I have a confession to make: I am slightly weird. There must be something slightly odd about me, because I seem not to be interested in the really important things in life, at least as defined by the popular mass media. I am not terribly interested in such vital matters as the private lives of presidents and princes, pop stars and television soap stars, which fill the front pages, and I cannot even claim great interest in the religious beliefs of football managers. What do interest me are matters that, given the number of headlines they generate, must appear to others to be trivial. To be honest, I get rather obsessed with the trivial pursuit of human survival.

In 1982, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, who at the time was Secretary-General of the United Nations, said, in effect, that he thought that the world was drifting towards war. He made that statement in London, the capital and centre of our media. What he meant was that there was a real risk of our drifting towards world war three, in which nuclear weapons would be used and the consequences for us all would be beyond human imagination. Mr. de Cuellar's speech gained two or three paragraphs in one Sunday newspaper. All our other papers were far too busy covering such issues as whether there was a relationship between Prince Andrew and Koo Stark—the really important issue of the day.

To introduce a measure of balance, I accept that the media would argue that they reflected public attitudes. They could claim that we as politicians are capable of being equally guilty in this respect. In addition, Mr. Perez de Cuellar's worst fears were not fulfilled: fortunately, the future held perestroika and glasnost, the ending of the cold war and the reversal of the nuclear arms race. Recalling the legend of Cassandra, I am aware of the danger of being branded a prophet of doom and so being unlikely to be believed, even though there is the rather worrying tradition of Cassandra's predictions coming true. At this time of millennium, when religious cranks prophesy false dooms, there is even greater reason not to believe doomsayers. However, the start of a millennium is perhaps a time when even politicians can look forward, beyond the traditional week—a long time in politics—to the next century, the next millennium and beyond.

If modern cosmological theories are correct, there is, I understand, the prospect of our planet surviving for a few thousand million years. It may therefore be presumed that we can expect the human race to survive for a few thousand million years. One of the greatest dangers to that being realised is, I imagine, an astronomical disaster—our colliding with another planet, which worries the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), or our planet going out of orbit. But the other major threat must surely be weapons of mass destruction.

In the worst-case analysis so popular with defence analysts, even if we reduce weapons to the level proposed in the strategic arms reduction talks—START 2—there will be sufficient weapons of mass destruction to destroy the human race. There is no reason to suppose that, in future millenniums, we shall not be capable of producing weapons even more lethal than currently exist. We may have devised the means of destroying our civilisation before devising the means of preserving it. The fulfilment of that danger would render futile everything that we debate or do in this place—or, indeed, anything that anyone does anywhere.

In the science of risk assessment, it is usual to multiply the scale of a disaster by the probability of its occurrence. We are discussing a scale of disaster that ranges from unimaginably horrendous to absolutely so: "the rest is silence". In relation to probability, we ought not to forget that, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy said that he feared he had lost control of events and that the probability of disaster was between one in three and one in two. Surely, our greatest responsibility to those living in future millenniums is to ensure that that probability never again approaches those levels.

There are disasters on a lesser scale which might appear even more likely to occur. Localised nuclear war is possible—although its consequences would be anything but localized—as is terrorism using weapons of mass destruction. I fear that complacency at the end of the cold war resulted in our failing to take advantage of many opportunities greatly to increase our safety. It was as though, in the euphoria of cutting out a primary cancer, we failed to take adequate precautions to ensure against the development of secondary cancer.

Those dangers are not distant, but potentially immediate. Consider our position this year: China is talking about modernising and increasing its stock of nuclear weapons, the United States Senate has refused to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty and the Russian Duma is refusing to ratify START 2. It is a sad irony that Russia and America share constitutional arrangements whereby a president can make war—but not peace—without consulting the legislature.

The United States is showing signs of hardline, isolationist attitudes. Especially worrying during a period of electioneering are hardline statements on the anti-ballistic missile treaty and talk—even by presidential candidates—of cavalierly abandoning that treaty. Such action could undermine the credibility of all treaties, encourage other nuclear weapons states to begin to rebuild their stocks and increase the atmosphere of fear growing in Russia, where acting President Putin has issued a statement the effect of which is to lower the nuclear threshold and abandon the idea of partnership with the west.

All that might be electioneering rhetoric, but it is dangerous because it raises the risk of disaster engulfing us as a result of misunderstanding and accident. It has been said that, at some point in the past couple of years, the United States warned Moscow that it was going to launch a communications satellite from Norway. However, Russian command and control were so poor that they forgot to warn the local radar station and a nuclear alert began. Imagine that happening in a time of more dangerous attitudes.

Perhaps Putin is only electioneering, but, in India, the Bharatiya Janata party's electioneering led to a dangerous position developing between that country and Pakistan, so reminding us of the perils of proliferation and localised nuclear wars. Who knows how frighteningly close India and Pakistan came to a localised nuclear war over Kashmir? Let us be under no illusions: we are not talking about only localised consequences, or even a devastating holocaust affecting only India and Pakistan, but talking about fallout, climate change—possibly even nuclear winter—affecting surrounding countries, many of which are desperately poor and rely on subsistence agriculture.

Proliferation also raises the possibility of weapons of mass destruction passing to some of the least stable states, which have some of the most unbalanced leaders. There is a risk of nuclear, biological and chemical materials, know-how and delivery systems spreading. Such fears have been exacerbated by the break-up of the Soviet Union, but proliferation poses risks from other countries too.

Is not that dangerous development one of the reasons for maintaining a limited anti-ballistic missile defence system to deal with threats from rogue states? Such a system could meet those threats, even though it could not meet a larger strategic threat from a super-power.

I am strongly in favour of discussion and debate on that issue. I am aware that people line up on different sides of the argument. Some, for example, believe that if the United Nations had an anti-ballistic missile system, it would make us all safer. I am not sure that that argument is right, which is why I favour debate. I shall speak in more detail later about the "we are the good guys" syndrome. I am frightened about United States policy, which could give an impetus to the arms race, rather than reduce the number of nuclear weapons. It could also create paranoia in Russia and in other states. If there is a cavalier abandonment of one treaty, who will enter into treaties in future?

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the argument about rogue states is accepted by the United States, which has continued its programme to extend its anti-ballistic missile system, a precedent has been set that enables every other state in the world to express a fear about isolated attacks from rogue states and to argue that such a system should be an essential part of its defensive strategy? Those in the United States and elsewhere who support that argument should ask themselves whether the world would be a safer place if every state escalated the nuclear arms race with a further round of ABM defensive systems.

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I shall say more later about the danger of nuclear futures.

To return to my previous point, rogue states give rise to the danger of know-how and materials spreading to other states. As civil satellites develop, there is a further possibility of blurring the distinction between rockets for military and for civil purposes.

The Aum sect of Japan alerts us to another danger—that of religious or political fanatics engaging in terrorism using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and such groups need have no problem with delivery systems. Before long, we could face a nuclear bomb in a briefcase, or a boat sailing off the west coast of the United States, spreading anthrax in the wind.

We all recognise that the probability of such disasters occurring is far too high, that we urgently need to reduce those risks, and that the issue should transcend party politics. Therefore, I am glad that we are talking in Westminster Hall, where the atmosphere is more conducive to dialogue and discussion than to point scoring.

No simple or single solutions exist. Treaty negotiations must be central, but they are in a parlous state. I have already mentioned the ABM treaty, and I am conscious of the fact that most hon. Members on both sides of the House think that we should press the United States to uphold its current negotiated treaty. I know that the Front Benchers of both main parties share the desire to persuade our US allies to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. The early-day motion that I tabled showed overwhelming support among Back Benchers of all parties for such a policy.

All nuclear weapons states must recognise that we cannot indefinitely proclaim our good intention of making massive cuts in our nuclear weapons stocks, or even eliminating them, without producing results. People in other countries are suspicious that we sometimes sound a little like St. Augustine, who prayed for chastity, but not yet. I applaud the efforts that our Government, the United States and others are making to improve the situation in India and Pakistan, to persuade those countries to engage in the test ban treaty and to reduce the risk there. However, we should lead by example.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty will be renegotiated this year. The treaty was agreed in 1995, when people could see that the two major nuclear weapons states had made massive reductions in arms; however, they have made few cuts since. The danger is that the treaty will not be ratified, or that people might simply pay lip service to it and so enable proliferation to occur. In answer to the question of whether proliferation matters, some ideologues in the United States say that proliferation would make us safer and that it could constitute ultimate deterrence, because if everybody had nuclear weapons, no one would use them. The National Rifle Association of America uses the same argument in respect of guns, and we know how well that works.

There is an urgent need to give new impetus to efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I should like to refer to the proposal advanced by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), during the debate on the Queen's Speech. He said that the United Kingdom could take the initiative by convening a conference of the members of the United Nations Security Council. The conference would discuss setting up new strategic arms reduction talks—START 3—involving all nuclear weapon states; reviewing all treaties, including the ABM treaty; promoting a declaration of all nuclear weapons stocks, with the aim of producing an inventory, which the UN would keep, of all the nuclear weapon stocks of all the de facto nuclear weapon states; and engaging in serious negotiations on weapons reduction and entry into a nuclear weapons convention.

That is a serious and sensible suggestion. The United Kingdom has already taken a lead on two of the other major issues facing our species: climate change and third-world debt. As we enter the new millennium, we could give no better lead than on the crucial issue of nuclear non-proliferation.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way again. Can he envisage such negotiations resulting in Britain giving up all its nuclear weapons while countries such as Russia, the United States, France or China retain some of theirs?

I tend to think of such questions as technical matters which can be considered during negotiations. I say that for two reasons: first, the question whether all countries would give up their weapons at the same time would be a matter for negotiation; secondly, we should remember that we belong to military alliances, which means that Britain could be in a position to give up its weapons before certain other countries did. It could be rather difficult to say that Britain would give up all its weapons before certain other countries did.

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Before he leaves the nuclear issue, will he tell the Chamber his views on the fissile material throughout the world that is currently unaccounted for? There is concern about the fact that approximately 100 suitcase-sized nuclear bombs are missing from Russian military stocks and, of the high-grade fissile material, 4 per cent. is unaccounted for. Would the hon. Gentleman feature that matter in the scenario that he is laying out for us?

I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. I was, in part, thinking of that when I mentioned fears about proliferation. I intend to discuss the vital importance of trying to restrict fissile and other dangerous materials a little later on.

When thinking about nuclear disarmament, we should consider, not only "vertical", but "horizontal" nuclear disarmament, which includes detargeting, de-alerting and increasing notice-to-fires—steps that have already been taken by the United Kingdom—along with decoupling and separating warheads from delivery systems. I am using the terminology that Jonathan Schell employs in his valuable book "The Gift of Time", which is a summary of many useful suggestions made by leading experts around the world on steps that we could take to improve our safety.

We should be flexible about new thinking, wherever it comes from, and prepared at least to consider any confidence-building measures that are suggested.

Germany, for example, suggested no first use, although one is aware that, at the moment, that suggestion would be rather more welcome in China than in Russia. We should also examine constructively proposals from non-nuclear weapons states. As I said in response to the hon. Lady's intervention, we should also seek ways in which to control, as best we can, the spread of dangerous materials and delivery systems and to expand nuclear weapons-free zones.

We should not neglect the dangers posed by biological weapons—a most dangerous aspect of proliferation. They are often described as the poor countries' nuclear weapons and they are the weapons that can most easily be used by terrorist groups. The biological and toxin weapons treaty was useful, but was wilfully flouted by several signatories, most notably the Soviet Union. There was a simple reason for that: no verification was involved. Now, perhaps because of pressure from its biotechnology industries, the United States appears to be reluctant to adopt verification measures. In response to those members of the United States political right who say that the Soviet duplicity on this issue should show us the danger of trusting treaties, I quote Ronald Reagan, who said that we should, "Trust, but verify". Verification will be important in all future treaties.

By all means, let each nation look critically at every peace proposal, but let us also look critically at every proposal from our military-industrial complexes to expand our military might. I forget which of our eminent Victorian statesmen it was who, when told by one of the chiefs of staff that we should increase our garrisons in India in case the Tsar intended to attack Britain via the sub-continent, said that he was rather surprised that the chiefs of staff did not want us to garrison the Moon in case we were attacked from Mars. One example of why it is useful to remember that is the frequent assertion that we should develop weapons now, not because of any existing risk, but because someone else may develop nuclear or other weapons in future. Although 1 am not expert in the language of the stock exchange, I believe that trading in "nuclear futures" is dangerous.

I said that I would refer to the danger of nations adopting a "we are the good guys" mentality. Every nation and every treaty organisation has a tendency to think itself or its members as the good guys and to believe that everybody should therefore trust their good intentions. Even though we do not talk so much now about the other side being the bad guys, the fact that we still do not think of them as the good guys implies that they cannot be trusted. Given the current sensitive situation in Russia, it is important that we try to understand Russian perceptions when we pursue matters such as NATO expansion. It is not that we should not pursue such matters, but that we should try to see how other nations perceive our actions and ensure that our actions are not destabilising.

I have advanced only a few proposals; other hon. Members will undoubtedly want to make other suggestions during the debate. Above all, reform of the United Nations—especially the Security Council—is vital if we are to create a system of world governance, or even world government. We have to improve regional security and conflict resolution. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction cannot be disinvented, so we can be safe only if we can halt wars and the causes of wars. As we look back over the experience of the past century, or even at our entire human history, we cannot be complacent about how easy it will be to lift the sword of Damocles from above us.

I am pleased that the all-party group that is being set up this week has attracted interest from hon. Members of all parties and with widely differing views on defence matters. It is vital that we leave behind old slogans, old positions and old arguments. We must be prepared to look at new thinking. Recently, progress has come from unilateral initiatives and unilateral responses, such as those made by the present Government and the previous Government. Progress has also been made by bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral negotiations. There is a place for all those.

Above all, we need to discuss, debate, publicise and make progress on these issues. We must not slide into a situation where, through accident, misunderstanding or an act of madness, ultimate disaster occurs. We must "not go gently into that good night". As we contemplate the coming millennium, we have the technical capability decisively to rein back the four horsemen of the apocalypse, or to unleash them with devastating effect in the coming millennium.

I conclude by quoting from what I regard as Albert Einstein's last will and testament: a manifesto that he signed with 10 others of the world's greatest scientists a few days before he died. It includes the following words:

"We are speaking on this occasion not as members of this and that nation, continent or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings—remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."

10.23 am

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on securing the debate. The number of hon. Members present this morning is proof of the debate's importance to the House, and the subject's importance to society and to the world.

If we had to pick a time of maximum difficulty in making progress on the arms control agenda, especially in respect of weapons of mass destruction, we would probably have to say that it is now. The period preceding the United States presidential elections is not usually one in which the American regime focuses on such issues. Russia is conducting an internal war in Chechnya, and great uncertainty among the Russian people about their Government and their future makes for a less than easy time there. The situation on the Indian sub-continent has become unstable following nuclear testing by India and Pakistan; that, inevitably, has knock-on effects on China. The issue of proliferation is of huge importance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North made clear. The urgency of controlling proliferation is driven by the fact that, although the many achievements of control systems are there for all to see, there have also been many failures, the most obvious examples being India and Pakistan.

My hon. Friend touched on non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction. It is important to recognise that what used to be called the poor man's bomb—although, these days, chemical and biological weapons should probably be called the poor person's bomb—retains its astonishingly dangerous potential. Although the verification regime for chemical weapons has slowly become adequate because of greater testing, the framework for biological weapons still has a significant way to go. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment specifically on the possibility of progress being made in respect of biological weapons. I pay tribute to the work done by British officials during the various negotiations on biological weapons. I have no doubt that they have done as much as anyone to keep that show on the road and drive the agenda forward. It is an extraordinarily difficult job, but Britain's role has been significant.

The simple truth is that Britain and the nuclear powers have a particular responsibility as regards biological and chemical weapons. If we, from our lofty standpoint as nuclear powers, say that we need do no more than exhort others either to abjure development of such weapons or to give up existing weapons, we are kidding ourselves: the rest of the world will not treat that as credible—it will simply say that nuclear development is not necessarily the cheapest way to get into the weapons of mass destruction game. We should not be surprised if people want more than mere posturing and words on our part.

The onus on nuclear weapons states is to examine how we can begin to break certain parts of that deadlock. There are no overnight solutions: I am profoundly convinced that immediate success is not available to anyone. However, progress is possible and, as a nuclear weapons state, Britain has a pivotal role to play. We must examine the future—the not-too-distant future—of our own nuclear weapons, because technological change inevitably brings the possibility of technological obsolescence. If we know what our own long-term plans are, we shall be able to strike a position on the world stage that gives us influence over other nuclear weapons states. An open and honest approach to the debate might also give us influence over non-nuclear weapons states. The current Government have already done far more to achieve transparency in that respect than any previous UK Government or, indeed, any other Government in the world. By setting such an example to the rest of the world, we enhance our ability to tell countries such as France and even China that it is important to seize the opportunity to de-escalate. The alternative is escalation.

I shall speak briefly on the crucial importance of China, India and Pakistan. Historically, this debate has had a European or, at least, a Euro-Atlantic focus. However, modern Asia currently represents the most unstable element in the nuclear debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, China is a modernising nuclear state, with nuclear developments in India and Pakistan forming part of its security preoccupations. This morning, the Financial Times reported that China's attitude to Pakistan had cooled because it now accepts the need to recognise India's nuclear developments, especially its development of long-rang missiles.

We must engage countries such as India and Pakistan in debate, even though they are not party to existing treaties. That will be difficult. We must strip away the mythology—that having nuclear weapons is about national aggrandisement, when, in fact, it is rooted in national insecurity. We must persuade the people of India and Pakistan that nuclear weapons do not enhance their security. However, to do that we must be open and honest about our own long-term ambitions and our desire for nuclear de-escalation.

Belief in claims that the world's security is enhanced by expanding missile defence systems does not represent progress for any part of the world, whether the United States or elsewhere. Indeed, it must lead to intensification of the development of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the Americans testing a missile interceptor over the Pacific today? Is he condemning that and the defence readiness review ordered by President Clinton as part of the entire programme?

Using the language of condemnation is pointless. We should instead use the language of de-escalation and concentrate on ways to remove the tensions that lead to build-up.

The United States may be confident about its position in relation to Russia and the latter's weapons of mass destruction and nuclear capability. That may be a rational view, given that Russia is an economically enfeebled country that cannot afford to sustain its existing nuclear capability. However, the same is not true of China. The United States should be aware that China is achieving enormous economic growth, part of which may be invested in weapons development. If the United States believes that, in the long term, it can defend itself against China on the same basis as it does against Russia, it is sorely mistaken. The way to deal with China is to ensure that the Chinese are again brought to the table to discuss credible nuclear deterrence. In the long run, we want China to be committed to a nuclear-free world and to take positive steps in that direction.

I have spoken longer than I intended. I end by emphasising that, although we tend to concentrate on nuclear weapons, we must recognise the frightening capacity of biological weapons. We need a verification regime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North has said. However, the prospects for achieving that are further away than many of us would like. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear that the British Government intend to press for a proper verification system for biological weapons, to parallel that for chemical weapons, which is at least beginning to work.

10.41 am

I am, in part, speaking this morning as chairman of the parliamentary Labour party Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. My husband, Bob, was its chairman before he was killed, after which the group collapsed. When I entered the House, a group of friends and I formed a new group of the parliamentary Labour party CND, with which I am proud to be associated.

I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) for introducing this debate on global security and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—the full title is almost an adjournment debate in itself. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) whose comments were helpful and much in line with my own thinking on Pakistan and India. I have a decent knowledge of that subject because of the nature of my constituency.

I have been a member of CND for 41 years. I pay tribute to that organisation and to the European nuclear disarmament movement, which was led with great distinction by Edward Thompson. He wrote "Protest and Survive", of which I have a copy and which played an important role in making the people in this country aware of the dangers of nuclear weapons. But for the activities of the UK peace movement and similar groups throughout Europe and the rest of the world, including the United States, the US might have supported its foreign policy—particularly in Vietnam—by using nuclear weapons. The Americans had convinced themselves that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the second world war. What kept them from resolving the Vietnam conflict in the same way? I believe that their strong peace movement, about which we have heard too little, played an important role in convincing the US not to adopt the nuclear option in Vietnam.

To demonstrate that I am not stuck in a time warp of 1960s and 1970s politics, I shall turn to more recent aspects of the US war machine. "Master of Space" is the motto of the US Space Command—a joint air force, army and navy command set up by the Pentagon in 1985. In its "Vision for 2020" report, it makes clear its ambition of

"dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict … Space is the ultimate high ground".

General Joseph Ashy, commander in chief of Space Command, said in 1996:

"It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen … we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space, and we're going to fight into space … That's why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms.

Last year, Kofi Annan urged the United Nations' annual conference on disarmament to

"codify principles which can ensure that outer space remains weapons-free."

The first secretary of China's mission to the UN, Wang Xiaoyu—my Chinese is not all that good, so hon. Members will have to forgive me if I have not pronounced that correctly—said later in the year:

"Outer space is the common heritage of human beings—It should be used entirely for peaceful purposes and for the economic, scientific and cultural development of all countries as well as the well-being of mankind. It must not be weaponized and become another arena of the arms race."

The track record of the Chinese on human rights is less than wonderful, and I cannot imagine the cultural developments for which outer space could be used—unless it is as some sort of gigantic IMAX screen. However, the Chinese have a clear view that outer space is not there for an extension of the arms race.

Last November, 138 nations voted in the UN General Assembly to reaffirm the outer space treaty and its provision that space

"shall be for peaceful purposes."

Only the United States and Israel abstained. Lest we entertained any doubt about the Pentagon's position on the subject, Keith Hall, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Space, gave it to us loud and clear:

"Space dominance, we have it, we like it and we're going to keep it."

The US may be reluctant to pay its massive debts to the UN, but there is no problem with cash for research into weapons in space. The budget for Ronald Reagan's star wars, known under the Clinton Administration as ballistic missile defence, has held steady at about $4 billion a year, supplemented by additional, not-very-well-kept-secret billions: last March, Congress approved an additional $6.6 billion. All my information on America's ambitions for weapons in space comes courtesy of Professor Karl Grossman of the State university of New York, who has carried out a massive amount of meticulous research on the subject. His piece for The Nation, on 27 December 1999, which was jointly written with Judith Long, graphically illustrates the additional problem of space weapons being nuclear powered:

"It … offers the specter of a fleet of Chernobyls orbiting the Earth."

That is chilling.

Given the highly macho quotes from Pentagon sources, none of us should have been too surprised when, a few months ago, the Senate refused to ratify the international comprehensive test ban treaty. It was suggested that that was more about getting back at the President, post-Lewinsky, than about disagreeing with the treaty itself. Whatever the reason, it is a sad reflection on the thoughts underpinning the politics of what is now the only world power.

I come now to the subject of India and Pakistan and two very sad aspects of their nuclearisation. Last September, I went to Pakistan with four colleagues on a self-financed trip: we saw the appalling conditions in which the vast majority of people there live, and visited hospitals and schools where facilities are appalling. I also have first-hand experience from my advice surgeries, in which I talk to constituents who are some of the poorest people in Keighley, which is not a wealthy area. They are from Mirpur, part of Pakistan. Week after week, they send hard-earned money to their relatives in Pakistan, even though they can ill afford to send it; they do so because they recognise how much poorer their relatives are than themselves.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, it is extremely sad that Pakistan followed India's example. Pakistan could have gained the admiration of the rest of the world by not following India's example and putting the welfare of its people before nuclear aggrandisement. I condemn India for starting the nuclear arms race on the sub-continent, but I also condemn Pakistan for following its example. During our visit to Pakistan, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and I spoke to many politicians and political groups. We made it perfectly clear that we thought it an appalling travesty that one of the poorest countries should spend money on nuclear weapons.

If our country helped to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we would not only achieve a more secure future for generations to come, but contribute to the well-being of the millions who are undernourished, the children who are uneducated and the sick who are untreated. By reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons, we could take a lead in the world and set an example, especially for the underdeveloped countries.

May I make a plea to hon. Members? This is a very important debate and the Minister must be given adequate time in which to respond fully. If each speaks for approximately three minutes, I shall be able to call the three hon. Members who still wish to speak, because it is the tradition and custom of sittings in Westminster Hall to call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at approximately 11 o'clock.

10.52 am

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to comply with your request, but three minutes is a tall order.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on initiating this debate and on inaugurating the all-party group on this important subject, which had its first meeting this week. This important debate is taking place when international moves towards arms control are slowing down and the prospects are not good. As has been said, weapons of mass destruction can be biological, chemical or nuclear, and I shall comment briefly on each.

Biological weapons are prohibited under the 1972 biological weapons convention, but it is relatively weak and has no verification provisions. The ad hoc group in Geneva is negotiating a draft protocol that would create verification provisions. The spread of biological weapons would seriously threaten world peace, so a rigorous and effective verification process is vital.

The Government's policy on verification is good. It covers the range of inspection measures, from those that are routine to those that are challenged, and includes the sampling of materials at inspected sites. However, the United States is pursuing a policy that would fundamentally weaken the draft protocol by reducing the level of verification. The danger is that the powers for the verification of biological weapons programmes will be insufficient. The Government must take a strong position. I know that they have received support from European Union countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) spoke to the ad hoc group in Geneva when he was a Foreign Office Minister. A good signal would be sent if a current Foreign Office Minister went to the group and made it clear that we want an agreement on stronger verification procedures to be reached this year.

The 1993 chemical weapons convention operates successsfully, but there is a problem with the United States, which has made it illegal to send a sample from a United States site for laboratory analysis in another country. That is wrong—imagine if the Iranians or any other country created such a law. The Government need to make official representations to the United States to make sure that this important convention is not weakened in that way.

The rejection by the United States Senate of the comprehensive test ban treaty was a serious setback for arms control. The pressure for a national missile defence system will have a destabilising effect; it is already building up to the United States abrogating the 1972 bilateral anti-ballistic missile treaty. That would have a dreadful impact economically and in terms of proliferation, as other countries such as Russia and China would greatly increase their number of ballistic missiles. It is an irresponsible policy by the United States and an abuse of their super-power status. It is also a marker for a future arms race. The Government should challenge the USA on its nuclear policy.

The United States has an obsession with nuclear weapons, even though its Ambassador Thomas Graham said during arms control talks that the perception that nuclear weapons confer a special status on a state is dangerous. That profile can only encourage nuclear proliferation—we have to lower it and move towards disarmament. The perception that chemical and biological weapons bring a mini special status must also be eliminated.

Britain needs a greater separation from the United States on nuclear policy. We must press for greater nuclear arms control worldwide. The counter-proliferation approach will not succeed in the long term, because it is a forceful approach that provokes hostility and resistance and is perceived as one state trying to rule and being partial. We must press ahead on the non-proliferation and agreement approach, which means strengthening laws and strengthening treaties.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, United Nations reform is an important part of that process, as it includes proportional responses, administering international law and pursuing matters through the war crimes court. The United States has shown a resistance to complying with and participating in that expanded role for international law; it should be brought into the process. Ours is a dangerous world and current policies are making it more dangerous. Inaction and inertia are no answer. I urge the Government to pursue the arms control agenda.

10.58 am

One of the great advantages in having been involved in debates about nuclear defence and disarmament for nearly 20 years is that one can truthfully say, without conceit, that one has heard it all before. Indeed, it is usually helpful to recall that the period when arms negotiations were most complex, developed and thorough was the 1930s, when arms control efforts in the face of aggression led not to peace, but to disaster.

In the three minutes available to me, I shall make four points. The mathematics speak for themselves and the Chamber will forgive me if I do not develop my arguments as fully as I might have done. First, there are two ways of seeking the best method of keeping peace in the world: one is the "peace through strength" approach and the other the "peace through disarmament" approach. Sometimes, they are complementary, but more often than not they are contradictory. They were contradictory during the cold war, when many of the speakers in the debate so far sided with the "peace through disarmament" approach. I would argue, and I think the majority of people in this country would agree, that the "peace through strength" approach was vindicated by events.

Earlier, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) rejected the argument for using ABM systems for defence against rogue states, because that argument could be used by any nation. That is an unrealistic view of why nations arm themselves. They do not arm themselves according to what other nations do and say, but after hard-headed calculation of the risks that they believe they face. Nations arming themselves with ABM systems will do so according to the threats facing them, not according to whether western democracies have a limited ABM system to prevent rogue states launching a handful of mass-destruction weapons against them. However, I concede that such a system would be destabilising if it involved trying to counter a strategic threat, as I said in an earlier intervention.

Article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is often said to create an obligation for a nuclear-free world. I have always argued that such an outcome would make the world safe again for conventional warfare, which has killed countless millions in years gone by, especially in the century that has just ended. Article 6 brackets a nuclear-free world with a requirement for general and complete disarmament: one is not expected to happen before the other. I would be perfectly happy with a nuclear-free world, provided that there was also general and complete disarmament. However, I advise hon. Members not to hold their breadth.

Finally, I shall put in a brief word for nuclear deterrence. The late Professor Sir Henry Tizard was the most eminent of defence scientists. In 1944 and 1945, he estimated what war would be like after the end of the second world war, when the atomic bomb would be part of the world's arsenals. He said that

"the only answer that we can see to the atomic bomb is to use it ourselves in retaliation."

He was, of course, speaking about threatening to use the bomb, not actually using it.

He also said:

"Duelling was a recognised method of settling quarrels between men of high social standing so long as the duellists stood twenty paces apart and fired at each other with pistols of a primitive type. If the rule had been that they should stand a yard apart with pistols at each other's hearts, we doubt whether it would long have remained a recognised method of settling affairs of honour."

That is why nuclear deterrence kept the peace during the cold war and has a role in international security in future.

11.2 am

I shall be as brief as possible, making three points for mathematical clarity.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on securing this debate and on his work in getting the ball rolling on the all-party group for non-proliferation, which meets for the first time tomorrow evening. I hope that my hon. Friend's work will lead to a debate in the next few weeks, as we approach the NPT review conference. That debate should take place in Government time, as the matters under consideration are weighty and complex, and deserve much more discussion.

I agree completely with remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), especially about chemical and biological weapons being of greatest concern, as the regimes controlling them are weaker than those controlling other weapons of mass destruction. I also accept what he said about the current climate not being conducive to calls for disarmament. With international tensions militating against such calls, we have reached the precise point at which the debate must continue and develop. Those who think they have heard it all before in the past 20 years—or even before then—have the most to learn from future debate.

Secondly, I want to mention the work of the New Agenda coalition, especially the debate at the United Nations last November. I remind hon. Members that the majority of people do not accept nuclear deterrents as a rational form of defence. The New Agenda coalition is a coalition of 60 states—which obtained the support of a further 51 states in the United Nations debate—that believes that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the survival of humanity. It is making an urgent call to the nuclear weapons states to intensify their actions to implement article 6 of the nonproliferation treaty, which commits them to seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons.

We should also remember that at that UN General Assembly in November there were calls from across the world—from South Africa in the southern hemisphere and from states in the middle east and central Asia—for the establishment of nuclear weapons-free zones. We must understand that although nuclear weapons have been seen as an integral part of the defence systems of the nuclear weapons states in western Europe and north America, that perception is not shared by a majority of nations or peoples, including nations that could well afford to develop their own nuclear weapons systems if they chose to do so.

Thirdly, as we move towards negotiations on the NPT, I appeal to the Government to exercise the full range of their diplomatic powers and to take a lead internationally on global disarmament. We have a remarkable record of taking leads on various international issues over the past two years. For example, the Government worked on climate change in Kyoto, and they established a global precedent for the abolition of land mines. There was also the elimination of the debt of the very poorest countries. The Government could earn themselves great credit and do the world a service by taking the lead now on the issue of weapons of mass destruction.

I make a plea to Liberal Democrat and other Opposition spokesmen. I want to give the Minister his full 10 minutes, so if they can reduce the length of their speeches, I am sure that hon. Members would be grateful.

11.6 am

I apologise to my researcher because I have just thrown away three quarters of the speech that she prepared for me. I shall be very brief.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on initiating this debate. He should in no way apologise for bringing these matters before us. I agree with him: sometimes we concentrate far too much on domestic politics.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the United Kingdom has a unique role to play in this context. After all, we are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a leading member of the Commonwealth, G8 and the European Union. I want to canter through some of the things that we believe the Government should be doing. We congratulate them on much of what they have already done—we have certainly seen a sea change—but there is much more that could be done.

The chemicals weapons convention of 1997 has a strong verification mechanism, but the corresponding treaty on biological and toxin weapons does not have an equivalent mechanism. The EU has been pressing for a new binding protocol to establish such a verification regime, and we hope that the Government will push for that. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of nuclear control and disarmament regimes. We will be urging the Government to use their influence with our Commonwealth colleagues in India and Pakistan to ensure that those states sign up to the agreement. That is a matter of urgency.

We regard the decision of the United States Senate to reject the ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty as deeply unfortunate. We also believe that any break-out by the US from the ABM treaty would be deeply destabilising, particularly for relations with Russia and China. It would no doubt also encourage those countries as regards such systems. What additional steps are the Government taking to press the US on that? We have a special relationship with the US and this is one instance where we should use it.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North mentioned the call by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in the Queen's Speech debate for the UK to convene a conference of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. We believe that that would be a major step towards a new round of arms reduction talks. It should have no holds barred on what it can discuss. That would be a useful step for the Government to take.

We should also work to bring about an annual declaration of all nuclear weapons held by de facto nuclear weapons states under a UN weapons register. We should proceed with negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention to match those for chemical and biological weapons, and we should formalise the commitment of all nuclear weapons states to nuclear disarmament. We believe that an EU decommissioning agency should be established to co-ordinate EU-financed efforts to decommission the obsolete civil and military nuclear hardware of the former Soviet Union.

Finally, we believe that this country has a unique and unambiguous role to play. It is almost 39 years to the day that John F. Kennedy said in his inauguration speech as President:

"Let us never negotiate out of fear—but let us never fear to negotiate."

The United Kingdom can help to achieve that and the Government should take the issue forward. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North should feel satisfied by his efforts to encourage them to do so.

The hon. Gentleman has set a fine example. We should all be grateful to him.

11.10 am

I can come only a poor second to that canter around the block.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on initiating the debate. It was said during a by-election that the hon. Gentleman was savage by name, but not by nature. The gentle way in which he introduced a debate on the serious issue of war was greatly appreciated by us all, not least by me.

There is no doubt that the certainties provided by the threat from the former Soviet Union are now a fading feature of the last century. We can now see more clearly the modern threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles that carry them. However, we should not lose sight of the non-military security issues, which were touched on by some hon. Members this morning. The debate is about global security, which is threatened by nonmilitary factors as well as by weapons of mass destruction.

The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned income disparity and economic polarisation, which is one of the most common causes of sub-state violence. The deteriorating situation in Africa, for example, poses a threat to European security and we should not lose sight of that in our debate, or forget that energy and water shortages and access to raw materials are also security issues. Conflicts over water are predicted to be a major cause of war in the new century. Europe relies on resources from less stable parts of the world, and our continued security relies on uninterrupted supplies. Environmental deterioration is almost unstoppable. Each year, millions of people are displaced or perish as their land becomes incapable of supporting the community. Global warming will result in rising sea levels, so we should never forget that more than 50 per cent. of the world's population live in coastal and estuary zones. That poses an unprecedented threat to peace and security.

Internal wars are on the increase. Of the 82 armed conflicts between 1981 and 1992, all but three occurred within states. Conflict prevention must be at the top of our agenda, as it is vastly preferable to conflict resolution. We have not yet developed a satisfactory early warning system. The more that interference in the internal affairs of states occurs, the more we must ensure that the legal basis on which we intervene is secure. We need more analysis, and I make no apology for calling on the Minister once again to instigate a full inquiry into diplomacy and deployment in Kosovo. The Opposition have long called for that, but it has been strenuously resisted by the Government. On the military side, the security agenda has changed from the relative simplicity of maintaining a nuclear deterrent to one that demands greater vigilance, increased diplomacy, more sophisticated allowances and the modernisation of our defences, to a degree that has not yet been recognised by many politicians, not least our own and our European counterparts.

Last year US intelligence estimated that, within 15 years, North Korea will have developed missiles capable of carrying nuclear, chemical or biological warheads with a range long enough to enable it to hit mainland America. Iran has tested a long-range missile to a distance of 1,300 km, which demonstrates the probability that that country, too, is successfully developing extreme long-range capability. Iraq has demonstrated its increasing capabilities: who can forget the devastating Scud missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf war?

The USA is currently evaluating the threats to establish whether the time is right to deploy a national missile defence system. As I mentioned earlier, today's edition of The Times carries a timely report on the test of the American missile interceptor. It states:

"The United States will today carry out its most important antiballistic missile test over the Pacific Ocean today, using an interceptor 54 inches long.

A successful "kill" will help President Clinton to decide whether to build a missile defence system in Alaska to protect against a rogue ballistic missile attack from North Korea or Iran."

The problems arising from the development of this missile defence system programme have resulted in the current complex discussions with Russia on renegotiating the ABM treaty. The United States is considering seriously co-operating with Russia on a missile defence system, not least because Russia itself will also be exposed to a threat from rogue states, and, as was rightly pointed out, is running short of funds. Indeed, its military system is in decay. I hope that the Minister will have time to outline the Government's stance towards the ABM treaty and its renegotiation, and their approach to the missile defence system. We in Europe seem to have taken little interest in these developments, despite the geographical inevitability that puts us well within range of the threat: we are arguably a more vulnerable target than the USA.

Our lack of interest in considering missile defence systems appears to be based largely on cost and technical feasibility, coupled with a preferred pre-occupation with creating a common European defence as part of a federal European super-state. Without doubt, the United Kingdom is being drawn more deeply into Europe to the exclusion of the US, at a time when Europe should work more closely with America to face the escalating threats. We need to impove western co-operation, not least to counter the sinister chain of co-operation now seen among proliferating states, and to continue to build on NATO and the foundations—laid over many years—of the trans-Atlantic partnership. I should like the Minister to confirm the Government's position in respect of that partnership, tell us what evalution he has made of the developing threats, give us his views on the missile defence capabilities of the UK and Europe and where he sees them going, say what, if anything, is being done to establish the costs and the technical feasibility, and tell us what discussions about current missile tests he and his Department have held.

I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have stayed within your strictures. The Minister has at least 10 minutes to respond. I congratulate all those hon. Members who took part in the debate but whom I did not single out by name, and I congratulate once more the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North on initiating the debate because it takes this vital issue forward.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who speaks for the Opposition.

11.17 am

First, I apologise for being unable to take interventions on account of the constraints on time.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. He and other hon. Members have expressed various concerns, many of which I share. I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who has provided me with a first-class platform.

In recent months, the world has become a much more dangerous place, as events in Russia, the USA and south Asia show. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) that the years ahead will be challenging for those of us who wish to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to improve global security, about which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made some valid points. However, I am not sure what the Opposition's policy is on this or many other issues before the House.

A constant challenge is to control the export of equipment, material and technology that might be of use to proliferators. It is hard, unremitting work which often requires difficult judgments. We play an active role in the relevant export control regimes, such as the Zangger committee and the nuclear supplies group in the nuclear sphere, the Australia group in the chemical and biological sphere and the missile technology control regime to prevent missile proliferation.

We are fortunate that a chemical weapons convention is in force, and that many key states are party to it. It contains effective arrangements to verify the destruction of existing chemical weapons and the non-production of such weapons in future, but we still need to secure universal adherence and compliance, together with full implementation of verification arrangements. The Government are pressing ahead vigorously on both fronts, and we strongly support the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague.

We are less fortunate with biological weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central is right, and I am grateful to him for his acknowledgement of the work of Government officials. Many states have adhered to the biological and toxin weapons convention, but it does not have adequate verification arrangements. I assure my hon. Friend that we are putting major effort into the negotiations at Geneva to agree a satisfactory verification protocol to the treaty. I also assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) that I shall visit Geneva in March to do exactly as he asks. We want those negotiations to be brought to a successful conclusion by the summer.

The main instrument for preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, or the NPT. One hundred and eight-two states have renounced nuclear weapons by adhering to the treaty as non-nuclear weapons states, but serious difficulties remain. The non-compliers, such as Iraq and North Korea, clearly must be brought back into compliance with the obligations that they have accepted. Until Saddam Hussein made their work impossible, we strongly supported the work in Iraq of the UN special commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Since then, no Government have done more to secure agreement in the UN Security Council for the new resolution setting out the way forward, Security Council resolution 1284. We shall vigorously press all states to support the full implementation of that resolution now that it has been agreed. The United Kingdom is also contributing through the European Union to ensure that North Korea returns to full compliance with its safeguards and obligations.

We have constantly made plain our belief that the non-adherers—Israel, India and Pakistan—should sign up to the NPT by destroying their nuclear weapons capability and accepting obligations as non-nuclear weapons states. However, they are firmly convinced that their security positions do not yet permit that course of action. Trying to improve their security positions is therefore a key concern for us. We are heartened by the new impetus in the middle east peace process. Conversely, we are disappointed by the serious tension in the relationship between India and Pakistan, especially over Kashmir, which, as we saw in the Kargil incident last year, could easily become a flash-point for a nuclear exchange. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North was right about that. We shall do all that we can to seek an improvement in that situation, while pressing India and Pakistan to sign the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and to participate constructively in negotiations for a fissile material cutoff treaty.

The United Kingdom is in a particularly good position to press the case for those treaties. We have not carried out a nuclear weapons test explosion since 1991. With France, we have not only signed but ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. In 1995, we announced that we had ceased producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. The Government have already placed under international verification the reprocessing and enrichment operations that must be verified under any fissile material cut-off treaty. In short, we are practising what we preach.

Because of the importance that we attach to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, we have made no secret of our extreme disappointment that the US Senate has rejected it. We very much welcome the Administration's refusal to accept that as the last word on the matter, and we shall continue to press for US ratification as soon as possible, along with ratification by Russia, China and all the other states whose ratification is essential to the treaty's coming into force. Similarly, at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, we are continuing to press for an early start to negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.

We shall work hard in the next few months to prepare for the conference of states that are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in April and May. That treaty remains the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The vast majority of its parties remain fully committed to it. We agree with many of the non-nuclear weapon states that are also party to the treaty that want to push for faster progress towards nuclear disarmament. Here, too, the Government are practising what they preach.

I welcome the acknowledgment of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of the sea change that has been brought about by the new Labour Government on such matters. Since the end of the cold war, we have reduced the number of our operationally available warheads by 50 per cent. We have taken steps to maintain our remaining nuclear forces at a reduced state of readiness. We have been completely transparent about our stocks of nuclear material, military as well as civil. Work is in hand to develop expertise at Aldermaston in verifying the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, and we have made it clear that, when we are satisified with progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in those negotiations.

We have been trying to lead by example and our diplomats have been active and creative in trying to persuade other nuclear weapons states of the need for continuing progress in the right direction. The crucial issue is the future of the strategic arms reduction treaty process and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. There is a potential conflict of interests between two important considerations. On the one hand is the desirability of limiting defences against strategic ballistic missiles to provide the basis for continuing reductions in offensive, strategic nuclear forces. On the other hand is the possibility of defences against such missiles offering some protection against the consequences of their acquisition by new or rogue states that do not form part of established deterrent relationships. Such matters are complex and difficult, but I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) about the dangers of unilateral responses to rogue states becoming a universal risk to humankind.

The Government, therefore, much welcome the fact that the United States and Russia announced in June last year that they would begin discussions on a third strategic arms reduction treaty and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. We welcome the fact that such discussions have been proceeding intensively during the past few months and look forward to a satisfactory conclusion. We are also looking forward to engaging fully with our NATO allies in the review of alliance policy options on confidence and security-building measures, verification, non-proliferation, and arms control and disarmament. The alliance committed itself to that exercise at the Washington summit in April last year. That process is now being undertaken by responsible NATO bodies and we expect a report to NATO Ministers in December this year. Although we do not believe that the review should lead to fundamental changes in NATO's new strategic concept announced at the Washington summit, we hope that it will make a helpful and positive contribution to the way forward in such important arms control areas.

The Government are working extremely hard not only to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but to make progress towards our goal of the elimination of all such weapons. Ultimately, the achievement of both objectives is essential to long-term global security. Neither will be fully achieved without the other. In that respect, I very much welcome the setting up of the all-party group on such matters that is sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North. I welcome also the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has taken up the mantle that her husband pursued extremely vigorously over his years in Parliament. It is good to have such a voice heard loud and clear.

There is almost universal agreement in the House, apart from some elements on the Opposition Benches, about a united and vigorous response by the Government to try to tackle the problems of global insecurity and the need to ensure that we have proper controls on the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. There is a great deal more to do, however, and we must work together to achieve such an outcome. The work is hard and tough but, as I have tried to demonstrate, the Government are pursuing such a mandate with great vigour, certainly with much more energy and diligence than that displayed by our predecessors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said, it is important that we carry on the agenda and achieve a much safer world and, thereby, eliminate the possibility of the whole of humankind destroying itself and, with it, the environment and the very future of the planet.

The matter that I wish to raise today is not only of great interest to people in my constituency of South-East Cornwall; it is of great relevance to people throughout the United Kingdom who holiday in this country.

Last summer, at Honicombe Manor holiday park, near Callington in my constituency, two young girls tragically drowned in the privately owned swimming pool at the holiday centre. The coroner's report, issued two weeks ago, was most distressing because it revealed that, had the pool complied with the guidelines set out by the Health and Safety Executive, the deaths could have been avoided. The pool was not supervised by a lifeguard; there was no emergency alarm or poolside telephone; and the pool shelved rapidly to a deep section that was not properly signposted. All those factors go against the guidelines and recommendations set out in "Managing Health and Safety in Swimming Pools"—a document recently updated by the Health and Safety Executive and the Sports Council of England, which I wholeheartedly commend and endorse.

I bring the matter to the House of Commons today in the hope that something can be done to ensure that accidents such as that latest tragedy do not happen again. The problem with private swimming pools—for the purposes of our debate, I mean pools in hotels, camp sites, self-catering complexes and similar establishments, but not domestic pools—is that they are not subject to the demands of specific regulations. They need comply only with the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which states that their owners should accept a duty of care. As I said, guidelines exist on how to do that; they are good and comprehensive, but they are little more than suggestions of how best to meet the health and safety at work regulations. They contain few specific requirements and, if the guidelines are not heeded, pool owners and operators face little threat of disadvantage.

Local authorities have the power to issue orders for improvement, or prohibition orders. However, as illustrated by the case in my constituency, those orders are not always heeded, and the system of checks is not as rigorous as necessary. In light of the number of accidents that have occurred in such facilities, that cannot be allowed to continue.

The coroner at the inquest in the Honicombe Manor case has, in recent years, presided over inquests into seven deaths in holiday industry pools in Cornwall. Statistics prepared by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents show that the number of drownings in private pools has been worryingly high for a number of years. Of most concern is the fact that, although the number of accidents in public pools has fallen, the number of accidents in private pools has not. In 1998, the number of deaths in private pools was more than double the number of deaths in public pools. That illustrates the fact that, if the new guidelines were rigorously enforced in private pools, as they are in municipal pools, lives would be saved.

Surely it is time to take the advice of the coroner, who said that

"there is no system of licensing of holiday pools and there is because of the wide range of other duties a limited expertise available to the inspecting authority".

He recommended the introduction of a licence for pools to be granted or withdrawn on satisfactory inspection of the implementation of guidelines. I understand that he has written to the Government and, in the light of his experience, I hope that his words will be heeded.

The vast majority of those who operate private pools do so responsibly and ensure that the design and future operation of their facilities meet all the safety standards. However, we need to ensure that all pools meet the minimum standards and can be taken out of action immediately if they are found to be substandard. I should stress that I intend to call for such legislation.

My constituency has a thriving tourism industry, so I do not wish to make it more costly or difficult for holiday complex owners to provide leisure facilities. My constituency is also on the coast, so I am only too aware that the number of deaths in swimming pools is tiny compared with the number of deaths in rivers and the sea. I do not want to discourage the use of swimming pools, as it is enjoyable and valuable.

We want our children to learn to swim and to become strong swimmers by swimming regularly, and pools are the safest places for them to do that. However, they are safe only if the pools are properly supervised, if there are clear markings to show where unconfident swimmers can swim within their depth and if there is a clear action plan for when things go wrong, as they sometimes do, albeit rarely. We must also remember that many schools use local private pools for swimming lessons.

The fact that other swimming areas are more dangerous is no excuse for inaction. I fully accept that there will always be risks attached to leisure pursuits involving water. Simple, relatively inexpensive precautions should be taken, however, to ensure greater safety in private swiming pools.

The guidelines issued by the Health and Safety Executive are extremely well thought out. Although they recognise that not all swimming pools will meet top standards at all times, they give clear, sensible guidance on how to minimise risk. We must ensure that the guidelines are properly implemented. Had they been, I am certain that there would not have been a pool with a sharp and badly signposted shelf to a deep section, no poolside alarm and no lifeguard, although not all those might have been realistically available while a small holiday business maintained commercial viability. Had the recommended system been in place, however, the pool would not have been granted a licence until a least its gradient had been lowered and a trained and qualified specialist health and safety inspector had outlined and approved a clear emergency plan.

Several problems relate specifically to swimming pools. We are all aware that swimming pool design and installation differ from what existed a few years ago. We are aware of recent cases in which hair has been trapped in filter systems, injuries have resulted from poorly designed water slides and flumes, and accidents have been caused by poor layout such as low-level overhead pipes. We have also heard about more common problems, such as bad signing of deep areas, sharp shelves into deep water and slippery poolside surfaces. We need properly qualified people who are trained specifically to spot those potential problems and enforce recommendations at design stage and when the pool is commissioned for use. Such a regime would not be difficult to implement. Existing environmental health officers need to be qualified in the specialist subject of swimming pool safety.

The vast majority of our swimming pools are as safe as we can make them: it is the others that we must tackle. Even the worst pools are less hazardous than the open sea, but there is room for improvement. When we are dealing with people's safety, we should not delay taking every possible step towards improvement. There is always a cost to increasing regulation. We must bear in mind the fact that, often, only limited resources are available to small holiday complex owners and indeed, local authorities. However, I am sure that all holiday complex owners want to provide safer facilities for their customers.

My aim in suggesting a licensing programme is to encourage a more proactive approach to swimming pool safety, in both their construction and the organisation of their use, than the current system of orders to improve and prohibition orders, which, by their nature, are reactive. If pool owners knew that they had to meet minimum standards before being allowed to open their facilities, best practice would be encouraged from the outset. That would be especially effective in encouraging better swimming pool design, which has been identified by ROSPA as one of the chief sources of danger in such swimming pools. It would involve considerable collaboration between the agency responsible for inspection and the planning authorities, but I do not see that as an insurmountable barrier.

The Health and Safety Executive takes seriously the dangers that can be associated with swimming pools and has, in response to previous cases, commissioned inspections of pools. Unfortunately, when the personnel sent to carry out those inspections are not qualified specialists and the immediate threat of a loss of licence is not a possibility, there will always be some irresponsible owners who do not take the action necessary to comply with the best practice as laid out.

I have spoken to the local council involved in my constituency and it has expressed its support for a scheme of licences. Furthermore, in a recent letter to me the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management recognised a

"clear need to do more"

than is done at present. I believe that those endorsements show willingness by the industry to move forward to safer regulation, and as I have mentioned, the coroner is calling for that approach too.

To summarise, I am not convinced that the duty of care requirement as created in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is specific enough to deal with the particular problems associated with private swimming pools. Most establishments in the holiday industry require adherence to strict safety precautions in relation to fire. Fire certification has dramatically improved consumer safety in hotel accommodation. It is time to introduce similar measures for swimming pools.

We should have a stronger system of licensing starting at the design stage so that safety features could be designed in at an appropriate time. It should follow through to the commissioning stage so that a pool is constructed in the way it should be. Pools should be subjected to regular inspection, whether yearly, two yearly or three yearly, with the possible addition of spot checks. There should also be enforcement powers to close down a facility if necessary. Such a regime is called for by the coroner and my local authority and is supported by the professional institution. I ask the Minister to consider these representations seriously so that we reduce the incidence of these tragic accidents.

11.43 am

It is a pleasure to respond to my first debate in this Chamber under your supervision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing this debate. I should also like to tell him how sorry I am about the tragic incident that occurred in his constituency in which two young people from, I believe, the north-west lost their lives—[Interruption.] I apologise if that was incorrect. My sympathy goes genuinely to the families who have suffered such an appalling loss.

According to figures produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, there are about 10 to 12 fatal accidents in swimming pools each year. Any drowning is a significant tragedy. At least some of that albeit small number of deaths in swimming pools could have been prevented by pool operators taking greater precautions, by bathers exercising more care, or by a combination of both. There has been an apparent blip in the figures this year, showing that a larger proportion of the annual fatalities has happened in private pools. That blip does not affect the trend over recent years, when fatalities in both private and public pools have been more or less the same.

I know that the number of deaths is very small compared with the number of people who use pools, but that is of little consolation to those who have lost family members. I fully appreciate that, and accept the view that any fatality is a tragedy. Statistically speaking, swimming pools are relatively safe. The number of fatalities is very low compared with the estimated 7 million people a year who use them, and the benefits of swimming far outweigh those risks. Swimming pools have been proven to be far safer places to swim than open water, which claims about 400 lives a year.

As the hon. Gentleman will know from his area, in recent years there has been a steady increase in the number of people taking holidays in the United Kingdom. People enjoy an increasing amount of leisure time, and the number of people using swimming pools—especially private pools in hotels and holiday camps—has increased. The Health and Safety Executive is aware of that phenomenon and has taken steps to ensure that the increase in the number of pools and users does not cause unnecessary hazards. The HSE has tried to work closely with industry representatives, local authorities and sports councils to ensure that the best possible advice is available to those responsible for running swimming pools.

We must ensure that pool operators and users take health and safety issues seriously. Pool operators should be aiming for the highest levels of safety, which would benefit them as more people were encouraged to enjoy the benefits of swimming in a safe, well-run swimming pool. To help those involved in running pools to focus on what is needed to operate a safe pool, the Government and the Health and Safety Commission have put in place a robust and rigorous regime, which we believe has been instrumental in keeping fatalities in swimming pools at a very low level. That has been achieved through a goal-setting legislative approach, the production of detailed guidance, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and, where necessary, proportionate enforcement action.

I shall say a little about the various elements of that regime. Legislation applies to swimming pools only when a work activity takes place; it does not apply to private pools in people's homes. The legislation applies to public pools and those in holiday camps, hotels and private health clubs. There is no specific legislation, but the Health and Safety Commission and Executive use the provisions in sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, and supporting legislation. Under section 2, pool managers have a duty to protect people working for them; under section 3, they must ensure that their work activity and that of their employees—the provision of swimming facilities—does not cause harm to others, such as pool users or those who have access to the swimming pool. There is a clear locus of responsibility relating to swimming facilities and pool users.

More specifically, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers and pool operators to undertake an assessment of the significant risks involved in their work activity and to identify and put in place the control measures necessary to ensure that the risk of harm is minimised so far as is reasonably practicable. To help pool operators to comply with their duties under that legislation, the Health and Safety Commission, together with Sport England, published the revised guidance to which the hon. Gentleman referred, "Managing Health and Safety in Swimming Pools". The new publication was produced to replace the previous guidance "Safety in Swimming Pools", which had also been jointly prepared by the HSC and Sport England in 1988. It was revised to take account of the requirements of health and safety legislation that had been introduced since then, including the 1999 regulations and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which make explicit many of the general duties that were set out in the original Act, such as maintenance of the workplace and of equipment, devices and systems.

Does the Minister agree that all those regulations are, as I said, largely reactive? They are made after contraventions have occurred, rather than being in place in the first place.

I certainly agree that, under the current regime, the onus is on the pool operator to ensure that he or she has undertaken a risk assessment and put in place the measures that that assessment identified as necessary to minimise risk. That is where the primary responsibility lies. There is also a responsibility on local authorities to inspect pools and enforce the provisions of the guidance. Together, those two loci of responsibility offer a robust regime which, in the vast majority of circumstances, ensures safety to a standard which, as I said, achieves a very low incidence of accidents and fatalities.

The revision of the guidance presented an opportunity for the HSE to respond to requests from the industry to incorporate other changes that would take account of technological advances in equipment, training methods and so on. To pick up on another point that the hon. Gentleman raised, the revision takes account of the experiences not just of those who use swimming pools, but of managers, inspectors, designers, architects, manufacturers and builders. There is a huge push from the industry as well as from the Government and local authorities to design and build in safety for swimming pools in the way that the hon. Gentleman advocated.

The guidance has maintained a consistently high profile over the year since its publication. It is recognised as independent and was constructed with the input of representatives from the public and private sectors, consumer interest groups and other professional bodies. The HSE and the HSC believe that it has been effective in raising awareness of the many hazards associated with the preparation and use of swimming pools and, as a consequence, has contributed to the reduction in swimming pool fatalities.

Like its predecessor, the new guidance was widely welcomed in all sectors of the industry. Our evidence from pool operators who have taken it up is that they have taken on board the need to incorporate it in their practice. If pool operators follow the advice that it gives, they will have gone a long way towards preventing a further loss of life. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the rigour and robustness of the guidance—if it is followed—should ensure very high standards of safety.

Most privately owned pools in the UK fall under the responsibility of the local authorities that enforce health and safety law on behalf of the HSE—although, as the hon. Gentleman will know, if a local authority owns the pool, the HSE is the enforcing authority. As the risk of serious harm as a result of a visit to a swimming pool is quite remote, the frequency of health and safety inspections is based on available resources and other priorities, based on levels of risk. None the less, the strategy for 1999–2002 devised by the HSE and the local authority enforcement liaison committee, the joint committee that considers such matters, includes as a key indicator and an objective for local authorities a reduction in incidents in swimming pools. Evidence clearly suggests that the HSE and local authorities are aware that the regime's robustness depends partly on enforcement and inspection, and have made it their objective to ensure, through enforcement and inspection, a reduction in incidents. They aim to achieve that through the promotion of the recently published guidance and by raising awareness of specific health and safety risks so that pool operators can take the steps necessary to reduce the risk of an incident happening in their pool.

Under the existing legislative framework, using a goal-setting approach and with the involvement of industry in the production of guidance, the HSE has been able to ensure that a template is available for pool operators to reduce further the number of fatalities in swimming pools. That, coupled with enforcement action where necessary, provides a structured and balanced approach to ensure safety. It is through that overall approach to managing health and safety in swimming pools that the HSE has managed, it would argue, to obviate the need for sector-specific regulation, which might, arguably, merely duplicate existing requirements in more general health and safety legislation, and, therefore, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, make it more difficult for businesses and local authorities to provide facilities for people to learn and enjoy the benefits of swimming. We must remember that it is the responsibility of pool operators to ensure that they have done everything reasonably practicable to reduce the risk of harm to people in their pools through either working or bathing.

Is the Minister confident that the people who are asked to carry out the inspections on behalf of the HSE are properly trained and qualified? Unfortunately, it seems that, in this case, the main problem was missed twice. No formal qualifications seem to be involved in the inspection of the health and safety aspect of swimming pools.

As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot comment on that particular case. I do not know all the details, and, in any case, the district council may take further legal action. Presumably he is questioning me about whether local authority inspectors are competent. In researching the matter for the debate, I have found no evidence to suggest that local authority inspectors in general are not competent. Local authorities make an effort to ensure that inspectors have specific training when they make inspections. If the issue should arise in a particular case, we shall consider it.

The hon. Gentleman proposed that the Department consider the coroner's recommendation, which is, if I understand him correctly, for a more proactive licensing regime, as opposed to the current regime, in which responsibility lies with the operator to conduct a risk assessment, followed by an inspection of that risk assessment and of the measures that it identifies, together with any necessary enforcement action. Taking the picture in the round, I cannot assure him that a system of licensing would be considered the best way forward. However, I assure him that if the coroner, or anyone else, makes such representations to us, we will look at them in detail and consider them thoroughly. We will not just dismiss them out of hand. I hope that that is sufficient for him at the moment.

I am very grateful for this opportunity to debate the important issue of the future of shipbuilidng on the river Clyde. I also thank my colleagues for their support and attendance today, demonstrating the importance of the industry to their constituents and to our country.

Shipbuilding has a proud history on the Clyde. The industry was a dominant force in Scottish manufacturing and a major producer in the world market. Britain's empire and wealth was based on the Clyde yards, as pioneers of innovation and shipbuilders of quality.

As much as one sixth of the world's shipping was launched from Clydeside berths in 1913. Significant competitive pressures since then have led to a decline in the role of Scottish shipbuilding in both the world market and as a force in our economy. From employing around 60,000 in the 1950s, Scotland's shipbuilding work force now employs around 10,000.

Production in Scotland is largely dominated by four yards based on the Clyde: Govan and Yarrow on the upper Clyde; Ferguson's on the lower Clyde at Port Glasgow; and Ailsa Troon on the Ayrshire coast.

Govan is the largest builder of merchant ships in the United Kingdom. The yard has of late specialised in the design and build of large, sophisticated gas and chemical carriers, as well as specialist, one-off vessels for a wide range of uses. Yarrow is the largest shipbuilder in Scotland. The yard has fully covered facilities for building both steel-reinforced and glass-reinforced plastic vessels and has dry dock facilities. It also has an advanced 3-d design capability. The shipyard specialises in the design and build of naval vessels for the Royal Navy and overseas navies.

Of the two smaller shipyards, Ferguson's has developed a market in building small ferries, such as platform supply vessels for the oil industry. Ailsa Troon has only recently re-entered the shipbuilding market, having for some years specialised in marine fabrications, and ship and boat repair work. The hallmark of all four yards is the Clyde-built quality, which sets the Scottish industry apart from its competitors.

My involvement and focus are very much on the Govan shipyard in my constituency. As the local Member of Parliament, I have shared the roller-coaster ride of the past year with the dedicated and skilled work force and their families. My constituents value the former Fairfields yard as the major employer in Govan. Following the announcement last April that the Kvaerner group were seeking to sell or close the yard, the Government worked hard to secure a buyer for Govan. In particular, I must praise the efforts of the task force led by Sir Gavin Laird and by hon. Members for pulling together in support of the Govan workers who reside in constituencies across Scotland.

I must also praise the success of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland in securing the deal that saw the yard transfer to GEC Marconi, now part of BAe Systems. The Scotland Office, the new Scottish Executive and Members of the House and of the new Scottish Parliament have all shown, by working in partnership to secure and promote the Govan yard, that Scotland benefits from bringing government closer to the people.

Will the Minister provide reassurance that the Government's sympathetic approach to the shipbuilding industry—which he initiated when in the former Scottish Office—will continue, given its importance to Scotland and the United Kingdom? The shipbuilding regulation adopted by the European Union in 1998 aims to refuse aid on measures to help the industry to improve its competitiveness. The United States delay in ratifying the 1994 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shipping agreement means that yards on the Clyde are vulnerable to uncompetitive pricing practices elsewhere. Regular discussions with Govan shop stewards, led by yard convener Jamie Webster, show that that is a major concern for the Govan yard.

Last year, the European Commission report on world shipbuilding outlined low pricing by yards—especially those in Korea—which sometimes resulted in losses between 14 and 40 per cent. of the calculated building price. After recent difficulties in the far eastern economies, there are genuine concerns that International Monetary Fund-led rescue packages may allow heavily subsidised Korean yards facing bankruptcy to continue to trade at a loss.

I urge the Minister and the Government to continue to investigate whether the conditions and assumptions under which the IMF made the Korean rescue packages are fully respected. It is vital that the Government identify enough evidence of anti-competitive behaviour in Korea so that the World Trade Organisation can take measures to rectify the position. In addition, I urge the Government to continue to help to establish international trade disciplines for a level playing field in world shipbuilding.

The shipbuilding intervention fund will not be available from the end of this year. At present, that operating aid allows British merchant yards to subsidise up to 9 per cent. of the contract value at the time of signing the contract. I fully understand Govan's concern at that decision, but appreciate that such aid has not always helped shipbuilding competitiveness across the European Union.

Last week, the enterprise Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive released £2.7 million in intervention aid for Harland and Wolff in Belfast. As in Scotland, the new devolved Administration has continued the UK Government's active support for the shipbuilding industry. Workers on the Clyde seek Government assurances that any remaining opportunities for such aid this year will not be ignored anywhere in the United Kingdom.

The home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme currently provides loans to finance the construction, completion or radical alteration of ships and mobile offshore installations. At present, guaranteed loans are available for up to 80 per cent. of contract value for ships and up to 85 per cent. of contract value for mobile offshore installations, such as rigs. Will the Minister outline the perceived extent of its success and whether proposals for altering or improving the scheme are likely?

In Europe, the Council regulation abolishing contract-related aid at the end of this year permits measures to improve the competitiveness of shipbuilding through capacity reductions or productivity increases. On Clydeside, we especially welcome research and development aid and investment aid for innovation. James Watt developed practical steam power on the Clyde, and Govan yard owners Napier, Elder and Kirk pioneered engine innovations that dominated marine engineering for decades. Napier, the father of Clyde shipbuilding, built the first iron ships for the British Navy in Govan. Our proud heritage is matched by a determination to maintain the Clyde's reputation at the cutting edge of the industry in the new millennium.

In Europe, the Industry Council has concentrated on heavy industry, such as shipbuilding and steel, with the emphasis on state aid. With the European Union aid regime moving towards horizontal aid and away from aid for specific sectors, I must impress on my hon. Friend the Minister the need to ensure that the shipbuilding industry is not moved down the agenda and sidelined in future meetings of the Industry Council. My hon. Friend the Minister supported the formation of a shipbuilding forum, comprising representatives of yards, unions, suppliers and customers, to increase British yards' share of EU ship purchases. That partnership approach is widely welcome for Scotland and the United Kingdom. A united industry will always be stronger pursuing common interests, and I praise the commitment of the Labour Government in initiating and continuing that strategy.

On the Clyde, we welcomed the confirmation, by the Minister for Defence Procurement in November, that Yarrow would be the prime contractor for the new type 42 destroyers. An initial contract has been let with BAe Systems to carry out studies on the programme. It is hoped that the BAe Systems partnership of Govan and Yarrow will reap further benefits in future work.

The Defence Procurement Agency's pending decision on roll-on, roll-off vessels is of immediate concern to Govan, as a shipbuilder, and its sister yard, Yarrow, as an outfitter. Govan leads the Sealion consortium bid for six ro-ro ferries, each worth £35 million in a public-private partnership initiative for the Ministry of Defence. Those vessels will have strategic sealift capability to transport equipment for the new joint rapid reaction force. They are not warships, but ro-ros of a commercial build owned by the service provider. The MOD has learned in the past that it cannot rely on commercial shipping to provide ro-ros at short notice or value for money.

On Friday 14 January, the deadline for final ro-ro bids, the Secretary of State for Scotland visited the Govan yard, underlining his recognition of the importance that such a contract could play in the yard's future. The First Minister and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning have expressed the Scottish Executive's total support for the bid. Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament are united in support of Govan. We all fully appreciate that the Defence Procurement Agency will follow proper procedures in awarding the contract, and that a decision will be made that benefits the taxpayer and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I am confident that the Clyde-built quality of Govan will prove most competitive. Shop stewards at the yard believe that a successful bid would guarantee work for the next five years and could increase the work force by 200. It could allow up to 20 apprentices to be taken on for the first time in three years.

In recent years, HMS Ocean was built in Govan, taking advantage of our commercial build methods and facilities. That amphibious helicopter carrier's primary role is to carry an embarked military force with support. Her secondary roles include afloat training, a limited anti-submarine warfare platform and a base for antiterrorist operations. HMS Ocean is a typically excellent example of the Clyde-built quality of Govan.

The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), in a previous life as Secretary of State for Defence, awarded two MOD contracts for auxiliary oilers to VSEL at Barrow, despite a strong bid from the then Kvaerner Govan. The second oiler has now been subcontracted to BAe Systems Govan. The first oiler remains at the new sister yard in Barrow, several months overdue at a yard renowned for its submarine work. The MOD has recently improved its use of the smart procurement scheme, which was launched in the strategic defence review. Savings can now be made without sacrificing the quality of work in present and future builds for the MOD by United Kingdom shipbuilders.

Without the ro-ro order, the Govan yard could again face closure next January. The competition for that contract will be strong. Among the shortlist of four bidders, the Dutch company Maersk is keen to use Cammell Laird on Tyneside. That facility was reopened recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but it is unlikely to be operational for well over a year. Understandably, my right hon. Friend is keen to see the return of shipbuilding to Tyneside whose shipbuilding tradition is second only to that on Clydeside.

I remain confident, however, that the yard in my constituency will meet the challenge of any competition and successfully secure such a vital order. The Govan shipyard has a reputation for high-quality work that is produced on time and to budget. With the active support of the Government on the British and world stage, Clydeside shipyards have a real future. I urge the Minister to reaffirm the Government's continuing support for shipbuilding on the Clyde.

rose—

I shall not call the hon. Lady to speak. She has not informed me that she has received the permission of the hon. Member who initiated the debate to do so. She has not notified me of her wish to speak, nor am I sure that she has notified the Minister. Has the hon. Lady followed all those three traditions?

No, I have not. However, in an earlier debate this morning, hon. Members were asked whether they wanted to speak. I did not realise that the rules were being applied so rigidly.

I must explain that the earlier debate was a long Adjournment debate, not a half-hour Adjournment debate for which the rules are different.

12.15 pm

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) on securing the Adjournment debate. It is a useful vehicle by which to raise an issue that affects his constituency in particular, but also one to bring attention to the wider subject of Clyde shipbuilding. I note with satisfaction the strong turnout of our Labour colleagues to the debate; it is a clear sign of the strength of feeling and interest of those who are committed to Clyde shipbuilding. However, I hope I shall not be considered ungracious. I note also that a Tory Member is present in this Chamber, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). She is very welcome—but no one else is.

My hon. Friend was good enough to recognise that, when I was Minister responsible for education and industry in the Scottish Office, I was able to demonstrate my commitment to Clyde shipbuilding in a practical way. As he rightly said, since 1997 there has been much evidence of the Government's commitment to the shipbuilding industry in general, and Clyde shipbuilding in particular, and to reversing any misguided thoughts about the industry being one that could be left to its own devices or that it was somehow part of an industrial past. It is very much part of our industrial future. The title of the debate "Shipbuilding on the Clyde" is certainly emotive; it carries with it images and memories of great achievements and huge work forces with legendary skills.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan said, for some 35 years about 60,000 people were employed building ships on the Clyde. Today, the work force is about one twentieth of that figure. Although the scale is different, the Labour Government strongly believe in Clyde shipbuilding as a modern industry with an important future. I know that Ministers in the Scottish Executive are of a similar disposition. At the instigation of the trade unions, I put in motion the establishment of a Scottish shipbuilding forum that is now chaired by the Scottish Executive. It will provide an on-going and valuable focal point for the sharing of information and the promotion of the interests of the entire industry.

There is nothing old-fashioned about shipbuilding. We have only to go to the yard in my hon. Friend's constituency to understand that fully. Today's industry is high-tech; it needs a strong skills base. Some of the skills may have changed, but modern computer skills are as important as some of the more traditional shipbuilding skills. Modern shipbuilding is also about delivering a quality product on time and to budget. On that basis, I have every confidence that "Clyde-built" can remain a hallmark of quality manufacturing throughout the 21st century.

The Secretary of State for Scotland was closely involved in securing a deal for Govan last year, following the decision by Kvaerner to pull out of shipbuilding. It is worth emphasising that Kvaerner's decision was not solely about Govan, but about shipbuilding as a whole. My right hon. Friend was impressed by the fact, which I know from my own contact with the yard to be true, that the work force at Govan adapted superbly to change. They are flexible and fully aware of the current climate, which is recognised and welcomed by the new management at Govan—BAe Systems. We all recognise the modern reality that shipbuilding is a fiercely competitive global industry with many players in the market. The world shipbuilding industry is in a critical condition with capacity far exceeding demand for new vessels.

My hon. Friend the Member for Govan mentioned subsidies for shipbuilding in the far east, particularly Korea—a timely reminder of this long-standing problem. I can assure him that the Government share the industry's concern about unfair trade practices by Korea and other low-cost Asian shipbuilders. We are a leading advocate within the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of promoting effective international disciplines to deal with unfair trading practices.

At the timely November Industry Council, we achieved a successful conclusion whereby the Council agreed measures to combat Korean unfair trade practices. The Commission and member states have started to implement those measures. At the same time, we urged the industry to play its part in taking those actions forward. It is important that a clear World Trade Organisation anti-subsidy case against Korea was presented to the Commission, which is now working closely with the industry to establish whether there is enough evidence to lodge a complaint. We shall be keeping the pressure up ahead of the next bilateral talks between the Commission and Korea, which are scheduled for February. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend the Member for Govan that the Government recognise and are taking action to address the problems that he properly raised regarding Korea and other low-cost economies.

In my previous incarnation as Minister for Trade, I was firmly convinced that the best way to combat unfair trade practices was to establish international trade disciplines to which all must equally adhere. We have taken a leading role in advocating that both in the EU and the OECD. As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan mentioned, we have been frustrated in our efforts because of the failure of the United States to ratify the 1994 OECD shipbuilding agreement. Nevertheless, we shall continue to pursue those objectives and my hon. Friend can rest assured of the Government's intention to pursue a fair deal and the proverbial level playing field.

The key for shipbuilding, as for other UK industries, is to become even more competitive. The Government formed the shipbuilding forum—on a UK basis as well as a Scottish one—to facilitate that process. It is currently implementing 40 recommendations, including enhanced support for the shipbuilding industry. The Department of Trade and Industry has agreed to allow an element of profit in shipbuilding intervention fund calculations, has extended the role of the shipbuilding intervention fund to conversion contracts and has extended access to several previously excluded yards. The home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme has been improved by allowing contracts offering pure cover and by allowing US dollar and euro financing. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has expressed his determination to ensure that any outstanding forum recommendations are implemented.

The shipbuilding intervention fund, though helpful, has not delivered the improvements that it promised in the industry's competitiveness. We are monitoring the pressure around Europe to continue the current system of contract aid, such as the shipbuilding intervention fund, but we are not convinced that it is the best way forward. New shipbuilding regulations, which came into force last year, refocus support for the industry on measures that will improve its competitiveness. To that end, we shall pursue the new EU regulations. The net effect should be to give shipbuilding more focused support to guarantee that our shipbuilders are not disadvantaged. The key is to win orders in the globally competitive marketplace, which, as we all know, means delivering ships on time and to the quality that everyone expects from the Clyde and for which it is rightly famed.

For the larger United Kingdom shipbuilders such as Govan, winning orders means, as my hon. Friend said, being especially successful at winning Ministry of Defence contracts. He spoke about the roll-on, roll-off ferry contract, which I understand will be determined by July, and the preferred bidder is likely to be named in the spring. As he recognised, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland visited the Govan yard last Friday to reinforce our political commitment to its future. I am delighted that the unions are at Westminster today, pressing the case with Baroness Symons at the Ministry of Defence, but the roll-on, roll-off ferry contract will be determined in accordance with the clear rules that the Ministry operates for contracts of that size and nature. It is only right that it is so, but I know that the Ministry will carefully consider every aspect of the bids.

The same applies to all the other contracts in the pipeline for the Ministry of Defence, such as coastal survey vessels, alternative landing support logistics, type 45 destroyers and a future aircraft carrier. Clyde yards will figure prominently, and there will be debates here and elsewhere in which their case will be forcefully made.

The hon. Gentleman has concentrated on the yard in his own constituency, as one would expect, but it is important to recognise the success of the yards at Fergusons, Ailsa and Yarrow at winning orders. We will give them our support in the future, as in the past. I emphasise that the Government believe in shipbuilding. We believe that the industry, especially in terms of its Scottish interests, was unnecessarily decimated during the mad-dog days of the 1980s when it was fashionable to write off industries as being sunset when all reality suggested that they should be maintained on strategic economic grounds to help secure our economic future.

I am grateful that the debate has allowed me the opportunity, on behalf of the Scotland Office and the Government, to salute those who work and have worked in shipbuilding on the Clyde. They have built ships in which we as Britons and, in some cases, Scots and Glaswegians, can take pride. They have also championed the rights of workers in a way that has left its mark on industrial relations to this day. I hope that the Government's industrial relations agenda, especially the right to trade union recognition which will soon be introduced, can to some extent be regarded as a monument to the efforts of previous generations of shipyard workers on the Clyde. They worked for such objectives as well as for retaining their jobs and industry.

I shall reaffirm what I said at the outset. The Government recognise the importance of the Clyde's shipbuilding industry. We have done everything that we can to support it, and we will work closely with my hon. Friend, our friends in the trade union movement and the management of the yards to achieve the best outcome possible.

As we all know, the mobile telecommunications industry is booming. By next year, it is expected that the number of mobile telephone subscribers will exceed 20 million. By the end of the decade, that figure could be nearly doubled. I support that growth; it is part of the communications revolution that is helping to sustain our economy in a uniquely long growth cycle, as it has done in the United States of America. However, that massive and rapid growth has thrown up a series of questions about how it can be accommodated without spoiling the environment which it is our duty to protect and enhance before we pass it on to our heirs.

Health risks associated with microwave radiation remain a matter of controversy. Today, however, I want to focus on the visual environment. The establishment of unsightly masts, which support more than a third of telecommunication base stations, is growing at an alarming rate throughout the country. No one seems to know exactly how many masts there are. If my constituency is anything to go by, there must be more than 10,000, and we are promised a doubling of their number despite the present 98 per cent. coverage, due to capacity increase and new technology.

The masts are invariably eyesores; they are an awful imposition on the surrounding landscape. Time and again in my constituency, masts have been erected in places where their towering existence has had a serious impact on people's quiet enjoyment of their environment and the surrounding scenery. My case files attest to the fact that they have become a permanent blight on the lives of those who live nearby.

The planning regulations have promoted rapid development at the expense of environmental concerns. Regulations have been drafted to assist mobile telephone companies, but those regulations have been aggressively exploited in order to build new masts. In my constituency, the actions of Orange have been an exemplar of corporate insensitivity, as they have repeatedly overridden the strong objections of local residents and local councils.

Now that the networks are largely completed, the planning process must be rebalanced in favour of the environment rather than unimpeded commercial development. As the Minister knows, planning policy guidance 8 is central to the planning process. Such is the guidance given in PPG8 that, even if masts are subject to the planning process, the final result is nearly always in favour of development. That guidance must be rewritten. Other regulations, too, should be examined so that it is no longer acceptable for masts to be built willy-nilly in the green belt or in conservation areas. All new masts for base stations should be subject to full planning permission.

Everyone agrees that base stations attached to existing buildings and structures are preferable. The refusal of owners of suitable sites to host a base station should therefore be investigated more closely if it is likely to lead to a mast development. We should also ask whether the operators have offered a suitable fee to the potential base station host. That economic test should include not only the cost of the alternative to a mast, but an allowance for the mast being an environmental offence, probably devaluing property and the quality of life of its neighbours for decades. If operators cannot satisfy the planning inspectorate that they have met those economic tests, permission for masts should be refused.

We must put in place every incentive to avoid mast development if other feasible technical solutions can be found. Masts should be the last option in a properly demonstrable sequential approach. Although I welcome the new mast database, information that I have gleaned from companies suggests that it is not yet working properly. With four networks, it is pathetic that only 30 per cent. of masts are shared. An average of one mast servicing two networks would be barely adequate. I asked the Director General of Telecommunications whether he intended to move to a robust target for mast sharing; I regret that his answer was no. I hope that he will think again before he issues his promised consultative document.

In making the case for tighter planning regulations for masts, I turn to an example in my constituency. Orange and Railtrack have abused the normal planning process in order to erect a 32m mast in a conservation area.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Yesterday, I had a meeting in the village of Glenboig in my constituency involving the company One 2 One. I experienced the same difficulty as the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that there should be far more consultation with local people? In my constituency there was none.

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, which demonstrates that the problem affects hundreds of constituencies where companies have not taken account of local concerns. Let me give a classic example.

Local residents and the local planning authority were eventually powerless to prevent the development of the 32m mast in a conservation area, as Railtrack was able to exploit the mast's exemption from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995—part 24 being applicable to telecommunications developments—for the eventual commercial benefit of Orange, in a pre-arranged strategy. In July 1997, Railtrack unilaterally erected a 32m mast—higher than the company required—on a railway embankment off Nutley lane in Reigate, claiming the benefit of permitted development rights. This dominated a residential area and the Somers road conservation area. A storm of local protest led to a number of my constituents—notably Susie Gamier, Jill Campbell, David Tinn, Anne and Gordon Forest and others too numerous to mention—becoming unhappily expert in mast matters as they led local protests against the mast. The local authority was deeply unimpressed by Railtrack's use of its power under the order. It formally expressed deep disappointment, called the lack of notification to local residents "unacceptable" and was not convinced that a mast 32m high was required. The local authority concluded:

"Railtrack merely considered cost effectiveness and at no stage were the amenities of the locality or nearby residents taken into account."

Surprise, surprise! In March 1998 the local authority received an application from Orange to replace the Railtrack mast with a bigger, better—wider and more obtrusive—mast of its own. Had there been a commercial agreement that had influenced Railtrack's selection of the site and the erection and height of the mast and ancillary installation? Unfortunately for it, Orange's supporting statement to its application to replace the Railtrack mast is dated February 1997, six months before Railtrack put up its mast. That tells us the answer. Railtrack's actions in not invigilating Orange's plans for the replacement, which apparently formed part of a vital safety system, tell us what had gone on before the mast was put up.

The planning process then wound its predictable route. There was a further storm of local protest. Reigate and Banstead borough council refused Orange's application on the ground that the mast would be extremely prominent, and detrimental to the visual amenities of the surrounding area and, in particular, the conservation area. The inevitable appeal to the Planning Inspectorate followed. The inspector conscientiously did his duty. He visited the site accompanied by representatives of the company and the local ward councillor, Councillor Ann Milton, who had been actively representing local people's concerns to the local authority.

Entirely predictably, the planning inspector gave permission for the mast in October last year. A key consideration in his conclusion in allowing Orange's appeal was the pre-existence of Railtrack's mast and the fact that it would allow mast sharing between Railtrack and Orange. The case is clear: Orange and Railtrack combined to defeat the intentions of the planning process towards a high mast in a conservation area. Railtrack's action was an abuse of its rights. It claimed it as a vital safety system, but then seemed remarkably disinterested in the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Orange's plans and failed to specify certain requested details with any clarity. Railtrack was not justified in claiming the benefit of permitted development rights but, to quote its own publicity material, this was a way to

"build on the partnerships we have development with some of the UK's major telecom companies to increase profitability."

Railtrack must now answer some questions, not least those put to it by Susie Gamier and Jill Campbell. What is the nature of the business and description of the business already developed, and about to be developed, with the telecom companies, utilising Railtrack's infrastructure? On how many occasions has Railtrack's use of permitted development rights been of advantage when selling access to its infrastructure? If Railtrack is not prepared to expose the nature of its relationship with the telecom companies, we are entitled to think that it is a racket, and the regulatory authorities should act accordingly in the public interest to withdraw and restrict Railtrack's rights.

That is not the only example of Orange's poor practice in my constituency. The code of best practice, introduced in 1996, regarding prior approval procedures for applied mast and tower development states:

"If the planning authority raises reasonable concerns and requests changes to the appearance, landscape of siting of the proposed installation, the operator will try to meet these requests where possible."

The code is intended to foster a co-operative approach, whereby the industry and its agents work closely together with local planning authorities and communities. Orange escaped from its legal obligations to accept minimal council requests to reduce the visual impact of a proposed mast at Shrimpsfield, Brighton road, Kingswood in an unseemly row over whether the council had met the 28-day deadline. We can see, therefore, how much respect Orange has for the opinion of local people. It is little surprise that the Gregorys, whose life has been blighted by the mast, report that the requested shrub cover is painfully thin and inadequate.

I recognise the efforts that have been made by other companies in recognition of the unsightliness of masts. For example, One 2 One has voluntarily ended its use of the 1995 order for future masts on greenfield sites when there is mast sharing. I have to admit my surprise that one company—Orange—seems to be the usual culprit in enraging local communities. When my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) learnt of this debate, he sent me a copy of his local paper, with the headline "Mast Fury". Again the culprit was Orange.

I largely accept the advice on the danger from radiation. However, on environmental grounds alone, the regulatory framework must be rebalanced now that operators have met the coverage targets set for them by the Government. A specific example is one that has arisen over a telecommunications mast in Banstead Woods in the Metropolitan green belt, which is an area of great landscape value, a site of special scientific interest and ancient woodland. However, for some reason, the woods are not classified as an area of outstanding natural beauty, even though they are certainly that. I hope that the Minister will agree with me and the Chipstead residents association that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 should be amended to give areas such as Banstead Woods the same protection as areas of outstanding natural beauty.

I also look forward to Oftel's consultative document on mast sharing, which will be published this year, but I am concerned that there will be an absence of target-setting by the regulator. Planning obligations to secure mast sharing should be strengthened, but local communities must be sure that other base station sites have been tried and that proper offers are made to the owners of such sites, who can prevent an unnecessary mast from being erected.

I hope that there will be greater co-operation between the cellular operators and others to minimise the need for more masts to be erected. The operators tell us that we can expect twice as many masts in the future. That is not acceptable. The Minister must use her powers to protect communities from the telecommunications operators and the privileges that they currently enjoy, and occasionally abuse. I hope that we shall hear of her intention to rebalance the regulatory framework in the direction that I have suggested.

12.43 pm

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing this Adjournment debate and on giving the Chamber an opportunity to discuss this important matter, which exercises the minds of many hon. Members. I thank him, too, for his courtesy in giving me notice of some of the issues that he would raise. That was helpful in allowing me to respond as fully as I can.

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the way in which the number of telecommunication masts has increased in the past few years. That is a reflection of the significant growth nationally in the mobile communication sector over the past 15 years. There are now 24 million subscribers in the UK. In other words, 40 per cent. of the population now have a mobile phone. That market is expected to continue to grow.

As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the Government want to encourage and facilitate the roll-out of a modern national telecommunications network. We want to ensure that the public can enjoy the benefits that come from a greater choice of service providers and a broader range of telecommunications services. An efficient and modern network brings a number of important social and economic benefits, helping, for example, to create a climate conducive to business development and providing ready access to different kinds of communications services in both rural and urban areas.

We accept the hon. Gentleman's argument: the drive to develop the telecommunications network with its attendant base stations, masts and antennae must be balanced with the Government's other priorities and commitments to the achievement of environmental objectives. That is not an easy balance, but we accept that a balancing needs to take place. Planning policy guidance for this form of development set out in PPG8 provides the framework. As we have made clear, we attach great importance to keeping to a minimum the environmental intrusion caused by the telecommunications network development. The land use planning system provides the tool for trying to strike that necesary balance.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I cannot comment on the individual cases that he raises or any of the allegations that he makes about the motives and intentions of particular companies, but I can discuss the planning issues that are relevant in those cases. I hope that that will be helpful. The general planning arrangements are that larger telecommunications developments, such as masts higher than 15m, will require a fuller planning application. Relatively minor development is permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, referred to as the GPDO. Permitted development rights generally have been approved by the House and apply throughout England and Wales. Generally, they benefit a large number of bodies in both the public and the private sector including, for example, householders and statutory undertakers, as well as licensed telecommunications operators.

Part 24 of the order grants a range of permitted development rights for telecommunications code system operators who are licensed under the Telecommunications Act 1984. Those rights allow operators to carry out specified development, subject to certain conditions and limitations, without the need to make a full planning application to the local planning authority. The GPDO approach incorporates essential environmental safeguards. I should emphasise that there are special provisions regarding the installation of any mast in key designated areas such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and sites of special scientific interest. In those areas, the installation of any mast does not enjoy permitted development rights under those orders, but development is subject to a full planning application. That allows more detailed consideration of the different aspects, including the environmental aspects of the proposals.

The main safeguard under the GPDO is provided through the prior approval precedure and that gives the local planning authority an opportunity to consider the siting and appearance of telecommunications masts. We made important amendments to the procedure last year so that operators are now required to post a site notice to publicise a proposal to erect a ground-based mast, in order to provide the public with a clear opportunity to comment to the local planning authority on its siting and appearance. If the local authority considers that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on local amenities it can refuse approval, but authorities are advised to explore if possible the scope for modifying the siting or appearance to accommodate acceptable arrangements before doing so.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned in particular the permitted development rights given separately to statutory undertakers. Permitted development rights enable statutory undertakers such as rail operators to carry out certain developments without making a planning application. Normally, it would be unreasonable to require statutory operators providing a service to the public to make a planning application for every essential development. Local authorities would be inundated with planning applications, and the efficiency of those operators would be needlessly compromised, with consumers having to bear the resulting costs. If Railtrack had to apply for planning permission every time that it needed to carry out essential safety, maintenance or enhancement work on the rail network, that would at the very least impose serious delays and at worst create unacceptable risks for rail customers.

Permitted development rights are important to the process of statutory operators fulfilling their duties to the public in the most efficient and cost-effective way, but that does not mean that Railtrack or any other statutory operator enjoying permitted development rights may do whatever it likes. For example, in relation to the exercise of such rights under part 17 of the GPDO, any development undertaken by the railway operator—including masts—on its operational land must be needed in connection with its operations: the movement of traffic by rail. It cannot exploit that power for non-railway-related purposes. Recent circulars from my Department provide guidance to the statutory operators on the use of permitted development rights, making it clear that local planning authorities should be informed of any proposal likely to have a significant effect on amenities or the environment.

The Department is aware of concerns about statutory operators' use of permitted development rights. A report on departmental research into the use of permitted development rights by statutory operators concluded that, in general, the system of permitted development rights is operating satisfactorily, but it made several recommendations for improvement, including arrangements for consultation with the public and local authorities, as mentioned by both the hon. Member for Reigate and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke).

In addition, the report identified several concerns in relation to rail operators, including the installation of communications masts; the impact of permitted development rights on light pollution; felling trackside trees; car parking at railway stations; and the scale and appearance of new buildings and structures. At the moment, we are considering whether to address those concerns by issuing new guidance and revising the GPDO. Members' views are therefore timely.

The hon. Member for Reigate was anxious about the number of telecommunications masts. We believe that it should be kept to an absolute minimum, consistent with the provision of an efficient national network. Our policy is that masts and sites should be shared, when appropriate, and we are taking steps to encourage that. Indeed, conditions attached to operating licences granted by the Secretary of State include a requirement to investigate mast sharing in the consequential manner requested by the hon. Gentleman before seeking to put up any new mast.

When the GPDO was changed last year, we issued new policy advice in a circular setting out our view that operators should give the local planning authority evidence of having considered the use of existing masts, buildings or other structures before seeking permission to erect any new mast, whatever its size. With evidence on the suitability of alternative sites, the operator can, at an early stage, discuss with the local planning authority whether a shared mast would be the preferable solution for a proposed development. Information from the radio sites databank that the mobile operators set up last year should help in those discussions. I accept the point that the databank needs to be more effective, but when it is, it will assist the identification of mast sharing opportunities and facilitate a strategic approach to the provision and siting of masts.

The Department has recently published a consultation paper on the rating of telecommunications masts that are shared by multiple operators. The growth of shared sites has caused uncertainty in their rates assessment. The proposals would remove that uncertainty by providing that shared mast sites receive only one rates bill, thus making it easier for operators to share masts. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Office of Telecommunications, Oftel, intends to issue a consultation document on mast sharing later this year. I understand why he wants that document to be as robust as possible—to maximise the potential for mast sharing.

As well as base station location, sympathetic design has a key role to play in minimising the impact of telecommunications development on the environment where it must take place. The Government are encouraging operators to work together to investigate the use of new technologies, materials and designs that will allow masts better to complement their surroundings.

The range of approaches that different companies have adopted shows that there is no such thing as a universally acceptable design solution, not least because good design is a subjective concept, but there remains an important place for some simple measures, such as early consideration in the development process of the use of planting and landscaping to help to screen the impact of developments in a local environment.

Careful consideration of the siting and design of a development should ensure that the right equipment is put in the right place. How to arrive at that solution is a further strand in striking the right balance, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, between network roll-out and protecting the environment. The Government firmly believe that telecommunications development is best advanced through the adoption of an effective partnership approach. I know that that is a hackneyed term, but I have not found another. Such an approach would involve operators, local authorities and, through them, local communities in a meaningful way. I fully accept the points that the hon. Gentleman made about that, and we want that part of the consultation arrangements to be strengthened. The code of best practice on prior approval procedures for mast development, published by the Department, underpins such a co-operative approach. A working party representing local government and the telecommunications industry drafted the code, which is now being updated.

I have outlined the different policies and initiatives that we are implementing to strike the right balance between network roll-out and the protection of the environment, and to achieve better use of existing sites, masts, buildings and other structures for locating antennas. The research recommendations on the statutory undertaker's permitted development rights, to which I have referred, will help us to address the various concerns.

The hon. Gentleman referred to many of those concerns, including the installation of telecommunications masts and their relationship to permitted development rights. We hope that the different parties will work together to achieve that balance. I am grateful to him for raising those issues—especially as it was timely to do so in the light of our considerations—and for his contribution.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.