I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss a subject that is highly topical at the present time. Indeed, when I asked questions in the Council of Europe last September about the matter, I did not realise how topical it would become. Hon. Members will have seen the figures published in the press this weekend, which show that the number of people seeking asylum in this country has increased by 50 per cent. or more over the past year.

Since coming to power, Labour has repeatedly announced measures to reduce the number of asylum applications made in the United Kingdom, but, after nearly three years of Labour government, the number of applications has reached an all-time high. During October, a spate of headlines appeared in the national press. One stated: "Immigrants enter Britain 'sewn into sides of trains'".

The article continued:

"Bogus asylum-seekers are being sewn into the canvas sides of Channel Tunnel freight trains and smuggled into Britain by Italian gangsters."

That appeared on 3 October. The following day, another headline appeared: "Gipsy immigrants taking cheap flights to Britain".

According to the article:

"Gipsy immigrants are taking cheap flights to Britain as part of a big rise in asylum seekers from Eastern Europe, says the Home Office."

Later that month, the headline appeared: "Record numbers seeking asylum". The article explained:

"Record numbers of refugees are seeking asylum in Britain, the Home Office said yesterday."

At the end of that month, another headline appeared: "Czech gipsies threaten exodus". According to the report:

"A wave of gipsies will head for Britain and other European Union countries seeking political asylum".

The statistics that the Government published just before Christmas show that in 1996, under the Conservative Government, the number of asylum seekers from Europe totalled 6,475. The following year, part of which was under the new Labour Administration, the number had risen to 9,145—by almost 50 per cent. By 1998, that figure had almost doubled again, to 17,745. The reports in this weekend's press, to which I alluded a moment ago, suggest that the total number of asylum seekers from the entire world—the figures that I gave previously related to Europe—in 1999 is estimated to be 89,700, which is 50 per cent. more than the 58,000 announced for 1998.

That vast increase in the number of asylum seekers places unreasonable demands on social services, police and other departments and creates unsustainable pressures on communities at the major ports of entry and the surrounding areas. The behaviour of some migrants is unacceptable. Hon. Members will be conscious of the number of people begging on the London Underground and importuning passers-by in the street. Not least of my anxieties is the cost to society in general at a time when Government funding to police, health and local authorities is totally inadequate to satisfy the legitimate demands of the indigenous population. In my home county of Shropshire, we are aggrieved because the money that we receive is quite inadequate for the services that our local authorities, health authorities and police authorities have to provide.

I emphasise that the debate that I have initiated relates only to asylum seekers from Europe. It has such a specific focus because there is an easy, cost-free solution to the issue of European asylum seekers. Some 41 countries now belong to the Council of Europe, membership of which is conditional on the acceptance of the European convention on human rights. In other words, no country can join the Council of Europe without first agreeing to comply with the conditions of the convention.

I should explain that the Council of Europe began with a congregation of western European nations in 1949 to ensure that as far as possible, there was never again such a flagrant abuse of human rights as had occurred in the second world war. On 4 November 1950 in Rome, the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights—not to be confused with the European Court of Justice—were set up under the auspices of the Council of Europe which to this day is vitally involved in all matters relating to human rights.

It therefore follows that the human rights of any national of any one of the 41 countries with membership of the Council of Europe is protected by the European convention and, by default, that individuals or groups of individuals can and should seek redress through the European Court of Human Rights. The fact that many thousands of people from countries such as Albania, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Turkey, the former USSR and the former Yugoslavia choose not to do so is the reason that I have initiated today's debate. Coincidentally, this afternoon the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg will debate restrictions on asylum in the member states of the Council of Europe and the European Union. I very much hope that my parliamentary colleagues will pursue the motion for a resolution that I sponsored in this forum last September. The text of my motion states:

"The Assembly:

i. Recognising that membership of the Council of Europe is conditional upon acceptance of the European Convention on Human Rights;

ii. Given that the human rights of all citizens of Council of Europe member states are protected by the right of individual petition to the Court of Human Rights whose findings are obliged to be responded to by Governments;

iii. Given that all 41 member states of the Council of Europe have pledged to support the principle of human rights within their own borders;

iv. Mindful of the fact that human rights are a fundamental tenet of the constitution of the Council of Europe;

v. Having regard to the not insignificant number of citizens of Council of Europe member states who continue to seek political asylum in other Council of Europe countries;

vi. Conscious of the possibility that some of those seeking political asylum are either economic migrants or fugitives from justice;

1. Believes that the situation in which citizens of member states of the Council of Europe continue to claim political asylum in other Council of Europe countries controverts the fundamental responsibility of member states to respect the European Convention on Human Rights;

2. Calls for the appropriate committee to report on this situation."

The motion was supported by 69 parliamentarians, including 11 members of the United Kingdom Socialist delegation. Signatories come from 24 countries and represent no fewer than four of the five recognised party groupings in the Council of Europe Assembly. I might further add that the signatures were collected in 24 hours. There were signatories not just from delegations from countries in western Europe, but from Turkey and eight central and eastern European countries, including Croatia, Poland and the Slovak Republic.

Right hon. and hon. Members might be interested to hear the response that I obtained from the Council of Europe's chairman-in-office when I asked whether, having regard to the fact that each member country of the Council of Europe is bound by the European convention on human rights, he could explain how citizens of COE member states continue to seek asylum in the United Kingdom, Mr. Asgrimsson replied:

"Let me admit that compliance unfortunately is not uniform".

He went on to say that

"nationals of all member states are of course free to avail themselves of the European Convention on Human Rights."

That is precisely my point. I asked the chairman-in-office a supplementary question:

"Does the Minister accept that, if all Council of Europe member states honour their terms of the European Convention on Human Rights there would be no need for political asylum in Europe, but if individual states do not, or will not, discharge their obligations under the convention, does that not challenge the fundamental raison d'etre of the Assembly? Why should the failure of some member states to honour their commitments impose additional burdens upon those that do? Does he share my concern that, included amongst those seeking political asylum, there are those who are fugitives from justice in their own countries?"

Mr. Asgrimsson replied:

"We are all aware of that situation, but we also know that our countries have different living conditions",

which makes my second point—that many of these people are not genuine asylum seekers at all but simply, as many of us have long suspected, economic migrants.

I come now to the Government's record. They published in Cmnd. 4431 the figures to which I referred—proof, if it were needed, that the situation has worsened dramatically since Labour came to power. However, guidance notes issued to the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe state that

"the UK Government is firmly committed to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights"

and, to their credit, that

"the UK Government considers it important, however, that member states should be entitled to impose conditions on persons seeking to travel to their territory; detain asylum seekers in appropriate cases; and return asylum seekers to safe third countries without giving substantive considerations to their claims."

In other words, in this area of policy as in so many others, the Government are strong on rhetoric but weak on action, as the figures, published last weekend, prove.

On 21 August last year, I wrote to the Home Secretary stating that,

"in advance of next month's meeting of the Council of Europe, I should be grateful if you would provide me with a synopsis of your Department's policy regarding immigrants and asylum seekers from other parts of the European Continent. My question is prompted by news reports of gypsies from the Czech Republic and other CEE countries seeking asylum in this country … maybe you would agree that the question of asylum seekers from any of these countries is a matter of concern which should be raised as a business item in that forum".

Leaving aside the fact that it took the Minister of State five weeks to respond—her reply awaited me on my return from Strasbourg—she said in that belated reply that I had specifically referred to

"the immigration of large numbers of Roma from the Czech Republic and other CEE countries."

That is not so. I specifically referred in my letter of 21 August to gypsies—a description that my constituents in Shropshire, where we call a spade a spade, would readily understand. The Chamber will appreciate that I have not yet converted to political correctness; nor do I intend to.

The Minister also stated in her letter that

"the number of asylum seekers from Central Europe has risen sharply in recent months."

That being so, and given that, according to the Minister's letter,

"the vast majority of applicants from Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics are Roma and those from Croatia are mainly ethnic Serbs"

that does not in any way alter the fact that either those countries are in clear breach of their obligations under the European convention or that the migrants themselves are at fault in not having sought redress through the European Court of Human Rights—as is their right—and are probably bogus? Either way, I fail to understand why the problem should be dumped in the lap of the British taxpayer.

In fairness, I should say that in her letter the Minister states that

"in the case of Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics, since January 1998, on initial consideration, all applications for asylum have been refused".

Unfortunately, that assurance is at odds with newspaper reports that appeared last Saturday, which reported the UN High Commissioner for Refugees as estimating the total number of refugees in 1999 at 89,700, compared with 46,000 applications for asylum received in the United Kingdom in 1998. In fairness to the Minister, once again, I concede that the 46,000 becomes 58,000 if dependants are added. Nevertheless, we have a direct comparison of 58,000 in 1998 with 89,700 in 1999—in other words, half as many again as in the previous year. That figure represents asylum seekers from all parts of the world, but it includes a substantial increase in applicants from Europe. Clearly, something is wrong when countries that have entered into solemn and binding agreements do not honour them. From our point of view, their failure to do so becomes a burden on the countries that do honour them.

Before I move on from the Minister's letter, I wish to draw attention to another sentence, which states that

"candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe who wish to joint the European Union must meet the Copenhagen criteria."

I had not asked about the European charter of fundamental rights. Prompted by that gratuitous comment, however, I do so now. Is not the European Union's proposal to establish its own charter of human rights in parallel with, or as an alternative to, the European convention on human rights of a piece with the EU's plans to establish corpus juris as an alternative to national jurisprudence—just as its determination to create its own European defence force as an alternative to NATO and to create the euro as an alternative to national currencies, is the clearest indication that the EU is hellbent on creating the European superstate, which, almost alone in Europe today, British politicians continue to deny?

I appreciate that the issue of asylum seekers is fraught, but it is likely to become even more so unless the Government take tougher action. This matter is important and of great interest to many of our constituents, so why did it take the Home Office five weeks to respond to my letter, effectively preventing me from having the benefit of its advice in time for the Council of Europe meeting in September? Do the Government agree that it is unacceptable for nationals whose countries are signatories to the European convention to seek asylum in other countries?

What steps will the Government take to ensure that all Council of Europe countries honour their obligations under the European convention on human rights? Will the Government take steps to remove the ambiguity—evidenced by the Court of Appeal's judgment of 23 July 1999—regarding the UK's interpretation of the 1951 convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees, as compared with the interpretation of other European countries such as France and Germany? Will the Government recognise that bogus asylum seekers are anathema to the majority of law-abiding British citizens and that the Government have no mandate from the British people to stretch a point beyond that which we are honour bound to accept by dint of our international treaty obligations? Is it reasonable for the British taxpayer to pick up the tab for the failure of other countries to honour their human rights obligations?

Before my hon. Friend concludes his excellent contribution, may I add two points to his list? Ratepayers and council tax payers in Kent are, this year alone, £4.5 million short in compensation from the centre. Should the European Union consider as candidates countries from which large numbers of people apply for asylum and which are, incidentally, members of the Council of Europe?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. One of the points that I hope will emerge from our debate today is that 41 countries currently belong to the Council of Europe and they have all signed up to the European convention on human rights. Clearly, not all of them are honouring their obligations. My fear is that we will create an alternative body within the EU and a blind eye will be turned to some of the things that go on in those countries. Far from solving the problem, it will simply compound it, and Governments who should act in respect of countries that are in default will not do so but will focus on the new body.

I am pleased to see my hon. Friend in the Chamber this morning because I am very conscious of the fact that counties such as Kent are taking the brunt of the numbers seeking asylum in this country. You may wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why the Member for Ludlow in Shropshire is initiating this debate when, as yet, we are not too burdened with the problem of asylum seekers. The Government's policy is not to take a strong line with other countries and tell them to honour their obligations under the European convention but to say that we must disperse the problem. Tens of thousands of people are coming in, but, rather than take stronger action to cut off the supply, so to speak, the Government are threatening to disperse people to other parts of the country. It will become a problem for me.

Thanks to information received from the Local Government Association only yesterday evening, I became aware that Dudley and Wolverhampton—Wolverhampton is only six miles from my constituency—are scheduled to take some of these people. Instead of solving the problem and sending bogus asylum seekers home, the Government propose to decamp them from Kent to other parts of the country. It will then become a problem for me and other hon. Members who represent parts of the country that are, as yet, unaffected.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government are not fulfilling their responsibilities to local authorities, not just on the south coast but throughout the country? Stockport borough council, for instance, is owed hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Government in relation to Kosovar refugees who, quite rightly, were taken into this country. The Government are not honouring their obligations.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I cannot claim to be conscious of the detail, although I am aware of the system that is supposed to recompense his and other authorities for shouldering part of the burden. I have every sympathy with him, his constituents and his local council, but the point that I want to stress this morning is that the Government must do far more to stop this flood of asylum seekers—and it has become a flood. As the figures demonstrate, over the past four years the total number of asylum seekers of all nationalities to this country has increased from 30,000 to 32,500 to 58,000 and now to 89,700. That is the problem. I would far rather the Government, instead of indulging in palliatives, dealt with the problem at source. What action will they take to persuade the world that the United Kingdom is not the soft touch that asylum seekers clearly think it is?

I said at the beginning of my remarks that there was an easy, cost-free solution to the problem of asylum seekers from Europe, and there is. Will the Government now make it plain to the other signatories of the European convention that if we are to stick to our side of the bargain, they must stick to theirs? Do they not recognise that merely absorbing the consequences of other countries' failure to abide by the rules simply makes it easier for those other countries to go on ignoring the rules? It is time for the Government to put their foot down. The question is: will they now do so?

There is no point in my rehearsing the reasons why Liberal Democrats opposed the recent Immigration and Asylum Bill, but we strongly support the rights of refugees under international conventions to seek asylum. We also believe that we have a duty to ensure that their claims are dealt with speedily and fairly and that, while they are waiting for their claims to be processed, they should be treated with dignity and respect.

It is to our shame as Europeans that major conflicts in the past few years in Europe have led to an increasing number of people fleeing their countries, leaving behind their families, homes and jobs. Therefore, it is not surprising to me—although it seems to be to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—that there are record numbers of asylum seekers. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been disintegrating and Europe has not seen such numbers of displaced people for 50 years, but the increase is clearly not our Government's fault. Perhaps, instead, we should be proud that people seek refuge in what is still seen as a liberal and tolerant country. There is an international emergency and we as a nation must do our bit, not just under international conventions but morally, to share the burden. This international problem demands an international response and international responsibility.

My party has long argued for a common European framework on asylum, and we were told during the British presidency of the European Union that the Prime Minister intended to make progress on the issue. What progress has been made on establishing such a framework?

I want to take the opportunity of this debate to draw the Minister's attention to some of the problems associated with the dispersal of asylum seekers. I have spoken in the past couple of days to my local councils and I know that local authorities across the country have worked well together to produce an agreed framework.

My area has been designated a cluster area, and I have no complaints about that. There is a duty on the county council to provide care and accommodation for asylum seekers, but there is no duty on the district council, as the housing authority, to provide accommodation. Indeed, if there were, it could not meet it: my local authority has about 10 void properties a month, which does not meet the housing needs of more than 1,000 people on the local waiting list, far less the accommodation needs of asylum seekers. I know that some areas of the country have many voids and are not in the same position as we in the south-west. My county council has a serious problem in finding appropriate accommodation in a short-time, but it will do its best, and hopes not to have to resort to bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

Local authorities around the country will have difficulties in caring for and accommodating asylum seekers, and in doing so on the fixed sum allocated by the Government. Health and education costs will not be recoverable. We do not blame asylum seekers for those problems. Having fled repression and intimidation, they should not face a punitive or dehumanising reception on arriving in this country.

What are asylum seekers expected to do while their applications are being processed? It is probably reasonable that they are not allowed to do paid work, but they are not allowed to do voluntary work either. Such work would allow them to spend their time usefully and purposefully by participating willingly in communities in which they have been dispersed. If asylum seekers were to make such contributions, communities would accept them more readily.

The hon. Member for Ludlow said that the Government could solve those problems by sending hom bogus asylum seekers rather than dispersing them—

My point was that if the Government sent a stronger signal that they do not intend to accept bogus asylum seekers, such people would be dissuaded from setting out in the first place. Given the increasing numbers that are coming to this country, word has clearly got round that we are a soft touch.

Those of a liberal disposition would say that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 sent a strong signal that Britain is far from a soft touch for asylum seekers; in fact, it treats them quite punitively. As I have said, the number of asylum seekers has increased simply because the number of conflicts in Europe and the number of people who have been displaced from their countries have increased.

On the hon. Gentleman's point about sending home bogus asylum seekers rather than dispersing them, those who are known on arrival to be bogus are sent home, but it often takes time to ascertain the validity of claims. He also spoke of the bill that taxpayers in Britain will have to pay. It is true that we pay a price for accommodating and caring for asylum seekers, but it is insignificant compared to the price that those who flee repression or intimidation have to pay. What price can one put on compassion and dignity? We should not assume that all asylum seekers are economic migrants and bogus seekers of some form of nirvana. In fact, the life that they live while waiting for their claims to be processed is difficult. We as a country should do our bit, not merely in respect of international conventions but from a moral standpoint, by showing willingness to accommodate people far less fortunate than ourselves.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on securing a debate on a matter with which he has been concerned for some months, and which raises important issues. I also congratulate him on what I suspect is his characteristic persistence in seeking the opportunity to secure it.

My hon. Friend made the very important point that many of the asylum seekers in this country who try to take advantage of the 1951 convention are themselves citizens of countries that have subscribed to the European convention on human rights. He asked the significant question why we and other European co-signatories to the convention should simply accept that little can be done about that. I remind him that the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 attempted to deal with the issue of asylum seekers who come to the United Kingdom from countries that are renowned for their reputations for safeguarding human rights. The Act provided for a list of safe third countries, whereby asylum seekers from those countries would be put on a special fast track process on the assumption that, save only in the most exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, a claim from a person who was a citizen of such a country would be regarded as manifestly unfounded. One of several policy errors that the Government have made since taking office was their decision to scrap that so-called white list of safe countries. That sent a signal to people overseas that immigration and asylum policy in the United Kingdom was being softened as a result of the new Government coming into office.

I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) that we live in an age in which vast numbers of people seek to migrate from the developing world to the developed world, and mass movements of people take place on a greater scale than at any time since the immediate aftermath of the second world war. However, I take issue with her conclusion that the majority—or anything remotely approaching the majority—of such people are in genuine fear of persecution and qualify to be treated as refugees under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention.

During the debates in the House on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Government and Opposition Front Benchers agreed that it was clear from the evidence—from determinations by the Home Office and results of appeal hearings—that the overwhelming majority of people who seek asylum in the United Kingdom are bogus asylum seekers who are trying to use a claim of asylum as a means of evading our normal immigration controls. It is hard to blame them; mass communication through television and radio makes large numbers of people in poor and unstable countries aware that they have the chance of a better life if they manage to get into one of the western industrialised nations. Furthermore, racketeers are prepared to exort a lifetime's savings from such unfortunate people on the promise of being able successfully to smuggle them into, say, Britain, Germany, Norway or Switzerland.

The evidence demonstrates that most applications for asylum in this country—as in most western European countries—are unfounded, and that there is a significant connection between unfounded asylum applications and criminal or near-criminal activity by people who seek to profit from a trade in human beings.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. This is my first opportunity to take part in a debate in Westminster Hall. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for arriving late and having to leave early—I have to attend a sitting of the Home Affairs Committee. However, I wanted to be able to listen to at least part of the debate.

My hon. Friend has dealt with the question of bogus asylum seekers and economic migrants. I put it to him that the logical consequence of the argument that was advanced by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) is that this country has a responsibility to absorb people who are suffering persecution elsewhere, wherever that may be. Given that disputes are taking place all over the world, it is simply not possible to accept within these crowded islands even those people who may be the subjects of persecution. It is not fair to the population of the United Kingdom to have to absorb that quantity of people.

Order. Even on the basis of arriving late and going early, the hon. Gentleman's interventions should be reasonably brief.

My hon Friend puts his point with characteristic clarity and forthrightness, and I agree with him.

In my constituency, some of those vigorous in their support for firm policies to deter unfounded asylum applications are British citizens from ethnic minority groups. They can see that, if the large-scale evasion of immigration control is allowed to continue, race relations within the United Kingdom—and the position of British people who have come to this country lawfully and in accordance with the rules—will be under threat and become insecure.

I want to make a number of points relating to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. However, I must first say that this debate is perhaps more timely than he might realise. At 11 am, the Home Office is to release to the media the figures for asylum applications in December 1999. I hope that the Minister will not feel constrained by embargo times when she gives her reply, and will be able to share with the House of Commons the information that is to be shared with the media in less than 20 minutes.

Those figures should give further details not only of the number of applications in December, but of the progress or otherwise that the Home Office has made in increasing the number of decisions. We should also learn the latest figure for the backlog of asylum applications piling up undertermined at the Croydon headquarters of the immigration and nationality directorate.

Before I discuss the Home Office's handling of those matters, I will allude briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow said about the broader European policy. I shall put two points to the Minister. The first concerns the impact of enlargement. When I was last in Brussels, discussing these issues with Members of the European Parliament, I found considerable disquiet that discussions on enlargement were proceeding on the fantastic basis that applicant countries would sign up to the acquis of the Community entire, and that that would include allowing full rights of freedom of movement for persons within the enlarged Union and would also include firm, well-policed external frontiers along the Union's new borders.

The Members of the European Parliament who took an interest in those issues did not believe that it would be practicable for Poland, Slovakia and some other central European countries effectively to police their eastern borders with the successor republics to the former Soviet Union. There would, therefore, have to be either derogations of quite long duration over the free movement of persons from the new member states, or a rethink by the Community over its approach to the enlargement negotiations. I would welcome a view from the Government as to the realism of expecting the central European states to police their eastern borders in the way in which existing EU member states would expect.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow put his finger on a matter of great concern when he drew attention to the ambitions of some on the continent—and the avowed ambitions of the European Commission—to develop a fully integrated Community policy on asylum and immigration. If my hon. Friend has not yet had the opportunity to read it, I commend to him a study of the remarks of Commissioner Vitorino, the man responsible for this area of policy in the European Commission, when he was questioned by Members of the European Parliament as part of the confirmation process. Mr. Vitorino made no bones about what he wanted to happen. He said that

"a Community strategy on asylum … needs to be drawn up as a matter of urgency"

and that

"the Commission should strive to ensure that persons denied refugee status within the meaning of the Geneva Convention can enjoy alternative protection in terms of 'non-explusion"'.

It would be interesting to know whether Commissioner Vitorino is acting beyond the policy objectives of the British and other European Union Governments or whether he has a body of support within the Council of Ministers that will turn that ambition of alternative protection for those who are denied refugee status into reality.

Commissioner Vitorino went on to say that

"once Community instruments"

on asylum

"have entered into force, the Commission will employ the powers conferred on it by the Treaty and the procedures provided for therein to ensure that member states comply fully with their provisions."

He was enthusiastic about the treaty of Amsterdam and the new objective which that treaty set for the European Union of developing an area of freedom, security and justice. There is no doubt that Mr. Vitorino believes that the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice will provide tremendous opportunities for European institutions to develop further their competence over areas of policy which, until now, have been determined largely on an intergovernmental basis. He was explicit in his analogy—perhaps a stronger word than analogy should be used—between the creation of the area of freedom, security and justice and the operation of the single European market. He argued that the single market must be seen to encompass the common policies, social policies, the policy of non-discrimination, the customs union, rules of competition and, of course, all the new provisions introduced by the treaty of Amsterdam on free movement of persons, asylum and immigration. One of the characteristics of the single market, in institutional terms, is that decisions are taken on the basis of qualified majority voting with no right of veto. It is significant that the Commissioner charged with responsibility for immigration and asylum policy should be so determined to take those areas of responsibility into the remit of single market arrangements that effectively transfer competence for those policy arrangements—I am convinced that that is his long-term ambition—from member states to the supranational institutions of the Community with the Commission having sole right of initiative.

Important long-term questions remain and I am not convinced that the Government have grappled adequately with them or given a clear account to Parliament of what is happening in Brussels. People such as Mr. Vitorino openly and unashamedly wish to proceed in that direction. The Minister should tell us when she replies to the debate whether the Government will resist that from the start because it threatens British interests or whether, as with the withholding tax, they will go with the flow, try to tinker at the edges with a fundamentally unacceptable proposal and end up embarrassing themselves and threatening to damage the interests of the United Kingdom.

Is it not perverse for Governments to turn their backs on established systems, albeit that they are not working, and, instead of using their best efforts to make them work smoothly and effectively, gallop over the horizon and create another body that will probably run into the same problems?

My hon. Friend puts the point well.

I want to say a little about local authorities because some councils have made points that deserve ministerial attention and a response. Then I shall make some points about the operations of the Home Office and the immigration and nationality directorate.

I shall deal first with local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and the hon. Member for Taunton said, the number of asylum seekers coming to the United Kingdom in the last couple of years has placed an enormous strain on local authorities' resources, especially, but not exclusively, on those that have important seaports or airports within their boundaries. Will the Minister tell us something about the progress made on dispersal arrangements? The Opposition have supported the dispersal plans, but I am told by Kent county council that, although there has been encouraging progress in some respects, it continues to bear an unacceptably heavy burden. Progress on dispersal is not as swift as that county would wish. I have seen press reports that there have been particular difficulties in Scotland, with Scottish local authorities proving resistant to participation in the dispersal scheme and strong opposition from both Scottish Nationalist and Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament to Scottish local authorities being required by the Home Secretary to provide centres for asylum seekers north of the border.

The leader of Hillingdon council has also raised a particular concern with me about the position of unaccompanied children, many of whom will come from the former Yugoslavia and some from countries outside Europe. There have apparently been rumours from within Whitehall that the special grant arrangements that reimburse local authorities for the very expensive task of looking after unaccompanied children will be withdrawn. If that report is true, that would place an enormous burden on Hillingdon and other local authorities. It would be good news for those councils if the Minister could deny that rumour this morning.

My main point relates to Home Office Ministers' record in handling the difficulties that have landed on their desks as a result of the large number of applications. The hon. Member for Taunton, having criticised the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, hastened to reassure the Government that it was not really their fault. There could not have been a more characteristic demonstration of the Liberal Democrats' approach to the Government.

Clearly I need to help the hon. Gentleman with a point of personal information. I said that it was not the Government's fault that there is an increasing number of asylum seekers from Europe. The Government did not create the conflicts in Europe that have caused people to flee from their homes.

The hon. Lady is right to say that the Government did not create the conditions of conflict. Where she is wrong, and I believe that the figures published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees support my case, is in saying that the Government bear no responsibility for the particularly difficult position in which the United Kingdom now finds itself. It is not just the United Kingdom that has had to cope with a large additional number of asylum seekers as a consequence of the collapse of Yugoslavia and the ensuing ethnic conflicts; Germany, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries and the low countries have also had to deal with that problem. I fear that the evidence from the UNHCR is that the United Kingdom has had to cope with a greater share than previously of the total number of asylum seekers coming into western Europe. That must be due both to the message that the Government sent out in their early months in office—that they were softening immigration and asylum policy—and to the incompetence of Home Office Ministers in presiding over a system in Croydon that has allowed record backlogs of applications to pile up. People know that if they can get into this country it will be a very long time before their case is looked at in any detail, so they have the chance of either going to ground or establishing special compassionate reasons why they should not be required to leave.

Let us consider the United Nations figures in a little more detail. The UNHCR compared the number of asylum applications in western European countries made by people from the former Yugoslavia in the first three quarters of 1999 with that for a comparable period in 1998. The number of applications in the United Kingdom rose by 82 per cent. in the first three quarters of 1999 compared with the same period in the previous year. The comparable rise for Germany was 24 per cent. and for the Netherlands it was just 6 per cent. The discrepancy cannot be attributed simply to the fact that the UK took in a certain number of refugees from Kosovo as part of a planned evacuation and relocation programme which was sponsored by the UNHCR; in the third quarter of 1999, after the UNHCR had brought its programme to an end in July of that year, the UK share of Yugoslav asylum seekers had risen to 18 per cent. of the total—a larger figure than in either the first or second quarters of 1999.

The same pattern is apparent in non-Yugoslav applications. There were big rises in the asylum applications in the UK and Belgium in 1999 compared with 1998, but actual falls in the number of asylum seekers from outside Yugoslavia in Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland—all areas where large numbers of people have traditionally sought to claim asylum.

The statistical evidence, therefore, makes it clear that we have a worse record than other European countries in coping effectively with the challenge of large numbers of unfounded asylum applications. It is no good the Government wringing their hands, grinning goofily and saying, as they do so often, "Well, it's all the fault of the last Government. We've only been in office for two and a half years." Let us consider the sequence of events.

In July 1998, more than a year after the Government took office, they published a White Paper on asylum and immigration setting out clear targets for the current financial year regarding the number of decisions to be taken and appeals to be handled and the costs of immigration, nationality and asylum business. In March 1999, the Home Office annual report stated that the position at Croydon following the introduction of the new computer system and working arrangements had

"now settled and the majority of problems have been resolved."

The Home Secretary boasted that a

"step change in efficiency was made in late 1998 to early 1999".

Moreover, in last autumn's annual report of the immigration and nationality directorate, the White Paper targets for the current financial year were reaffirmed.

Both the White Paper and the IND's annual report said that the key target for 1999–2000 was for 59,000 decisions to be made on asylum applications. However, in the first eight months of the current financial year 25,885 decisions were taken. If one calculates the annualised figure, one finds that the Government must now expect about 39,000 decisions to be taken during the current financial year, which is no fewer than 20,000 decisions below the target that they set themselves in the middle of 1998 and which they reaffirmed in a report published as recently as last autumn.

The consequence of such incompetence is borne by our constituents as taxpayers. The Government White Paper estimated the cost of supporting asylum seekers for the current financial year at £350 million. In a written answer of 2 November, the Minister told me that that had now risen to an estimated £450 million to £490 million. I wonder whether her reply to this debate will reveal that that estimate has risen yet again. Our constituents must find more than £100 million extra towards the cost of asylum seekers in the current year alone because of the Government's mishandling of affairs.

I am not confident that the Government have got to grips with after-entry controls. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot tabled a question early in December last year about what had happened to Kosovar asylum seekers who had come to this country as part of the United Nations plan. In a written answer of 14 December, the Minister revealed that only a quarter of Kosovars who had entered the country under the auspices of the UNHCR had returned home. Why so few? Have these people gone to ground or is there a good reason why three-quarters of those who came here temporarily until Kosovo was freed have decided to remain within the United Kingdom?

Does the Government's analysis bear out the Daily Mail report of December last year that many asylum seekers whose claims had been rejected by the Home Office had simply disappeared into the community rather than return home? Islington council's statistics were taken as a sample: of 94 asylum seekers whose cases had been rejected, 44 had vanished. According to the Daily Mail, if one extrapolated from those figures, thousands of asylum seekers had gone to ground in the latter months of 1999. Do the Government intend to invest more resources into after-entry controls and deportation? Do they still believe that they are on target—set in the White Paper and in the IND annual report—for the removal of 8,000 failed asylum seekers?

The Minister set herself one target that was so ambitious that I blinked several times when I first read it. In a letter to the Public Accounts Committee in October 1999, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office said that the Department's aim was to clear all current asylum applications by October 2000. I tabled a written question to the Minister about that and she reaffirmed that that was indeed the Government's target. She claimed that clearing them all by that date was a staging post towards the aim of ensuring that, by April 2001, all determinations and appeals take place within six months. If that truly is the Government's target, between now and October this year, they will have to clear the backlog of more than 100,000 asylum cases that have piled up at Croydon. On the basis of the Government's record thus far, that target is unrealistic.

Recent legislation has led us to believe that the Government have at last begun to grasp the gravity of the challenge posed by large numbers of unfounded asylum applications in the United Kingdom. However, their own words, policies, incompetence and complacency have landed not just them, but our constituents, in this mess. We need much greater evidence of effective activity from Ministers before we can have confidence that they are up to dealing with the challenge.

I have been so intrigued by the debate that I thought that it was important to stay to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I hope that I will also be able to stay to hear the Minister who, I imagine, would like to start her remarks in about five or 10 minutes' time. I shall therefore be brief. I put on record my appreciation of the way in which the Minister has handled one or two tricky cases in my constituency. She does not have an easy job and it would be wrong not to thank her personally for a couple of individual cases, notwithstanding my overall criticism of the Government's handling of the policy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, severe impositions have been placed on local authorities. The impact has fallen disproportionately. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) told us of the difficulties in Kent. We are all familiar with the severe problems in Kent and the inadequate support that the Government are giving to councils that are particularly burdened by the problem.

I met a lady this morning in a London borough who is a neighbour of mine. She told me that recently she had had to evict her married daughter and grandchild because they were overcrowded. Even though the daughter had been on the council waiting list for seven years, no council accommodation was available. She was told that, as she was not a refugee, she was a low priority. My neighbour had the unhappy task of evicting her daughter and grandchild because precedence is being given to asylum seekers. People in this country are extremely concerned about that.

My second point is that there has been a lack of vigour in dealing with the backlog. People are going to ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury referred to my recent question to the Minister, which graphically illustrated that point. This is a failure of Government—probably not assisted by the courts, it must be said, which seek to provide every opportunity to gainsay the will of Parliament, which wants action to be taken. It is essential for the confidence of the British people in the system that those who are given every opportunity to claim asylum, but whose applications are rejected, leave the country and that the means are found to achieve that, unpleasant though it sometimes may be.

My third point was drawn to my attention by a constituent whose son, a former soldier in the Army, is now a long-distance lorry driver. He wrote to tell me that his son is extremely concerned at the consequences of the fines that come into effect on 1 February. If he is found to have an illegal immigrant in his lorry, he and his company will each be fined £2,000. The real issue is that this man takes great care to ensure that such people are not in his vehicle, but his father described what happens when he arrives in Calais. All sorts of ruses are undertaken by asylum seekers to gain access to the lorry and to any areas where a person can be concealed such as in packaging, boxes or whatever. There is then the rather revolting task of clearing up the consequences of human occupation. The one thing that he was overwhelmingly worried about was the fact that the French police stand there, see what is going on and do absolutely nothing about it. That confirms what I was told one night when I was in my consituency and my mobile phone rang. At the other end were two reporters from the Daily Mail, who said, "We are in Calais, and you will not believe what we are seeing here. There are all these fancy security arrangements for asylum seekers, all state-of-the-art stuff, but they are basically just nipping over the wall and climbing on to the lorries, and the French police are doing nothing about it."

The French police are not the Minister's responsibility, and I shall not hold her to account for them. However, it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that our continental partners take much more vigorous action to prevent the abuse that is occurring. If our partners consider the matter a European issue, they should show a bit more communautaire spirit and try to help the British Government to solve the problem.

I shall refer only briefly to the general issue, because I shall return to it at a later date. As a nation, we have no reason to be ashamed of our record in receiving victims of oppression in other parts of the world. The people of this country have shown extraordinary tolerance and great magnanimity in trying to accommodate people. However, as I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, and having listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), conflicts are taking place throughout the world. The country deserves to know whether, even if large numbers of people are genuinely victims of oppression, given the crowded nature of these islands and the pressure on our infrastructure, we have an unlimited obligation to accept them.

I merely ask the question. Many of our constituents are asking us to answer it. It especially grieves me when I am urged by bleeding-heart liberals—I am not necessarily referring to the hon. Member for Taunton—that we should do more for countries that oppress their people. The same people told us that we had no business being the colonial Government in those countries, which were then well run, prosperous and democratic, and people enjoyed the security that the stability of British administration provided. We are dealing with big questions, but I shall not deal with them as I realise that the Minister has a lot of information to deal with and impart to us.

Last year, record numbers of people claimed asylum in the UK. The official Home Office figure, released for the first time this morning, is that 71,160 asylum applications were made during 1999. Understandably, and rightly, many people will be worried by that figure and by the increasing number of asylum seekers coming to the UK in recent years.

The UK is not alone in experiencing substantial increases. In one recent month alone, in the Republic of Ireland, with a much smaller population, 1,000 people sought asylum. The problem must be examined in its European context.

Experience has shown that the majority of people seeking asylum are economic migrants, rather than those in need of international protection under the conventions. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that we must maintain the integrity of our asylum system. The concept of seeking refuge and protection and becoming a refugee is historic, and deeply rooted in the very best of human principles, but that means that we must protect what it stands for: providing protection to those in genuine need. However, it also means deterring would-be economic migrants from making unfounded asylum applications here as a means of avoiding normal immigration rules. Why?—Because that devalues the concept of seeking asylum and is seen as a means of evading immigration control. Allowing such avoidance would be an affront to people who have lawfully settled here, using the appropriate methods and often waiting patiently to do so.

I will say a little about the system that we inherited. It was to restore integrity to a failing system that the Government undertook the most fundamental review of immigration and asylum rules for more than 25 years. Our aim was to make the system fairer, faster and firmer than the dreadful system that we inherited.

Our international obligations as signatories to the 1951 refugee convention mean that we have to consider all claims for asylum made at the ports, or within the United Kingdom. We are not alone in that. We cannot turn our back on those in genuine need of protection. This country has a proud tradition of giving shelter to those fleeing from persecution in other parts of the world, and that will continue. I am one of its beneficiaries. Long may it do so!

The key to ensuring that the asylum system is not manipulated by those who merely seek economic betterment is to process claims quickly. That is why the 1998 White Paper committed us to a target of two months for most initial decisions and to a further four months to deal with most appeals by April 2001. We are taking measures to achieve that and putting in place new procedures—especially in view of other countries' procedures. We are recruiting more staff to process applications. Of course, that means spending more: in the coming three years, we shall spend an additional £120 million on speeding up decisions and on increasing the number of asylum case workers. That is important.

A substantial number of asylum applications have been made at our ports and in-country following clandestine entry. To respond to those pressures, and to help speed up the system, we are setting up a new reception centre at Oakington, near Cambridge. Oakington's purpose is to help deal with claims on which a rapid decision appears possible. Applicants will be required to stay at the centre for about seven days while their claim is being decided. There will be a relaxed regime, with minimal physical security. If a case has to take longer than others, or if an appeal is pending, applicants will be granted temporary admission or, if necessary, removed to an ordinary detention centre.

Bearing in mind all the things that the Government take pride in, has the backlog of asylum applications passed the 100,000 mark? When does the Minister expect it to begin falling?

The backlog has increased beyond the 100,000 mark, although the hon. Gentleman of course knows that the Government whom he supported contributed to more than 50,000 of those applications. Given the current pattern of decision making, we expect a consistent falling of the figures in line with the targets that we have announced. Oakington is likely to open in the spring.

Too many of those seeking clandestine entry reach the UK by concealing themselves in lorries. That is unacceptable. I shall comment on the principal responsibility. I shall deal with the comments made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) in due course. He made some kind remarks, and I attribute them to the esprit de corps that extends to the Home Affairs Committee, of which I was a member. However, I should pay tribute to the excellent contribution made by my private office.

Too many of those seeking clandestine entry reach the UK by concealing themselves in lorries. The principal responsibility for remedying the problem must lie with drivers, owners or operators of vehicles that are being targeted. That is why we are introducing a new civil penalty, to which high priority will be given. When it is implemented, the owner, operator or driver of any vehicle that transports clandestine entrants to the UK will be subject to a £2,000 penalty per clandestine entrant. The new civil penalty will complement the criminal offence that applies to those who deliberately facilitate illegal entry. We are increasing the maximum sentence for facilitation from seven to 10 years' imprisonment.

Much mention has been made of asylum support, and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) seemed to become somewhat muddled. At the moment, we are discussing interim arrangements—the voluntary dispersal scheme that is co-ordinated by the Local Government Association. As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said, the new support scheme will start from 1 April, and I can assure her that no local authority will have the power of veto. The Home Office will take responsibility and contract directly with accommodation providers. We are consulting widely with local authorities, so that we can make use of their understanding of local circumstances.

I want to deal with some of the issues that were raised in respect of the Government's actions and record. What was our inheritance on taking office? As hon. Members will know, in 1996, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is now shadow Home Secretary, piloted an Act that achieved something quite remarkable. Where it allowed some who claim asylum in the UK at Dover, Heathrow, or any of our ports and airports, to continue to claim social security cash benefits, others—this is the interesting point—were told that they would receive nothing. A number of court cases resulted, and the view was taken that, under the Children Act 1989 and the National Assistance Act 1948, local authorities must pick up the tab. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Canterbury, and local authorities in Kent and London saw that the burden lay with them. Of those who sought asylum, 80 per cent. reside in London and Kent. The problems that local authorities face should be laid at the door of the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the hon. Member for Aylesbury.

The Opposition tried to undermine our proposals on the civil penalty. In Committee, they spoke through the night—in fact for 20 hours—and sought to delay dispersal. With the support of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald tabled an amendment that would have wrecked the Bill and cost the people of this country £500 million. In a letter, she described the amendment as a sensible, common-sense provision. That is the same right hon. Lady who, when she held my post, approved budget cuts to the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office that would have cut staffing levels at Croydon by 1,200, were it not for action that this Government took after the general election. That is the same right hon. Lady who negotiated the Siemens contract for the new information technology system at Croydon, and who is responsible for many of the difficulties that we face.

It is little wonder that it has been said of the previous Tory Government that they left our immigration and asylum system in a complete shambles. Who was the author of that remark? It was David Mellor, in August 1999. The hon. Member for Aylesbury smiles, but having been a Minister of State at the Home Office, David Mellor was in a good position to assess the matter.

I shall deal with some other matters that have been raised. The hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned our position in relation to the French. I assure him that there is very good co-operation between our immigration officials and those of France. I know that not merely because I have seen it on paper, but because I go to ports and speak to those concerned. As a result of the recent actions in France, more than 60 facilitators were charged, and many imprisoned.

Asylum seekers from central Europe, especially Poland and the Czech Republic, have been mentioned, and my written comments on that have been accurately described in this debate. Overwhelmingly, the claims of people who come from those countries have been unfounded, and we have moved as swiftly as we can to deal with those cases.

A question was asked about the removals target. I assure hon. Members that we are absolutely on target in respect of removals. A proper removals target is essential if we are to maintain the integrity of our policy.

In Amsterdam, the Prime Minister secured a protocol to the treaty to ensure that the UK will be able to retain control of its own borders. That will remain the case.

As the Minister will be aware, I initiated the debate. So far, however, she has not addressed her reply to any of the points that I made. I recognise that time is short, but will she undertake, before she sits down, to reply to me in writing?

Without wishing to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, if he had not made that intervention, I would have had an extra minute to reply to his points.

The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood our responsibilities under the 1951 United Nations convention. We still have an obligation under that convention—regardless of the European convention on human rights—to look in detail at each asylum application that is made to us. That is not only our responsibility, but that of every other signatory of the 1951 convention.

I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's Euro-sceptic views, but I should like to be able to convince him that the United Kingdom has much to gain from close involvement with Europe in this context, as in many others. For example, we are applying to join the non-borders elements of the Schengen agreement, including the information system and other measures to tackle illegal immigration. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that organised crime is involved in the smuggling and trafficking of human beings, but we can defeat that only by working with our partners internationally.

We expect to derive significant benefits from opting into measures on common standards for dealing with asylum seekers. Common standards across the EU will mean that there is much less incentive for asylum seekers to go asylum shopping for the best deal. That is why I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who seeks an isolationist position for the UK. Ensuring that we have common standards will encourage claimants to stay in the first member state that they reach. Meanwhile, the 1999 Act contains provisions that will strengthen our ability to return asylum seekers to other member states under the Dublin convention.

Therefore, I totally reject any assertion that the Government are soft on those who try to exploit our asylum system. We want a system that is firm, fair and fast and offers protection to those most in need and in genuine fear, but which ensures that those who make unfounded claims will be swiftly returned to the countries from which they have come.

Order. The time is up and we must now move on to the next debate.

First, I should say a word about the title of this debate. The aspect of safety that I wish to talk about concerns goalposts. I should make it clear that I am talking not about professional football, but about football played locally on sports fields and recreation grounds, in or out of school, by organised clubs or by groups of people informally.

It is an unfortunate and tragic fact that at least nine children have been killed in such circumstances in the past 13 years. Some may be surprised that children are being killed by something as inert as a set of goalposts. The most recent incident occurred last summer. A seven-year-old boy in Dewsbury was killed when free-standing goalposts toppled over, causing a fatal blow to his head, after children had been swinging on the crossbar. That case is being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). That tragedy was made all the more appalling by the fact that a fatal goalpost accident was first recorded as long ago as 1986, when a seven-year-old boy was killed. In 1990 an eight-year-old boy was killed and then a 12-year-old girl, when a ball kicked with some force again caused a frame to topple over. In 1991 an 11-year-old boy was killed at Witham in Essex. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), whose constituency contains that town, wishes to say a word about that.

My hon. Friend mentioned the tragic death of the son of my constituent, Mrs. Brenda Smith of Witham. Mrs. Smith has campaigned for many years to draw public attention to the continuing deaths and injuries from dangerous goalposts. Indeed, late last year Mrs. Smith and I met my hon. Friend the Minister, and we were encouraged by her positive response. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way forward is a combination of safe equipment and greater public awareness?

I agree with those points, but other steps can be taken. One important feature of that incident was the fact that the goalposts were not factory made by a reliable manufacturer—a point that I shall develop later.

In 1994, a six-year-old boy was killed on holiday. Again the crossbar, which was a piece of scaffold pole, toppled over. In 1995, a 13-year-old boy was killed and in 1996 a two-year-old girl. Again in 1996, a 10-year-old girl was killed when posts toppled over: one set had been leaning against a wall. It is possible that there were a couple more deaths in 1996, but I do not have details of them. Each of those deaths was a tragedy, but collectively they are a disgrace, because they were all preventable.

I should explain my constituency interest in this matter. A firm in Lowestoft in my constituency, Harrod UK, is the country's leading goalpost manufacturer. It has nothing to do with Harrods, the Knightsbridge version. Harrod UK supplies nearly all the premier league clubs, including Manchester United. It supplied goalposts for Euro 96 and for the new Cardiff stadium, and will probably do so for the new Wembley stadium, too.

The chairman of the company, Mr. Ron Harrod, has campaigned on goalpost safety since 1991. He is a recognised technical expert. He represents this country on the CEN—the European Committee for Standardisation—and has done so for the past seven years. He took his campaign to the "That's Life" programme in 1991 and made representations to lain Sproat, the Minister in the previous Government, but received little response.

If we analyse this sad list of fatal accidents, we find that they almost all involve free-standing, movable goalposts, particularly the smaller 6 ft size used for five, six and seven-aside games. The goalposts topple forward when someone swings on or applies pressure to the crossbar. Almost all are home made or adapted from factory models by well-meaning people, but with disastrous consequences. That is exemplified by the police report into the Dewsbury case and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury for showing that to me. The goalposts were originally full-sized posts and had concreted into the ground, but they had been taken down and adapted. They were heavy—it took three adults to move them—but they were not anchored and of the 21 strong steel spikes that were supplied originally, only one was left and the remainder had been substituted with 10 camping-type pegs, which were not up to the job.

An expert witmess from the Health and Safety Executive stated that, because of the design, only a small amount of force was required to make the posts fall forward under their own weight. Design is the key, and it is important to maximise stability to minimise weight. Harrod UK has developed technical solutions to make the posts safe, particularly with the use of anchors, but also with prominent labels on the equipment and bold instruction leaflets. As a result of the campaigning and committee work of people such as Ron Harrod, a European standard—BSEN 748— now exists for full-sized goalposts. Guidelines and safety warnings have been issued by various organisations, including the HSE, the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education, the Institute of Sport and Recreation Managers and the National Playing Fields Association. The Football Association, through the county associations, advises referees to check them before use. Indeed, the laws of association football require that frames

"must be anchored securely to the ground".

Many games, kickabouts and training sessions all over the country do not take place under FA rules and the guidelines have not stopped accidents and deaths. Above all, there is not yet a standard for small, free-standing goal posts.

At the inquiry into the Dewsbury tragedy, the coroner recommended that such a standard be developed. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has taken a close interest in that. She kindly met me and Harrod UK in December and progress has been made. The British Standards Institution has agreed to draw up a standard, but that takes two years to develop, so it will introduce a publicly available specification—a PAS—which can be developed more quickly. We hope that that will be done this year. The FA has agreed to fund the development of that and is sending out new safety guidelines, of which I have already seen a draft.

Vital issues remain outstanding. Although a British standard and FA guidelines will make a valuable contribution, they will not alone solve the problem or stop the deaths. The standard will not cover existing goalposts. A standard in this country is voluntary and a manufacturer does not have to adopt it. Most important, we do not have a law making it illegal to make, sell or use non-standard equipment. The new standard will not overcome the main problem, which is the use of homemade or adapted goalposts. By their nature, the pieces of equipment are not made by recognised manufacturers, most of whom would follow the recommended standard. Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of legislation, so that when safety is involved only equipment that meets the recognised standard is allowed to be sold and used in this country? Will she consider the position in France, where the standard is incorporated into legislation? I understand that it is now illegal in France to make, distribute or use non-standard goalposts. In Germany, a standard is not incorporated in legislation, but I understand that insurance is invalid if non-standard equipment is used, leaving providers and users open to civil proceedings by the injured party. That concentrates the mind and introduces a safety culture.

The standard may give us a safe product, but how do we ensure that goalposts are used properly and safely? How do we ensure that the anchors, which are the answer to the problem, are utilised routinely? The police inquiry into the Dewsbury incident made an interesting point in its conclusion. It said:

"There is some concern amongst staff about the role of the HSE and its relationship to Local Authority Environmentally Health for these issues. It is not clear who has responsibility for enforcement. This needs clarifying so that it is clear who has responsibility for enforcement and any future cases."

The HSE wrote to my constituent, Ron Harrod, in 1996, and made the important point that:

"sports equipment does not usually fall into the category of work equipment. This means that the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 concerning the design and manufacture of equipment will not apply. The HSE therefore has no remit in this respect, and all matters of design of sports and play equipment fall to the Department of National Heritage"—

now the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

I wrote to the HSE at the end of last year, and was told that only two of those nine incidents occurred in circumstances in which the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act applied, and in which the HSE was the enforcing authority. In the other cases, which often involved children playing with home-made goalposts during their own free time, there was no legal duty on anyone under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. The activities of voluntary football clubs or of children playing on their own would not be covered by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act.

Which is the responsible enforcement authority in these cases? The questions of enforcement, inspection and responsibility need to be clarified so that they can be comprehensive in their coverage. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree that we need a high-profile campaign to get across to people playing in these circumstances what they have to do, and the importance of carrying out the safety checks and procedures.

In conclusion, I emphasise the following points. A British standard for small free-standing goalposts, which we are now going to have, is an important step forward, as are more guidelines from the Football Association. However, if we are to take safety truly seriously, and to ensure that our children do not continue to be put at risk of being killed by goalposts, we must ensure that only safe goalposts can be made, sold and used in this country. We must do that if we seriously want to avoid more children being added to the tragic list that has accumulated over the past 13 years.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing a debate on such an important subject. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and thank him for his short contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney outlined a difficult problem, which concerns all of us involved with the safety of young children, especially when they are involved in sporting activities. Many other hon. Members share that concern, and have expressed their regret at not being able to be here for the debate.

All those playing sport, especially children, should be able to do so in safety. As my hon. Friend pointed out, nine children have been killed in accidents involving goalposts since 1986. That is nine too many. It is worrying that of the nine, five children aged between two and 13 have lost their lives since 1994. It is important that the coroners noted that the accidents were not just the result of kids being kids. Many of the mobile goals collapsed during normal use in the course of matches. Many adults have also been injured in this way.

Figures from the Department of Trade and Industry's consumer safety unit show that 1,943 people suffered injuries in accidents involving goalposts between 1990 and 1997. However, that figure includes full-size, permanent equipment as well as mobile goalposts, and by no means all those incidents were caused by faulty equipment.

I became Minister for Sport shortly after the tragic death last July of Jack Sheerin, who died after being hit by the falling crossbar of a mobile goal. That tragedy led to much publicity, and Jack's parents—together with parents of other children recently killed or injured—are determined that such a tragedy should never happen again. Mrs. Sheerin rightly drew the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) who, in turn, raised it with me. This week, I received a petition signed by 1,071 people from Jack's home town of Thornhill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree came to see me last October with Mrs. Brenda Smith, the mother of Jonathan Smith, who was tragically killed in 1991. I pay tribute to her work over the years in bringing the issue to the attention of those in authority and to everyone in the sport. I gained much valuable information from her and I was struck by her determination to raise awareness of the issue.

I regard it as a priority to make progress on minimum standards for mobile goalposts. Mobile goals designed for use in five-a-side are different from permanent, full-sized goals, which are secured to concrete or other mountings. Permanent goalposts are subject to the British standard BSEN 748, which was introduced in 1996. Mobile goals serve a different purpose, often enabling children to play competitive matches on appropriately sized pitches. They are designed to be dismantled and stored easily, particularly at the end of the match or training session when there is often little room for storage.

A range of mobile goals manufactured by reputable firms in a variety of sizes and specifications has been available to clubs for many years. They are either lightweight constructions of plastic or aluminium or are made of heavier steel pipes, which are designed to be securely anchored in the ground. If fitted and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, this equipment is safe to use. However, many of the goals in children's matches are adapted from full-size goals or are constructed on a do-it-yourself basis—often by well-meaning parents who are anxious to help out their sons' or daughters' clubs. The goal that killed Jack Sheerin was cut down from a full-sized one and it was not secured to the ground. The collapse of home-made equipment contructed from scaffolding poles led to the deaths of Jonathan Smith in 1991 and David O'Neill in 1994. I am sure that those goals were built with the best of intentions, but there is no place for dangerously unsafe equipment in sport and there is a clear need for an effective safety standard.

The variety of mobile goals in use makes it difficult to impose standards, which are the responsibility of individual clubs rather than of local government or the football authority. Local authorities are responsible for the design and maintenance of their own facilities, including goalposts and other sports equipment. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, requires those who control football pitches used by others to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of the equipment that they provide. However, the Act does not apply to equipment provided by the users themselves. Most mobile goals owned and used by adult and children's amateur football clubs throughout the country are the responsibility of the clubs themselves, even when club matches are played on local authority pitches.

I have been asked to consider introducing legislation to set minimum standards or to hold local authorities and other sports ground owners responsible for all equipment used on their property. I understand those calls and why people feel so strongly that that is necessary. I am prepared to reflect further. However, we must consider whether such legislation could make a difference. I am prepared to take into account what is happening in France and Germany. We could learn from what they have achieved in France using a combination of legislation and standards.

I have been holding discussions with goalpost manufacturers since the autumn. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, I have had a meeting with Harrod UK, a leading company in the field based in his constituency. It is clear from those discussions that all the manufacturers are concerned to do as much as they can to ensure that the 3,500-odd sets of fixed and mobile goalposts that they produce each year are safe. Problems with mobile equipment arise when clubs use home-made or unsuitable goalposts. While I can see how people immediately assume that legislation would help, we must consider carefully how it would work. However, I undertake to look into the matter again.

An important way forward is to ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree said, that all clubs and coaches are aware of the dangers of inadequate equipment and of best practice in the design, use and maintenance of mobile goalposts. I have encouraged the Football Association and the British Standards Institution to consider a British standard for mobile goals as a matter of urgency.

The FA issued a guidance note on the design and use of mobile goalposts back in 1991, which it has regularly updated. It is a good, clear document and I am anxious that all amateur football clubs and coaches working with young people have access to it. The FA has circulated a note to all affiliated football coaches since the last tragic death in July, and reprinted it prominently in an issue of its magazine, Insight. I have been in touch with the FA to ensure that, having done that, it does not forget about the issue for the next six months; it must continue regularly to bring it to people's attention.

To ensure that the guidance note reaches a wider audience, including ground staff working for bodies that are not affiliated to the FA, I wrote to several leisure and local government bodies last November asking them to ensure that the guidance note receives as much publicity as possible. So far, I have had an encouraging response. The Chief Leisure Officers Association has circulated the note to all its members and including it on its website, and the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management has ensured that its members are fully aware of best practice.

Raising awareness of this issue with the people who run junior teams is vital. Many demands are placed on those who take on the task of coaching junior teams and arranging matches. I was recently contacted by the manager of an under-eights team in Cheshire, who listed the many stressful duties it is necessary to carry out before a competitive match or training session involving children can kick off. Transport has to be organised, subscriptions collected and playing areas checked for sharp and other dangerous or unpleasant objects. It is a demanding routine, which must often be carried out while supervising excited children. However, my correspondent stressed—I am sure that this view is shared by all those who are involved with young players—that safety must be the primary consideration, and that there must be no compromise on the standards of equipment. I hope that, in time, everyone involved in children's sport will demonstrate a similar awareness of safety issues.

As well as ensuring that those running local football clubs are fully aware of the need to make sure that all equipment is in good condition and that it is used correctly, I am also anxious to encourage the setting of a minimum standard. Following my meetings with manufacturers, I was pleased when many of them—including the firm that is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—attended a meeting with the FA and the British Standards Institution, where much progress was made.

Setting a British standard is a lengthy process involving much research and consultation. As my hon. Friend said, it can take up to two years. While manufacturers of mobile goalposts are working towards that standard, I am glad to say that they have agreed as a matter of urgency to develop, with the BSI, a publicly available specification. That will be a much quicker process. The institution has agreed in principle that when the publicly available specification is published, it will be given fast-track consideration with a view to its forming the basis of a full British standard.

I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend has said about how much activity is being concentrated on trying to deal with the problem. Could not the authorities include in the circulars that they send out a strong recommendation that every club or organisation checks to see whether goalposts are from a reliable manufacturer or are of the do-it-yourself variety, and couple that with an equally strong recommendation that they cease using the latter type immediately? Dangerous goalposts could still be in use as we sit here now.

My hon. Friend is quite right. Even if we get the standard and make things better for the future, dangerous goalposts could still be in use all around the country. I will suggest strongly that it could be put in that light rather than as just a simple piece of information. The FA and the institution are contributing to the costs of the research work and will issue a joint document shortly, covering the design, use and maintenance of existing mobile equipment. I am pleased that the organisations are working together on this, as it is very important.

I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government and I as Minister for Sport take this issue very seriously. Sports safety is becoming more of an issue because increasingly in this country people go to legislation if something happens. Sports, particularly at the voluntary level, will find it difficult if they are involved in costly legislation. It is crucial that they act to avoid the terrible tragedies that can happen to families.

I will continue to meet many of the people involved in manufacturing, regulating and using mobile goals, and to talk to my hon. Friends who have taken an interest. I am sorry that I cannot promise instant legislation. I will look to how we might combine the best efforts of everyone to ensure that the safety aspect is balanced by people themselves being responsible for the measures that they take when they are working with children. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue today and for helping to promote the awareness that is so necessary to ensure the safety of our children.

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise this important issue today and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for being here to reply.

There is no doubt that courthouse closures have exercised many hon. Members over a number of years. Closures have occurred up and down the country. The evidence is not only anecdotal but factual. I consulted the Library to establish how many courthouses had closed in the past 10 years. The number of courthouses has diminished by 28 per cent. in that time, and now each serving courthouse looks after, on average, half as many people again.

There has therefore been a significant change. For rural communities, closure of rural courthouses, has a special resonance because their impact on local communities is particularly acute. In 1998, five courthouses were closed in Suffolk. In the Suffolk magistrates courts committee annual report of 1997–98, the chairman of the committee described the situation as follows:

"It was found that five court houses were either under utilised or did not meet security standards or both. We have decided to close these five courts at Felixstowe, Haverhill, Newmarket, Saxmundham, and Stowmarket… We consulted widely before making our decision which is now the subject of an appeal by the County Council to the Lord Chancellor."

That appeal was not successful. The truth of the matter, and I must be blunt, is that no budgetary reason whatever was given for the closure of those courthouses. The cross-party county council objected to their closure, as did every district council and every Member of Parliament of both political parties in the county. The Law Society objected, and to be frank, the consultation was, at best, minimal. Defending solicitors were not consulted at all. Members of Parliament posed the chairman of the courts committee a series of important questions about the impact, cost and implications of the closures, but those points were left unanswered. It is beyond belief that when Members of Parliament tried to meet the courts committee to discuss the court closures, the committee refused to meet the democratically elected representatives of the people of Suffolk. So much for the consultation process.

Less than 18 months on, two smaller courthouses that are left, at Sudbury and Mildenhall, appear to be under threat. I salute the campaign undertaken by the East Anglian Daily Times to preserve them. In a letter to the editor of the paper, Mr. Terry Hunt, the chairman of Suffolk magistrates' courts committee, Mrs. Anne Dunford, wrote:

"May I put the record straight with regard to Sudbury and Mildenhall magistrates courts? Suffolk Magistrates' Courts Committee has no plans at the present time to close either courthouse."

Later, it stated:

"If the new arrangements were possible at Bury St. Edmunds, we would expect to review the situation, but I can assure your readers that courthouse closures are not presently under discussion."

What the lady meant by that is that they intend ultimately to construct a purpose-built courthouse in Bury St. Edmunds, which would bring the total number of courthouses in the county to three. Mrs. Dunford did not flatly reject the idea that those two smaller courthouses should close. She declined the opportunity to close them. Knowing what happened two years ago because of a lack of consultation, I fear what might be in the pipeline.

Our reason for raising this important matter is not merely to talk about Suffolk alone because the situation is replicated across the country. The point at issue is the relationship between magistrates courts committees and central Government, and whether the Government have issued guidance to the committees on the closure of courts. It has been brought to my attention and to that of my hon. Friends, the Law Society and others, as the House of Commons Library can confirm. The answer is that none has been given. Even county councils, which in Suffolk have provided 20 per cent. of the courts committees' budget, are unable to bring effective pressure to bear.

Will my hon. Friend press on with his campaign, not only for East Anglia but for the whole country? Devon has 17 magistrates courts, but it is estimated that 10 will be closed. Some are a great distance apart. If, say, the Lord Chancellor decided to close a court in Ealing, and told people that they had to go to Reading for magistrates proceedings, they would think that the Lord Chancellor was mad. Closing the court in Axminster and making people go to Exeter is just as bad: it is madness. My hon. Friend must press on with the campaign, which I am sure many hon. Members will support in order to deal with this national rather local problem.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comment. The situation developing in Devon is replicated in many other parts of the country.

I should like to add to the comments of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Peter Emery). Not only Devon will be affected, although that is important enough, but Devon and Cornwall. The magistrates courts committee of Devon and Cornwall is considering proposals to close 13 courts in both counties. Does the right hon. Member for East Devon agree that justice should be done, and be seen to be done locally? Those courts are a vital part of our rural infrastructure and should not be undermined. Furthermore, for the reasons that the right hon. Member for East Devon gave, the savings will be marginal at best, and by closing most of the courts the magistrates courts committee will probably add to the cost of justice.

Order. This is a short debate, and interventions must be brief.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, who made his point powerfully, has my absolute assurance that the bit is between my teeth. I hope that the Minister will feel the sincere passion that those of us who represent rural constituencies feel about this most important subject and the threat to our way of life in our local communities.

That is the heart of the matter. I know of no comparable circumstances in which money is supplied from the public purse and the relationship is not arm's length but no length at all. It is an infinitesimal sort of relationship, involving neither guidance nor control. As the Minister will know, a funding formula is used for the NHS, education and the police, which takes into account elements such as rurality, sparsity and capitation in dividing up the public purse. Such elements do not seem to be considered by magistrates courts committees. Two years ago, the entire community of Suffolk, including magistrates and those affected by the court closures, objected to what happened. No budgetary reason was given, and the magistrates courts committee went ahead and closed the courts. Throughout the country, magistrates courts committees seem to have a dose of incurable and rampant "centralisationitis". They seem to want to immortalise themselves by erecting edifices that no one in the rural communities, other than themselves, wants.

I return to the circumstances that prompted me to request a debate this morning—the threat to the two courts at Mildenhall and Sudbury. Mildenhall, in my constituency, has a population of 13,500, but serves the entire area covered by Forest Heath district council—approximately 55,000 people. It has been suggested that it is only a 20-minute drive to Bury St. Edmunds. However, the Mildenhall court serves not only the people of Mildenhall and the immediately surrounding hamlets and villages, but the nearby town of Newmarket, which is substantially larger, the villages and hamlets of the fens nearby, Lakenheath, with a population of more than 5,000, and Brandon, with a population of more than 8,000.

Those communities are not especially affluent: 23 per cent. of households in the area covered by Forest Heath district council do not have access to a motor car. If Mildenhall court is closed, what will happen to my constituents who must go to Bury St. Edmunds from Brandon? In Brandon, 26 per cent. of households do not have access to a car. I have examined the bus timetables for all those areas, going to Bury St. Edmunds. The court starts at 10 o'clock. Someone who lives in Brandon and must reach Bury St. Edmunds for the start of a court session would have to catch a bus at 7.52 am. The journey would last for more than an hour, and the bus would arrive in Bury St. Edmunds at 8.56 am—

They are lucky to have a bus.

That is the point. The number of bus services in rural areas is limited, and it is something else for people to make judgments about the future of those courthouses based on the assumption that people automatically have access to a motor car.

I have spoken to many local journalists who cover proceedings in the courthouses, and have asked them what effect previous closures have had on delays and difficulties in reaching courthouses for my constituents in places such as Newmarket and Haverhill, where the courthouses were closed. They have told me that those closures have resulted in delays and difficulties for defendants, witnessess, solicitors and everyone else involved. What will be the end result if smaller courthouses are closed? There will be more traffic and higher car usage as friends, family and solicitors work together to provide transport. Clearly, as the Liberal Democrat Lord Phillips of Sudbury pointed out, the environmental impact will be negative. Lord Phillips has spoken about the importance of local justice as enshrined in magna carta. On 14 January, he stated in the East Anglian Daily Times that

"We are now abolishing it 800 years later without any thought to the impact on local communities, who are seeing the erosion of much-loved, long-standing institutions."

Local magistrates understand their communities and know the families who are involved in community life. Often, magistrates are small business people who were born and bred in their communities. They can spot troublemakers, and are familiar with families and communities with special problems. That is the essence of the local criminal justice system. All that knowledge, wisdom and experience are being thrown out willy-nilly up and down the country as courthouses are closed down. That is lamentable.

In a politically ecumenical spirit, I shall refer to a letter published in the East Anglian Daily Times from a former magistrate, Councillor Sue Thomas, who is a member of the South Suffolk Labour party. She points out that there are only five courthouses in Suffolk, and if two more were abolished, Suffolk would have fewer courthouses than any other county. In respect of counties with populations of between 600,000 and 700,000, Suffolk already has the fewest courthouses. For example, Lincolnshire has 12 courthouses and Devon—which, as we have heard, is also under threat—has 14. The criminal justice system is being sliced like a salami. That is deeply damaging, and offensive to people of all political persuasions.

As a result, travel time and environmental damage will increase, and the existing problem of recruiting magistrates will be exacerbated. The difficulties experienced by defendants and witnesses will increase enormously. As Jonathan Ripman of the Law Society for Suffolk and North East Essex has said in respect of Suffolk, "Here we go again!" As I pointed out to the Minister, the county council is speaking out, but, as before, to no avail. Councillors are worried that, no matter what they do, their influence will be minimal. Susan Sida-Lockett, the Conservative group leader of Suffolk county council, has turned to her local government association for guidance. She has asked for a more clearly defined national policy and a set of criteria to prevent the consequences that we are discussing from arising.

I am sorry to say that, during the past few years, the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), who had to deal with closures in Suffolk, approved without exception closures up and down the country. I invest no particular blame in him, because the closures have been going on for some time; however, the problem is now becoming much worse. Therefore, we must consider new guidelines and a framework—for instance, an ideal ratio of courts to population, taking into account elements such as sparsity, transport, environmental effects and cost to the public purse. Of course the courts are not run for the convenience of court officials: they are run for the convenience of our local communities, who feel devastated by the loss.

I want to quote from the Magistrates Association itself. I have had a strong letter from John James of Dorset, who is its deputy chairman. He says:

"The Magistrates' Association believes that lay magistrates, supported by justices' clerks, are best placed to provide local justice in courts throughout England and Wales. The Magistrates' Association is extremely concerned that judicial functions are increasingly compromised for reasons of administrative expediency. This cannot be acceptable to the public or to court users. The Association recognises the need to balance good management and good quality justice but believes that the service is now close to the point where there are no more efficiency savings to be made without seriously harming its essential nature.

Magistrates' Courts Committees are required by statute to consult magistrates in the MCC area about matters which affect the provision of local justice and MCCs are required to appoint bench liaison representatives to assist in this process. The Association recognises that, in some instances, effective consultation is not taking place and would advocate the introduction of good practice guidance on the consultative process."

Finally, Mr James says:

"Local justice requires that all magistrates' courts are accessible both in terms of opening hours and travelling time for court users. Where it can be demonstrated that courts do provide an accessible and valuable service to the local community, the association will resist court closures which are solely on the grounds of administrative expediency."

Therefore, on many levels, rural England is under considerable pressure. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to observe what is going on in our communities and to make sure that, as we have the privilege of sitting here as Members of Parliament, we pass on to the generation ahead a viable, successful and workable criminal justice system in touch with the communities that we represent. I fear that if what is happening in magistrates courts continues, we as parliamentarians will rue the day that we allowed it to happen.

In conclusion, I appeal to the Minister. The present situation is serious and alarming and continues to deteriorate. We must seriously consider creating a proper framework to carry out the responsibility of MCCs, particularly in rural areas. There must be more accountability than there is at present and some responsibility to the future of local communities that are increasingly under threat as their institutions are closed down. The criminal justice system, going back to the magna carta, is part and parcel of the viability of those communities. I appeal to the Minister to find ways of reversing the present trend and restoring the magistrates' courts system to its proper place.

On the first occasion that I spoke in a Standing Committee under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, you suggested—in a way in which only you can, sotto voce—that I speak up. I am struggling this morning, and I hope that the parliamentary broadcasting unit will be able to pick up my failing voice as I respond to this important debate. I am delighted to see you in the Chair, because I know that you take an interest in these issues.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing a debate on the important issue of the development of magistrates court services in rural districts. He made a most eloquent and interesting speech expressing the fears, genuinely felt in his constituency, that more changes to magistrates courts are in the pipeline there.

As the hon. Gentleman knows from earlier debates on the issue, magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees, which comprise local magistrates selected by a selection panel also made up of local magistrates. They conduct their business under the provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, some of which have now been overtaken by the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. The Suffolk magistrates courts committee is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the courts in its area. That committee, in consultation with the relevant paying authority—in this case, Suffolk county council—determines how many courthouses, and other accommodation, urban or rural, are needed locally.

It is sensible and rational that these reviews are taking place, and we expect no less of the magistrates courts committees in fulfilling their responsibilities. They must decide the most efficient way in which to discharge their statutory duty. However, it is not true to say that no guidance is issued to those committees. The central council of magistrates courts committees issues good practice guidance on courthouse closures. The Government encourage magistrates courts committees to follow that guidance. As the hon. Gentleman said, the magistrates courts committee has no plans to close further courthouses in Suffolk, so he can be reassured on that point.

Since the hon. Gentleman secured a debate on this subject in 1998, five courthouses have been allowed to close, as he has described. At that time, he warned the House that that would be the end of judicial life as we knew it in Suffolk. That has not happened. The performance in the Suffolk magistrates courts committee's area has improved. The average time for first listing to completion of a case has improved from 33 days in June 1998 to 32 days in June 1999. The published figures for monitoring the prosecution of persistent young offenders covering the first six months of 1999 show that the average time from the arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in Suffolk was 130 days. That compares favourably with 154 days for Suffolk in 1997.

Furthermore, there have not been the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman predicted in recruiting suitable magistrates after the courthouse closures in 1998. There have been no adverse comments from court users resulting from the closures. Cases have not had to be relisted as a result of prosecution or defence witnesses failing to turn up at the new venues. This further points to the fact that the magistrates courts committee behaved responsibly in determining its courtroom needs.

I will say a few words about local justice. The essential feature of local justice is that magistrates live or work in the locality. It is not simply a question of the location of the delivery of justice. It is not an essential feature of local justice that each community will have its own courthouse. Magistrates courts committees need to balance the need for a locally delivered service with the need to improve the quality of that service within the resources that are available to them. They are also, mindful of the Government's aim of reducing delay, providing the optimum number of courtrooms in their area, permitting the flexible listing of cases.

I declare an interest as a life member of the Magistrates Association. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is difficult to provide that level of service, given that magistrates courts committees are so unevenly funded? That puts pressure on the committees, including my own in Leicestershire.

My hon. Friend makes a point about the funding formula. That is currently being reviewed; a new formula is being prepared in consultation with the magistrates courts committees. We expect that that will deal with some of the problems that are being experienced in some localities.

It is important to reduce delays and focus on the needs of court users. The pressure to reduce delays in court comes from victims, witnesses and defendants—that is, the most important court users. Court users are primarily concerned about their case being heard on the day that it is listed.

I understand the attachment that many people have to the court system as it has grown up over the centuries. However, we must consider how the service can be modernised in line with the way in which people live now and the power and potential of information technology and modern communications. Nowadays, much of the business of the criminal courts does not have to be conducted face to face. For example, there is no technical—as opposed to legal—reason why fines have to be paid locally in person. They could be paid by post, by telephone or, eventually, electronically. Preliminary and administrative hearings could be conducted using video and audio conferencing methods, which are currently being developed.

Even the trial, the core of criminal proceedings, is changing. Children and other vulnerable witnesses can give evidence by video link, and information technology is transforming the way in which evidence can be presented to courts. Lord Justice Auld's review, which has recently been announced, will address many of those questions and offer ideas as to how we might change the criminal court system to make it fit for the 21st century.

Information technology can also improve the efficiency of the courts and the justice system. For example, we are aiming to reduce the incidence of adjournments, and the time wasted by court users, that is caused by the lack of information available to the court. The strategic IT plans of the major criminal justice agencies include the electronic transfer of information between agencies—for example, the provision of case information from the police to the court in time for the hearing, or the fast and efficient communication of results from the court to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. That will provide more timely and complete information for the courts. We intend to introduce a new system for the magistrates court that will include such inter-agency links. The hon. Member for West Suffolk will be pleased to learn that when implementation of the system begins in the summer of next year, Suffolk will be the first magistrates courts committee to take the new system.

Let us not forget that magistrates are an essential and valuable part of the service. If they are to gain much more full and varied experience, and fulfil their sitting hours, it is better for work to be concentrated in larger, more efficient courts.

As I said, court users want to be sure that their case will be heard on the date it is listed, without too much waiting on the day. Larger courts with good facilities are more likely to be able to provide that level of service, because there is much more flexibility in using the courtroom accommodation. Transferring the workload of magistrates courts committees to better equipped centres is one way to modernise and improve the overall service that they provide. Their local knowledge means that they are best placed to make judgments on the best use of their resources.

I can only repeat that the Government are committed to providing a modern system of justice with well-equipped and secure courtrooms. We are committed to reducing delay in the time taken for cases to proceed through the courts and so to achieve our aim of reducing delay in the criminal justice system. We must all look to the future and the different ways of working that the new century will bring.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important issue and to reflect the concerns of medical and safety experts and, not least, the families whose children have suffered because of the intrinsic dangers of sweets containing toys or small objects in component form. In so doing, I pay tribute to all who have campaigned for so long to bring the matter to the attention of the Government, the industry and the general public. In particular, I should like to mention the activities of constituents and others who have drawn the subject to my attention and taken the time and effort to brief me so carefully.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), who have raised concerns about the implication of the sale of those products. Some of them have direct knowledge of the sad events surrounding the death of their constituents' children. Recently, Lord Colwyn, an eminent physician, has made known his concern. I hope that he will not mind my quoting from his letter to the Secretary of State for Health in which he stated:

"Professional colleagues have recently alerted me to their concerns over the risk to young children's health posed by small chocolate eggs which contain toys in component form. I am aware of three fatalities and of other serious incidents and am concerned that the Government has not alerted consumers to the risks associated with these products.

I am even more surprised that last Autumn's DTI report on choking—based on A&E data, claims"

not to have identified as many incidents as would seem to be the case. He continued:

"Do we not owe it to the parents who have suffered so much, and to all those children who could be tempted to put these small objects in their mouths"

to take up the issue and

"to encourage or require manufacturers to produce safer products with enclosures which cannot be swallowed or inhaled."

I wish to bring to your attention today, Madam Deputy Speaker, the history of choking incidents in this country and elsewhere in Europe, which are well documented and some of which have resulted in fatalities. Feeling is now so strong that some countries in Europe have introduced restrictions on the sale of the sweets and others are considering doing so. They have been banned in the United States on safety grounds for many years. I ask whether we are doing enough in this country to draw attention to the dangers of the sweets, whether we should seek a tougher regulatory framework based on more explicit knowledge of what has transpired, and how we should monitor and record incidents of children who are taken to accident and emergency departments after swallowing embedded objects.

What we are discussing can best be demonstrated by holding up an example of the Kinder Surprise egg, which is on sale in almost every sweet shop, supermarket and garage. Each egg contains a small toy inside a plastic capsule. They are, understandably, very popular with young children. Not only is there the natural attraction of the chocolate, but the object within it is equally responsible for their popularity with children and makes the products more attractive than ever. That may not be a problem with older children, but the products are also aimed at very young children who do not know that they should not put the objects in their mouths. Retailers have seen children open the eggs with their teeth. The toy inside most of the products is in very small pieces and easy to swallow and, in the view of the country's leading experts, can easily cause a child to choke. Is this not, both in theory and in practice, very dangerous? If, as I believe, it is dangerous, we as adults should, by adopting a precautionary principle, draw attention to these products and seek to regulate them more carefully, in the hope that they are withdrawn from sale or that much improved alternatives are introduced to replace them.

I am particulary keen, as I said, to highlight the role of the accident and emergency units, as they handled all the heart-rending stories that I want to refer to. I in no way criticise their fine work, but the Department of Trade and Industry has always claimed that the home accident surveillance system, which depends on returns by A and E departments, is as accurate as possible. However, many campaigners feel that cases sometimes go unreported.

The three cases where fatalities occurred have now been well documented and reported. Jennifer Ashton from Birmingham choked on part of a Kinder egg. She was three, and I know her mother is here today. Roddy Breslin from Omagh died after putting the capsule from a Kinder egg in his mouth. He was three. Caren Day from Sheffield died choking on parts of a Chupa Chups egg. She was four. So that you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, how strongly these families feel about the issue, I shall quote from the letter sent to me by Mrs. Ashton. She said:

"We are so grateful that someone in parliament is finally trying to do something about the killer sweets that are available everywhere you look.

As you know our little girl, Jenny, choked to death on a little bit of a plastic toy in a Kinder Surprise egg. It was a long time ago, but in all these years nobody has taken any notice until now. Three children have died in this country and all we hear is that millions and millions of eggs are eaten without anyone coming to harm. If another child dies this won't be much consolation to the parents. Please do your best to make sure that no other family loses a little one."

That is the clearest and starkest evidence of the problems that can be caused by these sweets. Unfortunately, they and similar sweets are still on sale today. To its credit, Nestlé withdrew its product following safety concerns, and other manufacturers have either refused to sell such items or have produced better alternatives, as I hope to explain. Clearly, there has been a sustained and vigorous campaign to draw attention to what is wrong by, among others, the Consumers Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

Manufacturers who continue to sell such sweets react by claiming that they warn children by printing safety warnings on the wrapper. However, children as young as two or three will not be able to read, let alone understand, what the wrappers are saying. Indeed, there is an argument that such wrappers fail the Department of Trade and Industry's 1990 guidelines on safety labelling. It is claimed that millions of eggs are sold each year, yet there have been only three "incidents" in recent times. I call a death something more than an incident: one is one too many if we can avoid this risk.

My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on raising this issue again before the House. He refers to RoSPA's interest in the case. I understand that RoSPA believes that the Department of Trade and Industry accident reporting system significantly under-reports such incidents. Will my hon. Friend also comment on the views of Professor David Jenkins, the product safety consultant to RoSPA? He says:

"For example, high consequence risks (e.g. death) associated with exposure to hazards for purely frivolous purposes, even of low probability, should normally indicate that the product be abandoned."

Would my hon. Friend therefore not consider it a matter for disquiet if Government officials were to drag their feet on support for European Union directives to improve product safety in this respect and did not take into account the severe and tragic cases to which he refers?

Order, Interventions must be brief.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I build the case, I shall concur with his arguments, perhaps using evidence from different people.

I shall go through each of my four arguments quickly, because of the time. First, I want to look at what has been happening in Europe and consider the implications for us in the United Kingdom. It is fair to say that there has been a flurry of activity in recent times. As I have said, such products have long been banned in the United States, where any adulterated food is unacceptable. An interesting aside is the way in which the American authorities reacted to the Nestlé product, which was introduced in the early 1990s in the form of a chocolate magic ball with a toy inside it. After the threat of legal action, Nestlé withdrew the product from the marketplace in 1997 and subsequently removed it from all European countries, including the UK. Comparisons identify the marked difference in attitude between the United States and Europe, but, as a result of new investigation and re-examination of incident levels, there is now a shift in emphasis here.

Research from Professor Petridou of Athens university suggested that there could be as many as 2,000 choking accidents annually in Europe. I am not alleging that all are serious, let alone fatal. However, that is a staggering and worrying figure. Subsequent research by the Humboldt university in Berlin suggested that the problem was significant. Of 34 serious cases of choking reported in German hospitals or children's clinics, 31 were from these types of egg.

As a result of unease, other European Governments have started to take action. In Greece, the Ministry of Commerce produced a law protecting children as consumers with an article 10, which prevents the placing of an inedible item within foodstuffs. Portugal and Belgium are following in train. The French have also launched a major investigation into the safety of foods containing inedibles.

There is a move towards increased control at EU level. I speak in glowing terms of the work of the MEP, Phillip Whitehead, who presented a petition to the European Parliament on behalf of the parents of the children who died. The Commission has now drawn attention to the dangers of these products and invited member states to take appropriate action to restrict their circulation in the interests of safety. There is an obligation under directive 92/59/EEC to take all necessary measures to guarantee that all products put on the market are safe, and there is also directive 88/378/EEC on the safety of toys, including the proscription of certain unsuitable ones for under-threes. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be aware of the strong press campaign in this country and abroad to highlight the dangers from these products and to urge Governments to take appropriate action.

May I deal briefly with the accusation that I am over-reacting and advocating a nanny state approach. My response is simple. All the statistics demonstrate that children have choked on coins, pen tops, keys and ring pulls as well as a variety of other objects over recent times, but the difference is that those are accidents, whereas these sweets knowingly encourage children to place the object in their mouth. Obviously I do not allege that manufaturers want children to choke—that would be irresponsible and unfair—but it is pernicious to take risks with children which can and should be avoided. The issue is black and white, and the case for safety is irrefutable.

I wish to deal with the manufacturers' response. In a nutshell, those who continue to sell these items have taken two approaches. First, they refute the dangers, arguing that out of billions of eggs sold over the years, only an infinitesimal number of incidents have occurred. Secondly, where problems did arise, without accepting liability they changed the design and posted clearer warnings. They have nevertheless been rather impervious to the criticisms of those campaigning against the products.

I do not want to dwell on it, but, rather than admitting responsibility, there has been a marked reluctance to accept any blame by some manufacturers. Worse, I have evidence that Ferrero Ltd., the owner of Kinder Surprise eggs, have sought to avoid taking blame by refusing to acknowledge the rights of families, campaigners—and perhaps even the Government—to bring the issues into the public domain. I hope that today's debate will help to overcome that.

A press conference that was to have taken place at the House of Commons in March 1998, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston—it is good to see her here—and by the hon. Member for West Tyrone was cancelled at the instigation of the Biscuit, Cake, Confectionary and Chocolate Alliance on the promise of objective research being undertaken. Unfortunately, nothing has transpired since that cancellation.

On the positive side, it is pleasing to say that Nestlé was not the only manufacturer which chose not to continue with similar products. I have with me a Cadbury's Yowie egg and hon. Members will immediately see the difference: it is a much bigger egg and it contains embedded materials in a much safer way—proof that other firms such as Cadbury's, which produces the Yowie egg, can deal with the issue and still keep a market share.

Lastly, there is the role of Government. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I briefly present what I take to be the Department's current position. I am sure that he will come back to me if I am wrong or if I parody it in any way. The DTI claims that product safety regulations offer adequate protection despite the fact that the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, whose members wanted to get these products suspended after the death of Jennifer Ashton, said that the law is unenforceable. It believes that there is insufficient evidence. Referring to the survey on the home accident surveillance system data, it saw more of a threat from other items that children choke upon, as has already been mentioned, some of which may be passed on by older siblings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said in an answer to Phillip Whitehead:

"I would of course be very concerned if there was conclusive evidence that toys sold inside chocolate eggs posed a greater danger to young children because of the way they are sold than other small toys. However, the information currently available to DTI does not suggest that this is the case. This is very much in line with the consensus of views expressed by the European Commission and member States in mid-1998 when this issue was discussed. The conclusion then was that there was no need for controls, additional to those provided by the toys safety Directive and the General Product Safety Directive, on non-food items sold with food products where they were clearly separated—as is the case with products of the Kinder Surprise type."

I take issue with that because clearly there is a need to reinvestigate the matter even if we do not take precipitate action at this time.

I have read the report commissioned by the DTI entitled "Choking Risks to Children". This undertakes a study not just of HASS, but of the leisure accidents surveillance system, and includes evidence from the home accidents deaths database. In downgrading the threat there was none the less recognition that redesigning the cylinders and extending the present regulations would reduce the number of accidents. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my saying that there was concern at exactly what was being recorded and analysed. I ask him together with his Department of Health colleagues to re-examine the mechanism for recording to make sure that all results are obtained and in sufficient detail to ensure that we get an accurate picture. I am aware that that puts additional responsibilities on accident and emergency departments, but this is such an important issue that it must be got right.

In conclusion, I ask for five issues to be addressed by the Minister of Trade today. First, will the Government launch a campaign to warn parents about the intrinsic dangers in buying small eggs and similar confectionery products? Larger capsules and one-piece toys are much safer. Secondly, will they require manufacturers to increase the size of the capsule so that it cannot be swallowed? Small parts that fail to meet that requirement should be banned. Thirdly, will they recognise that the precedent was set with the action to deal with the problem of pen tops? This issue requires similar urgent action. Fourthly, will they consider making manufacturers package toys separately so that their container does not entice children to put them in their mouths because of the smell of chocolate? Lastly, will they work with EU partners to ensure that action taken can be enforced across the Community, building on existing directives? If that is achieved, further lives will not be lost and we will at least have proved that lessons have been learnt.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on being selected for this short, private Member's debate. As usual, he has made a thought-provoking speech. I listened carefully to the many important points he made and there were more than I can hope to address in the relatively short period remaining. I therefore want to invite my hon. Friend and those who have campaigned with him to come and sit down with my officials so that the issues can receive proper attention. Quite a lot of information that has been given to the House today deserves further attention.

My hon. Friend also referred to concerns in the European Union and to action proposed and taken by other European countries. These issues have been raised in Europe recently, although the Commission concluded that, on current evidence, there was no concern about the safety of those types of products. Therefore, I would greatly welcome any evidence and statistics that the group could bring to the meeting that I have proposed. I hope that my suggestion will be taken up. After our Department's review of any evidence, we shall ensure that it is passed on to the European Commission.

Before coming to the specific issue of the safety of toys and small objects in confectionery, I will say a few words about toy safety in general. Obviously we are considering the safety of extremely vulnerable consumers—children. What is less obvious and less easy to assess is how best to ensure their safety. Children develop and learn through exploration, and their age and lack of experience makes them fearless when a little fear could do some good. It is the responsibility of adults to ensure that children's environment is such that exploration is as hazard-free as possible, because childhood is not a risk-free experience. It is not easy to draw the line to ensure that children are as safe as possible without putting undue restrictions on their opportunities to explore, learn and have fun. Views on how that line should be drawn differ among parents and carers alike.

We need to consider the issues against the background of small toys in confectionery. As my hon. Friend said, chocolate eggs sometimes contain toys. Indeed they are probably the most well-known example in the United Kingdom of confectionery containing toys. The eggs generally contain a plastic capsule, although in one instance the capsule itself was chocolate-coated. In fact, the capsule is wholly separate—detached—from the chocolate egg. The capsule holds various small plastic pieces which, when assembled, make up the toy. The toy, like all toys sold in the UK, must comply with the stringent requirements of the Toy Safety Regulations 1995. Such toys have small parts, so, in accordance with the regulations, the product is labelled to indicate that is unsuitable for children under three.

I will give a little more of the background to the regulating of safety in this area. The toy regulations state that toys and their component parts, and any detachable parts of them, must, if intended for use by children under 36 months, be of such dimensions as to prevent their being swallowed or inhaled. Toys and their parts and packaging must not contain a risk of suffocation or strangulation. Toys that might be dangerous to children under the age of 36 months must, unless manifestly unsuitable for small children, bear a warning that they are not suitable for them.

The European toy standard EN71, which is published in the UK as a British standard, contains a cylinder test, as my hon. Friend said. Any toy or detachable part that is in the cylinder could pose a choking hazard for young children, and must not be included in toys for children under three.

In considering the issue during the long time that it has been under discussion, it has struck me that people often begin from the assumption that the way in which the toy is supplied—that is to say, with chocolate—increases the risk to children. Is this so? I question that assumption and suggest that a better approach would be to consider it on a case-by-case basis.

In the United Kingdom, three children have died in the past 15 years in incidents involving chocolate eggs: two two-year-olds choked on small parts in the toy and a four-year-old suffocated on the capsule—three too many deaths. They rightly prompted a searching look at the policy on such toys. In addressing that, we must examine how these tragic events occurred, to enable us to prevent such deaths in future. We must consider to what extent the presence, or absence, of the confectionery was material to the accidents, and whether they would have been avoided if the original packaging had been more conventional.

Some might argue that a child could inadvertently swallow the contents of the egg while eating the edible parts, unaware of the presence of the contents. However, in the case of products such as chocolate eggs, that would be highly unlikely. The popularity of those products lies precisely in the toy surprise content. The cost of the product reflects the additional value over a simple chocolate egg, highlighting the dual purpose of the product at the point of purchase. Children will be aware of, and actively looking for, the contents. And there is no evidence to support the assertion that the smell of chocolate migrates to the toy, so that the child believes that it, too, is chocolate and so puts it in his mouth.

Choking hazards are an important safety consideration and the DTI has undertaken research on choking incidents involving small children. That research provides no evidence to suggest that toys marketed in this way pose a greater risk to children than other toys, a view shared by the European Commission, which looks at the adequacy of safety measures in Europe.

If, as the evidence suggests, safety risks arise from the nature of the toy itself, we must treat the toy—whether it comes from a chocolate egg, a cracker or from conventional wrapping—in the same manner. Children will not make the distinction and nor should we. If a toy sold in a chocolate egg presents no greater choking hazard than toys of a similar size sold by toy manufacturers, it should be subject to the same requirements. If there is a problem, it needs to be addressed for all small toys, not just those sold with confectionery.

The younger the child, the greater the risk from choking. Children under three are at greatest risk since their coughing and swallowing reflexes are less well developed. Indeed, the statistics show that choking incidents diminish significantly for the over-threes. The vulnerability of a child under three is exacerbated by the fact that small children are most likely to put things in their mouth. In particular, children under 12 months, when sight and touch is not so well developed, will learn about objects in their environment by "feeling" them in their mouths.

Many small objects, of which small toys are only a tiny category, present a potential choking hazard to small children. Young children will put or attempt to put anything and everything in their mouth. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned, these young children are least able to deal with any items that they may accidentally inhale. Parents and carers in this country are well aware—not least because of the reinforced message required by our regulations—that small children should not be left alone with small objects, whether toys or other items, nearby. Of course, it must be recognised that once small toys and toys with small parts are brought into the home for older children, there is a possibility that they might get into the hands of younger siblings, which must be guarded against.

The brand leader in the UK toy confectionery market has been on the market since 1973. Since 1972, it has sold 19 billion eggs worldwide. In the year to the end of August 1999, total sales in Europe were 1.3 billion. In the UK, 51 million were sold that year. There is no doubt that such products are in demand and are extremely popular. They bring pleasure to many children each year.

The DTI has been aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, and has kept the issue under review for some time. It has looked at the circumstances of choking injuries and deaths involving toys and children under four and has considered information published in various papers. Most recently, it has commissioned research on accident data collected by the United Kingdom's home accident surveillance and home accident death databases. The outcome of that research on choking hazards establishes that the main causes of choking in under-threes are sweets, coins and food. The most recent statistics available indicate that around 6 per cent. of non-fatal choking incidents and around 4 per cent. of fatal incidents involve toys. The most common toys that cause choking are small parts from construction kits, games, soft toys and marbles. The European Commission has considered the issue on several occasions and also concluded that there are few data to suggest a problem.

Although it has been stated in some quarters that such toys sold with confectionery have been involved in seven deaths, inquiries by the DTI have not been able to confirm that figure and it is aware of three deaths. It has been suggested in the past that information on choking incidents had not been collected accurately. I want to be certain about the statistics. We shall go through them again at the meeting. If a responsible organisation such as RoSPA challenges them, I want to ensure that the data are accepted by all parties to the discussion.

I know that I have not been able to cover all the ground in the short time available. I should like to invite my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and people in the campaign to the Department to sit round the table with my officials, who are more than willing to share all the evidence. We do not want another death, but we must also ensure that we do not inhibit young people from learning and developing their character.

Question put and agreed to.Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.