On 23 April 1901, Keir Hardie, the then Member for Merthyr Tydfil, moved the following motion:

That, considering the increasing burden which the private ownership of land and capital is imposing upon the industrious and useful classes of the community, the poverty and destitution and general moral and physical deterioration resulting from a competitive system of wealth production which aims primarily at profit making, the alarming growth of trusts and syndicates able by reason of their great wealth to influence Governments and plunge peaceful Nations into war to serve their interests, this House is of the opinion that such a condition of affairs constitute a menace to the well-being of the Realm, and calls for legislation designed to remedy the same by inaugurating a Socialist Commonwealth founded upon the common ownership of land and capital, production for use and not for profit, and equality of opportunity for every citizen.—[Official Report, 23 April 1901; Vol. 92, c. 1175.]

I had asked for a debate on socialism, but I was summoned to the Table Office and told that as no one had ministerial responsibility for socialism, it would have to be about wealth and poverty in the economic system. A Treasury Minister has obligingly attended.

I want to look back to the roots of socialism, to celebrate what it is about and to see what relevance it may have to today's society. In doing so, I am bound to refer to some of its origins. The Bible has led to many revolutionary ideas—for instance, that we were and are all equal in the sight of God—which is why, in 1401, the House of Commons passed the Heresy Act, which condemned any lay person reading the Bible to be burned at the stake for heresy. The Bible has always been a controversial document. At the time of the peasants' revolt and the English revolution, people started thinking of common ownership, based on the life of the apostles.

Socialism is essentially about the moral values that guide society, about democracy and about internationalism. Its history in England is interesting to me because it goes back deep into the past. In 1832—that may seem a long time ago, but it was only 18 years before my grandfather was born—only 2 per cent. of the population, all rich men, had the vote. The progress associated with socialism since then includes the Rochdale pioneers, who believed in co-operation; Robert Owen, the first man to call himself a socialist; the birth of the trade union movement, when the Combination Acts were repealed; the Chartists, and later the suffragettes, demanding the vote; the demand for representation in Parliament through a Labour representation committee; and, finally, the idea that if people had the vote they would have some democratic control over the economy as well as the political system.

If one considers the ideology or the basis of those ideas, Adam Smith and Karl Marx had something in common. Adam Smith said that the rich are the pensioners of the poor; that the rich live off the back of the poor. I do not want to shock the Chamber, but Karl Marx—the first philosopher to study British Capitalism—identified a marginal difference of economic interests between those who slogged their guts out creating the wealth and those who happened to own it. Both believed in self-organisation.

The programme of socialism is sometimes associated with nationalisation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The first nationalised industry in Britain was the Church of England, which was nationalised by Henry VIII. Next, Charles II nationalised the post. When I was Postmaster General, I wondered why. I found that he wanted to open everyone's letters, and he could do that only by creating the Royal Mail.

In June 1914, Winston Churchill nationalised British Petroleum. He paid £2 million for a commanding majority shareholding because he thought that the oil should be in the hands of the people. The BBC was nationalised by the Conservative party. Imperial Airways was nationalised by the Conservative party. The Army and the police, both of which are nationalised, have no relation with socialism whatever. I hope that Members will put out of their mind the idea that socialism is about running everything from the top.

The idea of socialism is of common ownership and that things are best done by co-operation. The Cooperative movement was based on that principle. Municipal ownership is a form of socialism. I pay tribute to the Liberal party, which, in the 19th century—when Joseph Chamberlain ran Birmingham—introduced the municipal ownership of housing, gas, electricity, transport, opera, art galleries and airports. I learned to fly at the municipal airport in Birmingham.

The idea evolved that poor people, who could not afford by their own wealth to acquire the things that they needed—education, health, housing and Transport—could buy them with their votes. The welfare state was the final development of this idea. In fairness to Lloyd George, the Budget that he introduced as Liberal Chancellor of Exchequer laid the foundations of the pension system.

Although socialism is widely held by the establishment to be outdated, the things that are most popular in British society today are little pockets of socialism, where areas of life have been excluded from the crude operation of market forces and are protected for the benefit of the community.

One of the great impetuses in the post-war years for the advance towards the welfare state—with its socialist inspiration—was the argument, which I remember well because I made it myself, that if the nation could plan for war, it could plan for peace. We had full employment during the war. If we could plan to have full employment to kill people, why could we not plan to have full employment in peacetime, and so be able to build the houses and provide all the nurses and teachers that we needed? This idea was strongly entrenched and was in some ways non-controversial.

What might be called caring conservatism—I use the phrase in a general spirit—was the idea in the minds of Winston Churchill and, before him, Harold Macmillan in the 1930s with his book "The Middle Way". The idea was carried on by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). The right hon. Gentleman's powerful words, the

unacceptable face of capitalism—[Official Report, 15 May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 1243.]

were spoken by a Conservative Prime Minister. That may cause some concern to some of his supporters, but that is what he believed.

If one looks at the people who have described themselves as socialists in the last century, one finds two different types. I have mentioned what we were able to achieve in this country guided by the ideas that I have outlined. The Soviet Union had no democratic basis whatever for its socialism. It was born in revolution and suffered greatly in the war. In the end, the Soviet Union crumbled because, although the Soviet Communist party, which called itself socialist, was overwhelmingly the largest party, it did not have the consent of the people.

The other type are the Social Democrats, who abandoned socialism altogether. The most powerful advocates of capitalism today are to be found among the Social Democrats. I do not want to be controversial, but it is a fact that there are no more powerful advocates of market forces and globalisation than those in the party that describes itself as new Labour.

Although globalisation has brought a great deal of industrialisation, it has also produced acute poverty in the third world. The gap between rich and poor is wider now than a hundred years ago. There is the grossest exploitation of people in third world countries. People here can invest their capital in the third world, where wages are lower, and then lay off people in Britain—who then go on to unemployment benefit—and make their profits in much poorer countries.

Globalisation is said to be a form of internationalism. However, capital can be exported to another country to benefit from lower wages, but people from other countries who want to come here to benefit from increased wages are shut out by immigration laws. It is a limited, one-sided form of globalisation. Conflicts as deep as those that are caused by the division of wealth and poverty inevitably lead to war.

We made great advances towards democracy from 1832 to the end of the European empires and the creation of the welfare state, but the power in a globalised economy is unaccountable. Major multinational companies are not accountable to the people whom they employ or to the nations in which they work. I spent my life as a Minister negotiating with oil companies and large multinationals that were more powerful than nation states. Indeed, they operated in this country like a colonial power.

Such activities have severe implications for our political system, and we must consider what has become of politics. The idea of representation has been replaced with the idea of management. I represent the interests of the people of Chesterfield as best I can and I also represent my convictions. People know what my convictions are when they vote and can get rid of me if they do not agree with them. But now we are all being managed on behalf of a global economy. Someone once said that, if we do not control the economy in the interests of the people, we have to control the people in the interests of the economy. That process is going on at a great pace.

We are told about our international competitors as if competition were at the core of a peaceful world; that is not a view that I share. The lack of accountability has a profound effect on the emerging democracies in the third world. They are often denied the benefit of the hundreds of years of parliamentary experience from which we gained. However, even in this country, the power of the multinationals is increasingly becoming such that Governments tremble before them. I was in the Cabinet in 1976 when we crumbled before the International Monetary Fund, which had serious consequences for the party and the Government.

We are now moving into another aspect of the political consequences of globalisation—the third way. The idea is that it would be better for all the good people at the top to get together. The project is a coalition of people who believe that there is a common view at the top and that that is the only way in which to manage the economy. It is a one-party state. As a Minister, I visited Moscow and met the central committee of the Communist party and the commissars. They had not been elected. I then went to Brussels and met the commissioners. They had not been elected. I met representatives of the central bank. They, too, had not been elected. The reduction of democratic control as a result of globalisation is a serious problem, and Europe is part of it.

I fear the consequences that will arise if people do not believe that they are represented. One consequence is apathy. If people do not vote because they do not believe that it makes a difference, the consequences for the legitimacy of the Government who win are profound. Low turnout is one aspect of that apathy. Clinton was elected by one in five of the American people; four out of five did not register, did not vote or voted against him. A low turnout, accompanied by cynicism, is a recipe for conflict and repression.

My age allows me to recall what happened in Germany before the war, where a despairing people turned to Hitler, who blamed the Jews and the trade unionists for their problems. He told the people that he would give them full employment, and by God he did—he rearmed them, and we had a war as a result.

It is necessary to say plainly and clearly that peace without social justice is impossible. We cannot have a peaceful society or a peaceful world if the principles of social justice are secondary to the search for profit. A society that is built around people and not profit is what lies at the heart of the socialist idea.

In the debate to which I referred at the outset of my remarks, Keir Hardie concluded:

We are called upon at the beginning of the twentieth century to decide the question propounded in the Sermon on the Mount as to whether or not we will worship God or Mammon. The present day is a mammon-worshipping age. Socialism proposes to dethrone the brutal god Mammon and to lift humanity into its place.—[Official Report, 23 April 1901; Vol. 92, c. 1179.]

That is a very religious way of putting it, but it explains the idea that has moved people to do things. All real change comes from underneath. The idea of co-operation rather than competition appeals to most people in their own lives. Competition creates insecurity and anxiety, while co-operation is always dominant when people look after their disabled children or their old parents. I think that that idea is of value.

I want to leave time for what will be a full debate, so I shall conclude on the policies that may follow from the ideas that I have advanced. First, we must expand the public services and ensure that they are publicly funded. In the immediately post-war years, the idea of national insurance was based on that of universal benefits. I do not believe that it is right for people to be means-tested before they are entitled to benefits for which they have paid, either through national insurance contributions or taxation. That is especially true of the need to link pensions with earnings. I am proud to have been in the Cabinet that made that link and I am distressed that it was reversed, at a cost of about £30 a week to pensioners. That provides a good example of what should be done.

We should have expanded public services for the provision of health care and education, which should be open, so as to allow every child access to the full range of knowledge in schools that are comprehensive in what they offer. Also, there should be access to the media, which does not usually cover the concerns of those who do not have wealth and power. I should add to that list the legal services, which are very expensive but absolutely necessary.

The second item on my list is the revitalisation of local government. I referred to the great Liberal achievements of the 19th century, and there are many examples of such achievements in the 20th century. Local government should have the funding that it requires, the right to raise its own money—if it can persuade its electors to give it that money—and general powers that are not tied up by specific grants that local authorities administer but do not decide.

Thirdly, if we are genuinely interested in the idea of full employment, it is essential that we support manufacturing industry. For most of my life as a Minister, I tried as best as I could—sometimes successfully, but generally not—to reverse de-industrialisation. In 1948, Britain launched 48 per cent. of all the ships launched in the world. In 1970, we had the largest motorbike industry in the world. In 1974, we had the largest machine tool industry and the largest car industry in Europe. That has all gone.

It is in the national interest to protect ourselves from invasion from abroad. We would resist anyone who tried to bomb our car factories, but if somebody buys and closes those factories, it is regarded as an inevitable consequence of globalisation. I do not think that that is a sustainable position. The same is true of privatisation. I hesitate to quote Harold Macmillan, but he said that privatisation was selling the family silver. That is not an example that would come immediately to mind for most families, but it was a vivid description of the sale of our natural assets.

We must have civil liberties. I refer not just to legal liberties and an end to discrimination, but to the acceptance of trade union rights. It is amazing that we talk about a global economy but that we do not legislate to implement the rights given to trade unions in the International Labour Organisation. I have introduced a Bill on the matter—the House may want to consider it—as such legislation is necessary.

We need a fairer tax system. I cannot understand why any Government should ring fence the rich and say, "Whatever we do, we will not ask you to pay more", when people on benefits are continually being faced with demands to open the books and be examined in an attempt to deal with benefit fraud. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) may wish to raise the question of the Tobin tax, which would tax international transactions and could provide billions of pounds for international development.

It is often argued that no one has any power over multinationals, but I do not believe that. Multinational companies spend millions of pounds on trying to win popular support through advertising campaigns because they know that it is necessary to retain the goodwill of host Governments. I believe that it is necessary to treat multinationals as international agents and to negotiate with them as if they were countries.

We must have stronger environmental laws. Keir Hardie was a passionate environmentalist, who complained about the rain forests in the United States being cut down. He was also a great believer in animal rights. On one occasion, Hardie was followed home from the House of Commons by a journalist from The Daily Mail, who hoped to find out to whom he talked in the street—no doubt, in an attempt to uncover some scandal. The journalist said that he patted all the horses that he saw in the street. Being a miner, Hardie appreciated the value of the pit pony.

We need to end the arms trade, which is far more serious than the drugs trade that receives so much attention. The arms trade allows arms manufacturers to arm both sides in a conflict. Then, when those arms are used, the world demands a ceasefire. I sometimes wonder whether the idea is to discover which arms work best so that more can be sold afterwards, as we saw in the case of the Exocet that sank HMS Sheffield during the Falklands war.

Finally, we should try to build the United Nations as an embryonic, democratic institution, in accordance with the aspirations of the Chartists, who want establish democratic government in Britain. If we are to have a global system, it must be a worldwide system, but it must be based on democratic accountability. My conviction is that the UN is being bypassed by NATO, whereas the UN should have responsibility, through the General Assembly, for controlling multinationals, which cannot be disciplined in any other way. The World Trade Organisation and the IMF should also be accountable to the United Nations General Assembly. That would be true internationalism rather than globalisation.

Those are my convictions. I am a socialist and I became a socialist through experience. After 50 years in the House and many years as a Minister, I realise the way in which power is exercised to shape our society. As I leave the House of Commons and approach a new political life at the end of this Parliament, I shall want to put those arguments to the electors as a non-candidate when the election comes, because I honestly believe that the ideas have much more support than the British establishment, any Government or the House yet realises.

All progressive change has come from underneath, and it might be worth remembering that there is a different tradition from those ideas with which we are presented every day. If we remember that, we might make more progress in winning public support for what needs to be done.

It is a privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), whom I congratulate on securing this much-needed debate. Although we often debate individual issues in the House of Commons, this debate about the philosophy of socialism, which brought many right hon. and hon. Members into the Labour party, is not before time.

Coming into the Chamber this morning, I passed through the exhibition in Westminster Hall. Inscribed on one of the portrits were the words

Ordinary men and women have fought hard over the years for the right to vote.

However, the exhibition does not explain why people should struggle for the right to vote. In Britain, we have a tradition of parliamentary democracy. However, it was a flawed system in the early years—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said—because few people had the vote.

Working men and women struggled for the vote in the 19th century because they realised that peaceful change—a peaceful revolution against the semi-feudal system in parts of the countryside and the abuses of capitalism in the cities—could be achieved only by changing Parliament and obtaining representation. They saw the inequalities in society which, although they may not be as stark in Britain today, still exist.

My right hon. Friend referred to the taxation system. The fact that the highest rate of tax paid by most people in this Room is 40 per cent. of their income makes one wonder why people such as the Duke of Westminster pay only that rate. Clearly inequality exists in matters of raising revenue.

The struggles of the 19th century brought about the political democracy of today. However, democracy and socialism are indivisible. Despite the democracy in our civil society—our right to elect councillors to local authorities and to elect Members of Parliament—industrial autocracy remains. People in Birmingham can vote for the city council and their Members of Parliament, but in their day-to-day lives at Longbridge they have no say in the management of the firm and in the way in which capital is allowed, as my right hon. Friend said, to flow across the frontiers. The workers in our country—unlike, incidentally, those in the country of BMW—have no right to be properly consulted about changes in management and so have little control over the wealth created by their hard work.

Ministers—whether Labour or Conservative—who have been asked to intervene when factories have been closed in our constituencies have often replied that those are commercial decisions taken by private firms and that they cannot interfere with them. I would argue against that. Those decisions lead not only to job losses for employees; they have implications for the taxpayer because they lead to social costs. That is why, whenever a private firm decides to make part or all of its work force redundant, the state has a responsibility, acting on behalf of the people who elected the Government, to intervene. The Government will have to meet the social costs of factory closure by raising taxation.

Socialists oppose the philosophy of economic liberalism which, to a large extent, was reintroduced to this country by Margaret Thatcher. The traditional conservatism of the earlier part of the century and the more compassionate conservatism of Harold Macmillan, mentioned by my right hon. Friend—one-nation Toryism—was not socialist, but it was very different from the Thatcherite philosophy. Economic liberalism perpetuates the class system.

Opponents of socialism will often say that the philosophy is not perfect and that we have had instances of dictatorship. My right hon. Friend referred to the Soviet Union. Socialism is no safer from abuse by bad, unscrupulous and dishonest people than any other system. However, the idea does not lose validity because of that. Hitler called his party a national socialist party and, in the Soviet Union, the Communist party referred to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. People might say that socialism has failed because of the aggression of the Nazis and because of the communist system that was installed in the Soviet Union. However, does Christianity lose its validity because of the inquisition, or because of the part that religious bigotry has played in the conflicts in Ireland? Of course not. Christians have an ethical and moral worth, as do socialists.

As far as ordinary people are concerned, we say that we live in a free country. The Americans—and Britons too, I suppose—often call the part of the world in which they live the free world. They talk about themselves as defending the free world. However, freedom loses its meaning if a person has no way of exercising it. The freedom to speak that very rich people have is, in many ways, the same as the freedom to speak that poor people have. However, the poor do not have the means to exercise that freedom in the fullest way and do not have the same opportunities as the rich to have a good life and a good lifestyle. We should address ourselves to that matter, as should the Labour Government. The market has a place in the economy but it should never be the master. Planning is an essential ingredient of socialism; the market must succumb to the higher values of the country.

It should be ensured that everybody has the right to free education. The position regarding tuition fees absolutely appals me. I was a lecturer for a quarter of a century before I became a Member of Parliament, and I saw the way in which students had to struggle even when they had maintenance grants. Now we see a situation in which many people will be deterred from entering higher education because of tuition fees.

Let us take a family with two children as an example. The parents pour so much money into the eldest child so that he might go to university or to a training college. The second child comes along, scores high marks in his A levels and is just as qualified as the first child to go to university. However, because of the tuition fee burden, the parents must encourage that child to do something that will not involve severe costs.

Some might think that the beliefs in socialism that the Labour party held throughout the 20th century are no longer the principles and values that we should preserve in the 21st century. I say to them that there is just as much evidence today of the need for a redistribution of wealth; that is as much a basic tenet of socialist philosophy today as ever before. I hope that hon. Members will consider the facts given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and agree that we should move away from the greed and grab society that has arisen since 1979.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) mentioned that he had secured a debate on socialism—its subject had to be described as wealth, poverty and the economic system, which is almost an Adjournment debate in itself—so that some of us might celebrate the centenary of Keir Hardie's debate on socialism. In 1901, the then hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil said:

I make no apology for bringing the question of Socialism before the House of Commons.

He went on to say:

We are rapidly approaching a point when the nation will be called upon to decide between an uncontrolled monopoly, conducted for the benefit and in the interests of its principal shareholders, and a monopoly owned, controlled., and manipulated by the State in the interests of the nation as a whole.—[Official Report, 23 April 1901: Vol. 92, c. 1175–79.]

The debate continues, and last Tuesday some Labour Members dared to suggest that national air traffic control was not a suitable subject for a monopoly conducted for the benefit and in the interests of its principal shareholders. We argued not for outright state ownership, but for a trust along the lines of the Canadian national air traffic services. We won the argument but not, sadly, the vote.

I want to talk about socialism, as reflected by my own family and constituency, and the political organisations that have been committed to it. The Keighley Labour Union was founded in October 1892, seven years before Keir Hardie's speech, by a local school teacher called Herbert Homer. That was probably a response to Isaac Holden, a Liberal, being returned to Parliament unopposed and the Manningham mill strike, just down the road in Bradford, which had ended the previous year. Homer was elected to the town council in 1894, the year after the founding conference in Bradford that created the Independent Labour party. That strong, socialist, almost evangelical movement really tried to build a Jerusalem among the dark satanic mills.

Keighley was one of the hundreds of northern towns that responded to the new movement by establishing a socialist Sunday school, a choir and a Clarion cycling club—almost an alternative socialist culture. Philip Snowden, who was to become a member of the first Labour Cabinet in 1929 and the party's financial guru, was a product of that early Keighley ILP. This year, we are also celebrating the centenary of the formation of the Labour representation committee from the ILP, the Fabian society and—temporarily—the Marx-inspired Social Democratic Federation.

The affiliation of the trade unions introduced the financial stability and the mass base that the ILP had lacked. The 1924 and 1929–31 Labour Governments demonstrated that the middle classes need not fear them. During that period, Keighley was represented by its first Labour Member of Parliament, H.B. Lees-Smith, a well-regarded politician who fought the seat six times, winning four times and dying in office in 1942. The next Labour Government was, of course, the Attlee Administration of 1945, which transformed the commanding heights of the economy into public ownership. Bevan established the national health service and Jim Griffiths introduced national insurance, which laid the foundations of the welfare state. All that was too much for Ivor Thomas, the Member of Parliament for Keighley from 1942. He became the Shortly Floorcross of that generation when he joined the Conservatives. One wonders what the Keighley party and constituency felt at that time.

During the years in opposition, Keighley was represented from 1950 to 1959 by Charlie Hobson, who won three elections and lost one, by only 170 votes, to Marcus Worsley of the aristocratic Yorkshire family. Hobson was a power station engineer who was brought up in Leeds and ended his days as a Government Whip in the House of Lords. The days of hope returned to the party with the election of the Wilson Government in 1964 and again in 1966. Harold Wilson's enthusiasm for the "white heat of the technological revolution" carried his party and country with him, and in Keighley the aristocrat was replaced by a semi-skilled engineer called John Binns. Capital punishment was abolished in 1965, thanks to the lifelong crusade by Sidney Silverman from just across the border in Nelson and Colne. In 1967, the first race relations legislation was introduced and Barbara Castle made child benefit worth collecting—and I benefited from that.

The 1974–79 Government started off in the right direction with the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. My late husband was on the Standing Committee considering that Bill and, although he felt that it contained too many "as far as reasonably practicable" aspects, he was proud to have been associated with it. He was the Member for Keighley and hung on in 1979 with a majority of 78 votes, against most expectations, to be defeated in 1983 when the party received its lowest share of the vote since 1918, and constituency boundaries were radically changed. The present Government have already done many things that we can be proud of—particularly the introduction of the minimum wage legislation.

I look back with great pride on the parts played by my dad and my grandma in the early years of the ILP in Rossendale, particularly her work with the women's suffrage movement. I hope that in another 50 years my six grandchildren will approve of what we are doing now. One thing, however, is certain. I will always take great pleasure from the fact that I was one of the 101 women Labour Members who broke the gender mould of Parliament. Keir Hardie campaigned for women's suffrage and I am sure that he, too, would be delighted by our presence.

Like others, I shall be as brief as possible, because this is an important debate in which many hon. Members wish to speak.

We should pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) not simply for introducing the debate, but for his far-sighted view of socialism and his ability to transcend the understanding of the history of socialism and the needs of future generations and the present generation. I first heard him use his description of multinational corporations treating Britain as a colonial vassal state at a fringe meeting at the 1970 Labour party conference. His analysis of the defeat of the Labour Government of 1964–70 was markedly at odds with that offered by others who had lost ministerial positions. My right hon. Friend described the situation and our lack of power over multinational capital; others sought to blame the electorate.

My right hon. Friend also demonstrated the need for an understanding of history. The enthusiasm with which young people listen to what he says shows that history can be made interesting and exciting. If we do not understand where we come from historically, how on earth can we understand where we are going?

This Saturday, I shall visit Burford in Oxfordshire as part of a commemoration of the opposition of the Levellers to Cromwellian forces at the end of the English civil war. The Levellers said that they had no quarrel with the Irish and therefore were not prepared to be shipped across to Ireland to suppress them. Therefore, they rebelled and, for their pains, were imprisoned and shot in the churchyard. Cromwell was using robust methods at that time.

I want to take a stage further the sense of history that previous speakers have described—the struggle of the British working class, the development of the trade union movement and the impoverishment of the British people by the brutality of 19th-century capitalism—and to suggest that we consider those matters on a global level. At the start of the 21st century, we have unparalleled access to technology and information. It has never been easier to find out what is happening anywhere in the world. The technology is incredible. But why does the average time that people work in this country go up every year rather than down? Surely the genius of technology should be used to improve everybody's living standards, and reduce their tension and their average working week.

When I cycle here from the area in which I live, which takes about half an hour, it is with a sense of shame that I pass people who spent the night in shop doorways, are begging outside stations or spend their days wandering around the streets of London, hoping that someone will give them something to eat or something to do. None of that is necessary. The levels of wealth that exist in this country are obscene. I invite hon. Members, after we have finished our proceedings, to walk down to the back of the Savoy hotel, where they would see a couple of hundred people sleeping on the pavement. Inside the hotel, they would see people spending £50 per head on dinner. The obscenity of that kind of gap between the rich and the poor must be addressed.

On a global level, the situation is worse. A quarter of the world's population live on the brink of starvation, while half live a very poor existence. In many African countries, adult life expectancy is less than 50 years. In Russia, male life expectancy is currently falling to a similar level. In the coastal regions of Nigeria, the exploitation of oil that has resulted from the harshness of the economic system has led to untold levels of brutality against the people.

I suspect that the real cause of the brutal conflicts in Sierra Leone and Liberia is the presence of diamonds and the wishes of those in the international diamond trade to get their hands on them. Such mineral exploitation has also led to environmental destruction in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, parts of Africa and large areas of Latin America. That will haunt us all, because there is no hiding place from global warming or from international and global pollution.

My message is simply this. If we are to ensure that the planet survives this century and those that follow, we must deal with the gap between the rich and the poor—which leads to conflict and warfare—and environmental destruction. We must also have a political system that ensures that those issues are addressed. The tragedy of the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century is that national Governments have lost a large amount of their power over economic management and economic thinking.

That power is not going to an international organisation with a democratic base, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield described the United Nations. Instead, it is going to a series of global corporations that owe no allegiance to any national Government or democratic base. We are told that the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF—an unholy trinity if ever I heard of one—know best, and that the most important goals for every poor country in the world are to cut public expenditure, and increase income from the public through taxation—and, in the case of most of Africa, school fees and charges—so that they can become part of the international global system.

A hundred years ago, the trade union movement recognised the importance of international solidarity. In Britain, the Netherlands, Germany and the United States, workers are losing their jobs. In Indonesia, Thailand and Bangladesh, workers are being told that they cannot have a wage increase, social security or a pension system because they will price themselves out of the market. The case for international labour standards is overwhelming. The ILO, which was established at the end of the first world war, provided a way forward. I look to a future in which it is more powerful and more able to impose minimal conditions to prevent the obscenity of child labour and the ghastly competition in so many parts of the world between the poor and the poorest.

In this country, socialism has had an enormous influence on the Labour party and on popular thinking. The national health service is a product of socialism. The campaigns against debt are a form of socialist thinking, as were the introduction and development of public sector housing and the national insurance and social security systems.

Society has to have a moral basis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield alluded to the influence of religious thinking, especially of Christianity, on socialist ideals. Socialism must also be a moral force that states that everyone deserves the right to a decent standard of living, to contribute to society and to benefit from the work of everyone else when they are sick or too old to work. That has to be the moral basis of society.

On a global level, the moral basis must be that we have no right to destroy the planet's environment, or to assume that our wealth can be created on the basis of the impoverishment of others in distant lands. We all live on one planet, and if it is to survive it must be run on a moral basis. The moral basis of the. greed of multinational corporations will lead not to the planet's survival, but to its destruction.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on securing this debate and on reminding us that it is legitimate and proper for us to address the question of socialism at a time when we are encouraged to assume that it died with the arrival of Margaret Thatcher.

My approach to the matter stems from childhood discussions in the family, which were not overtly political. I remember my uncle sharing his liking for music hall jokes with us. He frequently told one that everyone laughed at, but which I never really understood. It went: "I say, I say, I say. My dog doesn't like pork sausages." Someone else would ask, "Why doesn't your dog like pork sausages?" The response was: "Because he's never had them!" The danger in relation to a debate about socialism is that we have been told the same; that society would not like it, because we have never had it. My right hon. Friend rightly said that it is perfectly legitimate for us to aspire to systems we might like if we ever had them.

It is also to my right hon. Friend's credit that he suggested that we look for socialism in the births section of the public announcements, rather than in the deaths section. Inherent in the challenge that socialism presents is the presumption that markets cannot be trusted and that they are, by their nature, amoral, inequitable and undesirable. We ought to challenge the mythology of markets. In my constituency, a market of sorts exists in two of the inner-city areas. Turf wars are taking place between rival drug gangs, members of which are in the habit of shooting each other. Such activity is based on a market of despair and drug dependency. However, anyone who says that we should step back and not engage with that because it is all part of the magic of the market merely exposes the fact that markets have nothing to do with civilising processes in society.

Socialism sets out three challenges that offer a genuine alternative to the politics of despair and alienation. They are the notions of full employment, universal welfare and the legitimising of markets by redistribution. Redistribution in the market process is not an aberration or an unavoidable cost to the system. It is what gives markets their ethics.

I shall summarise the challenges that Keir Hardie might have wanted to set before us today, were he to revisit the debate. We must define a different sense of common ownership as the centrepiece of 21st-century politics. It might begin beyond our own shores. I was fortunate enough to meet some people who were involved in the world's largest co-operative—the Amul co-operative. It is based in India and comprises 18 million of the world's poorest people. Those people work together to meet not only their own dairy produce needs, but those of the whole of India. They took on the wealth and might of the Nestlé corporation, which wanted to supply India with dried milk, responding to the challenges made by Gandhi and Nehru by supplying their own fresh dairy produce as a co-operative. If 18 million of the poorest people on the planet can get together to take on multinational capitalism, why has the debate about common ownership and co-operatism in this country sunk to the level of local exchange trading schemes and neighbourhood food co-operatives? We must think about common ownership and co-operatism on a larger scale.

We might consider too the example of the Gamin bank in Bangladesh. I was excited to read recently about popular banking services in New York, set up by people in the Catholic Church who were so appalled by the disappearance of access to banking services for the poor that they set up their own people's credit bank. Indeed, I was so excited about it that I ran to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. He said, "I am pleased that you are excited about that. I remember that I introduced the legislation to set up the Girobank, which was designed to do exactly the same for people in this country." As with so many inspiring ideas, I catch up with them only 20 or 30 years after my right hon. Friend has put them in place.

There are other cases, such as the blood transfusion service that we must also catch up with. Many people, including myself, "bank" with the blood transfusion service, but we never ask how much is in the account or about interest rates on offer. We just do it as a gift; assuming that, if we all do so freely, there will be enough in the common pot for everyone's needs. The Labour party should have the courage to revisit such schemes and understand their importance.

We are, in many ways, behind the times in the food security debate. In recent months, Parliament has debated the question of GM foods, as opposed to food sustainability and how we might return to agriculture, rather than agribusiness. Afterwards, I was collared by someone from the National Farmers Union who said. "Of course, we could deliver safe and sustainable food supplies to the major cities and, probably, meet most of that demand from our own domestic productive capacity—but you would have to force us to do things differently and to form food co-operatives." I thought that I must be drunk. What was the NFU doing, demanding the enforcement of the co-operative principle? When I asked why, I was told that, at the end of the war, Britain had made a mistake by setting up food product boards, whereas the French had required the creation of food co-operatives. This ensured that the rural food-producing hinterland as a whole could guarantee safe food supplies for cities in a way that individual farmers could not. If the NFU is championing the reintroduction of the co-operative principle, it should not be too radical or revolutionary for the parliamentary Labour party to follow suit.

We could also consider the model of common ownership offered by the Henry Doubleday seed library. Parliaments cave in to an internationalism that demands that we allow global patents on the earth's biodiversity. Only if corporations own such patents, they say, can we supply seeds to the developing world, allowing people to grow food and get out of poverty. Yet the Henry Doubleday seed library offers people seeds for free, so that they can he borrowed and returned and shared with others. Ownership of the seed base is not the central issue. It is a question of how we propagate to broaden the base of biodiversity, on which we will all be dependent.

The central theme, which my right hon. Friend forces us to address, is that socialism will be the defining element of genuine political debate in the 21st century. It will be transformed, in ways that Keir Hardie did not understand, by Kyoto and beyond. Keir Hardie was keen on animals and the environment, but he would be horrified by our failure to address the need to bring about reductions of at least 60 per cent. in carbon emissions. We cannot leave such matters to the very markets which are responsible for the current chaos.

I hope that hon. Members and others will accept the invitation to go down the path that was tentatively and generously advanced by my right hon. Friend. In error, I thought that he had persuaded the Labour party to go down that path during the general election when I saw a huge poster emblazoned on a hoarding in the constituency in which I was campaigning. The poster consisted of a picture of the former international athlete Carl Lewis on the starting blocks in a pair of high-heeled shoes—he has good legs—above the slogan "Power is nothing without control". The question for the Labour party and the Labour Government is, although we are in power, to what extent are we in control? Are the public, who voted us in, in control of their economic destinies?

This is the most exciting agenda that Parliament will address and debate in the 21st century. I suspect that much needs to be done to catch up with those outside this place who have already begun the debate, but we owe a debt of gratitude—as ever—to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield for pushing us in that direction.

I understand that it is customary to congratulate right hon. and hon. Members on securing Adjournment debates, but I shall break with tradition by thanking the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for raising an issue that is as much about political philosophy as specific policy. In my short experience in this House, I have found that we have too little opportunity to participate in such debates. Those who have contributed to this morning's debate have brought vision, passion and principle—commodities that are also in short supply.

I do not know who should be most worried—other hon. Members who have spoken today, or me—by the fact that I have much in common with what I have heard this morning. I agree with many of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. For example, with regard to the power of multinationals, I am on the Euro-sceptic wing of the Liberal Democrats, which is probably not the most Euro-sceptic place to be. The one defence for active participation in Europe is that single nation states often cannot match multinationals and are in hock to them. On being elected to a minor body, one tends to think that, on election to the next step up, one will at last have power and influence. However, it suddenly becomes apparent that that is not how matters work.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's diagnosis, and with a good deal of his concluding manifesto. The need to ensure the expansion of public services and their proper funding is at the heart of our own manifesto, which we are willing to back with a call for progressive taxation. I note that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) used the word "redistribution"—a word that I, too, am not afraid to put on the record. We believe in revitalising local government, and, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, local people should have greater control over how local taxes are spent. The civil liberties agenda is one with which we are associated, and for which we have been willing to stand up in this Parliament, despite the attitude of the popular media.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the need for a fairer tax system, and we see no reason why the top rate of tax should be 40 per cent. In the past, many of those who are now Ministers criticised the Lawson Budget of 1988, which reduced the top rate from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. However, now that they have the opportunity to do something about that cut, they have chosen not even partially to reverse it. That is regrettable.

Mention was also made of stronger environmental laws. I was intrigued to hear of the environmentalism of Keir Hardie, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point.

It makes sense briefly to identify two aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's analysis with which we in the Liberal Democrats do not entirely agree. It struck me that we may differ somewhat about the role of the state. I agree with him that real change comes from underneath, but I am not sure about the extent to which socialist values and ideals have been put into practice. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who suggested that a socialist state may not yet have been established; there may be good reasons for that. The adjectives that spring to mind when I think about socialism are top-heavy, controlling, manipulative and coercive. That is why, in 1992, I chose to join the Liberal Democrats rather than the Labour party.

My second and perhaps more fundamental disagreement involves my belief that human nature consists of a desire to co-operate and an instinct to compete, which can be harnessed to benefit. As an example, let us examine the telecommunications industry. Although the right hon. Genman said that socialism is not the same as nationalisation, I presume that British Telecom's profits mean that he would be more comfortable with a publicly owned telecommunications industry.

During the 1970s, when BT had no competition, the industry was characterised by long waiting lists even to get a phone installed—hat appears prehistoric. The industry is now competitive and, in many respects, the choices and options that are available are much better and there have been social welfare benefits. I do not suggest that the private market does not need to be heavily regulated and, in some instances, the current regulatory system may not be severe enough. One misreads human nature if one believes that people's competitive instincts, as well as their instinct to cooperate, cannot be harnessed for benefit.

Although we support the idea of co-operation, our distinctive contribution to this debate involves echoing the right hon. Gentleman's key point that progress comes from underneath. We also believe that the state's role should enable and facilitate, but not control, those who are on the ground, and that harnessing the instinct of competition can be used to society's benefit, provided that it is properly regulated.

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on securing this debate on political philosophy. Last week, when I was debating at the Cambridge union, I was greatly disappointed by the absence of an appreciation of political philosophy among young people.

As a relatively new boy in the House, I have observed the right hon. Member for Chesterfield to be a great parliamentarian—a man of great integrity, principle and clarity, and a great democratic patriot. I agree with many of his comments. I am grateful for the tribute that was paid to a strong element of the Conservative party, whose history reveals it to be sensibly collectivist.

The right hon. Gentleman and I share views about the European Union and the European currency. His speech on the reform of the House of Lords was the most persuasive of all hon. Members' contributions. I agree with him also about the need to revitalise local government and that the global economy, with which we have to live, needs a stronger United Nations and institutions of global regulation.

On a lighter note, the right hon. Gentleman and I are the two most notorious smokers in the House, and we may agree that smokers should not be excessively persecuted.

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am an historian; I spent four years in my youth studying economic and social history. That background may have led me to support the other side of the argument. My grandfather, who was born 120 years ago, was a great campaigner with Keir Hardie. When I was growing up, we had discussions and debates about his life and times, and about the contemporary issues.

The capitalist process of creative destruction enabled the developed nations to achieve political democracy and higher living standards and to establish sensible collectivist organisations. Because they fail, other economic systems never raise people's living standards to a level at which they can achieve such things.

West Sussex is hardly the "dark satanic mills", but hon. Members may know that Blake lived at Felpham in West Sussex. The fulling-mill, which his house looked on to, led him to coin the phrase about the satanic mills, so it was a direct experience and not an observation on the evils of the industrialisation of his age.

There are two key points. The first is that, with the lack of discipline caused by the profit motive—ro even of the discipline to survive and make the necessary change—public bodies are inevitably inefficient and tend, if anything, to get worse over time rather than to deliver and adapt to the times. Secondly, the capitalist system self-evidently produces the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people. Even in our own age, it is observable that the United States has created more prosperity for its people than the more socialist and less democratic systems of continental Europe. It is interesting that the last decade also showed not only that the United States can supply short to medium-term growth, but that equality of incomes has narrowed rather than widened; the dot.com millionaires are not the only ones to have benefited from the improvements.

I also accept that the capitalist system needs to be disciplined and controlled. The great prophet of the market, the late Enoch Powell, made the point forcibly when he said that the market should do its bit, but that it should be properly constrained and that the rules should be right. It is not a belief simply in unfettered markets. I share the view that means testing has gone too far in this country, producing much injustice and many undesirable behavioural reactions. I will even accept the famous phrase about the unacceptable face of capitalism; there are capitalist practices that are unacceptable and need to be prevented.

In addition to the efficiency argument, I also quote the Gladstone argument. Gladstone was wary of collective capitalism because he felt that it took away from people the duty to do good and to behave properly as citizens, and that it cast all responsibility on to the state. There is still much in that. I am a great supporter of the voluntary sector and believe that charity is a great achievement of Anglo-Saxon society. It seems to me that things are often done better by the private sector or the voluntary sector than by public sector bodies. My vision is of a nation where everyone has a decent ownership stake, not just in their houses but, ideally, in some of the businesses for which they work—a pot of private capital that gives them freedom and independence from the state.

I take some issue with the comments about the developing world and multinationals. I lived and worked in India in the 1970s and spent part of my early life studying India's history. Although it is a simplification, it strikes me that India suffered greatly from a closed socialist system after independence. At independence, its exports and its gross national product were much greater than those of Japan. If one compares the two 45 years later, India had been a terrible relative failure and Japan, warts and all, a substantial success. Indeed, India needs investment in technology and the know-how of multinationals. I was astonished to learn that, in the chemical industry in the late 1970s—even with minuscule labour costs by European standards—India could not compete internationally because its technology lagged so far behind. Like it or not, global contact is needed to keep the technology up.

I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield privately must be slightly unhappy with the present Administration because they hardly follow the socialist principles that he has supported. Surprisingly, during the Major Administration, inequality of wealth and of incomes decreased, but the gap has widened since 1996. The Government seem to woo rich business men and court the City. They seem to believe in co-operation at the top between Government and the capitalists who make things happen. I find that deeply suspect, as important conflicts of interest, which cannot be ducked, seem to arise in those areas. Capitalist business has its job to get on with as efficiently as it can. Governments exist to represent the nation. The conflict of interest between them cannot be fudged. Whether housing or wider issues are involved, it is unhealthy to think that everyone can settle down and come up with the right solution.

The Government have used the spin of America's encouragement of entrepreneurship but, to my mind, they have found almost the worst of both worlds. The approach is so hedged that it does not work as it does in the States to boost growth and to create prosperity. Equally, however, principles with which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield will not agree are advocated. People in the poorer sections of society now spend 33 per cent. of their incomes on consumption taxes, whereas the figure is only 15 per cent. for the better-off. That state of affairs has arisen from the massive increase in consumption taxes in the past three years on petrol, drink and cigarettes.

It is not surprising that the growing army of pensioners, who have different patterns of consumption—a significant part of which is accounted for by the items I mentioned—and pay high council tax, which is increasing, were extremely disappointed with their modest pension increases.

I was a product of the way in which students were financed in the Macmillan era after the war. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), I think that imposing tuition fees was a great mistake. It is almost the biggest stealth tax of the lot, affecting ordinary families who need to organise the financing of their children through higher education.

My observation is that the Government are the most elitist of my lifetime. They are driven by the priorities of the politically correct and the professional middle classes. They are sadly out of touch with the people who work at Rover and Dagenham, and with the growing body of pensioners. Most importantly, I hark back to the democratic issue. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield always puts proper democratic consultation first, whether in the context of reform of the House of Lords or what the country does economically. I fear that we are drifting too much to the European model by undemocratic processes, and towards the concept that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of the elite at the top getting together because they know best. That will invariably bring about the wrong solution.

I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for their wide-ranging contributions. I recognise the considerable role that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has played in the affairs of Parliament. I gather that this is his first debate in this new, modernised arrangement and I welcome him. I suspect that few hon. Members present would dispute that the previous Government's legacy was an increase in poverty and in income differentials in the United Kingdom.

I pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend said about Keir Hardie and remind him that Keir Hardie made four or five pledges in 1900 and 1901. At least two of those were for the reform of the House of Lords and the introduction of a national minimum wage. Neither of those was carried out by the Labour party in government or indeed by anyone else over the ensuing century, until the present Labour Government, elected in 1997, achieved both.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that values are important. I would argue that the same or similar values drive us today as have always driven our party in government. On 8 May, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out in the James Meade lecture at the London School of Economics the Government's economic and social goals for the country. I will reiterate his main points because they relate directly to the debate. He set out the Government's five objectives: increased prosperity and higher productivity, employment opportunity for all, improving educational attainments, ending child poverty and improving public services.

The need for economic stability underpins all those objectives. Monetary and fiscal stability are a necessary precondition for national economic success. That is why the Government have introduced a new long-term framework for monetary and fiscal policy—a radically different monetary framework based on independence, openness and transparency. A number of hon. Members here support these notions. The Government have also introduced an important fiscal discipline with clear, open and consistent rules.

Hon. Members have mentioned the role of work. The importance of work in helping to tackle poverty must be borne in mind. All the evidence shows that work and the availability of work are vital in addressing poverty, particularly in the UK. Some—including, I think, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield—referred to the goal of full employment in their remarks. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor recently reiterated the relevance of full employment as a political and economic goal. Full employment now means full employment for both men and women. When the original goal of full employment was set out, it meant full male employment. The Government have a more ambitious goal—one that recognises the increased role of women in our society. I second the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) about the value of having 121 women Members in the House. We are both delighted to be counted among them.

The Government are building a new and modernised welfare state to increase work opportunities—a welfare state that, in addition to its traditional and necessary function of providing security to people who cannot work, promotes work, ensures that work pays and gives people the skills that they need to secure better jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, in the past 20 years unemployment has been the primary cause of poverty in Britain. Compensating people for their poverty through benefits is not enough. Our task must be to deal with the causes of poverty, and the best form of welfare is work.

The UK has established a new leadership role in the various international forums promoting both multilateral and unilateral action to tackle third world debt. As a result, in part, of our initiative—and that of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development in particular— there is a new emphasis on the reduction of poverty and on health and education programmes in the international forums in which these issues are debated.

We have also argued strongly for reformed financial architecture, which relates to the nature of the global system. We need to tackle the way in which financial systems and economies work on a global basis. We are doing that by developing and reforming financial institutions to enhance transparency. That involves strengthening financial regulation and the macroeconomic policies of financial systems in emerging markets. It is important to try to prevent crises from occurring, to manage them better when they evolve—that includes involving the private sector—and to promote social policies that protect the poor and the most vulnerable. There is plenty of evidence that the Government have been at the forefront of that process.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield touched on the nature of peace without social justice. He said that people come first—they certainly do for the Government. Our initiatives since 1997 have made society much less unequal. We will invest an extra £7 billion a year in children's financial support, almost 50 per cent. of which will go to the poorest 20 per cent. of families. A family with two children and a single earner on an average income will have become £2,600 a year better off in real terms between April 1997 and April 2001. About 1 million pensioners have been £20 a week better off since 1997. We have spent an additional £6.5 billion on pensioners in this Parliament. That is substantially more than would have been spent had the earnings link been restored. We have used the money differentially to help the poorest pensioners, which is in line with the wishes of some hon. Members who have spoken today.

We have also invested substantially more in our public services, including education and health. An extra £2 billion has been allocated for health care in 2000–01, which will produce an average real-terms growth of 6.1 per cent. over the next four years. That will be the longest period of sustained high growth in the history of the national health service. The NHS is one of the Labour party's achievements in government. It continues to receive a huge amount of support.

We are tackling the gap between the rich and the poor in a variety of ways—some of which I have outlined—including the introduction of the working families tax credit, the reforms of the national insurance system, the introduction of the 10p starting rate for income tax and the national minimum wage. Before tax and benefits, the top fifth of households received an average income that was 17 times greater than the bottom fifth when we took office. The Government's involvement and intervention have reduced that ratio to 4:1. We have made substantial gains.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley touched on the importance of child benefit. Between 1997 and 2001, child benefit for the family with one child will rise by £4.45, which is 26 per cent. above inflation for that period. Income support for each child under 11 in the poorest families was nearly £16.90 when we came to office; it is now £30.95—almost twice as much. The maximum financial support for a child under 11 in a low-paid working family will rise by £26.90, which is 97 per cent. above inflation.

Those achievements are part of the Government's proud record in tackling poverty. They address the issues raised by hon. Members today. Passion and principle are important, but they should be directed towards practical changes that are beneficial to people, both in the UK and across the globe, in their ordinary working lives. Our current approach to prosperity and fairness is right, as both must be secured. We must develop enterprise, as it enables us to generate employment, tackle poverty and invest in public services. That is why we are moving forward in the right direction. It is clear that the historic ambition—

Order. It is time for the next debate.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), is here to respond, as I believe that he has responsibility for shipping, which is, of course, uniquely relevant to my constituency.

In recent months and years, I have led delegations to the Department of Trade and Industry and have met successive Ministers. The case for the Isle of Wight has been well made to the Department, but, unfortunately, there has been no response. I was disappointed that the Minister for Trade refused to meet a delegation. He obviously felt that we were becoming repetitive.

I shall try not to be repetitive, but I want to make a case for my constituency, which is a wonderful place. It is an excellent area to live in and can provide a great quality of life. I would like it also to be an excellent place to work. As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said in the previous debate, welfare, opportunity and the reduction of inequality are about jobs. The Isle of Wight still has one of the lowest gross domestic products in the country. It is the lowest in the south-east, at 74 per cent. of the European Union average, although that is a great improvement on the position a few years ago, when it was 64 per cent. of that average.

Through hard work and creative use of Government grants, the situation on the Isle of Wight has improved dramatically, but we have an extremely vulnerable base. We rely very much on agriculture, tourism and the care sector. There is also a little bit of manufacturing, although in the past two years we have lost 800 jobs manufacturing jobs as a result of the strength of the pound and the decisions of multinationals—another matter covered in the previous debate.

Employment is not only low, but fragile. Seasonal employment often means that twice as many people are unemployed in winter as in summer. The latest figures show that, among local authority areas, only Brighton's unemployment rate is higher than that in the Isle of Wight. We also have some of the lowest wages in the south-east and a high level of benefit dependency, which creates its own social exclusion, despite the fact that the island is such a splendid place to live. Indeed, when we try to explain our economic plight to Ministers who occasionally come to see the Isle of Wight, they ask us what we are worrying about. They say, "The sun is shining and everybody is smiling, so there can't be a problem." There are problems, however, as I am sure that the Minister will realise.

Restricted labour mobility is another problem on the island. The travel-to-work area and the constituency are effectively the same. One has to be extremely well off to afford a job on the mainland, as it costs £112 a month to commute on the ferry between Cowes and Southampton. That has created a population imbalance. We have above-average out-migration among 18 to 29-year-olds, while we retain and attract a higher proportion of retired people—27 per cent. It is great to have those retired people, but we firmly believe that we should have a mixed community of all ages, not depending only on the care sector.

I am not standing here to whinge on the island's behalf, which has been a tendency in the past. Living on an island is not just a geographical problem—it creates a mindset. The insularity argument and the cost of the ferries have often been used as excuses for not getting on with things. There has been a sea change, however, in the past few years. We have established a joint body—the island regeneration partnership, now called the island partnership—which brings together politicians at local government level. I am honoured to be a director of the board. It also includes the chamber of commerce, the training and enterprise council, business link, the voluntary sector—that is important—the Rural Development Commission, and representatives of the tourism, manufacturing and commercial sectors. The partnership approach has done extremely well for the island.

I am sure that the Minister will tell me how magnificently the island has been treated with regard to grants. We are grateful for the £10 million of single regeneration money that we have had. The rural development programme has been extremely imaginatively used, but we make a plea for more of the island to be included in that programme. There is an anomaly by which three of our small towns in the Sandown-Shanklin bay area are lumped together for analytical purposes and are therefore deemed to be urban rather than rural. Much business advice has been given, 17 new companies have been attracted and we have done well in the past few years, after a slow start, from intermediate assisted area status. Grants worth £5 million were attracted, levering in £20 million-worth of private money and creating or retaining about 1,000 jobs.

We have good and innovative employers on the island, not only in high-technology fields such as electronics and aerospace, but in exciting new developments in intelligent laminates, the production of wind turbine blades and related areas. There are great opportunities on the island.

I ask the Government to consider a basket of prospects. There is no magic solution. Had they stuck to their guns against the European statisticians, we would have qualified as an objective status NUTS2—nomenclature of units of territorial statistics—area. We were obviously disappointed about that. The European ombudsman has backed us on the issue but, unfortunately, we are probably too late.

We are also disappointed at being awarded tier 3 assisted area status. It sounded exciting at the start, but only £900,000 is available for the whole south-east, and grants are likely to go to areas receiving other grants. We heard biblical quotes in the previous debate, and it seems that to those who have shall be given, while those who get squeezed out shall find it difficult to plug into existing systems of support.

Tier 3 money should be made available to firms involved with the tourist industry and commerce, where there is growth. The improvement of the tourism product can do much to extend the season, to improve wages and to make jobs more secure. We would love to have tier 1 or tier 2 assisted area status, but we have missed the boat. The Government can do much by being more flexible about tier 3. I hope that our single regeneration budget bid will be successful. It would do much to revitalise Ryde, one of our main coastal towns.

The RDP can support a wonderful range of projects, small and large, which have a tremendous effect on local people. Opening a little shop or factory somewhere does not cause a great economic surge, but the fact that such places exist has a tremendous effect on morale and improves the situation elsewhere. It would be helpful if funds were available for investment in building for industry and commerce. Land with planning permission is available, but we do not have the seed money to attract people who are offered ready-made and serviced premises in other areas of the country—indeed, abroad—with which we must compete.

Above all, I hope that the Government will support the regional development agencies. We strongly supported their establishment. They are a bit short on democratic accountability, but it is good to have a more collective area. In the past, we suffered from being lumped in with Hampshire, although it had no responsibility for our economic welfare, which was clearly nonsensical. We are now grouped with the southeast, and the south-east England development agency accepts responsibility for the economic welfare of predominantly coastal areas in the south-east where deprivation is on a par with that in the Isle of Wight. It will be disastrous for the Government's policy on development areas if they do not take note of the representations made by SEEDA. It will be disastrous if agencies do not have funds available to them, because flexibility to use funds would enable agencies to help—not just with advice but with real support—where investment opportunities exist in a particular area.

Another reason why I am so pleased that a DETR Minister is present today is because it would be splendid if the Government would recognise that there is an island factor. Because the Isle of Wight is the only English constituency that is an island, none of the Government formulae for distributing grants recognises that an island creates its own costs. Between them, the Isle of Wight ferries have a turnover of just over £50 million. That money comes out of an economy that serves 150,000 people, so it is an enormous burden. The ferries are effective and efficient, but they are extremely expensive. For the distance travelled, they are said to be the most expensive in the world.

The ferry companies were privatised one privatisation too soon. The railways and all sorts of other public services that have been privatised received large subsidies. The Scottish islands receive travel subsidies and Scottish road bridge tolls are subsidised by the Government. I am not suggesting that the Government should give money directly to ferry companies, because that would be a recipe for inefficiency and complacency, but it would be helpful if the Government were to allow local authorities to use their existing powers to subsidise travel. For example, we subsidise a chain ferry across the River Medina. It would be helpful if, as a result of our island status, some funding were available to enable the local council to subsidise the fares of jobseekers or people in training who have to cross the Solent. The fare is extremely expensive. An ordinary return fare for a car carrying two adults and two children costs £76.40 in low season and £90.80 at bank holiday weekends. That is a stiff amount for the tourist industry to absorb, given that the Isle of Wight must compete with other areas that do not have that extra cost.

To allow the Minister plenty of time to respond, and so that I have time to ask clarifying questions, I end by quoting article 158 of the treaty of Amsterdam—bed-time reading for us all. It states:

In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to a strengthening of its economic and social cohesion.

In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands.

That could have been written for the Isle of Wight. The Government have signed up to the treaty of Amsterdam but, to our enormous frustration, they do not seem prepared to take action to correct what many islanders feel to be an injustice. We are not asking for handouts; we want a little help to overcome a physical barrier that acts as a great financial disincentive.

The Isle of Wight is unique. We should stop moaning about its being an island; that is its unique selling point. However, we need some help to overcome some of the social deprivation that the island suffers.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on securing this debate. As ever, he is most assiduous on behalf of his constituents on that beautiful island. It has been valuable and informative to hear from him. Some of the issues that he raised are unique to an island economy, but they also form part of the wider picture of the general management of the economy.

The Government's first priority on coming to office was to secure long-term economic stability and to leave behind the boom and bust of the late 1980s and early 1990s. During the past three years, we have been building a platform for economic stability. On that foundation, we are promoting competition, encouraging enterprise and innovation, raising the skills base, creating the right conditions for investment and improving public-sector productivity.

The hon. Gentleman is properly concerned about the economic development of the Isle of Wight. However, the island is part of the United Kingdom economy, and it is important to take a broader view to ensure that business, social and environmental needs transcend administrative boundaries—and, in this instance, a short stretch of water.

The rationale for setting up regional development agencies, which the hon. Gentleman supports, was that they would develop a strategy to support and enhance national policies, while addressing the particular needs of the regions. A framework for economic development, skills and regeneration will ensure a better strategic focus for, and co-ordination of, activity in the region, whether by the development agency or by other regional, sub-regional or local organisations. I understand that, in recognition of the island's particular needs, the South-East England development agency has set up an area office on the island. However, it is important that the island should be seen as an integral part of the region.

The arrangements for the new Small Business Service and the Learning Skills Council reflect the need to include the island as part of a larger area. That should bring benefits to the island and to Hampshire and the region. There will be benefits from economies of scale and from a more concentrated focus on the island. The new services will bring together all available business enterprise support. They will utilise the full range of skills experience available to organisations that share that vision. That should ensure universal access to consistently high-quality support services for all individuals and businesses on the island and throughout the wider area.

In the recent Budget, the Government announced a number of measures to stimulate competitiveness throughout the British economy, many of which should benefit businesses on the island. The Budget announced cuts in capital gains tax to create the most favourable environment that Britain has ever seen to encourage entrepreneurs. It will create an environment that will reward risk taking and promote wider share ownership among employees. It introduced permanent first-year capital allowances, to encourage investment, so that small and medium firms will be able plan their investments with certainty, knowing that they will receive the cash-flow help provided by first-year allowances.

The Budget also announced 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances for small enterprises investing in information technology equipment and a £60 million package to help more small firms to go online and to deliver more services online so that they can share in the opportunities offered by e-commerce. In addition, the Budget made provision for a new all-employee share ownership plan and enterprise management initiative, giving employee share ownership its biggest ever boost and helping small companies recruit and retain the key staff that they need in order to succeed.

Under the Budget, the research and development tax credit for small to medium enterprises has been increased from the present 100 per cent. relief on spending on research and development to 150 per cent. That will encourage SMEs to invest in R and D, and is available to companies not yet in profit, reducing the cash cost of their R and D by 24 per cent. compared with the present tax treatment.

Two further measures in the Budget should be of benefit to business in the Isle of Wight. First, tax relief is being introduced to promote corporate venturing, encouraging large and small companies to work together for their mutual benefit. Secondly, there will be an extra £100 million for a new £001 billion target umbrella fund for enterprise growth across the regions during the next three to five years, and a new fund for clusters to co-finance business incubators. RDAs will play a key role in both initiatives, and I mentioned earlier that SEEDA has already set up an office on the island in recognition of its specific needs.

In the south-east and London, an initial target of £250 million has been set for providing new venture capital; the national target is £450 million, for the development of clusters; and there is £10 million to boost information technology through continued support of the information society initiative. Decisions have yet to be made about the continuance of the provision currently provided through the training and enterprise councils for economic development partnerships. I understand that it is likely that support will continue even though it might be on a reduced scale.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have carried out a comprehensive review of the assisted areas, taking into account responses to the consultation document issued last July. In order to carry out the review, a wide variety of criteria was proposed for determining the new assisted areas. I understand that labour market indicators, especially unemployment, received the most support. Additionally, wards were the most widely supported unit of geography to form the basis of the map.

The review of the assisted areas has been conducted under the European Commission guidelines on regional aid published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 10 March 1998. The aim of the guidelines is to introduce a transparent and comparable regional aid system across member states. They are part of the drive to reduce the overall level of aid to industry in the Community. The Government support that, and, following discussions with the Commission, are due to submit revised proposals for the assisted areas map. We shall take into account the Commission's concerns about population coverage and the geographical units used.

Regional industrial policy has a key role to play in the Government's commitment to creating a modern, competitive economy. It brings underutilised resources back into the economy, enhances employment opportunities and improves competitiveness. In the competition White Paper, the Government made two commitments on regional industrial policy. We said that we would support the policy of developing forward-looking regions in two ways: by focusing support on high-quality, knowledge-based projects, which provide skilled jobs, and by introducing a new assisted areas map, taking into account the response to the public consultation.

I am grateful to the Minister for telling us about the various measures that have improved the national economies. So far, however, he has said nothing about improving the welfare of the Isle of Wight, which continues to languish behind the rest of the country, and the rest of the region. I am disappointed that, in skating over the assisted areas status map, he has not acknowledged that the Isle of Wight has worse indicators—or better ones, depending on how one looks at them—than several areas that have been put on the map. Unemployment in Barking and Dagenham, for instance, is lower than it is on the Isle of Wight.

As they say, I was coming on to the issues about which the hon. Gentleman is, naturally, concerned.

In accordance with the guidelines, the Government are proposing four areas for assisted area status under the treaty—Cornwall, Merseyside, South Yorkshire and west Wales. Measured at purchasing power parities and averaged over the period 1994 to 1996, those areas had a GDP per capita of less than 75 per cent. of the EU average, and are, under Eurostat's nomenclature of units for territorial statistics, NUTS2 areas. The regional aid guidelines allow higher maximum grant levels in those areas. In drawing up the proposals, the Government aimed to combine areas of need with major opportunities for employment creation, investment and regeneration. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the consultation period is now closed. The Government will consider the representations carefully and, in the light of those considerations and discussions with the Commission, seek approval of the new assisted areas map.

The Government have introduced plans in England for a new third tier of enterprise grant areas under which assistance will be available to businesses employing up to 250 people. The Isle of Wight will qualify for that grant. Small businesses have a crucial role to play in regional development and in tackling need. The introduction of the enterprise grant areas, which will extend outside tiers 1 and 2, complements the measures to support and encourage the development of small businesses that have already been announced—namely, the establishment of the Small Business Service and the creation of the enterprise fund.

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern that the third tier will not be sufficient for the needs of the Isle of Wight. However, it is intended to be a flexible measure to aid regional development and respond to local economic difficulties. Therefore, after an initial period of 12 months, the areas will be reviewed in conjunction with regional partners, including the RDAs.

The inclusion of the Isle of Wight in the new third tier of enterprise grant is a recognition of the needs of the island and the role that can be played by support for small and medium enterprises. The island's request to be included in the new map for assisted areas is currently with the European Union, and we are awaiting its decision. The Government are prepared to provided positive support, provided that it is not at the expense of other areas in the south-east.

Transport is a key issue for the Isle of Wight: its cross-Solent links are vital to its economic and social well-being. However, the fare levels are a commercial matter to be determined by the operating companies. In 1995, the Office of Fair Trading carried out a review and found out that fares had increased overall by less than the rate of inflation. Although the Government recognise that ferries provide the only realistic public access to and from the island, services are able to operate on a fully commercial basis, and we take the view that a subsidy is not justified. That is demonstrated by the ferry companies' arrangements with tourist service providers and other regular users who benefit from special rates. However, the Government accept, in the context of our social inclusion agenda, that the cost of getting to the mainland could prevent some people from taking advantage of improvement opportunities. We are therefore willing to encourage initiatives that help such groups through specific targeting. I hope that that offer will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman.

Finally, I turn to rural development. The island benefits from several other initiatives, such as rural priority areas, which provide eligibility for a variety of grant aid for supporting industrial development and similar projects. Those initiatives are valued by the island's community. I understand that SEEDA, on behalf of the island, has undertaken discussions with the Government Office for the South East and my Department about proposed amendments to the boundaries. The case has yet to be made, so it is too early to comment.

I am sure that hon. Members are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the important matter of the economic development of the Isle of Wight.

I am extremely pleased to be able to speak on behalf of my constituents in the communities that are dependent on the well-being of Teesside and its chemical industry. Teesside has a unique position as a centre for chemical production, engineering and innovation.

Before I entered the House, I was a practising chemical engineer in industry and a member of the Institution of Chemical Engineers. I am currently a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and secretary of the all-party chemical industry group.

The chemical industry is one of the key catalysts of wealth creation for our country in this century. I want to highlight a number of distinct but interlinking issues: changes in the Teesside chemical industry, its present state, how it can adapt to the business needs of today's global market, and how cluster designation can better encourage innovation and help to create a new business ethos and operating philosophy. However, those issues must be put in context.

The Teesside chemical industry is not a dying smokestack industry. The clothes that we wear, the food that we eat and the materials that furnish our homes, workplaces and cars are products of the chemical industry. In fact, many of the fixtures and fittings in this Room are chemical industry products. The chemical industry is the building block for pharmaceuticals, paints, coatings and advanced materials used in the motor industry and aerospace industry. It is an industry of the future.

We cannot envisage the applications of, and the products that will be developed through, maturing biotechnology, nanotechnology and genetic technology. However, we know that they will be earth shattering and will profoundly affect the world in which our children and grandchildren will live. Research is being undertaken on "intelligent materials" with industrial and medical applications, and on molecular technology.

Although Teesside is surrounded by a skyline consisting of distillation towers, catalytic converters and tank farms, the age of bulk processing may last only another decade or two. Dramatic changes, many of which were unimaginable just a few years ago, have reshaped the Teesside chemical industry. The industry has emerged from a past dominated by a single employer—ICI—into a new pattern of ownership and control. Plants on Teesside are now owned not by a single employer, but many large corporations, for which Teesside represents their largest UK stake.

Teesside is home to some of the world's largest chemical players: ICI, Dupont, Enron, BP, Amoco, Union Carbide, Terra and Huntsman, among others. Their presence underpins the industry's importance to Teesside in terms of finance and employment. At present, 11,000 people are directly employed by the industry, and 25,000 indirectly employed. They contribute to an annual cash turnover of between £3.5 billion and £4 billion, which sustains many more thousands of jobs and defines the social pattern of the towns of Teesside.

The new world players are investing in our future. Teesside's new chemical industry will be as much concerned with small-scale batches of fine chemicals as with processing millions of tonnes of hydrocarbons. It will be a high-value-added industry, which will rely far more on the scientific and technological knowledge and expertise of its work force than the capital asset register of large-scale plants.

As recently as last week, the Minister assured us that the Government's interest in the manufacturing sector is genuine, and that they are committed to ensuring growth and innovation. I hope that that remains the case. Central to that commitment is the need to ensure that this country can win out in respect of high-quality goods and services, and skills and reliability. Of course, that cannot be delivered by the Government, or the private sector, alone. There must be a structured partnership that involves all key players—the Government, academia, the network of regional development agencies and the industry.

We on Teesside are well on our way to forming those partnerships. The chemical industry has led the way by setting up the Teesside chemical initiative, a group consisting of the major industrial players and supporting agencies. The initiative gained national recognition and has conducted many studies for the Department of Trade and Industry. I am told that the Department is using one of its reports as a benchmark for the industry's future. A critical part of that benchmarking process involves analysing the way in which Teesside chemical companies manage their human resource potential. Nowhere is that more important than in the chemical industry. To put the matter simply, the industry is becoming much more people-oriented—it values its work force and undertakes programmes for up-skilling and lifelong training. The work force's knowledge and technology skills will become more important than they are or have been.

New entrants to the industry will work in a global environment. They will be the mobile ambassadors for new technologies and new processes. The increasing reliance on human capital means that a young chemical process engineer may spend part of his or her career in Turin, Turku or Tulsa, although Teesside still is one of the industry's great centres, and it is essential that it remains so.

The infrastructure of the Teesside chemical industry consists of several crucial features, which contribute to the industry's character and strengths and which make an essential case for a new cluster. Teesside has a direct supply of North sea gas feedstocks; a major effluent-treatment facility that makes it one of the cleanest complexes in western Europe—that is demonstrated by the fact that, if one looks into the River Tees, one can see salmon and seals; a direct link to the ethylene pipeline network; a well developed logistic capacity, including a deep-water port whose operators have experience of handling many different chemicals and chemical products; the best water supply in the United Kingdom, which is based on the largest man-made reservoir in western Europe; a good supply of new sites for the industry that are already hooked into services and capable of producing cost and time savings for incoming producers; a mature support network of suppliers, process engineers, specialist services and a public and professional sector that is used to dealing with the chemical industry; and, above all, a skilled, fully trained and adaptable work force. For those reasons, Teesside is well poised to benefit from the structural changes that are occurring in the chemical industry.

Some may regret the loss of ICI's historical dominance, but the fact that all of the world's major companies have functioning plants on Teesside means that the area will become increasingly important in the eyes of those companies' decision makers. Teesside has the firms, a skilled work force and the tremendous physical assets of a network of research and development institutions and the university of Teesside. That is not to suggest that we have no weaknesses. Although major companies are present, their operations are international, and only limited decision making takes place on Teesside. Also, many of the older sites have a poor physical environment.

The continued strength of the pound is still an issue for companies that are based in and trade with the European Community. However, where there are threats, there are also opportunities. They are: the opportunity to market the Teesside area as a focus for the chemical industry's growth and diversification; the opportunity to restructure the grant mechanisms that are currently on offer from local and central Government, which should make capital investment easier; the opportunity to build links between the various research and development units and, crucially, to ensure the future of the Wilton centre for research and development under the new pattern of dispersed ownership; the opportunity to identify and plug future skill shortages; the opportunity to begin an action-oriented research programme to establish the needs of small and medium chemical enterprises that may be attracted to Teesside; the opportunity to further the programme for site clearance and development on former bulk chemical sites; the opportunity to press for the building of another olefin complex to exploit feedstock strengths; and the opportunity to develop the network of feedstock pipelines from the North sea and, potentially, from mainland Europe. It is an ambitious programme, but an essential one if the industry on Teesside is to continue to display the vigour and spirit of innovation that have characterised it over the past 90 years.

Perhaps the key issue that a designated cluster can influence is the need to ensure a good research and development base. Earlier I mentioned the Wilton research and technical centre. It was established in the mid-1970s by ICI, under the direction of the charismatic John Harvey Jones, to establish a research and development base for all the activities that it managed on Teesside. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor visited the centre about 10 years ago when I was a parliamentary candidate, so he is fully aware of it.

In the new pattern of ownership there is a danger that that unit, which brings together the biggest concentration of scientists and engineers with PhDs in the United Kingdom, could atrophy. That could lead to the human talent and potential housed in that complex moving to fresh pastures in other parts of the UK, and indeed to other parts of the world. No one wants that to happen, and a key issue for any new cluster must be to boost the Wilton centre as a core research and development unit serving all the partners in the cluster.

A group made up of the European process industries competitiveness centre, Redcar and Cleveland borough council, the Teesside chemical initiative, the Tees Valley development company and the north-east regional development agency is developing those plans. This agenda fits well with the views of the Science and Technology Committee, which were debated last week in this Chamber. Its second report dealt with innovation based on engineering and science.

For a cluster to flower, companies must be dedicated to the concepts of partnership, financial access, a business incubator and academic input, and they must have sympathetic local planning and development support. The Select Committee highlighted the cluster of medical device manufacturers sited in and around the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus. MIT's active involvement made the crucial difference. What was once a simple agglomeration of companies has become a formal cluster. Called Massmedic, this group combined to develop its own products. Critically, it has helped to influence state and federal policy and build effective relationships with other academic institutions and teaching hospitals. I believe that the physical assets that the Select Committee cited and observed in Boston exist on Teesside.

I am also grateful to the Royal Society of Chemistry for drawing my attention to the report on international catalysis clusters, which links a variety of interested organisations—ICI, Johnson Matthey, Solway, BP Chemicals and Shell Chemicals. Many academics are also involved in setting up clusters, another example of the way in which things can be done.

The Minister was very positive last week about the Select Committee report. I know that the Government want to promote technology clusters, but, as the report stressed, they cannot create them: the building blocks must be there. I believe that the building blocks exist on Teesside—good academic support, a network of skilled technologists, many of whom have known one another for many years and have worked on previous collaborations, and an open and responsive planning system based on good working relationships with the industry over many years. Although I am asking the Government formally to designate cluster status for the Teesside chemical industry, that simply recognises what is already in being. Such designation would make the Teesside chemical industry the motor force in the north-east's regional and economic strategy.

The Government's response to the Select Committee report acknowledged that Lord Sainsbury would oversee a cluster steering group. I ask that group to use the Teesside chemical industry cluster as its first case study. It will find much to encourage it. It will find that the cluster will succeed; it will be marked by good relationships between the key players, local managers and agencies; it will be marked by collaborative action to tackle common problems; it will be marked by a common desire to move up the knowledge-based industry league table; it will recognise the need to place R and D at its core, for the common good of the industry and the community; and it will be marked by a common enthusiasm to improve human potential within the industry.

In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor talked about Britain's need to

succeed in the new economy and to lead in the new century—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 173.]

Change is sweeping across Teesside and it is crucial that we benchmark our strengths, analyse our weaknesses dispassionately and identify and capitalise on our opportunities. Formal designation of cluster status for the Teesside chemical industry will be a crucial weapon for ensuring that the industry helps the north-east and its economy to prosper and helps Britain to succeed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing a debate on a subject that is important not only to Teesside and the north-east, but to the whole country, as he rightly said. As on so many previous occasions, he spoke with a deep personal knowledge of the industry in which he served with such great distinction for many years. I am happy to endorse what he said about the importance of manufacturing industry, in general, and about the chemicals industry, in particular.

The chemicals industry is our second largest manufacturing sector. It represents more than 10 per cent. of manufacturing gross value added; it has a turnover of £46 billion; and it employs 250,000 people directly and many times that number indirectly. It contributes £23 billion to our export earnings.

There is, however, more to the industry than its sheer size. Quality is as much a part of it as quantity. The chemicals sector has formed the bedrock of the United Kingdom's traditional manufacturing base for many generations. However, as my hon. Friend has said, it is not a dying smokestack or sunset industry. It is a modern, highly skilled, innovative, technology-based and research and development-intensive sector.

The phrase so often used today—the new economy—is, increasingly, misleading, in terms of what is happening in the United Kingdom and in the global economy. The phrase implies that there is also an old economy, and that manufacturing is irredeemably part of that old economy, destined to decline and die. That is nonsense, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will stress in his speech to the Confederation of British Industry this evening.

New technologies in materials, in chemistry and in information and communications are transforming every sector. They are transforming every part of the production process and the provision of all goods and services. The chemicals industry, which is a fundamentally science-based industry, is meeting enormous environmental challenges by investing in new production processes and products. The industry is part of the knowledge-driven economy. It is and, with the right support, will continue to be a central part of the high-tech manufacturing base that we need if we are to be among the leaders in the 21st century's global knowledge-driven economy.

Government and the public sector have a role to play. We do not run or own the industry, but we can play a part in creating not only the right macro-economic conditions—the stability that the sector, like all others, requires—but the right education and training regime, a supportive framework for scientific and technological advance and a balanced regulatory environment. We take those responsibilities seriously. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe has a regular dialogue with the chemicals industry, so that we can work together on the issues that most affect the sector, many of which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East eloquently outlined this morning. As part of that process, my right hon. Friend will visit the chemicals community on Teesside on 15 June and I shall ensure that this debate is brought to her attention before that visit.

There is also a challenge for the industry constantly to improve and upgrade itself and to make the necessary investments to remain a world-class, competitive and highly productive sector.

My hon. Friend referred to the importance of building on the cluster of chemicals industries on Teesside. We are not discussing a new or even an emerging cluster; it is well established. As part of the preparation for this debate I took the opportunity of looking at the map of chemicals manufacturing and storage sites on Teesside and it is clear that there is a well-established and dense cluster there. As my hon. Friend said, an important part of the process of building on the existing cluster is the Teesside chemicals initiative, which offers a mechanism whereby the private sector, the public sector and some not-for-profit institutions can come together to take collective action to create the conditions that individual companies need to succeed—skills, maintenance, logistics, upgrading the quality of sites, links with higher education and research institutions, relationships with local communities, disseminating and sharing best practice, and promoting new inward investment by chemicals companies into the area.

My hon. Friend spoke realistically about the challenges that face the members of that cluster, as well as their strengths, which they want to exploit. My Department and the Government Office for the North East are working closely with the Teesside chemicals initiative and with the regional development agency, One North East, to achieve the aim of developing Teesside as an international centre of excellence in chemicals production.

My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury, the Minister for Science, is chairing a steering group on clusters policy to assess how we can more effectively build and develop clusters throughout the United Kingdom. That group will help us to identify and recommend new policy initiatives to ensure the sustainable development of clusters and industrial networks. I shall ensure that his work is informed by the Teesside experience and what my hon. Friend said.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 27 March a £50 million package to provide support for the development of business clusters in the English regions. That is in addition to the funding that has already been announced for the general strategic work and goals of the RDAs. That capital fund is available to the agencies to facilitate the establishment of innovative sectoral and geographical networks to support industrial excellence.

I am very pleased that the Teesside chemicals initiative is talking to One North East about how that new resource can be applied to the chemicals companies and industry cluster in the north-east. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to support Teesside in maintaining and strengthening its place as a world-class chemicals industry cluster.

My hon. Friend said, rightly, that most successful clusters have a strong academic partnership, as well as strong industrial companies. In the chemicals sector, the application of leading-edge science and technology will be crucial, and my hon. Friend rightly made a powerful plea for the development of the former ICI research and development facility at Wilton. That world-class centre offers valuable work and services to chemicals companies, not just on Teesside but further afield. We support the current review by the RDA, with other partners, to consider how the centre's future might be shaped and how its work could be strengthened as part of that cluster development.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we are consulting on the possibility of creating regional centres for manufacturing excellence. We are talking to the RDAs and to trade associations in the chemical sector about how regional centres of excellence might support chemicals firms. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, want the interests and expertise of the Wilton centre to be reflected in that consultation and in any initiative suggested along those lines. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe visits Teesside next month, she will want to discuss the Wilton centre as well as the broader industry.

My hon. Friend rightly stressed the increasing importance of people to the industry's future competitiveness. It is increasingly true that almost all manufacturing industry is a people business; it is not simply about science, hardware and products. As a chemical engineer by profession, my hon. Friend is better placed than most to understand the chemical industry's skills and training needs. The Government share his concern to ensure that we have the right skills, and the education and training infrastructure necessary to keep supplying those skills, to ensure the continuing growth and innovative development of the industry.

Nationally, we work closely with the industry and the Department for Education and Employment. At the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, the Government have formed a working group; with the industry and the trade unions, we can examine the key constraints on the development of the chemicals industry and recommend sensible future courses of action. Again, I invite my hon. Friend to contribute practical suggestions to that group.

Locally, the Teesside chemical initiative has been particularly active on the skills front. With support from the Department of Trade and Industry, it has undertaken specific initiatives on behalf of the local chemicals industry in developing ideas for degree programmes that more closely reflect the needs of local industry. Chemistry degrees will thus not only provide the right sort of scientific education, taking account of the practical needs of the industry as well as the excitement of the research laboratory. They will also complement that scientific excellence with an awareness of business and commercial realities and the skills needed to operate in a commercial environment. The chemicals initiative has also helped to deal with skills shortages among the contractors who maintain and overhaul the chemical plants.

My hon. Friend has rightly stressed the strengths of the chemicals industry on Teesside, and the challenges that face it. He has highlighted the concerns of his constituents, and the challenges and opportunities that face the industry in which so many of them are employed. I hope that I have been able to reassure him, during this relatively short debate, that we share his commitment to a world-class knowledge-based chemicals industry, and that we are already working closely with the industry and the people who work in it to ensure that the potential of that important sector is realised, particularly on Teesside.

I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this subject. A serious and potentially fatal accident occurred on 8 May on the rail-road crossing at Goss moor, involving a car transporter and a local train to Newquay. The accident raises questions about level crossings without barriers, but I take this opportunity to raise the much wider—and in the long run, more serious—matter of the A30 at Goss moor, especially the low rail bridge, which was why that heavy car transporter was on a small country lane.

I know the lane well, and I can see the Goss moor section of the A30 from my kitchen window. I see the regular jams that occur on the road during the summer, which go from pretty terrible to absolutely awful when lorries manage to hit the low bridge, which happens fairly regularly. Last summer, when large numbers of cars started more or less coming past my cottage, I discovered that somebody, in the spirit of Cornish entrepreneurship, had found that a lot of money could be made by selling for £1 maps showing how to get round the A30 at Goss moor. I do not want to talk unduly about taking away the opportunity to increase Cornish incomes, as they are so low, but the sale of such maps is not the ideal way of making a living, not least because people in the surrounding villages become irate when they see not just tall heavy lorries but everybody else using the route as a rat run to avoid the problems on the Goss moor section of the A30.

I have spoken about the barrier issue many times in the past, not least when I was transport spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. We must all be anxious about railway crossings without gates, which are especially dangerous when there is substantial traffic. A hot and bothered lorry driver who is not in the best state of mind but who is forced to use minor routes might not take the sensible driving approach that is appropriate to small country lanes. People in Roche tell me that lorries often pass rather too quickly through their village. My experience on the lanes outside the villages is similar. I cycle on the route from time to time, when I have the opportunity to do so, and I see lorries that are using entirely inappropriate roads, either at the end of a long journey or just setting off on a long journey out of the county, which appear, from time to time at least, to be going rather too fast for the circumstances.

We do not know what happened in the accident, and I do not want to pre-empt the inquiries. It seems to me, however, that road and rail do not mix well and that the light barriers do not always work. We know about the record of accidents and fatalities that occur from time to time on unbarriered crossings throughout the country. The individual who lives in the house next door to the crossing in question moved there only six weeks ago. He says that he has seen many near misses in which people shot the lights but narrowly missed a collision. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to speak about policy on the matter. I am aware of the recommendations made by the previous inquiry into barriers. I know that they were broadly implemented, which was welcome, but, in this day and age, there remains a question mark over unbarriered rail crossings.

The A30 at Goss moor is the spine route through Cornwall; the great majority of traffic coming in and out of the west of the county has to take it. Most of the route is either at dual-carriageway standard or near to it. With the exception of one minor section on Bodmin moor, all of it is dualled as far as Bodmin. That is due not least to the campaigning in which people in my part of the world have engaged over many years to ensure an adequate route into the county and out again, which is especially important for Cornish businesses. A further section of dualling runs from Indian Queens to the junction off to Truro, whose construction was welcome. That development was originally planned to include the Goss moor section, but, for a variety of reasons, Goss moor was not included in the Indian Queens-Summercourt bypass building process.

I have had many meeting over the years with Ministers and others to discuss Goss moor. In my judgment, it was always the case that the best solution for the A30 problem at Goss moor involved moving the rail link to Newquay from the Par junction to St. Austell. The rail track would have gone through St. Bernards, so removing the need for the iron bridge and the diversion of heavy lorries. The solution tackled the problems of improving the road across Goss moor which, as a site of special scientific interest, is an important environmental site that is likely to receive the highest European nature conservation status.

There would be two benefits from moving the railway. The first is that it would free up the rail track bed for road building. As it runs parallel to the A30, that would allow dualling to take place without encroaching too much on Goss moor. The second is that Goss moor could be extended into a sterilised area between the railway and the improved road. Diverting the branch line would more than make up for losses to Goss moor that result from road improvements.

The environmental impact fits in with Government policy to find solutions to transport problems that combine public transport and road transport. The branch line would be made more viable by linking Newquay with St. Austell, which is Cornwall's largest town, rather than with the small village of Par. Indeed, its station does not even serve most of its built-up community. More people would get out of their cars and on to trains, which would reduce the cost of subsiding the branch line in the long term. It would solve most of the problems of land take from Goss moor that would be caused by dualling or upgrading. It would also provide a solution to the low iron bridge problem without incurring the substantial costs that make alterations to the bridge unviable.

The project's history is long and sad. Governments have repeatedly started to advance the process only for it come to a halt, which is why my colleagues and I have had an infinite number of meetings with Ministers over the years. In the old days—I suspect that this was also the case in recent years—the barriers within the Department between the rail people and the road people created a fundamental problem. When rail and roads were in state hands at the Department of Transport, it was well known that the highways people did not want to pay for the rail re-routing. They hoped that the branch line would close and that they would get it for free. The rail people, however, could not justify the investment for re-routing the line, so no money changed hands. Although I was told that re-routing was the cheapest solution for the road builders, they did not want to pass the financial gains on to Railtrack.

I endorse my hon. Friend's point about co-ordination. I had the same experience, albeit for a shorter time. When we went to see the present Minister, Lord Whitty, at the Department, it was a shock to discover that the Department had not realised the importance of the new factor—the creation of the Eden project. My hon. Friend will know that the Eden project opened—

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has the permission of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and the Minister to intervene, but his contribution should be brief.

I am sure my hon. Friend has made his point. The opening of the Eden project means that traffic pressure, especially at the junction of the Bodmin roundabout on the A30, will be increased. The traffic tailback at that junction is often severe.

Let me sum up the issues for the A30. First, a combined rail and road solution would quickly end once and for all the diversion of heavy traffic through inappropriate local lanes and villages. The rail diversion would allow the removal of the bridge while a road upgrade of whatever form was taking place. That is an immediate solution for villagers in the surrounding area and for firms that find that further unnecessary delays and difficulties are added to getting their goods in and out of the county.

Secondly, a combined solution would answer genuine environmental concerns—there would be a clear net environmental benefit for Goss moor and, crucially, in the use of public transport. The proposal would help to get more people on to trains and would serve much larger communities than the existing branch line does. People would be taken to where they wanted to go rather than to Par, which, frankly, the majority of people do not plan as their final destination or have as their starting point.

We would also be able to tackle congestion, the environmental issue and the loss of life on that section of the A30, which is perhaps the most important issue of all. The county council has done much work on the subject. The figures over the past five years show accidents across Goss moor at twice the national rate. In that period, there were five fatalities, 19 serious injuries and 201 injury accidents—high figures for a short section of road. As a local, I experience the problems of crossing the A30, especially when coming from Roche and heading for the Newquay side, where there is a nasty junction. The Minister nods; I understand from his office that he knows the section of road well. The problems that I am describing will be familiar to him.

The history of the matter has been sorry and the sorriest saga has come within the past 10 years. In February 1994, the so-called fast-track, round-table process for trying to find agreement on a solution within the community was trialled by the then Conservative Government. The move was welcomed in the community. Environmental, road and community interests were brought together successfully. Perhaps surprisingly, given that environmental concerns did not have the same priority then as now, there was overwhelming agreement that the section of road needed to be tackled and that the preferred solution was to link rail and road, as I have suggested. The planning process for the road ensued, with the county council taken on as the lead contractors.

Matters came to a grinding halt shortly afterwards because the then Government slashed the roads programme. They were not interested in rail investment, so there was no hope of help from them on that. With the abolition of the county contract, no work proceeded. There was an announcement, which held out hopes, that there might have been a resumption shortly before the general election, but I do not think that that was anything other than a political gesture. Perhaps I am just an old cynic.

Worse news came on the election of the Labour Government because they, understandably, put the road programme back under review. That led to a further delay of at least one year, despite the fact that the round table had shown overwhelming support in the community for a solution. Even interests such as English Nature bought into the principle that a solution needed to be found, even if those interests did not commit themselves to an option. English Nature itself was sympathetic to a link to rail improvement. Sadly, the outcome of the review was not building but further consultation and planning. That was welcome but there was frustration in my community. The people there say, "We do not know why there is consultation because we all agree that work needs doing. A great majority of people agree on the way in which to do it. For goodness sake, can't we just get on with it?"

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell on securing the debate so soon after the accident on 8 May. As the hon. Gentleman said, the accident took place close to the A30 trunk road on Goss moor where a project is currently being carried out to identify ways of improving that part of the A30. The A30 project is of great importance to the people of Cornwall.

The accident took place on Monday 8 May, just after midday. A Wales and West train service travelling from Par to Newquay collided with a car transporter at the Tregoss level crossing near the village of Roche. The transporter had left the A30 to avoid the low Goss moor railway bridge, it having activated the height warning system. The accident caused the transporter to be dragged along the track for thirty yards and several of the cars it was carrying were scattered into nearby hedges. The train and lorry drivers and two passengers were taken to hospital with minor injuries. Thankfully, the injuries were not more serious.

An inspector from Her Majesty's railway inspectorate visited the scene of the accident the same day and started an investigation into the causes of the accident with the British Transport police. Their initial findings show that the crossing was working correctly. Tests have been carried out to confirm their early findings and the results are awaited. The Crown Prosecution Service and the British Transport police will consider the investigation's conclusions to determine what action should be taken. The investigation will also assess whether that type of crossing is still appropriate for the road and rail traffic that use it. The level crossing is a locally monitored automatic open crossing controlled by a signal box.

An improvement notice was served on Railtrack in February 1997 relating to the road markings at the crossing. Remedial action was taken to restore the road markings and, at the time of the accident, they were in accordance with the relevant statutory order for the crossing.

Some press reports have suggested that this was the fifth accident involving trains at that location in the past 10 years. In fact, there have been no previous accidents involving trains over the past 10 years. I have noted the observation of the resident who lives close to the crossing about near accidents, which is important and interesting.

rose—

I will give way although I have much to say and little time in which to say it.

I think that the Western Morning News bears some responsibility for that statistic. I believe that it has confused a specific figure with a figure for the south-west on these crossings.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is unusual for that excellent journal to make a mistake.

Rail safety is vital and the Government are determined to make the railways and rail travel safer. The opening last week of the public inquiry under Lord Cullen into the Ladbroke Grove crash reminds us in the starkest manner of what can happen when an accident occurs. The Government will work to improve safety systems and procedures and to ensure that safety has the highest priority in the rail industry. Lord Cullen has been asked to conduct a thorough investigation not only into the causes of the Ladbroke Grove crash, but also into the long-term implications for rail regulation. In the meantime, wherever possible, the Government are taking practical action to improve safety.

The A30 trunk road between Bodmin and Indian Queens, is a stretch of road that, as the hon. Member for Truro and St Austell says, I know well because of my annual pilgrimage to the Pentire peninsular for the surfing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Highways Agency and its consultants are working to find a solution that would overcome the safety and congestion problems on that section of the trunk road. An important element of the work is to understand the problems clearly and how they affect local people and the south-west region overall.

The Highways Agency has carried out the first stage of a two stage public consultation. The consultation has caused some impatience among interested parties because, they assert, the problems have been known for years and the answers are obvious. There was indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, a local planning conference in 1994, but since then, progress on preparation has been subject to fits and starts, culminating in the announcement in 1998, when we published the report "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", that the scheme should progress without delay, subject to full appraisal and the views of the regional planning conference. However, I emphasise that the 1994 local planning conference was not a substitute for public consultation, as is required by law, so there has always been a need for the current stage. Moreover, given the four-year suspension of preparation between 1994 and 1998, and subsequent changes in transport policy, it is important that earlier work should be reviewed to assess its validity and that alternative solutions to problems should be considered. The best options, including traffic management and single and dual carriageway improvements will be presented at a second stage of public consultation early in 2001. A recommendation to the Secretary of State on the preferred option will follow.

Earlier this year, people in the mid-Cornwall area were invited to visit public exhibitions at Bodmin, Redruth and Roche. The A30 trunk road is a key transport corridor for Cornwall, and extending the exhibitions to Redruth and Roche enabled the Highways Agency to reach a wider audience than is usual for a road improvement project. More than 860 people visited the three exhibitions over six days, where they talked to staff representing the agency and their consultants. They were asked to describe their experiences of living, working and travelling in the area. They were also invited to suggest ideas or preferences for improving the situation. Visitors were also encouraged to illustrate their ideas on maps provided for them, and many did so.

Unsurprisingly, many visitors to the exhibitions told the Highways Agency's representatives that they wanted a dual carriageway road to link the bypasses at Indian Queens and Bodmin. Most of them expressed their continuing support for the route recommended after the planning conference in 1994. However, a fair number of visitors were happy to discuss options other than a dual-carriageway road. They believed that their ideas, based on long personal experience, would be significant improvements. The most regularly mentioned concerns were improvement of the main junctions at Victoria, Castle-an-Dinas and the Roche crossroads, and straightening of the Par-Newquay branch line to avoid the iron bridge. People living in Roche and Tregoss and other villages directly affected by the diversionary routes saw the low-level iron bridge as the main problem.

Through the public exhibitions, the Highways Agency gained a clear understanding of local people's concerns and experiences, as well as a long list of suggested improvements. In addition to the public exhibitions, the agency distributed more than 16,000 questionnaires throughout the area and placed questionnaires at post offices and public libraries in the area bounded by Bodmin, Newquay, Redruth, Camborne, Truro and St. Austell. By the end of the consultation period, nearly 1,700 questionnaires had been returned to the Highways Agency at Bristol. The answers tended to confirm the general findings of the exhibitions, but also provided the agency with much more detailed information. The agency has now started to build up a detailed picture of local travel patterns, turning movements at junctions and crossing movements over the A30. Information from the questionnaires has augmented the travel survey work carried out towards the end of last year.

An important finding of the consultation is the local perception of traffic congestion. While an overwhelming number of questionnaire respondents—97 per cent.—considered that the relevant section of the A30 was congested, there was no agreement about whether traffic congestion occured just on some summer weekends and at peak travel hours, or throughout the year. It is important to establish the true level, and the Highways Agency will undertake a further series of traffic surveys later this year.

Although much of the talk at the public exhibitions was about delays in journey times, or the various routes that local people used to avoid the main road at certain times, almost 50 per cent. of all questionnaire respondents placed safety issues first when asked to rank a series of important factors that need to be considered when improvements are planned. That important finding from the consultation process will help to inform the assessment and appraisal stage of the project. Many people also considered that the low-height iron bridge was the biggest single problem on that section of the A30.

In April, the Highways Agency published a full report of the first public consultation, which it placed on deposit at 40 locations in mid-Cornwall, including 20 parish councils. At the same time, the agency distributed a free newsletter to the same places, providing details of all the key findings from the consultation, as well as the list of options that the agency is now considering.

During the remainder of this year, the agency will consider the feasibility of the options suggested to it and identify those that are most likely to address the problems on the A30. The options will include consideration of measures to remove the obstacle of the iron bridge. One option, as the hon. Gentleman said, is to divert the Par to Newquay branch line, which will make the low bridge redundant. The Highways Agency is working with Cornwall county council, Railtrack and others to determine the feasibility of that. The options will be examined in greater detail and appraised in line with the Government's new approach to appraisal. Next January, the agency will return to mid-Cornwall for the second public consultation and ask local people to indicate their preferred option.

One cannot disguise the difficulties of delivering quickly the improvements that we all agree are necessary, namely reducing the incidence of road accidents, improving the free flow of traffic and improving the reliability of journey times, especially in the summer months. It is also important to find a way to reduce the impact of large lorries on village communities. However, if the problems were easy to overcome, we might not be having this debate today. Goss moor is a site of special scientific interest and a national nature reserve. There are other sites of conservation importance nearby, as well as several scheduled ancient monuments. In developing solutions, the Highways Agency must have due regard to the environmental sensitivity of the area. A central tenet of the Government's planning policy is to minimise the impact of any development on both the built and the natural environment. The benefits of any proposed solution must be weighed carefully against any disbenefits.

The Highways Agency is working towards recommending a preferred solution to the Secretary of State in the summer of 2001. In doing so, the agency will need to be confident that the preferred solution will deliver the maximum benefit to the local and regional communities while minimising the impact on the natural environment.

Will the Minister write to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and to me with an up-to-date assessment of the road safety issues on that stretch of road? Will he also say how many accidents have occurred on the branch line that runs through our constituencies, because there have been several?

I am sure that I can provide that information.

The Government acknowledge the extreme importance attached to the project by the people of Cornwall. The issue was raised with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when he met representatives from Cornwall county council last September. I shall meet Cornwall county councillors later today, and my noble Friend Lord Whitty, the Minister for Roads, has agreed to meet representatives from Cornwall county council soon to discuss progress on the A30 scheme. Meanwhile, the Highways Agency will continue to work with the council and with other interested parties to find an acceptable solution to the problem as quickly as possible. I hope that that information and the general contents of my response will assure the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and his constituents of the seriousness of the Government's approach to the matter.