It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor. I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing this important debate. Britain is at war, and we have spent too little time discussing and scrutinising what the Government are up to. I also thank the Minister and his team.

I start by paying tribute to our troops who have died in Afghanistan, their families, the injured and those who remain in the Helmand desert.

On 11 September 2001, the west had the sympathy of the vast majority of people in the Muslim world, who were against attacks carried out by a load of nihilist extremists. In the days following those attacks, western Governments—including our own—realised the enormity of the problem that we faced and within months had successfully defeated the Taliban and expelled al-Qaeda from its operating base there. Afghans literally danced in the streets in gratitude for their release from a mediaeval regime and from their hated Arab guests. At that point, there was a massive opportunity to make progress and good will on the part of the Afghan people to accept foreign aid and development. Although General McColl managed to get a tiny £2 million for development from the Department for International Development, the reality in Whitehall was that we were not concentrating on Afghanistan or more generally on al-Qaeda. Instead, we were focusing on a crazy and quite unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

Despite our early success in toppling the Taliban, almost everything we did afterwards undermined the massive amount of good will we had across the Muslim world after 9/11. Today, al-Qaeda are no longer seen as a bunch of extremist crazies; they are, to some extent, seen as heroes fighting against what they perceive to be an arrogant west. I fully accept that—with the possible exception of Iraq—our Government have acted in good faith and realised the seriousness of our situation, but I also believe the way we have executed this operation has been incompetent and half-cocked.

An awful expression that does the rounds in Whitehall these days is, “We are where we are”. So, where are we now in Helmand province? There are 102 British dead and hundreds have been grievously wounded, many of whom would be dead were it not for modern protective equipment. That is why so many people survive but lose limbs. No one knows how many Afghan civilians have been killed and some say that 7,000 Taliban are dead. We should remember that those people are mostly local people with extended families. The Taliban’s in-country command and control is in bits and we have killed many of their experienced commanders and tribal leaders. We might think that that is a good thing, but a newer, younger, more radical group of leaders might be emerging who are less likely to negotiate. That means we are facing more asymmetric attacks.

Despite gigantic spending by the UK, minute amounts of reconstruction have taken place. Last year, there were only 57 doctors in Helmand for a population of more than 1 million people. We have been there for three years, so that has happened on our watch.

Where is the security? To the Afghan population, the most visible sign of the Afghan Government is the Afghan national police. We must do more to get the police under control, because at the moment we are not doing anywhere near enough. The roads and security infrastructure that we have built are often used to make it easier for the police to rob people. The other day, I spoke to an interpreter I used 18 months ago in Lashkar Gah: he told me that a teenager was recently abducted from his small settlement and returned in the most awful physical condition, having been repeatedly raped over three days.

Although the UK has taken the lead on narcotics, heroin production has massively increased. Many millions of small arms, well over 30,000 artillery rounds and probably 100,000 Apache rounds have been fired, but to what effect? I have not been to Helmand for more than a year, but I think I am the only person in the House who has been to Helmand outside the Ministry of Defence, Foreign Office and DFID envelope. I have been there a couple of times at my own expense to talk to and spend time with ordinary Afghans. Before we arrived in 2006, Helmand was a pretty quiet place. There were 40 US troops in the base at Lashkar Gah, and at that time I wandered around the town and asked people whether they welcomed the arrival of the British. They said, “If the British bring security and reconstruction, they are welcome, but if you cannot bring peace and development, you should go home.”

The Afghans themselves will decide who wins in Helmand and whether that will be the corrupt and frankly remote Afghan Government backed by the international community or the Taliban. It is incredibly important to focus on the needs of the ordinary Afghan, because the consent of the people is, in military terms, our vital ground. Three years after the arrival of UK forces, the Afghan civilian population can quite reasonably be disappointed. We still have their consent, but it has declined rapidly and markedly in the past three years. The Afghan people do not want the Taliban back, but that does not mean they will support us.

On the military, when Colonels Worsley and Messenger were busy setting up the provincial reconstruction team and Camp Bastion, others were busy—mainly in Kandahar—writing a joint plan for Helmand province. When 3 Para and Stuart Tootal arrived they were accompanied by a huge logistical chain. People were pretty confident that there would be enough troops to secure the area around Lashkar Gah and implement the plan—the ink-spot strategy—whereby development could take place and reconstruction would slowly spread across the province.

General Omar Bradley said that amateurs talk tactics, but professionals talk logistics. At the weekend, a modern British general said to me that he would change that comment: he would say that professionals talk command and control. That was a problem we faced in summer 2006, when there was a massive deviation from what sounded like a pretty reasonable plan. That deviation has set the whole tone for Helmand ever since and has resulted in massive violence. Partly because of that, reconstruction and development have been minuscule.

In summer 2006, we found ourselves with an extremely confused command and control structure. There was the Government here, the chiefs of staff, the NATO command chain, a Canadian brigadier general in charge in Kandahar, a British 3-star in Kabul, a commander of the Helmand taskforce, and the commander of the British forces—the brigade commander for the Paras, who was in an ill-defined and difficult position. At the same time, there were a load of Afghan district governors around Helmand, the governor of Helmand himself, and President Karzai. Those were all conflicting interest groups.

The result of the lack of clear command and control was the decision to dump the Afghan development zone plan and move relatively small numbers of troops to remote locations in the Government district centres in northern Helmand. That turned what should have been a slowly spreading ink-spot strategy into a violently flicked ink splatter. The result of what is now known as the platoon house strategy has been the deaths of dozens of British servicemen and hundreds of civilians.

Inevitably, any thought of development was a low priority when the British were dealing with that very difficult military situation. At the time and since, a number of British officers have complained that although there were things that they could have been doing in those areas, they simply did not have the budget to do them. The number of troops that we had in the new situation was just too low to make them anything more than self-defending targets for the Taliban. Thousands of refugees were created, and the towns sustained large amounts of damage and ceased to function properly. That was hardly the security and reconstruction that the Afghan population had expected.

Later, the military realised that after the platoon house strategy, there was an urgent need to get on with the hearts and minds effort. That was an unintended consequence of the platoon houses. Perhaps not unreasonably, the civilian agencies, including DFID, considered development activity far too dangerous because of the violence. Over time, that has become a problem, born of the military’s view, which is still held, that the civilian effort in Helmand, particularly that of DFID, has failed them.

What of DFID? Even if the military had stayed with the plan and got everything right, there would still have been the difficulty that military personnel could never on their own solve the problem. NATO and our Government understand that all that the military can do is to provide the secure environment in which other things can happen and take effect. We talk an awful lot about the comprehensive approach—security, governance and reconstruction—and it sounds great, but a villager in Helmand could be forgiven for asking where that is and what the British were talking about.

Where is the reconstruction in Helmand? The British effort falls largely to DFID, but that is not an organisation charged with supporting the military effect. It likes to remind us that it is charged by law with the higher purpose of poverty reduction. Its whole philosophy and method of operation means that it is simply not geared to support military operations. As one senior officer put it,

“the military secure areas, but the civilians are way behind the military effort… we are lagging behind the rhetoric…. The problem is that DFID do not see themselves as part of our foreign policy.”

That statement came this weekend from a very senior serving general. People can wag their heads, but that is the truth; it was said by a 3-star or 4-star general this weekend.

DFID believes that the best way to help a country is to support it with long-term initiatives. As one senior DFID official put it to a friend of mine,

“we don’t do bricks and mortar”.

DFID is not there for such initiatives; instead, it wants to undertake long-term projects working with Government Ministries. That is fine in theory, but in Helmand we do not have the time for that. DFID is simply not configured to do what the major on the ground needs to be done before, during or after military operations. It is not configured to help that major to regain hearts and minds.

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Does he agree that there is a sad degree of repetition in this debate? Just a few years ago, when we had the debates on the invasion of Iraq, we were repeatedly assured that DFID would be there, just behind the armed forces, and that reconstruction would take place in Iraq. Is it not sad to hear exactly the same story about what is taking place in another country a few years later?

Of course it is a tragedy, but as I will go on to say, we cannot blame the DFID staff for it. The problem is systemic.

It is the Government.

Indeed. To follow on from what my hon. Friend says, it was under huge pressure that DFID put people into the provincial reconstruction team in Lashkar Gah, but since they arrived there, they have found it hard to leave the compound. When they do, it is mainly to visit the provincial capital, where the PRT sits. According to another friend of mine, many projects are evaluated on the basis of digital photographs taken by the military. According to a parliamentary answer, the cost of keeping an official in Helmand is £250,000 a year. Of course, a large component of that is security. I accept that some of the work is highly impressive—it ought to be, given the money that is spent. I also accept the commitment of DFID staff, who try to do the right thing.

Another very experienced person I spoke to, who is not entirely unknown to the FCO’s payroll, said,

“DFID only do things in Helmand under duress.”

Someone else, who is well known to DFID staff in Afghanistan, described their working arrangements as “ludicrous, completely ludicrous”, as they work six weeks on, two weeks off.

“The cumulative impact is terrible. They come back from leave and spend the first two weeks catching up. They will also probably find themselves having to do the job of someone who is away on leave at the same time. They might then be able to spend a couple of weeks focusing on the job—then they are getting ready to go away again, to hand over to others without a grasp of the brief. All this in a country where trust and personal relations are incredibly important when dealing with Afghans. And then they are only generally in country for nine months all in.”

I should like to hear later whether the Minister agrees with that assessment and that the working pattern should be changed.

The Minister has had a team of people working on this debate, and I am sure that when he speaks he will list all the wonderful achievements of DFID in Helmand, but unfortunately many people, certainly in the military, would not agree. Anyway, even if we have carried out a gazillion projects successfully in Helmand, what does that really matter if ordinary Afghans do not feel that we have made a difference to their lives?

A friend of mine recently turned down a job working in the PRT. She said that there was no point in going there because she did not feel that she would be able to achieve anything. She said:

“The bottom line is that we need to change. We need to accept more risks in terms of what we do, where we go.”

I think that DFID is sending or has sent about 40 new people to reinforce the civilian effort. It will be interesting to see whether that large influx of people makes a difference. I hope that it does, but I do not know. It may be too late.

Why have we not pumped money into the Afghan and international non-governmental organisations that do exist? Why have we not stepped up the cash-for-work schemes? Why have we not made more use of the local village shuras and got stuff in at ground level? What about the national development programme or the unused capacity of the Bangladeshi charity? Perhaps that is why the Minister is going to Bangladesh later today; I do not know. The Central Asia Development Group has just finished a major project for USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—and has bags of capacity right across the province; why are we not paying it to do some of the work? Why are we not using private companies that will take the risk? I am talking not about men with gun trucks, but about people who can get out a little further. They can be directed by DFID staff inside the PRT. The Germans are doing very well in this respect. Why can we not try to persuade the Germans to get down there and do some of the work? I hope that the Minister will have some answers to these questions.

The new brigade commander in Helmand, the razor-sharp and remarkable Mark Carleton-Smith, went out to Helmand a few months ago, determined to change the focus from dealing with the Taliban to dealing with the needs of the Afghan people. I have no idea whether his initiative is responsible, but I have the feeling that a shake-up is going on in Whitehall on precisely this question of what we do with the civilian effect. Unlike the Minister, I do not have chapter and verse on what DFID has been doing in those years, but I do know that a shake-up is taking place. I shall give the House a taste of it.

For example, the Prime Minister’s delivery unit is reviewing public service agreements on conflicts and reporting to permanent secretaries. A stabilisation and civil effect review has been set up by the Cabinet Office, and the taskforce will report to permanent secretaries on 1 July and to Ministers in September. A couple of things that have been a particular focus for them are specific questions on staffing in the Helmand PRT and risk management for personnel, and the feasibility of producing a framework that incorporates the FCO and the MOD. I would like to hear the Minister’s view of that. The Government are also considering setting up a civilian reserve corps, and a cross-Government capacity for interpretation and translation.

I do not complain that the Government seem at last to have woken up to the fact that there are problems. I do not complain that new staff are heading out there. I do not complain about DFID staff, or that the Government have belatedly sent one their most able people—Hugh Powell—to Lashkar Gah. That was long overdue. However, I complain bitterly on behalf of our troops sitting in the Helmand desert, in the green zone and in remote locations, and I complain bitterly on behalf of the Afghan civilian population, who had such high hopes of us.

I wonder what on earth the Government have been doing. The Defence and International Development Committees go out there regularly. Every time we are given the same good news story, but it is not reflected on the ground. It is like smoke and mirrors, with everyone lying and deluding themselves. That is certainly how it feels from my perspective. As one Government employee put it to me yesterday:

“We realise it is now time to start taking it seriously”.

It is bad enough that, on the home front, money is wasted and spin machines come into action, and that ideas are not executed properly or were half-cocked in the first place. The Government saw great opportunities and important things that needed to be done, such as spending more money on the NHS and health and the new deal, and they won that argument massively. But the problem is that the same arts used when confronting failure here are also applied to Helmand province, and I am sorry to say that the matter is too serious for that.

It may be against Conservative party policy, but I believe that it is time for DFID to come back under the control of the Foreign Office, becoming once again an arm of British foreign policy. The lessons of history tell us that we need unity of command for counter-insurgency. The NATO set-up lacks coherence, and even in Britain people have often not been conducting a single policy. It is time to adopt the Templar model from Malaysia. We need an overarching boss to be in charge, and a committee system. Even in Whitehall, no one is in charge. It could be argued that we have Cabinet Government. Fine, but where is the War Cabinet? As I shall say later, this policy has potentially catastrophic effects for people in Britain.

Let us not kid ourselves. We have been there for three years, but an awful lot of people in Helmand are disappointed, and some of them are pretty angry with us. One of our commanders described it as a

“declining glide path of consent”.

It is like an aeroplane, but we need to watch out or the plane will land. Does the Minister agree?

What should we do? I have focused on Helmand province, but I fully acknowledge that the picture is not gloomy everywhere, that large areas of Afghanistan are at relative peace and that reconstruction development is taking place. However, I guess we should expect that, given the hundreds of billions dollars of taxpayers’ money from across the world being spent there.

I want to shoot a sacred cow. Whenever people talk about Afghanistan, they say, “It is vital that we remain in Afghanistan; we are there to stop al-Qaeda regrouping and returning to threaten us.” That is nonsense on several fronts. First, the effects of our over-ambitious and ill-resourced plan has been further to radicalise large numbers of people across the Muslim world.

We often talk about al-Qaeda and the Taliban as if they are the same thing. There is a significant difference. The Taliban are largely Pathan tribesmen with a traditional and nationalist agenda and no foreign policy. On the other hand, al-Qaeda is a loose international nihilist movement with a highly developed foreign policy and the intent, and, regrettably, sometimes the capability, to conduct mass casualty attacks across the globe. They are two completely different things.

Mullah Omar himself is reported in the late ’90s to have been perturbed at the internationalist agenda of the Arabs that Abdul Haq had invited into the country earlier. Indeed, in 1998 Prince Turki, the internal security Minister for Saudi Arabia and later the Saudi ambassador to London, landed his jet at Kandahar in order to take bin Laden away. Mullah Omar was going to hand him over. Only after a shura to discuss the matter was it decided that they would not hand him over. Some people who know these things better than I do swear blind, although it is surprising to me, with my western point of view, that the only reason why Mullah Omar and the shura decided to let bin Laden stay was the pashtunwali code under which guests are protected.

To assert boldly that al-Qaeda will return to Afghanistan in a meaningful way is almost ridiculous. It is not the same situation as in the 1990s, when we ignored the place. Whatever we do in future, we shall still have an interest there. Since the 1990s, we have had huge signals intelligence, with huge overhead assets and loitering military assets in the sky. Almost every square centimetre of the country has been mapped. If they began to return—I cannot believe that the Afghans would wish to wreak the same disaster on themselves as happened in 2003—we would be able to deal with them.

While we pour life and resources into Afghanistan, that contributes to al-Qaeda successes in the Pashtun tribal belt in Pakistan itself. Pakistan is important to the United Kingdom, as many of our citizens have one foot in there and one in the UK. It is helping radicalisation in the “-stans”, in the Maghreb, in east Africa and across the towns and cities of the Muslim world, including some of our own cities.

The trouble is that by making the link between al-Qaeda and nationalist causes around the globe, we help al-Qaeda. Last week, at a Conservative middle east council event, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made the following observation, although he was not directly referring to Afghanistan. He said that we need to understand that

“we’re not engaged in a single struggle against a single protagonist. We’re not engaged in a clash of civilisations, and suggestions that we are can too easily have the opposite effect to the one that you intend—it makes extremists more attractive to the uncommitted. Yes of course there are connections between terrorist activity in different parts of the world, but we have be to a little smarter in how we handle those connections. Our aim should be to dismantle the processes, separating each component part rather than just sort of amalgamating them into a single global jihad that just becomes a call to arms.”

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend.

We need a realistic long-term policy for Afghanistan. Does anyone seriously believe that Britain and the west will be able to continue with this relatively large-scale loss of life and spending billions and billions of pounds for many years to come? I cannot see it happening. We know that some NATO countries are wobbling because of the cost and the lives lost. It is time to scale down from what we would like to do to what we are able to do.

I do not pretend to be a great expert, but I have spoken to a lot of people who are—I am talking about people who have been there for longer than a six-month or nine-month tour, or through the changeover and reshuffles and so on. The consensus among them is something like this: we need to accept that large numbers of people in Helmand province are deeply traditional, xenophobic and resistant to change, and that most Afghans hate the Feringhi—the foreigner—especially if they pitch up in armoured vehicles and attack-helicopters. We cannot impose democracy at the point of a gun, so we need to play the great game in a new century and urgently bring the Taliban into the process with a national programme of local arrangements for different areas.

To the Government’s credit, some of that is happening behind the scenes and through various other initiatives that I shall not raise now. However, such a strategy should be brought centre stage, regardless, frankly, of what President Karzai says. We need a sort of “You leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone” approach and a bit of pragmatism. At the same time, we need to support intensively development zones and areas of the country that are at relative peace, reduce troop numbers to those that can be supported in the long term and focus our efforts massively on training the Afghan army and police.

I am not saying that we should disengage militarily. We should have small groups of troops on the ground, working with the Afghans; but it must be their show, and we must accept that it might not be very pretty. We should also be ready, at the drop of a hat, to send in helicopter-borne men with unseasonal suntans at dead of night, and to use missiles or bombs or whatever else at the slightest whiff of resurgent al-Qaeda.

It is time to stop seeing the Afghan Government as the key channel of development. We need development at local level and to let people locally decide what they want. We should let them start to feel some benefit from the presence of all those foreigners in their provinces. I am sorry to say this, and it may not be popular, but important aspirations such as women’s rights and opium production will just have to wait until the reality on the ground catches up. We are there either to fight and defeat an insurgency and reduce poverty or we are not. In short, it is time to get a little bit of peace through reality—we could describe it as the great game crossed with ballistic missile, submarine and special-forces diplomacy, underwritten by massive development spending.

My hon. Friend’s speech is most compelling, but surely the point about the great game was that, again and again, we found ourselves fighting Pashtun tribesmen who were sheltering, because of the rules of hospitality to which he referred, the most repulsive Deobandi extremists, who came mostly from the centres of the big cities of India. I agree with most of the things that he has said, but we must surely recognise that the country’s structure and remoteness makes it an ideal base for similar extremist insurgents to shelter, on the back of those historical rules of hospitality.

Order. Interventions should be brief.

What my hon. Friend said is superficially true, but there is a big difference now from the situation 150 years ago. Our intelligence picture is likely to be considerably better and we will have something resembling an Afghan state. We are making a big mistake in the so-called war on terror—I would love to think of a different name because that is not apt. There are lots of broadly nationalist movements in the middle east and we make our problems worse because we lump them together with the super-extremists. We must start to separate al-Qaeda from the Taliban and other nationalist movements in the region. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney suggested, although not directly vis-à-vis Afghanistan, we must dismantle the problems one by one. Take, for example, the Israel-Palestine problem. The Government, massively to their credit, have realised that it is one of the big games in town. We must pursue that approach, because until we get rid of those problems and separate them, al-Qaeda will mix in like those Indian troublemakers in the Pathan tribal belt all those years ago.

That neatly leads me back to the wider picture. I spoke at the beginning of my speech about the drivers of radicalisation. Three years ago, no one outside Helmand had heard of places such as Sangin, Gereshk, Nowzad and Musa Qala. Today, they are clearly on the map and internet sites of the global jihad. I again assert that we are in Afghanistan for well-intentioned reasons, but how does the Minister think that TV news footage of war fighting plays among impressionable Muslims even in this country?

The primary purpose of going to war in Afghanistan was to deny al-Qaeda a safe operating base. We achieved that aim a long time ago. Our secondary objective was the destruction of the Taliban. However, frankly—let us have some realpolitik—that appears to be beyond our means. Commanders can tell us that we are winning until they are blue in the face, and that increasing numbers of suicide and roadside bombings prove that, but, at some point, as in every other insurgency historically, we will have to make a deal with the Taliban. I have some sympathy with the argument that we must beat them to some extent and make them realise that they cannot win before we can make such a deal. Does the Minister agree that now is the time for a deal?

The big strategic challenge for our generation is to win back the good will of all those people who were with us on 11 September 2001. We must do that over the next six months, or over 10 or 30 years. We must take al-Qaeda back to where it was, in terms of popular support across the world, in 2001, which was frankly nowhere. At the same time, in parallel, we must reduce its residual capacity.

What we have been doing in Afghanistan is a long-term liability for the UK. It has been ill thought out and is counter-productive, and it is a further driver of radicalisation around the world and in this country, all of which contribute to our wider strategic failure.

We have lost immeasurable amounts of good will since 11 September 2001 and it continues to haemorrhage away across the Muslim world and Pakistan in particular. It is time to free up resources to deal with the much more serious strategic threats that we will face in the coming months and decades. We need to win back that good will and fight the battles that really matter. When we do those things, we might be doing something to make our people safer.

I am not quite sure how to follow that excellent contribution, which was rather colourful in places. Nor am I sure whom the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) was referring to when he mentioned helicopters and unseasonable suntans in the middle of the night, but he certainly added colour to our proceedings.

It feels like the old gang are back together because the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) and I visited Afghanistan together as members of the Select Committee on Defence. Thanks to the Pakistan air force, however, I never actually made it to Helmand—that was not because of a clash between the Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, or because of a war of words, but simply because an innocent prawn cocktail made sure that I stayed in the base in Kabul. I was disappointed not to have made it down to the south to see the provincial reconstruction teams for myself and hear from the troops about their experiences of development work.

As he has shown this morning, the hon. Member for Gravesham has extensive knowledge of Afghanistan and Helmand. He is probably the only Member of Parliament to have visited the country using his own means and to have heard about the situation in the south for himself—without spin and without being influenced by Government officials. I do not necessarily agree with all his analysis and I do not claim to be as knowledgeable as him—I simply go on the information and advice that I receive from various reports—but I am not as pessimistic as him. Excellent work is being done, although there are challenges.

The Liberal Democrats support the mission in Afghanistan, although we recognise that we should not use the grand rhetoric that Ministers have unfortunately used about it, including in the past week. The task ahead is extremely hard. We should not always talk about democracy and human rights in Afghanistan in terms of British standards, and although we should always strive to achieve the best, we should be realistic about what we can achieve.

One of my main criticisms is that we took our eye of the ball in Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq. The efforts of the great minds in the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office were primarily focused on Iraq. Massive numbers of troops were in Iraq at the time, but that was exactly when we should have been investing in reconstruction in Afghanistan, particularly in the south. We should not have started investing five years later, when we had already started to lose the hearts and minds of people in the south.

None the less, the Liberal Democrats support and completely agree with the comprehensive strategy that the Prime Minister set out at the end of last year. There are issues about implementation, but we agree overall with the strategy, which takes a sensible approach.

Distinguishing between the different players in the south of Afghanistan—whether they are Taliban, al-Qaeda, Pashtun or tribal leaders—is difficult. That is why we need the professionals and the military on the ground to determine who is what. People will shift between the different categories at different times, but we sometimes look at these issues far too simplistically. I agree that we should be more sophisticated in our approach to identifying who is hostile and who is not. We should leave it to those on the ground to determine such things. Sometimes we will think that people are friendly, but they will suddenly become hostile again because they fear that those who are hostile will be stronger than those in our military. The answer is to use the military and the professionals on the ground to make the judgments. Foreign Office officials recently got into difficulties when they were negotiating with individuals in the south. President Karzai did not appreciate the fact that they had gone beyond what he thought was their remit. These are difficult issues, and we must be intelligent in our approach.

The Minister might be aware of the Oxfam report “Afghanistan: Development and Humanitarian Priorities”, which was published in January. Oxfam has been very critical of the humanitarian and development effort. In the summary at the beginning of its report, it says:

“While aid has contributed to progress in Afghanistan, especially in social and economic infrastructure—and whilst more aid is needed—the development process has to date been too centralised, top-heavy and insufficient. It is has been prescriptive and supply-driven, rather than indigenous and responding to Afghan needs”,

which is very much what the hon. Member for Gravesham said.

The report covers a huge range of issues. I do not necessarily agree with the tone of some aspects of it, but it is pretty comprehensive. It covers aid effectiveness, governance, agriculture, counter-narcotics, education, health, the protection of non-governmental organisations, community peace building, regional action and the provincial reconstruction teams, and I want to spend quite a bit of time discussing how effective the PRTs have been. However, the main criticism in the report is that the Afghans have been fed a diet of development over which they have had little say, that has been delivered by outsiders and is not good value for money. Before I look at that, however, I want to discuss how much of the aid pledged by foreign Governments has been delivered.

Since 2001, $25 billion of aid has been committed, but only $15 billion has been delivered. I am aware that more money was committed at last week’s conference, but I am not sure how much of it was new money and how much has been delivered already—only time will tell which category it falls into. According to the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief—an alliance of international aid agencies working in Afghanistan, of which the Minister will probably be aware—the US is the worst offender, having delivered only $5 billion of the $10 billion that it has committed. We should be generous to the US because it has committed considerable sums—much more than any other individual country—but there is a difference between pledging and committing. The UK, Canada, Italy and Japan have a good record of delivering on their pledges, but there is still a $10 billion shortfall overall compared with the amount pledged. The UK has a £200 million shortfall for 2002-08. Why has that money not been spent? What, in general, is the Minister’s response to the report?

Another issue picked up by the Oxfam report relates to value for money and local delivery. Large chunks of the aid that is actually delivered flow back out of the country simply because we use external contractors, advisers and consultants, rather than indigenous support. According to the Oxfam report, about 40 per cent. of the money spent by the donor countries, including the US and the UK, goes into corporate profits, consultants’ salaries and other costs. That vastly pushes up the cost of projects, so we get less for the money that we spend.

For example, a road between the centre of Kabul and the international airport cost the US $2.3 million per kilometre, which is at least four times the average cost to the Afghan authorities of building a road. To take another example, a classroom costs $14,000 when built by the Afghan Government, $17,000 when built by NATO, $21,500 when built by a private contractor and a staggering $51,000 when built by an international developer. I am sure that there are sometimes reasons why it is appropriate to use an international developer, but I would hope that this is an extreme case and that such things are not common. My fear, however, is that they are. Perhaps it is far too easy to opt for an international developer.

I appreciate that DFID has a good track record of trying to filter money through Afghan institutions, including the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund, but US aid is bypassing the Afghan civilian Government. What discussions have our Government had with the US Government to spread the lessons learned from DFID’s good practice and to allow the United States to benefit from our knowledge? It is important that Afghans see the money being spent wisely, but it is also important to us to ensure value for money. What monitoring measures are in place to ensure that?

There are about 25 provincial reconstruction teams, led by 13 different nations, and standards and operating practices for each PRT are an issue. Although we do not want complete uniformity, we want some consistency among the PRTs and a general working practice. According to their mission statement, PRTs should

“assist the Government of Afghanistan to extend its authority, in order to facilitate the development of a stable and secure environment in the identified area of operations, and enable Security Sector Reform and reconstruction efforts”.

However, the handbook also says that there should be an interim structure.

Oxfam has criticised the PRTs for going well beyond their remit at the expense of the development of local Afghan institutions and Government structures. Rather than a help, the PRTs could be seen as a hindrance. Whether to use PRTs and quick improvement projects to ensure early delivery is a dilemma. Making immediate improvements to the quality of life in an area demonstrates to the individuals living there the clear benefits for their families of having the British military on site. But if we are trying to build up Afghan institutions, we must sometimes wait, but how long should we wait before institutions are ready to deliver their own reconstruction? Developing their skills and capabilities helps the Afghan Government to gain authority in the regions. That is another part of the parcel.

Security is obviously important. Members might be aware of the story of two Afghan decorators who were hired to spruce up a local school in Musa Qala. Refreshing the rather untidy and unkempt school was supposed to be a good-will gesture to the local community, but during the decorators’ 50-mile trip back to their house after completing the task, their convoy was ambushed. The Taliban discovered that they had been working for the British, and they were promptly hanged.

In that climate, why would any citizen of Afghanistan want to help the British? Their security is not personally guaranteed, and locals are not absolutely convinced that the British will stay there for a long time. In Musa Qala, for instance, we had control and then lost it, and now we are back in. How many Afghans in Musa Qala believe that the British will be there for the long run, and wonder how long it will be before the Taliban come back? Why would they help in those circumstances? I understand the difficulties of trying to build up local structures and local capability for reconstruction, but in that climate—again, I depart from the hon. Member for Gravesham on this point—it is perhaps no surprise that outside agencies are reluctant to enter zones where even the security of Afghanistan’s own citizens is not guaranteed. Again, that is a matter for the professionals on the ground.

It has been asked whether we are too risk-averse. Are we sending the appropriate individuals to such areas to help with indigenous reconstruction? Are we being too timid in our approach? A risk assessment needs to be done. It is not for us to make that decision in this Chamber—it must be made by those on the ground with an understanding of security and safety—but it is a problem. Indigenous reconstruction is not happening at the pace that Oxfam and others would like.

Oxfam says that we should restrict the use of PRTs to situations in which they are absolutely necessary, and the security situation prevents other development. Those are the parameters for risk assessment. The Select Committee on International Development found in its report on Afghanistan:

“If the goal of the international effort is to build up Afghan capacity, PRTs should not perform functions which could be performed by Government of Afghanistan structures.”

I think that everybody would agree with that, but exactly when does that happen? When is it safe to allow external bodies to come in and help with a reconstruction effort that is primarily indigenous? That is a decision for the commanders and professionals on the ground.

Concerns have been expressed about the lack of funds flowing through to the military when the conditions—

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to draw his remarks to a close in order to give the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and the Minister time to reply.

Certainly, Mr. Taylor. I am coming to the end of my speech.

There are questions whether funds are flowing through to the military at the appropriate time. Concerns have been expressed that the military do not receive funds when it is absolutely clear that they should in order to complete quick improvement projects, because DFID believes that such reconstruction projects should be conducted by locals.

I have two other points to raise. One concerns police training. We heard from the Defence Secretary yesterday about the progress that has been made on police training. The Government believe that the new format of focused district development is reforming and reconstructing the police forces. I would like to hear what the magic bullet is, because it has been difficult to get the police forces on side in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The other issue is the poppy crop. Concerns have been expressed about the expansion of the poppy crop, but we hear that it is declining this year. Is that due to food prices, or is it a result of some substantial change in the security situation that has allowed farmers to adopt alternative livelihoods?

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie), who made an excellent speech. He covered some of the ground that I was going to cover, so I shall not. I thought that he got it absolutely right when he highlighted some of the problems of building capacity in the provinces, and I intend to touch on that matter in my speech.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) on a thought-provoking speech, much of which I agreed with, although a couple of elements I did not. He is absolutely right to say that the Conservative party’s official position is not to put DFID back under FCO control. To take his speech in the round, one of his key points, with which I agree absolutely, is that we need to start looking at the whole question of development in Helmand province from the viewpoint of the Afghan. That is simply not being done to the degree that it should be. We have talked about producing community development plans via community development councils—having spoken with some councillors on my trip there a couple of weeks ago, I shall talk about that—but the fact remains that we are still not Afghan-focused.

For my part, I have not travelled under my own steam in Afghanistan. I have travelled there with the Select Committee on Defence. I also served in Afghanistan for some weeks as a Royal Engineers major in charge of delivering reconstruction and development, so I got to see some of the work at first hand, and I went a couple of weeks ago to see the work of the stabilisation unit in Lashkar Gah. That trip was fascinating, and I shall discuss some of the points that came out of it in a few moments.

In the short time that I have, I shall discuss the role of the stabilisation unit, which my hon. Friend touched on. We in this place are always slightly suspicious when Departments change their name; it is not normally a good sign, so the fact that the post-conflict reconstruction unit magically became the stabilisation unit was a clear sign that perhaps not everything was going well. However, having been to see the stabilisation unit at work in Lashkar Gah, I was encouraged that finally—some would argue that it has taken far too long—we are getting on the right track. The comprehensive approach that my hon. Friend described—security, governance and reconstruction—finally seems to be coming together, and for the first time the UK has produced a UK road map for bringing together the military effect to ensure that it contributes directly to the development needs in Helmand province. We are beginning—painfully slowly—to see the positive benefits of that.

I recall during my time there visiting a PRT in Herat province, which was not experiencing the degree of conflict that Helmand was; we viewed it as the sort of province that we hoped Helmand would be in two or three years. However, I watched the Spanish military commander and the Spanish equivalent of DFID arguing over who was supporting whom and who was in control, which was a clear message that we needed to get the stabilisation unit right to try to put an end to that type of conflict between the military, DFID and the FCO. The one message that we were given—it seems to be quite genuine—is that the unit now has that under control and no longer are the military constantly arguing or vying with DFID over who is doing what and who is supporting whom. I was deeply encouraged by that. In addition, the PRT in Lashkar Gah is now commanded by an FCO official, not a military commander, so that conflict seems to have ended.

This debate is specifically about the military action in support of development, of which I have some experience, as I said, having been a Royal Engineer working briefly in Kandahar and Helmand. While in Helmand a couple of weeks ago, as I talked with some of my colleagues in the Royal Engineers, it became clear to me that great frustrations remain about the speed at which money gets to them for delivering projects that they are asked to undertake, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife explained—for example, road-building projects to connect the main towns of the Helmand valley.

Unfortunately, there still seems to be some rivalry over funding streams and who gets what money, and it has been argued that military support would be much greater if the process of getting money through were made faster. Indeed, yesterday in the House, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence that question, but he chose not to answer. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there is a gap between what we can realistically expect DFID operators to achieve in that difficult environment and what they ought to be achieving, given that we are entirely reliant on military engineers to deliver that effect. We have not quite managed to close that gap, but we are making progress. The gap is closing slowly, but until we close it entirely and can ensure a seamless transition, we must ensure that funding streams are available to both equally.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the police, who in any normal country are the first line in ensuring security and governance. It became pretty clear during our trip a couple of weeks ago that the police in Helmand do not have a good reputation. In fact, it was fascinating visiting the head of the counter-narcotics police, who claimed that almost every member of the normal police—if I can call them that—was a drug addict, permanently off their head on some form of drug and completely untrustworthy. They did not have the trust of the Afghan people. Clearly we must do an enormous amount of work in that area, because an effective police force is a key plank in delivering sustainable development in Helmand province.

My hon. Friend also spoke about finding alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers and argued that it might well have to wait until other things have been put in place. He may well be right. In fact, some would argue that very little progress has been made in that area since we have been there.

I was not quite saying that. My point is that we desperately need alternative livelihoods to poppy farming, rather than to pick an argument with Afghan villagers by destroying their crops. Where are those alternative livelihoods?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will be reassured by what we heard during our meeting with the new governor in Helmand, Governor Mangal. He has drawn up a five-year plan—I hate to call it that, because it conjures up images of Stalinist plans—offering a clear carrot-and-stick approach to poppy farmers. By ensuring that the infrastructure is in place so that goods can be brought to market, he intends in the next few years to offer real alternative livelihoods to try to wean poppy farmers off the need to grow poppies. We were quite encouraged by the plan’s detail.

Clearly, as hon. Members have highlighted, building capacity is at the heart of what we need to do in Helmand province, and Afghanistan as a whole. From my humble experience of working in Afghanistan, I have no doubt that very good work is being done as a result of the majority of DFID’s efforts in Kabul in attempting to build capacity in the national Government, although some Ministries are doing far better than others—as ever, the Ministry for Rural Reconstruction and Development seems to be pushing along very well. However, translating that capacity building down to provincial level, where local Afghans will actually see a difference, is proving to be much more challenging.

During our trip to Lashkar Gah, we met some of the local government officials from each of the Government Departments who have been charged with trying to build capacity locally. What we heard was not very encouraging. Some three years ago, when we first became involved in Helmand, about 200 schools were open in the province, but today there are just 56. That is a direct example of what my hon. Friend was saying: our intervention has, to a degree, had a detrimental effect. Yesterday, when I argued with the Secretary of State for Defence in the House, he denied that those facts were true, but it is what we are being told, not by DFID officials—although they were present at our meeting—but by Afghans charged with delivery.

I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the big problems is that we do not hear any Afghan voices in much of what we do. In my limited experience, the reality experienced by Afghans—on the other side of the barbed wire—is very different from what we hear about when speaking to our officials. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. It is also very different from what we are told by the media, whose interest is very limited, although Sky News is now running a week-long series of programmes—not before time. We need much more scrutiny.

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point. When I returned to Lashkar Gah some 18 months after leaving, I was encouraged by the fact that we could get out, which we simply could not have done when he and I went with the Defence Committee. That in itself shows progress, so we should be encouraged. Let us be clear about that.

From talking with local tribesmen and members of community councils—the very people charged with coming up with the community development plans—it became clear to me that a bottom-up approach is being taken in an effort to understand what local tribesmen want, so hon. Members should be encouraged. However, progress is painfully slow, and we need to focus on where it will make the principal difference. I listened to what my hon. Friend said, and believe firmly that DFID should focus its efforts at the local and provincial levels.

Before the Minister responds to the debate, I should like to make one point about the counter-narcotics police, as that is another area in which the Government need to be a little cleverer about how they support local Afghan organisations. We went to see the head of the counter-narcotics police, who turned the air-conditioning on especially for us. They had so little diesel that they could not afford to run the air-conditioning or their local trucks. They had been funded directly by the British Government, but an artificial timeline had been set so that, from the end of March, all the funding that had come directly from the British Government stopped.

We had decided that, by that time, the necessary infrastructure and capacity would have been built up within the relevant Ministry—the Ministry of Justice, I think—and the Afghan Government, so the money was diverted to Kabul in the hope that it would filter down to the provinces and local commanders. However, capacity had not been built into the national system and the money was not coming through. All the sterling efforts of the local commander had gone to pot because he could not get the diesel through his own system, because our Government had decided, completely artificially, that 31 March was the date that funding would stop. That is a clear example of how we need to be a bit smarter when deciding how to help people in Helmand. Artificial deadlines are based on an assumption that capacity will have been built in the provinces, and that simply is not happening. We need to reconsider what is happening there, as that is only one of many examples of how we need to do better.

It is a pleasure to engage in this debate under your stewardship, Mr. Taylor. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) on securing this important and timely debate, which has shown that Afghanistan is a country of extreme complexity that faces enormous challenges. We must not underestimate the scale of those challenges, but there has been genuine progress, to which the British armed forces and Her Majesty’s Government have made a significant contribution.

It will be impossible to respond, in the time available, to all the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Time has flown; I had wondered whether there would be enough meat to keep the debate going for an hour and a half with just one or two speakers, but it could have lasted for four or five hours. I shall respond as quickly as possible, but my response will be slightly disjointed because I want to respond to the points that have been made.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman accepted that he does not know chapter and verse. At the risk of sounding slightly unkind, I must say that that was evident in part of his contribution.

I thank the Minister for acknowledging that, but will he also acknowledge that senior people in the military have serious misgivings about DFID’s performance?

I accept that Afghanistan is an extremely challenging place for all who are there trying to make it a better place for the people of the country.

It might be useful if I get straight into the meat of this debate. Following decades of conflict and political turmoil, Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and remains off track in relation to all the millennium development goals, but there has been real progress and life has improved for many Afghans. Let me illustrate some of the achievements since 2001. About 6 million children are in school, more than a third of whom are girls. That number is up from the estimated 1 million children who were in school in 2001, of whom very few were girls as they were officially denied access to education under the Taliban. The legal economy grew by 13.5 per cent. in 2007-08, and 82 per cent. of people now live in districts with access to basic health care, compared with just 9 per cent. in 2002.

Let us be under no illusions that building on those important gains will be easy. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week in Prime Minister’s questions, we are in it for the long haul. Neither the Taliban nor illegally armed groups pose an immediate and credible threat to the overall authority of the Afghan Government, but in the south, in particular, security is fragile, which makes it difficult for Afghans to live and work in safety, and for aid workers to operate.

The figures that the Minister has given are for Afghanistan. Can he give us figures for education and health in Helmand?

I am coming to Helmand.

In Helmand, the impact of military operations is that they are setting the conditions for stabilisation, reconstruction and development to begin. The UK has invested heavily in joined-up civilian and military planning. As the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) has rightly pointed out, we have a civilian-military plan for Helmand—the Helmand road map—which is backed by the stabilisation aid fund. Last week, a senior civil servant arrived to be the UK’s new senior representative for Helmand.

To assist with integration and joined-up decision making, the provincial reconstruction team is located with the military headquarters of Task Force Helmand. Of course, success depends not only on an increasingly effective civil-military effect, but on the involvement of the Afghan Government and the Helmand governor. We must always remember that our aim is to help the Afghans to secure and govern Helmand and the wider country themselves, not to do that for them.

Over the life of the PRT, the scale and influence of civilian effort has increased significantly. It has evolved from the relatively narrow concept of backfilling military operations with reconstruction efforts to one of influencing the shape and conduct of military operations. Joined-up civilian-military planning has enabled the UK to shape and extend the reach of stabilisation activities beyond Lashkar Gah to Gereshk, Sangin and Musa Qala. Recent stabilisation efforts in Musa Qala demonstrate the progress in the UK’s civil-military stabilisation operations and may provide a future model.

We do not have figures on education in Helmand, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that DFID funding in Helmand has helped with the construction of 44 km of road, the completion of 851 bore wells and contracts for another 974. It has also helped with the 496 community development councils that have been elected in six districts, which have received more than £5 million in grants for local development projects. In addition, 332 microfinance clients have received small loans to start new businesses in Helmand.

There have been positive moves forward with education in Helmand, including the recent opening of the main school, with 500 pupils and 30 teachers, and the establishment of basic municipal services. With our military operations setting the necessary security conditions, our civilians are promoting stabilisation, reconstruction and development. Since our engagement began in 2006, DFID has spent £23.7 million in Helmand out of a commitment of £30 million from 2006-07 to 2008-09, which has delivered many development gains such as those that I mentioned.

I shall cut out most of what I had intended to say so that I can get to the core of the questions that have been asked. We know that we have a long way to go before Afghanistan can become a safe, peaceful and prosperous nation. The international community and the UK have not got everything right, and there is always room for improvement.

I shall respond to some of the questions that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) asked. Some of his points were also made by the hon. Members for Gravesham and for North-East Milton Keynes. He was absolutely right about the battle for hearts and minds, and I think that we would all agree that that is where victory—if we can call it that—will be achieved. He was also correct that a simplistic approach, such as thinking of the groups involved as a homogenous mass, will not deliver results. There needs to be a more sophisticated approach, and we would like to think that that is exactly what we are moving towards through local empowerment and by moving down to local level.

I am pleased that DFID’s £50 million funding for the national solidarity programme has helped to establish more than 20,000 local community development councils, which build on the model of the local shuras and ensure that local people receive funding.

Will the Minister give way?

For the last time.

I am dismayed; we have heard all this before. This is the “good news only” stuff. When will the Government start answering the key questions: are we winning? What more do we need to do? How will we stop the rapid glide path in the consent for our being there? We have heard everything that the Minister is saying before.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has heard it before, but that was not clear from his contribution, so for his sake perhaps I should repeat it.

There are 496 such councils in Helmand. DFID funding also goes to non-governmental organisations across the country, including in Helmand, through the Afghan Government. For example, the Bangladeshi NGO BRAC runs a microfinance programme in Helmand with DFID funding.

On the UK’s commitments and pledges, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have met our obligations. Our challenge is to ensure that others do likewise, and our mind is focused on that. The UK has spent all that it pledged at the London conference, in the time scale set out. Other donors have yet to honour their commitments, and that is where much of the challenge lies.

At the Paris conference last week, the Afghan Government repeatedly asked the international community to put donor funds through central Governments and not spend off budget. DFID leads on that, providing 80 per cent. of its funding through the ARTF. Many other donors do not, and we encourage them to do as the Afghans ask. That is part of our belief in a country-led approach.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked whether the price of wheat was having an impact on the poppy crop. There is certainly anecdotal evidence of farms in the south destroying some of their poppy crop to grow wheat, and land under poppy cultivation may have decreased. It is too early to give a definitive answer.

The hon. Gentleman was right to mention magic bullets, but he is wrong if he believes that there is one in the case of policing. We all wish that there were. On winning hearts and minds, it is interesting that President Karzai said in October 2007, during his visit to the UK, that there was a need for talks with elements of the insurgency, but only those that renounce violence against Afghanistan and the west, and that accept the Afghan constitution and are willing to live in peace. In December 2007, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that insurgencies were ultimately solved at political level, not by military means alone. I think that the hon. Gentleman would concur with that.

Since 2001, we have pledged or spent some £1.65 billion in Afghanistan, and I have described part of the impact of that. The hon. Member for Gravesham mentioned the issue of women, which is incredibly important. It was one of the factors that allowed many people to support military intervention in Afghanistan. Some 60 per cent. of women voted in the 2004 elections, and 27 per cent. of primary school-age girls are enrolled in schools in rural areas and 51 per cent. in urban areas. Some 2 million girls are now in primary schools in Afghanistan.

The hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes was well informed in many parts of his contribution. He is right that there are joint military and civilian planning arrangements in Helmand, which was true from the outset. I would add that civilians and the military are working much closer in Helmand. The provincial reconstruction team is led by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office civilian, who works closely with the military commander, and military engineers work where it is too dangerous for UK civilians or Afghan contractors to go.

I am listening to the Minister’s argument that we are all working together closely in Helmand, but does he not understand that the fact that he was unable to tell us how many schools are open in Helmand is not encouraging? It does not give the impression that we have a grip on what is going on in Helmand.

It would be foolish to suggest that anybody has chapter and verse knowledge of everything in Afghanistan. The hon. Gentleman’s point indicates some of the challenges that exist, particularly in Helmand. Nobody is underestimating those challenges.

Hon. Members mentioned the Afghan police. It is true that there is widespread evidence of corruption, poor leadership and a lack of capability in Afghanistan’s police, which undoubtedly undermines the Afghan Government’s credibility. That, in turn, leads to further decline in respect for the rule of law. However, there has been some progress on providing basic training to large numbers of police officers and on the close mentoring of specialist forces. Some 80,000 Afghan police have been trained and equipped. The UK is committed to improving the quality of policing in Afghanistan and has been active in lobbying partners to increase the training and mentoring of Afghan police. Along with Germany, we were instrumental in setting up the EU police mission to Afghanistan. In 2007-08, we contributed about £10 million, and 35 personnel have been deployed to assist with police development.

Will the Minister give way?

I do not think that I will, because time is against us.

As I have said, we know that we have a long way to go before Afghanistan can become a safe, peaceful and prosperous nation. The international community and the UK have not got everything right, and there is always room for improvement. For example, we accept that we have not been as successful as we could have been at persuading other donors—

Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Mr. Taylor, I am quite sure that, as the passions rise, you will contain us and keep us within the realm of behaviour that is becoming to this place. I thank my colleagues from all parts of the House for coming to this debate, because the future of the bee industry is one of the major issues in the country today as far as I am concerned.

I want to say something very quickly about the honey bee and why we are very interested in it. In 1973, Karl von Frisch won a Nobel prize in physiology and medicine for his pioneering work on comparative behavioural psychology and communication between bees. He was the first scientist really to discover how species of bees utilise sensory perception and he established the importance of their waggle dance for communication. I do not intend to demonstrate waggle dancing to everyone here today, but there are nine species of bees and nine varieties of the waggle dance.

Interestingly, as people will know there is a queen bee that looks after the hive while the worker bees waggle. However, the queen bee, like yourself Mr. Taylor, maintains a social order through the emission of pheromones. I guess, Mr. Taylor, that you never knew before how you maintained your dignity and command over this House. Foraging honey bees use the waggle dance, of course, to tell other honey bees at the back of the nest how far away and in which direction they will find the next source of nectar. As every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows, the bees go to collect the nectar and in so doing perform major functions, which I shall come on to shortly.

Researchers are now looking at how different bees communicate with each other. It has got to the stage that European bees can communicate with Asian bees, even though they are from different species. Asian bees learn the waggle rhythm that the European bees have manifested for many years, and they can communicate information about distances and so on. They also recalibrate the way that they fly by their waggle.

Bees can also sense chemicals. They can be trained to detect explosives, drugs and even chemical weapons. That is not generally known, but I know that the Pentagon has been working on this use of bees for some years now and the sight of bees swarming around white powder is quite a classic thing that happens in this country too. So there is hope that, in that area of detection, we may find another use for bees as research progresses.

Beekeeping and research into bees has been going on for some time. The bee is a fascinating creature and this week I shall go to see the Norfolk beekeepers at Easton college; I look forward to getting up close and personal with the beehives that they look after. Of course, right across the world people go out and see bees. Bees have this image about them that they only sting; I want to dispel that image completely. Of course, they sting and if one asks a classroom of young people what they know about bees, they will say, “Ooh, they sting you”. However, when one asks the young people why they sting, they will reply, “Because we annoy them”. Well, that is youth today, I suppose; annoying bees seems to be a habit. It might be worth an antisocial behaviour order in a certain repressive kind of regime, although not here, of course.

Massive winter losses of bee colonies in the USA and Canada of more than 60 per cent. have been attributed to what we call colony collapse disorder, or CCD. Similar problems are now developing in countries in Europe, for example Greece, where losses are pretty high, which makes beekeeping rather unsustainable. The causes of such dramatic losses are not yet really understood and research suggests that there are a combination of factors: the parasitic varroa mite; the virus that the mite vectors or carries; and nosema, a fungal infection. All these factors, together with some kind of stress disorder, may be forming the lethal cocktail that is destroying bee colonies.

The UK is beginning to experience similar problems. Notwithstanding the ravages of varroa, normal winter losses are between 5 and 10 per cent. of bees. However, in 2006 beekeepers reported mysterious losses over the winter of between 10 and 15 per cent. of bees; rather large numbers of bees were dying. There were similarities to CCD, but it is still not clear that it is exactly the same problem, because there are some differences from CCD.

The British Beekeepers’ Association has done some sterling work in this area. Its study of the work of 10 per cent. of its 11,500 members revealed that the average loss of bees this winter was 30 per cent., which is three times the expected level. So, something is happening to honey bees across the world and it is now affecting bees in this country.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this subject before the House. It is an important subject and he is being characteristically charming and informative in proceeding with the debate. I cannot wait for the second half of his speech.

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman recalls that, on 15 May 2008, in another place Lord Rooker stated in answer to a question:

“There is no specific information on the impact that the large-scale loss of honey bees would have on the economy, although it could be significant.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 May 2008; Vol. 701, c. 147WA.]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some sort of full cost estimate of the general impact on agriculture, food production and the economy of the demise of bees in this country would help to focus both the Government’s attention and public attention on what is not a marginal but a major developing issue in this country?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; the answer, of course, is yes, and he is trying to steal my thunder because I am about to refer in more detail to what Lord Rooker told the other place, and to the effects on the economy.

The prospect of losing our local honey supplies is bad enough, and also sad, but a deeply worrying threat is the loss of our principal army of pollinators; that is the real issue. The demise of the honey bee would have a devastating impact on the pollination of crops across the world, but particularly in this country. There would be a major impact on the environment and wildlife, which depend on bees to pollinate fruits and seeds for their survival.

As the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) alluded to, Lord Rooker stated in the House of Lords last November that if we did not deal with the current and potential threats we could lose our honey bees in this country within 10 years. In the same exchange, he confirmed the important economic role of honey bees. Work done by a large independent provider of environmental consultancy and rural services in 2002, which was updated last year, indicated that pollination by honey bees contributes £165 million per annum to the agricultural economy of this country. That is probably a low estimate, because it is based on farm-gate prices. A sample of just 10 crops, including top fruits such as apples and pears, which depend for up to 90 per cent. of their pollination on bees, and soft fruits, which depend on bees for about 30 per cent. of their pollination, and of course the ubiquitous and industrially important oilseed rape, which depends for almost 10 per cent. of its pollination on bees, shows the importance of bees.

As a beekeeper myself, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that clearly there are important economic impacts from the collapse of beekeeping, but surely there is also a much wider environmental impact? It is not just cash crops, important as those are, that are affected. A wide variety of wild species up and down this country, which we take for granted at the moment, would, if deprived of honey bee pollination, go into rapid decline. That would have a tremendously negative impact on British ecology and wildlife, and on the environment that we take for granted.

Yes, the honey bee is central to that kind of interaction in the ecological life of plants and animals in this country. It would reflect badly on the way that we look at and revere our countryside if the honey bee disappeared from that kind of interaction.

As I have said, the honey bee is vital to the economy in all countries, not just to the UK economy. Of course, the problem of global food shortages and high transport costs has been highlighted by our Prime Minister. It is vital that every country maximises its potential to produce home-grown food, because that is becoming the big challenge, or at least one of the big challenges, for us in the agricultural movement in this country. Honey bees have never been more important for mankind than today.

Let us look at what the Government have done about the situation; of course, the Minister will elaborate on the Government’s work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs invests £1.5 million per annum on honey bee health, of which about a third comes through support from the European Union. Of that total budget, £1.3 million is dedicated to running a statutory inspection service to monitor and control notifiable honey bee diseases, particularly foul brood disease. That leaves what I regard as the pathetic amount of about £200,000 for research. That figure has not increased but rather declined in real terms, as inflation and other factors have come to bear on the investment.

The causes of recent increased honey bee losses are probably not related to currently notifiable diseases. Varrosis, for example, was a notifiable disease until 2006, when the Government removed it from the list, basically, it seems, because it had become endemic in the population. No solution to it has been found. In fact, matters continue to worsen as the mite develops resistance to the key approved medication. Honey bees are at increased risk from existing diseases, from new threats such as CCD and from exotic pests such as small hive beetle. Despite those heightened risks and unsolved current problems, DEFRA says that it is not prepared to find any more than the current research spend of £200,000 to confront the growing challenges and all their economic and environmental implications.

The BBKA presented a paper, “Beekeeping Research”, to my noble Friend Lord Rooker and the Department last October. It set out the urgency of the matter and proposed a programme of research. Lord Rooker met representatives of the BBKA last December—I was there as well. He flatly turned down the request for funding, notwithstanding the recognition that there were risks to and benefits from honey bees. Development of the programme was initiated by the BBKA when it convened its colloquium on honey bee research in July 2007. Key researchers, DEFRA representatives and research funders were present, and they debated the threats facing bees. There has been huge movement in recognising the problem.

The indicative budget for the research programme outlined in the BBKA documentation is £8 million over five years. The association makes the pertinent point that that is a minute cost when one considers that honey bees will deliver a more than £800 million benefit over that same five-year period, but only if we keep our bees healthy. DEFRA has prepared a bee health strategy, which is designed to help maintain the health of honey bees over the next 10 years. It has 45 pages, and is worth reading. The principle of a strategy is welcome, but it has some shortcomings. It attempts to transfer an ever greater responsibility for bee health to beekeepers themselves but without providing the resources that they need. Many of the diseases affecting honey bees that I referred to earlier are passed from apiary to apiary by bees, and that is outside the control of beekeepers.

Some principles in the strategy are good; for example, better information sharing between the Government and beekeepers—we concur with that. The strategy puts an emphasis on education, which is a major part of the BBKA’s remit, but the document is rather lacking in that it states that action should be evidence-based. The point being made by those who are interested is that we need more evidence and research, and that we need to gather scientific evidence, without which the strategy is doomed to fail. There are too many gaps in the knowledge base, and, of course, it will take several years to implement the strategy once it is finalised.

The issue is what we have to do now. We need to carry out research that will give us a chance to combat the threats. The proposal, with input from key researchers at Sussex university, Rothamsted Research, Warwick Horticulture Research International, Plymouth university and so on, involves short and long-term projects. It seeks to address current problems to do with varrosis and foul brood, not just the threat of CCD and exotic pests. The promising work at Rothamsted and Warwick university to develop a biological control method for varroa, an approach widely used in commercial horticulture and once funded by DEFRA, is, sadly, urgently in need of revitalisation. That is one of the largest budget elements in the plan.

In contrast, resolving the legal availability of alternative treatments such as oxalic acid through a more proportional application of the medicines directive requires good will as much as cash. The plan seeks to offset the deficit in bee virus research that has existed since Britain’s leading bee virus researcher had to be made redundant by Rothamsted Research due to lack of follow-on funding from DEFRA.

Other key elements relate to improved husbandry and breeding bees that are better able to resist disease. The BBKA beekeeping research programme offers a real chance to meet those challenges. It requires money, and while all sources of financial support from research trusts, the food industry and beekeeping associations should be tapped—I believe that they are prepared to put money in—it falls to the Government to shoulder the main burden of funding and to make co-ordination possible.

DEFRA has stonewalled the requests of the BBKA, which, as a result, has mounted a public campaign to bring pressure on the Government. This debate is part of that. The BBKA has collected 30,000 signatures in eight weeks, and no doubt that number will increase. It will present its petition to the Government in the autumn during a mass lobby by beekeepers of their MPs. I had a dreadful dream last night of white-coated individuals walking past Downing street with their smokers going. Imagine the panic that that would bring to Whitehall. We have to prevent that kind of thing from happening.

The public have picked up the issue—[Interruption.]

Order. There seems to be a buzz of conversation on the Benches.

Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

It is not surprising, given the extensive coverage on radio and TV and in the press, that the public have taken up the issue. One can hardly pick up a supplement these days without seeing bees sitting on plants and a discussion of the issues. The Government have to wake up to the green political capital that they could gain by finding the rather modest sums required to bring about a far-sighted programme.

I set out the reasons for doing the research: the current unresolved problems with varroa and foul brood, which are akin to foot and mouth disease in bees. We cannot leave it to the Americans to resolve the CCD problem. The US Department of Agriculture has been mandated by the Senate to do its bit—more than $80 million has been directed to CCD research—but we would have to look into co-operation.

Beekeeping practice in the US differs greatly from that in the UK. In this country in particular, there are few commercial beekeepers and they struggle to make a living. The £165 million contribution by Britain’s beekeepers is, basically, provided free of charge by the so-called Great British amateur. No doubt the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) is, for the purpose of this conversation, a classic amateur. This place is full of classic amateurs. I do not mean the House of Commons, of course—I am so sweet—but this country. It has many classic amateurs, and they do a great job. The UK and the USA also have climatic and environmental differences, so we have to do our bit, however modest, to help deal with a global problem.

Another element resulting from the structure of UK beekeeping is that it lacks the resources and resolve to rebuild losses quickly when challenged by disease. Varroa arrived in the UK in 1992, and many beekeepers gave up beekeeping in subsequent years. Varroa losses were less dramatic than those that CCD will bring, and we should remember that even then some effective proprietary medications were available. Britain’s beekeepers are great amateurs. They could have played cricket for England—at one time, anyway. They keep bees because of their love of and fascination with the craft. There is not the commercial imperative to restock rapidly that exists in, for example, the USA.

I vehemently call on the Government to provide adequate urgent funding for research into honey bee health. DEFRA has stated that it awaits a business case for increased funding, but, in a sense, the Minister himself has made that case with his acceptance of the £165 million figure. The honey bee population is severely at risk, and we have to do something, or pollination and our agriculture will suffer. That “something” is to carry out research costing £1.6 million per annum in addition to the current budget. That is what we are calling for, and there will be great spin-offs from it. Any well-managed company could develop such research.

We do not need to look for new money. I believe—again, I saw it in a dream—that DEFRA has a contingency fund of £50 million, which the Minister might or might not know about. If there were the will, money could be taken from that fund to prevent an impending disaster. We cannot just wait for it to happen. When the air falls silent and we do not hear those bees a-buzzing in the summer time, there will be a change in many people’s views on the subject, and on why pollination of our crops and the ecological niche that the bee fills in the environment are important.

Every hive lost represents a reduction of some £600 in agricultural output, but that is nothing compared with the greater loss that inaction will cause to our food supply and the natural environment. The Government have said that they will listen more. They listened to us over 10p tax issues. Here is another debate for them to listen to. The issue has massive support from the public. It may not be up front but it is coming. Because we love our environment and our countryside, we ask for the Government’s support.

I will finish with a quote. Everybody who has ever been a scientist always finishes with a quote from a man called Einstein, who, I believe, was once a famous scientist. [Interruption.] A socialist scientist—forgive me for using that word. He stated:

“If the bee disappeared from the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.”

That is a fitting challenge to all of us.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), not only on securing this debate—I was also trying to secure such a debate but he beat me to it, and I am pleased that he was able to do so—but on his introducing a topic that is not a peripheral matter, although some would wish to describe it as such. It is not a peripheral matter; it is crucial to our horticulture and agriculture and to our natural environment.

My only criticism is of the debate’s full title, “The future of the bee industry”, because although we know that bees are incredibly industrious and that there are some commercial beekeepers, whom I suppose form an industry, the vast majority of the bees in this country are in the hands not of the 300 commercial apiaries, but of the 2,000 amateur beekeepers spread across the country, who are extremely concerned about the future of the bees that they own and love to deal with.

I have a reputation, Mr. Taylor, as perhaps do you, for pursuing quixotic subjects in the House that other hon. Members sometimes do not wish to trespass into. It could be argued that the future and the health of the bee population in this country is one such subject, but it is linked to other matters that I have pursued because, as I argue, if I do not who else will do so? The cider industry is important in my constituency. Apples need pollination and pollination is done by bees, so if the bee population declines, there is concern about the profitability and productivity of a serious industry in my constituency.

As hon. Members have already said, we are not just talking about top fruits, which are a key part of the agricultural and horticultural activity in my constituency, but about wild and semi-wild species such as clovers and vetches, which are the principal nitrogen fixers. Without nitrogen fixers, we do not have fertile soil and the nice green grass that we need to feed our livestock and create our countryside. Bees are crucial to more than is perhaps commonly recognised.

The hon. Gentleman has already pointed out the various threats to the bee population, so there is no need to go into those in detail. He mentioned particularly varroa destructor, which is, as we now know, endemic to the point of no longer requiring notification, but it would appear that we are still no nearer to either a cure or a preventive strategy. He also mentioned nosema apis and nosema ceranae, which is now entering Wales, and he could have added tracheal mites or aethina tumida. He spoke about the syndrome—I think it is a syndrome—of colony collapse disorder in America. I do not think that we have yet seen a problem on a similar scale in this country, but all of us are greatly concerned about that threat, because it does not merely decimate the bee population, but halves or eliminates it. That is of great economic concern as well, because, as the hon. Gentleman correctly said, the value of pollination by bees is estimated at anything up to £200 million, which is a significant sum. That suggests that the Government would be wise to put in a much smaller amount of investment now to save that future loss. That is the critical argument that we have to advance today.

I want to reinforce the points made by the hon. Gentleman and say clearly that research is needed now—not the trickle of funding that we have at the moment, but funding on a scale to match the threat that is recognised by those who know about such things. That needs to be coupled with other measures. We need regulation of imports and effective measures to prevent introduction of further parasitical infestation, whether relating to the importation of queens or other bees. We need to consider seriously the control of pesticides. If we are creating pesticide-resistant mite populations or other parasitical organisms, we need to look at the interaction between the use of pesticides and the creation of the degree of resistance that is creating widespread endemic infestation and, perhaps, look again at how we use pesticides in this country.

It is argued in the United States of America that there is a connection between colony collapse disorder and the genetically modified crops being used there. It is possible that disease-resistant crops are creating the circumstances in which that syndrome can develop. We need to know about that.

While the hon. Gentleman is attacking my favourite organisms—GM crops—let me point out that it is also said that mobile phone masts are allegedly implicated in the demise of the bee population in this country. Everything is implicated, but without research, who knows?

The hon. Gentleman spent many happy years with me on the Science and Technology Committee. I am not saying that there is such a connection; I am simply saying that there is at least prima facie evidence that ought to be investigated and perhaps the United States is the appropriate place to do it.

We also need to say, on behalf of our agriculture and horticulture, that if we cannot turn back the tide of the reduction in the size of our bee colonies and the bee population, we have seriously to consider how we provide and encourage substitute pollinators, to preserve our fruit industries in at least their present state. That is, to an extent, a counsel of despair—it is certainly not what beekeepers want to hear—but we have to look at both sides of the equation. We have to deal with reversing the trend in the bee population and recognise the need to find ways of maintaining the profitability of our horticultural and agricultural sectors.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that trying to find alternative insect pollinators is almost certainly a counsel of despair, for two reasons. First, honey bees are far more effective as insect pollinators at various times of the year, particularly in the early part of the season, which can be vital for some crops and wild species. Secondly, they are far more numerous than most other potential insect pollinators. Everyone mentions bumblebees, for example, but whereas there are a few hundred in a typical bumblebee colony, there are 40,000-plus honey bees in a healthy colony. The difference is enormous. Alternatives will probably be far more expensive, by a factor of 10, 100 or even more, than the hon. Gentleman proposes.

The hon. Gentleman is correct. The key points are finding the reason behind the reduction in the bee population, seeing what effective measures can be taken to control infestation or infection, and disseminating the information, both on good husbandry and effective practice, whether veterinary or otherwise, to ensure that the health of the bee population is preserved. That will require investment. That is why we look to the Minister to say not simply that it is nonsense that the bee health programme has been reduced, which has been the line so far from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

DEFRA has been saying that everything is perfectly good, but it is not. We need a step change in investment in the investigation of bee disease if we are to stem a worldwide phenomenon that is lapping at our doorstep and has the potential to become a crisis, both for the insect population and in economic terms, for some sectors. We need to put in the necessary investment at this stage to stem it and reverse it. I hope that that is what we will hear the Minister say.

It is a pleasure to appear before you, Mr. Taylor.

When discussing this important topic, we should get some of the puns out of the way. You made one earlier, Mr. Taylor. The place is buzzing; it is swarming with interested MPs. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate. His speech was the bee’s knees, and no doubt the Government will be stung by his remarks. I hope that they will not hive off research to the private sector, but I am somewhat piqued by their insufficient action so far. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that we must consider other pollinators and so on, but I do not know whether we should call that plan B.

I like bees. They are useful—that is what we are discussing—and I just like them. I do not keep them, although I know that some hon. Members do. One reason why I like them is that they have the good sense to sport the colours of Wolverhampton Wanderers football club. In our garden in Wolverhampton there is a large lime tree, which is almost 100 years old. At the appropriate time at the height of summer—hon. Members will be able to tell me when it is, but it is usually around this time of year—that lime tree is buzzing with bees. They are not our bees, but come from elsewhere, and their number has lessened in recent years. We have lived there for 25 years, and we have noticed that in summer the tree buzzes less than it used to. We used to sit by it, hear it thrumming, and wonder what the sound was. It was hundreds of bees.

On where the UK’s bee industry is going, part of the general picture of adapting to climate change that exercises me greatly is what we do about wildlife. It is important not only to deal with the causes of climate change—CO₂ emissions, greenhouse gas emissions and so on—but to face up to the reality that the climate is changing and will continue to do so, with an adverse effect on wildlife and other elements in our country. Bees may be one of the overlooked casualties of the climate change that we are experiencing.

I pay tribute to the work of the British Beekeepers Association, not only for its promotion of the industry, but its research and education of the general public and politicians such as me. I am worried that the UK is losing researchers because there are no jobs for them, and that the considerable expertise that has built up over many years in this country is being eroded because those researchers simply cannot get jobs, so they move to other fields of research or abroad.

The Government must focus on research. They cannot solve all the problems facing bees and every industry in this country, but a general rule in any industry is that about 5 per cent. should be spent on research and development. We have heard today that bee pollination boosts the value of the top 10 agricultural products by £165 million, and almost all of that gain is free because most beekeepers in this country are amateurs. They are skilled in what they do, but they do not do it for money. They do it for love. We all benefit from that, and agriculture in this country benefits to the tune of at least £165 million a year. In round terms, 5 per cent. of that is £8 million.

I accept that the Government should not be responsible for all the research and development for the bee industry in the United Kingdom, but because it is, in a sense, a free industry, the Government should fund about half that research and development on behalf of society. They should put in about £4 million a year for something that benefits us all to the tune of more than £165 million a year. That is in contrast with the apparent amount—the Minister may enlighten us with different figures—of about £200,000 a year that the Government actually put into research; £1.3 million goes into inspection and so on, and only £200,000 is left over for research.

The contrast between £4 million a year and £200,000 a year is far too great. The BBKA’s suggested figure of £8 million over five years is incredibly modest—that is no criticism of the BBKA. It is not a ridiculous amount such as politicians often come across when people suggest amounts because they believe passionately in a pet project. It is a sensible amount and, if anything, is low. I urge the Minister to consider it carefully.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be helpful if the Minister told us whether he has had any conversations with his opposite number in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is responsible for a great deal of academic research into all sorts of related areas? Some sort of joined-up government thinking might produce alternative pots of money that could be put to the excellent use that he is proposing.

I entirely agree. It is not simply a question of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs putting in £4 million a year. The money should come from Government across the board, including the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and it is arguable that the Department for Children, Schools and Families might kick in in terms of education and so on. We need a cross-departmental push—it used to be called joined-up government, but I am not sure what we call it now—and Government as a totality should put in around £4 million a year for the necessary research.

The Wellcome Trust has bailed out this country’s research for years through research councils and money that it has accrued, and it would be interested in basic research in this area. Quite a few charities have big sums of money that might help, so the Government might have to pay even less.

The Government could take more of a lead in bringing in organisations such as the Wellcome Trust. My hon. Friend may recall that my ballpark figure is that society and the country should put in about £8 million, which is 5 per cent. of the industry’s low figure of £165 million. I posit that half—£4 million— should come from the Government, and that the other £4 million could come from the charitable foundations to which he referred and other sources, perhaps including European Union money.

The Government are underfunding research into bees, and that will be to our peril unless we do something. I am not an expert on bees, but I understand that there is only so much research that can be imported because we have our own climate, our own crops, our own way of doing things, our own strains of bees and, to some extent, our own bee diseases and infestations. We need to do research into the bee situation in the United Kingdom, and that research needs to be done by UK researchers in our own country. At least half should be funded by the Government, which is considerably more than is the case now.

I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I was inspired to do so, as I often am, by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I cannot claim to have his expertise or that clearly shown by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but I want to add my voice to those of other hon. Members and to plead with the Government to reprioritise the industry, as there is a number of serious concerns.

The haunting picture of a world without bees that the hon. Member for Norwich, North painted reminded me of Rachel Carson’s famous book, “Silent Spring”, which was published more than 40 years ago and launched the modern environmental movement. It was about the effects of DDT on birds and mammals. We could be looking at a similar set of factors now.

There is an argument about whether colony collapse disorder is being seen in the United Kingdom yet, but it is in Europe, so it is going global and it is a great concern. There may be a coincidence of factors behind that. Even in the United Kingdom varroa mite seems to be developing resistance, which is one problem. There is discussion in the United States that bees may be developing some kind of immune suppression syndrome, and that there could be a viral cause. Research suggests that when the Israeli acute paralysis virus is present in the hive, the hive is 65 times more likely to develop colony collapse disorder, so there seems to be a strong evidential basis there. On the other hand, Australia has that virus but no reported problems and no varroa mite. It is a very complex picture.

I have read the reports mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome which, he said, posited a link with transgenic crops. Now is not the time to engage in that debate, but it is a legitimate research area. Apart from a few papers that were written about 10 years ago, not much research has been produced in that field.

One of the problems that we face worldwide—I think this is true within in the United Kingdom—is a lack of genetic diversity within bees. As I understand it, there is a preponderance of the Italian bee. The issue is certainly of interest to Wales. We had a pocket of bees in west Wales that survived the last major collapse in the 1920s. The collapse started in the Isle of Wight and spread throughout the UK, but in Pembrokeshire and parts of Carmarthenshire, local populations of bees seemed to withstand that collapse.

The Pembrokeshire Beekeepers Association has been given some money to try to breed a local population that is adapted to local conditions. Perhaps developing such a population, which is also more resistant to varroa and tracheal mite infestation, is one of the future routes that we need to take. However, the association was given only £5,000 by the national lottery, and therein lies our problem.

The problem is very serious because all life is inter-connected. Bees are connected to humans. Obviously, the apple industry could be wiped out unless we take prompt and appropriate action. Organic beekeepers in America say that they have no evidence of CCD and it has been suggested that that is because they do not fumigate for the varroa mite or use pesticides. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, the use of pesticides more generally—particularly neonicitinoid pesticides that have neurotoxic effects on bees and affect their learning and navigation abilities—could play some part in what we are seeing globally.

We need substantial and extensive research to help us to understand what is happening globally and to learn about the strains of disease, their effect on the UK bee population and some of the solutions—such as the one that I mentioned in Pembrokeshire. I am glad to see that the Welsh Assembly Government are playing their part by contributing £280,000 to the National Bee Unit. I urge the Minister to do more. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said, spending money on research would be a good investment because it would prevent a catastrophe that would devastate key elements of our agriculture industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor, and to have the opportunity to make a modest contribution to the debate on this important subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate.

I do not claim to be an expert in this matter, but I know what colour bees are. I am afraid that I need to correct the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) because there was an important factual inaccuracy in his comments. He referred to bees wearing the colours of his favourite football team, Wolverhampton Wanderers. The last time that I checked, their official colours were old gold and black, but the last time I saw a bee in close proximity, its colour was yellow and black, which more accurately reflects the colours of Hull City or—dare I suggest?—the Liberal Democrats, with whom they may share an allegiance.

More seriously—because this is an important debate—my participation in this matter today has largely been fired by two things. One was an article I read some weeks ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in the Daily Mail. That article has been helpfully included in the briefing pack. To anyone who has not seen this article and does not understand the general issues that are being raised today, I would say that it is a helpful introduction to the subject. Secondly, I have been contacted by the secretary of the Cheshire Beekeepers Association, who, I am proud to say, is a constituent of mine. He too has briefed me on the importance of the issue, and that is why I have come here today to support what the hon. Member for Norwich, North has had to say and to press the Government for some indication that they accept the need to give a little more assistance to the research that is needed.

[John Cummings in the Chair]

I think that we all agree that there has been, beyond any reasonable doubt, a dramatic decline in the bee population, which, as we have heard, is important to the natural environment, agriculture and horticulture. What we do not know, however, are the precise reasons behind that dramatic decline. That is why research is crucial. It is fair to say that the Government have a role to play—whether through DEFRA or another body. I hope that the Government will not turn their back on this important and growing problem.

We have already heard that the British Beekeepers Association has been seeking a research grant of some £8 million over eight years. As I understand it, the Government’s response to date has been to cut the research budget by some 20 per cent. There are now fewer inspectors and researchers involved in this very important area. Last November, Lord Rooker said that unless effective action is taken, bees would disappear within 10 years. That is a frightening prospect, for the reasons that we have already heard. To be frank, the solution to the problem is not the occasional very modest contribution from the lottery fund. I know that reference was made to the £5,000 that Pembrokeshire beekeepers have been awarded, and I am sure that the money will be put to extremely good use. None the less, we are looking for a lead from the Government and we want reassurance that the investment in research will be made. I press the Minister to accept that if that is not forthcoming and if we are seen to ignore the plight of the honey bee, future generations may not be quite so forgiving.

That was a quick change. I did not pick up that the Chairman had changed before I stood up to make a small contribution. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on obtaining this debate.

It has been said that beekeeping in this country is a pastime of amateurs. However, those amateurs have mounted a well-orchestrated and well-directed campaign. They have focused the minds of hon. Members on this very important issue, and I congratulate them on the work that they have done. Hon. Members have set out in great detail, and with a great deal of evidence, the fact that we are confronted with a classic case of DEFRA collapse syndrome. All the symptoms indicate that this is a classic case of doing too little too late. A lot of public money will have to be spent to undo damage that could have been prevented in the first place.

There is much evidence that bees are in decline. Certainly, in this country, 20 per cent. did not make it through the past winter, which is quite a high proportion. This morning, I spoke to a colleague, Karl Showler, who was a little more optimistic than I had anticipated. He told me that it was strange that evidence can be put in different ways and said that beekeeping was on a high at the moment. He also said that beekeepers and the quality of beekeeping had improved in recent years. He informed me that one of the reasons for that is that varroa and varroosis have meant that beekeepers who do not have the relevant dedication and expertise cannot keep their hives going and have dropped out of beekeeping activities. As such, he feels that the beekeepers who operate now are of a higher standard than he has ever known—and he has worked with bees for more than 50 years.

The varroa disease is now endemic, but Karl Showler has told me that he has examined his hives—he has a lot fewer than he used to—and he can find no evidence of varroa at the moment. I am not sure whether that is because he is so diligent in his work and uses oxonic acid to treat his bees. I know that some of the varroa mites have become resistant to pyrethroid insecticides. The ability of diseases and parasites to become resistant to treatments is one of the reasons why we want research to be done.

Varroa is a disease that we understand and that beekeepers have been able to live and work with. However, something else is going on in our bee colonies that cannot yet be explained. We have talked about colony collapse disorder in America, and I wonder whether that has the same cause or whether we are seeing a number of unrelated things. Is colony collapse disorder related to just one disease, or have a number been affecting colonies in America?

A point that has been strongly made is that the uncertainty about the disease status of bees means we should think carefully about importing bees into this country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said. I understand that queen bees can be imported from New Zealand and Hawaii, but a number of people have told me that that is a dangerous practice and that we should perhaps think about safety first. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the restrictions on imports.

One subject on which research could take place and which would be profitable is bee breeding. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) pointed out that work on that is going on in Pembrokeshire funded by lottery money. Research could be directed to the breeding of bees that are resistant to some of these diseases. Where there is disease resistance, there is less use of chemicals and less disruption to the bees’ immune system and their natural ability to forage and find their way around.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North—I think it is Norwich, North.

The rough part.

The beekeeping part. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there should be biological control work to find diseases or other parasites that are parasitical upon or can infect the disease perpetrator. That is another potential avenue. This morning, I was thinking about a book written by Theresa Clay and Miriam Rothschild, “Fleas, Flukes and Cuckoos”. The book discusses parasites and says that large fleas have smaller fleas upon their back to bite them and smaller fleas have lesser fleas and so on, ad infinitum. The research needed to find a biological control mechanism that can be used on particular diseases could be profitable.

The financial importance of bees and pollination has been mentioned. Insect pollination is an important part of the pollination process. Although there is self-pollination and wind pollination, the anatomy of many plants is designed to want or need insects to pollinate them. Indeed, some are designed to have only bees pollinating them, and I do not think we can look for an alternative pollinator for such plants.

Yes, pollination is important to agriculture, but it is also very important in terms of biodiversity in this country. Natural England has done much work on sites of special scientific interest and other protected areas, but if pollinators are not in those areas, the purpose of designating those sites will not be fulfilled. Perhaps the Minister can help me to answer a query I occasionally hear by saying whether bees are a species that have been in this country for all time or whether they are an introduced species. I understand that Natural England has said that bees, or hives, should not be taken to Salisbury plain because they are not an endemic species in this country and it wants to protect the ecosystem there. I have no further information on that—although I tried to find out something on it this morning. However, I think the theory is that bees were introduced into this country and are therefore not part of our natural ecosystem.

I hope to help the hon. Gentleman. I think I am right in saying that bees in one form or another are part of the fossil record going back many millions of years. It may be that the British or European honey bee is a relatively recently evolved species—I do not know—but honey-producing bees in one form or another have certainly been around for millions of years. They certainly go back well before Britain was ever legally invented.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It has been put to me that bees were present in the fossil record, but I do not know whether the species present in Britain today—whether the wild or domestic variety—is a new species. It worries me that because wild bees are not tended in the way in which those in hives are, a number of the pollinating mechanisms for a biodiverse ecosystem are being lost.

The National Farmers Union, which represents commercial beekeepers from the Bee Farmers Association, makes the point that

“there are disparities across the EU with…access to veterinary treatments for bees. Considering the underpinning importance of bees to the horticultural and agricultural industries across the EU, the NFU calls on the UK government to take action to ensure UK bee farmers and beekeepers have the same ready access to veterinary treatments for bees as their EU counterparts.”

I ask the Minister to respond to that request.

The message is clear. Something unexplained is going on in bee colonies that affects our beekeepers’ interests. The amount of money allocated to research is small. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) did a fantastically complex mathematical calculation and came up with the sum of £4 million. A number of hon. Members would have liked £8 million, but the hon. Gentleman’s request is probably more reasonable. The message from this debate and the campaign launched by beekeepers is that the Government should do something now, or the consequences will be such that the position may not be recoverable. I, too, ask the Minister to consider increasing investment in research, so that we can find an explanation for what is going on and a cure for the diseases and complications now being exhibited.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing this important debate.

I pay tribute to the British Beekeepers Association, which has done much to raise the profile of beekeeping and to inform us about the importance of bees to our country. It has put a tremendous amount of effort into its campaign, and its commitment to bee health is keeping the issue high on the political agenda. I understand that its campaign has already succeeded in attracting the support of 30,000 people who have signed its petition.

This debate is timely, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us of his Department’s commitment to bee health. The British bee industry is far more than just the sweet taste of honey. Who could imagine an English summer without the humble honey bee? Bees are amazing creatures whose value is easily overlooked. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that there may be more than 270,000 managed bee colonies in the UK, there being 5 billion bees in the winter rising to 16 billion in the summer.

As hon. Members have already pointed out, the pollination service provided by those colonies and bees could be worth about £165 million, and estimates of their total contribution to our economy is somewhere in the region of £1 billion. They also add tremendous value to our countryside, especially in pollinating wild flowers, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose).

Most of Britain's 44,000 beekeepers are not professionals, who keep bees to make profits from honey sales and pollination services. They are small-scale hobbyists, whose numbers have been increasing. In greater London, for example, between 1999 and 2006 the number of beekeepers doubled to at least 2,000. However, because so many beekeepers are hobbyists, they are more vulnerable to the pressures now facing the nation’s bees. As their livelihoods do not depend on beekeeping, many may be discouraged from continuing if they lose their colonies. In the USA, beekeepers have significant commercial interests in re-stocking, but those incentives are simply not available for UK beekeepers. That is a very real problem for us at the moment.

British beekeeping may now be at its most vulnerable, as bee health is threatened on a number of fronts. We all know of the impact that varroa has had in recent years. The varroa mite has caused considerable damage to hives and bee colonies, to the point where it is now classed as endemic. Our bee population may now be facing the far more dangerous threat of colony collapse disorder. Having seen the destruction caused by CCD in the USA, some, including Lord Rooker in the other place, have suggested that if nothing is done there may be no more honey bees in the UK within 10 years. CCD may already be in the UK.

The BBKA has reported that its research has found that as many as 30 per cent. of our colonies could be lost during the winter months this year. That is twice last year’s rate and three times more than is usual since varroa arrived in the UK. Throughout the country, beekeepers are reporting significant losses. In Peterborough, for example, the secretary of the Peterborough and District Beekeepers Association, George Newton, lost 10 of his 18 hives this winter. In Scotland, John Troup, another beekeeper, reported significant losses—100 hives, each of which should have contained up to 80,000 bees.

Given the enormous value of bees to our country, that is a worrying proposition to put to those who depend on bees for pollination—which is invariably all of us. The future of our bee populations can be secured only if those dangers are properly managed and if action is taken in the near future to protect bee health. Hon. Members who take an interest in bee health will be aware that there has been considerable criticism of DEFRA in previous years over the way that it has treated bee health.

The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service’s economic evaluation of DEFRA’s bee health programme in 2001 recommended that:

“A method should be sought to protect small bio-security programmes of this sort from general attempts to cut public expenditure—so called salami slicing.”

Although DEFRA accepted that recommendation in principle, it is questionable whether the Department has followed that advice.

The budget for bee health and the National Bee Unit has been cut in real terms over the last few years, with spending remaining at around £1.5 million, half of which comes from the European Union. Bee health is in need of investment, and it would be helpful if the Minister let us know whether his Department will be making any extra resources available for bee health research.

The idea behind the draft bee health strategy is welcome. Indeed, the BBKA has been pressing for it for some time. It is important that a long-term strategy be put in place, that research needs be prioritised and that the responsibilities of beekeepers and the Government be clarified. However, all the effort and the time put into developing the strategy by DEFRA’s stakeholders will have little impact if the resources are not in place to fund the required research.

In a written answer last month, the Minister could not confirm how much would be allocated to bee health in this financial year, hinting only that the figure would remain static at about £190,000. However, as hon. Members will know, the BBKA has identified research projects costing somewhere in the region of £8 million. At the present rate of spending by DEFRA, it would take 40 years to cover all those research priorities.

It therefore comes as no surprise that, in its response to the publication of the draft strategy, the BBKA stated:

“Most importantly the BBKA has no confidence in government’s commitment to funding additional work and services needed to keep our honey bees healthy.”

It would help if the Minister let us know when research allocations for this year will be finalised, whether he will make extra resources available for bee health research and whether he accepts the BBKA’s proposals.

I posited a figure of £4 million a year, and the BBKA posited a figure of £8 million over five years. What does the hon. Gentleman think the figure ought to be?

I think that the BBKA figure of £8 million is correct, which is £1.6 million a year over five years. However, the difficulty facing the Minister and all who consider the figures is whether that is an absolute amount and it will guarantee a result. We know because we regularly meet scientists that budgets tend to grow over time and that it would be impossible for anyone to guarantee that a solution would be found within that time. We recognise the constraints that DEFRA has to work under, but today we seek a commitment from the Minister that more funding will be available for the necessary research. I shall say why.

This year, two bee-related research projects will come to an end: an assessment of the effectiveness of the shook swarm method for controlling European foul brood, at a cost of £185,393, and the development of a monitoring system for the small hive beetle, at a cost of £225,772. Those projects had a combined cost of more than £411,000. Will the Minister confirm whether an amount will be reinvested in bee health research similar to that spent on the projects that are coming to an end?

DEFRA is funding only two other research projects at the moment. The numerous threats that face our bee populations—varroa, viruses, hive beetles, foul brood and colony collapse disorder—make a compelling case for undertaking more research. Unfortunately, due to Government cuts, we are in a weakened position when it comes to supporting bee health. Bee research has not been given the priority and resources that it needs from the Government. As a result, we are losing crucial expertise in this area and we are now really feeling the effects.

In 2006, our leading research centre at Rothamsted lost some of the world’s top experts in bee health, including Dr. Brenda Ball, a world-renowned expert on bee viruses and pathology with more than 30 years’ experience, Caroline Birchall, a graduate scientist working on the biocontrol of varroa project, and Norman Carreck, a bee scientist and keeper with 20 years’ experience. Regrettably, that also means that the reference collection of bee virus samples has gone to Sweden. Because the Central Science Laboratory does not have the expertise or resources available, the progress that those scientists could have made has been lost, and there is a vacuum that needs to be filled.

By contrast, a greater commitment has been made to researching bee health in other countries. In the USA, $80 million from the Government and industry is being invested into researching bee health and colony collapse disorder. Although it might be helpful to see the outcomes of that research, we should remember that it is no substitute for research in this country because that can focus on the localised conditions, environment and climate of the British Isles.

I welcome the efforts of the BBKA to press DEFRA to consider providing the resources necessary to give bee health the research priority it needs, and its efforts in finding funding from other sources, such as the Wellcome Trust, which was mentioned.

It is important that the Government do not try to hide from their responsibilities to beekeepers and the wider economy. We are looking for leadership, not spending commitments. This is one of the most serious issues facing British agriculture and, as such, the Minister needs to guarantee that the Government will listen to the responses of the BBKA and others to the bee health strategy, so that it can be implemented as soon as possible and so that it is a workable solution to the challenges faced by beekeepers and the nation’s bees.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for introducing this timely debate and other hon. Members for their contributions. It gives me the opportunity to explain the Government’s position on bee health and especially our plans for working with beekeepers to secure a healthy and sustainable bee population, as was set out in the draft bee health strategy, which is currently out for public consultation. I want to get our view on some important issues on the record and then address the sheaf of questions that hon. Members raised. Perhaps I can answer those questions if hon. Members resist intervening unless they are compelled to do so—that is for you, Mr. Cummings, to determine.

The development of the Government’s strategy confirms our ongoing commitment to protecting and improving the health of honey bees and to sustaining and supporting beekeeping now and for future generations. The aim of the strategy is a sustainable and healthy population of bees for pollination and honey production in England and Wales via strengthened partnership between Government and other stakeholders. It seeks to address the challenges facing beekeepers. In particular, it sets out outcomes, activities and priorities for protecting and improving the health of honey bees in England and Wales, and the roles and responsibilities of Government and other stakeholders in achieving those objectives. The intention is to provide direction and focus for Government, beekeepers and other stakeholders to work together for the next decade on sustaining honey bees. Strengthened partnership working is crucial in achieving the strategy’s aim and outcomes, and it will ensure that both current and evolving threats to bee health are effectively identified, assessed and acted upon.

Before outlining the key outcomes on which we wish to focus, I should like to say something about the work that the Government have already undertaken to protect bee health. As was mentioned, the National Bee Unit and its inspectors receive annual funding of around £1.3 million from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and a further £300,000 from the Welsh Assembly Government. Additionally, DEFRA allocates about £200,000 to specific bee health research. I put it that way because bee health benefits from a number of additional generic research projects. For example, the Department is funding the development of a biosecurity microchip to detect a range of viruses, including bee viruses. The proportion of additional work attributed to bee health is estimated to be worth around £120,000.

The main activities of the National Bee Unit are: providing effective, risk-based inspection and enforcement through a field team of professional bee inspectors to control notifiable pests and diseases, and to implement regulations; undertaking research and development; communicating evidence-based specialist advice to all stakeholders; contributing to policy development, including horizon scanning and risk management of current and emerging threats; providing quality-assured diagnostic services on outbreaks of pests and diseases; contingency planning for the arrival of exotic pests and diseases and other emerging threats—I shall come to hon. Members’ points about that; and supporting the development of good husbandry through training and education programmes that are co-ordinated with national and local associations and that aim to help beekeepers to become more self-reliant in controlling pests and disease and to aspire to higher standards of beekeeping.

That is a pretty impressive list of activities but it does not tell the full story. The National Bee Unit is one of the leading centres of expertise in bee health in Europe and a major contributor to bee science, with an international reputation for excellence. That expertise is made readily available to our beekeepers. However, the Government cannot protect and sustain bee health by ourselves, nor should it be that way. The various challenges and threats can be properly addressed only through effective partnership working, with individual beekeepers at the heart of the relationship. As the draft strategy that was produced following extensive discussions with key stakeholders makes clear, local beekeeping associations have a key role in helping to support, encourage and educate beekeepers to adhere to best practice. That is important.

The debate is about the future of the bee industry. It needs to be recognised that in this country, the industry comprises both professional beekeepers and a much larger contingent of hobby beekeepers, as hon. Members have rightly emphasised. That presents particular challenges. The craft of beekeeping is not a hobby to be taken up lightly; it brings with it responsibilities to ensure that effective pest and disease control and associated good husbandry are adhered to. Thankfully, many good beekeepers and a range of active associations are ready to help, in addition to the wealth of information available from the National Bee Unit. However, not all those who keep bees choose to seek advice or to make themselves known, which is a concern and something that needs to change. I urge all those who keep bees to read the strategy and to get in touch either directly with the NBU or via their local association.

The importance of engaging has been given renewed emphasis by the many reports of colony collapse, which raises the question of how seriously our bees are under threat. Many of our beekeepers have experienced significant losses. Those are being investigated by the NBU as a matter of priority. Additional funding of £90,000 this financial year has been allocated for that work and to carry out the necessary checks on the resulting increase in imported replacement stocks. I am pleased to report that the more recent upturn in the weather is aiding recovery, including the expansion of existing colonies.

Colony losses are not solely a UK phenomenon. There have been high losses in a number of other European states: Denmark, Spain, Germany and Italy have all reported losses, many at a higher level than those seen in the UK. The French agency for food safety has set up a working group, which includes the UK, to analyse the position. To aid the group, the European Food Safety Authority has been asked to collate information on losses throughout the Community. We will engage closely in any follow-up work. We are also in contact with the authorities in the US and have discussed their investigations into colony collapse, but there is more work to be done.

The Minister is talking about other countries. I mentioned that $80 million is being spent in the United States, but how much do France, Italy and Greece spend on research similar to that for which we are asking in this country?

We do not have a record of what each EU member state does, but I shall come to the situation of England and Wales in that context in the time remaining.

There is still more work to be done. The emerging picture is that there seems to be no single cause of colony losses and that a multitude of factors could play a part, as hon. Members have said. Our investigations indicate that poor varroa control and lack of attention to good husbandry—particularly when combined with a poor summer last year and a poor early spring this year—have played a significant role in many losses in this country, and we will continue to investigate.

The strategy sets out five key outcomes, with detailed actions to be taken to achieve them, and I have covered most of the points involved. They include effective communications and good standards, but we must also ensure that a sound science and evidence base underpins bee health policy and its implementation. Much has been said about increased funding, and we will put in additional money, as I said.

On the points raised by hon. Members, the British Beekeepers Association launched an initiative last year to host research with DEFRA, and we supported that. The initiative was an important first step in bringing together a broad spectrum of key players to take stock of the range of work under way. DEFRA followed up by creating a research funders’ forum to bring together key parties to improve co-ordination and collaboration on bee health research and to draw on all potential sources of funding. The forum has met twice and is due to meet again this autumn to discuss priorities in the light of responses to the strategy. As the forum’s name suggests, the intention is to identify funding sources. It is important to recognise that tackling the issue is a matter not just for the Government and that others must play their part.

The Minister said that more money was coming from the Government. The BBKA and all the beekeepers who read this debate will welcome that. He said the meeting will be held in the autumn, but could he tell us a little about how much money will come in and when?

Let me repeat that we are allocating an additional £90,000 to the NBU this financial year as a matter of priority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North talked about colony collapse. We have looked at almost 10,000 colonies this year, and 19.7 per cent. had died, compared with 15.4 per cent. at the same time last year. Varroa is endemic. The NBU continues to provide advice to beekeepers; indeed, I have with me publications on managing varroa. On behalf of commercial companies, the unit is also looking at the development of veterinary medicines. Varroa is recognised as a key issue in the strategy.

Virtually every hon. Member said that they were not an expert on this issue, but the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) probably is the expert in our ranks—[Interruption.] Well, once someone raises themselves up in the eyes of politicians, they become an expert.

He is the queen bee around here.

There we are. I am afraid that the jokes this morning have been appalling.

Importantly, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare talked about collaboration. A number of institutions are undertaking research, although I will not read out all their names, given the time that I have. However, a range of research projects are under way, and various Departments are joining up. It is right that collaboration is key.

The same is true of working with other European states. That has not been done before on this issue, but the UK has pushed for collaboration. The National Bee Unit has the science, the service, the research and the diagnostics under one roof. We do not know of any other unit that offers the same service, certainly in the European Union. On these issues, other countries look to us, not least for contingency arrangements, and they will take our arrangements as a blueprint when dealing with losses due to a variety of diseases. In a similar way, we have contingency arrangements for dealing with different animal disease outbreaks. We are putting research funding in. We are also seeking to have discussions on working with the Wellcome Foundation, as hon. Members have said.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) drew attention to the horticultural industry in his constituency, in Somerset. He talked about tightening the rules on imports, and we certainly want to look at that. Again, the UK has been pushing the issue at a European level. It is coming higher up the political spectrum in the UK, and we have been leading on it in the European Union.

We need to collaborate. Time and again, hon. Members have said that we need to find out what is going on. That requires beekeepers in England and Wales to co-operate with us, to provide us with the information that we need and to take part in the strategy. We are keen that people give us their thoughts on the strategy; otherwise, it will not be complete.

Will the Minister give way?

I have only five minutes, but I have a whole raft of questions to answer.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) set out his concerns, as did many other hon. Members. He said that the picture is complex, and it is. He also referred to the funding from the Welsh Assembly Government.

The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) referred to a constituent of his. He asked whether we were turning our back on people, and we are certainly not doing that. We are very much engaged in these issues, which is why we published the draft strategy. We want people to be involved in it, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to ask his constituent to take part in the process and to make a contribution.

My noble Friend Lord Rooker said that bees might disappear; he did not predict that they would. Clearly, however, we need to manage our resources and to understand how diseases impact on our bee population.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) made a reasonably good joke at my expense. However, he also spoke about a constituent who was optimistic and talked about better expertise. We all want expertise to flourish, because good husbandry is key to resolving the issue. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the NFU and compared us with other European countries. Part of the strategy relates to the accessibility of medicines and the procedures available under European Community veterinary medicines legislation. We are committed to encouraging marketing authorisations for additional treatments.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) made a good speech recognising that we need to find out far more about what is going on. That requires collaboration and important information. He also welcomed the strategy, and I thank him for that. As I said, we want people to engage with it and to make a contribution.

I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions. We take the issue seriously. We know that people are passionate about beekeeping. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said that he was passionate about it and that he loved bees, although he had some appalling jokes. However, this is a serious issue, and hon. Members have articulated concerns on behalf of constituents whom they have met.

Is the Minister aware that an Australian parliamentary committee has today said that 50 million Australian dollars should be invested in protecting the future of the bee industry there? Could we not see a fraction of a similar commitment from the UK Government?

I have not seen that statement from Australia, but I have indicated that there are additional resources. As the hon. Member for Leominster said, we need to understand what is happening so that we know what we need to fund and what priorities we need to set.

This has been an informative debate, and it is part of the wider discussion that we will have in this place and outside. I am grateful for the information that hon. Members have brought to the debate from their parts of England and Wales.

I am most grateful for this opportunity to highlight the impact of proposed post office closures in Shropshire to the House and, hopefully, to the Minister responsible. I speak as secretary of the all-party group on post offices. I had thought that that association—[Interruption.]

Order. Will Members please leave the Chamber in silence? Members of the public should also leave in silence.

Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I had thought that my being an officer of the all-party group might help my campaign on behalf of my constituents, but as I shall explain, the Post Office has shown me no favours whatever for that relationship, as it seems to have singled out the constituency of Ludlow for the harshest treatment of all in its review of Shropshire and Staffordshire. I am pleased that this debate is supported by my parliamentary colleague from Shropshire, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). With your permission, Mr. Cummings, I shall try to give him the opportunity to contribute to this short debate.

I sought today’s debate in order to give the Minister a last chance to explain to the people of Shropshire why he is forcing through so many post office closures. It is ironic that he seeks to slash the post office network by 2,500 post offices across the country without the support of 89 of his parliamentary colleagues, including several Ministers—the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, to name but two—who have campaigned actively against closures in their constituencies.

Before I get into the specifics of the closure programme in Shropshire, I have a question that I hope the Minister will address in his response, as it would clarify a point put to me by many of my constituents. The Government have decided to limit the subsidy that they provide to Post Office Ltd to maintain the rural post office network. The subsidy of £150 million has been fixed at that level for the next three years, as the comprehensive spending review confirms. Quite properly, under EU regulations, that state subsidy required confirmation by EU authorities under state aid rules. Did the Government have any discretion over the amount of the subsidy subjected to the EU approval process? Was the £150 million limit set by the EU or the Government?

As of today, 810 post offices have been confirmed for closure in areas where plans have been concluded. Only 43 had been saved as of last night, yet they have been saved at the expense of a further 23 that were not originally identified for closure. A net of 20 saved out of 810 is a mere 2.5 per cent. It shows why communities up and down the country feel that the consultation process is but a sham.

Post Office Ltd decided to review the counties of Shropshire and Staffordshire together, as a single area. That decision introduces an urban bias into the review process, as combining the sparsely populated rural county of Shropshire with the much more densely populated county of Staffordshire allows the overall access criteria to be met more readily than if the exercise had been undertaken county by county. According to Post Office Ltd, the combined population is 1.48 million, which allows the Post Office to claim in its area plan that

“98.3% of the population will see no change to the branch that they currently use or will remain within one mile of an alternative outlet”.

Shropshire has a population of only 286,300, according to the county council. That is less than 20 per cent. of the total population of the area covered by the plan, yet it is to bear the brunt of the closures. Post Office Ltd claims that it proposes to close 53 existing branches in both counties, an area that includes the unitary authority of Telford, which is represented in part by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin.

Post Office Ltd also claims that it will establish 12 outreach service points. That is little short of double-speak. In order for an outreach to be established, a post office must close, so we are in fact facing 65 closures, 28 of which will be in Shropshire, including one in Telford. Half of those, 14, are in Ludlow constituency alone. Out of 17 constituencies subject to review, 21.5 per cent of the total number of post offices to be closed are in one constituency where less than 6 per cent. of the population live, assuming that the constituencies are all of comparable size. Not for the first time under this Government, a disproportionate burden will fall on the rural population. In winding up this debate, will the Minister explain why?

The consultation for our area ended on 9 June. Post Office managers are due to make their final decisions by the end of this month and to announce closures on 1 July. I hope that they will take into account the serious comments and considerable effort put into representations made by many of the communities affected. I have made my own comments and, the Minister will be relieved to hear, will not go into the details of the case for each individual post office. The plans have met with considerable opposition. On the evening that the consultation closed, I presented a petition to the House in which, including the e-mail petition, more than 2,500 signatories objected to the individual closures planned in my constituency.

I have some general observations that I would like the Minister to address. First, the access criteria were meant to be framed by the Government so that

“no particular part of the network and no particular group of people should be significantly more adversely affected by closures”.

How does he square that with the impact on my constituency, which has a significantly higher proportion of elderly people than the national average? Some 24 per cent. of the population in south Shropshire is over 65, compared with 17 per cent. nationally. Those people, who include many of the most vulnerable in local communities, rely heavily on their local post offices for access to cash—there are no banks in villages in my constituency—and indeed for much of their social interaction. How do the Government square that with their approach to financial inclusion?

Secondly, many of the data used by the Post Office to make its closure case have been incomplete or inaccurate. Local population statistics have been wrong. Geographic circumstances were meant to be recognised as part of the consultation, but as I illustrated graphically to Post Office managers when they visited my constituency in areas representing each of the communities affected, an 800 ft vertical rise above sea level within a couple of miles from one post office to another does not make for a credible, realistic alternative outlet, although it might appear to when viewed on a two-dimensional map.

Thirdly, economic impact assessments have focused almost entirely on the impact on Post Office Ltd rather than on the local economy. Are not the Government under an obligation to undertake a meaningful impact assessment? If so, why have they failed to require that for an exercise so vital to local communities? Post offices—particularly when they are the last shop in the village, as nine out of the 14 post offices at stake in my constituency are—provide a vital economic lifeline. Once closed, they are most unlikely to reopen. Why has no meaningful economic impact assessment been undertaken of the impact of closures on those communities?

Fourthly, no account has been taken of rural deprivation. Why not? Deprivation is not confined to urban areas. Other Departments recognise pockets of deprivation in all rural areas, yet no attempt has been made to dovetail the network of continuing post office provision with maps of rural deprivation. Why not?

I turn briefly to some of the specific issues relating to the post offices subject to closure in my area. My constituency contains two towns of 10,000 people: Bridgnorth, which I am pleased to say has three post offices, none of which are proposed for closure, and Ludlow, which is extremely similar in size and has two post offices, one of which is due for closure. Why are towns of similar size and social characteristics given such widely differing post office provision?

My hon. Friend makes a very strong case for why those post offices should remain open. Like them, the King street post office in Wellington, in my constituency, which has been used by all age groups over many years, is due to close. The Government need to think very seriously about the impact of the closures on rural life and communities.

I am very grateful for that powerful intervention. No account seems to have been taken of the impact on those communities, other than the fig leaf of the outreach service, to which I shall come in a moment, and behind which the Government seem to be seeking to hide when they talk about continued provision in rural areas.

What is my hon. Friend’s view of the Post Office card account? That is a very important lifeline, and those who have survived the current closure round will remain under threat if the Government withdraw it in 2010.

I thank my hon. Friend for anticipating something that I was going to raise in my speech. I hope that the Minister will respond to the allegation made by the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which has calculated that if Post Office Ltd does not resecure the contract for the card account, and if it is given to a competing company, up to 4,000 further post offices could face closure. The Post Office card account is vital, particularly in rural areas, because, given the lack of alternative access to cash and other financial services, the post office is for many people the only place where they can access cash.

Furthermore, the more elderly customers, in particular, of the Post Office tended to subscribe to the card account when it was introduced. Originally there were more than 4 million card account users, but that number has declined as the Post Office has been unable to invest in the product pending its resubmission. Indeed, the whole viability of the account was cast into doubt more than a year ago, so it has not been possible for it truly to compete with other products available more widely. Usage has therefore been declining. It is vital that the account be retained by Royal Mail, and it would be helpful if the Minister indicated the timing and likelihood of it being retained.

The other threat to the overall number of post offices comes from those currently closed, but not being counted as closures. The Government have set this arbitrary figure of 2,500, and I have referred to the potential loss of a further 4,000 if the card account is not secured. In addition, however, a number of post offices are currently closed, but for the purposes of the review are recorded as open. There are two such post offices in my constituency: one is in the village of Middleton Scriven—I am willing to name it because it has been closed for the past 18 months. There are 22 households in the parish, and for a long time the post office was run from the front room of a local resident’s house. That person passed away, and it was taken on by a retired gentleman after a lifetime working in the financial services industry. He wrote to me in January of last year saying that he was willing to provide the service for as long as he could, but that, given that he had only two customers a week, he did not anticipate a rush of willing volunteers to take over his role when he came to give up, which he subsequently did.

The Post Office has twice readvertised for someone to provide that service to the community of Middleton Scriven, but unsurprisingly there have been no takers. And yet, under this review, such a post office ought naturally to be considered for closure. The local community has already become used to the fact that no facility is available, but owing to the arbitrary access criteria, the Government have made it difficult for the Post Office to recognise it as a closure or to count it as one of the post offices to be closed. It would be very helpful if the Minister commented on the credibility of that programme, given that he is leaving open post offices that have already closed. That would be very welcome in Shropshire.

Another category of very small post offices currently provided for demonstrates—again—a complete lack of logic in the Government’s approach. Of the 45 post offices in my constituency, six are provided through short-term arrangements at village halls. In a sense, they represent a precursor to the outreach planned under the current arrangements. In some of those facilities, no indication is given on the outside of the building that any post office activity is taking place inside. That might be done for sensible security reasons—so that there is no open invitation to break in to those who might think that cash is stored on the premises. That might be a wise precaution, but it means that only the immediate users in the village know when the post office is functioning. The number of users will decline pretty rapidly, therefore, when a post office closes and outreach provision is put in place in an anonymous village hall.

One such facility continues to operate in my constituency, within a mile and a half of a post office run from the premises of a garage forecourt. That village hall provision is available for two hours a week, but the hours have changed in the past two years, and I myself have not managed to go when it has been open. That outreach service is provided by someone whose equipment has not been working recently, so in recent months he has been driving its two or three customers to the post office a mile and a half away to conduct their transactions and driving them back again. Yet the Government and the Post Office have proposed that the village hall service should continue, and that the much more used—albeit it is not used much because it is a relatively small village—post office shop facility should close. That is illogical, and I have made representations to the Post Office urging it to reconsider.

I shall turn to some of the other outreach proposals. It seems nonsensical for the Government to insist on the closure of a post office being run from a shop’s premises and then to prevent a continuing outreach service—a service that Post Office Ltd has agreed should be provided to a community given its geographic isolation—from being provided on the same premises. There is a very urban approach to competition, and it is feared that if such a shop continues to be recognised as the local post office, business would be driven away from neighbouring post offices. Inevitably, if an outreach facility is set up to provide a service for a few hours a week, from a mobile van parked up outside a village hall or a pub someplace distant from the previous shop post office, usage will decline relatively rapidly, as I described earlier. Why not try to help local communities being harmed anyway by post office closures by allowing the service to continue to be provided either from the premises, or from the car park or adjacent area of the existing shop? Why does the Minister think that communities will get a better service from such a mobile facility located remotely?

In conclusion, I urge the Minister and, through him, Post Office Ltd to take account of representations made by many constituents—not just the 2,500 signed petitions, but the extensive written submissions presented on behalf of many of the communities affected. Worthen has made a particularly powerful case, as have the villages of Marton and East Hamlet, in Ludlow, where more than a thousand people have participated in attempts to retain a post office. I have also had representations from the community of Lydbury North, which is suffering the possible loss of not only its post office but its school. That post office is within a community shop that is manned by volunteers, which means that it can provide an extremely cost-effective service as the existing shop is already being supplied to the community at virtually no cost.

Let me start in the usual way by congratulating the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) on securing the debate. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs is unable to attend the debate due to business in another part of the House. Neither my hon. Friend nor I have a role in deciding which post offices should close. That is a matter for Post Office Ltd following a consultation involving Postwatch, local people, Members of Parliament and others.

The proposed closures in Shropshire are part of the wider programme announced last year by the then Secretary of State to reduce the network by up to 2,500 post offices, thus taking the number of branches to about 11,500. The background to that difficult decision is that the network is losing about £500,000 a day. It has 4 million fewer customers a week than it had three years ago and 75 per cent. of branches are unprofitable. If it were run as a commercial network, it would probably have only about 4,000 branches. In some rural branches, the cost per transaction is £17. That decline is the result of a combination of lifestyle changes, new technology and increased competition. Eight out of 10 pensioners have their pensions paid directly into the bank and 1 million customers a month renew their car tax online, compared with 500,000 a year ago. The Post Office now faces competition from companies such as PayPoint, which won the contract for the TV licence. I add that the Government played no part in that decision.

Faced with those challenges, the Government have taken the necessary difficult decisions to put the network on a stable footing. The challenges have been recognised by the National Federation of SubPostmasters whose general secretary said at the start of the programme:

“Although regrettable we believe that closures are necessary to ensure the remaining post offices are able to thrive in the future”.

Even the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), has said in a debate on the post office network that

“we have to face the facts about the future of postal services in this country...we fully expect the network to shrink in size. We have never given a guarantee that no post offices will close”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 947.]

I understand the fundamental premise that no one wants their local post office to close, but it is important to see the changes in their proper context. Even after the programme, the network will still be larger than the major high street banks combined.

Will the Minister give way?

Not with the time that is available, as I want to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Ludlow.

As the hon. Member for Ludlow has indicated, at least 500 new outreach services will be introduced, mainly in rural areas, including seven mobile services in his constituency. They are a cost-effective means of ensuring continued access to post office services in rural areas, and research shows that customer satisfaction levels for them are comparable to those for traditional post offices. The Government have also committed additional funding of £1.7 billion up to 2011, including £150 million per year to support non-commercial post offices. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the European Commission was dictating how many post offices should close or how much subsidy should be provided. Let me make it clear that a maximum level of state aid to subsidise post offices is not included, for example, in the European postal services directive, which has been one concern. Decisions about the level of subsidy were not part of some sort of price agreed with the Commission about the number of closures. Those decisions remain very much the preserve of the UK Government.

The access criteria laid down by the Government are designed to ensure a national network with reasonable access to post office services throughout the country. Broadly speaking, most people should be within one mile of a post office outlet in urban areas and within three miles in rural communities. Without the access criteria, many more rural communities would be left without access to post office services, as only the least used branches are closed.

Before change proposals are published, Post Office Ltd discusses them with local authorities and sub-postmasters. On average, 12.5 per cent. of proposals have been changed as a result of detailed input from key stakeholders such as Postwatch before the local public consultation. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, a number of closure decisions have been withdrawn, but I accept that some, though not as many, additional branches have been proposed for closure.

There has been much discussion about the closure of allegedly profitable branches, but people should be cautious when talking about what is profitable. When one takes into account the remuneration that must be paid to the sub-postmaster, as well as the Post Office’s central support costs, three out of four post offices lose money. The Government have encouraged the Post Office to explore fully any serious proposal from a local authority to maintain a service where a branch is scheduled to close, although it would want to ensure that its costs would be met in full and that there would be some certainty for the future. Such arrangements would also need to be state aid compatible.

The example of Essex county council has received much attention in the media recently. Will the Minister confirm that local authorities are being provided with no additional subsidy from the Government, and that local authorities offering to take on post offices are therefore proposing to replace the subsidy that the Government provide?

I can confirm that no additional subsidy is being made available by the Government to the local authorities concerned. Such decisions to get involved are very much for them to take.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the card account, and I recognise that there are concerns about that. He might know that the Department for Work and Pensions is managing the tender process for the new card account. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the outcome of that process, but we expect that there will be an announcement on the successful bidder in the coming months, in accordance with the usual procurement rules.

Looking to the future, the Post Office needs to keep developing new products and new reasons for customers to come through the door. There has been progress in that direction, with the Post Office emerging as the largest foreign currency dealer in the country, developing car and household insurance products and providing broadband in association with British Telecom. It is also actively exploring a range of new business opportunities, and is developing and trialling new approaches to providing and delivering services to local authorities.

The future of the network cannot be about turning back the clock; it must be about developing new products and new reasons for customers to use post offices. As I said at the outset, the process is not easy and there will inevitably be considerable concerns in communities faced with the prospect of local branch closures. However, doing nothing in the face of declining business and mounting losses simply is not an option.

I am delighted to address the House under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings. I know that because of your background, you have a great affinity with mining areas and former mining villages. Featherstone is one of several communities in west Yorkshire that I have the privilege to represent. I am pleased to see a distinguished and diligent Minister in his place to respond to the debate. I shall seek to persuade the Government that Featherstone has particular regeneration needs, and I hope that he will be able to address them.

When I first arrived in my constituency, in which there are about 23 villages or small townships, the shadow of the strike and the subsequent closure of all the collieries there was still strongly felt in almost every village. I have a strong image in my mind of the devastation that those terrible closures wrought on those communities. The work of regenerating them is still far from finished, but I am pleased to say that many villages, small towns, communities and neighbourhoods are looking forward to real growth and regeneration. The struggle has been hard but rewarding.

When considering regeneration in Featherstone, there are people who say that the glass is half full, but also those who say that it is half empty. Whichever view one takes, the process of regeneration is far from complete, for a number of reasons to do with Featherstone’s history and geographical location. It stands some way from the M62, the M1 and the A1, which form the main road network around the communities that I represent. Many of the others are much closer to the motorway and therefore easier to regenerate.

Featherstone is still the sixth most deprived ward in the Wakefield area, and some parts of the town are in the most deprived 5 per cent. in the whole country. That statistic speaks volumes. A lot has been done, some of which I shall mention, but the people of Featherstone and I will not be satisfied until regeneration becomes a self-sustaining process and there is a virtuous circle of regeneration. We are not there yet. That is why I wish to argue the case for Featherstone becoming what will be called a coalfield action partnership area. I would like CAP status to be applied to Featherstone.

Let me recount work that has been done on three matters, the first of which is jobs. When I first arrived in Featherstone on the proud day when I had been selected as the Labour candidate, I drove through the town past a road that appeared to go to nowhere—indeed, that was exactly what it did. The road was part of Green lane and went to where the colliery had been. It had been paid for with European money. It was a wonderful road, beautifully tarmacked and with street lights and so on, but it went nowhere. It went to where the pit had been, where by that time there was only a generating station and a lot of weeds. With other people, I persuaded English Partnerships and Yorkshire Forward to take a risk and build some empty units to see whether we could put jobs there. About 10 years later, I am delighted to say that there are more than 2,000 jobs on that site, and 300,000 sq ft of properties have been developed there. It is a fantastic success for the area.

A local entrepreneur. Mr. Ian Cushnie, who runs a firm called CMS, got a small amount of European regional development fund money, mainly through his own sweat, toil and ingenuity. On a site in the centre of Featherstone, he built eight industrial units, most of which are now filled, and a large warehouse. We have also had £2.2 million awarded to the Chesney centre, which contains some small starter units for small businesses, office space and facilities for training and community development. I am sure that you have seen plenty of that sort of thing in the area that you represent, Mr. Cummings.

To show that we have excellence in the local economy, I shall mention Copley’s farm shop. Not everybody might imagine that there could be a farm shop of great excellence in a former colliery village such as Featherstone, but Copley’s, a small family business that I believe was started only five years ago, now employs 22 people. It has been so successful that it has been acknowledged by Claridge’s, of all places, as the best farm shop in the country. That proves the excellence of the local staff and work force. I do not know whether you have ever been to Claridge’s, Mr. Cummings. I certainly have not, but I might well go. If you are ever passing Hemsworth or Featherstone, you would be more than welcome to come to Copley’s farm shop.

We have been busy trying to create jobs in the Featherstone area, but questions remain. What kind of jobs are being created? How many of the 2,000 or so people in jobs on Green lane live in Featherstone and how many have been brought in from outside? There is not enough of a link between the new jobs and the employment of the people who live in the area. I see from the statistics that the number of people living in Featherstone who are, unfortunately, on income support is 50 per cent. higher than the average for the country. That tends to indicate that the new jobs that have come do not pay very well and may not be of the same quality as those that existed when the coal mines were open. We need to think about that.

The second issue that I wish to mention is education, which in many ways is the key in coalfield areas. As you know, Mr. Cummings, levels of educational attainment in those areas vary. In the Wakefield area, of which Featherstone is part, a significantly lower than average number of people in the working population have level 3 qualifications. It is important that that educational deficit be addressed so that we can overcome the problems of low pay and of poor access to the employment opportunities that the new economy is creating. In particular, the deficit reflects the poor skills base among young people who are not in education, employment or training—the so-called NEET group. The proportion of young people not in any of those three categories is higher in Featherstone than in many other places. That is why we have put a lot of work into ensuring that there is investment in education in the area. I have mentioned the £2.2 million awarded to Chesney’s, where there is adult education.

Almost all the primary schools in the area have had significant additional funding in the past 10 years, but I shall focus on high schools to show how much the Government have invested in the Featherstone area. St. Wilfrid’s, which is a Catholic school in north Featherstone, has benefited from £6.25 million for major refurbishment and remodelling, and it draws in people from a wider area than just Featherstone. Featherstone high school, which has now become Featherstone technology college, has received even more money. There was a major refurbishment costing £2 million when it became a technology college, a new sports centre cost £3 million, upgrading the existing facilities cost £500,000, securing technology college status cost £250,000 and a new swimming pool cost £1.3 million. Altogether, about £7.33 million was spent on the campus. That is a demonstration of the confidence that both the Government and the local council, Wakefield metropolitan district council, have in the future of Featherstone. They are optimistic that Featherstone has a promising future.

As I said, £7.33 million has been spent on Featherstone technical college and a further £6.2 million at St. Wilfrid’s school. The technology college, which is the former high school, is repaying every year the confidence that the Government had in it. Every year, we are seeing better results than it was able to achieve the year before. We have broken records at the college in terms of the number of young people achieving exam passes. This year, we expect to get to about 38 per cent. of students—I think that that is the figure—achieving five GCSEs, including maths and English. If so, it will be another record-breaking year and it will be thanks to the brilliant leadership of the head teacher, Stuart Wilson, together with the staff, parents and obviously the young people themselves in producing these fantastic results. After all, education and training is the way for people to take advantage of the new economy being created in our country.

Along with jobs and education, the third area that I wanted to mention is housing. When the Conservatives left office and Labour took over, a great deal of the council housing stock was in disrepair. Many council houses—indeed, most houses in the country—had been left unfit after 18 years of Conservative Administration. It is true to say that Wakefield, which previously had been a series of smaller urban district councils and rural councils, had always looked after its properties, but the fact is that, after all those years, much needed to be done.

Since the council housing went into Wakefield and District Housing, which is run by Kevin Dodd, £14 million has been spent on housing in Featherstone alone, putting right the effects of the many years of neglect. It is true to say that that work has been done rapidly. Occasionally the workmen have perhaps focused on getting the work done as quickly as possible, and from time to time that has caused irritation and frustration for the householder involved. However, when the work is finished, it is fantastic for the householder to have heating, a new kitchen, new electricity supply and all the other things that are being fitted. Clearly, £14.3 million is a huge amount of money.

There is also a master plan for the town that proposes the building of new housing. As we know, the nation as a whole needs much more new housing. Certainly, it would be welcomed by many people in Featherstone if some new housing was to be built in the town, to increase the housing mix. We are very interested to see how that construction process develops.

There is one very dark black spot in housing in Featherstone, which is the former Coal Board houses on Girnhill lane. As I am sure you know, Mr. Cummings, when the pits were closed, Mrs. Thatcher and the Coal Board decided to sell off the Coal Board houses and they were duly sold off. The houses on Girnhill lane were in need of serious remedy; in effect, they had been built with structural defects. They were sold off to a variety of different landlords. Sometimes they were sold off to the council; quite often, colliers who might have saved a bit of money—redundancy money or whatever—then bought their own house and that was a source of great pride for them. For example, I think of George Harrison, who lives on Girnhill lane, who has built a wonderful house there and put an enormous amount of love and attention into it, as have his wife and the rest of his family. However, it is sad to see the extent to which the estate has degraded, to the point where radical action must now be taken.

Three different Ministers have visited Girnhill lane with me: Charlie Falconer, or Lord Falconer as I had better describe him in this place; Lord Rooker, and the current Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), who visited when he was a Treasury Minister. All three of them were shocked at the state of Girnhill lane. The council has made money available—about £5 million so far—but when the few people who are still living there look around them, they say, “It cannot possibly be true that they have spent £5 million in Girnhill lane, John, because where has it gone? And how come it has taken so long?”

I must say that I am very frustrated indeed and I understand the anger of the people who live on Girnhill lane that we have not seen further action. However, the truth is that, because Mrs. Thatcher split up the Coal Board estate into so many little parcels of land, it has taken ages to reassemble the estate, buying each small parcel of land to establish an overall development. One landlord owned probably half the estate in the area, but lived in South Africa. It was very difficult to contact him or negotiate a price with him. The negotiations with him went on far too long, in my opinion; we might have used a compulsory purchase order against him some time before we did. The process took a long time and it was very frustrating. I feel frustrated and sometimes angry about it, and certainly the people who live in Girnhill lane do, and rightly so.

The land assembly has been more or less completed now at Girnhill lane. We want to proceed with the construction of 220 new houses, which is a very exciting prospect indeed. However, the time for waiting or for meetings behind closed doors in the council or regional offices is over; I want to see action now in Girnhill lane and I know that the people who live there feel that even more strongly than I do.

If we are not careful, however, all the work on housing that I am talking about will pass the local people by, because workmen will come in, do the work and then move on. I would like to see some of this house building that I have mentioned linked by training to apprenticeships for many of the young people in the area who are looking for stable future employment. Why should such apprenticeships not be in a building trade, given all the housing that will be built in the area?

Briefly, I want to touch on the several issues that still need to be addressed. First, the supermarket deserted the town and left just an empty building there. Without a supermarket, the town centre is not in a healthy state and the local traders desperately want some form of regeneration for it. If necessary, the public sector, including the Government, needs to say, “We will make a supermarket happen there.” That happened in Hemsworth; we got Tesco to come and that Tesco supermarket is part of the regeneration of that town. A similar process must happen in Featherstone.

I would also like to see linkage between all the jobs at Green lane that I mentioned and the rest of the town. At the moment, Green lane is a dead-end road: people drive in off the M62 to work there; there is a cul-de-sac, and then there is the town, 50 yards further away. I would like to see a linkage between the two roads, so that some of the money and economic activity in Green lane spills out into the rest of Featherstone. I have already mentioned that much more work needs to be done on housing, and I will not repeat that.

Featherstone is a sporting town. No doubt, Mr. Cummings, you will know a great deal about Featherstone Rovers, which is a very famous and excellent rugby club that is well led and deeply ingrained in the local community. It is working with difficult youngsters and others who need help on very exciting projects. The chair of the club is Paul Coventry, who is very dedicated both to the rugby club itself and to its integration into the town, as are the other directors. However, there are many other sporting activities in the town, from the cricket and bowling green to Featherstone Lions, which is an amateur rugby league club. All those sporting activities and organisations ought to be brought together on to a campus somehow, so that we can have a sense of sporting excellence right in the middle of Featherstone.

Finally, there are the highway problems: poor highways are one of the main problems that we have in Featherstone. There is huge congestion, with people driving backwards and forwards, often bypassing Featherstone. The obstructions and difficulties with local highways are causing real problems. We have a plan for a south-east link road, which would begin to alleviate some of those problems.

All of those ideas are being brought together. I have said that there has been about £30 million of investment over the last 10 years in the Featherstone area, but there is more to do. There is a master plan for the town and an urban renaissance document, but they must not be reduced to subjects for a shallow talking shop. I want action, and so do the people of Featherstone. That is why I support the proposition that Featherstone should become a coalfield action partnership area. The primary agencies—the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, Yorkshire Forward, English Partnerships and Wakefield metropolitan district council—should come together urgently to ensure that a coalfield action partnership is agreed and that it proceeds.

I have discussed all those matters with my hon. Friend the Minister and Cabinet Ministers. The subject has been discussed at the highest levels. I want the Government to move from talking to the action that is required. I press my hon. Friend the Minister to commit the Government to working with me and others to ensure that Featherstone is successfully integrated into the economic success story that we are seeing elsewhere in west Yorkshire.

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings, especially as you are my parliamentary next-door neighbour. I should imagine that you were interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), given that you represent a similar area.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. For many years he has been tireless in raising in this House and with Ministers and officials the subject of regeneration and housing renewal in his constituency, including the Girnhill estate in Featherstone that he discussed today. His passion for promoting jobs, education and housing in the former mining communities that he represents and for improving his constituents’ quality of life is a testimony to his commitment to his constituency and to his strong representation and leadership of his local area.

In the time available to me, I would like to respond to my hon. Friend’s contribution by covering three broad areas. First, I would like to set out the benefits that this Government have achieved through housing regeneration and what the future challenges are. Secondly, I would like to set out what we are doing to support former mining communities going through change, in particular in Wakefield and Featherstone itself. Thirdly, I shall address some of the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised about regeneration of the Girnhill estate.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, since coming to power in 1997, we have reversed the legacy of decades of under-investment in housing. We have made significant inroads into the £19 billion backlog of repairs to social housing that we inherited. In his region, the number of non-decent homes has fallen by more than 150,000 since 1997. That is improving living conditions and people’s quality of life, and contributing to sustainable communities where people now want to live.

Through the housing market renewal programme, for which I have ministerial responsibility, we are giving significant support to those areas in the west midlands and the north, including parts of Wakefield—I have visited the area—that were hit hardest by the decline of traditional industries and which need to tackle problems of severe market failure. We are seeing real progress in those areas. As the National Audit Office found last year, all pathfinder areas have started to close the price gap in their region, and there have been substantial physical improvements in many neighbourhoods.

However, we recognise that more needs to be done, as my hon. Friend said. That is why last year we announced £10.2 billion of regional housing resources nationally for 2008 to 2011. Yorkshire and the Humber is set to benefit from £559 million of that. Compared with last year, that is a 32 per cent. increase in funding in my hon. Friend’s region by 2010-11. We have set the region a challenging target for delivery of additional affordable housing, but there will also be a high level of expenditure on improving existing housing and on regeneration projects. In addition, we have been able to announce a further £1 billion investment in the housing market renewal programme over the next three years. That includes a planned £203 million for Yorkshire and the Humber, of which £12 million is planned for coalfield settlements in parts of Wakefield.

We are facing new challenges to build much-needed new homes and to tackle problems of affordability in all our communities. It is important, however, that in areas of the north we balance growth alongside regeneration and continue to focus our efforts on areas with deep-seated structural problems, such as the mining communities my hon. Friend represents.

I am well aware, as are you, Mr. Cummings, of the impact on mining communities of the demise of the mining industry. My constituency, too, has felt the impact of industrial change with the decline of shipbuilding and heavy manufacturing industry. As my hon. Friend knows, many proud, hard-working families have faced real hardship and have needed support to adapt to the changing social and economic landscapes emerging in such areas. That is why, through support of the Coalfield Regeneration Trust since 1999, we have invested more than £1 million in the Featherstone ward and more than £2.3 million in Hemsworth as a whole. As my hon. Friend said several times today, he is leading the calls for Featherstone to be identified as a coalfield action area for future investment. I am sure that he will be extremely successful in that.

None of that support and investment can work without local leadership and strong partnership working. To be frank, and to embarrass my hon. Friend, one of the things that impresses me about him is his ability to bring together the relevant agencies—Wakefield council, the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, Yorkshire Forward and English Partnerships—and the local community to make the regeneration of Featherstone a high priority for all concerned. My hon. Friend’s ambition for his area means that the issue is now being discussed at the highest levels of Government, and it will ensure that a co-ordinated approach is taken to bringing real and sustainable regeneration to Featherstone.

We also need to tackle specific housing market challenges in our mining communities. I believe we would all agree with my hon. Friend that the decision by the former National Coal Board, under the Conservative Government, to dispose of its housing stock had a negative impact on too many mining areas. As he said, many homes were bought by landlords. I have no doubt that many were responsible and had good intentions, but many were speculative, absent, or plain irresponsible and had no regard for good housing management or the feelings of local residents. As a result, as my hon. Friend knows only too well and as I have seen on my own patch, many neighbourhoods fell into decline. Local residents who could simply left, while those left behind often remained in intolerable living conditions.

I have spoken about what we are doing through the housing market renewal programme to turn areas around, but that is not all. For example, through the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Housing Board we have invested £18 million between 2005 and 2008 in the green corridor partnership project to address the issues of former coalfield settlements in south-east Wakefield, Barnsley and Doncaster and to develop quality living environments and sustainable communities. My hon. Friend is far too modest to mention it, but he should take a lot of credit for that initiative, which demonstrates the impact that he can have in Whitehall. It was his invitation to the former Housing Minister, my noble Friend Lord Falconer, which proved to be the necessary catalyst for action to improve those areas.

There is still much to do in the former mining communities. My hon. Friend raised concerns about progress on the Girnhill lane, Featherstone, regeneration project. I would like to say how sorry I was to hear about some of the problems that are emerging on that estate. It must be extraordinarily distressing to live on the estate in its current condition. I look to the council, the police and other appropriate agencies to ensure the effective management of the estate while it goes through change, and to ensure that the remaining residents can live safely in their homes.

As my hon. Friend said, the council is considering compulsory purchase action in Girnhill. I know that he, on behalf of his constituents, is somewhat impatient at the pace of that development. However, he will recognise that it would be wrong of me to comment on the specific detail of the regeneration scheme, as it may prejudice any future quasi-legal decision by the Secretary of State.

In conclusion, I again pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on behalf of his constituents in respect of regeneration, employment, training, jobs and housing. I am sorry that I am somewhat restricted in saying more about the prospects of impending compulsory action, but I am sure my hon. Friend understands that restriction. I am confident that with his strong local leadership and his ability to bring people together, a satisfactory resolution can be found soon to enable the Girnhill regeneration to proceed. I hope that I have reassured him that this Government are committed to supporting mining communities such as Featherstone and Girnhill in his area and elsewhere through change, including turning around housing market failings where they exist.

I appreciate the opportunity to have this debate, which I welcome, as do a number of my constituents. I also appreciate the Minister’s attending.

Abuse of the elderly, which we might perhaps narrow to financial abuse of the elderly, is often considered to be a stranger danger. In the media, people tend to read about cowboy builders who take advantage of older people, rogue traders, phoney charities and various get-rich-quick schemes that attempt to draw older people in and sometimes—although perhaps it is not abuse to the same degree—even mis-selling by normally reputable financial institutions. However, a form of abuse that is far less discussed is abuse that happens nearer to home.

Family and friends are often the greatest risk to older people, sometimes out of weakness and sometimes from a lack of understanding or a lack of respect. Obviously, older people who are subject to dementia or any kind of mental frailty are among the most vulnerable. I suspect that the Minister will be familiar with statistics put together by Action on Elder Abuse and other groups, including Age Concern, for example, which essentially show that dementia affects one in 20 people over 65 and one in five of those over 80. Some 750,000 people with dementia live in England and Wales at the current time.

As we all live longer, the number of people suffering from dementia in the United Kingdom is expected to rise to an astonishing £1.8 million by 2050. Many of those people will have more resources. In the past, old age has tended to be associated with poverty, but with more households comprising two earners and with many people—certainly, those of our generation—benefiting from the rise in the value of their homes, elderly people often have substantial resources, much of which they have saved through programmes and plans with the intention that those should provide for them in their old age.

The Action on Elder Abuse research paper, “The cost of living: growing up is free, growing old is expensive”, reports that most victims of financial abuse are women over 81 and that most perpetrators are sons and daughters of those people, aged 41 to 60. Given that information, hon. Members can sense how sensitive, complex and difficult this issue is. However, I want to focus on a yet narrower area of financial abuse of older people: the potential to abuse power of attorney and the difficulties in challenging the way in which those powers are used.

Some recent cases have been mentioned in the newspapers. Let me open with one, after which I shall talk about the experience of one of my constituents. The Daily Telegraph on 12 June, just a week or so ago, reported that a Mrs. Garbutt was murdered. I am not suggesting that most cases end that way, but the court heard, in the general description of what had happened in the family context, that Mrs. Garbutt’s daughter

“had been granted power of attorney over Mrs. Garbutt's savings of approximately £100,000 and had withdrawn and transferred substantial sums”.

The case that drew my attention to this subject was mentioned to me by a constituent of mine. Perhaps if I say a little bit about that case it will give some sense of its scope and dimension. I shall not use names because although some family members are willing to be identified not all are. I think that the relevant Department is well aware of the case. In this instance, the underlying issue is perhaps the most common one: an alleged conflict of interest where a relative who is the attorney under the old enduring power of attorney system and is in a position to make significant decisions about the life of an older person, particularly the way in which their money is spent, is also the executor and sole heir under the will. The case was brought to my attention by a stepdaughter of the elderly lady concerned: she was not a blood relative and not an heir and had no intention of making any claim on the estate, but had, because of ties of family, spent time visiting this older lady, caring for her and advocating for her welfare on her behalf to nursing homes and others.

As I suggested earlier, the victims of this kind of abuse often are not one’s typical picture of the impoverished and vulnerable. This older lady had enjoyed a successful career in the world of finance and her estate in old age was considerable and indeed bolstered by a good pension and income from a trust. She was, in her active professional life, profiled in major national publications and was once quoted as saying, “I appreciate the things that money can buy.” In other words, she lived life well when young and in her prime and she intended to live life well, having ensured, as her deceased husband had done, that the resources were available to her.

The lady was diagnosed as being in the early stages of Alzheimer’s and although for a while she continued to live independently, it was evident to relatives that her dementia was taking a rapid toll, although her physical health remained excellent. Two years after the diagnosis, suddenly and to the surprise of most of her relatives, she signed an enduring power of attorney giving power to her closest blood relative, and within a matter of hours was removed to a care home. Shortly afterwards, she made further alterations to her will. The EPA was registered with the Office of the Public Guardian, but not for another two years. Therefore, there was a two-year period in which, in a sense, this lady is supposed to have been in full charge of her mental capacity. Yet, as far as I understand it, there are serious questions about whether that is true. Indeed, in that period she was moved between homes because the home that she had been placed in initially was unable to cope with the severity of her dementia.

Immediately, we have two questions. First, we need to find out whether this lady was capable of signing the EPA in the first place. Secondly, we have to try to account for the delay in registration, given her condition.

The lady was moved through a couple of nursing homes, but she finally ended up in a comfortable but expensive facility with a specialist dementia unit, where she did reasonably well. The family’s general understanding was that she had found a suitable place in which to get the necessary care. That home was expensive, but was well within the capacity of her substantial estate.

The circumstances of the case are disputed by the different sides, because five years later the lady was abruptly removed, under instructions from the attorney, to a far less expensive facility, which at the time had no specialist dementia registration. It later acquired such registration, but from what I have read I doubt that it would have described itself as a care home that specialised in dealing with dementia. My constituent saw her stepmother deteriorate quite rapidly: dramatic weight loss, a series of falls, loss of memory, and physical deterioration, including serious infections requiring hospitalisation. Within 18 months she was bed-bound and within two years she died.

One may dispute the issues of the case, but my constituent, who had absolutely no financial or other interest in the will or the way in which resources were disposed of, sought to find ways of challenging the care that her stepmother was receiving. She sought advice from the Court of Protection, but all the responses indicated that if she brought a successful challenge she would not be financially at risk, whereas if there were any question about the challenge or she was not successful, she would face severe legal costs. As she pointed out to me, to expect people who may not be the closest blood relative to put themselves at such a risk is unrealistic, so the opportunities for challenge are extremely limited.

My constituent was extremely persistent, and finally persuaded the Office of the Public Guardian to arrange for a Lord Chancellor’s visitor to visit the lady, but the process was so extenuated, so long drawn out and so delayed that it occurred only about six weeks before she died.

The Minister will be aware of articles, for example in The Daily Telegraph on 31 May 2008, about the general logjam, but I do not know whether people understand that it extends to this aspect of the Office of the Public Guardian’s work. It does not apply just to legal processing, and there seems to be an inherent delay in following up any monitoring and investigation. That is inexcusable when people are in the last years of their lives. My constituent has been informed by the Court of Protection and the OPG that following the death of her stepmother they have no jurisdiction to proceed with their inquiry. She has been told that the matter has effectively been closed by the death of her stepmother.

Many of the problems in this case are associated with enduring power of attorney, which I accept has been replaced by lasting power of attorney, but EPAs in existence prior to October 2007 are still in effect under the old arrangements. I am anxious for the Minister to provide some clarity on how legacy EPAs are being monitored. She will be aware that, according to the charity Action on Elder Abuse, when plans to change to lasting powers of attorney became clear, there was a rush to sign up EPAs ahead of the deadline. They were less costly and many solicitors, unfortunately, advised clients to sign under the old system, and relatives who may have been aware of the differences between the regimes may have encouraged the same. I understand that. The reason for changing the system—which runs counter to the notion of people rushing to sign up— was general concern about whether the person signing was capable of understanding the consequences and delays in registration. I understand that under that system there are no penalties for non-registration, so it is ineffectual.

I have asked the Department whether anyone has ever been deregistered for power of attorney. If they have, no one is aware of it because the information does not seem to be available to anyone, which is somewhat alarming. I should be interested to know whether there really is absolutely no knowledge of whether anyone has ever been deregistered. That would be extraordinary.

EPAs have been ripe for all kinds of abuse. The Minister will remember that the barrister, Tom Dumont, in an article in 2001 on “The Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney” estimated that about 15 per cent. of EPAs may be abused, or more than 100,000 at any one time. He pointed out that few financial institutions have any meaningful training on EPAs or the concerns about unregistered EPAs. The system exists in name, but not in practice.

I accept that lasting power of attorney is an improvement on the old EPA system because it provides a more rigorous certification and registration process. However, it is far from iron-clad, and we must recognise that in the past doctors and solicitors were hesitant to step into family relationships and to suggest that a power of attorney might be inappropriate or that the wrong person was being given power of attorney. Certificates of capacity are now required, but solicitors, doctors and friends are still hesitant to interfere in family relationships and are unlikely to challenge whether someone’s mental capacity suggests that they are capable of even a lasting power of attorney. The safeguards have increased, but the underlying flaw that people are hesitant to challenge family relationships remains deeply embedded in the system.

We are aware that LPAs can have much greater scope than the old EPAs. In the situation that I described, it was clear that an EPA was being used to make decisions about welfare as well as finance. It is hard to unravel the two, but that is now formalised in the new lasting power of attorney because it can be made to extend to personal welfare.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us what monitoring should take place post-registration—the whole focus seems to be on the registration process rather than on registration followed by ongoing monitoring—and whether the new system will offer better opportunities for external challenge. I cannot see that that will be real while the threat of heavy legal costs remains.

On education, most people are not introduced to the notion of power of attorney until they are frail, which is probably the worst time to have to understand it. Surely, more effective mechanisms should be available to advise people, for example, that they may appoint more than one attorney, that they could include an independent non-beneficiary, and that they could set out preferences and guidance in a more substantial way. That issue does not seem to have been taken up with the legal profession or any other body.

As the Minister will be aware from yesterday’s article in The Daily Telegraph, headed, “Whitehall blamed for elderly dying before financial affairs are sorted”, the new lasting power of attorney mechanism has hit a logjam. I am sure that she will tell us about resources to relieve that logjam. Many others, like me, are concerned that the anxiety to get through the logjam does not lead to a quick dusting over of the registration process. That would defeat the whole point of having made the changes.

It is obviously necessary to ensure that there is an effective mechanism for power of attorney for people as they become older, but surely as the number of older people increases, particularly of those with substantial financial resources, we must look beyond registration and put in place better monitoring and an education mechanism. Perhaps there should be greater and more stringent requirements on solicitors to set out the options as people start to consider whether they should enter a power of attorney, and how they could be framed. We must have a special programme in place to deal with the legacy of the old EPAs, which will continue to have an impact on the lives of so many people today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) on securing this debate on an important and serious issue, and on getting under the wire so that we can have this discussion.

I intended to open my remarks with an outline of the importance of what we have put in place in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but because of the time I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Cummings, if I do not go into such detail. The hon. Lady has accepted that the 2005 Act and its attendant changes have been an improvement, and I shall refer to it only in passing, if necessary. If I do not cover anything that the hon. Lady has raised, I shall write to her in more detail.

The hon. Lady raised the possibility that vulnerable adults could be at risk from those with power of attorney over their affairs. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 was implemented last October and changed the way in which attorneys operate. She has also tabled a written question about the number of times the Court of Protection has suspended an individual’s power of attorney, and she made reference to that in her remarks. I said then that it might be possible to produce further data and that I would write to her with the results of that exercise. At the time, we did not have the information available. I can tell her that although that information has been difficult to collate, I am pleased to say that we now have some information on the number of objections to the registration of powers and the outcomes of those cases.

From 1 April 2004 to 30 September 2007—before the 2005 Act was implemented—there were just over 1,500 objections to the registration of an EPA, of which 621, or 40 per cent., were not registered. In the first six months of operation from October 2007, the new Court of Protection received 425 objections to registration of a power of attorney. Many of those cases are not yet completed, but the court has currently suspended one power, cancelled or revoked the power in 17 cases and has directed the Office of the Public Guardian not to register three others. I will write to the hon. Lady with further results of that analysis. To some extent, that answers some of her questions. At least under the new system, the powers are being looked at more vigorously and with far greater scrutiny, and action is being taken either directly by the Court of Protection or by the Office of the Public Guardian.

Let me return now to the broader theme. The 2005 Act provides a clear, statutory framework to empower and protect people who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves. However, it requires steps to be taken to allow the person to make those decisions or to have the fullest input into any decision that is made. When a decision is made on their behalf, it is necessary that it is in their best interests and restricts their rights and freedoms as little as possible.

The 2005 Act created a new Court of Protection with an expanded jurisdiction that covers health and welfare matters in addition to financial decisions. The court can appoint a deputy to manage a person’s affairs. In addition, the Act also created a statutory public guardian responsible for maintaining registers of powers of attorney and supervising deputies appointed by the court. The Office of the Public Guardian also has powers to investigate allegations of abuse made against attorneys or deputies.

The 2005 Act also changed how powers of attorney operate to provide greater flexibility in the way in which they can be used and to increase the protections surrounding them. The Lord Chancellor issued a code of practice under the Act so that certain groups of people, such as attorneys, are under a legal obligation to have regard to the code when making decisions. An attorney’s failure to comply with the code can be used as evidence in any proceedings that may be brought before a court or tribunal.

There is also a new criminal offence of abuse or neglect of a person who lacks capacity. That covers those caring for such a person, or those appointed as their attorney or deputy. The offence carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both so that it is not seen by the courts as a relatively small offence; it is seen as a relatively serious offence, and rightly so.

The case that the hon. Lady highlighted—I am aware of it but we will not go into any details—was made under the old system of the enduring power of attorney. It gave a person the authority to manage someone else’s property and financial affairs. As the hon. Lady said, under that system, EPAs could be used, quite legally, to manage a person’s affairs while that person still had capacity without any need for the power to be registered. They were required to register only once the donor had lost the capacity to manage their affairs.

Clearly, the difficulty with that system was that it allowed unscrupulous attorneys to use an unregistered EPA to access a person’s finances or manage their property, and to do that without anyone’s knowledge. As a consequence, it was also very difficult to estimate the total number of EPAs in existence and, worse than that, how many of them were being used fraudulently. We are very conscious of that issue, both in the Department and in the Office of the Public Guardian. We cannot give the hon. Lady a figure on the number of unregistered EPAs. She referred to the scramble by solicitors to encourage people to use EPAs before October. Those solicitors should have looked more closed at the Mental Capacity Act and realised the benefits of a lasting power of attorney. I know that it costs more, but it gives people far more control over their own affairs and far more control to the Office of the Public Guardian over the way in which people behave. Almost 40,000 EPAs have been registered in the past couple of years. We have to assume that the number of unregistered EPAs is significantly higher than that.

It is extremely difficult to make any accurate assumptions on the possible levels of abuse of the old system. However, the previous Master of the Court of Protection, now a senior judge of the new court, felt that as many as 5 to 10 per cent. of registered EPAs were possibly being used fraudulently. That included relatively low-level abuses, such as inflated claims for travel expenses. Nevertheless, that is not an insignificant number. More worrying, however, is the level of abuse of unregistered EPAs.

It was against that background that the 2005 Act reformed the system to provide greater protection. That means that before a person can have their lasting power of attorney registered, they have to comply with safeguards connected with that registration before the attorney can use them. The Office of the Public Guardian will be able to build up a much greater knowledge of the number of valid powers in circulation. Also, a person will be asked by the public guardian to name up to five people whom they wish to be notified when they make an application for an LPA to be registered. There will then be a statutory six-week waiting period during which objections to registration can be made. Only after that will the Office of the Public Guardian register the power.

Finally, when making an LPA, an independent person must provide a certificate confirming that the person making the LPA has the capacity to make it and is not subject to undue pressure. An additional certificate must be provided if the donor has not named anyone to be notified upon registration of the power. I hope that that answers one of the hon. Lady’s later questions about what is in place now to monitor and scrutinise what happens.

In the very brief time that I have left, I will describe what happens when there are concerns about the behaviour of the attorney. It will be for the Office of the Public Guardian to investigate in the first instance. Since last October, there has been a dedicated compliance and regulation team responsible for considering all the allegations brought to the attention of the Office of the Public Guardian. As a result of those, the office may approach the police, or any other relevant agencies, if it considers it appropriate. When there are serious concerns about personal welfare by attorneys or deputies, the office will always liaise with the relevant agencies. It is in the process of agreeing a protocol to outline the circumstances in which it will seek to involve those agencies.

While it is not appropriate for me to comment on the individual case that the hon. Lady mentioned—the way in which that case was dealt with is deeply unfortunate—I hope that I have given in general terms some of the ways in which the new system will benefit people in the future.

It being Two o’clock, the sitting was adjourned without Question put.