I am delighted to have the chance to address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this important subject. I have had a long wait to obtain such a debate. As I do not often appear on the health scene in the House, I should explain why I want to discuss haemophiliacs. When I became a Member of Parliament in 1974, my constituency contained Lord Mayor Treloar college, a school for physically disabled children. At the time, the college was the primary specialist treatment location for haemophiliacs in the south-east. I became involved with it as the tragedy of contaminated blood began. I saw the children there; 80 of them were infected by contaminated blood, and 50 of them, alas, are now dead. Since then, I have been involved in the matter for almost all of my time in Parliament.

Towards the end of the 1970s, I met the now chairman of the Haemophilia Society, Mr. Chris Hodgson. He is a constituent of mine, which is a further reason for my continuing interest and concern. He suffers as a result of receiving a contaminated blood product as treatment for haemophilia, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done on behalf of all who suffer from this dreadful disease.

I want to draw attention to the cause of people with haemophilia who have been infected with hepatitis C through the use of contaminated blood products used in their national health service treatment. Those of us who have been campaigning for many years on behalf of such people hope to hear from the Government a new commitment to take action to help. People with haemophilia are a small but vulnerable patient group comprising no more than 5,000 people in the United Kingdom, 500 to 600 of whom live in Scotland. They suffer from a rare, lifelong genetic condition that is passed on through families and for which there is no cure. As a result of their genetic disorder, people with haemophilia lack essential clotting factors in their blood, which means that, without treatment, painful and disabling internal bleeding occurs, affecting joints or organs. Modern treatment involves injection of the missing blood clotting factors to prevent this internal bleeding. From the 1970s, that treatment became available using clotting factor replacement products manufactured from human blood. Tragically, it was through that route that some 1,200 patients with haemophilia were infected with the HIV virus and more than 4,000 were infected with the hepatitis C virus in the 1970s and early 1980s through their national health service treatments.

Contaminated blood had been used to produce the treatment products, and the haemophilia population had paid a heavy price. In 1985 in England—and 1978 in Scotland—procedures were introduced into the manufacturing process to eliminate blood-borne viruses. However, their introduction came too late for the majority of the patient group, who had been treated and were already infected. More than half the people infected with HIV have now died—a total of more than 700 deaths. Of those infected with hepatitis C—a number of whom were co-infected with HIV—figures collected by the UK haemophilia doctors organisation show that some 113 have died through liver disease and liver cancer, both of which are related to the end stages of hepatitis C. However, because no official statistics have been published on the hepatitis C-infected haemophilia population, the number of hepatitis C-related deaths might be much higher.

The progress of hepatitis C is slower than that of HIV. It can take 20 to 30 years, but when it becomes active, it is extremely damaging. Hepatitis C attacks the liver. Within the hepatitis C-infected haemophilia population, many of whom have been infected by the virus for more than 20 years, the toll is becoming apparent. Current medical opinion is that up to 80 per cent. of people infected with hepatitis C will develop chronic liver disease and that up to 25 per cent. might develop cirrhosis of the liver, which might progress to liver cancer.

I am keen to avoid, as far as possible, making party points. The saga has lasted through the Labour Administration of the 1970s and the successive Conservative Administrations of the 1980s and 1990s; now, the problem is again in the hands of a Labour Government. I was astonished and moved recently to be told by a sufferer of the debilitating illness that no Minister, Labour or Conservative, has ever said sorry that such a thing could have happened in our national health service; there have been repeated expressions of sympathy for sufferers, but no one has felt able to say that they are sorry. I am told that just to hear those words from a Minister would be a great comfort, not only to sufferers but to the relatives of those who have died. I hope that the Minister will take that on board; all right-thinking people would warmly applaud him, were he to use those words.

Unfortunately, there is as yet no fully effective treatment for the virus. Progress is being made with combination therapy involving interferon and ribavirin, which was licensed last year, but it does not succeed for all. The treatment has been shown to clear the virus in 30 per cent. of cases. People with haemophilia might be less responsive to the treatment than the general population. The treatment often carries unpleasant and, for some, intolerable side effects. To compound the anxiety and distress suffered by the community, health authorities in many parts of the country are refusing to fund the combination therapy, thereby denying the only hope of a cure to those willing to undertake the onerous treatment. I hope that the Minister will address the matter immediately.

I wish to read one sentence from a letter from Baroness Hayman, then Under-Secretary of State for Health, dated 23 July, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff). She writes:

With regard to the funding of treatment for people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C, we have made it clear to Health Authorities that care is to be provided for all clinical conditions on the basis of clinical need and effectiveness.

That could hardly be clearer. I have a further letter, dated 3 December 1999, from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. He wrote to Lord Morris of Manchester, who continues to take an active interest in the matter:

In the meantime, we will follow up cases where there are local difficulties and where, despite the clinical evidence of benefit, people with haemophilia and hepatitis C are not receiving the therapy.

That, too, could hardly be clearer.

I shall briefly quote a third letter, from the Secretary of State for Health. The last sentence reads:

In the meantime, we are following up all the cases where people with haemophilia and hepatitis C are not receiving this treatment, when prescribed by their doctors.

Yet today—on 7 March—eight, three and two months after the letters that I have quoted were written, patients are still being denied the treatment on the ground of cost. West Hertfordshire, Sunderland and Avon are among the health authorities that say that they cannot afford to provide it, although in two recent and exceptional cases it has been allowed in Avon. Is it not a scandal that a Minister's promise is openly defied by some health authorities? Will the Department stop wringing its hands over this important issue and ensure that it runs the authorities that it is supposed to control? The defiance is unacceptable.

As a last resort, a liver transplant is the only treatment, but it does not eliminate the virus and, in due course, the new liver becomes infected. I understand that there are no official figures, but at least 20 sufferers from hepatitis C have had liver transplants and several have had more than one. The cost of a drug surely bears no comparison with the cost of repeated liver transplants. Transplants postpone but do not permanently stop the progress of the virus. Waiting lists and delays are common for liver transplants. Those living with hepatitis C therefore endure great uncertainty. Doctors are unable to predict how the virus will affect an individual's health and how soon or seriously he or she may become ill. That creates great stress and anxiety, especially for people with family responsibilities.

I was astounded to find that there are no counselling facilities for people with hepatitis C or for the dependants and families of those who have died from the infection. The Government should at least offer that, and ensure that health authorities provide for those unfortunate people. Research by the Haemophilia Society illustrates the disastrous impact of the infection on the lives of families who were already fighting to overcome a lifelong health problem. Many have had to do less work or give it up because of the effects of the virus, which has led to hardship and loss of income. Serious problems have been caused for people wanting mortgages or life insurance, once they have been diagnosed with hepatitis C. Fear of passing on the virus within families has created terrible stress on relationships between parents and children and husbands and wives. Social stigma is another result and there is evidence of people being shunned by neighbours, friends and colleagues because of the virus.

All this has come about because contaminated products were used to treat people within our national health service. The infection of people with haemophilia with these deadly viruses has been described as one of the worst treatment disasters in the history of the NHS and even now there is little peace of mind for the patient group as there is also a threat of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Experts are agreed that there is no way of guaranteeing that blood products still used for the treatment of haemophilia are free of CJD infection. The Department of Health describes the risk as theoretical, but how must it feel for the patient or the parent of a young patient to know that the treatment relied on daily might carry CJD?

Those of us campaigning to highlight the plight of this patient group want action from the Government. The previous Government accepted that they had a moral responsibility to help those who had been infected with HIV through NHS treatment and, with all-party support in 1987, the Government established a financial assistance scheme. The Macfarlane trust was set up in 1998 to administer it and some £90 million has been made available in across-the-board payments and hardship grants. However, nothing has been done for those affected at the same time in exactly the same way with hepatitis C. The Government must correct that injustice.

In July 1998, the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), turned down the Haemophilia Society's appeal. His justification was that the harm done was inadvertent and that therefore no financial assistance was due. The same point could have been made about HIV infection. There, too the harm was inadvertent, but the previous Government accepted that they had a moral responsibility to help. We ask the Government urgently to reconsider their decision.

This is not a debate about medical negligence because the previous Government made financial help available on an ex gratia basis without any admission of liability. The same step should, in conscience, be taken for hepatitis C. In contrast with 1987, the mechanism exists, in the shape of the Macfarlane trust, to administer the hardship fund for those who suffer the consequences of receiving contaminated blood products. It would be straightforward for the Government to extend the remit of the Macfarlane trust to enable it to help for those who are affected by HIV and hepatitis C. The trust has earned the respect of all concerned by the way in which it has acted as the Government's agent for HIV infection. There would be no need to reinvent that particular wheel. It would require only a simple amendment to the trust deed and the funding to allow the Macfarlane trust to continue to act efficiently. I am sure that that would command all-party support and be welcomed as a fair and just conclusion to the inequity.

It is a shocking irony, given the family inheritance of haemophilia, that a dividing line must be drawn between brothers and cousins in the same family who have been infected by contaminated blood products at the same time. Those who were infected with HIV and hepatitis C viruses together are entitled to financial help, but that is not necessarily the case for those who contracted hepatitis C alone. For some, the infection—through no fault of their own—is a life sentence; for others, it is a death sentence. Can we tolerate such a lottery in the 21st century? I understand that other colleagues want to talk about the additional problem of haemophiliacs who have been doubly infected by HIV and hepatitis C in greater detail.

The issues are too important to let rest. The Haemophilia Society has called for a public inquiry so that all the facts about how the infection occurred and its impact on those who were infected are brought into the open. That is the least that is due to haemophiliacs who will live with the consequences of contracting HIV and hepatitis C infections from contaminated blood for the rest of their lives. Most important, in the interests of protecting public health, we need a full inquiry to ensure that lessons are learned so that such tragedies do not occur in future.

Governments in other countries have not shirked their responsibilities. In Canada, a full Government investigation was held and, in Ireland, the Government established a tribunal inquiry, which is authorising compensation payments. Closer to home, in September, the Scottish Minister for Health and Community Care, Susan Deacon, initiated an inquiry into the infection of Scottish haemophilia patients. Ministers have taken the line that Scottish cases are different. The detail may be different—heat treatment for blood products happened later in Scotland and there is the question of what information was given to Scottish patients—but the principle is the same. I trust that the Minister will agree that it would be unacceptable for a devolved Scottish Parliament to compensate victims of hepatitis C contamination in Scotland if victims in England and Wales were not compensated. That would be another unexpected consequence of the Government's hasty devolution legislation, and it would turn English and Welsh patients into second-class citizens.

I know that Ministers are sympathetic to the cause, and I hope that what I am about to say will not embarrass them too much. I have before me an early-day motion, tabled in 1995, which called on the Government to give similar financial assistance to those infected with hepatitis C as was given to those infected with HIV. It was signed by the Minister and his boss, the Secretary of State. I do not believe that they have changed their principles in four years, so their duty must be clear. I know that there are constraints in government that are not there in opposition. Nevertheless, this is a wonderful opportunity for them to be consistent in their demands for fair play for those victims.

It would do much for those who cynically believe that the Government do not care, if a reply were made to the appeal delivered to No. 10 Downing street on 23 November last year by a cross-party delegation led by Lord Morris, in which several hon. Members present today and I took part. I was saddened to hear yesterday that the appeal has not even been acknowledged, which would cost only the price of a postage stamp.

Justice requires that the Government should set up an independent inquiry into the matter, as has been done in Scotland. There, evidence has been taken from the blood transfusion service, doctors and patients with haemophilia and hepatitis C, which is being investigated by the Scottish Health and Community Care Committee. Surely, we should demand no less for victims who live in England. I should not like to have to hear the Minister justify the fact that, although the findings of the Scottish inquiry were being implemented, he was not prepared to do the same south of the border. I urge the Minister to give a commitment today to have the whole sorry affair independently examined, not just because compensation might be awarded as a result, although the justice of that would seem to be unquestionable, but to ensure that such an unfortunate and tragic accident can never happen again and that never again will national health service patients be damaged by such a terrible mistake.

I was one of those Members of Parliament who accompanied 15 representatives of the Haemophilia Society to No. 10 Downing street last November when we laid 113 white lilies on the steps, one for every person in the United Kingdom who has died from hepatitis C, contracted through contaminated blood—a very moving occasion it was too.

I joined that delegation because of one of my constituents, Mr. Tom Cole of Lowestoft. Mr. Cole suffered from mild haemophilia and, many years ago, he was given a clotting agent after two wisdom teeth were extracted. That was when his troubles began because the clotting agent was derived from donated blood, which was subsequently discovered to have come from a batch that was unscreened. That batch of blood was contaminated, so my constituent contracted hepatitis C. Mr. Cole is now 62 years old and he is a very different person from the person he used to be. Many years of suffering as a result of that damaging incident have taken their toll. Before the incident, he had a good job as a helicopter control officer on an offshore rig, but his liver was seriously damaged and his whole system was poisoned. That affected his brain so that he became confused and disoriented and, no doubt, he was also affected by the worry and trauma.

First, drug treatments, with very unpleasant side effects, were tried, but they failed to work. Eventually, it was decided that he needed a liver transplant to survive at all. He had his first liver transplant in December 1995, but unfortunately it was unsuccessful, so he underwent a second liver transplant operation in August 1996. One such operation is difficult, but two is a trial indeed.

I first discovered his case in 1996 while Mr. Cole was at Addenbrooke's, which is about 90 miles from Lowestoft. At that time, I met Mrs. Cole, who was ill herself from chronic worry about her husband's ill health and the way in which he had contracted hepatitis C, as well as from worry about how they would make ends meet because they incurred considerable costs in getting to and from Addenbrooke's. In addition, their family life was greatly disrupted. As a result of what had happened to Tom, that family suffered not only inconvenience but financial penalties. Not only did he suffer the financial loss of two thirds of his income when he had to give up his job, but his pension was affected. He had been looking forward to retirement with a good pension.

Mr. Cole does not blame the national health service or the medical profession for what has happened to him. He realises that it was no one's fault. He knows that it was unfortunate that those blood products were not tested at the time. However, he feels that it is wrong that he should suffer financially for so many years—he will continue to suffer financially into his retirement—for something for which he was not responsible.

The nub of the argument is that people such as Mr. Cole have a moral case. He is not asking for a huge litigation-style compensation payment that acknowledges fault. He wants people in a similar position to receive some modest support that will enable them to receive the regular treatment that they need, and that will help with the cost of travelling to hospital and of the prescriptions that they often need.

The question is simple: cannot the Government perform an act of good will? Despite the fact that they have no legal liability, cannot they widen the remit of the Macfarlane trust to cover people suffering from hepatitis C? To do so would be medically and morally justified. I suspect that the Government have taken the same position as the previous Government because they have been given the same legal advice. When two Governments take the same position, one usually suspects that that is the reason.

This is a time for compassion. We want compassion to find a way through the legal tangle, so that people such as Tom Cole can receive the help that they deserve.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on having the good fortune to win the debate lottery. I thank him also for the generous way in which he put his case. He did not attempt to score political points. He put the case that successive Governments have been involved. However, for most of those who listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech on radio or television, the question of reasonableness will far outweigh any legal ramifications or responsibilities that the present or previous Governments might have faced.

The British people who listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech will have had an insight into what those people affected and their families have faced. They would say that now is the time—albeit, long overdue—for the Government to recognise that the nation has a responsibility to them. That wrong should be righted sooner rather than later. An inquiry cannot possibly be justified, laudable though the sentiment is, because all the evidence is available. People went for treatment and, through no fault of their own, left hospital in a far worse state. The way in which the treatment was given, and the reasons why contamination took place are now irrelevant. Most of those who receive national health service treatment expect to benefit from it, not to see their lives and those of their families and loved ones systematically destroyed.

We heard of one such incident from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). Two friends of mine suffered from this. One, a journalist living in this country, is now dead. Sadly, he died not long after he was infected; he contracted hepatitis C and, as a result, other infections that subsequently killed him. I am sure that medically it could be argued that his haemophilia might have led to his death at that stage anyway, but his family are convinced that his death in his early forties was due to the infection via contaminated products.

Another friend, a French politician whom I met while I was leader of Hampshire county council, also suffers from haemophilia and he was infected with hepatitis C in France. The difference is that he is still alive and has received substantial compensation for what happened to him. At no stage was there any doubt about the sort of treatment that he would receive. He did not suffer from the lottery whereby the part of the country in which he lived determined whether he received the right treatment. He and his family also received substantial sums in compensation. Nothing can ever truly compensate individuals and their families, and, sadly, for many of them any compensation would be too late. As we have heard, people and young children have died. Those lives have been needlessly lost. The nation owes sufferers some justice today. It would be wicked to allow the situation to continue. The wrong would simply be compounded. That cannot be right.

I am grateful to the Haemophilia Society for its latest briefing, which lists eight of the major problems faced by sufferers and their families. The hon. Member for East Hampshire touched on a few of those, but it is worth mentioning them again, and perhaps the Minister will let us have his ideas on possible remedies. There is the difficulty in obtaining life assurance, the reduced income through having to cut working hours or give up work altogether, and the increased costs due to special dietary requirements and medicine charges. The education of many young people with haemophilia and hepatitis C has been adversely affected and job and life opportunities have been lost. People suffer from discrimination and ostracism at work or school and in society in general. That may be difficult to believe, but one need only ask some of the sufferers and their families. They will give chapter and verse of many such incidents. They fear for their future health and leaving their dependants without financial support. With young children and heavy commitments, and an illness that has already resulted in the early deaths of many others, how does one contemplate the future financial support of a family without life insurance?

There is a lack of support and counselling services for hepatitis C sufferers. How can it be that, after 20 years, individuals and their families are still suffering from such problems? If any of us, heaven forbid, were to witness a fatal accident outside this building, we would insist on receiving trauma counselling and advice. Why do sufferers not receive what most of us now assume is available for everyone? Why are those people, through no fault of their own, unable to receive life insurance, something basic which almost everyone takes for granted? Why can we plan for our children's lives after we have gone, while they are nagged with constant worries about the future of their families? It is enough that they have to worry about their families, seeing them suffer while they are alive, yet they also know that their families will have to fight the issue after they have gone.

Other hon. Members will have an opportunity to go into further detail about effects that such individuals have had to take in their stride. The numbers are not large, but we are talking about human beings with a significant problem. As the hon. Member for East Hampshire said, the Minister and his Secretary of State signed an early-day motion. With hindsight, one could say that perhaps neither of them expected to be confronted with the same difficulties or legal advice as their predecessors were. When they signed it, perhaps they thought that changes would be easy to make when they came to office. We wish that that had been the case.

Whatever the difficulties, they cannot be as bad as those that the individuals face. They and their families are crying out for justice. Why have successive Governments simply not got to grips with the problem and given those people the justice that they deserve? Those of us who have had the privilege of meeting them and their families have been told that they do not want huge financial payments, although I believe that they should. They want continuity of care so that there is no uncertainty about which drugs they can have, no matter where they live. Why can they not be assured today that there will be equal care, with no drugs or treatments denied and no opportunity to give them a better life not taken?

Why can we not make ex gratia payments available to them as we did to those infected with HIV? The mechanism is there. There is no encumbrance on the Government preventing them from doing the right thing. The legal opinion may be that a minefield of other issues will be created, but nothing could be worse than what those people and their families have lived with for nearly two decades. It would be a disgrace if the matter were still unresolved a year from now. At the end of the debate, I hope that the Minister will give everyone concerned the hope of seeing long-overdue justice in a matter of months. Anything short of that would be a disgrace to the nation, let alone our political system.

I want to take a couple of minutes to add my support to what has been said. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) for being late and missing the start of his speech.

Like all Members of Parliament, I am frequently brought cases and causes, and I have never come across a greater injustice to a group of people during my eight years in the House. Haemophiliacs have a diminished life style. The fault is not their own; the disease that they have no choice but to live with is inherited. The 5,000 people who suffer from haemophilia put their faith in the national health service for blood transfusions. Sadly, 1,200 were given blood infected with hepatitis C, and, of those, I regret that 700 have already died.

I realise that the Department of Health sympathises with those people, just as it did with people with HIV. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, who insisted that the problem of HIV be dealt with. That was done through the Macfarlane trust, into which £98 million was paid, which was subsequently topped up with an additional £3 million. At the time, I spoke to the then Secretary of State, who said that the advice from his Department was, "Don't do it. You will set a precedent. Don't give way." However, the previous Prime Minister felt a moral obligation to deal with the people involved, and insisted that action be taken, and the then Secretary of State created the Macfarlane trust. I pay tribute to him for doing so, because it was the correct decision to deal with a group of people who suffered from a life-threatening disease.

I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, having been part of the delegation that initiated discussions with the then Secretary of State and having assured him that there would be no question of people taking advantage of an ex gratia payment paid into a charitable trust. That assurance has been honoured, and I am surprised that such a procedure cannot be followed again.

As my right hon. Friend says, HIV sufferers have honoured that agreement. Those who, through no fault of their own, have been given contaminated blood ask not to become mega rich through massive legal claims, but merely to have, especially for their families, the same sort of provision. As hon. Members have said, once a haemophiliac contracts hepatitis C he knows that he will die sooner rather than later. Those people's anxiety relates not to their anger about having contracted the infection but to their hope for provision to be made for their families when they die.

I am sure that the Minister will show copious sympathy for those people. I do not want to remind him of the fact that he and the Secretary of State signed an early-day motion calling for justice for them. I believe that the Minister would like to help them, but I know the bureaucratic response that the Department will give, because I received it in 1998 from the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancreas (Mr. Dobson), who said:

The Government has proceeded on the basis that compensation or other financial help to particular patients or groups of patients is only paid out where the NHS or individuals working in it have been at fault. The needs of people whose condition results from inadvertent harm is met from benefits available to the population in general. I am sorry to have to tell you that after considering all aspects of this matter we have decided that we should not make an exception to the general rule in the case of haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C.

He went on to say:

You have also argued that as the Government provides financial help to haemophiliacs infected with HIV this scheme should be extended to cover people with hepatitis C,

but that the Government took the view that those circumstances were different.

That was in 1998. The then Secretary of State is now entering a new life. It will be interesting to see what position he takes as the potential new mayor of London when addressing the needs of haemophiliacs. It will be interesting to see what he has to say to them and what his feelings are now on the subject.

This is a matter of justice. Haemophiliacs are not asking for the earth; they are not asking for revenge; they are not asking for mega bucks; they want only to be treated in the same way as the HIV sufferers who were infected with contaminated blood. They have done nothing wrong. They put their faith in the national health service and have no option but to continue to put their faith in it. They do not wish to have the national health service held up to ridicule. They want only justice and I hope that, when the Minister responds, he can offer that to them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on securing this debate.

The infection of haemophiliacs with hepatitis C is something I feel strongly about since, in my medical career, I may well have been responsible for some of them contracting this dreadful disease. When I first qualified, the treatment of haemophiliacs was largely conservative, with the use of ice packs, immobility and treatment to prevent arthritis and joint damage, which are so often a consequence of such a difficult disease. There was then a positive change in medical policy with the availability of factor 8 and other blood products to treat even minor bleeds. I am not sure whether we adequately evaluated the risks of such treatment in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) rightly pointed out that we are dealing with blameless victims. Those people took medical advice; they put their trust in Government policy on the treatment of their disease, expecting to lead a more active life and become less of a burden on the state than if they had accepted the conservative treatment that might have resulted in disabilities.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made a generous speech in which he spoke of a no-fault situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) felt there was no need for an inquiry. Clearly, there is no need for an inquiry if the Government accept responsibility for those who contracted hepatitis C as a result of Government policy on the treatment of haemophiliacs. The mechanisms are there to help those people in the plight that has been so well described by right hon. and hon. Members.

If the Government do not accept responsibility, the only alternative is to call for a public inquiry, because I am not clear how long the Government were aware of the risk of using potentially contaminated products—especially where they were imported—or how long a delay there was in the identification of that risk before those products were properly treated. The Government must either accept that they have a moral as well as a legal responsibility towards those people and use the sensible mechanisms available to them through the Macfarlane trust, or accept responsibility for making all the facts clear about the change between the use of potentially infected products and the heated products. They do not have an alternative.

In the meantime, it is vital that the Government do more than write letters to right hon. and hon. Members saying that treatment and support should be available throughout the country. It should be an instruction. It is not acceptable for people to be treated according to their postcode, nor is it a matter for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The facts about the treatment are well established and I should not want further to overburden NICE. Apparently it can cope only with 30 investigations a year, so it would be a long time before it came up with any answers.

Sadly, the liability to support victims of therapeutically acquired hepatitis C is limited. They are dying slowly and, in some cases, quickly. We are not asking the Government for an open-ended commitment that cannot be evaluated. We know how many people are affected and we can evaluate what support they might need. It behoves the Government of a civilised country to look at their responsibility and admit that they have a role. They should then cost it, evaluate it, seek the support of the House, which I am sure will be overwhelming, and do something for that so far ignored group of people.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on securing this Adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) may have been doing him an injustice by saying that he had been fortunate in the lottery. The first debate on Tuesday mornings is selected by Madam Speaker on the merits of the subject and I am delighted that she chose the subject that we are discussing. No one would doubt that there is overwhelming sympathy for haemophiliacs. Such people are already stricken with a disabling condition and over the past 20 or so years the great majority have been stricken again either by HIV or by hepatitis C or, in all too many cases, by both. We share an instinctive horror at the thought that the very process of providing medical treatment can itself be harmful, and most would readily acknowledge that that is one of the worst treatment disasters in the national health service history.

I have a personal interest in the subject because, many years ago, fresh from university, my first job was in a company that was involved in the importation and sale to the NHS of anti-haemophiliac factors. Although I was a junior and insignificant member of the team, I knew eminent doctors, scientists and pharmacists who were undertaking such work when there was great excitement about the possibility of producing products artificially that would eliminate the risk in their manufacture from national blood products. At the time, the risks and conditions of HIV and hepatitis C were unknown and the fears that we are now experiencing were not felt.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) asked whether sufficient investigation had taken place before the use of anti-haemophiliac factors within the NHS. He did not acknowledge the significant improvement in the quality of life for those who had previously been encouraged to adopt immobility as a routine response to their disease. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that something went terribly wrong, but at the time—as I remember from having been on the sidelines—it was seen as a great victory and advance in the treatment of people unfortunate enough to have the condition.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said that no one in the Government has ever said sorry for what happened to haemophiliacs. If that is the case, it is astonishing. From my observation of the scientists and doctors involved, whom I knew at the time and with whom I have stayed in touch over the years, I know that they were good people who believed that they were helping those patients. Later, with the benefit of hindsight, they realised that what they had been doing had systematically, albeit inadvertently, poisoned those people. That discovery has been a shattering blow to many of them. They are truly sorry for what has happened, although they genuinely did not realise the consequences at the time.

My hon. Friend made the case for compensation of the people affected. He said that when the Minister was in opposition, he had signed an early-day motion calling for that. I shall not make party political points because it is clear that a groundswell of sympathy for them exists across the political divide. However, both the previous and the present Administration came to the conclusion, after careful review, that the principle that no-fault compensation should not be paid where there has been no negligence must remain as a general rule in a national health service that delivers health care free at the point of need.

There are significant problems with a no-fault compensation system. Causality would still need to be established and it may inhibit clinical practice, which is based on the best current knowledge at any given time, and may blur the line between negligence and innocent action, leading to a less accountable culture in medicine. Last, but not least, it would involve a cost to the budget. It has been said many times that any compensation should be paid from a contingency reserve, but if no-fault compensation were accepted for medical accidents in general, beyond the specific matter of haemophiliacs with hepatitis C, there would be significant budgetary implications that could not be ignored.

The main argument advanced for compensation for this group is the unusual position of haemophiliacs infected with HIV. They were treated as a special case because it was felt that HIV was a unique condition in terms of its high mortality rate and the tremendous stigma attaching, certainly in the early days, to the disease.

On that point, an assurance was given that, if money were paid into the Macfarlane trust, there would be no question of legal action being taken and that has been honoured.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. It would be a great shame if an act of good will towards a suffering group of people who have a terrible disease became the benchmark by which other groups who have suffered as a result of medical accidents felt that they had been unjustly treated. I acknowledge the problem of deciding where, in the spectrum of medical accidents, one should draw the line, but I readily understand the apparent injustice of two haemophiliacs who had acquired similar viral diseases from transfusions of contaminated blood products being treated differently.

The general principle should be to resist no-fault compensation for medical accidents in the NHS. That was the previous Government's conclusion, and it has also been this Government's conclusion, unless the Minister is about to announce a major change today. However, I shall qualify what I have said in two specific ways. First, it is, of course, relevant only where there is no negligence. If negligence were established, for example where information—either on the risk of infection or on the seriousness of the consequences of infection—that might reasonably have been used in decisions to change the treatment of at least some patients had been available was withheld, that would be a different matter. If it were clear that such negligence had occurred, the Government would have to move swiftly, without requiring individuals to enter into protracted legal action.

In the light of the inquiry that has been instituted in Scotland, is the Minister satisfied that conditions in Scotland are different from those in England and Wales? Does he think that, to confirm the absence of negligence, it was necessary to accede to the request for an inquiry? That is a separate issue from the question whether compensation should be paid in cases where there has been no negligence.

It is timely, in the current climate of concern about new variant CJD, that we should be discussing this issue. Is the Minister satisfied that all the lessons from the experience of the haemophilia, HIV and hepatitis C issues have been learned, even if there is no evidence of negligence in his Department? Has he identified and eliminated any systemic or bureaucratic failures in the Department of Health or the national health service? All will agree that in 20 years' time we must not be debating the case of people who have been contaminated by new variant CJD in the course of medical treatment administered in the early years of the millennium.

Secondly, there is a strong case for dealing with all medical accidents—especially those involving identifiable groups, rather than just one-off cases—on their merits. We should ensure that the response is appropriate and does not always, or only, take the form of financial compensation; it could be the provision of effective treatment and support. Although I agree, reluctanly, that automatic no-fault compensation is not the right answer for the national health service, I urge the Government to examine the mechanisms for dealing with particular hardship in individual medical accident cases, not just as it affects haemophiliacs but across the spectrum—especially, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, where hardship has resulted from treatment to alleviate the condition.

The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), rejected the idea of special payments on 28 July 1998. He went on to say:

The needs of people whose condition results from inadvertent harm are met from benefits available to the population in general.—[Official Report, 28 July 1998; Vol. 317, c.179WA.]

Most people would agree, on a moment's reflection, that that is a rather harsh judgment and that people suffering particular hardship, as a result of medical accidents, are not always properly catered for by the general benefits system. I urge the Minister to consider the possibility of having a middle way that, although falling short of no-fault compensation for medical accidents, goes beyond what the general benefit system provides to the public at large and offers proper support to those who have suffered from medical accidents that occur within the national health service.

Many of the problems that face haemophiliacs with hepatitis C also face the other 250,000 to 500,000 hepatitis C sufferers. That range is broad because nobody knows how many people out there in the community may carry the disease undiagnosed. Hepatitis C has been described as the real millennium bug and a ticking time bomb, because hundreds of thousands of people in this country may carry the disease without being aware of it. Some medical authorities have suggested that it has the potential to be a greater killer in the long term than AIDS. We need to consider the regime of treatment and support that is in place to deal with the disease generally, as well as in the particular case of people who have acquired it through contaminated blood products.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire mentioned the apparent problem of transmitting the Government's intentions down to health authority level. The mechanism that the Government have used for that is the national service framework, which creates a clear structure and definition of what is to be expected from the NHS in a given case for a given condition. There is no national service framework for hepatitis C. Can the Minister tell us what strategy his Department has for coordinating prevention, diagnosis, treatment, care and support in cases of hepatitis C, to ensure that we have a national approach to this major problem?

As other hon. Members have said, standards of treatment for hepatitis C across the United Kingdom are variable. The interferon-ribavirin combination therapy is denied to patients in many health authority areas because of funding problems. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that that therapy should not be referred to NICE for a report. Does the Minister concur with the hon. Gentleman's analysis, or will the Government seek to refer that treatment to NICE for a report? If there is to be no compensation for people affected by medical accidents, the least that we need do to restore confidence in national health service treatment is to ensure that the best corrective or palliative treatment is available.

All hepatitis C sufferers are entitled to ask what the Government are doing to control the disease and to support those who suffer from it. This matter was debated in the other place, where the noble Lord Winston, whose name might not normally have come to my attention but who has recently been prominent in our health debates, said:

although the Government came to power with a promise to abolish the internal market, it is a lottery as to whether these patients are treated by the NHS.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 673.]

He went on to put, more eloquently than I could, the case for additional support for haemophiliac patients with hepatitis C.

Faced with the tragedy of a relatively small group of people suffering from a chronic and, in many cases, grave illness as a direct result of NHS treatment, the instinct or the knee-jerk reaction of all hon. Members would be to compensate. Ministers in the previous Government wrestled with their consciences over the question, and balanced the instinct to compensate with their wider responsibilities, and with the principle that compensation is usually paid only when negligence has been evident. It is impossible not to feel sympathy with the agonising plight of haemophiliac victims of hepatitis C, but the decision not to venture into the realms of general no-fault compensation is the right one, albeit a difficult one to make in the circumstances.

My hon. Friend has been talking for some minutes about a general principle with which few hon. Members would argue. We are discussing a specific problem, closely related to another which was treated by the Government—rightly in my view and that of my hon. Friend—as so exceptional that ex gratia payments should be made, despite its being no one's fault. I want to progress not from the particular to the general, just from one area of the particular to another similar instance affecting people with the same genetic disease, haemophilia. People find it incredible that some should be compensated and some should not. We want to remove the lottery aspect of the matter.

I understand my hon. Friend's eloquently put view, but the problem is where to draw the line when we begin to compensate for the effects of medical accidents. I would prefer cases to be considered individually, and would also like a review of the mechanisms for dealing with hardship arising from medical accidents.

It must be right, in any case, for the NHS to provide every available treatment for people whose condition has been exacerbated by NHS treatment and to provide appropriate support and counselling. I expect that all hon. Members would advocate that as a general principle. It is not inconsistent with that general principle that the Minister should tell health authorities to give the highest priority to treating hepatitis C haemophiliacs. What practical steps is the Department of Health taking, and what practical guidance has the Minister given to health authorities, to support this defined and unfortunate group of patients and ensure that treatment is properly available throughout the country? It is not acceptable for any patient to have to wait months or years to see a hepatologist, especially in the circumstances that we have heard about this morning.

I reluctantly support the conclusion reached by the previous and present Governments that no-fault compensation must generally be resisted in the national health service—I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire by taking that view—but I hope that the Minister will reassure us, and, more importantly, the thousands of victims of this terrible tragedy, by promising to examine the mechanisms for dealing with cases of hardship arising from medical accidents and by announcing improvements in access to treatment and counselling for the people affected by the accident that we are considering today. I hope that there will also be a step change in the pace of the battle against the spread of hepatitis C.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on raising this matter, and on doing it so effectively. There is much support and sympathy in and out of Parliament for the people with haemophilia who received infected blood products before technology could remove the infection. In the time available I hope to deal with many of the issues raised in the debate and, although I will not be able to satisfy hon. Members on all points, to show that we are more than sympathetic and have practical action in hand.

We want the people concerned to be increasingly well cared for in the NHS, to be supported in their communities and to be better informed about how to look after their health. I recognise the role of the Haemophilia Society, which has led to a forceful and moving campaign for special recognition for people with haemophilia and hepatitis C. We have worked closely with the organisation and will continue to do so. As has been said, people with haemophilia were more severely affected before blood products were developed. Apart from the distress of the condition, they faced deformed joints and general incapacity, and children suffering from the disease typically attended special schools.

Blood products were developed from the late 1960s onwards and were a huge step forward. They were easy to use and people could treat themselves at home rather than go to hospital. They were also transportable, and people could take them with them if they went away. They improved the quality of people's lives at the time, and sufferers' longevity increased to nearly that of the general population. The ill effects of haemophilia were beginning to recede. I understand that the existence of a different sort of hepatitis virus was known in the early days of blood product manufacture. It did not have a specific name until 1989 and there was no test for it until the late 1980s. Experts advised that there was no reliable test until the early 1990s.

It was suggested that nobody had said sorry, but I was not aware that that was the case. I wonder how anybody, including Ministers, could not be sorry about the sequence of events set out today. But, as has been generally agreed, it would be wrong to confuse regret with fault or blame. If I have time, I shall trace some of the history of how blood products were treated, but I would rather concentrate initially on the substantive issues raised concerning the action that we should now take.

The outlook for the treatment of hepatitis C has progressed. The first treatment, an anti-viral therapy, became available in 1995. Work was also beginning then on the combination of interferon with other anti-viral agents such as ribavirin. I understand that the success rate of the first therapy was modest and that about 20 per cent. of patients cleared the virus. However, the second generation therapy using interferon with ribavirin has been shown to be more successful.

Interferon with ribavirin more easily referred to as the combination therapy—was licensed last summer. Hon. Members have asked about NICE. We have referred combination therapy to NICE, which is assessing it as a matter of urgency. It has recently written to the interested organisations to seek their input, and we look forward to receiving its recommendations in a few months' time. As has been said elsewhere, NICE is a key mechanism for giving authoritative guidance to the national health service on the clinical and cost effectiveness of a range of treatments. It will be a key tool in tackling the unacceptable variations of access to treatment and care that currently apply in respect of a number of different procedures and treatments.

May we have an assurance that, if the matter has been referred to NICE, it will not invoke the affordability criteria and the decision will be taken by Ministers?

As it does on all other procedures, NICE will consider the clinical and cost effectiveness of the treatment. That is set out in the rules according to which NICE operates. The fact that NICE is considering combination therapy is not a barrier to its prescription and provision. In response to concerns expressed by a number of hon. Members, the Government have followed up with a number of health authorities when a moratorium was imposed or about to be imposed. Referral to NICE is a key move forward in resolving combination therapy treatment issues. I understand that liver transplantation following hepatitis C, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Hampshire, will be taken into account by NICE as part of the process of considering the provision of combination therapy.

As I have mentioned, we place great value on the work of the Haemophilia Society, with which we shall continue to work. A key issue is the campaign that the society has run with others for a special payment scheme for haemophilia and hepatitis C infections. Several right hon. and hon. Members, including myself, signed an early-day motion in 1995 requesting that financial assistance be considered. That causes me no embarrassment because, especially in opposition, hon. Members often raise issues of concern so as to put them at the top of the agenda and require Ministers to consider them. Indeed, when the Government took office, meetings were held with the Haemophilia Society and the issue was carefully considered. Every consideration was given to the possibility of a special payment scheme for those with haemophilia and hepatitis C. During that time, we continued to work with the society on several other issues, such as our requirement that health authorities should provide recombinant synthetic factor 8 to children under 16 with haemophilia and new patients. We concluded that haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C should not receive special payments, and some of the arguments for that were rehearsed earlier in the debate. As my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State informed the House,

Government policy is that compensation or other financial help to particular patients or groups of patients is paid out only where the NHS or individuals working in it have been at fault. The needs of people whose condition results from inadvertent harm is met from benefits available to the population in general.—[Official Report, 28 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 179WA.]

On that basis, we decided not to make an exception to the general rule in the case of haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C.

Does that mean that the Minister is quite certain that all the necessary investigations have already taken place to rule out the possibility that there was negligence on the part of the Department of Health or NHS in the matter?

In preparation for the debate and in discussion with my colleagues, I have seen no evidence that would persuade me of the need for a public inquiry or further examination of the history of the matter. Although it is outside my responsibility, I understand that the Scottish inquiry relates to a specific issue. Officials within the Scottish Executive Health and Community Care Department have been asked to examine the circumstances surrounding the introduction of heat treatment with factor 8 in Scotland in the mid-1980s, with specific reference to an alleged discrepancy between England and Scotland. It is not a general inquiry into the history of the matter but an inquiry into a specific issue of the timing and sequence of events. The Scottish Executive await the outcome of those findings.

Yes, there was a difference, but some of the blood product that was processed in Scotland was given to patients in England because it was issued throughout the United Kingdom. What will the Minister do if the Scottish Parliament decides to compensate Scottish hepatitis C sufferers? Will he maintain his present position? That would be intolerable.

The hon. Gentleman, not unreasonably, strings together a sequence of hypotheses. Clearly, any information that becomes available as a result of the Scottish inquiry would need to be carefully considered if it were relevant to the responsibilities of English Ministers, but it is not helpful to speculate on the possible outcome of the inquiry.

I want to consider some other important issues that were raised in the debate. We have referred the new licensed combination therapy to NICE.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

I should like to make progress because many other important issues have been raised, including counselling.

We are working closely with the Haemophilia Society, through a grant towards its administration. During the past two years we have supported the society's project to develop and produce information on hepatitis C for young people, their families and teachers. The material is sensible, informative and lively. We are also funding a seminar later this year for professionals on co-infection with HIV and hepatitis C. We shall continue to build on our work with the society. My ministerial colleagues have met its representatives and found the exchanges helpful.

We must take the work forward in several ways. An external group—the haemophiliac alliance—will provide additional pressure on Government. My colleague Baroness Hayman, the then Minister, wrote to welcome its formation. It is bringing together the professional groups dealing with haemophilia care, for which it is drawing up a service specification. When completed, the specification will be a significant tool for those commissioning haemophilia services, acting as an outline of the key components of a high-quality service. The alliance has asked the NHS executive to circulate information about its service specification work via the national networks, and that is being done. Haemophilia services appropriate for specialist commissioning have been identified and three regional specialised commissioning groups—in London, the west midlands, and the south-east—are studying them.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked about the way in which we were developing and supporting guidance for the service. That is one way in which we are doing that. We have also funded a group from the Royal College of Physicians, the British Society of Gastroenterology and the British Association for the Study of the Liver to draw up evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of patients with hepatitis C, which should be available later this year.

We have also asked the UK Haemophilia Centre directors to ensure that counselling is available and accessible to haemophiliacs with hepatitis C. Several hon. Members have raised that issue. We must ensure that the facilities at the 22 comprehensive care centres are extended to the 100 or so smaller haemophilia centres. We are also working with the directors on collecting better data on the number of people with haemophilia who are infected with hepatitis C. As the hon. Member for East Hampshire said in his opening remarks, the Haemophilia Society and others are keen to have the information.

We are always open to new ideas about the way in which we might improve the lives of people with haemophilia and hepatitis C. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) raised the issue of insurance cover. My colleague the noble Lord Hunt is writing to the Association of British Insurers on easing the barriers to insurance cover. I would not wish anyone to feel that our agenda on such issues was closed. I invite hon. Members to contact us with other issues that they think that the Government should be advancing.

I acknowledge the point of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we must consider hepatitis C in a wider context. It is a significant public health issue, and it is important that we increase knowledge about its natural history, prevalence, transmission and treatment, so that the NHS might be equipped to deliver services based on the best scientific and medical evidence available.

We have commissioned research worth about £1 million, and we are investing a further £500,000 of research moneys specifically in research into hepatitis C and injecting drug misuse, which is responsible for most new cases. The research will investigate ways of reducing the incidence, spread and progression of the disease.

Will the Minister give a final assurance that combination therapy will be available throughout the regions of the UK for which he is responsible to any haemophiliac suffering from hepatitis C?

If NICE is to be effective, we must await its guidance and not seek to pre-empt it. NICE has been created because, in too many areas, the national health service has lacked authoritative guidance on the clinical effectiveness and the cost effectiveness of treatments. Its creation enables us to refer therapies that have spread more slowly than expected, and treatments where there are concerns about effectiveness. Once a referral is made to it, it is important for Ministers to await its independent judgment. When that guidance is received—

Order.

Two years ago, I introduced an Adjournment debate on the Irish community in Britain, partly because of my Irish background and partly because of the large number of my constituents who were of Irish origin. Surprisingly, that was the first debate on that subject in Parliament. The second-largest ethnic minority in my constituency are members of the Asian community who derive their origin from the Punjab. This is the first time that a British Parliament has specifically addressed the Punjabi community in Britain. Not only do I represent a constituency with more than 15,000 community members whose origins lie in the Punjab, but I am the founding chair of the all-party group on the Punjabi community. Some of its members may want to make brief contributions to the debate.

Language can be important, especially when dealing with Britain's colonial past, so let me first clarify an issue of pronunciation. Many of my Punjabi friends and colleagues advise me that the terms "Punjab" and "Punjabi" are colonial mispronunciations of the more exact pronunciations "Panjab" and "Panjabi". To remedy that historical error—apart from trying to learn Punjabi at a local school—I shall pronounce Punjab as "Panjab".

The Punjab means the land of the five rivers. It has a history that flows from the ancient civilisation of the Indus valley in approximately 2000 BC, through a series of empires and Mogul dynasties, to the founding of Sikhism in the 15th century. It is important to note that Sikhism is neither sectarian nor communal. Although it gave the Punjab a unique culture, its gift was secular tolerance in government and public life. The Punjab came under British rule in the 19th century and, on independence in 1947, the region was split between India and Pakistan, leaving a much smaller state of Punjab.

The relationship between Britain and the people of the Punjab in the colonial era formed the basis on which Punjabis migrated to this country in the latter half of the last century. The pattern of migration followed the pattern of settlement by my Irish community. In my area of west London, the first Punjabis often came to Britain to work in hard, low-paid jobs that found it hard to attract labour. They sometimes found work in medicine, where there were shortages of trained and skilled professionals. Before long, families were sent for and the process of permanent settlement was under way. Punjabi migration came not only from the Punjab, but from the Punjabi diaspora, which extended across the British empire, especially east Africa.

After nearly 50 years, we can celebrate a thriving Punjabi community in Britain. The industrious and talented first generation is giving way to self-confident and increasingly successful second and third generations. It is time to take stock of how the community is faring within our society and what issues the Government should be addressing in relation to it. But it has been difficult to find precise information on the Punjabi community in Britian. As with the Irish, there has been no specific question the British census to identify Punjabi speakers or Sikhs. The Government, in particular the Minister, should be congratulated on producing the breakthrough that allows the Irish and Gaelic languages, and Sikhism as a religion, to be included in the 2001 census. However, regret has been expressed that the progressive approach has not been applied to Punjabi speakers in the form of a question on the Punjabi language. I urge reconsideration of this issue even at this late stage. The fact that members of the Punjabi-speaking community will not be counted in an identifiable form in the next census increases their fear that they do not count in the eyes of policy makers. That issue should be addressed.

It was estimated from the figures in the 1991 census that the British population included 840,000 people from India, of whom it was suggested 51 per cent. were Sikh, and 477,000 people from Pakistan, of whom 48,000 had Punjabi as their main language. In fact, Punjabi is the most common language among British Asians and has become the second language in Britain, used by an estimated 1.3 million people—including me, in a very stilted form at this stage. That is reflected in the fact that the number of entrants for GSCE and A-level examinations in Punjabi outstrips those for all other Asian languages. If central and local government bodies are to plan the provision and development of policies and services in an effective and culturally sensitive way, information is required on this subtantial section of our community, and that information can come only from the census.

Based on what we already know about the Punjabi community in Britain, we are able to celebrate an incredibly successful community. Without wishing to fall into using stereotypes of Punjabis, I believe that there are numerous examples where the dedication, talent and industriousness of members of the Punjabi community have put them at the forefront of life in the public, private and community sectors. In virtually every walk of life, members of the Punjabi community are prominent. In celebrating this success, we must also address the outstanding concerns of the Punjabi community and create an agenda of policy proposals to tackle them.

First, we need to look at the way in which we fail in many instances to support family life in the Punjabi community. In the eyes of many in that community, the visa system is still discriminatory; too often, families are split at key moments of celebration—births and weddings—and at times of sadness—sickness and funerals. Too many hon. Members have experienced the problems and the vagaries of the visa system. I applaud the Government for restoring the appeal mechanism; however, there are many miles to go to improve that system.

Many people feel that the proposal to introduce bonds is a retrograde step. First, they feel that it is discriminatory because it applies only to the Indian subcontinent. Secondly, there are concerns that it discriminates on grounds of wealth because the bond is set to high that people from low-income families will not be able to pay it. In our view, many organisations would want to fund the bond—for example, Gurdwaras in their charitable role.

Does my hon. Friend accept in part that the demand for the bond system originated in those ethnic minority communities who saw a guarantee system as an effective way of gaining the admittance of a relative who had previously been refused entry?

I agree. The demand for the bond system arose largely from the Asian community itself; therefore it is important that we ensure that this reform is carried out correctly and that, when we introduce the bond system, it is done in such a way that it does not discriminate and is of practical assistance. It must not be a fob to avoid reform of the system overall and the eradication of what is often seen as racism.

Does my hon. Friend also accept that many in constituencies such as mine and his are very poor and that the bond system will discriminate against the poorest and prevent them having family reunions because they will be unable to put up the appropriate bond or find anyone to do so?

That is why many have expressed concern. It has been proposed that the bond be on a sliding scale, related to the wealth of the individual or family, and that organisations such as Gurdwaras should be allowed to support individual families on a charitable basis. In addition, there are many concerns about the process of applying for a visa within the Punjab, especially about the long journeys that must be undertaken to Delhi and elsewhere. For that reason, we welcome the Government's initiative in establishing a temporary consulate in Chandigah, which will be a breakthrough for the Punjabi community here and in India.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. A couple of weeks ago, I visited India as part of a delegation. Some of the delegation had business in Delhi and undertook the 16-hour train journey from the Punjab. My hon. Friend may be aware that the extra travelling time for those of my constituents who have to travel from the west of Punjab is an obstacle for those who may wish to apply quickly for a visa—for instance, to attend a relative's funeral.

My hon. Friend demonstrates the need for a more creative approach. We need to balance security and accurate decision making with the needs of the local community—particularly of those who are not not able to afford or endure a long journey, and especially people such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend who are in a state of distress.

The other problem, which has been raised in my community and in Southall, is of visas for Gurdwara priests travelling from India. The Gurdwaras and temples have a limited number of priests. Many of them were trained in the United Kingdom, but priests sometimes travel from India. Unfortunately, restrictions are placed on the number of priests allowed to practise in our Gurdwaras, even for limited periods, and that is a problem. The number of priests in Gurdwaras in my constituency is disproportionately lower than the number of priests in Catholic churches.

Have ministers of religion in my hon. Friend's constituency been asked for work permits, as they have been in my constituency, where it has caused tremendous problems?

That problem was drawn to our attention only the weekend before last. At least 15,000 practitioners attend the Ravi Guru Dass Gurdwara each week, but there are only two priests; yet our local Catholic church has five priests for a similar-sized congregation. The demand for work visas needs to be reviewed.

My hon. Friend is generous in allowing interventions from those hon. Members whose constituencies include a significant Punjabi community. My constituency has an additional problem; because the Gurdwara is used as the central focus for the community, the facilities are now inadequate. Would my hon. Friend take this opportunity to join me in congratulating my local Sikh community on the work that it has done to raise the money to build a new Gurdwara—

Order. This is an Adjournment debate. Time is limited and interjections should be very brief.

You can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, how much interest the Chamber has in this subject.

We should congratulate the Sikh community on the role of the Gurdwaras, in respect of not only their religious practices but their social support of the community, which goes beyond religious practice. That social support was first recognised, dare I say it, by the Greater London council; the first grant to a Sikh Gurdwara in London was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in his former capacity. Funding is needed for community organisations in the Punjabi community in recognition of the social and institutional role of the Gurdwaras.

I move on to the question of long-standing asylum claims. The Government are now wrestling with the problem, and I welcome their proposal to give greater resources to the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office to tackle those long-standing cases. However, many of those claims relate to the troubles in Punjab in the 1980s and early 1990s, and a large number of asylum seekers have now settled here. They should be quickly informed that they will be allowed to stay because of their continued fear of repatriation. Their position should now be regularised.

We want many other matters of policy to be addressed by the Government. For example, for the first time, the British Government have provided financial support for the Guru Nanak college, a voluntary-aided Sikh school in my constituency. I congratulate the head teacher and my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards on their work during the past two years to ensure that the college is properly funded; it is now flourishing. We will now receive demands for support from across the country; for example for language tuition in state schools, and for additional cultural and educational support through section 11 and other measures in those schools, to help with the growing community of first, second and third-generation Punjabis.

We are concerned that discrimination in employment continues.

I thank my hon. Friend. Is he aware that a significant section of the Punjab falls within Pakistan? Has he, like other hon. Members, been lobbied on the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to declassify Basmati rice, which significantly affects trade in that part of the Punjab and Pakistan?

The community has raised the issue of the need to maintain links between this country and the Punjab, and Britain's role in assisting the economic development of what members of the community consider their original homeland. Issues such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend undermine that relationship and much of the aid assistance that we provide. We need to come back to that in a later debate.

There is a requirement for closer ethnic monitoring in employment. The census will give us that information and all public bodies must use it to ensure that discrimination does not occur in employment matters. I welcome the appointment of Gurbux Singh as chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. He is a talented and dedicated professional, as I know from my experience in local government. I encourage him, through the Minister, to undertake a CRE study of the Punjabi community in Britain, similar to the CRE study of the Irish community in Britain which revealed levels of discrimination and, more important, set out proposals for tackling that discrimination in, for example, employment.

On employment, it is important to mention the military, which is now denied to many Sikhs as a career because of the helmet issue. Sikhs have a proud military history, and throughout their employment by the British Army were allowed to wear the turban. That has now become an issue of conflict that has also been raised in regard to European regulations on safety helmets in construction.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Sikh community on the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa?

I will come to that. I shall not take any more interventions.

On health policy, the census should give us the information for targeted health campaigns. Several local authorities are undertaking campaigns on morbidity in the Asian community. The Government could give that more central funding and give it a fresh stimulus. The Punjabi community is demanding the elimination of the PHAB—physically handicapped and able-bodied—test, which prevents many doctors who were trained on the Indian sub-continent from working in Britain.

On culture and sport, I indeed congratulate the massive success of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa in the Khalsa Panth last year. I congratulate all those who came together to celebrate Baisakhi last year, through music, modern dance and the traditional assemblies of different organisations in the Royal Albert hall. I also congratulate the Victoria and Albert museum and Susan Strong on their contribution through the wonderful exhibition that they organised, which was supported by translations from one of my constituents, Mr. Rayat.

The Government should look at how we fund Punjabi community culture in this country. I draw particular attention to the applications made by various radio station groups— Appna Sangeet Radio, Punjabi FM and Saffron FM—which we could support, not only to disseminate information through the Punjabi community but to support its culture.

The Punjabi community is still attacked by the scourge of racism. I welcome the Government's measure to tackle that and the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, which recognises institutional racism. Anyone who heard PC Kash Singh this morning on the BBC knows how far we have to go. We must first support the Black Police Association. We also need to support organisations such as the Southall monitoring group. We need to make it clear that racial harassment and abuse, attacks on neighbours and school bullying will not be accepted in the society that we want to create.

That brings me on to the issue of human rights in the Punjab itself. The all-party group has received evidence of the extent of the abuses in the 1980s and 1990s and about those who disappeared, the torturing that took place and the attacks on innocent Punjabis by police and other agents.

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he is aware that this is a timed debate and that those in the Chamber will want to hear the Minister's reply.

I shall conclude my remarks in 30 seconds. The Government now have a role to liaise with the Indian Government to ensure, for example, the admittance of the UN human rights rapporteur to the Punjab to exert pressure, so that compensation and assistance are given to those families who have suffered. We have a vibrant and resourceful Punjabi community in this country of which we are proud. The Government support it and, for that reason, I welcome the opportunity to introduce the debate this morning

I, too, welcome the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on securing it and on being elected as founding chairman of the all-party Punjabi group. I note his use of the word "Punjabi" and I shall certainly ensure that it is used in documents. I congratulate the Punjabi community, in particular the Sikh community from the Punjab, on the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa. I have attended several celebrations of the anniversary, including some in my constituency. They were important to the whole community and were enjoyed not only by the Sikh community, but by many others who attended them.

There are many Punjabis in Britain, some of whom are Hindus, some of whom, are Muslim, although the majority are from the Sikh community. Each community makes an enormous contribution to our country. As a Minister, may I, on behalf of the Government, publicly thank the Punjabi community for their contribution to Britain? We are a multicultural society and we are stronger because of that. Our culture is more diverse and more enjoyable. Our trade links are more varied; our ability to take a wider cultural perspective is enhanced greatly by the economic and social potential which comes from the Punjabi community. That is why cultural diversity is not just about having the right moral perspective on issues relating to multiculturalism; it is also good business for Britain. It is about getting right the sort of society that we can become.

Last year, I spoke at the Sikh Forum dinner, at which many business people were represented. They energise our business, reinforce our economy and create jobs for our people. One only has to look at last year's publication by Eastern Eye of "Britain Richest 200 Asians". It makes impressive reading and it is heartening to see so many young people and so many women on that list of successful people. It includes manufacturers, importers, exporters, retailers, wholesalers, industrialists, financiers, media moguls and leaders in the pharmaceutical industry and in information technology. People from the Punjabi community make an enormous contribution to our universities. Also on the list of 200 richest Asians is my noble friend Lord Paul, who came originally from the Punjab.

We have to address many problems in a multicultural society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, when considering the issues that present themselves to Britain as a multicultural society, it is right to highlight the success of communities such as the Punjabi community and its people, who are examples to everyone of how our nation's diversity is prospering and flourishing as we enter the millennium. Too often, ethnic minorities are portrayed as victims of discrimination and poverty. It is important that we deal with their concerns. The Asian culture is not a culture of victims; it is go-getting, vibrant and dynamic, and contributes a staggering £5 billion a year to the British economy. Many of our Asians claim their heritage from the Punjab. Some are from families that came here via east Africa in the 1970s, although most of them were born here but still cherish their Punjabi heritage. Long may they do so.

Many people work in factories and businesses set up by Punjabis in places such as Leicester and Coventry. Punjabis have helped to create jobs in my and other areas, and have often done so where there had been few jobs previously. They have created prosperity out of unemployment, and we thank them for that.

I should like to respond to the call for consulate facilities in the Punjab made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. The Government are aware of suggestions that there should be more visa offices in the sub-continent to facilitate easier and faster processing of visas. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), recently visited the subcontinent, and has commissioned feasibility studies to establish how best we can extend services there. Studies are being carried out in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and we shall consider opening offices in Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Sylhet and Lahore. We are reviewing information already received from those posts, and my hon. Friend suggested that he wanted to consider the reports in due course. I hope that we shall have some news about how we intend to proceed during the year.

We think that appeals should be reinstated, so I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington about them. There has been some confusion about bonds, so I shall clarify the subject. Bonds were introduced at the request of many people from the Asian community. People have come to my surgeries to ask whether they can put a sum down as a bond because a visa has been refused. The bonds will be raised only when the entry clearance officer is otherwise "minded to refuse" a visa. Families will not be denied the possibility of being reunited, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggested. More families will be reunited than were before. Bonds will be used only when people are not given visas. Some people have deliberately given a lot of information that makes clarification of that issue necessary.

I am glad that the Minister has clarified the issue, as there is confusion in the community about it. Does the scheme apply only to south Asia?

The aim is to pilot the scheme for one year. The Asian community has requested that we pilot it in south Asia. That is why we have considered and are still considering how best we can do so in the light of the community's recent comments. We wanted to help, and some people have misinterpreted what we presented and sought to portray it as something other than it was.

Ministers of religion are needed and we want to ensure that all members of the Punjabi community can practise their religion. The concession about ministers of religion has been abused, so we must ensure that it is properly applied. Perhaps proper training of priests in the United Kingdom would be a solution. After all, Sikhism is now a British religion, as many people born in Britain are Sikhs. We must ensure that British Sikhs can practise their religion as they choose. The Home Office gives ethnic minority grants, so perhaps we can help. I should have liked to discuss some of the wide-ranging changes that we want to make to the national curriculum, and radio licences—

Order. Time is up.

It is rather a suitable day to discuss the Arundel bypass, which is not untypical of projects in other parts of the south-east. We shall hear later about the hundreds of thousands of new houses to be built in the south-east without properly considering whether the infrastructure is in place to service them. Road infrastructure is crucial, but other aspects of the infrastructure, too, do not have adequate facilities to accommodate the increases anticipated for the next six years.

I initiated the debate in order to express the extreme frustration—nay outrage of my constituents, the county council and Arun district council that a sensible proposal that dates back to 1985 has been kicked into the long grass. The strongest cross-party, cross-community support exists to solve the problem, whether it is referred to as congestion, a bottleneck or a pinch point.

As the Minister will be aware, a two-mile stretch of the A27 going through Arundel is dual carriageway both from Worthing and to Chichester. That stretch experiences appalling congestion in both directions, especially in summer. The roads programme for the bypass started in 1985 and, following substantial public consultation in 1987, in 1989 the Department sharpened up the proposal. In 1993, broad agreement was reached among the Department, the community, the environmental lobby, the county council and the district council for what is known as the pink-blue route, following a 10-volume environmental study and substantial local discussion. The pink-blue route would result in minimum damage to the environment.

In December 1996, the proposals was elevated to the main roads programme, to be implemented as soon as funding was available. Regrettably, as a result of the 1998 roads review, it was shelved. Since May 1997, I have handled more than 4 in of correspondence with constituents and the Department. At the end of last year, a private finance initiative was proposed to break the deadlock, but was dismissed without adequate consideration. The proposal is for a bypass of 6.6 km which, as projected in 1997, would cost £23.1 million.

The roads review of July 1998 remitted discussion of the scheme to a study of the scheme to be carried out at some time in the future—it used the words "expected in 2000–01", which probably means beyond that—and an environmental study of the area from Folkestone to Southampton, with its mandate worded in brave new world terms rather than dealing with the specific immediate problems of congestion. I am not commenting on the transport needs from Dover to Bournemouth, although there may be a sound case to be made for a motorway along the crucial east-west corridor. Any recommendations that may come out of that study, presumably in four or five years' time, will need to be considered by the South East England regional assembly—SEERA—and the Secretary of State. Yet again, that means further delay while the new regional development agency structure has its finger in the pie.

The local community's impression is that the Government have negated all the previous work, and ignored the urgent and growing needs of the community. Indeed, land is being designated adjacent to the A27 for most of the housing in the southern part of West Sussex. The study deals with congestion, safety and environmental problems on the south coast route between Folkestone and Southampton. Although "congestion" is referred to, the study really misses the point that there is an urgent economic need to relieve serious pinch point congestion spots. The July 1998 White Paper referred to that problem.

The issue of needing further environmental consideration was not entirely genuine, given that the environmental issues were analysed in great depth— in 10 volumes—earlier in that decade. I requested clarification on whether the bypass had been relegated to tranche 2 of the study programme, although I am not quite clear what "tranche 2" means in that context. I was told in correspondence with the Department that the Government were not convinced that the Arundel bypass scheme offered the most appropriate or sustainable solution to the problem. I would like to know how the Government feel the problem of acute congestion can be solved, other than by a bypass.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the similar problems that we face next door to him in Worthing, where a bypass has been on the cards for the past 30 years. Is he aware that one can travel from Newcastle to Portsmouth entirely on motorway or dual carriageway until one arrives at Worthing, or coming the other way, until one arrives at Arundel? Is it not absurd that, on the day the Government are confirming the building of thousands of new homes in the county of West Sussex, there is no infrastructure to take them and no road plans have been made to take those new residents and their cars?

I thank my hon. Friend for making that fundamental point. I stress that it is not thousands of new homes, but hundreds of thousands. That will affect this piece of road because the area is used extensively by people for holidays. Given the Government's proposals to turn the downs into a national park, the volume of tourists will increase dramatically.

Locally, it is regarded as a disgrace that the matter has dragged on for 15 years, wasting a fortune in terms of inquiries and mere paperwork. The problems are simple. Residents have to cross a highly dangerous road. Arundel is situated either side of it. The number of accidents is substantial. The proposed new site for the doctor's surgery is on the road that needs to be bypassed. The junction with the road from Burpham is dangerous, and there have been many serious accidents there. Inconvenience is caused to hundreds of thousands of local citizens and summer visitors. Moreover, the absence of a bypass is causing an environmental problem, because it inevitably causes back-up congestion on rural roads. Problems are also caused when people attempt to avoid congestion in summer by cutting through such roads.

In that part of the world, people typically cannot work where they live. Thousands work at Gatwick. There is no great degree of employment in Arundel or along the south coast, and it is unrealistic to suggest that all residents can deal with their transport needs through trains and some magic integrated transport system which does not exist.

Four years ago, the Department of Transport acknowledged that there was a major problem with the embankment to the bridge over the railway on the existing route. A study as to what would be required to render that safe was promised, and was completed in July 1997. For some extraordinary reason, the study was not permitted to be made public. I cannot see what it could have contained that was not appropriate for public consumption unless there was something of concern. Three years later, I am not aware that anything has been done to make the embankment safer. If the bridge were out of action and rebuilding had occurred for a considerable time, the congestion would be completely impossible. The only practical suggestion would be to build the bypass and make the bridge hold up as long as possible, but revolution would be on our hands if it were repaired in the meantime. Looking through my files, it struck me that the administration over the past 16 years of inquiries into the matter must have cost as much in obstructing and obfuscating the bypass as the £23 million cost of building it in the first place.

As we are all aware, shortly before Christmas, the Government announced additional expenditure for rural bypasses. The chief executive of West Sussex county council received a nine-page letter from the Government on the south-east—much of which was not especially relevant to West Sussex—which failed to mention the issue. Eight rural bypasses and two urban bypasses were announced. I inspected some of those rural bypass areas, and I must say with absolute integrity that their problems are considerably less severe than those of Arundel.

The 1998 White Paper specifically referred on page 17 to the objective to tackle pinch points in transport networks that lead to major congestion. I was also perturbed to receive the following comment in a letter from the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in December 1998:

We should not presume that any scheme coming out of the study would have the same aims as the previous bypass scheme nor that its routes would be similar.

What are the aims of such a scheme if they are not to release the pinch point and the congestion? The possible routes have been discussed to many times that there is no merit in raising the issue again. My advice to the Minister would be not to presume at all.

We have spent 12 years agreeing the optimum route. What have the Government unearthed that they believe is sufficiently environmentally damaging to cause them to tear up the proposals? My constituents and I are fed up with the bureaucratic obfuscation and the money that has been wasted. This is a simple issue of dealing with a problem which can be solved because the work has been done to solve it.

I close by reading a letter sent to me three years ago by a constituent, who wrote:

I am writing from my office at Arundel station as I view the police helicopter, fire and emergency services extricating another poor victim from an accident on the section of the A27 from Arundel to Crossbush—that is the part that needs to be bypassed—

The radio reports another 12-mile tailback of traffic and those coming to see me are lost in a traffic jam a few miles away. The slightest breakdown or hitch on this wholly inadequate section of road causes massive disruption to everyone. It is high time the new route was completed.

I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government's answer in the light of the number of people who will be moving into the area in the next six years. This is a serious problem; it is dangerous and it causes chaos and inconvenience to hundreds of thousands of people who are going about their everyday lives.

I thank the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) for raising the topic. Few can deny that the volume of traffic that passes through Arundel daily has an impact on the quality of life both of residents and of those who must use this section of A27 for their journey. Some 25,000 vehicles a day travel along this section of road, bringing with them congestion, noise and pollution. The mixture of local and through-traffic brings with it a conflict that impacts on the local environment and compromises the safety of road users and residents alike. The A27 forms part of the south coast route between the M27 and Folkestone, which provides an important link in the stragegic road network. Therefore, it is important that the route performs efficiently and effectively as part of the trunk road network.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the Government did not address the issue of the A27 in their December announcement of the local government capital finance settlement for 2000–01. The A27 is a trunk road, and investment decisions relating to specific schemes are not announced as part of the local authority capital settlement. That is why there was no reference to the road. However, that settlement represented a determination to take forward the work that local government does on highways, and to make sure that it has the appropriate funding to do it.

The Government have placed the issues that concern the residents of Arundel and the users of the A27 high on their transport agenda. In publishing the transport White Paper, we emphasised that we would seek to deliver an integrated transport system that was safe, efficient, clean and fair. The White Paper set out a policy framework that will help to extend choice in transport and secure mobility in a way that supports sustainable development. Trunk roads are a vital part of the nation's strategic transport infrastructure and must play a full part in an integrated transport system. Shortly after the publication of the transport White Paper, the Government published their stategic review of the national roads programme against criteria of accessibility, safety, economy, environment and integration.

Given the great emphasis that the Minister rightly places on trunk roads, why was one of the Government's first acts the dropping of every trunk road improvement scheme in West Sussex?

I am here to answer about issues concerning the A27 in Arundel and shall carry on doing that.

The review was informed by wide consultation. In the south-east, that took the form of seminars, involving representatives of local authorities, business, transport providers and environmental interest groups, to consider problems affecting the region's trunk roads and priorities for action. In several instances, although it was accepted that a transport problem existed and needed a solution, the need for a road-based solution was not considered to have been proved. In addition, schemes were not considered for inclusion in the targeted programme of improvements if they were not sufficiently developed. The A27 Arundel bypass was one such scheme.

The roads review identified the need for a study of the south coast corridor from Southampton to Folkestone, to include the M27, A27 and A259 and rail and other public transport. That aimed at improving access to and between the regeneration areas and other areas of economic activity along the south coast. The review also announced that the future of the A27 Arundel bypass would be considered as part of the study.

The Government understand and appreciate the disappointment that many local people may feel at the decision to remit the bypass to a study. Proposals for the A27 Arundel bypass have twice been the subject of detailed public consultation. That has highlighted many residents' and road users' concerns about traffic conditions on the A27 in Arundel. Congestion brings added cost in the form of delay, pollution and accidents. To date, the debate on a solution has focused on a bypass, but that would mean costs to the environment—notably in the visual impact of the scheme as it crossed the River Arun flood plain and the effect on Tortington common and Binsted wood.

The roads review set a new strategic aim and objectives for the Highways Agency as a network operator, with a higher priority to be given to improving the use of existing roads and greater emphasis placed on environmental and safety objectives. In that context, investment decisions affecting the development of the trunk road network need to be consistent with the Government's integrated transport policy. It is therefore important for decisions that directly affect the relevant section of the A27 south coast trunk road corridor to be taken not just in a wider strategic context but after consideration of how the demand for travel could be satisfied by widening choice in transport.That cannot be done without considering how the demand for travel will change as the policy framework set out in the White Paper is implemented.

The Southampton to Folkestone multi-modal study provides the opportunity to examine all those issues in a considered and balanced manner. It is intended to deal with congestion, safety and environmental problems along the south coast route between Southampton and Folkestone. In addition to the A27 Arundel bypass, the study will consider the future of the Selmeston bypass, Wilmington bypass and the Southerham to Beddington improvement scheme. The study will also provide a forum in which to consider any strategic issues relating to the A27 south coast corridor that are identified as part of the access to Hastings multi-modal study and the M27 south Hampshire and A27 Worthing-Lancing integrated transport studies that are now under way.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that the area was one of the pinch points identified in the White Paper, and although it might be identified as a pinch point in the network, it is important that any investment proposals that address that issue are considered in the wider strategic context that reflects the role of the A27 south coast corridor.

The Government are aware of the importance to the local community of completing the study at the earliest opportunity. The Minister for Transport announced in March last year that the Southampton to Folkestone study would be included in the second tranche of multi-modal studies, and work on the study is anticipated to commence during the next financial year. Given the scale and complexity of the study, it is anticipated that it will take approximately 18 to 24 months to complete. Any recommendations made will need to be considered by the regional planning body, which will, in turn, make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the future of the Arundel bypass.

The Government acknowledge the importance of the A27 south coast corridor and the very real concerns of the residents of Arundel and road users. The multi-modal study provides the opportunity to address those concerns in a positive way as part of a wider strategy, which will seek to realise the potential to widen travel choice and reduce dependency on the private car. In the meantime, the Highways Agency will continue to focus its efforts on making the best possible use of the existing A27 corridor. A study has recently been completed on the junction of the A27 with Burpham road to the east of Arundel. That study examined safety concerns raised by the local community and identified a potential solution, which must now be considered further.

The structural condition of the bridge that carries the A27 over the Arun valley railway line has been the subject of some concern. A potential scheme to refurbish the structure has been developed and is being considered further.

I understand that the decision to remit the Arundel bypass will be seen by some as delaying a much-needed scheme. The truth is that even in the most favourable circumstances, the need to complete the due statutory procedures would preclude the delivery of a completed scheme within probably the next seven years. Such a time scale makes it all the more important that the Highways Agency should work closely with West Sussex county council, Arun district council, Arundel town council and other interested parties to identify and tackle many of the issues associated with the A27 through Arundel in order to limit and minimise the extent of its impact on the local community.

The Government also appreciate that economic growth and regeneration could bring further pressure to bear on both the A27 corridor and adjoining local roads. In there transport White Paper, the Government emphasised the need to integrate transportation planning with land use planning and with policies on education, health and wealth creation. I am sure that all stakeholders with an interest in achieving a more sustainable pattern of development will look to maximise the opportunity for that development to contribute positively to the development of the transport system in the area.

The Government are actively seeking to address the need to provide an efficient and effective trunk road network as part of a wider integrated transport system. To that end, they seek to ensure that the issues and concerns associated with the A27 trunk road that passes through Arundel are addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.

I did not wish to have to speak about job losses in Chorley, but unfortunately I must because a company called Bentwood Ltd., based in Chorley and Bury, has decided to close two factories with the loss of 300 jobs. The future for those jobs over the next 90 days is worrying. The Chorley and Bury sites specialise in ladies' outerwear. One hundred and eighty-nine people work at Chorley; the remainder work at Bury. The firm's contract is with Marks and Spencer.

The workers have skilled jobs, which pay well above the minimum wage. There has been continual investment in modern machinery and other equipment since the early 1980s, when the new factory was built. The workers are highly skilled, undoubtedly because Marks and Spencer requires quality garments. Pressure has been put on the work force to ensure that quality goods are checked and supplied. That has happened without hiccup for many years.

The situation has resulted from Marks and Spencer's decision not to renew its contracts for outerwear. The arrangement ends on 21 April; Bentwood Ltd. is in the 90-day consultation period. Bentwood's press statement says that it will be restructuring the business, refocusing the product range on lingerie and underwear and away from ladies outerwear. I understand why it will not comment on Marks and Spencer—its contracts are continuing and it is part of the Stirling group, which has 3,000 workers. However, the people losing their jobs at Chorley and Bury are not being helped.

Bentwood's managing director refused to meet me, the chief executive of Chorley's local authority or the leader of the council. His decision was not sensible and did nothing for British industry. If an issue affecting people's jobs arises, companies should debate it because others may be able to help, to persuade and to pursue the matter, to the benefit of those losing their jobs, who are uppermost in my thoughts.

However, let us put that behind us. The firm must have recognised its mistakes because, out of the blue, came a meeting on Friday involving a divisional director, me and the work force's union representatives. The meeting was constructive. We should give hope— I got an assurance from the director that he would return to look at the group's activities to consider whether anything could be put into the Chorley site. In fairness to Chorley borough council, it has also played a role for many years in assisting the company—it helped to clear the site and ensured that there was an easy passage for the building of the new modern factory. It has always had good relationships with industry in the town.

We should return to my original point about Marks and Spencer and the way in which it pushes costs down. Suppliers are forced to provide goods at a lower cost; most come from abroad. Marks and Spencer used to perpetuate the myth that 95 per cent. of its goods were produced in the UK; that is no longer the case. The firm should recognise that its short-term gain is a worrying long-term loss to the British textile industry. The pound is strong and there are great pressures on the company, but 75 per cent. of the money passing through the tills comes from people who have been loyal to the business.

We are asking the firm to replicate the loyalty of its customers by continuing to support the United Kingdom textile industry and Bentwood of Chorley in particular. Will it consider how it can help and give to Chorley and Bury any contracts that it can afford to award us? I am asking Marks and Spencer to ensure that we do not lose our work force, who have been loyal not only to Bentwood but to Marks and Spencer. I plead with it to reconsider its decisions and to look to its order books to find work to ensure that jobs continue. My worry is that once a factory has been broken up and closed, it cannot be put back together.

The time has come for clear labelling on garments, informing us of their country of origin and telling us how they have been produced. If people know that a garment has come from Morocco or wherever else around the world, they will know that it is not British. Many people believe that, because something is sold by Marks and Spencer, it must be British made. That is no longer the case, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to introduce clear labelling. Proper labelling is being introduced for food, and such labelling would inform people buying clothes of the country of origin, tell them what they are buying and at least allow them to know how they are spending their money.

I am speaking about a modern factory with modern equipment and about the 189 people who are losing their jobs in Chorley. I have appealed to the company to consider downsizing rather than complete closure if the worst comes to the worst. If a factory is downsized but a market upturn subsequently occurs, it can re-expand and growth can be put back into the operation. However, if it is completely closed, that is the end. There is no way forward and no means of putting together what is no longer there. Bentwood has a high-quality, determined work force. Whenever they have been called on, they have always served the company well. I plead with Bentwood: consider downsizing rather than complete closure at this stage.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being present and for giving up her valuable time. I am sure that, when I plead to her, she will take on board the aspirations of the good people of Bentwood who are losing their jobs. Will you consider what the Government can do and how they can help the employers? Will you talk to other Departments to try to give an advantage to the northwest and consider, for instance, a reduction in council tax or the provision of soft loans for the company in these troubled times? If you could help to find alternative contracts—

Order. I have no problem with supporting the northwest, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is, however, the Minister whom he is addressing.

Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you are a staunch supporter of the northwest, of its industry and of the people who are losing manufacturing jobs there.

Obviously, we must consider how the industry can be given proper support and how contracts can be found. I make an appeal throughout the United Kingdom, Europe and the world: if anybody wants finished outerwear garments, please contact Bentwood. It will supply quality goods at a fair price. If anybody listening has work, please talk to Bentwood and consider Chorley and Bury. Try to place work in our factories and save these jobs, and do not let this destruction occur.

I recognise that we have problems and that the strength of the pound is causing difficulties in the textile and other manufacturing industries, but I hope that the problem will balance out. Everything comes round, and when there is a market upturn and a new demand for British textile products, Britain must be able to respond. That is why I plead once again: even if all the jobs cannot be kept, please consider downsizing, which will preserve the factory's ability to compete when contracts return. In deciding to source outside the United Kingdom, Marks and Spencer has taken a retrograde step. There is pressure from its shareholders to deliver, but short-term gain is not good for long-term manufacturing in the UK. Body blows were delivered to our manufacturing sector throughout the 1980s. We do not want the new century to continue in the same way. Manufacturing is important, especially in Chorley and to the loyal workers who are on 90 days' notice. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to do whatever she can. I know that she will take that on board, and her help will be most welcome.

rose—

Does the hon. Member have the Minister's permission to intervene?

Yes.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for securing the debate, which gives us the opportunity to raise our constituents' concerns about the two Bentwood factories. He outlined the general situation well, and I shall concentrate on how it relates to Bury.

The Bentwood factory in Bury was established about 60 years ago and moved to its present site 15 years ago. It has a loyal and stable work force and has been a major employer in the town. I have a special interest because both factories were located within 300 yds of where I was born and brought up. However, I am here not for sentimental reasons but to represent the concerns of the 100 or so workers at the Bury factory who face redundancy in 90 days.

The background is interesting. Although we are under no illusions about what might be achieved at this stage, the problem raises important issues that involve the process of redundancy announcements and regional policy. Last year, Bentwood's parent company, Stirling, announced a significant drop in its half-year profits. As a result of that and its acquisition of a new company called Tamarind—an international outsourcing company which is based in Hong Kong—the alarm bells started to ring in the Bentwood factories and the Stirling factories in the north-west.

At the end of November, the divisional director of Bentwood addressed the work force in Bury to explain that the longstanding contract with Marks and Spencer for ladies outerwear was ending because, as my hon.

Friend the Member for Chorley said, it was transferring its sourcing overseas, but that there was a £62 million contract for lingerie. The work force were told that another announcement would be made in two or three weeks' time, but nothing happened until 24 February when the company said that the factory would close. No reference was made to the £62 million lingerie contract. That announcement came as a bolt from the blue to my constituents who expected, with good reason, to share in the new lingerie contract, although they realised that it would involve retooling the factory and retraining to upgrade their skills.

As a result of a meeting with the divisional director and trade union representatives last Friday, I understand that Bentwood intends to recruit new workers at its factory in south Wales. If Bentwood is going to recruit 70 new workers to fulfil the new lingerie contract, would it not be simpler to retain the existing work force in Bury and invest the cost that would be incurred in recruiting new workers in retraining?

It is interesting—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm this if she is able to do so—that the other Bentwood factory is in the west Wales and the valleys objective 1 area. We suspect that the company is simply relocating from an area that does not have a high level of regional assistance to one with a significant level of regional assistance and European funding, particularly for retraining. Last Friday, we were told that the cost of retraining the work force in Bury was about £250,000. Last year, although there was a drop in profits for the parent company, Bentwood itself made a net profit of £4 million. It is allocating about £4.5 million for restructuring costs; in that context, a cost of £250,000 for retraining is not excessive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley and I met representatives of the work force and the divisional director last Friday and asked what consideration Bentwood had given to retraining the work force and keeping production in Bury. The answer was that that had been ruled out because of the cost. We asked them whether they had discussed this with the local authority and the local training and enterprise council in regard to what assistance might be available; they had not. I suggested that they do that quickly. I understand that there will be discussions this week and that there is the possibility of a package of assistance, albeit small scale, for the company. We also asked when Bentwood would finally announce its intentions; that question is open-ended. It is encouraging that further meetings are being held with the work force, yesterday and later this week.

I have to say the work force have behaved in a most creditable fashion. They have made it clear that they are unhappy with the company's decision, and that they were disappointed with the lack of information at the early stage. They mounted a demonstration outside Marks and Spencer in Bury last Saturday, attracting 1,000 signatures protesting against Marks and Spencer's policy of outsourcing more of its goods abroad. They have also been in touch with local small businesses which largely earn their living from the work force at the factory and are worried about the knock-on effect, and a petition is circulating among them.

Three major issues arise out of this sad process. First of all, there is the position of the British textile industry in the global market and the impact on it of lower labour costs in many countries comparable with the United Kingdom. Many think globalisation and the deregulated free market are the solutions to all our ills. However, it does not seem to be very sensible to shift textile production abroad to achieve a minor reduction in shop prices when the consequence is higher unemployment in the United Kingdom.

Secondly, there is the process of notification of the work force. We have described the imperfections in this matter and the intransigence of the managing director of Bentwood in refusing to meet my hon. Friend and me—although the company has now arranged for the divisional director to meet us. It seems to me that there are imperfections in the current system and that the loyal work force of Bentwood deserve better.

Thirdly, there is the question of regional policy. Our hon. Members in Wales have fought long and hard, as have our Government, for the designation of objective 1 status in west Wales and the valleys. There is no question but that that area is a part of the United Kingdom that is very much in need of help, and I would be the last person to deny it that assistance. Fortunately, unemployment in Bury is traditionally slightly lower than the national average. However, it seems worthy of investigation. We should know whether British companies are choosing to close factories in those parts of the United Kingdom where regional assistance is not available simply to move to areas with objective 1 status. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment specifically on that point.

I congratulate my hon.Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. I congratulate also my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on their sterling efforts on behalf of their constituents in seeking a meeting with the directors of Bentwood Ltd., and in seeking to find a better way forward for the company and its work force.

My constituency forms part of a city that is dominated by the textiles and footwear trade, so I am well aware of the enormous difficulties faced by the industry and of the huge anxieties that they cause employees, who are affected not only by the intense global competition in that industry but by the difficulties experienced by most high street retailers, including Marks and Spencer. As the Minister with responsibility for small businesses—I am the textiles Minister—I work closely with the industry to ensure that the Government take the steps necessary to help the industry maintain and improve its competitiveness in these difficult global conditions.

I should tell those who are affected by the decisions being made at Bentwood how very much I and the Government regret the proposed closure of Bentwood Ltd., at Chorley and Bury, and the possible loss of 300 jobs. The decisions about product lines and location must be a matter for the company's commercial judgment. It is not possible, nor would it be desirable, for Ministers and officials to try to second-guess the commercial decisions of Bentwood, Marks and Spencer or the thousands of other companies that operate in the United Kingdom. It is our responsibility to try to create a favourable environment in which those businesses can expand and in which employment can increase.

I shall not digress into commenting on our overall economic policy, or the real success that we are having. Instead, I shall say a little more about the work that we are undertaking with the textiles industry, and about some of the difficulties that my hon. Friends referred to. The Government have set up a textiles and clothing strategy group, which, for the first time, brings together employers, employer associations, trade unions, the Government and certain other key people, including some of the academics who are at the leading edge of research in new processes in the textiles sector. That group has been working extremely hard during the past year, and it has produced an excellent draft report. I am sure that my hon. Friends will have had the chance to read it, and I commend it to them and their constituents.

The draft report is now out for consultation. The Government will make decisions on those recommendations once we have the final report. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I recently met the strategy group to discuss its conclusions. A fortnight ago, I met the general secretary of the main trade union, the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades to discuss the work that that group has undertaken. The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Transport and General Workers Union are members of that group. Even in advance of that, however, my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are supporting 25 projects, all of which are designed to strengthen our textile and clothing industry. For instance, they include helping companies, many of them small, to open new export markets, with the backing of British Trade International and using the new medium of the internet. Although the relative strengths of sterling and the euro make exporting to other European countries difficult, that is not the case with the USA, because the exchange rate between sterling and the dollar has been stable for the past four years, or with Japan—or with the far east in general, with which the exchange rate has also been quite stable; indeed, at one point, the yen was falling against the pound.

By taking steps to open up export markets and strengthen the capacity of firms in the sector to market at home as well as abroad, by investing in the skills base and by helping firms, where appropriate, to move into the new, fast-growing area of technical textiles, where the United Kingdom has a world-leading position, we can ensure that, in the future, the industry as a whole is at least as healthy and successful as it has been in the past.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley raised the issue of labelling. Under the European Union's single market rules, it is not possible to have a compulsory country of origin labelling scheme. Marks and Spencer labels its clothing according to country of origin, as part of the company's ethical trading system, and its customers know the origin of the goods that they are buying. It is perfectly possible for the industry to promote a voluntary labelling scheme, and there are signs that specialist labelling schemes, such as that for Scottish cashmere, which is increasingly marketed as a generic brand under which individual suppliers can go to market, are very successful. Such schemes are best taken forward through the strategies group and the industry associations and at a regional level. The regional development agencies put in place by the Government represent the best way to ensure that, at a regional level—it is a regionally based industry—we can build more effective clusters and supply chains using our existing strengths, and build further on those strengths to keep up with what is happening in other parts of the European Union and the world.

I return to the subject of the employees of Bentwood. The 90-day consultation period required by law has, of course, been triggered by the company's announcement of the proposed redundancies. In accordance with the law, the Secretary of State has been notified about that decision. That allows local partners to put in place an appropriate support package for any employee who is made redundant after the consultation period and after the company has taken its final decisions.

The training and enterprise council for Lancashire area west—Lawtec—is already working with Chorley district council and the Employment Service on a package of support for any staff made redundant. A similar process is under way in Bury. I have made specific inquiries about the success rates of similar support packages. It is not always easy to track individuals through the process and gather accurate information. The measures taken in Bury and by Lawtec for individuals affected by large-scale redundancies in the last two or three years have shown success rates of between 70 and over 90 per cent. In the case of Littlewoods, the interventions in Bolton and Bury last year resulted in about two thirds of the employees finding employment, so far as can be tracked. Those facing redundancy should not feel that there is no support and no hope. When redundancies happen—and they are always regrettable—one of the most important things that Government and regional partners and agencies can do is to get effective support in place for employees.

I welcome the fact that both my hon. Friends have referred not only to the meetings that they have had with the company, but to the meetings with the work force now taking place. The employees' representatives must get enough information from Bentwood to take part in the process of consultation that has now begun. The company is under a statutory duty to disclose information about its plans in writing and make it available to the trade union. In doing so, the employer must disclose to the employees and their unions the reasons for the proposal, the number of employees—

Order.