doing to strengthen the relations between our two countries, not least in his role as the chairman of the British Ukrainian Society.

My hon. Friend’s remarks were echoed by several hon. Members. We heard from the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who also spoke briefly about the prospects of an incoming Conservative Government. I particularly enjoyed that part of his speech. I thank him for all the work that he has done in chairing the all-party group on Ukraine, and I hope that its members will enjoy a successful visit to Ukraine later this year. We also heard from the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who, as the whole House knows, has considerable experience in the realms of foreign affairs and defence. That was clearly reflected in his contribution this afternoon.

We heard from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who touched on the importance of sport in building relations between our two countries. I did not know that he was a Millwall supporter. I hope that he will take it the right way if I say that he does not fit the classic profile of the Millwall supporter, as far as I am concerned. I thank him for raising the importance of sport in relations between our two nations.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), who gave a thoughtful and measured contribution. It was more thoughtful and measured than what he said during Prime Minister’s questions at lunch time. He added to our discourse this afternoon, and we were pleased to hear from him.

On a sombre note, I understand that today is a national day of mourning in Ukraine, following a terrible accident with an Mi-8 helicopter in which I believe some 20 Ukrainians lost their lives. We offer our condolences to the people of Ukraine, particularly the families who have suffered such a tragic loss. Our thoughts are with them on this day.

I am delighted that there is cross-party consensus on so many issues concerning Britain’s relationship with Ukraine. As the Minister will know, cross-party consensus always strengthens a Government’s dealings with third parties, and I am sure that after our seeing each other so often at the Dispatch Box over the past couple of months during debates on the treaty of Lisbon, he will agree that it is good to be on the same side for once, as we discuss our relations with Ukraine.

On a personal note, I hope that the Minister’s leg gets better. Also, I hope that he will be standing close by the phone this weekend, because I have a funny feeling that it might ring.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said, the Conservative party has been lucky enough to have enjoyed a good number of conversations recently with members of the Ukrainian Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Leader of the Opposition, met President Yushchenko at Davos, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, last month had a friendly and constructive meeting with the Foreign Minister, Mr. Ogryzko. We very much look forward to President Yushchenko’s visit to Britain next month.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and others mentioned the Holodomor. It was a terrible crime, perhaps the worst in the long list of those committed by communist regimes in Europe, and comparable in the scale of loss of life to the grotesque series of massacres and famines inflicted on their peoples by Mao and Pol Pot. Both the communists and the Nazis ensured that much of the 20th century was a period of appalling suffering for Ukrainians. It is a tribute to the Ukrainian people’s resilience that they fought through that and have now come on to happier times.

Others Members dealt ably with many of the issues of great importance to Ukraine, but I shall touch on a few as well. High inflation is a cause for concern and, worryingly, most economic factors point to it remaining a problem, at least in the short to medium term. It is said that a better harvest this year would help, and we hope for that outcome.

Gas supply and transit from Russia remains tricky. The good news is that the latest agreement, which was made in March, has lasted longer than the last one, which was made in February. However, gas is still a source of friction, and I hope that the Minister will touch on it when he responds.

Ukraine’s imminent membership of the World Trade Organisation is a great success for that country, and we congratulate its Government, political parties and Parliament on the smoothness of the ratification process.

Most important of all, Ukraine’s democracy is in good health, although there have been a few bumps on the road since the Orange revolution. Debate is free, open and robust, and politics is competitive. Not every hope arising from the marvellous mass defence of democracy—an event at which my colleague in the European Parliament, Charles Tannock, was lucky enough to be present—has or probably ever could have been fulfilled, but, overall, the pessimists were wrong. Ukraine is now an example to many of its near neighbours of what could be.

Britain is one of Ukraine’s best friends in the European Union. We are firmly on the side of those who say that Ukrainians are Europeans and not just Europe’s neighbours. Ukraine has every right to aspire to join institutions that are common to most European countries—the European Union and NATO—and it is to those institutions that I shall chiefly confine my remaining remarks.

EU membership offers advantages to Ukraine. The enlargement process, which is one of the EU’s greatest policy successes, has shown time and again that EU membership offers young democracies a path to strong democratic institutions, greater economic prosperity through more open markets, the rule of law, and the security of belonging to an important club. The process helps to tackle deep-rooted problems of corruption and misrule, although one or two of the newest EU members show that the rigours of the process must be maintained in full. Therefore, it is no wonder that there is wide political consensus in Ukraine in favour of moving towards EU membership. That is strongly welcomed, and I am sorry that that approach is not matched across the whole of the EU itself.

New countries offer existing members real benefits. They not only widen the sphere of stability and democracy in Europe but expand the single market, increase our environmental reach and offer new perspectives and influence, as Poland has done in Ukraine itself and in Belarus. Ukrainian membership of the EU would make dictatorship in Belarus harder to sustain and might act as a catalyst in finding a solution to the frozen conflict in Trans-Dniester.

Ukraine’s membership of the WTO is an important first step on that road. A free trade agreement with the EU could be the next. I am sure that the Minister will want to answer some questions about prospects for Ukraine’s EU membership, so I shall put some to him briefly. What prospects does he foresee for a free trade agreement, and how does he think it might roll out in practice? What timetable would he favour for Ukrainian EU membership? What discussions has he had with EU partners on the matter and what are their views? In particular, what are the views of the French and German Governments?

Turning briefly to NATO, the Bucharest summit saw a major development. We recognise that NATO membership is a contentious issue in Ukraine, although it should be noted that Mr. Yanukovych voted for it in 2004. We very much hope that the debate will eventually be settled in favour of membership. We warmly welcome the Ukrainian Government’s desire to join NATO and welcome the agreement in the summit communiqué that Ukraine will join NATO. However, we are concerned that giving that firm commitment while failing to agree on Ukraine’s participation in NATO’s membership action plan was, to some degree, putting the cart before the horse. Like the EU accession process, the MAP is a tool of democratisation. It ensures that NATO entrants not only modernise their capabilities but that their armed forces slot properly into the workings of liberal democracy. When does the Minister think the next discussions will be held on Ukraine’s membership of the MAP? What are the principal remaining points of discussion with NATO allies, and can he lay out the timetable for further progress?

The elephant in the room—or perhaps the bear, in this instance—is, of course, Russia. It is our view that Russia is profoundly mistaken in seeing NATO expansion as some kind of threat or encirclement. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the prospective basing of troops in that respect. It is surprising that Russia does not welcome the prospect of more stable and secure neighbours. Some Russian statesmen might profitably ask themselves why so many of their neighbours have joined or wish to do so.

A good working relationship with Russia is, of course, of enormous importance to Ukraine and of great potential benefit to Russia herself. I hope that the next few years will demonstrate to Russia that a secure, stable and prosperous Ukraine on the road to EU membership would be a win-win situation for everyone.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said in his very good speech that UK-Ukraine relations are the best that they have ever been. I agree, and I hope that they will continue to strengthen in the months and years ahead.

Thank you, Mrs. Anderson, for presiding over our proceedings in this fascinating and informed discussion. Although I am tempted to call it a debate, in the traditional sense, it has been more of a conversation than a debate, but it has been the better for it. There is a wealth of experience in Westminster Hall today, including personal experience of visits to Ukraine and contact with Ukranian politicians and diplomats. I am at a slight disadvantage, being one of the few right hon. and hon. Members speaking today who has not yet had the opportunity to visit Ukraine, but I seek to remedy that in the near future.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing the debate and for the way in which he set its parameters, in the context of the impending visit by the President of Ukraine on 15 May, to which we in Her Majesty’s Government and so many others are looking forward with a great sense of anticipation and expectation.

I put on the record Her Majesty’s Government’s great sadness about the dreadful civilian helicopter crash in the Black sea earlier this week. We offer our condolences to the families of those who lost their lives. There were a number of tragic fatalities. It is important that Her Majesty’s Government and Opposition parties put that on the record today.

At the start of the debate, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the recognition of the remarkable improvement and evolution in the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ukraine, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) and the hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). It is a great cause for celebration in the UK and, I am sure, in Ukraine that these relationships continue to strengthen.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk mentioned that process, and his part in it, and spoke with great modesty about his role in improving the relationship between parliamentarians. We should all like to put on the record the remarkable work that he has done in strengthening bilateral relationships between the UK and Ukraine. He was kind enough to mention—as did a number of hon. Members on a cross-party basis—the excellent work done by that young man, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby.

There is an increasing understanding in the UK of the importance of, and the complexity of, Ukrainian society. The opportunity to increase understanding will be amplified with the excellent decision to co-host the European 2012 football championships. It is a remarkably opportune moment for Ukraine to highlight itself as a nation, a culture, an ally and a friend, and an excellent opportunity for inward investment and so much more. I do not want to pursue the footballing analogy much more than that, Mrs. Anderson. However, I had cause for celebration earlier in this season in respect of the underperformance and failure in Europe of a Ukrainan team, Shakhtar Donetsk, which was defeated by my team, Celtic. Hon. Members have paid tribute to the great skill of the current Chelsea player, Shevchenko, although my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North cannot really expect him to be a Fulham player next season.

I want to talk about the specific points raised. Remarkable practical assistance is being afforded by the UK Government to help Ukraine in its efforts to develop and integrate more closely with both the EU and NATO. Successive British Governments have supported Ukraine's development as it has faced many challenges, and it has, by any objective analysis, overcome remarkable obstacles since gaining independence in 1991. Our total assistance during this period has exceeded £100 million. Assistance has rightly evolved, as the country has changed, from supporting transition from the post-Soviet system to assisting its move towards EU standards. In January 2006 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rightly re-classified Ukraine as a middle income country.

It is a cause for some delight that, as a result of the progress that has been made, the Department for International Development closed its bilateral programme a few weeks ago, in March 2008. It is never a cause for celebration when programmes end, but the fact that we are moving away from DFID involvement to a more sustained economic relationship is emblematic of the way in which Ukraine continues to change. However, that does not mean—it should never be misconstrued as meaning—that the UK will no longer take a close interest in Ukraine's socio-economic development. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to support political and economic reform to Ukraine through its “Reuniting Europe” programme and bilateral funds worth more than £900,000 in 2008-09. We will also provide support through funding for multilateral organisations, including the European Union, the World Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Ukraine is a priority country for European Commission support. More than 17 per cent. of the Commission’s aid to Ukraine is provided by the UK as part of our overall share of the EU budget. Again, that is a reminder of just how engaged the UK continues to be in supporting Ukraine.

I will not be able to answer every point in the time I have left, but if colleagues wish—the tenor of the debate suggests that they would—I will circulate a more detailed response on the issues that I cannot capture now.

There is an element of EU enlargement fatigue in other European capitals, but we in London do not share that fatigue, the Government do not share it and it is fair to say that it does not appear to be shared by any Opposition parties. I would argue, and the Government would, too, that it is in our strategic self-interest for Ukraine to be a full, equal member of the EU in time. We have not set a timetable—it would be wrong for us to do so, because this is a condition-based accession process—but we are clear that if, in time, Ukraine fulfils its criteria, it should be admitted into full membership of the EU. The European neighbourhood policy, which is important, should not be regarded as an alternative to eventual EU membership.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire and for Rayleigh asked about the Ukraine and the NATO perspective. Let us be clear about what was declared at the NATO summit. No third country has or will have a veto over Ukraine’s aspirations to be a member of NATO. NATO allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of NATO and that we must help it move towards that objective as soon as possible. NATO also reaffirmed the importance of the NATO-Ukraine relationship and will now begin a period of intensive engagement with Ukraine, at a political level, to address the outstanding questions on the membership action plan.

There is an important point to be made about public perception and opinion in Ukraine in respect of NATO. There is strong Government support for Ukraine’s membership of NATO, but more has to be done to encourage wider public support among the population of Ukraine towards that ambition. The UK Government will play an important part, wherever we are invited to do so, in advising the Ukrainian Government on how to ensure that there is an educated, informed conversation in Ukraine about NATO membership.

The UK looks forward to President Yushchenko’s visit and will continue to work closely with Ukraine to pursue our common goals and interests. Our two nations have a strong, enduring friendship that we believe can only be strengthened by continued dialogue. Ukraine is a strategic partner for the UK in the world and we are determined to see, and are committed to, an ever-closer working relationship and Ukraine’s eventual membership of the EU and NATO.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk once again on securing today’s debate and for the way in which it has been conducted.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Anderson, and I thank Mr. Speaker for granting me this debate. He has been generous in providing a series of debates on the expansion of north Northamptonshire to both me and my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). I thank the Minister for his attendance, and I hope that this debate will be constructive and that he will be able to provide answers to my questions and concerns. I look forward to his response. I also thank my hon. Friend for attending. He will try to catch your eye, Mrs. Anderson, later in the debate. He works tirelessly on behalf of his constituents and, like me, he has grave concerns about the road infrastructure in north Northamptonshire.

The A45 and A14 are east-to-west trunk roads passing through or near Wellingborough. My constituents must use one or both roads to get about in their daily lives, and they are both extremely busy. The A45 and A14 trunk roads feed into the M1 and are the main links through the constituency to the east of England. They are extremely well used, extremely busy and extremely underfunded.

It seems that things are set to become much worse for my constituents who use those roads. The Government are forcing 52,000 new homes on north Northamptonshire in the next few years as part of the south midlands and Milton Keynes spatial core strategy. That equates with about a 50 per cent. rise in the number of existing homes. Moreover, plans for two large developments in my constituency—Wellingborough East and Wellingborough North—have already been submitted to the planning authority. They will not happen in the future; that huge increase in development is happening now, but where are the plans for the infrastructure to support it? Who knows? That is what I am trying to find out.

The fact is that there are no plans to improve capacity or to carry out major and necessary improvements to the A45 and the A14 in time for the increased development, increase in population and increase in the number of vehicles. What is even more worrying is that it is not just our roads that will fall behind; it is our local public services, which are already stretched to the limit with the current population. In Welllingborough we have no hospital, a demolished secondary school and no available NHS dentist.

Let us consider one issue—the hospital. One might ask what that has to do with the road infrastructure. As there is no hospital in Wellingborough, my constituents must travel by car or, in an emergency, by ambulance to Kettering or Northampton general hospitals. If they go to Kettering, they must use the A14; if they go to Northampton, they must use the A45. When those roads are congested or blocked my constituents’ journey time to hospital could be severely delayed, which in turn could be life threatening. I have argued strongly that there is a moral and financial case for a hospital in the Wellingborough and Rushden area. If we had such a hospital, at a stroke thousands and thousands of car journeys along the A14 and A45 every year would not be necessary. If there were any joined-up government thinking, there would be a plan for a hospital in the Wellingborough and Rushden area—but of course, there is not.

Today, the Institute for Public Policy Research report confirms that outside London, Northamptonshire has seen the largest influx of workers from eastern Europe. Even more worrying is that we have been told that a third of the new development will be used by migrant families from eastern Europe.

I run a rolling survey in my constituency as part of the “Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden” campaign, which lets me know regularly what is of most concern to my constituents. For the first time ever, the latest survey shows that immigration is local residents’ No. 1 concern. A year ago, that was not an issue, and did not even register. It is now a concern because of the huge impact on public services, including our major roads, which cannot cope with the amount of new development and increase in population.

There was a recent borough council by-election in the Redwell ward, which adjoins the proposed Wellingborough North development. It is a safe Conservative ward and the Conservatives easily retained it. However, for the first time, a British National party candidate stood, and he stood on the issue of overdevelopment and lack of infrastructure, including the state of our roads. He received more than 15 per cent. of the vote and beat Labour into third place. That should be a wake-up call for all mainstream politicians in north Northamptonshire.

Before I talk about specific housing developments in the very near future, I want to relate how overcrowding on the A14 and A45 creates not only long delays and frustrations for those who must use them, but the more serious effects of underfunding our roads: casualties and accidents. In 2004, there were five fatal casualties on the A14 and one on the A45. By 2006, the numbers had risen to eight fatal casualties on each road. Since 2004, the number of fatal, serious and slight casualties on the A45 has risen dramatically. In 2004 the total number of casualties was 96. In 2006, it was 194. The casualty reduction target set by the Highways Agency for the number of casualties on the A45 in 2006 was 149. The actual number of casualties was 194. That is about a third more than expected. Something must be seriously wrong if targets are being missed by such a large proportion. That was the situation in 2006, before the extra development took place.

The A14 and A45 trunk roads are part of the Highways Agency’s area 88. Within that area it also manages the A1, A421, A428, A5 and A43. The total number of casualties on all those roads in 2006 was 907, of which 447—almost half of all casualties in that year—happened on the A14 and the A45. Again, it does not take a rocket scientist to realise that accidents and casualties on those two trunk roads are too frequent and too many. The reason is lack of planned infrastructure and lack of funding to improve those roads.

One issue on which I have campaigned at Westminster and in my constituency is the lack of improvements to the Chowns Mill roundabout at the A45/A6 junction at Higham Ferrers. The “Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden” campaign demonstrates what is wrong with the system. Chowns Mill interchange is a roundabout designed for 4 roads. It now has five roads going into it. A grade-separated junction is desperately needed at Chowns Mill to alleviate the enormous congestion caused by the short-sighted and inappropriate layout. There have also been a number of accidents and casualties at Chowns Mill because, although small improvements have been made, they have been so minor and confusing that drivers are still unsure about which lanes to use. I used that roundabout recently and was in the right lane to head forward when a car shot straight across me. I do not believe that that was a bad driver; I just think he was confused by the road layout.

The campaign for improvements to Chowns Mill roundabout has been led by my constituent Mrs. Julie Nacca, who had an accident on the site. She was so incensed by not being able to get anything done to improve the roundabout that she started her own petition. I presented that petition to Parliament in March 2007. I would like to praise Mrs. Nacca’s hard work and dedication in raising the matter with the relevant organisations and in trying to get improvements from which everyone can benefit.

The campaign has resulted in a meeting between the parish, district and county councils, the Highways Agency and me. It was universally agreed that improvements should be made, but then things went horribly wrong. The decision was made by an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable quango: the East Midlands regional assembly. The assembly is a regional organisation based in Leicestershire. It might vaguely know where Wellingborough is, but certainly would not know where Higham Ferrers is and would have no idea of the problems at Chowns Mill. The assembly refuses to make the improvements at Chowns Mill a priority and does not put it in its forward plan, which covers the next 15 years.

Mrs. Nacca, Councillor Derek Lawson, who has also been campaigning on the issue, and myself met the chief executive of the East Midlands regional assembly at the end of last year. We were told that these desperately needed improvements to our road system would not be carried out, regardless of the amount of new development, the numbers of new businesses and the increase in new vehicles that would soon be on the A45. We were told that there was no chance of the grade-separated junction being put into the programme.

Two new major developments planned for Wellingborough in the immediate future are Wellingborough East and Wellingborough North, which includes Upper Redhill and Pulse Park. Some 3,200 houses have already been approved for Wellingborough East—or WEAST as it is more commonly known—and more than 3,000 homes are planned for Wellingborough North. Moreover, plans will shortly be submitted for a new development east of WEAST, which will include thousands of new homes and will create a new urban conurbation. Where does that development lie? Right on the A45. It is my understanding that the Highways Agency does not have any proposals for major improvements to the A45 between the M1 and the A14 in the next 15 years. I would be interested to learn whether the Minister has any updated, more encouraging information on that. The Wellingborough North development, for which there are two planning applications at the moment, will cover more than 3,000 new homes that will be linked by the A509 directly to the A14. That will mean more houses, more people and more traffic for the A14.

It is clear that the Government have a blinkered approach; they have tunnel vision and can only see houses. They are determined to build thousands and thousands of new homes in north Northamptonshire. Those homes are already being built, yet the Government have no serious, structured or firm plans for improving the road infrastructure. If they were to take their blinkers off, they would realise that the A14 and the A45 are heading for complete gridlock.

I am delighted to be here to support my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). He works tirelessly day in and day out for his constituents, and I congratulate him on securing this special and important debate.

It is obvious to anyone who lives in and around Kettering that the A14 needs urgent attention. There are far too many accidents on the road and it is getting increasingly congested. Kettering simply will not be able to cope with the thousands of extra houses unless the A14 is improved fast. The Government and the Highways Agency have dithered for far too long over this issue, yet it is the most important infrastructure improvement that Kettering needs. Local roads are becoming more and more congested, and the Kettering rail service is to be cut back. The strain on existing public services is increasing as each month passes. Unless the Government agree to guarantee the additional infrastructure that Kettering needs, the plans for housing expansion in the area need to be radically scaled back or stopped altogether.

The Government’s overall plans for Kettering envisage 13,100 new dwellings by 2021, which would increase the population of the borough by one third. There are to be 145,000 new houses across the county as a whole, increasing Northamptonshire’s population from 660,000 to 1 million. Yet the current situation with the A14 is that there are no official plans to improve the road around Kettering until 2017 at the earliest. However, more than 70,000 vehicles a day already use the A14 around Kettering and the road is at capacity. Specific detailed plans to improve the A14 have been awaited for at least two years. Growth in local traffic is such that the Highways Agency is now considering restricting local vehicular access on to the road through so-called demand management measures. Planning approval for large-scale housing expansion to the east of Kettering, possibly involving up to 5,000 homes, simply cannot proceed until improvements to the A14 are announced.

BB Developments and Buccleuch Estates have submitted to Kettering borough council, of which I am proud to be a member, a planning application for 5,500 houses to be built to the east of Kettering. Without guidance from the Highways Agency that plans are to be put in place to improve the A14, Kettering borough council is unlikely to be able to make a decision either way on the application within the requisite timetable. That is likely to lead to an appeal by the applicants to the planning inspectorate, which would involve the council in a costly and lengthy planning inquiry. Likewise, plans to develop the old scrap yard site at the junction of the A43 and the A14 near Broughton are blighted until firm proposals for an improvement to the A14 are announced by the Department for Transport.

Since being elected in May 2005, I have asked a series of parliamentary questions about the A14, and the timetable for an announcement about the road continues to slip. In July 2005, the answer given was:

“The HA has commissioned an options study, and is currently gathering information and constructing a transport model for the area. The study is expected to report in February 2005”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1793W.]

In May 2007, the answer from the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), was:

“I have asked the Highways Agency to submit recommendations on potential improvements this autumn.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 459.]

In September 2007, the answer was:

“The Highways Agency is finalising an options appraisal on how to improve the capacity of the A14 around Kettering, which I expect shortly.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2007; Vol. 463, c. 1945W.]

In November 2007, the Minister said:

“The Highways Agency is investigating possible low-cost improvements to the A14 around Kettering with a view to assisting the delivery of growth…This study is due to report early next year”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 246W.]

At the other end of the A14, Government plans for the Catthorpe interchange with the M1 and the M6, which is used by 100,000 drivers every day, continue to be delayed. A £200 million improvement scheme was announced in December 2006, with works to start in 2009. However, plans are still being prepared and have yet to be presented to a public inquiry. Only £500,000 has been spent on interim improvements since the announcement of the scheme, and the interchange approach continues to be subject to frequent accidents.

The A14 is one of the most congested roads in the country. It is a killer road and it will block all the Government’s plans for developing the local area. The Department for Transport needs to make an urgent announcement about how it intends to improve the road, and the improvements need to be delivered extremely quickly.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) on securing the debate. Normally, I regard the debates in this Chamber as being slightly less partisan and political. On that note, I will try not to rise to the bait thrown by the hon. Gentleman—although I might not try particularly hard. He cleverly managed to get into a debate on the A14 and A45 a reference to the absence of a hospital in his area. I will not go down that path because I am sure that you would call me out of order, Mrs. Anderson, and rightly so. However, I hope that when he makes a press release of his comments in today’s debate, he will make it clear that no party in the House of Commons has pledged to provide enough money to the health service to build a new hospital in his area. I will return to that theme, but you will be relieved to hear, Mrs. Anderson, that I will do so only in relation to the general roads issue.

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have reservations and are disappointed that the regional transport boards in their areas have not prioritised schemes local to their constituencies. It is totally understandable that hon. Members in that situation feel disappointed. However, I return to the theme: no party in the House of Commons has suggested a change—well, perhaps the Liberals, but their economic policies are based largely on rainbows and pixie dust. No serious party has suggested any change at all in the level of funding that is allocated through the regional funding allocation.

That presents the hon. Members for Wellingborough and for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) with a challenge. They talk about schemes that would undoubtedly improve the A45 and the A14, and it is perfectly acceptable and totally understandable that they wish to see improvements in that area. However, if they are disappointed that the regional transport board in their area has not given priority to those schemes and they believe that the schemes should indeed be prioritised before 2016, I think it was—of course, I would never think that they would be anything other than honest—I hope that, given that the pot is limited and will not be added to, they will suggest which other schemes that have been prioritised by the regional transport board in that region should be dropped to allow the schemes relating to the A14 and A45 to proceed.

I understand the argument that the Minister is making, and it would be perfectly reasonable and fair if it was not for the huge expansion imposed on the area by the Government. The Government said that we would have the infrastructure improvement necessary for those new homes, but we have not seen it. That is the difference between our area and other areas.

That is a perfectly valid concern and I will come on to it. Nevertheless, even allowing for the very significant housing growth planned for the area, we are still left with an accounting sheet with a balance of money that will not be added to by the present Government or any hypothetical future Conservative Government. Therefore, priorities have to be decided on and if one scheme goes into a different column, another scheme has to come out of that column. I understand the campaign that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing and it is perfectly understandable that he should do so. I am simply reminding him that money is not limitless and that no party is suggesting that that money will be added to. Therefore, serious decisions have to be taken, if not by him, certainly by the regional transport board, which is responsible for drawing up the priorities.

I hope that I can get most of my comments out of the way before the end of the debate, but of course I am happy to write to the hon. Gentlemen if I do not deal with some issues. I am aware that the hon. Member for Wellingborough participated in the recent Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Kettering about consultation on housing developments and that he emphasised the link between developments and infrastructure. He will not be surprised this afternoon to hear me echo the points made by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), in closing that debate.

Housing growth is one of the Government’s top three priorities, alongside education and health. We are building homes to meet the aspirations of this and future generations. We are proud of that; it is the right thing to do; and we make no apology for it. Housing supply has not kept pace with demand over decades, and affordability has worsened as a consequence.

Since 2001, housing growth numbers nationally have increased for new build by about 40 per cent. to about 185,000 homes every year. However, we need to do more, which is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set a new target of delivering 240,000 homes a year by 2016. Of course, I recognise the provision of infrastructure as critical to the delivery of the Government targets for housing growth, not just to help to unlock the growth that we need, but to develop the sustainable communities that we all want. The importance of transport in accommodating growth is beyond doubt. I certainly do not dispute that.

Between 2001 and 2021, 101,000 new homes are planned to be built in Northamptonshire, with about 52,000 of those in north Northamptonshire; a rate of 2,600 completions a year on average. In addition to housing growth, the East Midlands regional spatial strategy sets a goal of 43,800 new jobs in north Northamptonshire by 2021. Clearly, those growth projections present significant challenges for transport, particularly the road network focused on the A14 and A45 trunk roads.

The two-lane dual carriageway A14 runs immediately south of Kettering and north of Wellingborough. It forms part of the trans-European network, linking the west midlands, M6, M1 and A1 with the container port of Felixstowe, and consequently it carries a large proportion of heavy goods vehicles. It also acts as a bypass for Kettering, which is one of its most congested sections, carrying 70,000 vehicles every day. The Kettering section has closely spaced junctions with other major road corridors, some of which share parts of the A14. Consequently, much of the congestion on the A14 round Kettering is caused by local traffic “junction hopping”. That section also has an above average number of accidents, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough said. The A45 trunk road is an important and busy south-west to north-east link between the M1 at Northampton and the A14 at Thrapston. Between the M1 and Stanwick, the A45 is a two-lane dual carriageway. Between Stanwick and the A14, it reverts to a single carriageway.

Let me make it clear that the Government are committed to ensuring that housing growth is accompanied by the infrastructure needed to deliver sustainable development at local level. However, I must stress that it is not necessary to provide that infrastructure in advance of the growth. It is necessary to ensure that the infrastructure goes with the growth, which is what we are doing. As the hon. Gentleman will know, north Northamptonshire has been the focus of considerable ministerial activity to that end. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), when he was a Transport Minister, had a number of meetings with local partners to discuss the growth and infrastructure, and more recently my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, visited the area to discuss the position. Those meetings have proved extremely valuable in progressing matters.

Since 2003, the Government have invested substantially in growth areas and growth points. Northamptonshire has been allocated more than £150 million in growth area funding. The hon. Gentleman’s portrayal of his constituency suggests that it is one of the poorest areas of the country and that it has been very hard done by when it comes to central Government spending. I suggest to him that that is not entirely accurate. My Department has provided £8 million of funding for the “Getting Northampton to Work” programme and is supporting the reinstatement of passenger rail services at Corby. We have invested £84 million in Northamptonshire through the local transport plan process over the past five years. In addition, we have approved schemes worth more than £21 million under round 1 of the community infrastructure fund. Those include the Corby northern orbital road and the Wilby Way roundabout improvement.

The A509 Isham bypass and the Corby link road are already included in our approved programme of major schemes, and the A509 Isham to Wellingborough improvement scheme is being considered for programme entry by the Department. There are also a number of schemes in the county that are the subject of expressions of interest for funding under round 2 of the community infrastructure fund.

Of course, investment alone will not provide sustainable communities. The emphasis must be on working with local and regional partners to ensure that policies and delivery plans are properly joined. To that end, we are working closely with the North Northants Development Company and its stakeholders to agree a package of interventions to deliver the planned growth in north Northamptonshire without compromising the trunk road and local road network.

However, I would not like to give the impression that we have only recently turned our attention to addressing the problems on the A14. Following the report of the London to south midlands multi-modal study in 2003, the then Secretary of State instructed the Highways Agency to work up a scheme to widen the Kettering bypass. A number of different options were assessed, but that work did not result in a viable solution being identified on either affordability or value for money grounds.

When that became apparent, the Department for Transport, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Highways Agency, the Government office for the east midlands, Northamptonshire county council and other stakeholders formed a joint working steering group led by the North Northants Development Company. The group’s brief was to develop and agree a package of interventions to deliver the planned growth in north Northants without compromising that growth or the A14 and the local road network.

I thank Mr. Speaker for selecting this debate. I also thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for her attendance this afternoon; I am sure that we will be given the answer to the problem that I am about to raise.

I am delighted to have secured a debate about VAT on the membership of sports and leisure trusts. It is an important issue, not only in my constituency but in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark). It is also a problem across the entire country, both north and south of the border. There has been correspondence on the subject between my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Eltham (Clive Efford) as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram). The topic is important also as a consequence of a recent report undertaken by Audit Scotland, which states that youngsters’ participation in sport is not likely to meet Government targets.

By way of background, the policy of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is that unlimited access to all leisure facilities in a leisure centre, typically in return for a monthly or annual payment, is liable to VAT at the standard rate. North Ayrshire Leisure Ltd. is losing not only money, which is important, but membership over the issue. I am told that back payments—the policy is being applied retrospectively over the last three years—are £120, 000, and it has lost just under 100 members due to that imposition.

South Lanarkshire is in an even worse state. It could lose something in the order of £1 million. I understand from representations made to me that that is the average for the whole of the United Kingdom—tens of millions of pounds are being lost as a result of this application by HMRC.

I warned the hon. Gentleman in advance that I intended to intervene, and I am grateful to him for giving way. He will, of course, be concerned about his local leisure trusts and the others that he has mentioned. However, private sector companies that run leisure centres have always paid VAT. Although one sympathises with North Ayrshire Leisure, it could be argued that it should pay VAT so that the private and the public sectors can compete equally.

I shall not get into a dialogue with the hon. Gentleman, but he is right to put sport at the very top of the agenda, as I do. I believe that incentives should be given to any organisation involved in trying to change the habits of a lifetime—of youngsters as well as adults—by moving towards any form of exercise.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He rightly said that the issue is of great consequence to both our constituencies. He has referred to North Ayrshire Leisure, which is in difficulties as a result of the change in policy. Does he agree that the public sector has been at the forefront in trying to expand participation in sport, particularly for those from deprived backgrounds? It is vital that we do everything we can to ensure that such public sector sporting facilities are as cheap as possible.

I accept that point. I hope that the Financial Secretary is listening. I hope now to make progress.

One of the main problems is that some services provided by leisure centres, such as sauna facilities, are subject to VAT. However, people who go for a swim and then a sauna should have some part of the charge exempted from VAT. I am told that that is not how the tax is applied. That is the nub of what I perceive to be the problem.

The taxman’s long-held view is that if an all-inclusive fee is charged that covers all the services provides by such a centre, it indicates a single supply for VAT purposes. For instance, a membership fee that entitles the member to use all the facilities within such a centre—I have one in my constituency; it is called the Magnum Leisure Centre—will attract VAT.

I started studying the system when I was requested to apply for this debate. It has become very bureaucratic. It is a labyrinth; it is almost impossible to establish the simple facts. Visitors to a leisure centre are charged for the services that they use; the exact VAT position of the service can then be taken into account. Customers who do not pay a membership fee are instead charged for the services used. If they swim, there will be no VAT to pay as it is exempt. However, if they want to use the sauna, VAT will be applied.

We need to take a common-sense approach, and I have known the Minister long enough to realise that she applies common sense. I therefore expect to get a sensible answer, so that we can bring the matter to a conclusion in the near future.

We are hosting the Olympic games in 2012, and north of the border we have the Commonwealth games in Glasgow in 2014. Those are two of the greatest sporting events in the world—except for the World cup, of course; we are not hosting it this time, but we hope to do so one day. It seems bizarre, in these circumstances, that we should be hampered in the sports field and are not able to promote sport because of the charging of VAT. It is having a severely detrimental effect.

I dispute the idea that any of the leisure services provided by leisure facilities should be deemed liable for VAT; I argue that they all have demonstrable sporting and educational benefits. The fact is that not-for-profit organisations such as North Ayrshire Leisure have the principal aim of increasing participation in leisure activities across all sectors of the local community, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned. However, many people in the area are poor. I argue that a leisure trust should not have the burden of VAT placed upon it, as it will ultimately be passed on to the users of the facilities by way of extra charges or reduced investment. That will be to the detriment of the service.

The tax burden will have a profoundly negative impact on the future of hundreds of sports and leisure trusts across the country, which face significant financial uncertainty. In turn, that will harm affordable, accessible sports facilities for the community. While I have been a Member, the Government have been trying to promote healthier lifestyles. Given the wider health benefits of sport and leisure, HMRC’s current stance does not make too much sense.

I said earlier that a number of representations had been made to me. One of them was made by the Sports and Recreation Trust Association, a national organisation usually known as SpoRTA. It has been advised by PricewaterhouseCoopers and tax counsel that the way in which HMRC is seeking to charge VAT is wrong in law. HMRC’s decision to charge VAT retrospectively for some trusts may result in their liquidation. Indeed, in my constituency that is a severe threat. My fear, and that of my colleagues, is that that is a possible conclusion if the situation is allowed to develop. Higher membership fees at leisure centres would be necessary to cover the VAT liability, which could lead to a significant drop in participation, especially among those from poorer communities. That contradicts the Government’s aim of increasing participation in physical activity, and HMRC’s decision contradicts the Government’s efforts to promote healthier lifestyles.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and agree with everything that he has said. Would he go further and say that HMRC’s position—it is not only to seek to apply VAT but to backdate payments, as a result of the test case against the Highland Council in my constituency—makes matters a great deal worse for the leisure trusts? They would have to meet that call and pay HMRC back as well as their ongoing tax liability.

That issue has been raised. I have a letter to suggest that HMRC is willing to extend the period over which the charge can be spread. However, I do not think that that is the answer by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that the back charge must be waived, given that there was a sincerely held view that leisure facilities would not be subjected to VAT in the first place. There was no guidance from anybody within the Treasury or HMRC. The hon. Gentleman made an important point, and the Minister should look seriously at waiving that back payment wherever possible.

The matter needs urgently to be addressed. It requires the Minister to go and bang a few heads together in the Treasury. I know that she is good at that, having made representations to her in the past on other issues. She has gone in and solved the problems to everybody’s advantage. The matter must be addressed and resolved—it cannot be left in limbo as it has been. I plead with her to take the simple route and apply a bit of common sense to the problem.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman did not indicate to me prior to the debate that he would like to make a speech, but with the permission of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe) and the Minister, I would be happy to allow him to make a brief contribution.

I will happy if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on the Minister, but not if he wants to make a speech. I want to hear from the Minister.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and I call Jane Kennedy.

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon under your chairmanship, Mrs. Anderson. I should say to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that I would normally have agreed a way forward, but I am a servant of the House on this occasion.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe) on securing this debate on an important issue relating to local sports provision. I am aware of the importance that he and many other hon. Members attach to the issue. A debate such as this enables me to take a step back from what is a complex, technical issue, on which HMRC has clear rules that it must apply—they are not subject to ministerial influence because they relate directly to tax and case law.

I am alive to my hon. Friend’s concerns. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the matter and a reply is being considered. I want to think about, and take into account, the points that have been raised in the debate before advising on how to reply to the letter.

It is worth putting on record that, clearly, access to good quality sporting provision is an essential part of enabling people to lead healthier lives and to participate in sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire was right: the 2012 Olympics can, as I believe they will, provide a major catalyst for increased sporting participation in the UK and overseas. In the run-up to the games, the Government will work to support more people to lead a more active lifestyle. On matters over which we have responsibility, we will continue to promote sport, including at school, community and elite levels.

A number of reliefs already apply and the Government have an excellent record of promoting community sports through the tax system. For example, we have allowed community amateur sports clubs that meet certain eligibility criteria to benefit from a range of tax reliefs. Charitable sport and leisure trusts are exempt from tax on most forms of income and gains, including capital gains tax and stamp duty. Charities also receive a mandatory 80 per cent. relief from business rates and benefit from a range of tax incentives for individual and corporate donors, such as gift aid and payroll giving.

I wanted to address precisely that point. Why should leisure trusts, which are not necessarily well run, have tax advantages over those places in large parts of England where the local authority has privatised the provision of leisure services? Private companies do not get the tax advantages that the Minister described, but they provide precisely the same facilities for local people.

The hon. Gentleman makes a—

indicated dissent.

I can see my hon. Friend shaking his head, but the hon. Member for North Wiltshire makes a correct point. It is for precisely that reason that the scope for discretion within which HMRC can move is limited by European Union law, which makes clear how VAT should be applied.

My remarks on VAT are quite technical: I will state the position as it is. I should like to read the Hansard report of this debate slowly and consider the points that my hon. Friend made, and I hope that he does not think that I am simply dismissing what he said with technical detail.

The fundamental principles of VAT, including the application of reliefs and exemptions, are governed by the European VAT agreements that have been signed by successive Governments, as I said. Those agreements and the UK legislation that implements them are interpreted and applied through case law. That assists in determining the correct tax treatment of certain transactions that could be seen to comprise a number of components because more than one benefit is received in return for a single payment. In some circumstances, when a number of components to a transaction are found, the payment made can be apportioned to reflect the different VAT treatments that are applicable to the different components.

However, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the Court of Session confirmed in the case of the Highland Council that unlimited access to facilities in a leisure centre, typically in return for a monthly or annual payment, is a single supply with one component—the right to unlimited use of leisure facilities. As has been said, sports and leisure facilities often have cosmetic, sauna and steam facilities, as well as sporting facilities.

I accept that the debate is linked to the campaign that was to some degree initiated by SpoRTA—my hon. Friends in Scotland will be aware of the impact of the case. The supply of sporting services is exempt from VAT when it is supplied by a non-profit making organisation such as a charitable leisure trust. That is provided for by our European VAT agreements. However, the Court of Session confirmed HMRC’s long-standing policy that fees that grant unlimited access to both sporting and non-sporting facilities in a leisure centre are a single supply of the right to use the facilities. That means, for example, a season ticket or other fee that entitles customers to use sports facilities, which are exempt, and non-sports facilities such as saunas and spas, which are standard rated for VAT, is a single, standard rated supply of the right to use general facilities. Unfortunately for the institutions concerned, VAT is due on the whole of the fee that they charge. That remains the case even though some of the facilities in the overall package would be VAT exempt if charged for separately.

Historically, many leisure trusts—incorrectly, and contrary to HMRC’s position; the argument has been going on for some time—have treated such supplies as wholly exempt or apportioned income between sporting and tuition, which are exempt, and non-sporting facilities, which are standard rated. HMRC is required to collect VAT due on those supplies. Not to do so would bring it into breach of European agreements. HMRC would fall foul of the law, and it would be perfectly within the rights of an organisation that was not a leisure trust but provided the same facilities to go to court to seek justice for unfair treatment. I appreciate that my hon. Friends understand that, but my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire seeks more discretion in how that interpretation is applied.

The Minister is right to describe the position laid out by the Court of Session in relation to Inverness leisure trust and the Highland council in my constituency. However, a bit of discretion might be applied. Many leisure facilities have chosen to change the bundle of goods available in their weekly or monthly passes to include only VAT-exempt services. The issue therefore relates to VAT that may be due on tickets sold in the preceding three years. Can she consider whether discretion could be exercised over whether HMRC claims the backdated VAT? That is what will have the most damaging effect on leisure trusts such as Inverness leisure trust, which would be faced with a bill for many hundreds of thousands of pounds, which would make it effectively unable to carry on providing its services at the present cost.

If the same range of disputes occurred in a sector of British business after a court case had determined how the VAT law should be applied, there would be a period of negotiation between the private companies involved and HMRC about how the tax liability should be paid. HMRC does not have the discretion simply to waive the tax. What is happening is a precisely similar set of negotiations, or at least a similar application of the rules, to what would be found anywhere else in the business world.

It is not possible for HMRC to respond to the case being made on those grounds. It is possible that the case could be made elsewhere in Government. I shall consider that in responding. It is possible that such institutions could make a case for help somewhere else, given the circumstances that now apply as a result of the work that HMRC is required to do in response to the court case. As I said, I would like to be helpful to my hon. Friends and other Members. I understand the difficulties faced by some of the institutions involved, but they have known about it for some time. The organisations to which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire rightly drew our attention have a case, and HMRC can respond to the situation only as the law permits. It must apply the law as passed by Parliament and applied by the courts. It has no statutory authority not to collect tax that is properly due.

The commissioners of HMRC may make concessions in certain limited circumstances, but those circumstances are extraordinarily limited. There is little that I can do as Minister. I have no powers whatever to invite HMRC to take any action other than the one that it is taking, but I have been in discussion with HMRC for some months now, since representations were made and SpoRTA drew to the public’s attention its members’ concerns about the court case. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire is right that there is cause for concern. We must consider what is best to do in the circumstances. I am not necessarily the Minister who can offer that, and I certainly cannot commit other Ministers to do it, but the point being made is genuine and valid.

It is a serious matter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to my attention and allowing me the opportunity to consider the issues in detail. Representations about VAT have been made to me and to my ministerial colleagues by hon. Members and leisure trusts and their representatives. The brief issued last July by HMRC as a result of the court case—it is called, surprisingly, a Revenue and Customs brief—reflects HMRC’s long-held position on the issue, and therefore has not changed the application of VAT rules in those circumstances.

If it is the case that guidelines were issued just last year, why is HMRC going back three years and not six or nine years? The issue involved a lot of confusion, as has been conceded. Why has the VAT been backdated at all? I do not get why it needed to be, given the confusion around the subject.

I have tried to explain that it is a long-standing position of HMRC. The trusts clearly disagreed and continued to apply their own interpretation, which was a somewhat risky venture, as it then fell to a court to determine the outcome, and the court upheld HMRC’s position. The brief was a response to the court case. It is not the case that HMRC’s view of the tax liable was unknown, or that the organisations were not aware of it.

I have a simple question: where did the three years’ backdating come from? How was it determined—by Ministers, or within HMRC?

I think that I am right in saying that normally, such an approach would relate either to the point at which the dispute began or the point at which the court case was undertaken. Often, such things are negotiated with the organisations. [Interruption.] I am inspired. It is a general assessment of a time limit when such an application will be made. Three years is not unusual. HMRC cannot simply write off the foregoing period during which tax liability was being disputed. Three years is normal in the circumstances, but as I said, negotiation often takes place between the businesses affected and HMRC about how to make the repayments. I am sure that such negotiations are taking place.

The Minister helpfully said that the commissioners of HMRC have very limited discretion in such matters. I encourage her to encourage the commissioners to consider whether they can exercise their limited discretion in this matter.

I have had a number of conversations with HMRC about the matter. Because of today’s debate, we will consider the issues again, but I do not believe that HMRC is in a position to do what the hon. Gentleman asks. I do not believe that it has the discretion being sought. Its hands are therefore tied in how it applies the tax, but that does not mean that I do not acknowledge that there is a problem for some organisations that have in some cases grown out of community sports clubs in exactly the way that we want to encourage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire pointed out in his opening comments.

There are HMRC concessions under which VAT due will not be collected—

It being Five o’clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.