It is a great pleasure to introduce this debate on tourism, which is a much under-debated subject in the House.

Looking around my constituency, which surrounds Colchester and includes many villages, one sees that north Essex is typical of the riches that England has to offer visitors from abroad and from other parts of the United Kingdom. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), Colchester has a fabulous history from Roman times, when it was established as the capital of Roman England—until it was sacked by Queen Boadicea in the Iceni uprising.

Today, there remains most of a huge Roman wall that surrounded the old town. The town is dominated by the largest Norman keep in Europe, which was constructed over the vaults of the Roman temple that the Iceni destroyed. The so-called Dutch quarter of the town contains a wealth of timber-framed houses that were constructed from the middle ages onward.

The scars of the English civil war remain visible on many of the buildings in the area, such as the church tower at Little Tey, which was partly destroyed by the royalists' cannon. The bullet holes from their muskets mark the beams of the pub, which is now called the Siege inn.

Around Colchester, scores of tiny villages have survived the influx of new building, cars and commuters. They retain their charm and tranquillity, and each has its own gem of a church, many of which are of Norman or even Saxon origin. The Stour valley and estuary, which stretch along the Essex-Suffolk border and include some of the most stunning scenery in the east of England, contain Dedham Vale—dubbed Constable country by his famous travelling companion on the train.

That is the historical, cultural and natural heritage that provides the background and basis for hundreds of businesses and thousands of livelihoods in that little corner of eastern England. Scores of bed-and-breakfast businesses depend on the regular tourist traffic that comes off the Harwich ferry. The hotels, restaurants and teashops cater for the day trippers and weekend breakers. The East of England tourist board tells me that Colchester's shops have attracted 20,000 shoppers from Europe this year, despite the excessive strength of the pound.

That is the first message: tourism is big business. Tourism and leisure are the United Kingdom's fastest-growing industry, and already comprise the fifth largest industry in the United Kingdom—it is bigger than the construction industry. Estimates vary, but it is worth more than £53 billion a year—5 per cent. of United Kingdom gross domestic product—and provides about 1.7 million jobs, which represents about 7 per cent. of employment in the United Kingdom. The British Tourist Authority claims that that is more than five times the number of jobs in the motor industry. In recent years, tourism has accounted for about 20 per cent. of new jobs in the United Kingdom economy.

In 1997, 26.2 million visitors came to Britain. They spent more than £12.8 billion—up 3 per cent. on the previous year. In addition, £3 billion was spent on travel with British couriers. In England alone, tourism is worth £42 billion a year and employs about 1.5 million people. In Scotland and Wales, tourism is the most important industry, and provides the only growing source of employment in many areas. Tourism employs more than 8 per cent. of the work force in Scotland and 9 per cent. in Wales. Now that there is a real prospect of lasting peace in Northern Ireland, tourism is fast becoming a major growth industry there as well, so I make no apology for claiming an hour and a half of the House's time on the subject.

The fast growth of tourism does not, however, make it an easy industry. Much employment is in the small business sector, where people work extremely hard, and long hours, for relatively little reward to establish the viability of their businesses. The BTA estimated last year that there were 220,000 businesses involved in providing services to tourism in Great Britain.

Because of our climate, the pattern of demand is highly seasonal. One would hope, therefore, that the tourist industry would rate as one of the Government's top priorities, especially as the potential for job creation continues to be huge. I hope, therefore, that the Government have fully taken to heart the criticisms made by the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which complained about the stated aim of the Department. Its declared

"aim … is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, and to strengthen the creative industries".

The Select Committee report complained about the narrowness of the aim, and added:

"Nor, most importantly, does it make any direct reference to tourism and thus is reinforced the impression that tourism is viewed as the Cinderella of the Department. Yet it is far and away the largest industry for which the Department is responsible and, in economic terms, the most important."

On the page dealing with the aim and objectives in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport document, tourism is conspicuous by its absence. The Select Committee concluded:

"We are, therefore, deeply concerned that, in policy statements by the Department and in public statements by Ministers, tourism is subordinated in favour of more glamorous and trivial matters."

I am an opera-goer. I do not think that opera is trivial, but we must also recognise the importance of tourism.

This is not a good start, after more than a year in office. Typically, once the spin doctors had got hold of the issue, there was a flurry of activity in the press, and the hapless Minister was sent on a somewhat ludicrous public relations exercise. On 10 August, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting began a fact-finding tour of England. I am delighted that she felt the need to find out the facts, which should have already been at her fingertips. A press release states:

"Tourism Minister … begins a major fact finding tour of English tourist destinations in Brighton today, ahead of the publication of the Tourism strategy later this year. Over the next two months she will visit every region in England to meet local tourism representatives and hear their views on the future of tourism and what the Government can do to support it."

That is after more than a year in office. The press release continues by quoting the Minister:

"'With the holiday season upon us I look forward to seeing examples of best practice for myself … I want to hear … how we can back the industry locally and regionally to increase its competitiveness.

"I will also be seeing how we can help".

It is a great privilege for the tourist industry to have a Minister offering help after more than a year in office. If she has listened to what real people involved with the tourism industry say, she will have heard what the problems are.

It is a bit rich of a Conservative Member to talk about what the Government have done after 18 months in power when they had 18 years in power. As a representative of a seaside resort, I have seen the tourism industry decline. Jobs have been lost in the industry and 70 per cent. of our local tourist accommodation is now being made into housing in multiple occupation. Five-bedroomed guest houses are selling for £5,000 in the resort of Morecambe. That is happening after 18 years of Conservative government. What did the Conservatives do for British tourism and for seaside resorts? They had their chance and they blew it.

The important point that the hon. Lady is making is that she agrees with the Select Committee that tourism should be the Department's first priority. It is sad that, at least for the first year in government, tourism did not figure on the Department' s radar screen.

What will the Minister have heard on her visits around the country? I hope that it went better than the social security ratios.

As the hon. Gentleman declined to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), I shall answer it on his behalf. Is he aware that, under the previous Government, the English tourist board's grant fell from £25 million to less than £10 million? Does he regard that as an illustration of the previous Government's commitment to tourism?

The Minister is trying to deflect attention from the Select Committee's report. We should concentrate on her job in government and the fact that she has been reprimanded by the Select Committee for neglecting tourism after a year in office. That is what should occupy her, not the previous Government's record.

What will the Minister have heard in all those tourist destinations that she visited during the recess? On the economic climate, she will have heard time and again— if she listened—how high interest rates and a high pound have hit the cash flow of many businesses in the past 18 months. Those factors are a direct result of the Government's mistakes on economic policy.

Independence for the Bank of England meant that interest rates rose higher and for longer than was necessary, and the British Incoming Tour Operators Association estimates that the number of overseas visitors in the current year ending in September was 4 per cent. lower than in the equivalent period for 1997, and said that the trend is still downwards. There have been 1 million fewer visitors to the United Kingdom, resulting lost income of at least £1 billion. David Quarmby, chairman of the British Tourist Authority, estimates that that will have cost the UK some 30,000 jobs.

The Government have piled new costs on business. Those affect the labour-intensive tourist sector badly, making it more difficult to employ people flexibly, and more expensive. The Government have introduced regulations arising from the EC directives on working time, on parental leave, and on part-time workers. Much in the directives simply reflects the good practice of good employers, but the regulations necessarily involve a lot of paperwork and monitoring, and create the potential for discord between employer and employee. Perhaps the worst aspect of those new laws is that they are likely to reduce job opportunities for women, because they tend to prefer part-time jobs, many of which will be replaced by full-time jobs, which are more likely to taken by men. I should have thought that that would concern the Minister.

Those regulations are intended to do no more than replicate the burdens on employers that already exist in other EU countries. As usual, the EU raises the level of regulation upward at a cost to the UK's industry and jobs.

Sir Rocco Forte told Caterer and Hotelkeeper on 27 March 1997:

"I have operated in every single one of the continental European countries and seen very clearly the disadvantages they work under."

The Government are actively promoting the disadvantages under which the tourist industry will have to operate. The effects of the national minimum wage have yet to be felt, but that will be yet another burden.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have given way to the hon. Lady already. I intend to be brief because I know that other hon. Members want an opportunity to speak in this debate.

The Government have disregarded tourism, our fifth biggest industry. They have damaged the industry with the downturn made in Downing street, and have burdened it with extra regulations and costs, which will damage growth and job creation. However, what have Ministers responsible for tourism done? I refer to a document issued following the comprehensive spending review, paragraph 1 of which states:

"For the past year we have been conducting a review of the Department's activities as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review."

The document goes on:

"Our principal conclusion has been that all the areas for which DCMS is responsible are important".

That stunning analysis seems to dominate the Government's flaccid thinking on that whole question. On the pretext of that earth-shattering conclusion, Ministers announced yet another round of consultation on all aspects of DCMS, including tourism. With incredible ineptitude, they put forward four options for the future of the English tourist board, not one of which includes the possibility of its continuing in existence.

I accept that the present relationship between the English tourist board and its regional counterparts is far from perfect. However, there are some real "sillies". For example, the English tourist board has produced a brochure entitled, "The Essential England". It deals with neither the west nor the east of England, because it was cheaper to produce a brochure that covers the east and the west. It places Buxton in the same region as Basildon and Hereford in the same region as Lowestoft. It is ludicrous to suggest that such an entity is marketable across Europe and the rest of the world.

The correct way to market the east of England, particularly to the short-haul overseas market, is to keep it as the east of England. I commend the tremendously good brochure, which I understand has been very popular, advertising the east of England. The East of England tourist board was unable to produce enough copies, possibly because of its over-centralising attitude towards the regions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely symptomatic of the Secretary of State's attitude towards tourism that the consultation process on the future of the ETB took place during the high summer season? Anyone who understands small businesses would know that that placed an impossible burden on hoteliers, which underlines what my hon. Friend has been saying—that, in practice, the Government care nothing for the tourist industry.

My hon. Friend is right. Whatever the problems faced by the English tourist board, the answer is none of the four answers provided to the question that nobody has asked: do we need to get rid of the English tourist board?

The ETB and its regional offspring look jealously at their Scottish and Welsh counterparts, which have much more substantial funding. Scotland spends £18.3 million, or £4.81 per head of population; Wales spends £14.6 million, or £6.36 per head of population; and England spends £9.73 million, or only 25p per head of population. The problems that we face in England are simply a reflection of that imbalance. I do not begrudge what the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office choose to spend on tourism, nor am I calling for higher public spending in England; but it is ludicrous to suggest that we can solve these problems by abolishing England's shop window on the world.

The east of England, including north Essex, has its attractions, but every region of England must live under the brand name of England, or it is nowhere. I used to work for the Ford Motor Company in sales and marketing. It would be much harder to sell a Mondeo or a Focus if it did not have a Ford badge on it.

One can only conclude that the name of England has become something of an embarrassment to Ministers in this post-devolutionary world. Scotland can have a Parliament, Wales can have an Assembly, but England must be lectured to by the Scottish Secretary. We cannot have a Parliament—we cannot even have a tourist board. The tourist industry does not need this myopic obsession with regionalism. It would not be sensible to submerge the regional tourist boards into the new regional development authorities, because their functions would be swamped by all the other things the authorities will want to do.

I am sure that the Minister will have a lot to say—Ministers always do—but I would be happy with quite a short speech from her. It would be nice to think that she will make an announcement to the House today on the conclusions drawn from her consultation on the future of the English tourist board, but I doubt that the Government want the House to be the first to know.

The tourist industry is highly fragmented. Thousands of small businesses are not geared to the strategic international promotion that English tourism requires. There may well be better ways to deliver such a strategy through greater involvement of the private sector. Will the Minister tell the House—I have given her notice of this question—that the English tourist board will stay? Despite its limited budget, it plays a vital role in promoting one of our major national industries, and it should stay.

I shall highlight the enormous difficulties faced by British seaside resorts, especially those affecting my constituency. It is outrageous that our seaside resorts are still reeling from the effects of the decline of the British seaside holiday in the late 1970s and early 1980s, despite the fact that tourism is forecast to be the world's largest industry by 2000. It is vital for the future prosperity of our nation that the British tourist industry play its full part in that expansion.

I blame the Conservatives for these problems, because they were in government for 18 years, and they did nothing to help British seaside resorts. We are living with the consequences. The town in which I grew up and have lived for most of my life was prosperous, and I have seen how the Conservatives allowed it to decline.

Many of our resorts have great natural beauty—magnificent beaches, splendid coastal terrain and breathtaking views—but they now play host to areas of dereliction and social deprivation that would match the worst found in any of our inner cities. Without a clear recognition that those conditions exist, and action is taken to remedy the situation, these resorts, which should be the cornerstone of British tourism, will continue to decline, and our tourist industry will fail to fulfil its potential.

I shall illustrate the problems that exist in many of our seaside resorts by referring to the position in my constituency. Over the past 20 years, 70 per cent. of the holiday accommodation in Morecambe and Heysham has ceased to be used for that purpose. Many of the huge number of redundant guesthouses and hotels are now used for multiple occupation, and are rented to families and individuals on social security benefits. Unscrupulous and usually absentee landlords have advertised extensively throughout Lancashire and elsewhere, exhorting people to come and live by the seaside. This huge pool of cheap and often sub-standard accommodation has acted as a magnet for the urban poor, the unemployed and the socially disadvantaged from those areas.

As a result, many parts of Morecambe and Heysham have a largely migrant population without roots in the area, and those people have few prospects in life. Hon. Members can imagine the pressure that that places on our schools, especially those providing special needs education, and on social services. People come and go from the area. The daily flow in and out of those properties makes it impossible to establish any sense of community, and it makes nonsense of any attempt to provide reliable statistics on unemployment and social needs.

These areas not only are unemployment black spots, but have become hotbeds of crime and drug abuse. Three of the worst 10 and six of the worst 30 wards in Lancashire are in Morecambe and Lunesdale. Ill health, dereliction and social deprivation abound, but perhaps the most worrying aspect is the impact that they have on adjacent areas, causing them to decline and thus perpetuating the cycle.

The hon. Lady describes clearly the position in her constituency. What escapes me is the role that the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council and other councils in the area have played in letting the problems develop in the first place.

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that Lancaster city council has done a good job of trying to regenerate Morecambe. Obviously, a great deal more has to be done, and we need help from central Government—I make no bones about that. I shall ask the Minister for the help we require, because we received no help during 18 years of Tory government. Local councils had to act in isolation and in very difficult circumstances.

Morecambe and Heysham remains a beautiful area, despite these problems. I am proud to have grown up and to live there, and I want to stay there for the rest of my life. It is ideally located as a gateway to the lakes. Its views and abundant wildlife rival any in the country, and it has enormous potential for the tourism trade to be expanded. I pay tribute to our beleaguered business community, which has worked tirelessly to regenerate the resort and, against all the odds, has been remarkably successful through private-public partnerships.

However, it is high time those in Morecambe and other seaside resorts received the full support of Government to help them in what they are trying to achieve. Like many others, my area has applied for assisted area status. Our case is fully justified, but it remains to be seen whether we will be successful.

British seaside resorts have suffered through the collapse of their domestic tourism industries every bit as much as other areas have suffered from the decline of their core industries. Coalfield communities and areas affected by the decline in manufacturing have received assistance, and we need the same assistance. The Government should provide a package of measures aimed at regenerating seaside resorts. That is not only in the interest of those who live and work in the resorts, but in the economic interest of the nation.

I hope that the Minister will offer some hope to seaside resorts. It is important for us to be given hope, because we have immense problems to overcome. We also have immense opportunities. Morecambe is doing well as a seaside resort, and is striving to overcome the difficulties. I cannot miss this opportunity to ask the Minister to visit my constituency in the new year. I will be interested to hear what help she can offer British seaside resorts. That support is vital, and has been lacking for many years.

I welcome the new Minister to the first real debate on tourism that we have had, at least since the last Session. Having spoken to members of tourism bodies over the summer, I am pleased to learn that the hon. Lady is already regarded as a well informed and enthusiastic Minister. I trust that she will raise the profile of tourism in Government, as it is one of our largest and most job-creating industries. Its success and growth are vital to a modern Britain.

I am also pleased that the Minister has acceded to my request that she visit the beautiful and go-ahead resort of Southport. She will have plenty to see—both our traditional heritage, and the new investment that is taking place. Thanks to European, lottery and other funding, Southport's new promenade and sea defences have now been completed. The new town centre gardens have been opened on famous Lord street, the pier is to be renovated, and preparations are being made for the construction of a major new indoor complex.

As I see it, British tourism is approaching a crossroads. Year on year there has been growth in the industry, but two major obstacles lie in the way. First, owing to the very success of the industry up to this point—it is now the fifth largest in Britain—it has grown so large that a measure of strategic planning has been essential to overcome the problem of fragmentation, and also to protect our environment from the excesses that uncontrolled and sustained growth in an industry brings.

We need a permanent strategic body that does not merely cover the same ground as the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. I ask the Minister to consider establishing a tourism commission for England, consisting of representatives of the industry and Government. The DCMS should be involved, but so should the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We must get away from the image of tourism as solely part of culture, rather than part of economic development.

The tourism commission should also include tourism business leaders, as well as representatives of small businesses and other interested bodies. It could draw up a modern and relevant remit for the essential English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority; it could propose new planning regulations relevant to the needs of resorts and other tourist sites, and take evidence from trade unions and the Low Pay Commission. Tourism is one of the lowest-paying industries, with the least job security. The commission could also advise Government on their new transport policies. Tourism in England has no ombudsman, and standards vary considerably; a commission could set those standards, and appoint a watchdog to monitor them. Being a strategic rather than an operational body, it would not require any significant funding.

I trust that the Minister recognises that those issues need to be tackled in the medium and the long term if the industry is to be stabilised, and I hope that the Department's forthcoming tourism forum document will contain proposals to that effect.

The second obstacle to progress is the cost of tourism in Britain, compared to other European countries. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport observed at a recent dinner of the Tourism Society, to attract overseas visitors we must market ourselves on quality. To secure that quality, however, we shall need investment for the upgrading and maintaining of standards. I am glad that regional development agencies will have a major responsibility to tourism. Investment for tourism projects, which can be highly influenced by the exact needs of the location, should be directed at the projects themselves, rather than being decided centrally. It is, however, essential for funds available to tourism through regional development agencies to be spent on investment. Regional tourist boards have done a great job so far on their small budgets, especially in obtaining partnership moneys, and they should be maintained; but they must take on a new role, liaising with regional development agencies.

The lottery, through the national heritage memorial fund, has been a valuable source of money for the less commercial and non-commercial aspects of tourism, and for some major renovation projects. For example, although our Victorian piers and parks are not in themselves big money spinners, their presence attracts visitors, thus generating business for many resorts. I am keen for RDA funds for tourism to be used widely as match-funding for such investments. Many traditional resorts are members of the excellent British Resorts Association, whose advice should be sought on all aspects of regenerating our seaside towns.

With the ending of section 4 grants, small businesses in England and Wales lost access to funds to upgrade their facilities; yet the emphasis is now on quality. Small businesses in tourism have short seasons, and work to tight budgets. Because tourism is not an industry in which major profits are generally made—except in large London enterprises—funds from within the industry are seldom available to cover even the relatively small sums that are required. RDAs should have the option of helping to fund that sort of investment as well.

Another aspect of quality is who will monitor it. If, as is widely rumoured, the English tourist board's remit is to be reassessed, the Government must make alternative arrangements for the monitoring of standards. Another job for a tourism commission would be the drawing up of national guidelines, and the appointment of an independent monitor. That monitor should not work on a commercial basis, unlike the various bodies that currently grade hotels.

Notwithstanding new initiatives in respect of quality, prices and costs still matter. According to figures released by the British Tourist Authority, tourism receipts, for the first time, did not grow last year. We still have many visitors, despite the crisis in Asia, but the strong pound is reducing their spending power significantly, and they are not staying as long as they used to. The big issue relating to price, however, is that many more Britons are taking advantage of the relative cheapness of travelling abroad. If prices continue to be so high that it is cheaper for most people to take a summer holiday abroad—not even taking the climate into account—our domestic tourism may go into long-term decline, unless the Government take steps to redress the balance.

The introduction of the euro across the channel, but not in the United Kingdom, may damage us. International and business travellers will need to change their money into just one currency. Selling our holidays to Europeans will involve the expense of currency exchange, which will push up costs in comparison.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will certainly give way to my friend from the Select Committee.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the vast majority of people who visit this country come from Europe? If so, he is much mistaken. People come from throughout the world. For instance, we have many visitors from the United States, south-east Asia and Japan, in whose decision-making the European currency issue is not paramount.

The Americans have certainly been a major contributor to the industry so far, and American tourists will continue to come here; but as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has noticed, the Japanese are no longer visiting the country in such large numbers.

It is plain that, from the point of view of tourism—for which currency exchange is a major cost—the sooner the euro is introduced here, the better. I am pleased that the Government have moved to a position of "when" rather than "if'. At least our attitude is becoming clearer, and that is much better for industry than the limbo in which we have been living.

Is the hon. Gentleman going to mention his party's proposals for the abolition of the BTA, and explain why he considers its abolition to be good for tourism?

I have already mentioned the BTA twice; I have also mentioned the English tourist board. The proposal for abolition is not final, and there has been no firm statement in any of our documents.

Until recently, much of the work of the DCMS has been preoccupied with the "cool Britannia" image and similar diversions. Issues such as the strength of the pound, and one of the highest VAT rates levied on hotel accommodation providers anywhere in Europe, have been brushed under the carpet. The VAT crisis is particularly important, and the Government should tackle it.

Earlier this year, Deloitte and Touche published an extensive report on the likely effects on the industry, and revenue for the Treasury, of a cut in VAT on accommodation to the European average. The Government have had plenty of time to assess the report's findings. I ask the Minister—as I asked her predecessor—whether she has made any decisions on the basis of those findings, and whether she intends to press the case for a reduction of VAT to average European levels with the Treasury. Both this and the previous Government have pledged to equalise VAT rates across Europe as part of the establishment of the single market and the deal to end duty-free, which in itself will cost jobs. So far, however, the Treasury is stonewalling on the subject; nothing has happened. By equalising VAT, the Treasury could help tourism and raise revenue in the medium and long term.

Tourism needs to be a higher priority in investment and economic development, and there should be both a closer concentration on the quality of the product that we offer the consumer and a national long-term strategy for development. So far, such a strategy is lacking.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this short debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing it, thereby giving the House the opportunity to discuss tourism and hospitality. He and I share the view that those industries are important not only to Britain and our constituencies, but to the economy and the social well-being of all our citizens. Most commentators predict that they will soon be the largest in Britain—indeed, globally. I rise to offer the House a snapshot—a postcard from the seaside, I suppose—of local developments in the industries.

If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were to travel to my constituency, which would of course be a great honour, you would see on entering Scarborough a sign which says, "Welcome to Scarborough … Britain's First Resort". That is true, and it represents the industries' vision in Scarborough and Whitby. I am very pleased that the Minister's tour of seaside resorts and of representatives of the tourism industry included a visit to my constituency in August. It was very closely followed by a visit from the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Opposition spokesman. So both parties are apparently in listening mode.

As in the rest of the United Kingdom, the tourism industry in my constituency is fragmented and segregated. It is spread throughout rural areas, small villages, market towns and large conurbations such as Scarborough and Whitby. Tourism is of special and growing importance in north Yorkshire, especially in the North Yorkshire moors national park, which constitutes about 60 per cent. of my constituency.

Perhaps I should send you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a postcard from the beautiful parts of the national park, such as the Esk valley. Instead of the comic seaside card that I had in mind when I got to my feet, perhaps I should be saying to all in the House, "Wish you were here." That is certainly the message that all people who work in tourism and hospitality in my constituency want me to convey. We do indeed wish that hon. Members would spend some of their hard-earned money in our resorts.

People visit Britain not only for the great delight of its scenic beauty but for our arts and culture—our museums, galleries and theatres. Indeed, one of the best regional theatres in the country is the Stephen Joseph theatre in Scarborough, which is run by Sir Alan Ayckbourn.

It is funded by the lottery.

The right hon. Lady is quite right to say that the theatre received a substantial capital contribution from the lottery, although revenue support was not thought through, and we failed to supply money. I am glad that, on the Minister's visit to Scarborough, I was able to accompany her to the theatre, where we discovered from Sir Alan Ayckbourn, no less, that tourism and hospitality are not only creative but vital industries. I take issue with the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Essex that the Department's vision does not cover the industries' creative side. The aspect is clearly stated in the Department's vision statement.

Sporting events are very important to our industries, attracting many international visitors. There has been the recent European football championship, and there are bids to stage the world cup and the olympic games. Given Scarborough's experience of hosting the Bulgarian football team, I would urge a note of caution. We were promised that many thousands of football fans would accompany the team, filling vacant spaces on caravan sites and in bed-and-breakfasts and hotels. Unfortunately, the fans did not visit the delights of the Yorkshire coast.

I therefore urge that, in planning international sporting events and attractions at globally renowned venues, such as the Millennium dome, which is not too far from Scarborough, the Government contemplate ensuring that the virtuous aspects of trade and tourism spill over to the more peripheral areas, such as the north-east of England and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith). We need to plan and think about where visitors will stay.

When my hon. Friend the Minister visited Scarborough in August, we were able to share a business breakfast with many key members of the local industry. On that occasion, she showed not only that she was in listening mode but that, a mere two weeks into her new job, she was willing to take on board the ideas, problems and concerns of people who work in the industry in my part of the world. She certainly greatly impressed many people who attended. I know that she has received many letters from my constituents who were grateful that she visited us.

Has the hon. Gentleman asked the Deputy Prime Minister how many letters he received following his visit to Scarborough, which caused great hilarity because he left on a train but descended at the first available stop to get into his ministerial Jaguar? That was part of his listening to integrated transport strategy.

I am sorry to have to correct the Opposition spokesperson, but my right hon. Friend had been opening my constituency office—the first ever in Scarborough. My office is a mere five minutes walk from the railway station. The hon. Gentleman is right: my right hon. Friend took the train to Seamer. From there, he visited two proposed park-and-ride sites.[Laughter.] I am sorry, but that is on record. Those two sites are very close to Seamer railway station. Far from not being concerned with integrated transport policy, my right hon. Friend demonstrated his great concern to the people of Scarborough and Whitby. In fact, we are hopeful that, in due course, we shall be hearing about the policy.

As evidence of the high regard in which the Minister is held in the tourist industry and the impact that she has made, I shall quote the chairman of the Scarborough hotels association, who told the local media shortly after her visit:

"It's great to see tourism recognised as an industry and on the political agenda. We welcome this initiative and are pleased to contribute to the Minister's listening brief so early into her new role in government".

Far from ignoring my constituents' concerns and comments, work is being done. I look forward to hearing the Minister make a statement, which will build on the Labour party policy devised under the auspices of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).

Labour's document "Breaking New Ground—Labour's Strategy for Hospitality" was instrumental not only in my election to represent the seaside community of Scarborough and Whitney but in helping to elect hon. Members across the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, too, was elected on Labour's promise to fill the vacuum in tourism policy that was created by 18 years of the previous Government's failure. We are fulfilling that promise by listening to the industry, dealing with its concerns and working in partnership.

I should like to mention to the House one local initiative in Scarborough with which I have been involved. We have established a Scarborough tourism forum that brings together everyone involved in tourism and hospitality. The forum is a place where we can debate the real issues of the day and look forward to the future. The Minister was able on her visit to hear about the forum's work, and I hope that she will take on board the lessons it offered when she considers any future tourism strategies and initiatives.

I hope also that, in the near future, we shall see at all points of entry to the United Kingdom signs stating not only that Scarborough is our first national resort but that Britain is the first global resort.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing this debate on such an important subject, and on using the time allocated so wisely. As I realise the enormous value and importance of tourism to the United Kingdom—especially to London, which itself draws in much tourism to the United Kingdom—I should say first, in a non-political speech, that our hereditary monarchy and hereditary peerage are extremely valuable and important to tourism in London.

As I said, tourism is important to London, and tourism in London is important to the United Kingdom. However, London is not everything in tourism. Also, with great respect to hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate, seaside resorts are not everything in tourism. We have to market the other parts of the United Kingdom abroad, and to market UK tourism inside the United Kingdom.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, I am concerned by plans to abolish the English tourist board. What will replace it? We have heard that responsibility for tourism may be given to regional development agencies. I am troubled by such a proposal for various reasons, the first of which is that my constituency will be on the very edge of the south-west RDA, which will also include Cornwall and Devon. The south-west RDA would tend to promote Cornwall and Devon—I have nothing against those areas—at the expense of other parts of the region.

My constituency and Gloucestershire generally, have far more in common with Herefordshire and Worcestershire than with Devon and Cornwall, and there is a strong likelihood that we in Tewkesbury would lose as a part of the south-west region. If responsibility for promoting tourism is given to RDAs, or to any similar regional authority, Tewkesbury would lose. I do not want that to happen.

Tourism is extremely important to the town of Tewkesbury, to the Cotswolds, to many other villages in the area and to the racecourse in my constituency. In Tewkesbury, excluding the racecourse, 12 per cent. of jobs depend on tourism, compared with the national average of 7 per cent. Tourism is a vital factor in job creation and sustainability, in education and in the preservation of old buildings.

Tewkesbury has many old buildings. However, it also has many shops that have closed, primarily because of a shortage of tourists. Although Tewkesbury is a very beautiful and historic town, it suffers from proximity to Cheltenham, which has many chain stores. The town of Tewkesbury therefore specialises in and relies on speciality and novelty shops, on the abbey, on its many old buildings and on the river. Although those aspects of the town are extremely important—some of them are very beautiful—that is not enough. They have not only to look attractive but to draw in trade.

I should like to stress again the importance of tourism both to my constituency and to the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom tourism industry, one of our most important money earners, now faces extremely testing times. For a long time, it has offered good prospects to those providing a high level of customer service, although rewards have rarely been achieved without significant investment and disregard of the timetable of an "ordinary" working week.

Tourism's importance to both the national and local economies is difficult to overestimate. I shall not go back over the figures on tourism's importance to the United Kingdom, as those have been dealt with sufficiently already in this debate. Nevertheless, the business generated by tourism accounts for more than 1.5 million jobs. We should not forget that fact. Certainly in the south-west, where my constituency is located, tourism is vital.

Foreign exchange earnings from overseas visitors make a valuable contribution to the UK's balance of payments and contribute directly to economic activity in favoured tourist destinations across the country. In Dorset, tourism plays a crucial role in local and regional economic activity and boosts local people's employment prospects—especially of school leavers, who may be unwilling or unable to move on to further or higher education. At its best, tourism produces good examples of training on the job. Many very committed young people go on to have a very successful career in the industry.

Tourism is vital for my constituents, and a great many jobs depend on it. Any decline in trade hits our employment and economic prospects immediately and hard. Many hotels, restaurants and entertainment facilities enjoyed by local people could not survive without a thriving tourism market to support their turnover.

We live in a popular area for visitors, not least because of the area's outstanding natural beauty. Our beaches win awards. Many people have second homes in Dorset, and, as we know, Bournemouth is a popular destination for both Conservative party and Labour party conferences.

The economic uncertainty faced regularly by many smaller providers in the industry is compounded by the seasonal nature of much tourist activity. Almost a quarter of trips to or within Britain occur in July and August. In the off-peak months, that can cause cash flow problems, especially for smaller family-run businesses.

Then, of course, there is the weather. Apart from agriculture, the impact of poor weather is felt most keenly by tourism. If the summer is particularly bad one year, domestic demand may drop sharply. Consequent economic damage may be compounded if there is very little income at other times of year.

It is thought that tourism has growth potential in creating jobs and generating revenue. However, many issues—not least the Government's current policies—cloud the horizon and will undermine that potential. The Government's economic policies have had a heavy impact on the industry. Interest rates and exchange rates took their toll at the height of last summer's tourism season, and extra costs will continue to pile on pressure.

Red tape and regulation abound, and—with the introduction of the minimum wage, for example—will have a very real impact. Tourism relies on large numbers of students who undertake seasonal employment. It is also an industry in which young people have fewer qualifications but are willing to work hard for low initial reward, so that they may, with time, gain experience and better rewards.

I fear that the Government's proposals could damage the industry, particularly in the south-west.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. We have precious little time, and other hon. Members would like to speak.

If starting wages increase, employers will have to rethink their strategy and staffing levels to remain competitive in the global market.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, implementation of the European working time directive on work hours, annual leave and rest breaks also will have a major impact on the tourism industry. I am concerned that the Government have introduced regulations without adequate consultation with the tourism industry. The parental leave and the part-time workers directives are yet to come and they promise increased difficulties for an industry already under pressure.

I hope that the Minister will answer a couple of questions. Why does England get so much less grant in aid per head of population than Scotland and Wales? The south-west—as I have said, an area in which I have a particular interest—does especially badly. Perhaps the hon. Lady will respond on that point. The south-west is not a rich area. Indeed, it is an area of great poverty; and the further west one goes, the more poverty there is. Yet there is no reward, as there is in Scotland and Wales, for the industry with which we have to work in the area that I represent.

So far, our tourism industry has flourished, despite the rival attractions of overseas package holidays, the strength of the pound and the eternal problem of sometimes miserable weather, but I now fear for its future. Will tourism continue to prosper, and our local economy continue to reap the benefit, under a Labour Government? We face more costs, the import of more bureaucracy and the probable demise of the English tourist board, which fights for the industry at the national level. It is symptomatic of the Government's attitude that they want to abolish the ETB without knowing how to replace it—despite the almost universal support in the industry for a strengthened and properly financed tourist board.

Tourism is low on the Government's list of priorities. It is an afterthought and, perhaps, sometimes an irritation. The industry is misunderstood and sorely undervalued. Why else would the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue a consultation paper requiring an industry response at its busiest time?

I am a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. It recommended that the Department's annual report should provide specific information on how its sponsorship results in enhanced economic performance in each of its sectors, based on the view of the Select Committee, which was overwhelmingly stuffed with Labour Members, that the Department's objective should be to foster the tourism industry. The Government have yet to persuade us and the House that they care. There are challenging days ahead and I urge the Government, once and for all, to take tourism seriously.

I am delighted to contribute to the debate. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on initiating it. Many hon. Members have spoken about the attractions of their constituencies and the importance of the tourism industry. That is certainly the case in South-West Surrey. The only problem for the industry is the Government's inaction in tackling the A3 at Hindhead—but more of that on another occasion.

Tourism needs champions. It is a fascinating industry and I congratulate the Minister on taking on these responsibilities. If she can leave the Department with the official responsible for tourism being most highly regarded and envied, she will have made a difference. The legacy which she inherits is one where the snobbery of the Department gives prestige to the arts, sport and culture, but not to the industry that can create jobs and make a difference.

Tourism could be a catalyst for the Department. We have discussed the errors that it has already made—the omission from the title, the omission from the mission, the censure from the Select Committee and its inability for several months to arrange a debate on tourism in the House. It has made many mistakes, but the hon. Lady may be able to save the day and join the list of champions of tourism and hospitality as the real sectors of growth for the next century.

I commend some other champions to the Minister. It is a people industry; it is about education, training and the people involved thinking that they are valued. Many are taking that message seriously. David Harborne has been doing splendid work at the Hospitality Training Foundation. I commend Professor Airey at the department of tourism at my university of Surrey. They are people who think that investing in people from vocational qualifications through to degrees will make a difference. I commend the Confederation of British Industry and its tourism task force. Some of the leaders of the industry—Rank, Whitbread, Scottish and Newcastle, Madame Tussaud's and many others—say that we have to act in partnership and put more back into the industry.

Above all, I commend David Quarmby, head of the British Tourist Authority and English tourist board. It was disgraceful to launch the consultation document in such a way that it appeared to obliterate the English tourist board. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has done a magnificent job as our spokesman. He was at the launch of the BTA report on the day these insulting matters were being handled, and the people concerned were in ignorance of them. It is vital that there is a strong role for English tourism as well as a powerful and effective British Tourist Authority.

I hope that the Minister will persuade her Cabinet colleague to fight for the industry in Cabinet. She can do much to raise the profile, but she has to win the battles as well. Regional development authorities and local authorities can help by being more generous on planning. Rural areas could do better if only they could get the planning consents that they needed. Many of our heritage buildings could be transformed if they could get the planning consent and support that they need. The danger is that the RDAs and the local authorities want to municipalise tourism, rather than promote it. It is essentially a private sector enterprise, not a municipal activity.

Much has been made of seaside resorts. I happen to have a great liking for the Isle of Wight and understand the significance of tourism there. I am a great admirer of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and understand the importance of tourism there, too. I think that I have visited the constituencies of every hon. Member who has spoken today and appreciates the importance of the industry. I am tempted to remind the House that, when I was Secretary of State, it was the Year of the Pier. I think that people understand the importance of piers in our coastal resorts. I hope that the House will regard this as the "Year of the Peer" and understand the importance of peers in our constitution.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on initiating the debate and thank him for his generous comments about my constituency. I make but one addition to the civil war aspect and remind him that Colchester stood for Parliament.

In a forum where there is a great deal of political disunity, tourism should be a subject that unites us. If I have any regret today, it is about the politicking that has taken place—until this morning, I was not aware that tourism was a party political issue. That is certainly not my experience in the area that I represent.

Tourism is an inward industry, with visitors from overseas. Certainly Colchester has benefited recently from day tourists from the continent, so our greater European links need to be mentioned in that context. However, there is also tourism from within the United Kingdom, and I want to flag up one or two issues. One is the beach hut, and I declare an interest as I have a beach hut in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at Brightlingsea. The previous Government introduced value added tax on beach huts, of all things. That is not an incentive for people wishing to spend their holidays at home and be day visitors to many of our seaside resorts. The Minister is smiling, but this is an important issue in many of our smaller seaside resorts.

The second matter concerns the need for cheap accommodation, especially for young tourists from home and overseas. I make a special plea for capital grant funding for the Youth Hostels Association and similar organisations that provide accommodation for young people. I ask the Minister to investigate whether there is any way in which the Government could provide capital funding for new hostels and for refurbishment of existing ones.

This has been a good debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), without whose initiative in calling this debate we would still be waiting for the Government to hold one. It is remarkable that there has been no Government-inspired debate on tourism since the election more than 18 months ago.

There have been some excellent speeches, and one theme was clear throughout—tourism is important; tourism matters. Tourism matters in a constituency such as mine, where it brings in more than £100 million a year and is responsible for about 6,000 jobs. That is one reason why I take such an interest in the subject and am pleased to be part of our Front-Bench team. I also speak as a vice-president of the British Resorts Association and as patron of the Eastbourne Hotels Association.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken this morning with knowledge of the subject and conviction, and I thank them all. I fondly remember the visit to Eastbourne of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) during the Year of the Pier. I was not sure whether the mention of civil war made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) was historical, or referred to the one currently raging in his own parliamentary party.

I have already mentioned my constituency. In a letter to me, the excellent director of tourism in Eastbourne, Ron Cussons, expressed his own concerns and supported those of the British Resorts Association. The Government have drawn on the BRA's excellent work in projects such as those to measure the local impact of tourism, but the director of the BRA, Peter Hampson, expressed in a letter his concerns about the new structure and role of the English tourist board. He asked:

"Will the forthcoming tourism strategy be truly strategic …? Will Government recognise that large and medium sized coastal resort towns now all have pockets … of social and economic deprivation …? Will Government take action to ensure that the short term dispersal of asylum seekers will not have long term social and economic implications for coastal resort towns?"

Mr. Cussons endorsed those concerns and went on:

"The season this year has not been good due to the World Cup, the inclement weather for Eastbourne and the high exchange rate. Fortunately, the conference trade has been exceptionally good. Therefore, the hotels have traded reasonably well."

We recently held a "listening to Britain" meeting for those involved in tourism in Eastbourne attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). Those present, who represented a good cross-section of local tourism interests, voiced their concerns on several issues, including the widening tourism deficit, current rates of value added tax, the abolition of the ETB, inadequate transport infrastructure, interest rates, the strong pound, the minimum wage and inadequate funding for tourism generally.

We shall return to those themes, but for now I simply ask the Minister whether she agrees with David Quarmby, the chairman of the British Tourist Authority, who said:

"1997 was a very tough year for the British tourist industry, and all the signs show that 1998 is going to be just as bad. Without the strong pound, we would have expected 30,000 new jobs and £1 billion extra revenue next year. As it is, we did well to hold on to what we had."

What a damning indictment of the Government's economic policies. What does the Minister have to say to those 30,000 people who would have had jobs in tourism, but for her Government's policies? In opposition, the Labour party had many honeyed words for people involved in tourism throughout the country. After more than 18 months in office, how have the Labour Government risen to the challenges that other hon. Members and I have described?

The Government's first act was to change the name of the Department, but in such a way as to emphasise the importance of other activities at the expense of tourism. I have never heard a remotely convincing explanation for the omission of tourism from the title of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. No doubt the Minister will have another try today.

In its own statement of aims and objectives, the Department made no mention of tourism—a glaring omission. More recently, on the occasion of the appointment of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) to the post of Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, the Government took the opportunity to downgrade the role of Tourism Minister from Minister of State to Under-Secretary of State. Apart from the gross discourtesy to the Minister, for whom I have a high regard as a former Whip, what message does that send to an already beleaguered industry?

In the most recent spending review, tourism received only 2 per cent. of the Department's total allocation—£6 million, compared to £115 million and £125 million for museums and the arts—yet it generates more than 80 per cent. of the Department's revenue. No wonder Richard Tobias, chief executive of the British Incoming Tour Operators Association, described the sum as "meagre". On top of all that, the Government are seriously proposing to abolish the English tourist board, while leaving the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland tourist boards in place. That has brought forth a howl of protest from every corner of the country and every section of the industry. I presume the Minister has seen the conclusion of Travel Weekly—that there is 97 per cent. support in the industry for an enhanced and strengthened ETB. The feelings of the industry were in no way assuaged by the absurdly short consultation period.

We already know the funding figures: 25p per head for the population of England; £4.81 for Scotland; and £6.36 for Wales. The figures speak for themselves. There is no sign of the Government reintroducing section 4 grants to England, even though those are enjoyed by other parts of the UK. Fred Cubbage and his team at the South East England tourist board have stated:

"There are more overseas visitors to the counties of South East England than to Scotland, and …. unemployment in parts of the South East are far higher than the average situation in Scotland.

Is it time to level the playing field and acknowledge the power of the England brand as one of the key magnets for overseas tourism? We think so."

Against that background, combined with the worrying slide in revenue figures, what is the Government's solution? It is to abolish the ETB.

That could not come at a worse time. There is a record deficit in tourism across the country and a record 10 million holidays were taken abroad last year. As if that were not bad enough, devolution is upon us: I have little doubt that Scotland and Wales will grasp the opportunity of devolution to increase their spending on promoting their countries—and why not? What implications are there for the long-term future of the BTA? The Government have become masters of the law of unintended consequences, but who is to speak up for tourism in England if the ETB is destroyed? How would the Government ensure that the strategic role now played by the ETB continued to be carried out?

"Ah, yes," I hear the Minister say, "but what about the long-awaited tourism strategy?" What indeed? I must congratulate the hon. Lady on her attempts to right some of her predecessor's sins of omission by visiting at least some tourist resorts. However, there was a strange omission from the list that I saw, as the hon. Lady did not propose to visit the premier seaside resort in the country. Let me put that right now, by extending an enthusiastic invitation to her to visit Eastbourne and assuring her of a warm and friendly welcome.

When are the Government going to start to listen to the tourism industry? When can we expect the Government's strategy? It has been a long time coming. We were told originally—last year—that it would be published "next summer"; then, this year, the promise was, "later this year"; and the most recent prognosis was that it would come in the next few months. On the subject of tourism, one can say without fear of contradiction that the Labour Government have hit the deck limping. Will the Minister tell the House today when precisely her strategy document will see the light of day and when the ETB will be put out of its misery?

Today's debate is a wake-up call for a Government who have shown precious little concern for tourism—our fifth largest industry—since their election. As we have heard, the industry brings more than £50 billion a year to the British Exchequer and employs nearly 2 million British people. It directly accounts for 5 per cent. of British gross domestic product and 8 per cent. of all consumer spending.

I can promise our tourism and hospitality industry that the Conservative party will battle for tourism in Britain. We have pushed hard to secure this opportunity to debate the crisis facing our seaside towns and tourist attractions, which is a result of the Government's lacklustre attitude toward the industry. Towns across the country, from Bournemouth and Blackpool to Skegness and Southend, need the support of the Government if they are to thrive. That support is patently not forthcoming.

Tourists and employers are paying a high price for Labour's damaging policies. There have been four basic economic blunders: raising taxes, punishing savers, massively overspending taxpayers' money, and piling suffocating costs on to business. Those have combined to drive up interest rates and artificially strengthen the pound, causing domestic and foreign holidaymakers to stay away from Britain's coastal resorts, national parks and major tourist attractions. In addition, the stifling regulation of job-destroying legislation, such as that on the working time directive and the minimum wage, will serve only to deepen a growing crisis in British tourism that the Government have engineered. It shows just how low a priority the Prime Minister places on that valuable national industry that his Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not identify tourism in its name, its aims or its objectives. The all-party Select Committee even acknowledged that tourism is

"far and away the largest industry for which the Department is responsible and, in economic terms, the most important … yet tourism is subordinated in favour of more glamorous and trivial matters."

The only attention that the Government have given to British seaside towns since the election has been to turn guesthouses into overspill DSS hostels for asylum seekers, and to delay and delay again over a fantasy tourism strategy. To add insult to injury, they have forged ahead with plans to abolish the ETB. Tourism is paying a very high price for the inadequate policies of this Labour Government.

I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing this morning's debate. We all welcome the opportunity to discuss what is undoubtedly one of Britain's most important industries.

I take the strongest possible exception to the allegations by Opposition Members that the Government do not recognise the importance of tourism, which contributes some £53 billion a year to the economy and employs 1.7 million people. It is also one of our fastest growing industries, and we certainly take it extremely seriously. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) said that he hoped that cheap party political points would not be made during the debate, and that is certainly not my intention.

The hon. Member for North Essex highlighted the industry's importance for employment. We have been liaising closely with the industry on the Government's proposals for the new deal to get young people off benefit and into work.

Many hon. Members have also mentioned our current consultation on the structure of support for the industry, and I shall return to that later in my speech. The aim of our consultation was to make sure that what funds were available were used wisely. Under the departmental spending review, the British Tourist Authority has been allocated an increase of £6 million, in contrast to reductions in funding to tourism in recent years.

Tourism is extremely important in my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed me to this post, I was very encouraged when the Manchester Evening News visited one of my local tourist information centres in Rawtenstall and said what a wonderful service it provided.

Other hon. Members raised important constituency matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) rightly referred to the plight of many seaside resorts around the country. Our domestic tourism working group charged a quality sub-group with looking at that problem. It examined a resort regeneration action plan piloted by Redcar and Cleveland borough council, and that is likely to form part of the tourism strategy.

Before I leave the subject, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, who is truly a champion of tourism in her constituency, and to the excellent work in Morecambe which has transformed the town in recent years. Of course I can give her the assurance that I shall visit Morecambe as soon as I can. It will not be my first visit there, but I look forward to visiting it again.

I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) for his kind words. He mentioned the success of the industry and its potential for growth. I also congratulate him, as he has become the champion of the English piers. We were all delighted to learn that Southport pier was to be refurbished and renovated.

May I remind the Minister that it was with lottery money?

It was indeed. We are grateful for and supportive of the money that the lottery is putting into similar projects around the country. During my fact-finding mission in August—I reassure the Opposition that it was truly a fact-finding mission—I visited the west pier in Brighton, which is also to be renovated using some lottery money, as well as considerable private sector investment. We see that very much as the way ahead.

The hon. Member for Southport said that he thought that a strategy for the industry was missing. Let me assure him that that is no longer the case, and I shall return to that later in my speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) referred to my visit to his constituency in the summer. I greatly enjoyed talking to the local tourism forum, which greatly assisted our consideration of the strategy and what was needed to help the industry. We were particularly impressed by the forum in Scarborough, which included local residents as well as hoteliers and people who ran the various amusements and attractions in the area. When considering sustainable tourism, it is important to include the impact on local communities—another factor that our strategy will take into account.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the millennium dome. We are proud of our decision to go ahead with the millennium dome, which will benefit not only London—although we expect some 3 million visitors to London for the millennium—but many other parts of the country. The excitement that has been generated by the project is incalculable. On Sunday, I very much look forward to switching on the floodlights at St. Anne's church in Turton, which have been funded specifically by millennium money.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) mentioned that London was a gateway. Of course it is. Many people who come to London also visit other parts of the country. He referred to hereditary peers as a particular attraction. That may be true, but whether they have a vote is probably irrelevant.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) is a member of the Select Committee. He and some of his hon. Friends made much of the criticism by the Select Committee that the Department does not take tourism seriously. He may not be aware that one of the first things that I did on taking this job was to change the order of my title, so I am now the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. It may seem a small gesture, but it has been warmly welcomed by the industry.

The hon. Gentleman may not know that I visited his part of the country in the summer and was most impressed. I was delighted to return to Studland bay, which is one of the most beautiful beaches in the country. I spent a lot of my childhood there. I was most impressed by the management scheme on Purbeck, which is an important tourism attraction. A great deal has been done to introduce park-and-ride schemes and manage the number of visitors.

I was aware of the hon. Lady's visit to Dorset, where there was much comment about why she did not go up in a hot air balloon in Bournemouth.

I did many other things, but I did not go up in a hot air balloon because I did not fancy the idea, but it did not diminish my ability to learn about the local tourism industry.

In the very short time she has left, will the Minister address the issue of the English tourist board?

Of course. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman was most concerned about that issue and I shall address it before I finish my speech.

Let me briefly thank the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) for her kind words. I agree with her whole-heartedly that the industry needs a champion. It is a fragmented industry which needs leadership. Our consultation with all sections of the industry has made that plain. We shall certainly take it on board in our strategy, which will be published in the new year because that is when most people think about their holidays.

I should like to address the point raised by the hon. Member for North Essex about the consultation process. We consulted widely with the industry because we wanted what public money was available to be spent as wisely as possible. Despite his criticism that the consultation process was carried out over the summer, we received more than 300 responses. The overwhelming majority called for a central co-ordinating body. That will be reflected in our decision, which will be announced soon. One of the main aims of the process was to get better help to the regions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will welcome that commitment.

This is a profoundly important subject which affects many people's lives and touches our country's vital interests. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister a series of questions, not all of which I expect him to answer today, but on which I hope he will write to me in due course.

The fact that there is a crisis in the Arabian gulf cannot be gainsaid. Just over a week ago, American and British sailors and airmen readied themselves, we are told, for political orders from the United States President and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to launch a series of devastating raids involving cruise missiles and a massive bombardment of Iraq.

By the grace of God and the skilful diplomacy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, the slaughter that would have resulted was averted—much, it seems, to the disappointment of some. It was reported that, after the Secretary-General had accepted Tariq Aziz's letter, President Clinton felt that he could not justify the attacks, especially as the Pentagon's assessment was that they would have left 10,000 people dead—every one of them somebody's son or daughter, father or mother, husband or wife.

Do Her Majesty's Government share the Pentagon's estimate that 10,000 Iraqis would have been killed if the attack had gone ahead? If not, what is their estimate of what the death toll would have been? How many of the dead Iraqis does my right hon. Friend estimate would have been high officials of the Ba'ath party, important military or security officers, or innocent men, women and children with no responsibility whatever for the actions of their Government, whom they never elected and cannot remove?

We keep hearing that the Government have no quarrel with the Iraqi people, but how many dead does my right hon. Friend think would constitute a price worth paying? Does he recall the words of the American officer who said, as he incinerated yet another hamlet on the Mekong delta, that the village would have to be destroyed in order to save it?

My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the words of Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State. During an interview on US television, Lesley Stahl asked her:

"perhaps half a million Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions, is the price worth it?"

Albright replied:

"It's a very hard choice but the price … we think the price is worth it."

Do Her Majesty's Government share the view that the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children—who, I assure my right hon. Friend, bleed just like his children and mine—is a price worth paying for their political objectives?

My hon. Friend will recollect very well the terrible sights in the hospitals that he and I have visited in and outside Baghdad. Does he also recall Denis Halliday writing in Middle East International on 13 November that 6,000 children were dying each and every week?

I remember it vividly. This week's Tribune reported that Denis Halliday, a former UN Under-Secretary-General, also said:

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."

Those are the words not of me or my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but of the former humanitarian co-ordinator for the UN in Baghdad.

I fear that someone was talking to my right hon. Friend the Minister when I asked whether Her Majesty's Government shared Mrs. Albright's view that the 500,000 children who, according to Lesley Stahl, had died as a result of sanctions, were a price worth paying. Perhaps, unlike Mrs. Albright, the Government contend that children are not dying as a result of sanctions—that is the position that some Ministers seem to have adopted in the bellicose days of late. Do the Government accept that any Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions? If so, how many, and how many would they consider a price worth paying?

The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that we have common ground on this issue, but does he have any estimates of the number of Iraqis who died in the Kurdish area before and after the Gulf war as a result of nerve agents? How many Iraqis—and, indeed, Iranians—died in the Iran-Iraq war, which was stimulated by Saddam Hussein? Although many of them were soldiers, they were all, as he rightly pointed out, some mother's son. How many people in the marsh areas have died as a result of the actions of Saddam Hussein? Most people estimate that Saddam Hussein has killed more than 500,000 of his people, so does not the hon. Gentleman believe that Saddam Hussein bears some responsibility for the situation in Iraq?

The figures are, in fact, rather worse than the hon. Gentleman suggests. The Iran-Iraq war was a lunatic and disastrous conflict, but it was encouraged by the west, which armed both sides, and had a vested interest in its continuing for as long as possible. The numbers who died were perhaps a million on each side, so I am in no doubt about the disastrous consequences of those eight years of war—or, indeed, of the gas attacks on Halabja. However, the Conservative Government continued to do business as usual with the Iraqi regime after the Halabja tragedy was brought to their attention, not least by Labour Members when they were in opposition. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he can read the Scott report for elucidation of that point.

It is scarcely credible that a Member of Parliament should seek to justify—if that is what was being done—our killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on the grounds that the Iraqi dictator was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Are we saying that we are morally equivalent to the Iraqi dictatorship?

Those who have seen the war memorials of first world war proportions in Iran will know that, in the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians suffered a terrible loss. However, the Iranian Government have made it absolutely clear that the last thing they want is a British-American military strike against Iraq. Given our better relations with Iran, could not Ministers at least talk to the Iranians about the matter?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I shall deal with that point later.

The House will now be familiar with Mr. Denis Halliday, whom, I assume, my right hon. Friend the Minister will not want to accuse of ignorance or bad faith. Halliday is a former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, and was an official of the UN for more than 20 years. He is a respected Irish official, who formerly served as the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Baghdad.

Last July, Dennis Halliday resigned his post, saying that he could no longer defend a policy which he described as "bankrupt." As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow mentioned, Halliday has said that between 5,000 and 6,000 Iraqi children every month of every year are dying as a result of sanctions. Is Halliday lying? Is Halliday wrong? If he is not lying, and if he is not wrong, is the Minister really saying that we are prepared to kill more than 200 Iraqi children each day of every month of every year in pursuit of our ethical foreign policy and our non-quarrel with the Iraqi people?

It ought not to be necessary to describe in detail the suffering of the Iraqis under sanctions, given the acres of detailed reportage by fine British journalists in some of the finest newspapers in the world—people such as the incomparable Robert Fisk, Alexander Coburn, Maggie O'Kane, Ron McKay and Felicity Arbuthnot. Again, I ask the Minister—are these people lying? Are they wrong?

Was Martti Ahtissari—the then UN Under-Secretary-General, and now the President of friendly Finland—lying when he said:

"nothing that we had seen or read had quite prepared us for the particular form of devastation which has now befallen Iraq"?

Was the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation lying when it said:

"the continued sanctions have virtually paralysed the whole economy and generated persistent deprivation, chronic hunger, endemic malnutrition, massive unemployment and widespread human suffering … with the vast majority of Iraqis simply engaged in a struggle for survival"?

Was the UN World Food Programme lying when it reported:

"Alarming food shortages are causing irreparable damage to an entire generation of Iraqi children …a fifth of Iraq's population is at severe nutritional risk … we are the point of no return in Iraq … the social fabric of the nation is disintegrating …people have exhausted their ability to cope"?

Was The Lancet lying in 1995 when it said that, since 1990,

"567,000 children in Iraq have died as a result of sanctions"?

Notwithstanding any differences that hon. Members may have about where the responsibility lies for the suffering of the Iraqi people—whether it is economic suffering, or suffering due to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein—does my hon. Friend agree that there have been times in history when he and other hon. Members have no doubt advocated sanctions against repressive, tyrannical regimes because that was the only way to influence those regimes? For example, did my hon. Friend advocate sanctions against South Africa during the time of apartheid?

And Iraq.

And Iraq. If so, what is the difference now?

There is no dispute about the quotations that I have given the House, which unequivocally place the responsibility for the massacre upon sanctions. The UN World Food Programme, the UN children's fund, The Lancet, the president of Finland—all say that those deaths are being caused by sanctions.

The tyranny of Saddam Hussein is another question, to which I shall return. I was on the demonstrations against the tyranny of Saddam Hussein when British Ministers were inside the embassy, signing trade deals. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) was with me in the 1970s when we formed the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Perhaps he was there, and I just did not know him then. However, nobody in this House has a longer record of opposition to the Ba'ath dictatorship in Iraq than me. That I can unequivocally state.

I was at school in the 1970s. More seriously, will my hon. Friend answer my question? Has he personally ever advocated sanctions against the Iraqi regime, or any other tyrannical regime, because he believed—as the Government believe—that that was the only way to bring the political leadership of that country to its senses and to democracy? If so, has not he understood the inevitable consequences of those sanctions? Why is the situation now so different?

I was coming to that point. I, too, was at school in the 1970s—I look older than I am.

Not at the same school.

Probably not, no. However, that did not stop me demonstrating or getting involved in political work. I reiterate my point, because I suspect that there is a sub-text. No one in the entire House has been active in political campaigns against the dictatorship in Iraq for longer than me—although some have been active for as long.

I was in favour of economic sanctions against South Africa.

And Iraq.

I was in favour of sanctions, rather than war, against Iraq in 1990. I have not changed my mind about that. If I have a choice—either Iraq is bombarded with cruise missiles tonight, or sanctions continue—of course I will choose sanctions. To do otherwise would be to call upon the visitation of missiles, bombs and weapons of horrific destruction against the people of Iraq. Why is that the choice being offered me by my hon. Friends' intercessions? I want to develop the argument for a policy that does not rely upon sanctions or upon war.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South talked about sanctions bringing a regime to its senses. Is the Iraqi regime coming to its senses after eight years of appalling carnage? As the bodies are stretched end to end—the hundreds of thousands, the million or more dead Iraqis—is the Iraqi regime, in my hon. Friend's terms, coming to its senses?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No. I have given way to my hon. Friend twice, and I want to make some progress.

Is the Iraqi regime changing its policy as a result of the carnage? No. Even the best friends of this policy do not pretend that it is working. Is not a policy that is both immoral—as Dennis Halliday, the others whom I have quoted and I say—and ineffective overdue for review?

Was the distinguished foreign editor, Victoria Brittain, lying when she said in 1995 that there are

"20,000 new cases of child malnutrition every month"?

Was the World Health Organisation lying when it said:

"health conditions are deteriorating at an alarming rate under the sanctions regime … the vast majority of Iraqis continue to survive on a semi starvation diet … the damaging effects of poor nutrition are being compounded by epidemics and by a precipitous decline in health care, the most visible impact of which is seen in the dramatic rise of mortality rates amongst infants and children"?

Are the WHO, the United Nations officials, the distinguished correspondents and the medical journals all lying when they spell out the catastrophic price that is being paid by ordinary Iraqis as the result of the policy that my right hon. Friend the Minister supports? I beg him not to try to wash his hands of all the suffering by blaming it on others. It is a spot that will not out, and all the perfumes of Arabia will not expunge it.[Interruption.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South may think that it is funny, but let him imagine the ocean of blood represented by all the dead people about whom all those eminent authorities have spoken.

rose—

My hon. Friend is a good friend of Israel, and I will come to Israel's crimes in a moment. I have no doubt that he will want to intervene at that point, so I advise him to keep his powder dry for that.

On the subject of the perfumes of Arabia, in Iraq I saw by far the worst pollution that I have ever seen anywhere. Last night, I explained to the Deputy Prime Minister that, for all his good work in Buenos Aires, sanctions create pollution because of the lack of spare parts and the endless streams of leaking, badly maintained oil wagons going from Iraq to Amman. The good work in Buenos Aires is negated by what is going on in Iraq, and indeed Iran.

When Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols in the 11th century, the Tigris ran red with blood. In the 15th century, it ran black after the sacking by Timur's hordes of the world's greatest library at Mustansariya. Let me assure the House that the Tigris and the Euphrates run brown today with raw sewage. People from the villages and hamlets in rural Iraq drink directly from those rivers, because of the breakdown of the water purification systems.

My hon. Friend talks of rivers of blood. Does he recall the article in The Sunday Telegraph by Mr. Con Coughlin, who debriefed in detail a Mr. Sami Salih, who was a friend of the person in charge of the military industrialisation commission and set out in graphic detail what is going on in Iraq today, referring to the mass executions and the huge loss of life inside and outside Baghdad, the elimination of whole villages, the destruction of houses, and the way in which Saddam Hussein is hoarding munitions and weapons of mass destruction under swimming pools and in parks throughout the country, to be used against his own people? The west has a responsibility to deal with Saddam in some way. The problem is that people such as my hon. Friend persist in misreading the situation, and they do not come up with solutions. What is his solution?

I am glad to say that I do not rely on Mr. Coughlin of The Sunday Telegraph for my information.

Why not?

Because it is a rubbish newspaper, and he is a rubbish journalist.

If you disagree, it is rubbish.

Order.

I could debate with my hon. Friend the value of Mr. Conrad Black to the English-speaking world, and the value of his newspapers to the great body of newspapers.

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go down that path, but will remember that this is a time-limited debate to which others want to contribute.

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have been very generous in allowing hon. Members to intervene. Perhaps I should press on.

I am not sure what my hon. Friend's point was supposed to mean. If it means that Saddam is a tyrant, I am the last person who needs to be told about that, but how many executions has he carried out? Has he executed 567,000 children or killed more than 1 million people, which is the number that United Nations officials say have been killed by sanctions? I very much doubt it, but even if he had, is his river of blood an excuse for us to create our own? That is the $64,000 question.

Does my right hon. Friend the Minister know the tears that have been shed over the more than 1 million corpses, dead as a result of the policy over the past eight years? Do not think that Iraqi women do not cry over the deaths of their children, or that Iraqi children do not cry over the suffering of their parents and grandparents. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow are in a position to tell the House that a walk through the vale of tears that is Iraq is almost too much for the ordinary mortal to bear, so searing is the grief, so traumatised the population, and so enraged the people with whom we say that we have no quarrel.

What is all this for? Is it about the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force in the middle east, contrary to international law and in defiance of Security Council resolutions? It cannot be, can it? Iraq withdrew from its illegal occupation of Kuwait seven and a half years ago, while another middle eastern country, Israel, has continued to occupy not one or two but three Arab countries for decades, in absolute defiance of a whole series of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and in flagrant disregard of international law.

Iraq has rescinded its annexation of Kuwait, but has Israel rescinded its illegal annexation of the Golan heights or of east Jerusalem, the holiest of Christian places and one of the most sacred sites of Islam? The answer, of course, is that it has not.

Is it about weapons of mass destruction, then? Well, it cannot be that, either. After all, who were the first to use chemical weapons against Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq? We were, in the 1920s, and the allies used them again in 1991, when we used what are essentially atomic weapons.

They are not atomic weapons.

The weapons were made of depleted uranium: 900,000 uranium bullets and 30,000 uranium shells were used in the south of Iraq, where radioactive dust has entered the water, the food chain, the bodies, and, ultimately, the children of Iraq, and is responsible for the huge cancer and leukaemia epidemic, with a tenfold increase in the number of cancer cases in the country.

Has my right hon. Friend the Minister read the trail-blazing journalism of Robert Fisk, the doyen of middle east correspondents, on the subject? Does he think that Fisk has got it wrong? What can he tell us about the World Health Organisation investigation? My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says that the uranium weapons are not essentially atomic weapons, but in The Toronto Star this week Michele Landsberg said:

"DU, a toxic nuclear waste, is used to coat missiles and bullets, increasing their armour-piercing power. It bursts into flames on impact and is 'aerosolized' into radioactive dust. The stuff remains radioactive for 4,500 million years."

The article continued:

"The U.S. Defence Department"

estimates

"that 630,000 pounds of depleted uranium were fired in the gulf in 1991".

We used other weapons as well, such as fuel air bombs which ignite huge volumes of petrol above their human targets, creating, in effect, mini nuclear explosions. We also used napalm and cluster bombs. All those weapons were described by the 49th session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations as

"weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction".

Can my right hon. Friend the Minister do any better than his colleagues in answering the following question in a way that will make sense in the Arab world and on the streets of Muslim countries? Why is it that Israel, which illegally occupies the territories of its neighbours, and which has sought to obliterate Palestinian identity for half a century, is allowed to amass a mountain of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, while no Arab country is allowed to do so?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Later.

When I asked that question in the House recently, a number of Tel Aviv's little echoes in the Chamber chorused that Israel was a democracy. Leaving aside the question of how a country that illegally occupies the territories of others can be so described, and leaving aside the fact that 1.5 million Palestinians lived under brutal Israeli occupation for more than 30 years without ever being allowed to vote—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Later.

Leaving aside the fact that, for the crime of telling the rest of us about Israel's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, Mordechai Vanunu is held in solitary confinement, serving a 20-year sentence, and had his jaw wired up in court like Hannibal Lecter in "The Silence of the Lambs" in case he told the court anything else, surely hon. Members, including the friends of Israel who are present, can see that international gangsterism by a country that claims to be a democracy is worse—not better—than gangsterism practised by a regime that makes no such claims.

After all, the Iraqi people have no responsibility whatever for the actions of their Government, because they did not choose their Government and they cannot remove their Government, no matter how much we make them suffer. The Israeli people, however, are entirely responsible for the actions of their Government, because they elected their Government and they can remove their Government.

Does my hon. Friend accept that petty, personal and vindictive attacks do nothing to enhance his argument, but in fact undermine it? Does he accept that Israel is not only a democracy, but engaged in an on-going peace process with the Palestinians? Recent weeks have seen progress in that peace process. My hon. Friend does nothing to help his case when he seeks to rewrite history about the relationship between Israel and its neighbouring countries. The reality is that Israel has been surrounded throughout its history by countries hell bent on its destruction, including the regime in Iraq.

The problem with my hon. Friend's whole argument is that, by turning the issue into a comparison between Israel and Iraq, he lets Saddam Hussein off the hook once again, and reinforces his strength in the Arab world. That is what is so irresponsible about my hon. Friend's argument about the British, American and Israeli Governments' responsibility. It is Saddam Hussein who is responsible for the situation that faces the Iraqi people and for the instability in the middle east.

Order. The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) cannot make a speech in an intervention. May I add that moderation should be the hallmark of language in our debates? I have heard nothing out of order so far, but laying the stress on moderation would be helpful in the present atmosphere.

I do not believe that it can be petty and vindictive to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South, with his well known views, to intervene in my speech four times. Indeed, it is probably generous. I am not sure that the people who live in the illegally occupied Golan Heights, illegally annexed by Israel, look on Tel Aviv as a democracy. I am not sure that the people of southern Lebanon, occupied by Israel since 1982, look upon Israel as a democracy. Certainly, the 1.5 million Palestinians who have lived for more than 30 years in occupied West Bank and Gaza have never been allowed to vote. I do not imagine that they look upon Tel Aviv as a democracy. Even if I accept that Israel is a democracy, my point is that crimes committed by a democracy are worse than crimes committed by a dictatorship. That is indisputable.

Has anyone advanced any proposal to punish the people of Israel for the international law breaking of the Government whom they elected? No, unless one counts making them participate in the Eurovision song contest and the European cup winners cup. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister, as a long-time friend of Israel, does not like the double standards argument, but I assure him that it is an argument permanently on the lips of every Arab, from the most august in the palaces of the friendly Arab states to the man and woman in the street and it is the principal reason why his policy is utterly discredited in the Arab and Muslim world, and more widely.

What about the white knights of UNSCOM, led by Richard Butler? Can my right hon. Friend the Minister hazard a guess why a senior—and I mean very senior—still-serving official of the UN should describe Mr. Butler to me recently, on the basis of more than 20 years' close knowledge of the man, as a "congenital liar"? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread unhappiness in the secretariat of the UN and in the Security Council about the conduct and the style of work of Mr. Butler?

Did my right hon. Friend read the article by David Usborne in The Independent almost a year ago in which he wrote:

"The criticism voiced privately in the corridors of UN headquarters is this: in his handling of the crisis that has put the United States on the brink of military action in the Gulf, Mr. Butler has failed utterly to lower the temperature. Indeed, by refusing to moderate his confrontational style, he has provoked almost everyone involved."

An opinion whispered a year ago in the corridors of New York is now openly discussed by everyone, except—it seems—the US Government and our own.

Can my right hon. Friend the Minister understand the widespread view that Mr. Butler is a provocateur who has his men swaggering around Iraq, trying not to resolve the remaining questions between the UN and Iraq, but to create pretexts for continuing the crisis and even to provoke a new and terrible military confrontation? The Arabs feel it, the majority of the permanent five on the security council feel it, and the Minister must know it. That feeling was exacerbated when Mr. Butler's deputy, the former US intelligence officer, Scott Ritter, announced to the world, after leaving his post, that he had indeed collaborated with Israeli intelligence during his time in Baghdad.

While I am on that subject, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said four weeks ago that he would write to me about the revelation—the source of which was in New York, not Baghdad—that four named agents of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad had served under false names and false passports as UNSCOM agents of Mr. Butler in Baghdad. What has been the progress of my right hon. Friend's investigation of that matter, and when will he be in a position to write to me as he promised?

A fortnight ago, the former Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, and I sat in the office of UNSCOM talking to the acting director, the honest Finn Jaakko Ylitalo, and Caroline Cross. When we asked about Scott Ritter, they said, "Please don't mention him, we are ashamed."

That is widely felt.

The events of the past week have vindicated absolutely the contentions of those who say that UNSCOM under Butler is bent upon provocation. There was the ridiculous squall over missing or non-existent paperwork which, if we had listened to the preposterous foreign affairs spokesman for the Opposition, would have seen us wipe out 10,000 people over a missing Iraqi air force diary dating back to the 1980s. It was a preposterous call, which was rightly ridiculed by Liberal Democrat spokesmen as well as by our own Government.

What would the bombing, called for by the Opposition spokesman, have achieved? Would it have produced the diary or incinerated it? Does the diary exist or not? Cannot the Minister see that, to seek to elevate this paper chase into a casus belli against a now practically defenceless country simply reduces us to figures of ridicule?

Some of the documents do exist and Iraq has said that the inspectors can read them but not take them away. They must read them in the presence of Prakesh Shah, the respected UN special envoy. What is wrong with that? Are we to wipe out 10,000 Iraqis in order to exercise our inalienable right to photocopy Iraq's whole national archive? If we do, how much support does the Minister think that we will have for such barbarism in the world, on the Security Council or in the Arab League?

The problem with the documents, which Iraq says do not exist, is, in microcosm, the central problem of the whole issue. How can someone be asked to prove a negative? I could insist that the Minister is hoarding a silver threepenny bit in his house and, after he denies it, I could search his house year after year after year, all the while starving his wife and children. I might then say, finally, that the Minister must prove to me that he does not have a silver threepenny bit. That is a recipe for endless confrontation and misery.

Then there is that old reliable chestnut, kept in reserve for that rainy day when even UNSCOM cannot justify its odyssey in Iraq any more, and that is the issue of Kuwait's missing in action. Of course, the United States has great experience of using that one and has made it the stuff of half a dozen Rambo fantasies. The search for the bones of American MIAs kept the embargo against Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos going for literally decades, and it is being dusted down again for use in the Gulf as the final excuse for continuing the quiet massacre of sanctions.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I must press on.

There is an old saying that when one is in a hole, one should stop digging. Our policy towards Iraq is in a deep hole, neither moral nor effective, yet we seem incapable of devising an exit strategy to get us all out of that hole. Let us take the most recent act of excavation in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was involved—the much-trumpeted act of meeting and seeking to unify the Iraqi opposition based in London. It included everyone from the Turkoman Liberationists to something called the Democratic Monarchists who seek to put on a newly minted throne in Baghdad one of two pretenders to the kingdom—Shan-if Ali Bin Hussain—who left Iraq when he was still a baby.

Does the Minister really believe that the Turkoman organisation—there are six such organisations of Turkomen, and Turkomen constitute no more than 6 per cent. of Iraq's population—or the Democratic Monarchists are serious contenders for power in Baghdad? There is also the so-called Iraqi National Congress, whose CIA funds have been discontinued because of the shambolic and corrupt incompetence it has displayed. Has the Minister spoken to his counterparts in friendly Jordan about the three prison sentences handed out to the INC leader, Mr. Chelabi, for his involvement in the Petra bank fraud scandal?

The Minister met the Shi'ite representatives in the form of Iraq's Islamic Supreme Council. Given the experience of those other holy warriors whom we financed, armed and trained, the Afghan Mujaheddin, is the Minister really sure that that is the company he wishes to keep? Is it the Government's policy to try to help the Shia revolution to power in Baghdad? Do the Government think that Iraq can be ruled by Turkomen or by the two Kurdish parties when they take a break from murdering each other?

I heard the Minister on the admirable Nicky Campbell's phone-in programme on Radio 5 yesterday. He said that he was meeting "constitutional" politicians. Really? On the very day, almost at the very hour when the Minister was pouring tea for his new friends, one of the "constitutional" activists threw two hand grenades into a crowd of people in the Shia holy city of Karbala.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not give way any more.

Of course, the grenades did not hurt the deputy Prime Minister of Iraq at whom they were aimed, but they made some spectacular holes in the faces and bodies of the civilians who were in the crowd.

The Minister may say that he wants no part of that, although he did not quite say that on Radio 5. Does he think that that act of terrorism was unconnected with his meeting with the Opposition in London? Does he think that its timing was just a coincidence? Does he think that that will be the last act purchased, not by British money but by the $97 million voted by the US Congress for the armed overthrow of the Iraqi regime? Does he realise that that money will take us down the road that leads to the illegal mining of the harbours of Nicaragua by the Contras, to the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to the blowing up of hotel foyers in Cuba and to the obscurantist barbarism of present-day Kabul?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am not giving way again.

Does the Minister realise that the road down which he is taking us is illegal under the very legislation that our Government rushed through both Houses of Parliament during the summer? The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 makes it an offence under British law to plan or encourage others to plan to commit any act which would be illegal in any other country. I know that, because I was the person responsible for defeating the attempt made by the previous Government to introduce precisely that law.

Just what activities does the Minister imagine that the Iraqi Opposition, newly unified by him and refreshed by their $97 million, intend to plan from their bases in London? Would they be activities that are legal or illegal in Iraq? If the activities they plan are illegal in Iraq, will our Law Officers proceed to prosecute them?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am not giving way again.

If, as seems obvious, they do not prosecute, what will happen in the courts to any attempts to prosecute the madmen based in London who exhort others to fire upon tourists at Luxor or to murder Muslims at prayer in the mosques of Algeria? Does not the Minister know that what began with two hand grenades in Karbala will become car bombs in Baghdad, explosions in shopping malls in Mosul and carnage on the streets of Basra? Does he know that the process he unleashed on Monday is not only illegal under our laws but contrary to article 2 of the charter of the United Nations, paragraphs 4 and 7? It is contrary to the Arab states treaty against terrorism, signed by every Arab country, including Iraq, on 22 April this year and ratified by the Egyptian Parliament just last week.

Has the Minister seen the criticism of his new initiative from Amr Moussa, the Foreign Minister of Egypt, and from the League of Arab States? What does he have to say in response to that criticism? Will my right hon Friend say how he viewed the meeting yesterday at the US embassy in Grosvenor square between Martin Endick, the US Under-Secretary of State and the Iraqi opposition groups? Unlike Her Majesty's Government, the American Administration have pledged money and arms to our new friends. What were they discussing at the meeting yesterday? Were they planning how to use those arms? Why did the meeting take place in our capital city? Are our Government privy to the strategy that was being mapped out there?

That brings me to the nub of my argument, which is how far we have a policy of our own toward the Arabian Gulf and to what extent we are being subsumed in a crude, unsophisticated American policy which has done and will do great damage to our once pre-eminent position of influence in the middle east. We were guiding statecraft in the middle east when American cowboys were still ethnically cleansing red Indians.

Wherever I go in the middle east, our friends ask why we are following the USA so blindly. What is in it for us, they ask. They point, for example, to Kuwait, where Britain once had most of the business, and where now we have almost none. They point out that the Union Jack has been burned in the streets along with the Stars and Stripes in countries in which the BBC, the Beatles and Bobby Charlton were once considered the acme of all that was good in the western world.

The fact has not been missed in the middle east that there were no French aeroplanes lined up on the tarmac a fortnight ago to kill 10,000 Iraqis. There were no Italian planes, no Spanish, no German, no Dutch, no Canadian, no Australian, no Russian, no Chinese, no Saudi, no Syrian, no Egyptian, no Moroccan, no Algerian and no Tunisian. There were no planes from the Emirates, and none from Jordan. There was no one from the coalition mustered in 1991, except for John Bull and Uncle Sam. Everyone in the world was out of step, except our Johnnie.

If we really want to end the apparently perpetual cycle of crisis and suffering, and the threats of violence, there are measures that we can and must take. First, we need a new head of UNSCOM, a head who is respected by his colleagues, by the Security Council and in the region.

Hear, hear.

It will surprise hon. Members and the country that no Arab inspectors are permitted in UNSCOM. That means no Saudi scientists or Jordanian engineers. Why? A new UNSCOM leadership must make the effort to build bridges in the region across which success may come.

Secondly, light at the end of the tunnel must be offered to the Iraqis in exchange for their co-operation. Why is it so difficult to produce an agreed file of what has been achieved during eight years of UNSCOM work? Thousands of weapons have been destroyed, many hundreds of sites have been inspected and a huge monitoring apparatus has been put in place. A file might help us to put in perspective that which has not yet been achieved.

I am among those who believe that UNSCOM has almost completely destroyed Iraq's non-conventional military capacity. I say that not because I trust the word of the Iraqi regime, but because it is not logical that Iraq would continue to endure its current agony in order to hide things that it could easily reproduce once sanctions had been lifted. The awfulness of non-conventional weapons is that they exist in the minds of scientists and engineers in all countries. Nor are Einsteins an essential requirement; a group of crazed Japanese terrorists operating from a greenhouse halfway up mount Fujiyama produced enough sarin nerve gas to massacre the population of Tokyo, and they had a delivery system—a human courier—to introduce it to the Tokyo subway.

What is to prevent the Iraqi President from building up an arsenal again? The short answer is that we can do as much or as little to prevent that as we can to stop any dictator becoming over-powerful. Does the Indonesian dictatorship possess weapons of mass destruction? Yes, it does. Does it occupy other people's territory illegally? Yes, it does. Are we starving the Indonesian people, and proposing to bombard them until they give that territory up? No, we are not. The previous Government sold Indonesia all the arms it could buy, and even our Government have not placed a military sales embargo on Indonesia.

UNSCOM should provide a clear list of sites that it wishes to visit. That list can be as long as UNSCOM likes, but once the sites have been inspected and cleared, the matter must be at an end. Of course international monitoring of Iraq will have to continue. Of course an embargo on weapons and military hardware should remain. I have always been in favour of a military embargo on Iraq, unlike the Conservative party. However, only when the murderous economic sanctions are finally lifted will the Iraqi people be able to breathe again.

UNSCOM tells us that it visited 496 sites, but found no violation.

That is correct. It also inspected all the presidential sites. I remember the maps that were brought to the House. We were told that the presidential sites were bigger than Paris, but they turned out to be smaller than Paddington. They turned out to be rather smaller than the presidential sites occupied by our royal family in London, never mind the presidential sites that that family occupies outside the capital. I am against all palaces, and I am glad that the Iraqi ones have been searched, but absolutely nothing was found in them, despite their elevation into a casus belli in February. The sites have been searched over and over. Cameras have been placed on them, but there are no violations.

Let UNSCOM produce a list as long as it likes, so long as, once the list has been exhausted, there is no more moving of the goalposts, and no more pulling of rabbits from hats as excuses for continuing the agony. Only breathing men or women free of constant fear of hunger, illness and disease can turn their minds to politics, and to the need for democratic change in their country. That democratc change is sorely needed in Iraq.

I want to clarify one point, which is whether anything was found. Let me tell my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) exactly what has been found. Since 1991, in carrying out its mandate under United Nations Security Council resolution 687, the UN Special Commission has destroyed or made harmless a supergun, 48 Scud missiles, 40,000 chemical munitions, 690 tonnes of CW agents, 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, and biological warfare-related factories and equipment. The International Atomic Energy Agency found a nuclear weapons programme far more advanced than suspected, and dismantled it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin made an interesting speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow also intervened. However, both my hon. Friends make it their policy in the Chamber to make statements that are simply not true. When we consider in detail the allegations that my hon. Friends make, and when we research the documents that they should have researched, we find that the truth bears no resemblance to their statements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin wrote off the comments made by Mr. Sami Salih, but that man seems to me to have been particularly well connected. He knew all the people involved, and he talked of a series of front companies managed by his friend that were responsible for the importation of defence and military equipment in breach of sanctions, and paid for from revenues for oil exported through Iranian waters and through the port of Dubai. Saddam Hussein has clearly constructed a mechanism by which to employ people to export oil in breach of sanctions to raise money to fund an internal weapons programme. That is a perfectly legitimate target for UNSCOM. We need to know what is going on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin spoke as if there were no threat. Saddam Hussein presents a threat to people in Iraq, and to other people. My hon. Friend said that no aircraft were involved in the multi-country operation last week, but there may be a simple reason for that: many countries may not be prepared to be identified as involved in actions against Iraq for fear of Scud or chemical weapons attacks on them. If I lived in a neighbouring country, that would be my view.

rose—

I would like to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am conscious of the time.

I want to move the debate on, to the position of the Iraqi National Congress and what has happened in Washington. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin knows, $95 million has been allocated to the INC for operations. The Americans have managed to find a way to justify that within their constitutional and legal arrangements. Congress has enacted legislation and has found a way. It recognises that the use of those weapons would inevitably undermine the regime in Baghdad, which must be the preoccupation and objective of all of us. The question is, what is the British position on the matter?

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin set out a perfectly reasonable argument, outlining the international legal framework as he understands it, which in his view prohibits the INC in the United Kingdom from being involved in particular exercises overseas. I want it to be involved in such exercises. I want the Baghdad regime to be brought down. I believe that the civilised nations of the world have a responsibility to break down a dictator who threatens international stability and, in particular, stability in the middle east.

Without wanting to criticise my right hon. Friend the Minister—I support the Government's position, as he knows—I want to know why the Americans are prepared to be a little more robust than the British in the way in which they advocate their support for INC activities. We seem invariably to use the terminology, "It is not our role to be involved in bringing down a foreign leader." I think that we have a responsibility, and I want us to take a more robust position.

Finally, on sanctions busting, which I mentioned recently, I do not understand why we cannot block oil exports to Turkey from Baghdad by lorry. Information on those freight movements is well documented and those revenues, along with those secured by the sale of oil through Shatt al 'Arab and the port of Dubai, are funding the regime in Baghdad. I cannot see how it would be possible for Saddam Hussein to survive if those revenues were cut off. That is another approach, and we should be adopting it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin spoke eloquently for 50 minutes but, despite promises, did not offer us a way forward that would resolve the crisis, apart from suggesting that certain UNSCOM officials should be removed. That was his only recommendation.

That is not true. My hon. Friend cannot have been listening.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech, and that was the only recommendation that I could identify. I do not believe that it will resolve the problem. We need to be far more robust and to take positive action.

I think I am the only Member of Parliament who was born in a country in the Arab world—Yemen—and I simply want to make a brief point to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. Will he assure the House that he has had the fullest possible consultation with our allies in the Gulf?

I recently returned from a visit to Bahrain, where some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) were related to me informally—obviously, the formal position remains that all the Gulf countries fully support the actions that are to be taken by the United Kingdom. However, the House and the rest of the Arab world should be assured that we are consulting our allies and keeping them informed of what is happening, and that we will take no action unless we have their support.

There is a view that we are acting on our own, without consulting others. It is important for the Minister to use this opportunity to reassert the fact that we are going with the co-operation of countries that have always shown Britain good will and which want to continue to trade and invest in Britain and to remain our firmest and strongest allies.

On the final point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), about stopping lorries crossing the Turkish border, the economy of Jordan is entirely dependent on the oil lorries, which go all the way from the Iraqi oilfields to Oman. The Iraqis sell the oil to Jordan at 60 per cent. of cost. The Jordanian economy refines it and pays in kind. It is entirely geared to what happens in Iraq. Therefore, there will be real problems with stopping the oil lorries.

As it is more important that the House hears the Minister than hears me, I shall make one request, which is that, before any military action is taken, a group of American and British officials should at least go to Baghdad to talk in depth to people such as Dr. Riyadh al Quasi. Many points of fact are in dispute. I understand many of the difficulties, not least with Israel, but one hears Iraqis say that there is a synagogue in Baghdad although there is not one in a number of other Arab states. I realise that the Jewish community there may be small and ancient.

There are many matters to be discussed—and before any precipitate military action is taken, for God's sake let us send a delegation, preferably with some Arab speakers, to talk things through properly.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on obtaining this debate. It is even more timely today than it might have appeared to be when he applied for it. He made a powerful speech. At the heart of his position is concern for the future of the Iraqi people. That is a proper cause and basis for anxiety, but it is a concern shared by the international community and reflected in the fact that, notwithstanding the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi regime, it has the facility to sell $10 billion of oil a year with which to finance the purchase of food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Alas, it is not a concern shared by that regime. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, Saddam Hussein chooses instead to spend that money

"on weapons of war and the luxurious life style of his entourage".— [Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 611.]

The concern of the international community—and, I have no doubt, that of the hon. Gentleman as well—for humanity does not stop at the borders of Iraq. What lies at the heart of the anguished consideration that so many people have so often given to the questions that arise as a result of the activities of the Iraqi regime is concern for the people in the region as a whole, as well as and including the people of Iraq. We are dealing with a regime that has proved itself capable of the most brutal treatment both of its citizens and of others—a regime that would not hesitate not only to manufacture but to use weapons of mass destruction. We are dealing with a regime that has played fast and loose with the international community. It is a regime that poses a direct threat to humanity. If Saddam Hussein gets his way, countless lives will be at risk. That is what lies at the heart of our concern.

There is no lack of evidence to support that concern. Last week, the Prime Minister referred to the question marks that remain over 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals for the nerve gas UX; over material capable of producing large amounts of anthrax; and over missile warheads designed for chemical and biological weapons. Contrary to Iraqi assurances, traces of UX have been found in missile warhead fragments.

Reference has been made to the recent Iraqi defector, Sami Salih. I think that the hon. Member for Kelvin acknowledged that he was well placed to testify to the intentions of the Iraqi regime. Sami Salih has said that the regime never had any intention of complying with the terms of the United Nations resolutions on weapons inspections, and that he had seen

"missiles hidden all over Iraq".

Another recent defector, Abbas al-Janati, told the BBC last week that rocket launchers are constantly moved between sites to outwit the UNSCOM teams, and that an army brigade was dedicated to undertaking anti-UNSCOM measures. The threat is real and appalling, and it has to be met with resolve. That real and appalling threat justifies the action taken by the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government, and it makes the most recent breach of faith by the Iraqi regime a matter of acute apprehension.

Last week, the Prime Minister told the House:

"One of two things will now happen: either he"—

Saddam Hussein—

"will co-operate, in which case inspectors will do their job, or he will fail to co-operate and … force will follow."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 612.]

Within days, the Prime Minister and the international community had received their answer; within days, the work of the UNSCOM inspectors was again being thwarted; and within days Iraqi obstruction and prevarication were once again the order of the day.

Of course, we are not arguing for a precipitate response. No doubt it is necessary for a cool assessment to be made of the latest crisis, and the head of UNSCOM may want to report to the Security Council on the latest position. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether there was such a report before the Security Council last night, and give us a more comprehensive statement on the outcome of that meeting of the Security Council than has so far become available.

What we must not have in relation to Iraq is a repeat of the lamentable saga that took place earlier this year over Kosovo. Dire threat after dire threat was issued against President Milosevic of Serbia, not least by our own Foreign Secretary. Time after time, Milosevic was given what was described as a final warning, and, time after time, nothing was done. That is a classic recipe for how not to conduct foreign policy, and the failure of that policy can, alas, be measured in the loss of life and intense suffering that took place in Kosovo. The lesson of Kosovo is clear: if a threat cannot be fulfilled, do not make it.

The whole House will want to resolve the crisis over Iraq, including this latest episode, without needing to take military action—but resolved it must be, and if it can be resolved only through the use of force, Conservative Members will support any action that is clearly related to achievable objectives.

I hope that the Minister will answer a number of questions. Will he clear up the confusion that evidently exists over Government policy towards the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power? Last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested to the Prime Minister that a prime objective of western policy should be the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The Prime Minister appeared to agree with my right hon. Friend.

Since then, we have heard a great deal from the Government about their efforts to help the Iraqi opposition—I hope that the Minister will tell us about any progress that has been made on that front in the past few days—but BBC news was reporting this week that neither the United States nor Britain has declared a new policy of trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Which is true? I hope the Minister will clarify this confusion.

Can the Minister be a little more specific than he and others have been about the precise basis on which they affirm that legal authority for the use of force exists? Will he confirm that the Government believe that no further resolutions of the Security Council are necessary? Which resolutions provide the necessary authority for action, in the Government's view?

Despite what the hon. Member for Kelvin said on the matter—I did not follow his argument at all—and in so far as resolution 687 is relevant, will the Minister comment on the references in that resolution to the return of Kuwaiti prisoners of war? He will be aware that those prisoners of war are widely thought to be still alive and that some of them have reportedly been seen in Iraq. What part does their fate play in assessing Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions?

Will the Minister also say what assistance, if any, the Government plan to give to the Kurds in northern Iraq? He will be aware that there appears to be evidence of a recent rapprochement between the two factions. Can he tell the House more about the situation in that part of Iraq? Can he tell the House about the support for a United Nations tribunal to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity, which he is reported to have announced on Monday? What action does he propose to take to implement that proposal? What time scale is involved? What support has there been from other quarters?

The world continues to face a threat to peace and humanity from the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is a measure of his success in the cat-and-mouse game at which he is so adept that Iraq is not the first item on our news headlines this morning, but its absence from those headlines should not lull either Saddam Hussein or anyone else into a false sense of security. I look forward to a robust and meaningful response from the Minister.

I have been charged with an almost impossible task—answering an enormous number of questions—and I shall do my best to satisfy the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) argued that it was time to consider a new policy, although my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) intervened to make a valid point. It is worth while reminding ourselves of the chronology of events that have led to this most recent crisis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin said that the Iraqis deserve an element of light at the end of the tunnel. That is diplomatic language that we have heard on many occasions. My hon. Friend did not mention that the chronology is crucial: the Security Council agreed unanimously that we should seek a comprehensive review of the sanctions system. That announcement was made by the Security Council on a Friday in October; it was unanimous—there were no difficulties and no differences. My hon. Friend's new policy? It was announced.

What happened? In less than 24 hours, Baghdad had announced its refusal to co-operate with that comprehensive review. My hon. Friend has to explain to the House, and to the public outside, how it is possible for him to argue for a new way and a new approach, and then to suggest that the international community has not offered such an approach when the fact is that it has. It offered a comprehensive review, but it was rejected solidly, wholly—and, in my view, totally incomprehensibly—by Baghdad. That is the position that was taken.

Although my hon. Friend did not refer to it, there has been a litany of broken promises from Saddam Hussein. My hon. Friend is a great democrat—a great believer in word and integrity. Let me say to him that his argument, and his emotions, could be construed by those less charitable than me as an argument in favour of the broken word and rewarding the broken word.

Let us not forget that Iraq has promised co-operation on a number of occasions. On each occasion, that word—the word of the Iraqi leadership, not to the United Kingdom or to the United States, but to the international community—has been broken. Let me take four examples: first, the ceasefire agreement at the end of the Gulf war. I had a wry smile on my face when my hon. Friend talked about Iraq voluntarily relinquishing Kuwait. At the end of that process—

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

No, my hon. Friend spoke for 50 minutes.

What my right hon. Friend has said is false.

My hon. Friend spoke for 50 minutes.

I did not say that.

At the end of the Gulf war, the Iraqi regime signed up to United Nations resolutions and made certain commitments. Those commitments were broken.

My hon. Friend knows that Saddam Hussein has broken his word three times in the past 12 months. First, last November, the then Russian Foreign Minister Primakov intervened to say that, with the word and co-operation of Baghdad, we could look forward to UNSCOM delivering what was necessary and that there was light at the end of the tunnel. The Russians invested a great deal in that. The Foreign Ministers of the P5—the five permanent members of the Security Council—met in Switzerland and made a deal with Primakov, but Saddam Hussein broke it within months. Secondly, Kofi Annan, to whom my hon. Friend rightly paid tribute, went to Baghdad and struck a deal with Saddam. On 5 August this year, that deal was also broken. The last agreement, made only 10 days ago, has again been broken by Saddam Hussein.

We are dealing with a man who, time and again, has broken his word and continues to do so. The fact is that, had Saddam Hussein co-operated, sanctions could have been lifted many years ago. The international community does not want sanctions to continue, but Saddam Hussein has simply refused to co-operate over the years.

My hon. Friend asked what the work of UNSCOM is for and challenged its work. Let me remind the House of what UNSCOM has already revealed: more than 38,000 chemical weapons and munitions; 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agents; 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; 48 Scud missiles; a biological weapons factory designed to produce up to 50,000 litres of anthrax, botulism toxin and other agents. That shows the extent of the threat of those weapons of mass destruction, meant for the people not just of Iraq but of the whole region.

My hon. Friend suggests that everything may now have been found. There is no guarantee of that. We know, however, that the Iraqis have a concealment committee, the purpose of which is to ensure that there is no compliance or co-operation. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe quoted a recent report in The Sunday Telegraph on that matter. The Iraqis are not only reluctant to co-operate, but have deliberately attempted to conceal evidence from UNSCOM. We are dealing with a regime that has used weapons of mass destruction, and I have no doubt that it will use them again.

I share the acute apprehension of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe about what has happened over the past few days. We have said that it is another bad sign of Iraqi non co-operation. Saddam Hussein knows the consequences of continuing that non-co-operation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the legal base for any military action that we take. We believe that we have that legal base. He also asked about the nature of compliance and co-operation. He is right to draw our attention to the fact that it is not just compliance with UNSCOM, however important that may be, but that there are other elements of co-operation and compliance. He is also right to say that the Kuwaiti prisoners of war form an important part of that.

As my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, human rights in Iraq are another element. We have heard much evidence and many quotes this morning, but the recent report produced by the UN special rapporteur, Max van der Stoel, is the most recent authoritative report. It shows that the number of people assassinated this year for their political views has reached four figures. That is the nature of Iraq, and that is the blood that is running down the streets of Baghdad. If people want emotive language, let them have the truth, which is that the Iraqi regime has used its weapons against its own people and killed tens of thousands of them.

My hon. Friend says that he is a great believer in democracy, human rights and socialism. I believe him; I share those views. However, one of the lessons of the 20th century is that, when one is mealy-mouthed and looks for excuses for a dictatorship, that dictatorship will continue and will create havoc wherever it can. Supporting human rights means standing up for those who will be subjected to violence by that regime in the future. I have no hesitation in doing that. I also have a view on new policy and co-operation by Iraq: we must not allow Iraq to get away with a short period of co-operation now before we undertake a comprehensive review of the sanctions regime; we must see true faith and commitment, and a willingness on the part of Iraq to carry out the commitment that it has made.

My hon. Friend spoke a great deal about the humanitarian position. I remind the House what the international community, led by Britain under this Government and the previous Government, has done in relation to "oil for food", and the effects of that programme. Let me give the correct figures. More than $5.2 billion has been raised through the sale of oil to purchase humanitarian aid; $2.5 billion-worth of foodstuffs have arrived in Iraq; and $440 million-worth of medicines have been delivered to Iraq, leading to a marked improvement in the availability of medicines and the number of operations carried out. Those are the latest figures produced by the UN Secretary-General, which for some reason were not included in my hon. Friend's speech. I shall send them to him if he so requires.

Will the Minister give way?

No. My hon. Friend spoke for a long time, which was unusual in an Adjournment debate.

The UN special rapporteur made a number of other comments about human rights, none of which appeared in my hon. Friend's speech—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) keeps intervening from a sedentary position. He had a long time to put his case and he should now listen to the Minister's response.

The special rapporteur said that he holds Iraq primarily responsible for the precarious food and health situation in Iraq. His reasons are: Iraq's refusal to take advantage of the "oil for food" programme for five years, while failing to bring about an end to the sanctions regime; Iraq's prevarication in negotiations, causing the regular interruption of oil sales; and Iraq's discrimination against Iraqis living outside Baghdad, in terms of access to medical supplies. Let me add another reason: Iraq's discrimination against ordinary Iraqis who do not form part of the elite in the Iraqi regime.

Many other points have been raised about the Iraqi opposition. Given the short time available, I shall write to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington on the points that they raised.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No.

I understand the humanitarian concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin. We share those concerns. Our actions have been designed to deal with them. I must stress to my hon. Friend that he should never lose sight of an evil—the existing regime in Baghdad, which has inflicted massive suffering on its people and on people in the region. He must never find himself, in the context of a debate, defending that regime. That is against any ethical view of the world and international relations.

The Minister and I will at least agree on the fact that there will be a total eclipse of the sun in the late morning of 11 August 1999. In the United Kingdom, that will be seen across most of Cornwall and in parts of south-west Devon. It is the first place in the world that the effect will be seen, and will bring travellers from abroad. I am told that people follow eclipses wherever they occur around the globe. The rest of the UK will experience only a partial eclipse, so undoubtedly many people from other parts of the country will go to the south-west to see the total eclipse.

I admit that I do not know how many people will come to see the eclipse. The trouble is that no one knows, not even the Minister. However, we know that it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. The last total eclipse in the United Kingdom was 71 years ago, and the next one will not be for 92 years. It is no surprise that vast numbers of people want to see it. The majority of the accommodation in Cornwall has a waiting list, and vacancies are immediately filled if people hear of the likely problems and cancel their booking. Private properties are being let on the internet for as much as £3,500 a week to people travelling from as far afield as Japan.

The last total eclipse visible from mainland United Kingdom was on 29 June 1927. I have a picture of it taken by my father's brother, because his family travelled to see it. At that time, 3 million people went to see the eclipse in the north of England, despite the fact that most of them did not have a car or other personal transport. It remains the biggest-ever recorded movement of people by train in one day. If even a third of that number come to Cornwall, we shall have a huge national event in an area that already suffers from bottlenecks.

Moreover, 11 August 1999 is a Wednesday, so local people will be travelling to work. It is mid-harvest, the middle of the tourist season and in the middle of the school and university summer holidays. Cornwall and Devon are pretty much full at that time of year, even without an eclipse.

A large influx of visitors is expected at the busiest time of the year. Some still believe that the problem is being exaggerated, and that interest in the event will not be that great. They may be right, although it is a gamble, but the media do not seem to agree, and they are professionals at judging public interest. The BBC estimates that 6,000 members of the media will be in Cornwall. Sky News will deploy 80 per cent. of its satellite relay stations, and expects to reach 70 million people in broadcasts to 40 countries around the world.

Judging by international experience of other eclipses, the county expects 100,000 astronomers and specialist eclipse chasers to arrive. Interest will be further generated by the study of the eclipse as the central focus of the 1998–99 national core curriculum for science for every school in the country, with many schools already booking visits to the county.

I did not know that we had a Minister for the eclipse, but I think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman. As the southern part of my constituency in the South Hams—the tip around Salcombe, where I fortunately live—will have the same advantages for watching the eclipse as Cornwall, the public could view it from Devon, thereby reducing the number of people going to Cornwall, and the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers. People can come to my constituency to see the eclipse as well as go to Cornwall.

I shall make reference to south-west Devon, because it faces the same problems, which are not unique to Cornwall, although we shall bear the brunt of them. West Cornwall will have the first and the longest eclipse, and will have the most problems—bookings certainly suggest that.

How many people will come, and can we cope? Some 500,000 people live in the county. The number of people expected during the eclipse period will far outreach the capacity of the county's infrastructure, which is able to cope with about 900,000 without special measures. That is only 150,000 more than the usual August holiday population, so anything in excess of 150,000 visitors for the eclipse will cause problems. However, we expect far more than that.

It is estimated that 1.2 million visitors can get into the county by road, provided that they spread out their travel over a realistic period rather than arrive immediately before and leave immediately after the eclipse. Travel about 10 days before and 10 days after the eclipse would be realistic. That would bring the population up to about 1.7 million, rather than the 900,000 that the existing infrastructure could cope with.

It is almost impossible to estimate how many people will arrive by train, on cruise liners—many people have already booked berths—by yacht and by air on the many special flights into Newquay that are being arranged. That is likely to bring a further 100,000 visitors.

By that stage, main roads will be jammed, as already happens on summer weekends in many parts of the county when hundreds of thousands travel to temporary camp sites. Sewerage and mains water provision for those sites is a serious problem.

Many estimates far exceed those figures. The general prediction is in excess of 2 million visitors, and some estimates have been as high as 4 million. When we met the chief constable, he said, "That can't be allowed. We can't take more than 2 million." I asked him how we can prevent them coming, once they are in their cars and on their way, let alone stuck in a traffic jam, but there is no obvious answer.

The Cornish riviera brochure gives us a feel of the problem. It is important to understand that this event is not being promoted by the tourist industry in Cornwall. Official brochures deliberately downplay the event, because of the concern about the number of visitors. The brochure provides

"essential reading for intending visitors to Cornwall, before, during and after the 1999 eclipse of the sun"

by giving "Dos" and "Don'ts". It says:

• "Do allow plenty of time for your journey and travel early.
• Do bring essential toiletries, water, or drinks and packaged food.
• Do expect delays and traffic disruption, please be patient.
• Do keep abreast of radio traffic information for local updates.
• Use Park and Ride facilities wherever possible.
• Don't set off without a firm confirmation of accommodation.
• Don't travel on the day of eclipse.
• Don't observe the eclipse without following the recommended safety precautions."

The danger to the naked eye is an important point to mention. I am particularly concerned about children and visitors who may not be aware of the information available in the build-up to this event. Could the Government provide public information to ensure that people protect their eyes in the hour before the eclipse?

The Government have an extremely important role that goes way beyond anything that we can do in the two counties.

I want to concentrate on the capacity in the area because, if it is exceeded, the worst case scenario would be a disaster involving huge road gridlocks, supply failure problems for food, money and petrol, mains water supply failures with taps running dry and emergency services unable to reach casualties or incidents.

The Minister may think that this is primarily a local issue. It will happen locally, but if an unexpected natural event caused such problems, huge support would be available. Because it is predictable, so far no support is available.

There are two key problems, the first of which involves sewerage and water. South West Water's best estimate is that it can purify and distribute water at a rate that would sustain a population of between 900,000 and 1 million, which is half the estimate of the number of visitors. South West Water has said that the take-up of spare bedrooms in domestic residences by friends, family and unofficial bed and breakfast guests will use all the available capacity of sewage treatment plants. That does not take account of any of the planned temporary camp sites, one of which will take 200,000—a population the size of Plymouth.

All camp site portaloo waste will have to be disposed of by other means, and not during the eclipse, because of traffic congestion and other difficulties. That is likely to be difficult, and will cause concern about noise, odour and pollution. We do not know whether it will be possible to supply pure water at reasonable pressure to those sites. South West Water is currently working on that. It is essential to draw Ministers' attention to the funding difficulties, and to the severe risk to public health from water and sewage problems.

Secondly, the emergency services will be affected. In a monthly newsletter to Cornwall's 312 general practitioners, the local medical committee recently announced:

"Eclipse Health Tip of the Month—Don't get pregnant in November".

The committee believes that, nine months from now, jams caused by the eclipse could make it impossible for expectant mums to get to hospital in time.

That sounds quite funny, but the problem will not affect just expectant mums—although in that regard it is actually fairly serious. Any casualty may find it difficult to get to a hospital. Health services have already expressed concern about how they will cope when so many people flood into the county. Normal clinics may have to be suspended, and doctors and district nurses may have to be positioned around the county in order to deal with casualties, rather than assuming that ambulances will be able to take casualties to hospitals. The ambulance service has told me that it is budgeting for at least one extra air ambulance, as well as motor-cycle medics and extra ambulances. It believes that it may have to call on the Royal Air Force to give helicopter assistance, and that it may also need the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service.

The key problem is a combination of severe congestion and the fact that the county is surrounded on three sides by water. For the most part, there are no neighbouring services to help out if ours are overstretched. There is only one main general hospital in Cornwall, along with Derriford hospital, which serves east Cornwall and the Plymouth area. Although much excellent work is already being put into planning, there is only so much that local services can afford—and that, of course, will have a knock-on effect on the provision of services during the rest of the year. Moreover, there is only so much that local services can do at any price, because of the practical difficulties.

The combination of hot weather, camping, overheated vehicles and open-air festivals is bound to cause a problem. A large number of festivals are being organised, although the best advice would be not to organise them. The difficulty is deciding what to do with all those people for all that time, as the eclipse will last for only about 20 minutes. It will be a problem either way. I understand, however, that some major bands want to give concerts on the day, and that will bring into the county people who would not have gone there to see the eclipse.

The usual summer increase in crime will be amplified. That increase inevitably happens when extra people are present, but in this case the police will be further stretched by the need for traffic control, and by the many large events taking place. The police and other emergency services have already cancelled all leave, and will be fully manned from 30 July until 22 August, at considerable cost. I pity them: having had no holiday in the summer, they will then be allowed no holiday in the new year because of the millennium celebrations.

The Devon and Cornwall constabulary has made an initial request to the Ministry of Defence for assistance for all three services with traffic control, recovery, the provision of helicopters for route monitoring and medical facilities during the two main weeks. Measures exist allowing the Government to declare a need for military aid to the civil community, and to agree to finance it from the contingency fund. Such aid may be needed to assist the south-west's emergency services. Support already being considered goes as far as the use of a field ambulance regiment for field hospitals, the secondment of additional doctors and dentists to help with primary care, the provision of helicopters for the movement of emergency supplies and for traffic monitoring, and the employment of the Royal Engineers to help with roads, tracking on camp sites if the weather is wet, and water supply. Someone said to me, "If it is wet, there will be no problem." On the contrary, if it is wet there may be 2 million people in the area with nothing to look at, experiencing appalling conditions. They will be on temporary camp sites, with no proper sewerage and water.

When I asked the fire service how it would cope, a senior officer admitted that, if road congestion is anything like as severe as it is expected to be, the service does not know how it would transport firefighters to emergencies, especially if they are on the main roads.

I have already raised the costs of the eclipse with the Prime Minister. They will have to be borne by ratepayers, the health service and the police, and they will be considerable. The estimate provided by Cornwall county council following consultation with all the emergency services, and with local government, is about £5 million. That amount has been committed, but the need is greater, and many local authorities do not think that they will be able to meet that need. The police have asked the Home Office for additional support, but have received no positive response. Work is under way to produce a more co-ordinated effort. I think that there will be results early in the new year, and I hope that whichever Minister is responsible will agree to a meeting.

Without extra help, our ambulance, police and other services will struggle to cope. Central Government will benefit from extra revenue generated by the eclipse, and businesses in the counties will certainly benefit, but emergency and other public services will bear a cost with no extra return.

When I raised the matter with the Prime Minister, he said that funding mechanisms allowed for it. I think that, after a little more research, the Minister will agree that there is no eclipse fund as such, and that the source of any extra funding is not obvious.

I stress that we need not just financial but practical support. I do not expect the Minister to promise huge sums today—I have participated in too many Adjournment debates to expect that—but I hope that the debate will help to focus Ministers' attention on a problem that has not received the national attention it deserves, perhaps because an even bigger event, the millennium, will take place later in the same year. The Jubilee line extension may or may not be ready for the dome, but it is certain that no new roads will be built to cater for the eclipse in Cornwall.

I am very pleased about the vast amount of preparation being undertaken by local councils, co-ordinating groups, emergency services and the Cornish eclipse county planning co-ordinator, but I fear that it is not enough. The Government should recognise that this is a national event, which will need national support. The problem is exacerbated by an accident of geography, and by sheer uncertainty about the number of people who may arrive. That makes planning next to impossible.

As recently as last night, the Government were not sure who would respond to the debate. The issue, after all, is covered by the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and, of course, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I welcome this Minister, and suggest that it would be practical to give our county co-ordinating committee a point of contact, in helping to co-ordinate the Government's response.

I do not know whether the Minister fancies the job, but what we need is a Minister for the eclipse.

I thank the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for giving us an opportunity to discuss an issue that has already been a subject of considerable debate, and of careful planning in Devon and Cornwall. I appreciate all the concerns that he raised. I thank him for his offer of a new job, but, for reasons that I shall explain, I must decline it. I already have a number of responsibilities, and I believe that the mechanisms that will be provided will enable Devon and Cornwall to respond to the challenge.

As the hon. Gentleman said, this will be the first total eclipse visible from the UK mainland since June 1927, and it will be of interest to many people. It has obvious implications for the police, local authorities and other emergency planning services. I recognise that, and will describe the steps that will be taken. I also recognise the health issues, and will speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about advising the public of the risks involved in viewing the eclipse with the naked eye.

The Devon and Cornwall constabulary will, of course, play a major role in managing the influx of extra visitors. I understand that, in recent months, the chief constable has raised with the Home Office the issue of the additional expenditure arising from the major public order operation that the police will need to undertake because of the large number of visitors who are expected to travel to Cornwall.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for emergency planning in England and Wales, expects local authority emergency planners to deal with issues arising from major incidents or emergencies according to the principles of integrated emergency management. That is an all-hazards approach to emergency planning, which encourages local emergency planners to plan with all the agencies that are likely to be involved in a major incident response. The chief characteristics of plans developed according to the principles of integrated emergency management are that they should be non-specific and flexible, and that they should work well regardless of an incident's cause. They are therefore ideal to handle an event such as the eclipse.

It is fundamental to arrangements for dealing with an emergency that the first response should be at local level. If the scale of an incident overwhelms local resources, the first recourse is usually to mutual-aid arrangements with services in adjacent areas, and the second to military aid. The eclipse is not an unforeseen emergency, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell recognised; it is not a sudden danger requiring immediate action. An eclipse is an event for which there has been sufficient time for local services to plan and, accordingly, to seek assistance under mutual-aid arrangements if that is required.

From time to time, all police forces must deal with major public events, some of which are regular and some unexpected. The role of the police in controlling any outbreaks of disorder is to preserve the peace, uphold the law and prevent the commission of offences. Police tactics and decisions on how to achieve those objectives are a matter for the independent operational judgment of chief police officers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expects that additional costs arising from unique occasions should usually be met from the force's budget and by using its reserves. In certain exceptional circumstances, my right hon. Friend would consider an application for a special grant, although such grants are rarely given, as the criteria are tough. The additional expenditure incurred by the force must be exceptional and of a scale likely to threaten its efficiency.

I understand that Devon and Cornwall constabulary has estimated that the additional cost of policing the eclipse next year will be about £600,000. That is less than half of 1 per cent. of the force's current budget. On the basis of information so far provided by the Devon and Cornwall police authority, it is doubtful whether it will be able to meet the criteria for a special grant that have previously been applied. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has had a working party looking into the issue, is of the opinion that forces should not ordinarily be given special assistance and that Government funding should be allocated through the police funding formula.

As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell knows, police funding is allocated by means of a needs-based formula. Devon and Cornwall constabulary has done quite well under it. Over the past two years, the force has been able to increase its budget by more than the national average—by 4 per cent. in 1997–98 and by 4.5 per cent. in 1998–99. In those years, the average increase for police authorities in England and Wales was just 3.7 per cent. In the current financial year, Devon and Cornwall police authority has a budget of £167.4 million, which is a £7.2 million increase over the previous year.

In 1997–98, Devon and Cornwall constabulary was able to increase the number of police officers by 98 to 2,962. That contrasts with an overall reduction in police numbers in England and Wales of 302. At the same time, recorded crime in the Devon and Cornwall police area fell by 8.4 per cent., compared with an average reduction in England and Wales of 7.8 per cent.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 21 July that, over the next three years, police funding would increase by £1.24 billion. Overall police funding will increase by 2.65 per cent. next year, a further 2.8 per cent. in the following year and an extra 4 per cent. in 2001–2. Provisional police funding settlements for each police authority for 1999–2000 will be announced, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell knows, in the reasonably near future, at the same time as the local government settlement.

Is it the view of the Minister and the police that there will not be an invasion of tourists to watch this sight?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell rightly made the point that no one knows for sure how many people will visit. One cannot anticipate for such an event. The point that I am trying to get across is that the potential scale of additional pressures can largely be foreseen, and measures can be implemented to ensure that this opportunity—it is an opportunity, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and others have emphasised—can be taken without unreasonable and disastrous consequences. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell has raised serious issues, which need to be addressed.

I have covered the subject of police funding, and shall move on to the other services for which the eclipse will have implications, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell rightly emphasised. Emergency planning in the water industry is one of the other main areas affected. In June, under the provisions of section 208 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the Department issued the Security and Emergency Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1998. It requires all water and sewerage companies in England, including South West Water, to make contingency plans, based on the integrated emergency planning concept, to cater for all types of emergency, irrespective of the cause.

The direction specifies the main resources and facilities that water companies should provide in an emergency and the need to consult and co-operate with all relevant bodies. It states that priority should be given to the domestic needs of sick, elderly and disabled people, hospitals, schools and other vulnerable sectors of the community. It also states that regard should be given to the needs of non-domestic users and, in accompanying guidance, examples of livestock and essential food industries are given.

One of the most significant things in the new direction, which was not in the preceding 1989 direction, is that it provides for the Secretary of State to specify the amount of water that an undertaker should provide in an emergency. Companies have been notified that that is 10 litres of drinking water a head per day. New plans to comply with the direction must be submitted to the Secretary of State by 1 April—well before the eclipse—having first been subjected to independent audit.

It is important that all areas that are likely to be affected by the extra work created by the eclipse should keep in close contact. I know that, over the past 12 months, there has been a series of inter-agency meetings involving all those with an interest. An emergency planning co-ordination group has been taking a strategic overview of the problem and, at operational level, the plan review working party has been considering the issues. Such cross-service work is vital in identifying potential problems and producing appropriate solutions.

On resources, I know that there have been calls for the Government to use available measures—under what is known as the Bellwin scheme—to help local authorities cope financially with emergencies. The scheme is designed to prevent an undue financial burden falling on council tax payers of an authority that is affected by an emergency or disaster that threatens life or property. An incident for which assistance is sought must involve clearly exceptional conditions by local standards, and damage to local authority infrastructure for communities must be exceptional, too. In the past, the scheme has generally been activated following events such as freak storms or floods—most recently, severe flooding across the midlands over Easter.

On the face of it, expenditure that authorities might incur as a result of the eclipse seems likely to be outside the scheme's criteria. However, we would of course consider any case that an authority might make for the activation of the scheme. If some of the worst prognoses of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell turned out—unfortunately—to be true and there were very serious problems, the authority would unquestionably be in a position to seek assistance under the Bellwin scheme. I hope that that will not be so. I hope that, with sufficient forward planning, the risk can be minimised. However, I would not rule out altogether the need for such assistance in the event of a serious breakdown of normal administrative arrangements.

As I have stressed, careful planning will be absolutely vital to make the most appropriate arrangements and, indeed, to make the most of the opportunity that is presented by this unusual event. Many more people in Devon and Cornwall will benefit through offering bed-and-breakfast facilities to visitors. Farmers and other landowners stand to gain considerably by offering campsites to cater for the expected 500,000 additional campers who cannot be accommodated on existing sites. I understand that special provisions allow sites on which camping would not normally be permitted to be brought into use for a limited period. That clearly provides an opportunity to cope with the numbers of people, and should raise income for farmers who have made available sites for such use.

I have seen estimates that bed-and-breakfast charges and campsite fees for extra visitors could bring in more than £150 million to the area. The take-up in the unused capacity for hotels and other accommodation will also generate significant income. Given last summer's disappointing weather, I know that several hotel and tourist interests in the west country have been looking for ways in which to increase their revenue. I hope that the eclipse will provide such an opportunity. Obviously, there is an opportunity to encourage people to make a proper holiday of visiting Cornwall, rather than just going for the day. That will benefit the local economy.

The situation is therefore by no means all doom and gloom. Indeed, there is no doubt that people in other areas in Britain wish that the eclipse could be viewed from their location. I noted the naked appeal of the hon. Member for Totnes for people to go to his constituency rather than Cornwall to view the eclipse. The eclipse will present the local tourism industry with a great opportunity to promote itself in both pleasure and business to the vast number of visitors whom the major event will attract. Many visitors will be visiting the area for the first time and may be encouraged to go back, which would be in the long-term interest of the west country's economy. I am certain that local businesses, local people, local authorities and others who have a wealth of experiences in tourism will ensure that best use is made of this wonderful opportunity for Devon and Cornwall.

I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with the south downs, having passed through the area on their way to Brighton for a party conference if at no other time. The downs comprise a fairly unique and sensitive area. They cover a large area, stretching from Winchester to Eastbourne, and are bordered by fairly dense population centres. The area is very dear to the public throughout virtually all south England.

In 1949—when the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was passed—the south downs were one of 12 areas considered for designation as a national park. As it was thought that the downs had been too damaged by "digging for victory" in the war, it was decided that they should not be so designated. None the less, it was decided that the downs should be designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Even in 1949, the downs clearly met the basic criteria for national park status. I submit that, today, the downs even more fully meet the criteria.

National parks must meet four important criteria, the first of which is that they should comprise extensive tracts of open countryside. The downs cover a total area of 1,375 sq km, which, in anyone's book, is quite a large area. The south downs are larger than four existing national parks. There is no question about the natural beauty of the downs. No one disputes their designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Do the downs offer opportunities for open-air recreation? Every year, 32.5 million people resort to the south downs, demonstrating their enormous leisure use. Moreover, leisure use is greater in the downs than in any existing national park. The downs certainly score on that criterion.

What about the proximity of the south downs to population centres? They are close to Southampton, Portsmouth, Winchester, Brighton and Hove, and Eastbourne. That does not even include—

And Worthing.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for forgetting his wonderful constituency.

Undoubtedly there are large populations right next to the south downs. Moreover, it is only a short way up the road to the vast population centre of London. The south downs probably have more people living within very easy reach than any existing national park.

The south downs clearly meet the criteria for national park status. Comments by the Countryside Commission and others to the effect that the downs are not an upland area, and hence do not meet recent interpretations of the criteria, are poppycock. Quite simply, the criteria were established in 1949, since when no national park has been created. There has therefore been no reinterpretation of the criteria since 1949the reinterpretation argument is nonsense.

The south downs can match existing national parks also in their areas of unspoilt pasture and woodland, which—as a percentage of total area—exceed the comparable areas of at least four national parks. There can be no question but that the downs qualify as a national park.

All parties to the argument are agreed that something must be done to give greater protection to the downs.

rose—

rose

I have a choice. I shall take the intervention of the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Countryside Commission has strongly recommended that the south downs should not be designated as a national park? Would he care to comment on the fact that we are all agreed that the downs should have the highest protection, and that the commission's recommendation possibly has something to do with arguments to which he has not yet done justice?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was about to deal with that very point.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the same point?

If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall deal with one intervention at a time. My time is very short.

As I said, everyone agrees that current protection for the downs is inadequate. Several quite serious recent events have demonstrated the impotence of current protection. The only argument is whether the south downs should have national park status or be treated, under the Countryside Commission's recommendations, as an enhanced area of outstanding natural beauty. I should like quickly to examine what is offered by the options, to determine how well they might meet the objectives that must be met to protect the downs.

Conservation is a primary objective. Reconciling conservation with the demands of leisure use also must be a primary objective. If we opt for enhanced AONB status, we will address only conservation issues and not leisure use issues. That is a very important defect in the Countryside Commission's proposals. Conversely, a national park is established with the precise powers to address both sets of issues.

National parks are already covered by strong planning legislation, which would provide the minimum powers needed to protect the south downs. The only power provided by enhanced AONB status would be guaranteed, statutory consultation. That is not sufficient. I have been there—having served on county council planning committees—and have been through paragraph 5 consultations. I know that, sometimes, a district planning authority has already decided on a matter before it is referred to a council for consultation. Such a power is too weak to be of any real use.

The option of legislation should be very carefully considered. We have two choices on legislation. If we protect the downs under the 1949 Act, we will require no further legislation, because all the necessary powers already exist. The Secretary of State would only have to make an appropriate order. Subsequently, there would have to be a public inquiry to determine the boundaries of the area, which would be designated as a park within about 18 months.

If the downs were designated as an enhanced AONB, a Bill would have to be introduced, as there are insufficient legislative powers to make such a designation.

Is my hon. Friend aware of a very good publication, from the Council for National Parks, entitled "Meeting the Challenge"? Although the publication deals specifically with the New forest, it makes some very useful general points on protecting national parks, particularly ensuring that decisions are taken independently of local vested interests.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I am aware of the publication. I am aware also that a debate similar to that on the south downs is occurring on the New forest. The forces ranged on either side of both debates are fairly comparable. I have great sympathy with the claims of the New forest, which I know well from my childhood. I think that my hon. Friend and I would probably agree on the issues.

As I said, if the south downs are to be made an enhanced AONB, a Bill will be required. I do not have to remind hon. Members of current pressures on parliamentary time. At the current rate of progress, there is no real chance of the House passing any such measure in the next five years or so—if by then. Moreover, all we will have achieved in so doing is a measure of protection for the south downs that is inferior to that which is available immediately, by giving them national park status under current legislation.

We all want to do our best for the south downs, which is such a beautiful area. However, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of local people have made it clear that they would prefer to continue with the existing arrangements and not have a national park? There are 14 local authorities, only one of which—the hon. Gentleman's—has said that it wants to go ahead with national park status. As far as I am aware, the other 13 have made clear their opposition to it.

I came fresh to the subject, having moved into the area. I listened carefully to what people had to say before reaching my view that the overwhelming majority of local people want the existing arrangements, broadly speaking, to continue.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention as I was about to deal precisely with his point. In fact, the overwhelming majority of those who have been consulted are in favour of a national park.

Not the local authorities.

Of the 14 authorities consulted, 13 simply took a decision in committee—they did not consult a single member of their electorates. However, Brighton and Hove consulted people living in Brighton and Hove, and the response was overwhelmingly in favour of national park status.

How many?

Hundreds. A national opinion poll conducted by the Ramblers Association showed that in the Meridian television area some 84 per cent. of the public were in favour of national park status. Nationally, of all those aware of the debate, 83 per cent. were in favour. Those who thought that the area should not be given national park status were 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. respectively.

Does my hon. Friend share my view that the recommendations from the Countryside Commission are flawed on three counts—first, the inadequate nature of the consultation process; secondly, the commission's failure to report accurately the response to that consultation process; and thirdly, the sheer lack of understanding of the criteria for national park status and the legal framework, as revealed in the report and recommendations?

I concur with my hon. Friend on all those points.

Time is running out, so I must try to conclude. We must ask, and the Countryside Commission must answer, one important question. As there is already legislation on the statute book to give the best possible protection and management of the south downs—which will give the body a status that will enable it to get funds from the European Union and other sources—why does the Countryside Commission recommend something that will require further legislation, will be exceedingly difficult to deliver and will provide a second-class alternative to national park status?

What I am about to say may also apply to the New forest. What is going on? Are we dealing with entrenched local interests—dare I say landlords? Is it a confrontation which, in a way, mirrors the confrontation between our two Houses? I suspect that there is slightly more to the Countryside Commission's arguments than meets the eye.

On the point about consultation, I am not impressed by the fact that only several hundred people responded out of a 500,000 population in West Sussex, and the same applies to East Sussex. The Sussex Downs conservation board includes representatives from 11 district councils, two county councils and the unitary authority. It has had an accountable and democratic part to play in planning.

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting taking powers from local authorities that are answerable to their electorates. Is he really saying that the views of the councils that did not consult do not matter?

I am not saying that the views of those councils do not matter, but surely the hon. Gentleman cannot criticise consulting the public and claim that consulting a committee provides the same democratic accountability. Clearly it does not. There were thousands of responses from the public, strongly—overwhelmingly—in favour of national park status.

It is not necessary to take all planning powers away from district councils—that does not have to happen. It has been suggested that a strategic plan should be drawn up for a national park, to which all planning authorities should be party, and that the implementation of the plan should be delegated back to the local authorities; but that implementation must be consistent with the national park strategic plan that has been developed. So with respect, neither of the hon. Gentleman's points holds water.

The logic of national park status for the south downs is irrefutable. It is the obvious solution and it requires no new legislation. The alternatives not only require new legislation, but will ultimately provide an inferior measure of protection. The overwhelming interest that should be considered is the public concern to protect and manage the future of the south downs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has been a tireless campaigner for national park status for the south downs. I congratulate him on securing this debate, and I am glad to have the opportunity to reply.

The Government are still looking very carefully at the options for the future sympathetic management of the south downs. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend by not being able to tell him and the House today of any final decision. However, we do hope to be in a position to say something very soon.

Ministers are thoroughly convinced of the merits of the south downs as an outstanding landscape of national significance. It is one which receives an enormous number of visitors annually and which is, to many people, quintessentially English. I am glad to have this opportunity to remind my hon. Friend and others of my recent visit to the south downs. Thankfully, it was on a beautiful day at the end of September. As the guest of the Sussex Downs conservation board, I was shown some of the most famous and popular sites for visitors, including Devil's dyke and Ditchling beacon. Indeed, from Ditchling beacon I discovered how it is possible to get a real feel of the rolling "whale backed Downs" and the mosaic of landscape laid out at their feet.

What was striking about the downs was how remote a feel there is in countryside that is in such proximity to coastal towns and communities. It is incredible to find oneself in such a wilderness only a short distance from coastal resorts. I have had a number of requests from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to come and see more of the downs, and I intend to take up those invitations. Arrangements are in hand to do so.

I have had a number of meetings with those, from both sides of the national park debate, who are deeply concerned about the future of the downs.

When I visited the downs I had the benefit of having as local guides my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Kemptown, as well as leading officials from the Sussex Downs conservation board. I also had a meeting in Brighton with representatives of the South Downs campaign group, which is the grouping of national and local organisations campaigning for a national park. I have since met again some of the interested parties at the Department in London and with several other people, including the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has also discussed the issue with many of those who have a particular interest.

I assure hon. Members that I understand how important the downs are as a recreational resource for their constituents and for many other people living in East and West Sussex, Hampshire and further afield, including the many who enjoy visiting from the London area. I have many times heard quoted the figure of 32.5 million visitors to the downs each year, which is more than twice the number visiting the Lake district. Whatever the accuracy of that figure, what is important is that we can be sure that the south downs, like a number of other areas of national beauty, are not only visited by an enormous number of people who come for all sorts of good recreational reasons, but enjoyed on a regular basis by those lucky enough to live nearby.

What most struck me, as a visitor to the area, is that so many people feel so strongly about the south downs. Whether they declare themselves as for or against a national park, they usually want the same things. Both those who are for and those who are against a national park want a level of protection against major new development that respects the importance of the downs as a nationally recognised landscape and a resource for recreation and for biodiversity. They all want a body that is able to work with others to achieve objectives in a recognised strategic planning framework; one that has an assured future and an appropriate level of funding; and one that is able to manage the downs sympathetically and look after the interests of both local people and the downs' many visitors.

I assure the House that the Government want those things too, and that we are going to deliver them. We want to make sure that we get the precise choice of mechanism right, because the solution must be a long-term one. That is why I am not yet in a position to tell the House which of the options the Government will finally back.

Anyone with an interest in this debate will know that earlier this year the Countryside Commission, as the Government's statutory adviser, advised against a national park in the south downs and in favour of establishing a new statutory conservation board. That recommendation reflected the commission's assessment of the suitability of the south downs for national park status, which it has maintained since the 1950s. It does not constitute a judgment on the quality of the landscape in the south downs, because the legislation does not recognise a difference between the quality of landscapes in national parks and those in areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is the designation that already applies to the south downs.

The recommendation reflects the way in which the Countryside Commission has applied the criteria in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. However, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown that, if we conclude that it is right to do so, we shall ask the commission to look again at the way it operates those criteria.

I have heard criticism from some groups of the way in which the Countryside Commission carried out its consultation process about the south downs in late 1997 and early 1998. I have no wish to enter into the debate on that issue now; suffice it to say that the Government have listened to all the views expressed. My Department has received hundreds of letters since the Commission's advice was received. Brighton and Hove council should be congratulated on the consultation that it carried out locally, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is legitimate for him to say that, at least in his area, people can feel confident that the consultation was broad and varied.

The Countryside Commission's advice to the Government on protected areas contains a number of strands. It is not only about the south downs, important though they are, but about the way forward in the New forest, which we shall have an opportunity to debate tomorrow. It also contains a considerable number of wider recommendations about the protection, funding and management of areas of outstanding natural beauty. Hon. Members will understand that there is a lot of interplay between these questions, and that together they are of some complexity. Those considerations have meant that it has taken some time to move toward our conclusions. To put it simply, we want to get the answers right.

Will the Minister address the point raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) about the legislative process? Will he tell us whether the Government would grant time before five years were up to push through legislation, if the existing status were enhanced instead of the national park alternative being chosen?

We shall give due consideration to the whole process and to the results of the consultations that have been carried out. As I said, we want to take a decision and make an announcement, but we have to get it right.

The Countryside Commission has recommended that the south downs should be the first area to benefit from a statutory AONB conservation board. It believes that that would build upon the success already achieved by the Sussex Downs conservation board, which was set up jointly by the local authorities on the Sussex downs and the Countryside Commission in 1992. Ministers have praised the performance of the Sussex Downs conservation board since it was set up and I echo that praise today. The establishment of the conservation board was purely a voluntary move toward working together by local authorities, assisted by the Countryside Commission. They deserve praise for the effort and the funding that have gone and continue to go into it.

However, what is being sought now is quite different—a permanent body with a statutory framework and guaranteed funding. We are still looking in detail at the commission's recommendations on statutory conservation boards, as primary legislation would be needed to provide for them. The Commission recommended that they should be funded as a partnership, with 50:50 local and national funding. Ministers have since had a considerable postbag from local authorities managing AONBs, suggesting that the AONBs should be funded like national parks.

The Government want to do significantly more for AONBs, but we have to determine how far and how fast we can go, and what the most effective mechanisms are. As a start, we have already provided an extra £2.5 million for the new countryside agency to spend in AONBs next year. That will more than double the budget that the Countryside Commission has so far had for AONBs.

For the purposes of today's debate, the key question is whether the south downs should have the first of a new series of statutory conservation boards, rather than become a national park. As I have said, we are not ready to announce any decision yet. If we bring forward proposals for primary legislation to provide for AONB conservation boards, we shall have to take into account how the opportunity of primary legislation can best be used to provide for the future needs of the protected areas generally, including providing the best solution for both the south downs and the New forest. There are many questions involved, including the interplay with the planning system, local democracy and the regional agenda; the precise powers and responsibilities of the authorities concerned; and the membership and funding arrangements.

I understand the urgency felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about providing a long-term solution for the management of the south downs. The Sussex Downs conservation board currently has funding until March 2001, but we have said that we want to settle on a long-term solution well before the current funding arrangements expire. I assure the House that we will provide that solution as soon as we can.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, and hon. Members on both sides of the House and of differing points of view, for giving us the opportunity to consider these points today. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend, along with other hon. Members present today—

Order.

I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the plight of five families who have lost a family member from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease as a result of human growth hormone treatment. Their position has been made worse by the fact that to date they have not been entitled to any compensation because a judicial ruling in 1996 stated that damages could be paid only to victims who started the treatment, or had the majority of it, after July 1977.

The issue concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who have witnessed the trauma experienced by the families involved. My constituents, Mavis and Tony Lay, lost their 22-year-old daughter Alison to that terrible disease in 1985. Alison was a clever, bubbly girl who was adored by many people. She was the first person in Britain to die from CJD. Her parents' anguish has been made worse by their continuing fight for compensation from the Department of Health.

Let me set out the necessary background details to the case. Between 1959 and 1985, nearly 2,000 children were given human growth hormone derived from donated glands. The Medical Research Council ran the programme as a clinical trial until 1977, when the Department of Health assumed full control.

Although the programme proved successful and was in great demand, not just in Britain but throughout the world, a number of concerns among leading scientists raised the likelihood of a link with CJD. During clinical trials, Dr. Alan Dickinson of the Agricultural Research Council, a veterinary scientist who was working on scrapie, alerted officials at the Medical Research Council to the risk of CJD being transmitted through human growth hormone. He consequently made four suggestions on how to improve the safety of the hormone. Two were never acted on, the third was only partially implemented and the fourth was not put into force until 1980—three years after the Department of Health started running the treatment. The Medical Research Council appointed two virologists as consultants, but that was not until the medical trials had been completed.

The programme also failed to fall within the regulatory framework of the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956 or the Medicines Act 1968, so the hormone escaped any regulation in terms of its safety or purity. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that one senior Government scientist recorded that the laboratories where the hormone was prepared were "wholly inadequate and inappropriate". They were consequently shut down just one year into the Department of Health programme, after failing inspection. The full growth hormone programme ended in 1985 following the death of my former constituent, Alison Lay, from CJD, and similar deaths in the United States.

When the families concerned took their case to trial, the High Court ruled in July 1996 that the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health were negligent in not acting on the scientists' concerns, which probably would have resulted in the suspension of the treatment from July 1977. The judge, Mr. Justice Morland, stated that, if consultants had been properly alerted, new patients would not have been started on the programme. However, he went on to say that those who were already receiving treatment would legitimately have been continued on the programme. The ruling meant that only families of patients who started treatment after July 1977 would be entitled to compensation. As a result, several families were not entitled to compensation and were devastated.

My constituent, Alison Lay, began her treatment in 1972 and her family have had to endure prolonged distress as a consequence of the ruling. Their trauma has been worsened by the refusal of Mr. Justice Morland to go beyond his original ruling.

This afternoon, I would like to put to the Minister a number of compelling reasons for reviewing the matter and compensating the five families.

The fundamental argument is simple. It points to a lack of consistency in the CJD litigation and the unfairness of the matter. It cannot be right that some people who died of CJD from contaminated growth hormone have been treated differently from the rest of the group. Although I understand and do not dispute Mr. Justice Morland's decision to institute a cut-off date, the fact that five families remain unentitled to compensation seems to be unjust and unfair.

It is also clear that, because only five cases are outstanding, there will not be any further claims of this precise nature and that, by changing their stance, the Government would not be opening the floodgates to many appeals.

The hon. Gentleman is referring to human growth hormone, yet he is talking about CJD being linked to cattle and sheep. Is he talking about CJD in general or about people who had been given human growth hormone which is extracted from human pineal glands?

I apologise if I have not made it clear that I am referring to CJD caused by the use of human growth hormones in treating other humans.

In view of the limited number of outstanding cases, the Government should be persuaded on compassionate grounds that some form of compensation should be awarded at limited cost to the Department of Health.

There is an additional issue that makes a compelling case for compensation to the five families. In June this year, six individuals won compensation of between £3,500 and £300,000 due to having suffered from psychiatric illness because of "rational fears" of contracting CJD. One wonders why the principle of extended compassion cannot be stretched just a little further to encompass the five cases that I have outlined.

Let me remind the Government of their stance on the issue in opposition, when they pressed strongly for compensation for CJD victims. For example, the then shadow Health Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, stated:

"Ministers should establish an inquiry in the UK as a matter of urgency and examine ways in which a compensation scheme might be set up."

There is certainly no doubt about the Government's recent commitment to try to settle many outstanding compensation issues.

Perhaps the Government should follow the examples of Australia and France, where all CJD claimants have been compensated without having to establish liability. Is there not a similarity between the case of the haemophiliac victims who became infected with HIV through contaminated factor 8 blood products? In that case, the Department established a no-fault compensation scheme. Is that not a practical example of how the remaining five CJD cases should be handled?

It may be that the Minister will take the same view as the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who stated last year in an oral reply that no further compensation should be given over and above Mr. Justice Morland's ruling because

"it must be the first and overriding responsibility of the Department of Health to concentrate on preventing ill health and curing it when it occurs, not on compensating those who have contracted that terrible problem."—[Official Report, 18 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 730.]

Although I do not dispute the main responsibility of the Department of Health, there is a moral case for compensating the five families. I ask the Minister to remember the human suffering and injustice that have taken place and to try to resolve the issue speedily by compensating the five families. The numbers are small, and the cost to the Department of Health is not significant. Is it not time to end their distress? As my constituent, Mavis Lay, stated:

"we have had enough torment over the last 14 years."

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for raising the issue and to Alison Lay's parents, who have been tireless campaigners since her death.

Let me recap the history of the tragedy. The human growth hormone treatment programme ran from 1959 to 1985 and just under 2,000 children were treated in the United Kingdom during that period. It is a real tragedy that, as a result of the programme, there have been 27 deaths in the United Kingdom from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which, as we all now know, is a dreadful disease with awful consequences. The use of human growth hormone ended in 1985 when the link with CJD was established.

Children with growth deficiency may suffer permanent short stature, disability or even, in some cases, death. Most children are diagnosed as having a growth deficiency by a paediatrician in a specialist child growth clinic. The growth hormone that has been used since 1985 is manufactured genetically and is regarded as safe.

As we now know, CJD was transmitted through the human growth hormone that was used in the human growth hormone treatment programme. The administration of that programme by the Department of Health and Social Security, as it was then, was the subject of a comprehensive and open hearing in the High Court before Mr. Justice Morland, as the hon. Member for Winchester said.

The main court hearing ran from April 1996 to July 1996. During the hearing, the judge conducted a thorough examination of a great deal of documentary evidence on the conduct of the programme, and heard evidence from witnesses, including some of the most eminent experts in the field.

The Department co-operated as far as possible in the full production of all the documents and witnesses that could help the court to understand and unravel the circumstances surrounding the administration of the treatment—everything that was relevant and could be traced was produced.

Mr. Justice Morland found that the Department had been negligent in the administration of some aspects of the programme, and patients whose treatment commenced after 1 July 1977 and who had been treated with growth hormone prepared according to the Wilhelmi or Hartree Wilhelmi method were successful in their action. He ruled that, on that date, action should have been taken to withdraw the HGH treatment or clinicians should have been warned that CJD could be transmitted. The date was set as the benchmark for compensation. The Department of Health, but not the Medical Research Council, was ruled to have been negligent.

Representatives of a number of patients who had died of CJD and whose treatment had straddled 1 July 1977 appealed against the finding—their appeal was heard in November 1997. The Court of Appeal referred the case back to Mr. Justice Morland to clarify some aspects of his original finding.

A further hearing took place during April this year. Mr. Justice Morland reviewed his earlier judgment and upheld the appeal of those patients who were treated with Wilhelmi or Hartree Wilhelmi hormone and who had received at least half their treatment with that preparation after 1 July 1977. Fourteen patients are involved, and we are working with the legal representatives of their estates to finalise any compensation that is payable.

The Department has accepted all those findings in full. We have sought at all times to co-operate fully with the courts and to comply as quickly as possible with their judgments. I have also accepted that any patient whose treatment with human growth hormone meets the criteria set by the court and who contracts CJD will receive compensation in terms similar to those reached for the plaintiffs who took part in the court action. Sadly, we have already had to pay interim compensation to four patients in that situation, and we will continue to make payments in any further cases that may arise.

I am also aware of the very real worries of all those treated with human growth hormone who are well at present but could contract CJD. I am sorry that their lives should be blighted by the knowledge that they risk contracting the disease. We all wish that they were not in that position—obviously, we all hope that the worst will never happen.

Some of the human growth hormone patients took legal action against the Department, claiming damages for the psychological harm and distress that they had suffered. I have met a number of those patients and those associated with their cases.

The case was heard, again by Mr. Justice Morland, during April and May 1998—the judgment was given in June 1998. As a result of the earlier negligence finding against the Department, the judge found that human growth hormone patients would be entitled to compensation if their treatment was completed after 1 July 1977, they received Wilhelmi or Hartree Wilhelmi hormone and they were suffering from a recognised psychiatric illness as a result of knowing that they were at risk of CJD. Again, we have accepted that finding and have agreed and paid compensation in 29 cases. A number of further claims are being investigated.

I know that many hon. Members have been concerned about the implications of that judgment, but we must recognise that all medical treatments, particularly new treatments, carry some risk. We intend to minimise that risk. Earlier this year, we announced proposals on some of the ways in which we will review our procedures and practices and issue guidance on the safest, most effective and most appropriate management of clinical practice.

Under those proposals, which were announced in July 1998 in the document "A First Class Service", the new national institute for clinical excellence will draw on expertise developed across a wide range of national and regional bodies to produce guidance and ensure that treatments are provided on the basis of safety, quality and efficacy.

I am aware of the calls for a general no-fault compensation scheme. I understand the motivation for those calls—many of which are from those who, as a result of the courts' decisions, will not receive compensation—and have given the question much thought.

The Government's policy—like that of the previous Government—is that compensation will be paid only when negligence has been proved. We believe that paying compensation on a no-fault basis would be enormously complicated, would not necessarily solve the problems that are being encountered, would be expensive and would have ramifications beyond the health service.

We believe that compensation should be paid only when a duty of care is owed, when a negligent act has been committed and when harm has been caused by that negligence. It is clearly better for the national health service that money is spent on direct patient care, rather than on the inordinate costs incurred in fighting compensation claims. Hon. Members will want to know that we are continuing to fund the counselling service for patients who were treated with human growth hormone and their families.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on his contribution, in which he made some very serious points. However, the CJD argument has moved on. We are talking about compensation for the use of growth hormone, but what if blood products and medical instruments are found to carry similar risks? The Minister has a duty of care, so will she give a pledge to compensate those who may suffer from her negligence, and that of the Department, in not making clear today the risks of CJD infection from such sources?

The Government are absolutely committed to publishing information and evidence on the risks from CJD and on other public health hazards. We will seek the best scientific evidence, which we will publish and act on. Our framework for determining compensation remains that, where negligence is proved by the courts, compensation will be paid.

Many hon. Members have constituents who are in this distressing situation. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Government—by relying today on a legalistic argument for what is a limited claim for a tiny number of people—will appear to people outside to be taking a heartless attitude?

I very much hope that the Department's approach—which extends beyond this specific issue, and is a matter of general principle—will be seen as fair, not heartless. In everything that we have done in representing the Department's position and recognising the heartbreak suffered by the families, we have sought to establish a balance between what is fair and reasonable and not exposing the Department or the national health service to completely unfettered claims which have not been founded on clear evidence of negligence. We believe that the establishment of negligence in the courts is the fairest way of determining compensation. Once the judgment has been made, we have proceeded as quickly as possible to ensure that compensation is, in practice, paid to the families concerned.

I wish to remind the hon. Member for Winchester of the continuing support available to families provided by a unit under the leadership of Professor Michael Preece which is located at the Institute of Child Health in London. It was established in 1992 and does valuable work in supporting patients who have CJD, as well as those who are treated with the growth hormone but who are well at present. The unit is available to provide advice for clinicians and other health or social services staff who may have contact with human growth hormone patients, as well as to mobilise local health and social services to help human growth hormone patients, especially if CJD is suspected.

I fully understand the real concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Winchester. I am as anxious as the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate to see what lessons can be learned from the tragic circumstances surrounding this treatment programme, to bring the matter to a swift and just conclusion and to ensure that we increase the chances of such mistakes and such dreadful tragedies never happening again.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I would like to take the point of order after the statement. I have had some indication of what the point of order may be, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must take the statement first.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outcome of the European Union Agriculture Council held on 23 and 24 November, at which I represented the United Kingdom. My noble Friend Lord Sewel, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, was also present.

The Council voted on a proposal by the Commission for the lifting of the worldwide ban on the export of British beef in respect of meat from animals born after 1 August 1996: 10 member states voted in favour of the measure; only one, Germany—for understandable domestic reasons—voted against; and Spain, France, Austria and Luxembourg abstained.

The vote represented a substantial move towards the Commission proposal by five member states from the earlier vote in the Standing Veterinary Committee. Most importantly, the procedures under which the vote was taken in Council enable the Commission formally to adopt the decision.

I can now announce to the House that, within the past three hours, the Commission has adopted the proposal permitting the export from the United Kingdom of boneless beef and beef products from animals slaughtered between six and 30 months of age and born after 1 August 1996. That is the date on which the Commission has verified that all contaminated feed was removed from the feed chain. There are further conditions aimed at preventing the offspring of BSE cases from entering the export scheme; a requirement for the slaughter of offspring of BSE cases; and strict rules on slaughtering and processing.

The Government will shortly issue a consultation paper on our proposals for implementing those rules. I shall lay before Parliament secondary legislation to make compulsory the offspring cull, which has been operating since July on a voluntary basis. The legislation will provide compensation at the market rate to owners of animals slaughtered.

I am sure that the House will welcome this excellent outcome. It has been achieved against a background of scepticism about the seriousness with which we have tackled BSE. We have overcome the misconceptions, and had our case judged objectively on its scientific merits and supported by independent Commission inspections, taking as our overriding principle the absolute need to safeguard public health.

Every Agriculture Minister who spoke in the Council, including those who did not vote in favour, had very positive things to say about the commitment shown by the new United Kingdom Government to tackling the problems presented by BSE. The outcome is also an affirmation of the value of the Government's close co-operation and dialogue with our partners in Europe and with the European Commission.

The lifting of the ban comes hard on the heels of the support measures for agriculture that I announced to the House on 16 November. Both demonstrate the Government's commitment to securing a viable long-term future for the sector.

The Council also held a discussion of the Commission's proposals for common agricultural policy reform in the context of the Agenda 2000 measures. The proposals are essential for the future stability of European agriculture, and in order to facilitate a successful enlargement of the Union to the east. The Council agreed a report to the Vienna European Council next month identifying the main outstanding issues, and expressing its determination to reach conclusions on the package as a whole by next March.

It is an important Government objective to secure an ambitious reform of the CAP that serves the national interest, and, on behalf of the Government, I warmly welcomed the commitment by the Council to take early decisions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made similar points in the discussion at ECOFIN on 23 November on the future financing of the European Union.

It was a very important Council meeting for the United Kingdom. We have achieved a major objective of our policy towards Europe in the lifting of the beef export ban. Although it will take time for the British beef industry to win back markets that have been lost to it in the past two and a half years, I believe that we have created the conditions in which it can now plan for the future, confident that the industry has been modernised and is operating to the highest possible standards. Our immediate task is to work with the industry to ensure that the scheme that we have successfully negotiated in Europe works effectively to help to regain recognition for the quality of British beef on world markets.

I welcome unreservedly the partial lifting of the beef export ban, and I warmly congratulate the Minister on his achievement. It is a tribute to his personal skills that he has secured an agreement that eluded his less diplomatic predecessor.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, and without detracting from his negotiating success, will the Minister acknowledge that the measures needed to satisfy the European Commission were in place before the general election? Is he also aware that there will be disappointment that the lifting of the ban is only partial, and that beef on the bone will still not be eligible for export? Does the Minister agree that many customers want carcase beef, and, because they will not be able to buy it from Britain, a significant part of the market will still be closed to us?

I turn to the conditions attached to the decision. Are there still animals in the cohort cull which need to be traced? Could he expand on the strict rules he mentioned which will be required for slaughtering and processing? For example, will the abattoirs from which beef for export will be taken have to be dedicated solely to exports? How quickly does he expect the European officials to carry out the necessary inspections in this country? What support will the Government give to the promotion of British beef exports, especially in view of the help that was given to Northern Ireland and the need for mainland British beef producers to receive some assistance? What steps will the Government take to ensure that beef is back on more school menus? How soon will British service men abroad be able to enjoy British beef?

Does the Minister agree that recovering our export markets requires the co-operation of all European countries? Was he concerned by the report in The Guardian today of a possible German threat to boycott British beef? The Government are keen to have dialogues with their European partners, and the Minister met a German Minister only last week. Was that possible ban discussed at that meeting? If Germany is able to ban the sale of British beef, why does not the Minister immediately halt the sale of imported pigmeat in Britain produced under conditions that we do not permit?

In view of the Council's decision, is the lifting of the Government's home-made ban on beef on the bone in Britain now more or less likely? Does not every day that that ban remains further undermine confidence in British beef? Did the Minister use the two-day Council meeting to raise our growing concern about the export to Britain of meat products produced under conditions illegal in this country? In view of the confusion caused by conflicting statements from the Minister and the British Retail Consortium, and by the Government's failure to bring forward promised legislation on the food standards agency, is not the halting of such illegal imports, which include poultry from the far east, all the more urgent?

Did the Council discuss the review of the labelling directive? What steps are the Government taking to end the practice of selling food labelled with a Union Jack that contains food grown outside Britain and merely processed here? Will the Minister press his fellow Ministers for more honesty in labelling?

The Minister referred to Agenda 2000 in general terms. What progress has been made on specific issues since the March Council? For example, can he give the House the Government's view on labour unit modulation? Does he still support Lord Donoughue in the call for a 30 per cent. cut in milk support prices? What is the Government's view on proposals for national envelopes? I ask these questions in an entirely constructive spirit. The Minister deserves credit for his achievement, but the bottom line is how soon significant beef exports will resume. When will the farmgate price of British beef start to rise, and when will one of Britain's most famous and desirable products resume its rightful place at the top of menus around the world?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's ungrudging and unqualified endorsement of my statement. He had some subsidiary questions, some of which run a little wide of the original statement. He asked about farmgate prices in the beef sector. I am certain that, when the market returns to normal, which includes recovering a substantial proportion of the export markets that we used to have, we will see an impact on the domestic industry as well.

I am not in a position to give the House a forecast today. I can say that it is my objective to have the date-based export scheme up and running and past its Commission inspection by next spring, so that we will be able to make a start on exporting, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, deboned beef products worldwide. We are not talking just about trade with the European Union: it is a worldwide ban.

On national envelopes and the British proposal, along with the Italians, the Danes and the Swedes, for a more radical review of milk quotas, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, although those things were discussed by Ministers on the Monday night, there are no conclusions yet. I can tell the House that Ministers have taken a hard look at the estimate of the costs of the different reform proposals that have been put forward by national delegations and by the Commission.

The hon. Gentleman asked about my meeting with the British Retail Consortium to try to get clear labelling so that consumers can make a choice. I have already told the House that the agreement made was for fresh meats, processed meats and own-label meats that are directly under the control of the supermarkets concerned. I cannot ask the supermarkets for a commitment on processed meats that are supplied to them by other suppliers in turn—[Interruption.] I thought that the Conservative party used to believe in free trade. There are those of us who believe in free trade and consumer choice, and I believe that consumers should be able to choose.

What about illegal products?

The hon. Gentleman is shouting about illegal products. If products are illegal, I and the rest of the Government stand ready to take action. I invite the hon. Gentleman to send me the specific evidence that he undoubtedly has—he would not have made the comments otherwise—about food products coming into this country without meeting the standards that Parliament requires; I will then have it looked at by the competent officials, and stand ready to respond to any serious detailed allegation that he can make.

I must tell all hon. Members that is not enough to make generalised charges—we can all do that. Just as we object to consumers in other countries saying that they are not sure that British beef is safe to eat—they are wrong, because British beef is among the safest in the world—surely it is not right for us to say that other nation states cannot produce food products to the standards that we insist on here, because they clearly can.

The hon. Gentleman asked about beef on the bone. I have told the House before that, when the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee reports to me that it is appropriate to lift the domestic ban on beef on the bone, I will do so. I will do so on the basis of scientific advice, not on the basis of political will, which is what the hon. Gentleman is advising me to do. At the Conservative party conference, he said that he would lift the ban. There would be no consideration of whether it would be right to do so: he would just lift it anyway. I cannot do that. It would not be responsible for me to do that. The scientific advice comes first. I will consider it, and, when it is proper for me to do so, I will lift the ban.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about the importation of pigmeat, and invited me to ban it. If he has specific evidence that pig products that are coming into this country do not meet the proper food safety standards, I will consider that, and make sure that the appropriate authorities look at it. He must come forward with specific evidence, not generalised assertions.

The hon. Gentleman asked about consumers in Germany. I hope that consumers there, throughout western Europe and worldwide will understand that we have made an enormous effort, and spent an enormous sum—more than £4 billion will have been spent on the BSE crisis by the end—to ensure that our beef products are among the safest in the world. I fully accept that consumer perceptions may be based on the conditions of 10 years ago, not the conditions now. We must explain ourselves, and I stand ready alongside the Meat and Livestock Commission to explain what the Government have done to ensure that British beef is safe, and to enable us to recover our export markets. The effort includes serving British beef to service men overseas, and ensuring that education authorities and others in the United Kingdom who purchase meat products in bulk have confidence in British beef.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Commission inspections. The date-based export scheme process will have to be inspected by the Commission, and I am confident that we can get that scheme up and running, and get it through its inspection. The Commission is ready to make the inspection when we get the scheme up and running. The hon. Gentleman asked about slaughterhouse rules. The scheme is slaughterhouse-based, not farm-based. The rules require slaughterhouses to be dedicated to the date-based export scheme, but they may also handle other animals, such as pigs and sheep. They cannot handle non-date-based export scheme cattle.

The hon. Gentleman asked about progress on the cull. Some progress has been made with a voluntary cull, but there is more to do, and that is why the Government will make the cull compulsory. I shall introduce regulations soon, and compensation will be paid to farmers at market value.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that the arrangements for lifting the ban were first put in place by the previous Government. It is true that the agreement in principle was made at Florence, but that was not the difficult bit. The difficult bit was implementing the agreement, both credibly and in a way that would persuade our partners in the European Union that we had implemented it credibly. The agreement was based on co-operative working, and on our acceptance that we had to be able to explain the scheme, to prove it and to justify it on the basis of science and on its technical implementation.

I would not have been able to achieve agreement without the hard work, energy and skill of my predecessor, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Agriculture Ministers from other nation states always ask after my right hon. Friend, mentioning the skilful way in which he managed the British presidency. The impact that my right hon. Friend made on the Agriculture Council during our six-month presidency convinced our EU partners that we were a new Government with a new approach, with whom they could deal. That was not the case with the previous Administration.

I unreservedly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. It is a victory for effective diplomacy and quiet negotiation, unlike what happened under the previous Administration. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about his welcome decision to extend the cull to beasts affected by maternal transmission of BSE, including cases in which cohorts are affected? Does he agree that we will be safe only if we move as quickly as possible towards implementing a food standards agency?

I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I am committed to the food standards agency, as are other members of the Government. I intend to discuss with territorial Ministers and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Chancellor how best to take the proposal forward, given that it has no slot in the legislative programme. That proposal is going to be taken forward. My hon. Friend is right to say that the cull is a necessary condition of the scheme. Of course, farmers will be compensated at market rates, but the proposal must be taken forward. The voluntary scheme has not brought in all the animals that I would have wanted, so we must make the cull compulsory.

I estimate that about 3,500 animals will have to be culled under the scheme, which is designed to deal with maternal transmission. It is so important that we not only get the date-based export scheme up and running, but that we do so in a way that will restore consumer confidence in our products, not merely in the markets that are used to dealing with the United Kingdom but among those countries that have been the most critical and sceptical. I look forward not only to a completely clear report from the Commission but to our being able to explain what we have done in countries such as Germany, where there is still uncertainty about British beef products.

The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Minister's negotiating skills. This has been one of the worst crises to affect agriculture this century, and we are pleased with the result that he has brought back from Brussels. The industry has warmly welcomed the proposal, and rightly so. It is a bit rich for the Conservative Opposition to carp about it. After all, they are equivocal about qualified majority voting and the powers of the Commission that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today. If the Opposition's policy were in place, the attitude of the Germans, who wanted to maintain the ban, would have ensured that it stayed in place. That is an extraordinary state of affairs.

Perhaps the Minister will also accept that we are pleased that full market values will be given for animals that have to be sold under the offspring cull, which will greatly help the farming community.

The development of the market is extremely important. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us some idea what the MLC will be doing to promote British beef on the continent, and why the French and the Spanish, in particular, did not vote in favour of lifting the ban, but abstained. What were their reasons for doing so, and will that affect our ability to market in France and Spain?

Finally, the Agriculture Council discussed many other agricultural matters, and I am sure that reference was made to the package to supply food to Russia this winter to relieve starvation. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of a special scheme to send British sheepmeat to Russia this winter to alleviate problems in the sheep market here and assist the Russians by preventing starvation?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for today's announcement, and for the constructive part that the parliamentary Liberal Democrats have played in these matters.

On food aid and sheepmeat, we cannot use our food surpluses crudely to provide stocks to Russia. Humanitarian aid schemes to Russia are being put in place, which involve credit lines and the provision of some food aid. They are being co-ordinated on our behalf by the European Union, and the United States has put in place a separate range of measures.

However, in these matters we must be conscious of our obligations to the World Trade Organisation. It would not be fair to take other people's market opportunities by dumping our surpluses. Nevertheless, we should stand by Russia in what is going to be a difficult winter, and show solidarity with the Russian people, which means ensuring that any food aid sent—I am certain that some will be—gets to the people who need it. There are clear concerns about the distribution network there.

On the opposition from France and Spain, at the Standing Veterinary Committee, France, Spain, Italy, Holland and Germany voted against the Commission's proposal. I had bilateral meetings with each of those member states, and was able to justify the Commission's proposal, which is, of course, the United Kingdom proposal, on the basis of the science and the implementation of the scheme. I was able to ensure a welcome shift towards the Commission from all those national delegations. I would have preferred a positive vote for the Commission proposal, but the best that I could get was the abstention, which enables the proposal to be brought into effect by the Commission.

The overriding reason why countries are not able to give whole-hearted support to the scheme is the enormous damage that BSE has done to the beef market across western Europe. It is not only a United Kingdom problem; the market has fallen further in Germany than it has in this country, because of consumer fears about BSE. This is naturally a serious matter for our partners, and when we are trying to achieve agreement on matters of this kind, it is a good idea to step back and try to see the problem from their point of view, instead of asserting our own, and demanding that people always agree with us.

The measured, science-based approach that the British Government have adopted is the right approach. It has commanded respect from national delegations, even those that have not felt able to lift the ban yet. Nobody—not a single nation state—said that it should not be lifted; the issue was timing, and clearly the political leaders will have been worried about consumer opinion in their own countries. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to worry about—the protection of the public must come first in these matters.

As for explaining ourselves in difficult markets, the Government stand ready to work with the Meat and Livestock Commission—and, indeed, the industry— to make sure that we explain ourselves and rebuild our markets. I certainly stand ready to do what the Government properly can to help.

My right hon. Friend's announcement is a further example of the Labour Government delivering on their pledges—we have done it; the Conservatives destroyed the market.

I take my right hon. Friend back to the Meat and Livestock Commission, and what part it can play in Europe. Will we support it with increased resources? Will it sponsor an advertising campaign throughout the European Union to develop the markets for beef, and our re-entry into those markets? Will there be any opportunity for British producers to promote beef—perhaps through trade fairs—and perhaps even to foster some sort of beef price war in Europe so that we can reclaim markets, taking into account the experience of the Northern Irish in recent months, which has not been too good?

I welcome what my hon. Friend says, and thank him for his kind remarks.

On exports from Northern Ireland, when I visited Bologna last week, Paolo de Castro, my Italian ministerial counterpart, served me Northern Ireland beef and Italian mushrooms for lunch. It was not only delicious, but a great compliment, and it shows how far things have moved. The best thing that we can do is explain how Britain has got through the BSE crisis, explain what measures we have put in place to ensure that exported British beef is truly among the safest in the world—that goes for Northern Ireland beef from the herd scheme that is in place in Northern Ireland as well—and restore consumer confidence in British beef as a first-class product.

The MLC has a number of ideas, and I stand ready to explore all these matters with it, but I do not want to make a further announcement this afternoon.

May I congratulate the Minister, without equivocation, on his achievement in obtaining a lifting of the export ban on British beef? There is no doubt that his personal negotiating skills have played a part, and I congratulate him on that.

Will the Minister answer two questions? First, when does he think that SEAC will advise him to allow the sale of beef on the bone in the United Kingdom? That would be another fillip and encouragement to the farming industry. Secondly, will he ensure that the veterinary and hygiene costs that are to be imposed on our abattoirs are no greater than those imposed on abattoirs in countries elsewhere in the European Union? The abattoir industry in this country is greatly concerned that the costs that it is having to meet will put some abattoirs out of business. Those costs are unfair, and not the same as those being imposed in other EU countries.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He has not always spoken warmly about the European Union and its institutions, so his remarks today are all the more welcome. I promise that I will take a hard look at the costs of the meat hygiene service and veterinary surgeons in abattoirs, and see what can be done. Public safety must come first, however, so I am not certain that I shall be able to do everything that he wants. I take the point that he made about comparable costs in other member states. He asked about advice from SEAC. I anticipate a report from it soon.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he, his departmental colleagues and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), deserve the thanks of the whole House for getting us to this point?

Although I accept that, if we are to meet the stringent conditions for exporting British beef and rebuilding our export markets, the main challenge lies with the meat industry, including abattoirs, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have an important part to play, not least because of the emphasis on traceability in relation to the cull and the criteria for exporting beef? Is he willing to take a personal interest in the new cattle traceability scheme, and do his level best to make the centre at Workington a model not just for Europe but for the rest of the world in terms of speed, reliability and overall efficiency?

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. He, too, has played a part in those matters. What he says about traceability is absolutely right. Traceability is here to stay. I have visited the cattle movement service headquarters at Workington—indeed, I opened it. I found the young staff enthusiastic about what they were doing, and doing a good job well. On support for the meat industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission, I shall see what I can do to help.

I hope that the Minister and the House will join me in thanking the Minister's officials, who deserve praise for their contribution to the lifting of the ban. Without their work behind the scenes, none of the progress in which we can rejoice today could have been made.

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) asked the Minister whether resources would be made available from within his existing budget to help with the marketing effort. Will he produce a parallel package—in pro rata terms, worth some £11 million—to that provided by the Northern Ireland Office to help it to rebuild its markets in Europe?

I must operate within the budgetary constraints of the comprehensive spending review, but I shall see what I can do. It is right that the Government explain to those who used to be our trading partners in beef—we hope that they will be our trading partners again—exactly what we have done to ensure that the public, overseas and at home, are protected from BSE and new-variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The only way that we can rebuild our markets is through proper explanation.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about my officials. In my short time at the Department, I have been well served by senior officials, who have put in very long hours, not only to join me in the range of bilateral discussions that I have had to have with other countries, but to prepare for the meetings and discuss with other officials, so that the Ministers I meet are properly advised. They have worked extremely hard, and deserve the House's gratitude.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his successful and doughty efforts. He speaks for the whole country. How does he assess the impact of the lifting of the ban on Wales, especially on my constituency, where farmers have had a nightmarish time, and have edged towards bankruptcy? How does he assess the impact of CAP reform on dairy farming?

The British, Italian, Danish and Swedish proposals for reform of the dairy sector are extensive, and involve a phasing out of quota by 2006. They have not been agreed by others on the Council of Ministers, and the Commission and other member states have made alternative proposals. It is too early to give my hon. Friend a definitive answer, but we want radical reform.

The announcement was widely welcomed by farm leaders from Welsh farming unions. Such is the importance of the announcement that they were in Brussels to hear at first hand how matters had transpired at the Council of Ministers. I hope that today's announcement, together with the one I made last week on support, particularly through the hill livestock compensatory allowances, will have a positive impact on agriculture in Wales.

I congratulate the Minister, as I am sure the whole House does. First, has he taken any action with America and Canada to ensure that their import ban is lifted? No one can now argue that British beef is not as safe as beef from anywhere else in the world. Secondly, is it not a hurdle to the export of animals that it has to be proved that the dam was alive six months before the animal to be exported goes into the scheme? Is it correct that a statement witnessed by the farmer will not be adequate? Will the Ministry of Agriculture establish a special unit for this purpose? If so, will he ensure that farmers, who have suffered profit losses of between 45 and 50 per cent. over these years, will not have another cost imposed on them, and that the cost will be borne by MAFF?

The right hon. Gentleman makes two important points. We shall have to set up a unit in MAFF to deal with that technical issue. The dam must be alive six months before the animal goes into the scheme. As certification from the farmer will not be enough, in itself, for the workings of the scheme, the only way we can verify that is to establish a unit within the Department.

I am examining what the Government can properly do about costs. I am, in principle, considering making a contribution from the funds of my Department, at least to the start-up costs of the scheme, although some costs will have to be borne by the industry. No final decision has been reached, but the Government will have to provide some support to get the scheme up and running.

The worldwide ban was imposed on the United Kingdom by the European Union, and it operated worldwide. We have got that lifted, so it is now possible for us to commence discussions with other countries who were previously our trading partners in beef products, such as America and Canada, to get their bilateral bans lifted. I shall certainly attempt that.

Obviously, this is great news for farmers in the north-west, which is the second most affected region. What can we do to promote the quality beef that is produced in England? Wales can sell its beef on the back of the success of its Welsh lamb, which is delivered all around the world. That is a prime example of the good branding of a quality product. I believe that we shall not have the same support in England. What new initiatives will the Minister introduce to support English farmers? Will he give them the same support as is given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. I shall be working with the Meat Livestock Commission to ensure that there is proper marketing support behind the new export drive. It is also important for us, as public representatives, to play our part. This issue should not become unreasonably politicised, but we should explain what our country has done to ensure that our beef is entirely safe. That is the key message we should be sending out, and it has the great merit of being completely true. Beef is safe.

First, I thank the Minister for his statement, and I congratulate him on the efforts that he has made since he took office. A great handicap to the export of beef is the fact that beef on the bone cannot be exported. I know that the Minister anticipates that that ban will be lifted in the United Kingdom—in the near future, I hope. Will the same apply, in the end, to the export of beef to Europe, or will there have to be another month of tortuous negotiation with the European Commission?

I am afraid that the blunt answer to the last question is yes. The date-based export scheme relates to deboned beef: it therefore excludes live animals and whole carcases, and, indeed, any other beef on the bone.

As the incidence of BSE in this country lessens, we shall want to deal with the issue, but the Government's view is the same as that of the last Government when they negotiated the agreements in Florence. We think that we should make a start, and this is a good start, which will give us a chance not only to recover markets, but to explain our current arrangements to ensure that beef products from Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are completely safe.

I thank my right hon. Friend for all the efforts that he has made since taking up his present post. I know that farmers in my constituency have great confidence in him, because they cancelled an arrangement that they had made to come here, yet again, to lobby Warwickshire Members. Owing to my right hon. Friend's efforts, they decided that such action was unnecessary at this time. That denotes an enormous increase in confidence in him, and in the present Government.

My right hon. Friend has plainly met one major challenge, but the greatest challenge of all will be reform of the common agricultural policy. What part are the Government taking in that?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.

Since becoming Minister of Agriculture, I have set out to meet not just farm representatives, but individual farmers. The priorities in my work load have been informed by what I have been told by farmers, as well as their representatives.

I assure my hon. Friend that the British Government are in the vanguard of nation states that seek radical reform of the CAP, so that it can meet the challenges of an increasingly liberalised world market that is moving remorselessly towards us, whether we reform or not. The Government believe that we should be ahead of the game, rather than running behind it.

I congratulate the Minister on bringing a good day to British farming. That has been rare in recent years. Does he accept, however, that the crisis is not yet over, and that a difficult winter lies ahead for many farmers in my constituency and elsewhere? Will he consider working with representatives of the British banking industry, and trying to persuade them that they should continue to support farmers in the coming months, so that, when better days come, there are still farmers in business to enjoy them?

Yes. A huge effort has been made, in terms of officials' as well as Ministers' time, to secure what I have announced today. Last week, I announced a package of measures specifically designed to deal with the current difficulties in the farming sector. The purpose of all that has been to ensure that the industry can experience better times—and those better times, we hope, are being negotiated within the CAP. CAP reform is crucial to the long-term stability and security of the domestic industry.

I hope to meet representatives of the sector that specialises in agricultural banking shortly.

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and his predecessor on the tremendous news that we have heard today, and on the excellent work that went into bringing it about. I pay tribute to other Shropshire Members, past and present, and to the MEP for Hereford and Shropshire—a constituency that includes Wyre Forest—who have undertaken some hard lobbying of my right hon. Friend.

What initial targets and estimates has my right hon. Friend for the reclaiming of the export market? In particular, may I ask what figures he has in mind in relation to the next 12 months?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and acknowledge the tribute he pays to representatives from his area, who have all played a constructive part in the discussions.

I shall not be setting targets. It would be quite wrong for us to do anything other than acknowledge that it will be difficult to recapture markets that were lost to us. A surplus of beef products in the EU makes it pretty difficult to do so. The important thing is that the legal barrier to us trying to do so has been lifted, and we can make a start. It will take time, and I am afraid that the early start might be slow, but we must get on with it.

May I also congratulate the Minister on his success in securing a lifting of the ban throughout the European Union? I thank him for his visits to Wales during a difficult period for farmers, and for his work alongside ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Office. While he thinks about ways in which we can promote Welsh beef and beef from other countries of Britain, may I commend to him the success, for example, of branding Welsh lamb? When he considers ways in which he can sell the idea of reopening markets for Welsh beef, will he remind our colleagues in Europe that some of the best beef is finished on grass? That should be an enormous selling point. Will he confirm that any measures implemented in MAFF will be mirrored in the Welsh and Scottish Offices?

Yes, I can confirm that. My visits to Wales have enabled me to hear at first hand the views of farming leaders as well as individual farmers in Wales. The fact that the Government are listening and making policy that is informed by what farmers say has been widely welcomed—nowhere more so than in Wales. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

I welcome very much my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware of substantial concerns about the safety of beef production and the incidence of BSE elsewhere in Europe and the world? What discussions are taking place in Europe to ensure that other Governments implement the same stringent controls as ours in order to prevent the spread of BSE?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The EU is considering Europewide measures on specified risk material and other precautionary regimes on BSE that would apply throughout Europe. The UK's contribution to those discussions is, of course, informed by our experience of these matters. I have offered to share our science and technical expertise with other member states, so that, if a crisis looms in their countries, they can get through it with knowledge of some of the things that we have had to learn the hard way.

Although I, too, welcome the Minister's statement, which reflects his personal efforts as well as those of his predecessors, will he use this opportunity to remind the House that this decision very much falls into the context of the progressive decline of the BSE epidemic in cattle? There is a strong probability that no more than 1 per cent. of total cases ever has yet to come to light.

In the wider context of Agenda 2000, will he consider with his European colleagues the implications of supply and demand in the European beef industry for land use, and contemplate constructive measures to encourage further extensification, and possibly the conversion of some grazing land to other uses?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He makes two important points. On discussions on Agenda 2000 proposals, there is widespread recognition throughout the EU of a structural surplus in beef products with which we must deal. Within that broad recognition, there is further discussion on whether priority should be given to extensive or intensive systems. Clearly, different countries approach that depending on their domestic circumstances.

I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the reported number of BSE-affected cattle seems to be coming down in line with predictions, which rather confirms and underpins the Government's approach.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievement, which is very welcome. However, does he agree that, if the previous Government had taken positive action when BSE first raised its head to ensure the safety of food in the food chain, the whole crisis might well have been averted?

I do not want to say anything that might pre-empt the outcome of the BSE inquiry, the results of which will eventually come to me and my right hon. Friends. Nevertheless, it is stating the obvious to say that, in the early stages, the issue could have been handled better than it was. Specifically, it is right to say that our relationships with our European Union partners are crucially important. We must get ourselves into a position in which we are treated seriously and with respect by our partners and can negotiate with them, rather than merely shouting impotently at them.

The Minister will know that one of the United Kingdom's largest regular sales of finished cattle is held each week at Ludlow. His announcement of the lifting of the export ban will therefore be very welcome among the beef farmers of south Shropshire, which is one the country's premier beef-producing areas. However, he will be aware also that there is not much optimism among meat traders that our export trade will be quickly regained.

Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on his statement that that trade will be allowed only through dedicated abattoirs, whereas all hon. Members will know that every abattoir has to comply with EC standards for intra-Community trade? More to the point, will he give the House an absolute undertaking that there will be no further let or hindrance to those exports once they have passed the inspectorate at the dedicated abattoir?

The purpose of the agreement is to ensure that beef that has gone through the scheme—the date-based export scheme is a project-specific scheme—can get into the European market. The only let and hindrance that exports would then face are free market conditions—such as consumer choice and the terms of trade—that are faced by every product. As I said, I do not believe that we will immediately be exporting vast quantities of meat. We have a lot to do to rebuild markets that we once had, in an already over-supplied market. Clearly it will not be easy, but we must make a start. We must all work together, without overstating the matter, to achieve as much as we possibly can.

Does my right hon. Friend remember, about two years ago, the previous Government's policy of non-co-operation in Europe, which left us isolated and friendless in Europe? Does not last Monday's meeting and today's statement show that constructive engagement with Europe brings results? Furthermore, are not those results the best news that British farming has had for a long time—which is why, on Monday, champagne corks were popping on farms in my constituency?

Of course my hon. Friend is right. For the Conservative party, the beef war is over.

I know that my constituents will be delighted to welcome the decision that the Minister has brought back from the Council of Ministers, and that they have been waiting for this moment since the ban was imposed. However, may I pass on to him concerns that have been expressed to me about how we will re-establish a profitable beef industry when we have no market for older cows, we have no market for offal—processors were once paid £80 a tonne for trimmings, but now must pay £60 a tonne for them to be taken away—and we have the heavy costs of inspection and traceability?

What will the right hon. Gentleman do, first, to try to minimise those costs, and, secondly, to ensure that such costs as have to be borne are spread fairly across the industry—rather than to permit a situation in which supermarkets manage to protect their margins, while unsubsidised finishers are forced to carry an unsustainable loss?