Before I call the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), I remind hon. Members that I have a lot of applications to speak in the debate. In the best interests of all concerned, it would be appropriate to have short speeches.

I am pleased to have secured time to debate this important issue. I can confidently say that the channel tunnel rail link is a national issue. I hope to reinforce the well-argued and, I believe, accepted view that the CTRL is critical to the United Kingdom economy. The Government must continue to do all that they can to support the project and ensure its speedy completion. I know that many hon. Members are keen to contribute to the debate, so I intend to limit my speech to around 15 minutes—or at least that is what I have timed it at without interventions.

I shall refer to three basic points: first, the history of the project and how we got to the current dreadful situation; secondly, why the CTRL is a national, not just a regional issue; and thirdly, the importance of the CTRL to east London in particular and how it fits in with the transport infrastructure already being built or developed there.

I almost hesitate to point an accusing finger at the previous Government on the project's history, because I assume that most of the Conservative Members present this morning support the link. However, it is impossible not to make some comment. I hope that they will forgive me for saying that their former colleagues in the previous Government failed spectacularly when they told the House that they had reached a sensible business deal with London and Continental Railways.

Criticisms of the business plan, particularly those about the passenger projections, have now been shown to have been well founded. Even at the time, it was recognised that we were 10 years behind our European partners in building a fast link. Our standing in Europe has suffered as a consequence of that indecision and will continue to suffer if we do not rectify the position.

However, that criticism is history. As well as accusing and apportioning blame, I should also applaud and commend vision. I am happy to appreciate the number of former Ministers who recognise the importance of the CTRL to the UK economy in general—and east London in particular—and those who fought for the project in the Cabinet. I am even happier to commend my right hon. Friends in the present Cabinet who are fighting for the project.

The launch in Birmingham on Friday 20 February of the campaign known as Faster—Fast Tracks to Europe—demonstrates the national significance of the rail link. The campaign brings together local authorities from Glasgow, Manchester, York, Birmingham, London and the south-east, as well as business and industry from those areas, including the London chamber of commerce and industry. They jointly articulated the importance of national fast-track access to Europe for our regions. For the European Union to have the support of the people of this country, they need to have access to Europe.

We are joined to Europe by the channel tunnel. The rail link on our side must be as fast and convenient as that on the continent. Had the link been built by now, as it should have been, life would be a lot easier for West Ham United football supporters to travel to away games next season, when we qualify for Europe.

On a more serious note, it would be wrong not to take this opportunity to refer to my concerns about safety and Eurotunnel's continued resistance to separating passengers from their vehicles on Le Shuttle. The fire on the latticed freight transporter demonstrated the dangers of a fire in the tunnel. I firmly believe that the decision not to separate passengers from their vehicles was taken on flawed commercial grounds. Safety has been at best compromised and at worst disregarded by Eurotunnel—but I digress.

The United Kingdom as a whole needs the fast link. I know that the Government recognise that fact, and I dearly hope that they ensure that it goes ahead. My main comments are about the impact of the CTRL on east London. I can confidently leave others to address the issues that affect the rest of the United Kingdom, the Thames gateway and the rest of London, and the south-east. I know that others may refer to blight, which has adversely affected homes and businesses across the south-east and had—and continues to have—a negative impact on the lives of our people. I have heard particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) refer to that issue in other debates. Uncertainty, misery, unemployment, redundancy and negative equity are a few of the effects that their constituencies have had to endure. They need the matter resolved as soon as possible. This is certainly a serious issue.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that the most important forgotten victims of the whole fiasco are the hundreds of families whose homes have been blighted, through no fault of their own, by the mess that has been made of introducing the scheme? Does he accept that if there is further delay, we should ask the Government to introduce as swiftly as they can a more generous compensation scheme, so that residents who are unable to sell their homes have the opportunity to move and do not have their lives destroyed by something that has been brought about through no fault of their own?

As one of my hon. Friend's constituents, I know that she has campaigned long and hard on the issue. I readily accept her points. I am sure that the Government will take note.

Many people believe that London is Westminster and the corridors of power, the BBC and Fleet street. Perhaps it is if one is from outside the capital. But the real London, my London, is Poplar and Canning Town, an area of high unemployment—14.2 per cent.—of poverty, deprivation, overcrowding and homelessness, which puts Tower Hamlets and Newham among the 10 most deprived local authorities in the UK. But that is changing.

The Government's social exclusion strategy has been written for constituencies such as mine. Education standards are being raised, communities and long-forgotten estates are being rebuilt and partnerships between new business communities and local people are being engendered in east London. To ensure success, and in order to deliver, we need the transport infrastructure.

Already, we have had some new roads, and we have London Underground's District and Central lines, and Stansted airport. New developments are under way on the docklands light railway, and the City airport is looking to expand. Improved bus routes are taking shape and the Jubilee line extension to Stratford opens in 12 months. Improvements are planned for the A13, and there is a real prospect that the Thames will be crossed at three new separate points in the years immediately ahead.

The final piece of the integrated transport jigsaw is rail. Even now, rail is playing its part, but the channel tunnel rail link, with the international station at Stratford, makes it all make sense. The project is about the next millennium, planning for the future. This is the stuff of boldness, of vision, of government.

In economic terms, east London has for too long been the poor relation of the family that is our great city of London. Historically, the east end has been a starting point for waves of immigration—Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, black and Asian communities. In common with most other eastern quarters of cities in the United Kingdom, east London has been our industrial centre. With prevailing westerly winds, it was convenient for our Victorian ancestors to locate certain industries in our part of town, where the sensibilities of others would not be offended by the smell, which would be directed away from the City. Consequently, gas and sewerage works linked with business that was dependent on the docks, to create a potent cocktail. But times have changed.

We still have some important traditional industries, but, following the closure of the docks, regeneration of the area was addressed, and the industrial focus moved to a commercial one. In the past 20 years, thousands of jobs and many businesses and organisations have moved to east London. The benefits are yet to penetrate the poverty that many local communities still suffer, but that will happen. I repeat the suggestion that I made in the debate on the Greater London authority, that docklands would be a wholly appropriate home for the new mayor and the elected assembly.

As I said, there is high unemployment, overcrowding and homelessness in my constituency—all the indices of poverty. The Government's new deal programme and welfare reform, as part of their social exclusion strategy, are critical. That is where we can make a difference. East London is the gateway to Europe. For Britain to be successful, London must thrive. For London to prosper, we need continuously to renew. The symbolism of docklands, Canary wharf, the millennium dome and, yes, even baby dome, is our beacon. It says to Europe and the rest of the world, "This is our capital; This is our country; This is our future." If the channel tunnel rail link is not built now, it will delay our renewal by a generation—although not prevent it. When we look back at the Tories' 10 years of indecision, we say that they were weak and frightened, and that they failed. This Government must not fail.

The London borough of Camden and its advisers have calculated that not to proceed with the CTRL would cost £850 million. Additionally, the Thameslink 2000 project, which was part of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, would be compromised by any decision either not to proceed or to phase the project. Waterloo is not a real option because it does not have the capacity, particularly if the hope to move more freight by rail rather than road is to be realised.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my constituents in Beckenham and throughout Bromley will be supporting his and his colleagues' plans to ensure that the channel tunnel rail link goes east of London because, at the moment, they are suffering from the noise and disruption caused by Eurostar.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support.

It is calculated that, as a regeneration engine, the CTRL could create between 80,000 and 120,000 new jobs. When in opposition, Labour endorsed the project and flagged up what were seen as flaws in the business plan, to try to ensure its success. We need to support the project now that Labour is in power because the reasons why we supported it then are as valid now, if not more so—even if that means more public resources and financing.

I am a bit worried by that. Is my hon. Friend really saying that we should commit a great deal more public money without getting something in return? I am sure that that is not quite what he means. We all want the project to go ahead, but I hope that the Government will look very closely at what the taxpayer will get in return.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct in encouraging the Government to look very closely at the prospect of allocating additional resources. However, I believe that the benefits that will accrue to the UK in general warrant consideration of additional resources. If London and Continental Railways is unable to deliver a new financial package, the Government may want to look to such an option.

It is encouraging that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has afforded LCR extra time, because it seems to be making progress. I am aware from contacts with various businesses over the past 48 hours that at least three other international consortiums are queuing up in case LCR fails. Although I hope that extra public finance is not necessary, I do not think that the Government should disregard the option. The prize at stake is too great.

This issue is not an east London, a London or even a south-east one. It concerns the whole of the UK. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues on the attention that they have given the matter so far and on their determination to make it work. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing them every success.

I welcome the chance to speak in this debate while delicate negotiations are going on. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on suggesting the debate. I am glad that he steered away quickly from turning the issue into a party political one. At this stage particularly, that would be completely inappropriate.

Broadly, I endorse the thrust of much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance not only of the link being built but of the whole link being built, so that the full benefits can be obtained. The people of Kent, including those in my constituency and all along the route of the line, have suffered blight and uncertainty for many years because of both the prospect of the line and the many delays in building it.

What those people deserve is that when the link is eventually built it will be a great national project bringing regeneration. The benefits that the people of Kent deserve come into two categories. The first would be better commuter links for themselves, not only on the line itself but through the release of capacity on other rail lines that have become increasingly crowded as the Kent economy has improved over the past few years.

Secondly, the people of Kent deserve the knowledge that the project is an essential link in a national project—indeed, an international project—involving not only the urban regeneration that the hon. Gentleman described but the general upgrading of rail services throughout Britain and into Europe.

I want to talk about what seems to be happening, and the likely effects. I warn the Minister that if the Government cannot find the subsidy to build the whole link at once—I dare say that that is the most likely eventuality—warm words about building future phases, after a first phase stopping at Southfleet, will not be enough. The people who live along the route, and channel tunnel rail link enthusiasts throughout the country, will want to see a firm timetable for building the entire line, with penalty clauses written in so that the timetable can be enforced.

Almost the worst eventuality would be for part of the link to be built, with all the disruption that that would cause, followed by vague words about how the rest of it would be built in phases over the years to come, but for the years to tick by with phases 2 and 3 delayed. In my more pessimistic moments, that seems to me to be the most likely outcome. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that it is not.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he has noticed that some newspapers, including the Financial Times, are suggesting that it would be a good thing if only the first section of the link were built. Does he agree that that would be a disaster, and that the Government must ensure that when an announcement is made about taking the project forward there is full confidence that the whole link will be completed?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I reinforce it from my constituency point of view. Because people have had to put up with blight and uncertainty for so long, they will be angry if they feel that, after all the inconvenience and damage to housing and to businesses along the route, the only result is 10 minutes off the journey. That would not seem like a sensible equation of advantage and disadvantage.

As I am now being allowed to intervene, I shall not endeavour to catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, because of the number of other hon. Members who want to speak.

The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and I have collaborated closely on the matter, especially concerning our mutual problems with business blight and the distressing circumstances of small and medium-sized businesses.

I have every confidence that everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying is what I would have uttered if I had caught your eye, Madam Speaker, so I want to associate myself with it, and acknowledge the way in which the hon. Gentleman and I have collaborated in making representations to the Minister about our local businesses.

I reinforce the idea not only that the link must be built in its entirety but that any slippage would be an abuse of Parliament, because the long title of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 makes it abundantly clear that Parliament's intention was for the whole link to be built with the maximum expedition.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for those remarks, with which I agree, but for his share in the work that we have done together on behalf of small businesses in both our constituencies, which are often in severe difficulty because of the various delays to the link.

I ask the Minister to give me some assurances and to answer some detailed questions about the propositions now before the Government. It is about 12 hours since I was last in the Chamber, and at that point the Minister was sitting there replying to a debate—so may I congratulate her on both her stamina and her versatility?

I was standing, not sitting.

Yes, she was standing. One wonders whether she ever gets away from that place.

I should like to receive three assurances from the Minister. The first is that whichever new project comes forward and whatever consortium is building it, there will be no relaxation of the environmental standards imposed in the original Bill that went through both Houses of Parliament and was fought over in detail by many people in this House and in another place, as well as in local communities along the route.

Along the route there is much fear and cynicism to the effect that one of the ways in which money might be saved when a new project emerges would be to relax the environmental standards. The Minister could reassure many people by giving an assurance this morning. In that context, I take it as read that when a new project comes forward there can be no change to the route currently before Parliament.

The second assurance for which I should be grateful is that the delays will soon come to an end. One understands that we are talking about complex commercial negotiations, to which the Government are only one party, so perhaps it was over-optimistic to expect them to be wrapped up in the 30 days that the Deputy Prime Minister originally suggested.

None the less, I must tell the Minister that businesses along the route, including those referred to by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), are especially damaged by the lengthening uncertainty, and I urge her to move as fast as possible to a conclusion of the negotiations.

The third assurance that I seek is that no secrecy should surround the deal eventually struck. Railtrack is at times an inherently secretive organisation. For example, last year an accident—not serious, fortunately—happened in my constituency. When I wrote to Railtrack some months later asking for details of its inquiry, and what remedial measures it proposed to take, I was shocked at its reply that the information was not available to the public and it was up to the Health and Safety Executive to say whether it should be released. The HSE wrote back to me saying that it was not its responsibility but Railtrack's—and compounded the insult by accompanying the letter with a pamphlet on open government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest assurances that the people of Kent could have would be one from the Minister today that Kent county council will be fully consulted and involved in the decision-making process? We hope that the decision will be completed as soon as possible, but we should like the county council to be fully involved.

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Kent county council has played, and is playing, an active and constructive role in bringing the project forward, and it is important that its ability to represent the people of Kent is recognised by full consultation during the negotiations.

The Minister will recognise the importance of avoiding secrecy, because, speaking in the House about the deal with London and Continental, she said:

"I understand that no one in the House is privileged to see the contracts in any detail or to discuss them, on grounds of commercial confidentiality. It is a curious commercial enterprise that is clouded in mystery in one direction."—[Official Report, 25 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 629.]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will endorse her own words and will not wish such secrecy to surround the project in future. Will she assure the House that full details of any agreement will be put in the Library for the perusal of Members?

As well as asking for those three assurances, I shall ask the Minister three questions. First, what type of freight does the Department think will be carried? We hear a lot about the freight benefits of the link. I assure the Minister that this is a genuine search for truth. Many, perhaps most, of the questions asked in the House are questions to which the questioner thinks he or she already knows the answer, but in this case, I genuinely have no idea of the answer, and no one connected to the project has ever satisfactorily explained it. We all agree that the line as planned will not be able to take any kind of heavy freight, but there is vague talk of "high-value freight" being carried. I am not sure whether that means any more than parcel freight, and I should be grateful if the Minister would give some guidance.

My second question is whether it is feasible or practical for Eurostar to share the lines between Southfleet and London with the existing commuter traffic if we go for a phased project, with the first part of the line built to Southfleet and the rest built in stages afterwards. I have been assured by reasonably well-qualified railway engineers that the amount of commuter traffic using the lines from Canterbury and the Medway towns to London will mean that either we will have to cut the commuter traffic in the rush hour or Eurostar will not be able to run in the rush hour. If that is true, it suggests that the phasing of the project would be simply impractical.

My third question is whether the benefits of upgrading the existing track are being considered while the Government are looking at all the options available to them. Engineers say that, effectively, we could save 15 minutes from the journey for £1 billion. We are, broadly speaking, talking about spending £7 billion or £8 billion to save 35 minutes, and it seems that that proposal deserves full consideration.

We recognise that the channel tunnel is a great national achievement, but it is only half an achievement. Linking the tunnel to the rail network of this country is the other half. London and Continental has had many failings, not just the central failing of its passenger projections which has led to the current financial plight. More particularly, it has been determined to keep secret the fact that it is more convenient for the whole of the south-east of England to drive to Ashford and travel from there than to struggle in to Waterloo. Despite the best efforts of the excellent management and staff at the Ashford international passenger station, the marketing of the station by London and Continental has been inadequate. Perhaps that is a symbol of its lack of commercial acumen.

Many people—not just my constituents, but all the people of Kent and the rest of the country—hope that the consortium put together by the Government shows more sensitivity to the needs of people who live, work and run their businesses along the route. We hope that it will be able to complete the project so that the whole country can gain the advantages that will be available from it.

It is perhaps appropriate that I follow the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) because I shared the job of co-chairman of the all-party channel tunnel group with his predecessor, Sir Keith Speed, for many years.

I wish to make two declarations of interest. First, as a former railwayman, I am still a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—one of the reasons behind my interest in this great project. I am also the chairman of Travel West Midlands, a bus company based in Birmingham which is a subsidiary of National Express—itself a member of the London and Continental consortium. I ask the House to appreciate that I am not speaking on behalf of National Express. I have never had anything to do with the railway side of its operation, but I feel that such a connection should be on the record before I speak in the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. In an able speech, he talked about the history of the project. However, he did not go back far enough. Those of us who have the doubtful benefit of old age can remember this project in the 1970s when, I must say, neither of our main parties came out with any great credit. The Channel Tunnel Bill was cancelled by the Labour Government shortly they were elected in 1974.

I say to my hon. Friend and other colleagues who feel that public money should be put into the project that one of the reasons given for the cancellation was that there were other priorities for public money. At that time, many of my hon. Friends were in favour of the cancellation of the project because they wanted public money spent on schools, hospitals and other matters with which the Government were directly involved. I must tell my hon. Friend that I would not hold my breath too long if he thinks that the Treasury is likely to come to the rescue of London and Continental, or anyone else.

I was more amused than angered by the intervention of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is no longer in his place. I do not know how any member of the previous Cabinet could jump up and defend his constituents against the effect of this project on their lives, given the enormous mess that the Conservatives made of it from beginning to end. I admire his cheek, if not the basis on which he made his intervention.

The hon. Member for Ashford and all of us are anxious that the link is built as quickly as possible. I attended the meeting in Birmingham last Friday to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town referred. The Fast Tracks to Europe group is unrealistic when it says that the project must not be phased. Whatever happens, it seems unlikely that the work will start at each end of the route and will meet in the middle. Some phasing is inevitable. It looks as if the southern section will be built first, because—let us be realistic—it is likely to be a lot cheaper.

I have seen the figures produced by Fast Tracks to Europe, which suggest that such an approach will cost money because of the loss of benefits, but I have yet to hear a real alternative. If no Government money is involved, and if the projections for Eurostar travel—receipts from which will go towards the building of the project—are accurate, some degree of phasing, unpalatable though it might be to us all, is inevitable.

Around 1991, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—that great social engineer of the previous Government—decided to change the route. I know that that decision suited some of my hon. Friends, and I congratulate them on the effectiveness of their campaign. When the right hon. Gentleman changed the route, companies such as Blue Circle found themselves to be sitting on valuable real estate in the Ebbsfleet area. Coincidentally, the public relations company involved with Blue Circle at that time had as one of its representatives the former vice-chairman of the Conservative party, Dame Angela Rumbold.

I wonder whether companies that made money out of the project have volunteered to put any of their extra profits into the cost of building the rail link—particularly that part of it north of their land which is more expensive because of the need to tunnel under London. Cynic that I am, I would be surprised if any volunteer had come forward.

All of us want the project to benefit the rest of the country. Those of us who represent constituencies in the west midlands are no less anxious to see that happy event come about. What we have at present is the worst of both worlds. We have all the uncertainty about the future of the link, and we have no through trains to Europe. Indeed, the connecting trains to Waterloo have been removed by London and Continental, although many remain on the timetable. Last week, the Birmingham Evening Mail and the BBC highlighted the absurdity of a local train being held for eight minutes at Birmingham international station to allow for one of the Eurostars that do not exist as far as the west midlands is concerned.

I understand some of the difficulties in getting a safety case for the trains north of London. As far as I understand, they still only run between Manchester and somewhere like Bletchley. I should be grateful to the Minister if she would tell us what progress is being made to introduce those trains north of London, and whether the newspaper rumours about the trains being leased to Virgin or any other train operator for incorporation into their service are valid. No one north of London, and few people in London, have benefited from the project so far.

As the hon. Member for Ashford said, the link is a great engineering project, and all hon. Members attending this debate want to ensure that the original intentions of the Committee dealing with the channel tunnel are carried out. I am sorry if this sounds like a plea for medals for a rather undistinguished career, but I served on the first channel tunnel Committee in the 1970s—I remember, to my amusement, that there were only about 60 objectors then. When I served on the subsequent Committee in the mid-1980s, there were 12,000 objectors.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who is no longer in the Chamber, illustrated the dilemma that arises from the channel tunnel rail link and the expansion of the railway system—all of us are in favour of expanding the network, until the trains run through our constituencies or past the bottom of our gardens. According to the hon. Lady, the prospect of an hourly train of 18 coaches going to Paris or Brussels makes life intolerable for her constituents. I think that she exaggerates. People who buy houses next to railway lines and then complain about the noise from trains do not endear themselves to me as a former railwayman, although some of my hon. Friends may take a different view. We want the benefits of the link to be brought to the rest of the country, as was intended, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can answer some of the points that have been made.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town is as realistic as I am about subsidy—he knows that Treasury involvement is unlikely. The fact that, across the country, road bridges are being strengthened to take 44 tonne lorries—that is a direct subsidy to the road haulage industry by the taxpayer—yet both the previous and current Governments said that public money cannot be found for the great project that is the channel tunnel rail link is an illustration of how we treat different forms of transport.

I add, as an amusing aside, that when Lord Parkinson stood at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Transport, he used to say, "There must be no public money for the channel tunnel or the rail link." Nevertheless, he popped up later as chairman of one of the consortiums asking for £1 billion of public money for that very rail link. That illustrates the awesome warning to all hon. Members—never say never. We should never say never about this great project.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I start by running through some of the history of the project—not the whole history, hon. Members will be pleased to hear. The first reference to a high-speed link that the Library could identify came in a speech by Sir Bob Reid on 9 May 1988. He said that a high-speed link would be built if it brought

"the right level of profit".

Hon. Members may be interested to know what was happening in France at that time. Construction of the train grande vitesse north line began after the end of September 1989.

Nearly 10 years on, and many miles of new roads later, the House is debating a future high-speed rail link, while Eurostar ambles through south London—Brixton, Beckenham and Orpington—at an embarrassingly relaxed and leisurely pace. What progress has been made in France? As hon. Members may know, its high-speed link was opened in September 1993—four and a half years ago—at a cost of £2 billion. That is a sad indictment of the previous Government's obsessive love affair with roads and their indifference to the railways.

The White Paper to be published soon will confirm whether the new Government have a more balanced approach to infrastructure provision and whether they believe that there should be a level playing field for roads and rail. In the meantime, they have to contend with the thorny issue of the channel tunnel rail link.

Over the past few weeks, I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister has been considering the pros and cons of allowing the project to sink or swim. I give three good reasons why the high-speed link should be built. First, it will make it easier to shift freight off the roads and on to rail by releasing network capacity for freight trains. Secondly, it will cut CO₂ emissions, as many short-haul passengers who currently fly will choose to travel by rail. Thirdly, as hon. Members have said, it will help to regenerate some of the poorest parts of east London, developing the recycled sites that the Deputy Prime Minister has prioritised.

There is also a good reason why the link should be built along the current route. We are already five years behind the French, so surely our national pride will not let us slip behind a further five years while new legislation is drafted to provide for a new route.

If the Deputy Prime Minister accepts that argument, he has the choice of four partners—London and Continental Railways, Railtrack, Bechtel and Eurorail—some or all of which could take the project forward. If he seeks a deal with LCR, he should not reward it for its past bad management and judgment. If he seeks a deal with Railtrack, he should offer no sweeteners—he should not allow it to impose higher access charges for all other rail users. If he fails to secure a deal with LCR, Railtrack or any of the other players, and chooses not to back the project, I would ask him a simple question—what is Government for?

You lot would not know.

We shall find out shortly.

Liberal Democrats believe that Government should protect people on some of the lowest incomes—such as people with disabilities or lone parents—provide free education and take the lead. Even if the Government do not agree on the first two points, I hope that they can agree on the third. If no commercial operator produces an acceptable package, the Government—through a public interest company, bond issue or other measures—must step in. The need for Government involvement in such a strategic project was recognised even by the previous Administration, who committed £1.4 billion to the rail link.

The country needs the high-speed rail link, and it needs it to be built in its entirety—a 17-minute reduction in journey time for the first phase is not a sufficient benefit. I understand that Department of Trade and Industry lawyers advised the Government that if they intended to build not the full length but only stage one, a new Act would be required, with all the delays that that would entail. The Government must, therefore, be committed to building the full link.

The channel tunnel rail link is the first real test of the Government's commitment to an integrated transport policy, to moving freight from road to rail and to meeting their own CO₂ reduction targets. It is now up to the Deputy Prime Minister to show us whether he can rise to that challenge, or whether, like his Conservative predecessors, he will falter and stumble.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate at such an opportune time. Hon. Members from all parties recognise the difficulties that face both London and Continental Railways and the Government in saving and developing something from this project—although we should not save just any old thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town said, the project is not a local or regional issue; it is a vital national and transcontinental one.

The rail link will draw in business to the channel tunnel from the east and, via the west coast main line, from the midlands, the north-west and the west of Scotland. Businesses and individuals will be able to capitalise on the opportunities that the link provides. Other hon. Members may be able to point up the significance of the rail link on a national level.

The link will open up the Government-identified Thames gateway region, which extends from east London through Dartford and down the north Kent coast, and includes my constituency and the western boundaries of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. The area contains about 2.5 million people, 17 local authorities, 10,000 acres of business and industrial land, and three training and enterprise councils.

The Thames gateway is the largest European regeneration area. The Government's regional strategy identifies north Kent as a growth point for major development. Significantly, much of that development, in business and new homes, would be on an abundant source of brown-field sites, which is clearly in line with Government policy.

The development of the Thames gateway will unlock major locations that face directly the main European markets. To succeed, we need the infrastructure: the rail link must be developed in its entirety. A link that stops short of the new international station at Ebbsfleet and transfers to existing lines will not deliver the regeneration, unlock the brown-field sites and help the people of north Kent.

It is anticipated that the development of Ebbsfleet will bring up to 50,000 new jobs and allow 30,000 new homes to be built. For the approximately 300,000 people living in the Medway towns, it will be a catalyst for new opportunities, with direct rail links to jobs along the north Kent line.

In addition to the development, a new commercial zone will be created adjoining Ebbsfleet station. There will be sustainable journey-to-work patterns by public transport, rather than by car, which, again, is in line with our integrated transport strategy.

The full scheme, including the new stations at Ebbsfleet and Stratford, will afford the people of north Kent greater job opportunities, as they will have access to new areas such as Stratford and St. Pancras. Those jobs will be linked to far faster and more reliable rail services: Gillingham will be only 30 minutes from St. Pancras if the link is built in its entirety.

The link is essential for the regeneration and redevelopment policies of the Government and of Kent county council. Failure to complete it will send out the wrong signals. The private sector has already made huge commitments to north Kent. Failure to honour the promises that elicited those commitments will destroy confidence not only in the immediate area but, I fear, in other developments that are proposed along the entire route of the integrated link, including east London, Birmingham and the west midlands, and the north-west.

We should record our appreciation of the fact that the House has been kept quickly and reliably informed through the offices of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in both a statement and a written answer. Our resolve to build the link, which will eventually connect the east, the west, the south and the north of our country to the European capitals of commerce must not weaken. Failure could mean that we end up as a branch line to Brussels.

We must remain true to the original agreements. The Deputy Prime Minister's statement last month informed us that there was no intention to consider an alternative alignment to that approved in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. That is more than welcome. Any deviation would be the death knell of a realistically timed completion of the link.

Hon. Members who are far more au fait than I am with developments over the past 20 years—at least—said that various alternative routes had been canvassed. I whole-heartedly agree with what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said about blight and uncertainty, because those alternative routes caused much anxiety and concern among home owners and businesses; my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) also mentioned the business side. It is essential that competition should not reopen for the design, construction and operation of the link, as that would open a Pandora's box of alternatives and variations.

One benefit of the link will be to open up existing lines for other uses, increasing both passenger and freight capacity. I shall be interested in the Minister's response about freight, as there seem to be some differences of opinion. I understand that there will be increased capacity for freight on some existing lines, as well as along the link. That will have an important environmental impact in helping us to reduce traffic congestion.

The environmental impact of the link itself must be minimised. Debates in both Houses over two years have developed negotiations that have led to high standards and considerable sophistication in the plan, which incorporates measures embodied in the environmental minimum requirements and undertakings given by the previous Government and LCR. It is essential to adhere to that.

We must grasp the opportunities before us if we are to be a key player in the issues of integrated transport, commerce and the European Union. The development of the link gives us the opportunity to create the right balance and to implement the Government's sound objectives on issues such as the fight against poverty, social inclusion, the environment, integrated transport, the regions, and Europe.

This is not a local issue, as can be seen by the range of hon. Members who signed early-day motion 770 and by the membership of Fast Tracks to Europe, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town, which includes many private sector organisations and the leaders of many local authorities throughout the country.

The message, specifically from the Medway towns, is that we must build the link in its entirety as quickly as possible, so that we can have the transport links that are needed for the 21st century.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate. He has done the House a great service. It is a little sad that the bipartisan approach slipped somewhat. It is up to the current Government to decide how to proceed on the matters that face them, but it would be churlish of hon. Members not to note that the channel tunnel itself was built during the 18 years of Conservative government. I am proud to defend the record of the Conservative Government, which was democratically elected on four occasions.

There were also a few hot summers during the period of office of the previous Conservative Government. Is the hon. Gentleman going to claim credit for those as well? On the insistence of the then Prime Minister, not a penny of public money went into the channel tunnel.

That is exactly the point and it is something which has been learnt from the Conservative Government. I shall leave claiming the credit for hot summers to the Liberal party and new Labour.

I must also pay tribute to the noble Lords Parkinson and Channon, who did a great deal during their terms of office to drive the project forward. Our former colleague Michael Portillo, as Minister of State at the Department of Transport, also did a great deal to make the channel tunnel project the success that it obviously is. Finally, without the noble Baroness Thatcher none of it would have been possible.

My roots run deep and I suspect that I am the only person in the Chamber who was born in the east end of London—in Stratford. In the previous Parliament, it was my great joy to work with, among others, the hon. Members for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—now the Minister for Sport—and Mr. Nigel Spearing, who has now retired. We worked together in a bipartisan fashion and a great deal has been achieved as regards our particular concerns in Newham.

I still have family living in Newham; indeed, that is where the tiny vote for the Conservative party comes from these days. Although I was less than satisfied for a long time with what went on there—I call those the barmy days of Labour—a number of projects are a great joy, particularly those in Stratford. I protested about the pyramid 20 years ago, saying that it was a waste of time building it and I note that last week it was blown up—my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will have enjoyed that—so I was right in my protestations all those years ago.

The channel tunnel rail link is important not merely for Newham but for both our Essex constituencies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is essential that the project is completed. For docklands and Stratford in particular the link is essential—it is the most important rail link.

I wish that I had time to touch on the excellent advice that I have been given by the London borough of Newham regeneration and partnerships division, which has done some great work on the subject. I must emphasise its point that:

"Without the CTRL being built in its entirety … to central London, there will not be the possibility of moving commuter trains from Kent from congested existing lines onto it between international trains and 'freeing up' capacity for more freight movement through Kent to the Channel Tunnel. Indeed given the growth figures already referred to, the Integrated Transport Strategy, on which so many hopes are built, especially that freight will be moved from road to rail, could face an immediate crisis of insufficient capacity. Phasing solely to Southfleet or Ebbsfleet could deliver the worst scenario of all—no possibility of increasing either the number of international trains an hour (from the current 3) and no extra capacity for freight trains unless the number of commuter services is reduced. It is already clear that the different train operators recognise the looming problem. However, with Railtrack—the track provider—set to be a major player in the CTRL rescue … they are reticent in voicing concerns when they may shortly be competing with other train operators for an insufficiency of train paths."

I realise that this is a difficult moment for the new Government—how best to approach the challenges facing them—but I hope that we will not be churlish and that we will rejoice in this great engineering feat. I hope in particular that the House will be minded to support the efforts of Newham council and Stratford in particular.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this important Adjournment debate. He has distinguished himself as a first-class chairman of the all-party Thames gateway group. He and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark,) make a formidable team in leading our group, which represents constituencies in London and the south-east. The success of the Thames gateway is fundamental to our opportunities to secure economic regeneration, as many of those opportunities stem from the building of the channel tunnel rail link.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the opportunities for regeneration are immense in my constituency? As Opposition Members and my hon. Friends have already said, up to 50,000 new jobs could be created as a result of the creation of Ebbsfleet international station. Also, 90 per cent. of the 30,000 new houses proposed for the area would be built on recycled land, in line with Government policy, thus protecting the green belt for the area.

That is an excellent point, and just the sort of example I was looking for, so I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

I will not discuss the route in its entirety, but I associate myself with all the other comments about that. I must focus briefly on an issue that affects constituents who live in and around the Medway towns—the M2 widening and the construction of the channel tunnel rail link, both of which were authorised in legislation. During the parliamentary process, the three authorities that represent my constituency—Rochester city council, Tonbridge and Malling district council and Kent county council—stressed the importance of the co-ordination of those projects. We argued that the construction of the bridges across the Medway valley had to take place at the same time. My constituents and the infrastructure in the Medway towns would suffer considerably anyway as a result of the construction and we recognised that, but to start one project across the valley, finish it and then start another would be a nightmare scenario. The estimated time scale for the channel tunnel rail link over the Medway valley is likely to be about three years and for the M2, three and a half years, which could mean six and a half years of disruption and chaos for my constituents. However, put the two projects together and we could reduce the time to four and a half years, which would be not only less destructive but more cost effective.

Understandably, we were pleased when the Government accepted that the two projects should be co-ordinated. Last year, the new Labour Government fulfilled the pledge to hold an early review of the road building programme. The M2 widening was contained within that programme and at the time we made representations to press the point about the delay and the effect that it could have on co-ordinating the concurrent construction that we had fought so hard to win. The matter was resolved and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced that the M2 widening would go ahead. He rightly pointed out that the project was part of a strategic transport infrastructure, in that the M2 would link up with the CTRL station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. Now, we face similar doubts about the other project.

The timing of those two nationally important transport schemes is vital to my area to limit disruption, keep down costs and to apply the principle of sustainable development. The CTRL has caused misery and blight in Kent—

And in Essex.

Indeed. There have been hard-fought battles for environmental safeguards, but I support the project and have always done so. We must build the link in its entirety, but I look forward to hearing some answers from my hon. Friend the Minister to my questions about concurrent construction.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick). His presentation of the argument, with which I disagree except for his strictures on the channel tunnel, was admirable and beautifully structured. However, this debate has seen the House at its most facile. It has consisted almost entirely of a series of clichés and trite remarks about the strategic plan, the need to send messages and so forth and national pride. I was interested to hear a Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), talking about national pride. All those points were synthesised in a series of mini soundbites which hon. Members uttered for the benefit of their local newspaper before they sharply and shortly left the Chamber.

The House has not been at its best during the debate. The most interesting contribution came from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who reminded us of the situation in 1983 when the channel tunnel project started, and of the colossal underestimation of building costs. Fortunately, because of the views of the then Prime Minister, the project did not attract public money and, therefore, it was the banks that took a terrific bath, which everyone enjoyed.

Now, we are faced with precisely the same situation: the contractor grossly overestimated traffic, and got the contract by one means or another, but almost immediately got into difficulties and has to be bailed out. It is perfectly clear that the private sector will not bail the contractor out, and the Deputy Prime Minister implied in his late-night statement that, if necessary, the taxpayer would foot the bill.

I caution the House against blithely accepting that. The sum involved is £8 billion—at the moment. We all know that figure could easily double. The House should consider this: on one hand, we have a colossal and environmentally damaging project, the real benefits of which no hon. Member has quantified; on the other, we have the putative expenditure of £8 billion of public money, which will probably increase to £16 billion. Hon. Members should ask themselves whether it would be better spent elsewhere, not on the usual clichés such as schools and hospitals, but on the transport system, and the rail network in particular. We should also ask what we would get for £16 billion, as an alternative to this ludicrous and megalomaniac project to drive a new rail link.

The trains run perfectly well at the moment. Because this is an unprogressive, slightly reactionary argument, hon. Members on both sides of the House regard it with mirth, but it is practical. I do not have time to develop my argument, but I say this: the money has been notionally ring fenced, so we should consider what other ways there may be of putting into the transport system.

We are always pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who has put the alternative view on these matters.

The channel tunnel rail link was announced in February 1996, and there was enthusiasm for and commitment to a project that would be fundamental to the economic enhancement of the south-east of England and the nation as a whole. Conservative Members still believe in the project, retain the same enthusiasm for it and think that it will bring benefits. We share that enthusiasm with the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), and I congratulate him on securing the debate and on the balanced way in which he made his arguments.

We support the Government's attempt to find a solution to this problem. The project was never going to be easy to complete, and we wish them well. Many people have been embarrassed to travel through France at high speed, only to trundle across Kent at a gentlemanly speed. However, no contrast is more marked than that between north-western France and south-eastern England. The Picardie region of France is flat and empty, and the construction of the railway was not a technical or a financial challenge. In contrast, the route through Kent traverses some of England's most beautiful countryside and passes close to a substantial number of communities. They, and affected London communities, commented vociferously on the project during the passage of the legislation through the House.

Scrutiny of the Bill was intense, with a Select Committee considering thousands of petitions. The agreed route had the support of the vast majority and provided a much-needed framework for the economic regeneration of east London. There is to be a station at Stratford, and a special link to King's Cross and St. Pancras to provide a direct twin-track connection between the CTRL and the west coast main line.

The consortium that won the competition to construct the CTRL was London and Continental Railways, a partnership of six of the nation's leading companies: Ove Arup and Partners, Bechtel Ltd., Sir William Halcrow and Partners, the National Express Group, the Virgin Group and SG Warburg and Co. The key criteria for the evaluation of bids were the size and timing of the Government's financial contribution and the risk that each bidder was prepared to accept. The LCR bid was successful: it needed millions of pounds less in subsidy than the bid of its rival, Eurorail.

Some people say that the project was given too little public subsidy. The then Labour Opposition made it clear that they considered the public subsidy to be too high, yet at the same time they believed that there should have been a public-private partnership with most of the assets given to LCR remaining in public hands. That ignores the fact that, under any public-private partnership, Government subsidy would have been inevitable and would have entailed an even greater public subsidy we are likely to end up with.

Faced with the harsh realities of office, the Deputy Prime Minister's initial reaction was to resist the further use of public funds, no doubt with encouragement from the Treasury. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the main factor behind the current impasse was the passenger forecast of London and Continental Railways. When the bid was made, the annual passenger projection was 9 million; today, it is only 6 million. The forecasts were put forward by the best experts in the country, but no one could be certain about future passenger numbers and all estimates are subject to a degree of error.

Although LCR clearly overestimated the number of passengers, it is probable that the channel tunnel fire had something to do with that inaccuracy: a six-month delay and a reduced service cannot have helped in marketing the project. The good news is that passenger numbers continue to increase. We should retain our optimism that targets will be hit, albeit late: not even a revised scheme will work if they are not.

LCR is not in a position to proceed, because it cannot raise the necessary funds. We share the view of many people that the proposed route should not be altered. To alter it would require the reopening of the whole inquiry and would cause further unacceptable delays. There is every possibility that a two-phase solution may be found, with Railtrack, in a joint venture with LCR, constructing phase 1 from Cheriton to Ebbsfleet station by 2002, and phase 2 from Ebbsfleet to St. Pancras by 2005.

Despite the opposition of the Local Government Association and others, we give that solution a cautious welcome if it is to be the only basis for a successful outcome. I say to the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms)—and, indeed, to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who ably represented Newham council—that there may be a gulf between what he wants and what is achievable. He will have to face up to the realities.

We understand that phase 1 could cost about £2 billion, with Railtrack playing a major role. Such a tremendous achievement by Railtrack would confirm the previous Government's decision to privatise the company, leaving it as a strong, well-financed company which can pick up such projects at relatively short notice and make something of them. The whole House will agree that that is a tribute to the previous Government's privatisation policy.

The question of running Eurostar remains to be solved. Although the Deputy Prime Minister, egged on by Labour Members, was excited by the thought of taking the trains back into public ownership, the change in culture brought about by the previous Government will lead him to conclude that a private solution remains the best bet.

One of the more stupid suggested alternatives is the resurrection of the Central Railway scheme which was decisively rejected by the House in July 1996. The proposal was to drive a railway line from the tunnel through the heart of London, causing massive disruption as it went. I urge the Government, if they need urging, not to reintroduce that proposal.

Notwithstanding the deep complexities that remain and the need to find a solution to Eurostar's loss making, the main aim must be for all options to be explored to allow the project to go ahead. The failure of the project would be a great blow, not only to the rail link, which is an important integrated transport project, but to the much-needed regeneration of east London. We offer the Government our support.

I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) for his support, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on obtaining the debate. As others have said, we are grateful to him for giving us this opportunity. The channel tunnel rail link has probably not had such a high public profile since the idea was launched, and it is a pity that such a level of interest has been generated for all the wrong reasons.

No one would dispute the fact that all the speeches this morning—with, perhaps, the exception of the somewhat curious contribution of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark)—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) points out from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman has just left the Chamber—presumably to publish his soundbite press release, an action for which he criticised other hon. Members in his speech.

In the main, the speeches have been both serious and informed. The importance of the CTRL, not just as a high-speed link with Europe but for its regeneration potential, was stressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It may assist hon. Members, however, if I summarise the events of the past six weeks, and explain how matters now stand.

London and Continental Railways formally notified my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 28 January that it would be unable to meet the terms of its development agreement with the Government without the injection of some £1.2 billion of public subsidy over the next 10 years. That £1.2 billion was on top of the £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money that had already been committed. It did not include the public assets that were also part of the development agreement, which have been estimated to be in the region of £5 billion.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister rejected the proposal. He has left no one in any doubt that he wants the development of high-speed connections to Europe, but not at any price. I trust that that would reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who, regrettably, is not present. At a time when fiscal prudence is needed, it would be irresponsible—almost unthinkable—to commit such large additional sums of taxpayers' money, no matter how strong the wish for improved links.

LCR asked for more money because it vastly overestimated the number of passengers who would be travelling on Eurostar by now. The development agreement made those Eurostar projections a cornerstone of LCR's plans for raising project finance. The then Government and LCR should have realised that the forecasts were overblown and unrealistic, but they did not. That was a serious misjudgment, and the present Government should not and will not simply bail LCR out.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister came to the House with all speed, having heard LCR admit that it could not meet its obligations under the development agreement. As he explained in his statement on 28 January, the development agreement with LCR allowed for a 30-day period during which LCR could present revised financing proposals. LCR's shareholders subsequently constructed a framework of proposals, which they put to my right hon. Friend last week. The shareholders envisaged a role for Railtrack. After careful consideration, my right hon. Friend agreed to grant a further extension of the cure period to allow LCR more time in which to flesh out its ideas. The revised deadline is 31 March.

As my right hon. Friend intimated on 28 January, we would like LCR to come up with a solution allowing it to meet its obligations under the development agreement. Against the contingency that no satisfactory solution will materialise, we are still working to provide for an orderly transfer of Eurostar UK Ltd. to the public sector, as is required if the development agreement is terminated. Let me assure the hon. Member for Croydon, South that that would obtain whichever party was in power. It is part of the development agreement that was worked out and signed by the Conservative Government.

I am afraid that I cannot say much more about the point that LCR has reached. Its proposals simply are not developed enough. However, there has been considerable speculation in the press, and I want to put some of what has been reported in context.

There has been much talk of white knights galloping to the rescue. Given the size of the project, it is not surprising that organisations wish to become involved, but the formal position is that the Government have a contract with LCR and no one else. If LCR chooses to bring in other partners, that may happen, but only with the Government's approval. As I have said, it appears that LCR sees a role for Railtrack in the new structure that it is drawing up, but that is its business.

Much has also been written about the notion of phasing the construction of the link. It is important to remember that Parliament authorised a railway between Cheriton and St. Pancras which follows a very carefully defined alignment. Our contract with LCR requires the construction of the entire railway approved by Parliament. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1997 envisages a whole line from St. Pancras to the channel tunnel, so there must be an intention to build all of it when the powers are used. In case there is any doubt, let me stress that the environmental standards that have been set for the link will not be compromised. I trust that that reassures hon. Members who have expressed concerns this morning.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefits that would be derived from making the link go all the way to St. Pancras would greatly help to regenerate areas such as South Yorkshire, which have suffered incredible manufacturing and industrial decline over the past few years?

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The issue of regeneration inherent in the building of the line has been mentioned by all hon. Members this morning.

The excitement in the media has prompted an interesting and widespread public debate about the rail link. That reminds us just how many parties have an interest in the CTRL—partly because, as many hon. Members pointed out this morning, it is not simply a transport project. The key reason for routing it via the Thames gateway—also known as the east Thames corridor—was that stations along it could act as focal points for regeneration. The theme of regeneration has run through all the speeches this morning. In fact, the £1.8 billion of public subsidy promised in the development agreement with LCR was justified in part by the regeneration benefits.

Concern has been expressed that regeneration may be forgotten in decisions on the rail link. I assure hon. Members that it will not. In the last few weeks, the problems of the rail link have elicited views from those interested in each of the stations, and also from those concerned with access to the regions—such as my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Canning Town, for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) and for East Ham (Mr. Timms), and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green).

Later this month, I shall be chairing a meeting of all local authorities affected in order to discuss their concerns. They will include Kent county council, which I trust will reassure the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I strongly agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about that intervention by a member of the Cabinet when the agreement was signed by the last Government.

I am aware that there is considerable concern that delays to the CTRL may jeopardise regeneration in London and Kent. As hon. Members will know, the CTRL has been seen as the vehicle for a number of regeneration initiatives, all of which have been mentioned this morning. Ebbsfleet station is the main node for regeneration of the eastern part of the Thames gateway. Substantial development is already taking place, but the rail link station is regarded as key to the redevelopment of some 2,200 acres of land, which has nearly all been used previously.

Stratford is the main node at the other end of the Thames gateway. Here the concept is of development on derelict or under-used land that can be of sufficient scale to act as a catalyst for other redevelopment on smaller sites in the general area. Stratford is also complementary to regional interests because it is proposed that trains can call there before running through to the west coast main line, without incurring the time penalty of having to stop at St. Pancras and reverse out again.

There is also the regeneration created by the rail link and Thameslink 2000 at St. Pancras. Seventy acres are available for redevelopment in one of the last potential areas on the fringes of central London.

As I am rapidly running out of time, may I say that I shall write to hon. Members on the issues to which they drew my attention. The hon. Member for Ashford and my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), for Gillingham and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) have mentioned blight issues. The hon. Member for Ashford also mentioned freight and commercial confidentiality.

Order. We must now move on to the debate on the benefit integrity project.

Many hon. Members have approached me to say that they want to participate in the debate so, despite the fact that I have briefings from organisations and individuals with which I could detain the House all day, I shall try to condense my remarks. This is a matter that interests all of us as constituency Members of Parliament and which we would wish to debate constructively.

The benefit integrity project was established after a survey of 1,135 people claiming disability living allowance, the report of which was published in January 1997. Forty interviewers carried out about 30 home visits each of adult or child recipients of disability living allowance. That project was undertaken when people were giving voice to fears about social security fraud. I, too, detected an undercurrent of feeling on the subject. However, snapshot assessments were made of individuals and little expertise was involved in the adjudication.

There was no follow-up of the 1.5 per cent. of cases that were designated confirmed fraud in the 1997 report. No prosecutions were made and no benefits were stopped. That suggested that people who were receiving disability living allowance were doing so because of their needs and that they were not doing so fraudulently, as the then Government feared.

Indeed, on 13 January 1998, when Baroness Hollis of Heigham, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, first reported on the BIP findings, she said in another place:

"I am happy to confirm that the benefit integrity project has revealed no cases of confirmed fraud."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 936.]

That finding was based on the receipt of about 30,000 replies from disabled people.

I therefore believe that at this stage we should be considering not the fraud issue, but the needs issue—the needs of the people involved.

More than 40,000 people have since been interviewed. According to a parliamentary reply that I have received, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency estimates that, in the financial year 1997–98, savings of £15.8 million may be made. Subsequently, 311 appeals have been received; as yet there are no figures on success rates.

As part of the benefit integrity project, another 400,000 people are to be interviewed in the next four years. My deepest concern is that fear and distrust have emerged in the community as a result of the project. Individual cases have been highlighted on television and in newspapers. I shall not rehearse all those cases, but every case that is highlighted sends a tremor of fear through other individuals who may be in similar circumstances and there is genuine anxiety that the project is Treasury led, not needs led.

Yes.

Although I hear Conservative Members saying yes, I remind them that the Conservative Government established the benefit integrity project.

All this is set against the background of an overall review of the social security system, but people who are in receipt of disability living allowance feel that they have now been singled out for a specific review.

I remind the House that many other important benefits—such as housing benefit and income support—hinge on disability living allowance. If at any time DLA is discontinued, those other benefits are discontinued and although, after a review or an appeal, the disability living allowance may be backdated, those other items of support to families are not backdated, so a great deal of distress results.

There can be a sudden drop in household income—and we must all budget according to our household income. This is a very difficult situation for many disabled people to be in. The review and appeal procedures are long and complex. Every hon. Member must have been involved in many such cases. We hope that our intervention will speed things up for the person involved, but I often wonder about the people who do not approach their Member of Parliament.

Other people are worried that, for them, reassessment may mean a return to residential care. We have all worked hard to try to ensure that care in the community works. Many people who, after being institutionalised for years, have emerged and rely on care in the community, are being reassessed. They fear that they may have to return to permanent residential care.

My excellent local citizens advice bureau in Moray experienced a threefold increase in inquiries about disability between 1996–97 and 1997–98. I am sure that that increase is mirrored elsewhere. It is a sign of the anxiety that exists. I worry about what is happening in places where there are no welfare rights workers, citizens advice bureaux, or people to whom people can turn.

The basic aim of disability living allowance was to give dignity and decency to people who suffer from disability, which comes in many different forms. I want, in a constructive speech, to make some proposals to the Government. First, I want to comment on the important issue of the assessment mechanisms.

In reply to a parliamentary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), the Secretary of State for Social Security said of decisions resulting in reduction or removal of entitlement to DLA:

"there will always be additional evidence to support the decision"—[Official Report, 9 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 76.]

Interestingly, I found in my mail today a letter, dated 2 March, from the Secretary of State, in which some of these issues are raised. Immodestly, I should like to think that the prospect of the debate may have stimulated the writing of that letter, but I hope that this important letter has been circulated, not only to all hon. Members, but to representatives of voluntary organisations who are deeply involved in this crisis.

Having had only about 15 minutes to look through the letter, I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is to reply to the debate, to ensure that we have a detailed expansion of that letter. I also ask him to confirm that there will definitely be guarantees for those who want to ensure that medical evidence is submitted when decisions are taken that may result in reduction or removal of entitlement, because many of the issues pertaining to DLA are cocooned by the issue of medical entitlement. Assessment seems to take little account of day-to-day changes in the condition of many disabled people. In response to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside, Peter Mathison of the Benefits Agency stated:

"The additional information may be factual medical evidence from a GP, hospital or other health care professional, a full medical examination by a qualified medical practitioner or information from a carer. The most appropriate source of additional evidence will be used in light of the individual circumstances of the case."

That does not guarantee a full medical assessment, which is what I seek.

Claimants do not always receive clear advice on issues pertaining to the project, such as the information that they may have advisers present. They may be advised that someone may be present but a claimant could take along a next door neighbour, a family member or a friend and not necessarily someone with the knowledge to advise them on how to respond to questions and state exactly what is being sought. It is not made clear that people can have access to previous claim forms against which they can compare their present circumstances to see whether there has been any change. In most cases, there is a deterioration. People also have a right to delay an interview until a more suitable time.

Information should be clearer for people who are being reassessed, whether it is provided in forms or by agency representatives who visit them. There are many public service advertisements on television; perhaps the Government could examine the clarity of the advertising on this subject. The training for visiting officers could be improved. We should aim for best standards and best training. Some people receive only half a day's training while others are trained for up to four days. In a letter to me, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency stated that there was no requirement for visiting officers to have medical knowledge.

Adjudication officers must look beyond the bald statements that sometimes appear on forms and they should always err on the side of the claimant rather than on the side of reducing benefits. It has been suggested that a disability benefits task force could bring together the expertise of voluntary groups. Over the past two days, I have met representatives from no fewer than nine such groups. Their expertise, with that of welfare advisers, could be brought to the heart of the Department of Social Security and to the heart of government. The people in those voluntary groups deal with people's day-to-day problems.

Perhaps the Minister can advise me on exemptions. Many organisations have told me that there is evidence that people who should be exempt from review have been reviewed. I have a list of the exemptions. What criteria can be established to ensure that people on the exempt list are not subjected to further review? Is there a possibility of extending the exempt list? I have received from the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust a request for its clients to be considered for exemption. I need not go into detail, but all hon. Members will appreciate that people with cystic fibrosis fluctuate between well-being and illness. That is also the pattern of many other illnesses, and I hope that that can be considered. I should like to know how the criteria for exemptions are established and how they can be expanded.

I intend to be brief because other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside wish to take part in the debate. I have highlighted only a few of the problems that are associated with the benefit integrity project. My final recommendation is, I think, endorsed by the vast majority of the organisations that work with disabled people. It is that the project should be suspended, at least for a time, to allay the fears of those who are most vulnerable and to give us all an opportunity to try to ensure that the disability living allowance is targeted at those who need it most so that no one has to endure the fear that is endured by many of my constituents.

I understand that the representatives of the Disability Benefits Consortium met the Prime Minister on 16 February to discuss that issue and that it was stated that it would be considered. Perhaps in responding to the debate the Minister will say whether the Department is considering the suspension of the project and whether we can expect an early announcement on that.

The debate is long overdue. I am sure that every hon. Member has been inundated with letters and telephone calls. It is important to understand how we reached the present situation. When disability living allowance was introduced in 1992, it was generally regarded as good news for disabled people because it included lower immobility and care components. I pay tribute to the former right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, Sir Nicholas Scott, for his work in that arena. The new arrangements ensured that, in the first year, there were some 700,000 new claimants. Each year since there have been about 300,000 new claimants. That is a tribute to the scope of the benefit, but it constitutes a tremendous work load.

Hon. Members who were here in 1992 to 1994 remember the chaos over disability living allowance. There were massive delays, backlogs and complaints about claims not being processed. Hotlines were set up so that hon. Members could get through to the Benefits Agency, although the public could not. At one stage, about 800 temporary staff were drafted in from social security offices to try to deal with the problems. Care in the community was introduced in 1992; that led to a huge number of people being taken out of institutional care and placed in the community. Because they were no longer in institutional care, they were entitled to disability living allowance.

Because of all those factors, the Benefits Agency was grinding to a halt and somewhere along the line there was a ministerial nod and a wink to the effect that unless claims were patently invalid they should be approved simply to get rid of the backlog. That is part of the reason for the current problems. It cannot be overstated that the problems with disability living allowance relate to management and departmental error and not to disability fraud. The problem has been around for a long time and it has not been addressed either by the former Government or, so far, I am sorry to say, by the present Government.

By the end of last year, there were some 4 million claimants for disability living allowance and attendance allowance compared with 1.7 million under the old 1991 scheme. In one sense, the system has worked because the benefit has gone to many more people. I hope that it has done some good.

Of course, the previous Government panicked. In 1995, they said that the number claiming invalidity benefit had rocketed and that something had to be done about it. They introduced incapacity benefit as a way of cutting benefits for the sick, but they knew that they could not do the same with disability living allowance because there would be an outcry. They had to look for a way to curb the growing number of claimants without causing an outcry. Using some dubious evidence from the National Audit Office, combined with some reasonable evidence from the Department, they decided that there were significant errors in the system and set up the benefit integrity project to deal with them.

No training was provided for the people who were sent to visit claimants, but claimants were assured that the visiting officers were not the decision makers. That is correct, because decisions are taken by an adjudication officer—but he makes his decision based on the information on the claim form, which is the information extracted from the claimant by the visiting officer. The claimant has no idea how what they have said will be construed. Generally, the claim form is filled in by the visiting officer—the claimant simply signs it—so in fact the visiting officer has a significant input into the final decision. The failure to provide any training for visiting officers was criminal.

DLA is a self-assessment benefit, and some would say rightly so. If one third of the working population have self-assessment for their tax contributions, perhaps it is right for claimants to have some element of self-assessment for what they claim, but the capacity for error is enormous. Very few of us are sufficiently medically skilled to describe how an affliction of disability affects our daily lives. We would be hard put to do that. Many of my hon. Friends have afflictions, but I shall not talk about them today.

There is enormous room for error because people are not necessarily able to determine how their condition has changed over the years—whether for better or for worse. There are clear cases of people who should receive benefit for life, but the very nature of disability means that some people will get worse or better. It is virtually impossible for an individual to judge when he has crossed the line between entitlement and disentitlement.

Where should we go from here? A number of actions are required. I welcome the two announcements made by the Government during the past month. They go a long way, but we need to go much further. The claim and renewal forms need to be redesigned to make them much simpler and clearer so that claimants can more easily determine their entitlements. There is an argument for shorter award periods. One matter of concern is the number of lifetime awards that have been found to be wrong in some respect. A review period of, perhaps, two years might help to prevent many of the problems that have recently been prevalent.

There needs to be significant investment in staff training—and not only for visiting officers. I know that some people dispute the figures, but if they are correct some 50,000 cases have been wrongly assessed. That raises serious questions about not only the management of the unit, but the people making the original decisions. The evidence is that the training programme has not been good enough.

It is important to have people in local offices so that they can give advice and liaise with local disability groups. They can talk to claimants and try to get around the problems. That would be far better than the present remote operation at Blackpool, which deals with people only by mail or telephone. The personal touch can sort out many problems.

We need an absolute commitment that the project is not and never has been a cuts-led exercise. The purpose of the exercise should be to ensure that people get their entitlement. I have not heard anyone dispute the qualifying criteria for disability living allowance and I hope that we never change them, but there is a major problem with matching the entitlement to the criteria. The exercise should be about getting that right.

We should recognise that much of the problem lies within the DLA unit, not with claimants. Fraud is not an issue in the payment of DLA. There will always be the odd case of fraud, but fraud is not causing the problems with over or underpayment; the problem is departmental errors—and responsibility lies first with the DLA management unit, but also with us, as parliamentarians, for not getting it right in the first place.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on bringing this important and timely debate to the Floor of the House. There is obvious concern, across the parties, about constituency cases.

As a member of the all-party disablement group, during the past few months I have been twice to see the Secretary of State on this issue. I reiterate the request to the Secretary of State, made today by Lord Ashley, the chairman of the group, for a moratorium on the benefit integrity project. Although the Secretary of State has announced some changes during the past few weeks, there is still a great deal of confusion—not only among those who have had their claims assessed, but among those who are literally waiting for the knock at the door. Many people with lifetime benefit are anxious about the future. Although they have the words, "lifetime benefit" written on their benefit books, we have not yet been able to get an assurance from the Secretary of State that the benefit will be for life.

A moratorium is needed to give the Government time fully to revisit the way the project works. When disability groups visited the Department last September, at the Secretary of State's invitation, to discuss the benefit integrity project, they thought that they would have an input into how the policy would be implemented. Instead, they found that the project was already under way. Although they had a great deal of expertise and advice to offer the Government, they were too late to make that vital input into the way the policy would be implemented.

I want to raise a few of the issues that worry people who are subject to scrutiny. It is a fact that people are entitled to see the original documentation that they filled in when they first made their claim. I advise all my constituents to ask for the necessary paperwork either to be sent to them or to be brought to their homes if they are to receive a home visit. To date, among those who have written to me expressing concern about the way their cases have been handled, I have yet to find one person who has been offered that documentation.

There should be an obligation on the Benefits Agency to ensure that people are aware of their rights so that they have the opportunity, in advance of an interview, to look at what they wrote when they filled in the original application form many years ago. They are not voluntarily being given that opportunity, and that is wrong.

The Secretary of State has now said that the decision on whether a benefit is to be taken away or reduced will not be made arbitrarily on the basis of information provided by the claimant but that there will need to be some further input. It has been suggested that general practitioners should have an input. I would not disagree with that, but it presents some problems.

People with very long-standing disability—such as those with chronic arthritis who, sadly, usually do not enjoy a significant increase in their mobility for the rest of their lives—may be seen by their general practitioner only occasionally. Very often, an occupational therapist is the person who can best identify the state of their mobility and what, practically, they can or cannot do. I hope that we shall not create an arbitrary system in which a GP who may occasionally see someone in a surgery for five minutes is asked to submit evidence when the most appropriate person to submit evidence is an occupational therapist who has a much closer working relationship with the claimant.

I have asked the Secretary of State—and have now received a written reply from Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency—about people who, since the project began, have lost the mobility component of their disability living allowance, which was often used to fund their agreement with Motability. To my certain knowledge—in my constituency—three people have had to return their car because they cannot afford to make the payment. According to Mr. Mathison, there will be no retrospective examination of the cases of those who have already been through what has been an absolutely harrowing experience.

Re-examining those cases would be a matter not only of restoring benefits, because some of the people involved have now had to take legal advice—adding to their anxieties—to try to restore their benefit. They will also have the problem of determining how to find a deposit for a car if their benefit is reinstated. I urge the Minister to deal, in his reply, with those very real practical problems.

If the Secretary of State has recognised that there are problems with how the integrity project is being conducted, she must surely accept the need to examine the cases of those who have lost benefit since the scheme began and to determine how they should be compensated, particularly when they have suffered the loss of a vehicle. Even if some of those people receive tomorrow the good news that the benefit is to be restored, it would be a very long time before they could save up a deposit to get another car. Such practical problems lead hon. Members on both sides of the House to ask the Minister yet again, please let us have a moratorium while these issues are sorted out.

The hon. Member for Moray mentioned training, which is critical. If the Secretary of State is now admitting that GPs and others with professional medical advice should have an input into dealing with these cases, surely it cannot be right that someone with absolutely no medical training—indeed, with only a few hours training on how to tick the boxes on a form—can go into someone's home and remove a benefit that is critical to their everyday well-being.

I welcome this debate and hope that it will give Ministers another opportunity to reconsider very genuine and reasonable requests from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The all-party disablement group heard at our most recent meeting with the Secretary of State that finalisation of the benefits review and of the benefit integrity project is unlikely for some months, which simply means that the agony will be prolonged for those who are waiting to discover whether they can retain their benefit.

We have asked for a moratorium not because we do not want to eliminate fraud—of course we do—but because the Government have gone helter-skelter down one path with one objective. There must be a balancing of fairness and justice for those who have already suffered great pain and mental anguish about how the project has been conducted and for those who are waiting for their turn.

There are several reasons why I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate: because my constituency has a higher than average number of disabled and elderly people; because of the concentration of benefit offices in and around my constituency, including the disability living allowance offices at Warbreck house, which have already been mentioned in the debate; and because of the number of complaints that I—like many hon. Members—have received in my surgery about the operation of the benefit integrity project.

I feel as though I have a two-way mirror on the project's operation. Like many hon. Members, I see its impact on recipients, who may have lost benefit or had it reduced, but I also see it also through the eyes of many of my constituents who are employees at the disability living allowance offices. It is important that tribute is paid to their hard work and dedication—often in very difficult circumstances, as hon. Members have said. I would not wish this debate or subsequent debates to turn into a Department of Social Security staff-bashing exercise, but significant aspects of the project's operation give me great concern.

The principles behind the review are unimpeachable. Who could be for fraud or against the incorrect awarding of benefits? I should, however, remind the House—as others have already—that Baroness Hollis said that the benefit integrity project has so far uncovered negligible evidence of fraud in DLA claims, yet benefits have been cut or reduced in between 15 and 18 per cent. of the cases that have been examined, eventually resulting, we are told, in cuts or reductions in 34,000 of the 400,000 cases that will be examined. The figures are startling and it is perfectly reasonable that we should more carefully examine the project's operation.

I do not want to repeat what hon. Members have already said, but the project has training deficiencies, particularly for adjudication officers, who often have to make critical decisions based on second-hand information. Moreover, the forms are complex, amount to 30 pages and often pose a significant barrier for the people who fill them out, whether the visitor or the claimant—who may well be elderly and possibly confused. The forms complicate the task of obtaining correct information.

We must also examine the project's mechanisms. I can cite a specific example because my mother—who receives disability benefit because of osteoporosis—was visited by a project member. Although I was not there, I have been told that the visit went smoothly and was conducted courteously. However, as appeals have shown, something goes wrong in a significant minority of cases.

The chief executive of the Benefits Agency has been anxious to reassure hon. Members about problems with the project. On 4 January 1998, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), he soothingly wrote:

"The onus for providing this evidence"—

on DLA—

"lies with the customer. There has been a move away from the reliance on a medical assessment and more emphasis is placed upon a person's day to day care and mobility needs. The customer is considered best placed to know the practical effects of the disability."—[Official Report, 5 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 798.]

One might think that that is all very soothing and sensible but the reality is often different.

Many disabled people's—especially older disabled people's—pride sometimes leads them to understate, or at least to give an optimistic assessment of, their condition on a particular day, leading to an understatement of their condition on the forms. The Minister and his team should urgently examine that matter.

All hon. Members can cite specific examples from their constituencies; I should like to give only one. Since 1978, a lady in my constituency has received the higher rate mobility and care components of DLA because of serious problems, including osteoarthritis and a prolapsed disc for which she is receiving treatment at Victoria hospital, Blackpool and which entails a need for virtually full-time care.

After a home visit by the Benefits Agency in November 1997, a decision was made to award a low rate mobility component and a nil care component. That decision was made despite the fact that the lady's condition had worsened since 1994, as demonstrated by installation of a chairlift and a bedlift and by provision, by Lancashire county council social services, of weekly help.

There is an appeals process, but it is often extremely lengthy. Another constituent, who was deprived of disability living allowance, had to wait in the region of 11 months after two postponements of appeal. The appeal itself is something of a lottery and depends on a claimant's access to welfare rights advice. Furthermore, the training and composition of the tribunals is something on which the Government might have cause to reflect.

I welcome the safeguards that the Secretary of State announced to improve the accuracy of any decision on entitlement, although I note that in answer to a written question from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 2 March, it was emphasised that it was not to be retrospective.

It is incumbent on us to remind ourselves why the DLA was needed. It was needed because of pressures on community care and cuts to the budget, to which the Royal National Institute for the Blind and other groups have referred, and because of the gross underclaiming of benefit in the 1980s. It is important that we do not believe that there is an enormous problem because of gross exaggeration. There may be exaggerations, but, as I said, there is limited evidence of fraud.

Ministers need to be extremely cautious about the progress of this project. Hon. Members should bear in mind the Child Support Agency fiasco. It was set up with the best intentions, but, far from catching the malingerers, it has often snared the innocent and, for that matter, the conscientious in its zeal to meet targets. Our welfare review may not be cuts driven, so it is rather rich of Opposition Members to remind us of the problems involved in this project when they were instrumental in putting it in place, but we should nevertheless have examined a little more carefully the bill of sale that we inherited from the previous Government. Perhaps we should have looked a little more closely at the country of origin before proceeding with the project quite so enthusiastically.

I urge the Government to review the project with the optimum care. I leave it to them to decide whether a moratorium is appropriate, but I warn Ministers that we are engaged in a very complex and delicate assessment of welfare reform. Our cuts may not be Treasury driven, unlike those of the Opposition, but it is extremely important that the wells of welfare reform are not polluted by a project that has been capricious in its operation and questionable in a significant minority of cases.

Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to debate such an important issue. All of us who hold regular surgeries recognise that there is great concern among disabled people. As my party's spokesman on disability, I have spoken to many people involved with this matter and I know that there is also great concern among the charities working in this sector.

I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) that we have the beginnings of the type of fiasco that we experienced with the Child Support Agency. As the number of appeals increase, and as the delays in managing those appeals grow, I am beginning to realise that unless the Government do more than simply tweak the issue, we shall have another CSA-type crisis on our hands. Having said that, the debate so far has been constructive, and I will make some suggestions about how the crisis can be solved.

I begin by welcoming the announcements that the Secretary of State has made over the past couple of months to the effect that she has recognised the need for a review. The letter that hon. Members received this week is certainly welcome. The Secretary of State tells us that the benefit integrity project is not

"some sort of fraud drive",

and that clarification is certainly welcome. We are also told that fraud is not rife in disability living allowance claims—something which many of us knew, although it is nice to have it in writing. The letter also states that the Government want to listen to the experiences of claimants. Many in this sector have been concerned that the Government were not listening, so we welcome unreservedly the Secretary of State's announcements in that respect. However, they do not go far enough.

At the moment, the Government are just tweaking at the edges of the project, but I believe that it needs to be halted. If the project continues as it is, it will end in a mire of inefficiency and injustice. The tragedy is that the BIP is undermining much of the good work that the Government are beginning to do elsewhere in the disability sector. It is creating a sense of mistrust.

I will draw the House's attention to four key areas of concern with the project. The first relates to the title itself. The name "benefit integrity project" implies a lack of integrity among claimants. This is not just window-dressing; there is a genuine concern that the thrust of the title is disrespectful to the people being reviewed. Clearly, disabled people want forms to ensure that there is value for money and that fraud is squeezed, but they are outraged by some of the labelling in the right-wing press which suggests that they are cheats. The very title of the project itself fuels that suspicion.

Secondly, the project is not being handled with the sensitivity that I am sure the Government wish. The level of errors within the project is alarming. I have had evidence of amputees being asked whether their condition has improved, as if the missing limb had grown back but they were keeping quiet about it. As of mid-February, the Department's own figures show that more than 400 severely disabled people, including 30 who are terminally ill, have been asked to take part in the project although they are clearly members of the groups that should never have been approached to do so.

The third concern relates to mobility. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) rightly pointed out, people who lose their car if the benefit is cut have major problems replacing it if their appeals are successful. However, it is not only the finding of a deposit that causes difficulties. There are two other factors that the Minister needs to bear in mind. People who are successful on appeal and get a car back have to spend considerable sums on it because they get a new car that needs to be adapted for their disability. In addition, they cannot claim back the costs of being housebound or of having to find other forms of transport while they were without a car.

Fourthly, the complexity of the forms also causes concern. I know that there have been moves to deal with this matter, but the forms are still too complicated. Indeed, the chief executive of RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—told me yesterday that it took him a whole weekend to fill out his own DLA form even though he understands the system and is used to filling out forms.

How can the Government restore confidence? I believe that the Secretary of State wishes to do that, and it is interesting that in her letter to hon. Members this week, she said three times, I think, that she was looking for suggestions about the way forward. We welcome that. I have some suggestions to get the project back on track.

As other hon. Members have suggested, we need to abandon the project as it stands. We then need to put in place a system of consulting disablement groups and disabled people on what they would like in peace of the review. If the Government consulted those organisations, they would find widespread acceptance of the need for some form of review, but disability groups wish to have a say about how it is carried out. As I said, a good starting point to rebuild confidence would be a more neutral title. Disabled people have won the right to more respect than the term "benefit integrity project" implies.

One of the problems with the project is that it seeks to do two things at once—to tackle fraud and to review benefits. However, it has failed to do either. Any new system should formally separate measures to combat fraud and error and measures to introduce a review of benefits. It must be possible in a new system to deal with fraud and value-for-money issues via a separate fraud unit or an efficiency drive that does not involve every interview with disabled people being fraud driven. Once we have removed the fraud and value-for-money aspect from the review process, we can set up a separate new system for reviewing benefits with a new and positive aim behind it. It should be an on-going system, not a one-off project that few claimants find easy to accept or understand. It should review benefits constantly and have a new thrust behind it.

Currently, we have a wasted opportunity. Interviews are taking place up and down the country at great cost to the taxpayer, yet they could achieve so much more. It is an opportunity to sit down with disabled people and talk about a range of issues. That is happening now, while other agencies are doing the same. It is crazy for a disabled person to be assessed three or four times for different purposes by different agencies. Streamlining that under a new review system would be a great benefit.

Any new system should ensure that reviews are conducted to ensure that people receive their full entitlement. They should not be focused, as they are currently, on the recipients of higher-level benefits. By focusing on those receiving higher benefits, one invites the assumption that benefits are likely to be adjusted downwards.

The boundary between review and advice should be shifted in the direction of advice. Reviews should be tailored much more closely to individual needs. We know that some conditions—amputations, polio and loss of vision—are not likely to improve, so the people affected do not need such frequent reviews.

Another way in which to restore confidence in the system would be to give claimants a clear date on which their benefit will be reviewed when they are first awarded a benefit entitlement. That would overcome the problem of someone who believes they have a benefit for life finding out later that it is subject to review.

The groups to whom I have spoken in the disability sector have made clear to me and, I believe, to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, the grief and anxiety being caused by the current process. I have heard of charities setting up helplines where staff have been talking to many callers who are often in tears. Staff go home at the end of the day shattered by the experience. It need not be like that.

Confidence in the Government's approach to welfare reform is, sadly, at an all-time low and confidence among disabled people in the benefits system is being shattered by this process. I believe that the Government can start to correct the problem today by announcing that they will halt the benefit integrity project. There is still time to do that. The project has years left to run and it is not too late to close a chapter on what was, after all, a failed Tory project in the first place. I urge the Government to recreate something positive by consulting disabled people. They should announce today an end to the benefit integrity project.

I welcome this timely debate introduced by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).

Disability living allowance is an important benefit which is needed and valued by millions of disabled people. It provides direct help to individuals to meet their care and mobility needs. We have heard that it is a complicated benefit to assess because it is based on self-assessment, not of medical evidence of disability, but of people's needs for care and mobility. We know that the system is not working well now.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I received a report from the National Audit Office which pointed out that there were incorrect assessments of DLA to the tune of an estimated £499 million. The report also said—this is a little-known figure—that there could be potential underpayments of DLA of £227 million because claimants were understating their needs. We are seeing error on both sides of the argument. That being so, the Benefits Agency is not getting it right first time, on time, every time as it is intended to do. Clearly, there is a problem about the operation of DLA that needs to be addressed.

The benefit integrity project was designed to try to deal with some of those errors. It is a project which we inherited from the previous Administration and, from the outset, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there was no effort to provide the quality training and support necessary for the staff carrying out the assessments.

My consultations with local groups, such as Corby Council for the Disabled and the East-Northamptonshire Council for All Disabilities, have shown that things are not working well either in the original award of the allowance or in the way in which the benefit integrity project is working. It is unhelpful that people who are undergoing an individual process of review and are distressed by that are also picking up a negative feeling about the Government' s review of the welfare state. It is not helpful to taxpayers or claimants who need a welfare state to work effectively and efficiently in everybody's interests.

Although today's debate has been broadly constructive, we have heard from Opposition Members about people living in fear of a knock on the door in the night. That is at best unhelpful and at worst, is scaremongering by Opposition Members when the Government are making genuine efforts to put right the mess created by the same hon. Members.

There have been calls for the benefit integrity project to be suspended or abandoned, or for the setting up of a moratorium. I strongly advise my hon. Friend the Minister not to go down that route. What would we say to the 1,300 people who have had their benefits increased as a result of the project? We would have to say, "Sorry, you cannot have that increase." What would we say to the thousands of people represented by the estimated £227 million of underpayment? We would have to say, "Sorry, but there is no chance of having your benefit upgraded despite the fact that the DLA you have been awarded is wrong."

To abandon the project now, which was the request of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), would be to abandon those people who have not received the payments to which they were entitled, and I strongly advise against it.

We have heard a number of constructive proposals about how the project could be improved to ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled and that we have a system that works in the interests of disabled people. I should like to hear some reassurance from the Minister that the conditions of entitlement to disability living allowance have not changed and that the benefit integrity project is not a cuts-led exercise, but is designed to get the right benefit to the right people. I want to know that, in future, disabled people will be treated properly and fairly, that the project will be put on a sound footing and that it will be carried out sensitively, with full and proper concern for each individual affected by it.

I welcome the new safeguards that have been introduced. I hope that we can see some real benefits—excuse the pun—coming through so that there is less error in the project and so that more people get the benefits to which they are entitled.

I should like to hear from the Minister some reassurance that consultation with disability groups is taking place at national as well as local level. Working in partnership with disabled people and with the groups and organisations that represent them is a good way in which to work.

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's point about consultation. Does he believe that many of the problems we have seen over the past six months would have been avoided if, in September last year, when the disabled groups were summoned to the Department of Social Security, it had been for a consultation—that is what they thought it would be—rather than simply to be told by the Government what was happening, and what would continue to happen?

No. The problems that we have seen over the past six months would have been dealt with if the original project had not been established by a Conservative Administration, without proper training or resources, and without any partnership or involvement with disabled people.

The reassurances from the Minister will be important for hon. Members, for disabled people and for the organisations that represent them. They will show that the Government are putting the project back on track after inheriting such a mess. Disabled people and their organisations want to know that the Government will be true to their pledge of wanting to see justice and equality for disabled people in this country.

Like other speakers, I welcome this timely debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on having introduced a debate on such an important subject. Its importance is shown by the number of hon. Members who want to speak in recognition of the many complaints about the operation of the benefit integrity project that have been communicated to us via our postbags and constituency surgeries.

I should correct the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who made a disappointing and unfortunate speech. Although the initial sampling exercise in the review of disability living allowance was carried out under the previous Government, and the decision was taken to go ahead with the benefit integrity project as a result of that evidence, the project has been carried out by the current Government and the operation of the project is their responsibility. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman dismissed the valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—that if the Government had consulted with disability organisations prior to carrying out the project, the results might have been very different.

Disability organisations are as keen as all of us to ensure first, that there is no fraud in the system and secondly, that people are paid the correct amount of benefit. As the hon. Member for Corby pointed out, some people are receiving less benefit than they are entitled to receive. We all accept that people should receive the correct level of benefit, and the disability organisations would be keen to work with the Government to ensure that the methodology used in the benefit integrity project will work properly. Those organisations know best what will work and how the system should operate.

It is important to point out to the hon. Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), who commented on whether the current welfare reform was a cuts exercise, that one of the problems with the way in which the benefit integrity project is operating is that people with disabilities are made anxious on two scores. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, they are anxious about the possible knock on the door in connection with the project. Secondly, that feeling occurs against a background of general concern about what is to happen to disability benefits. That is a double whammy which makes people with disabilities feel great concern about their future benefits.

I mentioned the sampling exercise carried out under the previous Government which led to the estimate that incorrect overpayments were being made of slightly less than £500 million. I understand that current evidence indicates that that figure is an overstatement and I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is true. I should also be grateful if the Minister could respond to several issues that have been raised by hon. Members today and by the all-party disablement group in its two meetings with the Secretary of State for Social Security. I was part of the group's delegation on both occasions.

Our first concern relates to those who have their benefit reduced or removed and who then appeal, and the question of what happens to them while their appeal is in process. Several hon. Members have commented on the fact that the appeal process is lengthy and on the difficulties that people suffer while going through that process. The all-party disablement group requested that the rules should be changed so that claimants can retain their previous benefits until their appeal is heard, thereby preventing the hardship that occasionally results under the current rules. We also raised the question of the operation of the mobility component and the implications for those who have cars under the Motability scheme. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond on those points.

The Secretary of State indicated a willingness to have exemptions listed on the covering letter, with a box that could be ticked by anyone who fell into one of the exempted categories so that the papers could be returned immediately. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that idea is to be put into practice. The all-party disablement group also raised with the Secretary of State the possibility of what was described as a "health warning" being attached to the covering letter, so that those who are completing the form are fully aware of the implications of doing so. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South referred to the pride that many people with disabilities feel and their desire to overstate their abilities on the form, but they must understand the implications and recognise that doing so may lead to their benefit being cut. The provision of a health warning would enable them to see the matter in an entirely different light.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned fraud, and I hope that we can get an unequivocal statement on that from the Minister today. There is real concern that several statements have given the public the impression, first, that the benefit integrity project is entirely about fraud and, secondly, that vast numbers of people are falsely claiming to be disabled, purely to get disability benefit. I hope that the Minister will give a categorical and unequivocal statement today that that is not the case, and that all the evidence that the Government have shows that the level of fraud is actually extremely low.

In the letter from the Secretary of State dated 2 March, which most of us received shortly before the debate started, she states:

"Of the 40,000 or so cases examined up to the end of last year, around 9,000 people have had their entitlement adjusted."

As I understand it, that covers both upward and downward adjustment. She continues:

"Some cases have been referred to the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service and around 40 are currently being investigated."

That is an extremely small figure. The evidence totally fails to support the impression that has been given in several statements that many people are fraudulently claiming disability living allowance, and it is imperative that a clear statement is made in the House today. We are concerned about the mechanism whereby the benefit integrity project operates, which is leading to cases of real hardship among people with disabilities who have had their benefit reduced or removed. Our concern is not vast fraud within the system, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that point today.

When the all-party disablement group met the Secretary of State, we specifically asked her to consider suspending the benefit integrity project. The hon. Member for Corby should realise that it is not a question of preventing those who have so far been underclaiming and underpaid from getting the benefit to which they are entitled. The point is that the way in which the system is operating is causing real anxiety and real hardship, and it is necessary that the project should be suspended for a period so that its operation can be properly assessed. In today's debate, some excellent suggestions have been made about the way in which the project could be reformed to ensure that it operates fairly and justly. Part of that process should consist of consultation with disability organisations; they understand the problems and their input can ensure that the system works at grass-roots level.

Although the Secretary of State indicated to the all-party group that she would not suspend the project, it has been reported that the Prime Minister told the Disability Benefits Consortium that he would consider suspending it. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us which of those positions the Government will take. I trust that they will suspend the project for a period so that an independent review can be carried out and the right systems put in place. In that way, we can be sure that people with disabilities will receive the benefits that they genuinely need.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on securing this important debate, which has drawn together views, ideas, criticisms and comments from hon. Members on both sides. I hope that the Government will feel that the debate has been useful and helpful, as we try to sort out some of the problems that have emerged with the unit.

Comments from Labour Members, from my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), and from hon. Members from other parties have shown that there is considerable concern in many parts of the country about the effects of the project at the sharp end. The Government have not handled it in the best way possible. There is great confusion, fear and consternation among people with disabilities and the pressure groups representing them as a result of increasing uncertainty about the Government's intentions on disability benefits and the actions of the unit. If anything positive is to come from the debate, we should have assurances from the Government that those who rely on those vital benefits will not have them cut because of Treasury-imposed spending targets.

The operation of the benefit integrity project over the past nine months is a prime example of the Government's haphazard and unsatisfactory approach to the issue. Under the previous Government, expenditure on disability and sickness benefits increased dramatically over 10 years from £7 billion a year to £20 billion. In 1992, the categories of people who could claim disability benefits were extended. The measure was accompanied by a successful publicity campaign, which increased people's awareness of the benefits to which they were entitled. Equally importantly, that was part of a process of trying to take away the stigma from claiming benefits—a problem which is particularly prevalent among the elderly and disabled people, who often do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled, out of pride or a feeling that they are begging for help. That is a misguided view. Politicians and others should do everything that they can do to remove that perceived stigma.

The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) seems to be unaware of the history of the unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead dealt with the point, but I should like to put the facts on record, because, as success has many fathers and failure is an orphan, they are being forgotten. The benefit integrity project was proposed by the previous Government, who set up a pilot survey, because it was crucial to ensure that the benefits system for disabled people was monitored and that the right benefits went to the right people. The results of that pilot survey came forward in January last year. The general election intervened before the unit, in its current modus operandi, was put into place. That modus operandi was established by the current Government, not the previous one. That should not be forgotten by a Government notorious for spinning whatever line they want to avoid responsibility for their failures.

Under the Labour Government, the benefit integrity project has been turned into a purely cost-cutting vehicle for reducing expenditure on disability living allowance. That becomes clearer after even a limited examination of the project, which is targeted only at those on the highest or middle rate of the care component of DLA and the higher rate of the mobility component. It is clear that, after examination by the project, those on the highest rates of the two components can only have their benefits reduced. There is no way in which they could be increased. Limiting the scope of the BIP to those categories illustrates that it is part of the Government's policy of trying to reduce the benefits bill.

The Government's approach to disability benefits is in keeping with their overall approach to other aspects of welfare reform. It has become increasingly clear in the past few months that the Department of Social Security is working to the agenda of the Treasury and the Chancellor, which is designed to save a war chest for the Government to spend in the run-up to the next general election. The Government pay lip service to the rhetoric of an intellectually based welfare review which will seek to address the long-term problems of an escalating welfare budget. However, all that we have seen over the past nine months is a salami-slicing exercise for benefits picked by the Treasury, which has been implemented by the Department of Social Security on the orders of the Treasury.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I do not have much time.

The benefit integrity project is not the only means that the Government have used to target people with disabilities for savings on the benefit bill. In November, various proposals were leaked to the press, including the taxing, means-testing and time-limiting of certain disability benefits. There was also a proposal that the DLA cash benefit might be exchanged for care services administered by local authorities. We all understand the seriousness of the implications of such policies for disability benefits, particularly the DLA and disability working allowance. The principle behind those benefits is to level the playing field for those with benefits and those without by meeting the additional expenditure caused by the extra needs of people with disabilities. Denying someone those benefits would put them at a disadvantage and would eliminate the level playing field that we should all be seeking to create.

The leaking of such proposals and the floating of such rumours has done nothing but harm. There is still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the issue, which the Government are doing little to allay. Only last week in the Social Security Select Committee, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Welfare Reform were unable to confirm or deny stories about the means-testing of DLA. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate to confirm whether the Government plan to means-test DLA.

The operation of the unit under the current Government has been geared towards saving money. That has been carried out in several ways. We are grateful for the Secretary of State's announcement on 9 February of changes to the existing system. We also appreciate the letter dated 2 March, which we got yesterday afternoon, which also recognises that there have been serious problems with the administration of the system. In an appendix, it lists extra ways in which the Government hope to safeguard the operation and the work of the existing unit. No doubt the Minister will elaborate further on the contents of the letter and the Government's proposals.

As many hon. Members have said, the problem is too confused and difficult for the Government to be able to carry on with a piecemeal approach, tacking proposals on at the edges of a system that they recognise is failing. We should suspend the activities of the unit until all the piecemeal proposals and changes have been announced, and a fundamental review of the system and the aims and aspirations of the unit can be thrashed out properly. We can then start again with a system that does not spread fear, confusion and anxiety, but is targeted at the realistic and right aim of ensuring that the process is being monitored and that those who are entitled to benefits get the right amounts of the right benefits. Even if the Minister is not able to give an answer during the debate, I urge him to give serious consideration to that proposal and make an announcement as soon as possible. He should not dismiss the idea out of hand.

I welcome this opportunity to speak to the House about the benefit integrity project. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on obtaining this debate on a matter of wide public interest. I also congratulate her on setting a constructive and helpful tone, which has generally been followed for the past hour and a half.

I acknowledge that the benefit integrity project has been the subject of debate, controversy and concern, much of which has been reflected in speeches made from both sides of the House. I have had a great many requests to respond in my summing up to many specific issues. I shall not be able to do so in the time available, but I give an assurance that all issues raised about the delivery of the project will rightly be given careful consideration. In the time available, I will clarify the reasons for the benefit integrity project and, equally importantly, lay to rest many of the fears about its purpose and intent. I shall look at the experience of the project to date, and set out how the Government have responded and will respond to that experience.

First, and most importantly, I want, through this debate, to reassure disabled people. The benefit integrity project is simply about ensuring that disabled people receive the right amount of disability living allowance—the amount to which they are entitled. It is not an anti-fraud drive; it is not a cuts exercise by another name; it is not part of the Government's wider agenda of welfare reform, or a precursor of it. It is concerned with disabled people and their entitlement to benefit under rules that Parliament has laid down. No rules on the entitlement to DLA have been changed. The responsibility for decision making rests with the people who have always exercised that responsibility.

Will the Minister say why DLA has been singled out to be checked and clarified while other benefits have not? It leads to suspicion that the Government have some ulterior motive.

As I shall make clear, DLA has not been singled out in the process of action being taken on incorrectness and other problems in the Department of Social Security.

Guidance given to decision makers on the need to take into account all appropriate evidence remains unchanged. I want to reassure disabled people. We want to ensure that benefit payments are right. We want to act sensitively and we want people to have confidence in the actions taken as part of the project.

Why was the benefit integrity project initiated? I do not think that any Member would question the need to take action across all benefits to ensure that benefit payments are made to those—and only those—who have a legal entitlement to them. As the hon. Member for Moray said, we must, of course, recognise that even establishing that somebody is not entitled to benefit has an impact on their life, so the situation needs proper and sensitive treatment.

The previous Administration initiated a series of benefit reviews to establish the extent of error and fraud across all major benefits. In each benefit, the findings of the reviews have or will lead to appropriate changes in the way in which benefits are administered and entitlement is established. Disabled people and DLA recipients have not been singled out.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not give way because I have very limited time in which to answer at least some of the points raised.

The DLA benefit review was undertaken in 1996 and published in February 1997. It reported that 73 per cent. of people were receiving it at the correct rate at the time that they were visited, meaning that 27 per cent. of people were receiving DLA at an incorrect rate. Incorrectness may have arisen for a variety of reasons, and involved under-provision as well as overpayment. In line with other benefit reviews, the DLA review reported a headline estimate of fraud of 12.2 per cent. The sample was extrapolated to produce the estimate of fraud of about £499 million that has been used.

I should make it quite clear that it would be totally wrong to suggest that the majority of people receiving DLA are doing so fraudulently. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. I should go further. Although the benefit integrity project has broadly confirmed the level of incorrectness identified by the DLA benefit review, it has not sustained the suggested level of fraud. But—this is the critical point—even if the benefit review estimate of fraud can be debated, it none the less indicates a worrying level of incorrectness.

The benefit integrity project has broadly sustained the estimated level of incorrectness and has justified the decision to proceed with the project when we took office in May. I should make it clear that the BIP was already fully designed under the previous Administration—contrary to the history described by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—and we had to take some very early action to improve its design.

Hon. Members need to understand that the points that they raised about decision making relate not to the BIP, but to the fundamental nature of DLA as a benefit. It is a complex benefit. It is paid to provide help with the extra costs associated with a disabling condition. Entitlement is based on the effect of a disability, not purely on the fact that a person claiming benefit is disabled in some way. The same condition can, of course, affect individuals in very different ways. As part of the claiming process, we ask people to describe the effect of their disability on their daily life, and through an understanding of the need that they have for help with personal care and getting around, decisions are made about entitlement. The BIP uses the same process.

It is fundamental to the nature of DLA that we rely to a considerable degree—sometimes entirely—on the information that we ask people to provide about their daily lives. It is not easy for many people to describe accurately the precise levels of need which arise from their disability. That is not to say that people are setting out to mislead or exaggerate, although it is important that we recognise constraints in the assessment of DLA entitlement generally before we begin to look more closely at the operation of the benefit integrity project.

rose—

I hope that I can make some progress because I have some important points to cover.

I have already mentioned the difficulties that disabled people may have in recognising when to let us know that their circumstances have changed. The focus of the benefit integrity project was dictated by the findings of the benefit review, and is focused on groups of recipients who are thought to be the least likely to contact the Department about change. The House will, of course, recognise that there is a strong incentive for people to let us know when their needs increase, but less so as needs decrease, and even less if it is unclear when they should take such action.

The project results so far have underlined the need for the exercise. Up to the end of January, 55,000 cases had been examined and more than 12,000 people had had their benefit changed. Almost 1,300 people have seen an increase in their award, while some 4,000 people have moved off benefit altogether. Of the 44,000-plus cases with an on-going award of benefit that have so far been examined, 16 per cent. have resulted in change to the benefit paid. Some 48 per cent. of awards in renewal claims are being changed. In total, the level of incorrectness found, at 21 per cent., is broadly in line with the level of incorrectness found in the review. I should stress again that the project is seeking to establish current entitlement against current rules. None of the rules has changed.

In seeking to reassure the House that there is a sound basis for the benefit integrity project—the integrity, of course, refers to the integrity of our system, not to the integrity of recipients—I do not want to give the impression that we are in any way complacent about the way in which the project is being carried out or the concerns of disabled people who receive DLA. It is essential that the project is carried out properly, sensitively and with full and proper concern for each individual disabled person who might be affected by it. Although I cannot comment on individual cases raised in the debate, I accept that we do not always get it right, despite our best intentions and—I genuinely believe—the best efforts of our staff to carry out their responsibilities properly and effectively.

From the outset, the Government have sought to address issues of concern, learn from the experience of the project and tackle problems that emerge. We are determined that disabled people should be dealt with properly and fairly, and that they should have sufficient information about what is required of them and the purpose of the exercise to allow them to provide the required level of information about the effect of their disability on their need for help with personal care and getting around. Most of all, we want the decisions that are made as a result of the project about benefit entitlement to be the right decisions.

When we inherited the project designed by the previous Administration, we discovered at the outset that no effort had been made to ensure that visiting officers had appropriate disability awareness training. The present Administration introduced that.

We have had several meetings at ministerial and official level to discuss the development of the project, and have recognised that some of the individuals contacted may not have understood the level of detail required about their daily lives. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 9 February that a new safeguard was being introduced. Details have been sent to hon. Members.

So far, we have kept the working of the project under constant review, and we shall continue to do so. We shall also continue to meet organisations of and for disabled people. It is important to understand that the project is about ensuring that disabled people receive the right amount of DLA—that to which they are entitled. I believe that the results so far endorse the need for the exercise, and that it would be difficult for us to stop taking action to secure the proper payment of benefits.

Astoundingly, this appears to be the first recorded debate in the history of the British Parliament specifically on the subject of the Irish community in Britain. That is all the more astounding because, as the House will be aware, Irish migration to Britain goes back as far as the first forays by Irish chieftains to Wales, during which they reputedly kidnapped a small boy who grew up to become our patron saint, Saint Patrick.

After the 12th century Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland, emigration escalated, and by the 1600s there were sizeable Irish communities in most major cities. Some of that migration was the inevitable and natural movement of peoples, but certainly over the past two centuries the growth in the numbers of Irish people coming to Britain was overwhelmingly a direct result of the colonial exploitation of Ireland—a process which included discriminatory measures that suppressed and destroyed whole sections of Ireland's economic base.

Racism and discrimination are also tools of colonial oppression. The denigration of the Irish has been used not only to justify colonial invasion and occupation but to reinforce oppression. Liz Curtis' s excellent book, "Nothing but the Same Old Story", charts the depiction of the Irish within British culture and the media as some brutish sub-species, from the earliest Norman tracts to the present-day Murdoch newspapers.

Over time, racism has been as effective a weapon of oppression as any sword or gun—more effective in some ways, because it is less overt and can even be internalised by the victims, undermining their feelings of self-worth.

Remarkably, however, until last year there had been no comprehensive investigation into discrimination experienced by the Irish community in Britain. Throughout the 1980s, a number of organisations, including the Federation of Irish Societies, the Irish in Britain Representation Group, the Action Group for Irish Youth and the Irish Women's Centre, campaigned to highlight the discrimination faced by the Irish in Britain.

Those organisations were joined by local authorities such as the Greater London council, Camden, Haringey and Lewisham, and the Association of London Authorities. To its credit, the Irish Post, under the editorship of Brendan McCluha and Donal Mooney, became the vehicle in which that anti-Irish racism was exposed.

The campaign culminated last year in the publication of an excellent and authoritative research project by Dr. Mary Hickman and Dr. Bronwen Walter, commissioned by the Commission for Racial Equality. The report examines the extent to which Irish people in Britain experience various forms of discrimination. I pay tribute to Herman Ouseley, the first chair of the CRE to take the issue of anti-Irish racism seriously.

To many, the results of the research project are startling. The researchers drew on the 1991 census data and consulted a wide range of organisations working within the Irish community. They also conducted a pilot survey among the Irish population in Britain. They catalogued the inequality that Irish people have experienced, and described finding in many people of Irish origin

"a powerful sense of hurt and unjustified exclusion from an equal place in British society."

The researchers demonstrated that

"deep seated Irish stereotypes affected many areas of the lives of Irish people, including workplaces, access to housing, treatment at benefits offices and interactions with neighbours and the police.

Drawing on the census data, the research confirmed that the Irish in Britain experience a range of social disadvantages compared with the white indigenous population.

The findings revealed that the Irish experience lower than average rates of upward social mobility, and that their housing provision is of significantly lower standard than that of the white population, with twice the level of overcrowding and the worst amenities of any major ethnic group.

Of all the ethnic minorities in Britain, the Irish have the poorest record of physical and mental health. That finding has been reinforced recently by a research report in the British Journal of Psychiatry that revealed that Irish men are the only migrant group whose life expectancy worsens on emigration to England. Those excessive mortality and morbidity rates persist into the British-born children of Irish migrants.

The research study's survey of Irish community groups and advice agencies consolidated the results extrapolated from the statistical data with the views of those working at the sharp end of dealing with the problems faced by the Irish community.

The survey exposed a widespread denial of specific Irish needs and a refusal by statutory bodies to include an Irish dimension in consultation on, and the planning of, service delivery, including community care plans and housing investment strategy. It depicted the stereotyped responses and comments by service providers that meant that Irish concerns were not taken seriously, and included reports of harassment ranging from violent physical attack on Irish individuals and organisations to the everyday occurrence of verbal abuse.

Regrettably, the survey also revealed an element of police harassment, sometimes triggered by the hearing of Irish accents of names, and often associated with the use of the prevention of terrorism Acts.

The research programme went on to survey a cross-section of the Irish population in Britain, and the researchers concluded:

"The most striking finding was the high levels of anti-Irish hostility routinely encountered by Irish people in Britain".

They revealed

"a catalogue of demeaning treatment which built into a cumulative picture of normal levels of harassment, punctuated by a number of more frightening and aggressive acts".

The survey showed that all aspects of Irish people's lives were affected by racism. That was manifested in many ways. For example, 25 per cent. reported negative responses from the police, ranging from verbal abuse to assault, 24 per cent. described discriminatory treatment at benefit offices, and 79 per cent. recorded that they were subjected to derogatory anti-Irish remarks, jokes and comments, which 70 per cent. of those surveyed found offensive.

Occasionally and increasingly, Irish people have resorted to legal action under the Race Relations Act 1976 to overcome racism and discrimination, and there is now a body of court and tribunal judgments against anti-Irish discriminatory practices. However, the survey found that the general response of Irish people when they encountered anti-Irish racism was to adopt a low profile or "heads down" approach.

That must not be the Government's response to the findings and recommendations of the research. We must develop a strategy that puts in place the policies, structures and resources that will enable us to take the first steps in eradicating anti-Irish racism in our community.

The CRE report and the contribution of many Irish community organisations to the debate has set a clear agenda for the Government, and for us all, to follow. The first step is to break through the barrier of the traditionally crude, "black and white", binary approach to tackling racism and discrimination in this country.

The debate about racism in Britain has been limited by the definition of ethnic status based on skin colour, and the belief that the white population is a homogeneous group. That denies the diversity of ethnic composition of the white population and the diversity of its cultural and historical roots.

The strong resistance, especially in central Government bureaucracies, in sections of local government and in Government-appointed agencies, to the acceptance of a distinctive Irish experience in Britain has meant that Irish needs are generally not accepted or specifically catered for.

If we accept that the Irish in Britain encounter particular problems and have specific needs, it follows that we can tackle those problems only if we have a sound body of information and research relating to the Irish experience in Britain. For that reason, I join with the organisations, including the CRE, that are pressing for the inclusion of an Irish category in ethnic monitoring systems and in the next census in 2001.

Unfortunately, the introduction of ethnic monitoring has been uneven across public bodies. It is vital, therefore, that the Government take the lead in insisting on the establishment of ethnic monitoring systems within all key areas of public service, and on the inclusion of an Irish ethnic category within those systems.

Given the deep-seated resistance of some public agencies to the very concept of anti-Irish racism, I do not believe that it can be left to individual Government Departments and agencies to decide on the principle or the practice of ethnic monitoring for the Irish in their respective spheres. Thus, I would urge the Government to co-ordinate the introduction of these systems, setting a definite pre-determined deadline for their implementation. That could be facilitated by the convening of a cross-departmental group, meeting representatives of the CRE and the major Irish representative community organisations to work through a programme for the common introduction of ethnic monitoring.

If we are to be a Government dedicated to providing equal opportunities to all in our community, we must ensure that the needs of the Irish are recognised in the development of our policies and the allocation of resources. That must include the firmer recognition of the housing needs of the Irish community by the provision within the housing association sector of a fairer allocation of resources to successful and effective housing associations, such as the Cara and Innisfree housing associations.

The strategy should also include greater support to the voluntary sector organisations and advice bodies that are struggling to work within the Irish community to provide culturally sensitive services and to develop self-help groups to tackle the problems faced by the Irish community.

If we are to tackle the disproportionate level of ill-health among the Irish in Britain, we need to ensure that resources are targeted to health authorities where there are concentrations of the Irish population. That would provide the basis for addressing the specific health needs of the Irish community, taking into account the particular problems identified recently among the elderly and the mental health problems of a migrant community. Integral to our approach to combating anti-Irish discrimination should be an exercise that provides training to staff involved in direct service delivery, raises consciousness on the issue among policymakers in all echelons of Government and develops that within other funding bodies.

Within the criminal justice system and police service, it is clear—regrettably—that some discriminatory attitudes remain to be changed and could be best addressed by training programmes, backed by performance monitoring. We do not want to repeat the cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, but there are other cases outstanding that need to be tackled in the near future. I name Frank Johnson as one such case in which we must secure the release of an innocent person.

Change will not be effected unless structures are established to co-ordinate implementation. For that reason, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the establishment of a cross-departmental ministerial group to take forward a programme of policies aimed at addressing the needs of the Irish community and, alongside that, to set up a consultative forum between Irish community organisations and the Government.

I also recommend that close liaison takes place with the Irish Government, especially on issues such as mobility between Britain and Ireland and enabling housing transfer and exchange for many who may wish to return home on retirement or simply to be nearer their family. Such dialogue has commenced, but it may need resourcing to ensure its effectiveness.

Parliamentarians can also play a part in progress chasing the implementation of the Government's policy and overall programme, and in voicing the concerns and aspirations of the Irish community. To facilitate this role, I intend to seek support for the formation of an all-party parliamentary group devoted to representing the interests of the Irish community in Britain and to serving as a channel for the Irish community to voice its concerns to Parliament.

The Irish have made their contribution to British society over centuries. They have—literally—physically constructed Britain' s infrastructure. They have served in every walk of life, but have made a special contribution to our health and education services.

The Irish have made eloquent contributions to our artistic and cultural lives—ranging from Oscar Wilde, Bernard Shaw and James Joyce to the brilliance of today's poets and writers, such as Seamus Heaney, Edna O'Brien and Ronan Bennett. In theatre, film and dance, we have recently been inspired by an Irish renaissance.

In politics, Irish leaders such as Bronterre O'Brien and Fergus O'Connor were the foundation stones of the modern Labour and trade union movement. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and others in the Chamber today who, at some personal cost, have faithfully represented the interests of the Irish in Britain over the years.

In return for the contribution that the Irish have made to this country, the Irish community at least deserves the right to live free from discrimination and in equality and respect. As a Labour Government, we must dedicate ourselves to securing this basic human right and to that end I pledge my support. I urge the Government to implement the recommendations of the CRE report, to establish structures for consultation and dialogue and to go forward to eliminate anti-Irish discrimination as a scourge within our community.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on securing this important debate on the Irish in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) is in the Chamber, and he and most of us in the north-west know of the considerable historical links between our constituencies and constituents and Ireland. Clearly, that has an impact on our feelings when we come to the subject.

We have heard about some of the problems that the Irish can encounter in this country. I will speak about those in a few moments. I would like to begin where my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington ended—by paying tribute to the successes of the Irish in Britain. The Government fully recognise the contribution that people of Irish origin have made to British society. Over the centuries, they have become an integral and essential part of our national life, and their achievements are visible in many walks of life.

Only last week, we read of the BMRB/Irish Post survey—to which my hon. Friend referred—which confirmed the successes of many Irish people in our society. It overturned some traditional stereotypes and painted a different, up-to-date picture of skilled, well-educated people coming to Britain to add their expertise to the economy. It suggested that one fifth of people born in Britain have a family member from Ireland, either directly or through marriage. A book detailing the 150 most successful Irish people in Britain was also recently launched. Clearly, the Irish influence in Britain is flourishing—something which I personally welcome.

My hon. Friend talked about the concerns of the Irish community, and the record of achievement and integration should not blind us to the problems that he raised. The Government are not complacent. While the very many successes are gratifying, they are no excuse for not paying attention to other real concerns.

The debate follows a report produced by the Commission for Racial Equality in June last year, entitled "Discrimination and the Irish". My hon. Friend dealt with that in some detail. When the report was launched, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the opportunity to congratulate the CRE on its efforts to raise awareness of the position of the Irish in Britain, and to welcome the research.

The report concluded that there was a lack of acknowledgement of Irish needs and rights, and that discrimination and disadvantage existed. A list of recommendations for action was produced, and my hon. Friend referred to many of those recommendations. The Government recognise that these problems exist and have taken them seriously across Whitehall.

Improving community relations and equality of opportunity is high on the Government's agenda. We are committed to tackling the problems of racism and discrimination—to creating a society in which everyone, regardless of background, colour or creed, has equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. This is a policy of inclusion, not exclusion. We take seriously the concerns of every section of our society.

It should be re-emphasised today that Irish people already receive protection under current legislation. The Race Relations Act 1976 covers discrimination against anyone on grounds of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. The Act makes racial discrimination generally unlawful in the areas of employment and education, and in the provision of goods, facilities and services.

The Act has been an important tool in combating discrimination. It is now over 20 years since it was introduced, yet racial discrimination and hostility still exist. We intend to ensure that the legislation in this area is adequate to protect ethnic minorities and that it keeps pace with changes in our society. A number of organisations, principally the CRE, have put proposals to us for amending the Act; we are now looking carefully at those proposals. We need to ensure that all sections of the community can live their lives free from discrimination.

Measures to tackle racial violence and harassment are also contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill. We do not underestimate the harmful effect that such crime has on the victim, and the wider damage it can do to the trust and confidence that have built up between our communities. The creation of specific offences will send out a strong message that racial violence and harassment is unacceptable.

The Irish community will reap the benefits of a renewed emphasis on equality of opportunity across the board. We recognise that it has particular concerns—Ministers across Government have met representatives of the community to hear those concerns at first hand. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), has discussed the concerns with the Irish ambassador and with representatives from a wide range of Irish organisations.

The Federation of Irish Societies has met Ministers and officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and officials at the Office of National Statistics. The Department of Health is meeting Irish voluntary organisations to establish how it can support them in developing work on the health of Irish communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned benefits. One of the initiatives that has been taken is that the Benefits Agency has held Irish-awareness programmes in targeted offices. We hope that the difficulties to which he referred will be dealt with at that level.

My hon. Friend also expressed concern about housing. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has met a delegation of the Federation of Irish Societies to discuss its concerns. The Housing Corporation has set up a black and minority ethnic advisory group and although the Irish are not listed in the group's title, their concerns are included—indeed, the chief executive of the Irish Innisfree housing association is a member of the group. I am pleased to say that its work is under way. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has asked the Housing Corporation to draw up a revised black and minority ethnic strategy, which will shortly be published for consultation.

What my hon. Friend the Minister says is important, but we do not have the bare, raw statistics. Can he say whether the next census will include a specific Irish category? That is the key to progress, which will otherwise be haphazard, valuable and welcome though it is.

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which I shall deal with in a moment.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to create a new race relations forum, which will be at the very heart of Government. In keeping with the Government's practices, it will include new voices and provide new solutions. Individual membership has yet to be decided, but I can confirm that it will include a member from the Irish community.

The forum will be part of the overall development of a community relations strategy that has been instigated by the Home Secretary and is being developed by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. We are determined to take those responsibilities seriously.

My hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) both mentioned ethnic monitoring. I do not have time to talk in detail about all the issues that the CRE report highlighted, but I shall deal with the census and statistics. Ethnic monitoring and a separate Irish category in the 2001 census is a major concern of the report. We are aware of that concern from our meetings with representative groups.

The Registrars-General for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland are responsible for consulting census users in Government Departments, local and health authorities, academia and the private sector about their requirements for information from the next census of population and housing, which is planned to take place in 2001. The objective is to reach agreement on the questions that will be included in the census. Users have expressed strong support for the inclusion of a question about ethnicity, and for statistics that are, as far as possible, comparable to those produced from the 1991 census. A number of users support the inclusion of a separate Irish category.

The census offices are conducting an extensive programme of testing possible questions for the 2001 census, including ethnic questions incorporating an Irish category. They will shortly draw together the results of that programme, and assess customer requirements in preparation for finalising the questions that will be included. The Government's proposals for the 2001 census will be published in a White Paper in the autumn.

In making the final selection of questions, the Government will consider not only the strength of users' needs for information, but the acceptability of questions to the general public and the burdens placed on them in filling in the questionnaire. It is important that we consult people in local government, in health, in housing and in the private sector to assess the value of those questions. Part of the concern is that we are able to measure the success of policies that are targeted to deal with the inequalities highlighted in the report.

It is also important that we are as inclusive as possible. The proposal for the inclusion of an Irish representative on the forum takes into account the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Hull, North, which I entirely appreciate.

One of the most important strands of the current three-strand talks is the one dealing with the east-west relationship between Westminster and Dublin. Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the state of relations between the two Governments over the important question of the fate of Irish immigrants to Britain and of British people residing in the island of Ireland? After meetings between the two Prime Ministers, statements about intergovernmental relations have been printed at the margins, but has the Home Office been involved in such discussions?

It is important to be careful and measured in any response to the detail of the points that my hon. Friend raises, but I shall consider whether it would be appropriate to put into writing the particulars of some of the discussions. More positively, in the difficult negotiations on initiatives in Northern Ireland, there has been a strong understanding between the two Governments on how the process should be taken forward—relationships between the Governments are good.

The debate has focused on the Irish in Britain, but it has encompassed the question of the census. Will the census refer to the Irish in Scotland? Will the question on ethnicity extend to Northern Ireland, or will it apply only in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman raises a wider issue, which is not in the compass of this debate, although it would fall within our consideration of ethnic monitoring in the census. As I understand the matter, however, we are specifically dealing with people whose origin lies in the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting side issue, which may be considered in the consultations on the 2001 census.

In the discussions that have taken place so far, the question of ethnic status has covered everyone from the island of Ireland—it does not distinguish between people from the Six Counties and people from the Republic.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.

The debate has done a great deal to remind us all of what has been achieved and what remains to be done. We will continue to consider carefully the concerns raised in the CRE report and elsewhere, and we will ensure that the Irish community has full access to the rights and opportunities that we will create for all our citizens.

This has been a useful debate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, it was probably overdue. It certainly gives us all in Government much food for thought. There are still issues to be resolved, but we are engaging with those issues, and I hope that, in due course, improvements can be made.

This is a debate about improving road safety in the United Kingdom and in Europe. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions road strategy document, "Current Problems and Future Options", dated October 1997, states:

"There is no evidence that medical unfitness plays a significant role in causing accidents; indeed, accidents with medical factors involved are too few to show up in any of the statistics that are collated."

Nevertheless, there is a suspicion that people with a medical condition such as diabetes are less safe behind the wheel than others.

That suspicion lies behind European Community directive 91/439, the origins of which are in discussions that took place in 1980. There have since been 18 years of medical advance and improvements to diabetic control that have dramatically reduced the complications of diabetes through the encouragement of better blood sugar control. The suspicion is outdated, and neither the European Union nor the United Kingdom Government can point to any statistical or actuarial evidence to support the concerns underlying the directive.

The Government's own assessment of the medical impact of drivers' medical conditions on the total road accident rates puts the issue into context. According to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, between April 1995 and March 1996 there were 163 notifications of collapse at the wheel, of which only 27 involved insulin-dependent diabetics.

Compare that with the 16,050 drink-driving accidents or the 31,050 accidents caused by driver fatigue. To follow the logic—if logic is the right word—should not we impose driving restrictions on anyone who drinks alcohol at any time or on everyone who at one time or another will suffer from fatigue?

I am not here to embarrass the Government or to score points. I want to help the Minister to find a way out that improves road safety while being fair to those individuals who are insulin-dependent diabetics and can prove their fitness to drive. I declare an interest, in that I am an insulin-dependent diabetic. The DVLA has yet to write to me to impose its ban for the vehicles that I shall mention in a minute, but I also have an interest on behalf of constituents and others who have written to me on the issue.

The Government have introduced a blanket ban, preventing people with diabetes who inject insulin from driving vehicles in category C1, which covers cars weighing between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes, and category D1, which covers vehicles with between nine and 16 seats. Those vehicles come under group 2, which is the category referred to in the directive.

The ban was not even required by the original EC directive, which clearly states:

"In very exceptional cases may driving licences be issued to, or renewed for, applicants or drivers in group 2 suffering from diabetes and requiring insulin treatment, and then only where duly justified by authorised medical opinion and subject to regular medical check-ups."

Sadly, the Government have gone much further than the directive and introduced a policy that is not applied in other EU member states.

The Netherlands, for example, issues group 2 licences on an individual basis for one or three years, subject to independent medical examination. Finland and Sweden protect existing licence holders who use their licences as part of their employment, defining that as one of the directive's "exceptional circumstances".

According to the Danish Ministry of Transport executive order of March 1997, Denmark grants group 2 licences when a proper justified medical certificate is available, and provided that regular medical examination is carried out.

The Government have allowed discrepancies in the law in their interpretation of the directive. They allow people to drive vans, which are in category D1, on a voluntary basis but not professionally. That is surely proof that there was not sufficient evidence to introduce a complete ban. There was enough political pressure to protect voluntary drivers.

The Government have allowed the retention of licence rights to some drivers of even heavier vehicles, such as heavy goods vehicles, while preventing others from driving much lighter vehicles; they have allowed drivers from other EU states to come and drive over here in vehicles denied to United Kingdom drivers; and they have disregarded the rights of many drivers who have been driving for many years without any accidents or hypoglycaemic attacks at the wheel and who are now faced with unemployment without compensation.

People are already losing their jobs, and many more will follow as the DVLA notifies them of the ban. I have in my office a file of case studies from throughout the country. One concerns the BT engineer who will lose his job but will still be able to drive a minibus for cub scouts in his free time. Others concern employers who do not want to sack loyal, long-serving staff. I recently received a letter from an employer who asked:

"Is there anything that can be done to help this very valuable, faithful, long-term friend and employee?"

The situation is ridiculous for a Government who promised to help people to move from welfare to work.

Many hundreds, if not thousands, of people will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. Like him, I am an insulin-dependent diabetic. Tommy Wright, my constituent, is an HGV driver who became insulin dependent and lost his job. Because of his good record, the company kept him on to drive a minibus. Because of the blanket ban, he will now lose that job, even though he would be perfectly entitled to drive a minibus on a voluntary basis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is totally unjust, and that the Government's blanket imposition of the ban is reprehensible?

I agree entirely. I applaud the hon. Gentleman's work over the years on behalf of both insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent diabetics.

The situation is ridiculous. The Government promised to fight inequality in their new public health strategy and to tackle the problem of social exclusion, but this policy will have the opposite effect: it will drive people from work into welfare; encourage inequality; and lead to unemployment and further discrimination against, and social exclusion of, people with diabetes.

The Government say that they have taken the decision in the interests of road safety, on the advice of the honorary advisory panel on driving and diabetes, but that body is yet to reveal the sources of the information on which it based its decision; has not, to my knowledge, commissioned any review of the evidence; and did not even meet for four years, during the critical time when the previous Government were drafting the UK regulations.

In those years, new studies, from America and Denmark in particular, had not yet been published. The Federal Highway Administration evidence showed that the accident rate for diabetic drivers was lower than the United States national rate. In Denmark, a review of nearly 8,000 people with diabetes showed no increased risk of accidents, including road traffic accidents.

Surely the Government could consider more pressing and effective road safety measures rather than spending time discriminating against a small group that does not even figure in their own accident statistics and has been shown in some studies to be safer than other drivers on the road.

The new rules could compromise road safety rather than enhance it, because they will act as a disincentive to newly diagnosed diabetics to inform the DVLA of their condition. If the DVLA does not know about a person's diabetes, it cannot impose restrictions on his or her licence. The self-regulatory system has worked until now, with conditions being imposed on diabetic drivers of certain categories of vehicle, subject to medical tests. That regular assessment has undoubtedly led to poorly controlled diabetics being taken off the road. That may no longer be the case as a consequence of the legislation.

All we ask is that the Government listen to the medical evidence and instigate an urgent review. The insurance industry—not known for its altruism—has listened and does not impose higher premiums on insulin-dependent diabetic drivers. So, what would be the fairest way to protect the rights of drivers who are in complete control of their diabetic condition, while targeting the minority who are less well-controlled and who should be the target of legislation? It is possible to identify people with the highest risk of hypoglycaemia through three strong predictors: a history of unawareness; experience of frequent severe hypoglycaemia; and previous hypoglycaemic-related injury or accident.

The British Diabetic Association and I, along with the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), recently presented a series of such proposals to the Minister. The association is also convening a group of medical experts to draft how a system of individual assessment might work, which will be presented to the Government and the honorary advisory panel on driving and diabetes. Its proposals already have the support of the Transport and General Workers Union, the United Road Transport Union, the Royal College of Nursing, the Employers Forum on Disability, the Drivers Action Movement, the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services, Unison, the Road Haulage Association and the RAC.

That is by far the most sensible way forward. Can we have the Minister's assurance that individual assessment of fitness to drive is the fairest way forward and that the BDA's proposal will be seriously reviewed, in line with the evidence, by the Government in passing the law? Finally, will the Minister please say why individual assessment is not included in this legislation?

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for affording the House the opportunity to discuss this extremely important issue. As he said in his opening remarks, it is essentially about road safety, although the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments has been driving restrictions for insulin-dependent diabetics and, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, the House would expect nothing less from him.

The Government are well aware, from representations from hon. Members, individual drivers and bodies such as the British Diabetic Association, of the strength of feeling among those who stand to lose their entitlement to drive medium-sized lorries and minibuses, particularly when they drive such vehicles for a living. We do not underestimate the consequences for those drivers and have every sympathy with their situation.

Of course, it is the duty of the Government to listen to all concerns and to consider all the implications. As the hon. Member for Torbay said, on 12 February my noble Friend the Baroness Hayman met representatives of the British Diabetic Association with him, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). Indeed, in an intervention my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire raised the case of one of his constituents and how the restriction is impacting on his life.

However, it is also the duty of the Government to take account of the wider interests of road safety and to make clear decisions, even if those decisions may sometimes have unwelcome consequences for some. It has been said that the change in the law that prompted these concerns is not based on well-founded evidence and that British drivers are being discriminated against compared with drivers from other European Union member states. Although I am sure that there is now general awareness of the effect of the new law, it would perhaps be helpful to say a few words about the background to the new requirements and explain how the change in legislation, which has been portrayed as being specifically directed against drivers with diabetes treated by insulin, has come into being.

For many years, the United Kingdom differed from the rest of Europe in that we had long-standing arrangements that allowed a person who passed a driving test in a car of any size to drive a wide range of vehicles, including lorries weighing up to 7.5 tonnes, category C1, and non-commercial passenger vehicles with up to 16 seats, category DI. If we were devising a new driving licence scheme for modern road, vehicle and traffic conditions, it is unlikely—probably unthinkable—that we would give entitlement to drive such a wide range of vehicles on the strength of a driving test that could be taken in the smallest car.

The second driving licence directive, which was adopted in 1991 and whose provisions the UK fully supports, requires anyone wishing to drive 3.5 to 7.5 tonne lorries or minibuses with 9 to 16 seats, to take separate driving tests and to meet the more stringent health requirements, which in the UK formerly applied only to drivers of large goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes and buses and coaches. Given the size and weight of the vehicles in question, it is fair to say that those are sound and sensible requirements based on legitimate road safety interests. It is significant that during the consultations prior to implementation of the directive and in the period since it was implemented in the UK in January 1997, there have been almost no suggestions that anyone taking up driving for the first time should not have to comply with those requirements. Nor has the ban on people with certain medical conditions driving buses and lorries of over 7.5 tonnes and buses, which has applied for many years, been seriously questioned.

Also, if we were devising a driving licence scheme from the beginning, how would we decide which medical conditions should prevent a person from holding a licence or permit the driving of smaller vehicles yet preclude the driving of larger and heavier vehicles, bearing in mind the consequences if the person were involved in an accident? We would surely seek expert medical guidance on the risk associated with the particular medical condition. Assessment of medical evidence can be supported and supplemented by accident data, but lack of accident data should not invalidate the medical assessment.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has a number of panels comprising experts in particular medical fields, which were set up to provide objective medical advice on the risk from driving by people with particular health conditions. One of those panels—the honorary advisory panel on driving and diabetes—has endorsed the decision that category C1 and D1 vehicles should be driven only by those who can meet the more stringent health requirements, which preclude among others insulin-treated diabetics. It would be irresponsible of the Government to ignore its advice.

Can the Minister confirm that at the last meeting of the honorary advisory panel on driving and diabetes the majority of people on the panel were not medical experts but departmental officials?

I cannot confirm or deny that, but I will certainly inquire into the matter and respond to the hon. Gentleman by letter. As I have argued, it is unlikely that the Government would have taken any decision that was not based on objective, informed and particular medical advice.

We do not have comprehensive accident data that could alone support the medical assessment that insulin-treated diabetics should not drive the heavier, larger vehicles. That is because information on the medical circumstances of those involved in accidents is not routinely collected, nor would it be practicable to do so. However, there have been individual studies. It has been found that insulin-treated diabetes was responsible for 17 per cent. of 1,605 police-reported accidents involving collapse at the wheel in which the driver survived and was minimally injured to the point that driving could subsequently be resumed. DVLA records also identified 23 hypoglycaemia-related serious accidents from November 1997 to mid-February 1998. The hon. Member for Torbay contrasted those figures with those involving drink driving and driver fatigue. However, both of those conditions can and should be avoided. Collapse at the wheel due to hypoglycaemia, however, comes without warning.

May I point out to my hon. Friend that that is simply not true? Most diabetics get considerable warning of a hypoglycaemic attack. We are worried because the ban treats all insulin diabetics as if they were the same, which is not the case. Unlike other drivers, most of us have regular medicals, eye tests and check-ups. Insulin-dependent diabetics are often safer on the roads than other people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I understand that the detailed and specific health checks to which he referred take place over three years. I apologise to the House if I have done so, but I do not believe that I said that all hypoglycaemic attacks that cause collapse come without warning. Attacks that occur without warning when a driver is at the wheel are the greatest cause for concern.

What is the Minister's response to the telling point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) about the actuarial position taken by insurers? Insurance companies are not known for doing people favours and are happy to load premiums when they believe that there is a risk. The Government must be aware that insurance companies do not believe that insulin-dependent diabetics pose a significant risk. Is not that one of the best indicators that insulin-dependent diabetics do not pose a genuine risk?

It is worth repeating that accident statistics alone, on which actuarial tables are based, cannot be the deciding factor. The point at issue is whether people with a known medical condition that carries the risk of collapse at the wheel without warning should be permitted to drive vehicles that are of such weight and size that there could be serious consequences if they were involved in an accident. That assessment can be made only by those with the detailed medical knowledge to understand the implications and to look at the issue with detachment and objectivity.

For those reasons, we support the medical standards prescribed in the directive and the requirement that they should apply to drivers of vehicles weighing more than 3.5 tonnes or with more than eight passenger seats. Understandable concern has been provoked by the issue of whether those requirements should extend to drivers who already hold entitlements to drive such vehicles on the strength of the less stringent testing and health regime which, until the directive was implemented, applied in the United Kingdom. Is it reasonable for the Government to remove entitlements which, in many cases, have been held for years and, in some cases, are being used by drivers in their jobs? As I said during the debate on road safety in the House in January, it is better to err on the side of what some might call overcaution than to increase the risk of death and injury on our roads.

It has been said that the UK has implemented the directive over-zealously, and that that is not reflected in the approach taken by other member states. The directive prohibits the issuing or renewing of licences for the vehicles in question to those with diabetes treated by insulin other than in "very exceptional cases". The advisory panel has advised that there are no exceptional cases that medical opinion would recognise as being lower risk than others, and that, while modern treatments have improved the control of diabetes, they have not eliminated the possibility of a hypoglycaemic attack.

On the basis of that advice, we have decided against individual assessment of drivers—a point that the hon. Member for Torbay asked me to address—other than for the purposes of holding a licence to drive a car. Some member states may have provided for exemptions from that requirement, but only to a limited extent in most cases, and only for non-professional drivers. We do not know what expert advice those states took in making such arrangements, but it is right that we should take our own counsel.

The United Kingdom's enviable road safety record has largely been achieved by taking firm decisions.

The hon. Lady says that the United Kingdom has an enviable road safety record. She talked earlier about increased risk. Does she agree that there will be no increased risk if current licence holders are not restricted? How could not imposing restrictions make our enviable record worse? I hope that she follows my argument.

I do, indeed, follow the argument, but our enviable road safety record is of no comfort to people who have lost children or family members in a road traffic accidents. Surely all Governments have the responsibility to try to improve our enviable road safety, and this Government are committed to doing so.

We do not underestimate the consequences for insulin-treated diabetics who drive these vehicles for a living, but the rules are based on medical advice that is generally accepted throughout the EU. I assure hon. Members that the rules will be kept under review, both by our medical advisers and through our representation on the EU committee set up to consider health requirements in the light of advances in scientific knowledge and treatment. Road safety will continue to underpin such consideration.

I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for making the time to reply to the debate.

I preface my remarks with a disclaimer: to put the record straight, I am not on the side of the hunting and gun lobbies which paid for and organised the demonstrations in London last Sunday. I have large rural areas in my constituency and, for the sake of my constituents, I wish that they had organised their march 18 years ago. They might have saved rural bus services from deregulation, and our farmers from the enormous problems of BSE, which were brought about by the deregulation of the preparation of animal foodstuffs. They might also have prevented the selling off of nearly all our once much-admired village council housing and the closure of village schools and other facilities. However, village schools in the Keighley area have survived due to the support of our local authority.

I shall discuss the question of the erosion of the green belt at Silsden. I hope that such erosion can be avoided.

Nearly three years ago, friends at Keighley asked me to let my name go forward to Keighley Labour party, which was in the process of selecting a parliamentary candidate. I was already aware that many people in Keighley were still struggling to come to terms with the fact that the Conservative Government of 1970–74 had pushed the old borough of Keighley, the urban districts of Silsden and Ilkley, and the rural district parishes of Steeton, Eastburn and Addingham into the Bradford metropolitan district council area.

For me, the bolt from the blue was the Bradford unitary development plan, especially the main point at issue: the allocation of a beautiful area of the Aire valley around Silsden for the building of about 1,500 houses. Straight away, I questioned the need for using such a massive amount of green belt. I was told by the chair of Bradford planning committee that the Conservative Government had put a great deal of pressure on the committee to make large amounts of land available for housing. The three Bradford constituencies were heavily built up and there was little room for development, so the committee had to consider Keighley and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).

I was regarded as a nuisance for raising the issue. It was explained that none of the councillors for the Keighley area, including Craven, which takes in Silsden, had made representations on the proposals. The majority of Keighley wards, five years ago, were represented by Conservative councillors. Most are now Labour, and their councillors take a view similar to mine on the erosion of the green belt and the use of green-field sites.

People in some political circles take the view that the pressure put on councils by the previous Government to release land in attractive rural areas was not completely detached from the generous contributions to the Conservative party by companies involved in housing development. I have been discussing and corresponding about the unitary development plan with Bradford council for three years. After the general election on 1 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and I took the matter up with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. They all tell me the same—that it is too late. The plan has been approved, and nothing can be done.

As Silsden is only one of the areas with whose allocation for housing I disagree, I realise that—along with the various action groups—I shall have a very busy time in the next few years arguing against developments as and when developers come along with their detailed plans. Although I am disappointed that our Government can do nothing to revise the UDP, I am encouraged by the possibility that my constituents and I will be helped by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister when we argue against individual developments.

The Secretary of State has said:

"We are resolute in our desire to avoid unnecessary encroachment into the countryside. The presumption against development in the green belt will remain as strong as ever. But this does not mean that there will never, ever be any building on green field sites."

I can accept the need for green-field sites in some areas to infill between already developed areas, but large encroachment on the green belt, as at Silsden, or removal of village green space—as the UDP proposes for Manor Garth, Addingham or Leeming at Oxenhope—is unacceptable if we are to retain our green and pleasant land.

The two developments on village green space were opposed by Bradford council, but the council was overruled by the inspector following an appeal by the landowners, one of whom has since sold his plot at an enhanced value.

I applaud the Secretary of State's comment:

"The vast majority of our people live in cities and towns. I want to see a renaissance of our cities. That will mean using existing empty houses, offices and warehouses for new affordable flats, not just for city yuppies."

The type of housing that will be attracted to the new UDP areas will not help my constituents who are living in overcrowded or sub-standard housing in the middle of Keighley. They would be helped if we could return to the system of many years ago, when local authorities could lend money for home improvements that would be repayable on the death of the owner and/or the sale of the house. That was particularly helpful to older people and poorer families who were unable to raise a second mortgage on their homes.

The proposed new developments are likely to be four-bedroom, two-garage detached houses that most of my constituents could not afford or even consider in their wildest dreams. They will be bought by well-paid professionals working in Leeds, Bradford or even Manchester. They will be dormitories, generating the sort of traffic and environmental problems that our Government are trying to plan against.

In an excellent edition of "Panorama" on 19 January, the Silsden town action group presented its arguments with clarity and intelligence. We saw the splendid Lister's, Manningham Mills, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). Yes, it would take a great deal of money, imagination and enterprise to convert that memorial to West Yorkshire's magnificent industrial past into flats for people, but it could and should be done.

There are many smaller mills and warehouses in Keighley that could be converted. The once elegant but now rotting royal arcade was to be given new life by our local authority in a living-over-the-shop scheme—an idea that would not only breathe new life into the centre of Keighley, but combat crime and vandalism. I hope that problems with the owners of the arcade will eventually be overcome, and that the scheme will reach fruition.

A few months ago, I was shown derelict but still sound warehousing on various stretches of the Leeds-Liverpool canal. Some were in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).

My hon. Friend called the debate in order to talk about housing problems in her constituency, with specific reference to Silsden. My neighbouring constituency—also a rural area—contains many examples of the way in which dormitory, executive, spec-built housing developments of the sort that my hon. Friend has described have begun to encroach on green-field sites.

The whole of the Bradford UDP was framed in the last Conservative Government's planning legislation. It is very unfortunate that so much green space was set aside, never to be recovered once it had been built on. I am glad that the new Government have indicated that they will encourage more use of brown-field or recycled sites.

My hon. Friend has mentioned recycling existing buildings. As she has said, my constituency also contains many mills and listed buildings that need to be reused. I hope that the Government will consider giving local authorities some support, helping them to intervene proactively in the market, to find developers and to match them up with derelict sites. If we leave it to the market to find recycled land—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention. If he has the permission of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and the Minister, he may make a brief contribution when the hon. Lady has stopped speaking.

The regional manager of the British Waterways Board tells me that the board is anxious to dispose of the derelict warehouses, and has asked for my assistance. Although intact, the warehouses are looking a little decrepit, but they would make very attractive flats. They would not be suitable for families with small children, because of their position near the canal, but in other respects they are beautifully positioned, with lovely views.

The warehouses would be suitable apartments for others, if only we can persuade developers to consider that sort of challenge rather than the easy profits of green-field sites. Perhaps a levy on green-field site development will remedy the imbalance about which I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has some ideas.

I look forward to the provision of new or improved council housing following the release of council house receipts, which is already in our programme, and the redressing of 18 years of Tory neglect of our towns and cities to make them again into places where people want to live.

All those changes must—and, I hope, will—come. I only hope that the shift from rural to urban housing does not come too late to save the lovely green areas around our towns, without which we, our children and our grandchildren will be much poorer.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) for giving way to me earlier. When she did so, I raised the whole question of green-field development throughout the Bradford district. Incidentally, when we talk about the Bradford district, people tend to forget about Keighley and Shipley. In fact, Bradford is the fourth largest metropolitan district in England and Wales. It is a significant piece of land in the Yorkshire region, and also a very built-up area in which half a million people live.

My hon. Friend has made some valid points. In a built-up area such as Bradford district, there are planning pressures to develop incrementally, by attrition, on the surrounding green-field sites. Part of the difficulty encountered by Bradford council relates to the calculation of the amount of land that must be set aside for development. The last Administration gave the council a calculation that it met virtually in full, but, unfortunately, it did so largely by allocating large chunks of green-field land.

I am concerned about Warren lane and Clarendon road in Gilstead, and Sty lane in Micklethwaite. These are valuable spaces, separating communities. As my hon. Friend pointed out, Silsden has a community integrity that is all its own. Gilstead, Eldwick and Micklethwaite also have long histories, but those villages will be subsumed in the growth of commuter-type housing in an area that does not really have a town centre. There are no proper planning considerations for village or town life—even for shopping facilities—and there is very little consideration for traffic generation. The Bradford area is very hilly, and narrow valleys cause transport problems.

The local authority has allocated many sites, including Silsden, in its unitary development plan, but I hope that, when it considers planning applications in the light of sewerage constraints, highways constraints and so on, it will go through the details with a fine-toothed comb, and possibly adopt some of the arguments that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley are using, to say that development should not go ahead on those sites.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford—

Keighley.

I am sorry—I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I must have the Bradford unitary development plan on my brain. I congratulate her on securing the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on his contribution to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has raised some important issues relating to planning policy and the way in which it has been developed in Bradford. She has also rightly pointed out that the background against which these often complex and difficult issues are decided is in the process of being changed by the new Government. However, until we can put the changes into effect, these issues must be decided according to the existing planning rules. My hon. Friend also knows that unitary development plans evolve on a rolling programme; I hope that that gives her hope that she can start to have an effect on the way in which the plans become reality.

The issues are complex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley acknowledged, and they are by no means easily resolved. Therefore, the planning system attaches considerable significance to development plans, which are formulated after examining local issues in great detail. Such plans provide the framework for resolving development issues at local level.

Responsibility for Bradford's UDP rests with Bradford city council. In preparing the plan, the council is required to take account of development issues throughout the metropolitan district; to follow established procedures; and to consider objections made to its proposals.

The city council started work on the current UDP before 1993. In November that year, the draft UDP was published and made available for objection by the public. I understand that many objections were made, including a considerable number about the proposals for Silsden to which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley refers. More than 1,500 objections each were made to the four sites zoned in the plan for housing development and to one that was earmarked for industrial use.

Those proposals meant that about 50 hectares of the green belt would be taken at Silsden. I know that it will be of no comfort to those in the Aire valley, but I believe that the matter must be viewed in perspective. It is worth recalling that the total green belt in the metropolitan district as a whole is more than 23,000 hectares, so between 0.2 and 0.3 per cent. of the green belt is involved.

The development plan system is subject to rigorous procedures. A very important safeguard is the right for anyone who has made an objection to have it considered by an inspector at a public inquiry. The inspector is independent, and reports directly to the local planning authority.

In Bradford, the UDP inquiry was held between May 1995 and February 1996. Any local planning authority must give very serious consideration to what an inspector has said about a plan. I know that Bradford city council accepted almost all the inspector's recommendations, including those about Silsden. Although he noted that some sites are subject to constraints on their development, the inspector considered that the principle of development at Silsden was justified.

In the inspector's view, the needs for effective long-term planning and economic regeneration constituted exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of the land from the green belt. Acceptance of that view then became a matter for the council's judgment. Decisions about planning issues in local areas are usually best taken locally.

Obviously, there is a debate about whether the council has the detail of its planning strategy exactly right for the metropolitan district, but I am firm in my view that the development plan system is the best way of reconciling all the different views that there may be about the way ahead in each locality.

Inevitably, some decisions will not be to the liking of objectors; but the system allows for open discussion and independent arbitration about them. Any plan that takes more than four years to complete is testimony to the thoroughness of the process. Although our document "Modernising Planning" considers ways to speed up the process, the process will not be speeded up at the expense of safeguards and people's rights to object to a plan and to have those objections fully considered.

It is important, too, that each local planning authority sticks to the correct procedures for the preparation of its development plans. I understand that, for some proposed development sites in Bradford, there is concern that the council decided not to hold a second public inquiry, but that is a matter for the council, which has a duty to follow the statutory regulations.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister carefully considered arguments made to him in the light of existing guidance regarding ministerial intervention in development plans—I emphasise "existing". The powers of intervention in plans are used very sparingly and as a last resort, such as when a plan raises issues of national or regional importance or gives rise to substantial controversy—for example, extending beyond the area of the plan-making authority.

In this case, our considered judgment was that it would not be appropriate to intervene. The Bradford UDP was formally adopted by the city council on 23 January 1998, so, as I am sure hon. Members recognise, my right hon. Friend has no further jurisdiction regarding the policies contained in Bradford's UDP.

That is not to say that we are unconcerned about the general issues that arise from the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. She has drawn particular attention to the location of land for housing, arguing for greater attention to housing and development opportunities in the urban areas. The planning system allows for assessment of those issues in deciding how best to accommodate future development.

In March 1996, the previous Administration published regional planning guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber region. That is being reviewed, and we shall ask for views about its content. The review will take account of better information about the capacity of the region's urban areas to accept new development. More important, it is our intention that there will be much more of a regional contribution to the guidance, and a greater regional input in the way in which we plan for new housing.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has campaigned vigorously on behalf of her constituents in Silsden to express their concerns about the UDP, and I congratulate her on her attention to their views and her determination in ensuring that we know what they are. She has contributed to the debate on planning for the communities of the future, and she has written several times about the issues for Silsden, notably on behalf of the Silsden town action group, while raising issues for other parts of her constituency.

Hon. Members will recall that, in a statement on 23 February 1998 on planning for the communities of the future, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out a range of measures to meet future housing needs. I need not repeat that statement, but I would respond to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley raised about recent decisions.

In the case of Bradford city council, the UDP has been adopted, so my right hon. Friend has no further jurisdiction in the matter. However, we propose to move as quickly as possible to the new approach set out in my right hon. Friend's statement, and the reviews of regional planning guidance that are under way provide an early opportunity to put that into effect.

When new regional planning guidance is ready, it will be open to local authorities to review their development plans. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has already made a few suggestions for that review. She came up with some interesting ideas about recycling land and putting it to housing use, which is the essence of the policy change that the Government have inaugurated.

However, it is important to remember that green belts are not a national designation. They are established by local authorities by means of development plans. The general extent of green belts is fixed in structure plans, taking account of regional planning guidance. It has always been open to local authorities to propose changes to green belt boundaries; but exceptional circumstances are required to justify alterations. That happened several times under the previous Administration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley spoke about the strength of feeling in her constituency on the issues that she raised today; my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley did likewise regarding his constituency. The Government have set out their proposals for tackling the issues at the heart of this debate, which are about regenerating our urban areas and looking for the most sustainable solutions to meet our long-term development needs.

Our statement of 23 February charts the course for taking this issue forward. We have emphasised that we want to stimulate debate, particularly at local and regional level. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I am sure that Bradford council will pay careful attention to it. We shall continue to listen and to provide strategic leadership in what will, I am sure, be a continuing debate in the coming months.