Given the serious nature of what is happening in the middle east, it is appropriate that it is the subject of the first debate to be held in this Chamber after the summer recess. I shall limit my remarks because I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the discussion. Everyone is concerned about what has been happening and the threat not only to Palestine, but to the stability of the entire region. We are all disturbed at the loss of life and the horrific scenes that have been displayed on our television screens during the past few weeks.

One matter that needs to be made clear is that the majority of the people who have lost their lives or who have been shot or otherwise injured have been Palestinian. Such a fact is not new; the majority of those who have been injured or killed each time violence has erupted in the West Bank and Gaza have been Palestinian. That is the inevitable result of both the fire power of the Israeli army and the use of disproportionate force when dealing with demonstrators.

A report in the Israeli newspaper Ha' Aretz last week suggested that the authorisation of live fire orders in response to Palestinian stone throwers for local Israeli force commanders has become more relaxed. That implies that throwing a stone could be life threatening and that it warrants a lethal response. International guidelines for the use of force and law enforcement officials, including the Israeli forces in occupied territories, say that action should be taken that is in proportion to the seriousness of the event and that firearms should be used only in self defence or in defence against the imminent threat of death or serious injury. Such authorisation suggests that Israeli forces in flak jackets in armoured vehicles are at risk of death or serious injury from stone throwing.

Does my hon. Friend accept that among the Palestinian crowds are people with guns, although it is true that younger people—perhaps without guns—have been put in the front line?

There is no question but that shots have been fired, but given all the events that have occurred, I have no doubt that there has been excessive use of force. Resolution 1322 of the United Nations Security Council, which was passed a few days ago by 14 votes to zero—with only the United States of America abstaining—states that acts of violence are condemned,

especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life.

It states that Israel, as the occupying power, should abide

by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

That is the view of the United Nations Security Council.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the horrifying picture, which I am sure shocked everybody, of the little 12-year-old boy cowering next to his father before he was shot, was manifestly a case of somebody being killed who was not in the front line and nowhere near a sniper.

In years to come, when people look back on the events of the past few weeks, the picture to which my hon. Friend referred is the image that will remain in people's minds.

Everyone wants the violence to stop, but we must look beyond what has happened in the past few weeks and the efforts that are now being made to obtain not a peace settlement but a ceasefire, and consider why we have reached this point. I have heard it suggested that the Palestinian leadership was trying to ruin the peace process and orchestrated what happened. There have even been suggestions that we were a small step from a final settlement, that Camp David would provide the solution, and that all that was required was an agreement on Jerusalem. Those suggestions are misleading, as the events that we are discussing show. Whatever the importance of Jerusalem, and irrespective of the fact that Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the al-Aqsa mosque triggered the violence, recent events show that something was happening on a much deeper level and that many Palestinians feel a deep sense of frustration, bitterness and anger.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Prime Minister Barak has gone further than any previous Israeli prime minister in agreeing certain points with the Palestinians in the Camp David talks, and that the withdrawal of Yasser Arafat from that process triggered the crisis?

I do not believe that the withdrawal of Yasser Arafat triggered the crisis. The Prime Minister of Israel may have gone further than his predecessors, but that begs the question whether he has gone far enough to deliver a viable and lasting solution.

In the past few years, the peace process has not given all Palestinians better economic conditions, and refugees are no nearer to returning to their homes than they were at the beginning of the process. When we consider the reports of yesterday's violence in Hebron, we must ask the obvious question: what are Israeli troops doing there? I remember from the first time I went to Hebron, some years ago, that right in the centre of that Arab city there is a tiny Israeli settlement of 200 people. At that time, there was a wall down the main road, with Israeli settlers allowed on one side and Palestinians on the other. The settlements scattered throughout the West Bank, in the middle of Arab cities like Hebron, Nablus, Ramallah and so on, mean that the Israeli army has to be present. Those settlements remain, as they always have been, illegal; they are the reason why the West Bank has been carved up, why Palestinians cannot travel freely and why there is no Palestinian state but a series of bantustans with no free travel or connections between them. The presence of those troops reminds every Palestinian every day that they are living in an occupied land, and that the final arbiters of what they may do and where they can go are not the Palestine National Authority or Yasser Arafat but the Israeli occupying forces. That key question has not been addressed in the past few years. The issue is not simply one of land.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

If I may, I will continue as I want to leave as much time as possible for other Members to speak.

This is more than just a question of the occupied land; it is a question of the Palestinian people. I observed on a recent visit to the region that the refugees and displaced people feel most keenly that they have lost their identity as a people. This is also more than a question of land because the carving up and the lack of freedom have left the Palestinian leadership unable to have any normal political contact and involvement with its citizens. It is limited as to what it can do as an authority. That is why calls to Yasser Arafat to stop are futile; they assume mechanisms and a degree of control that simply are not there.

I have a quote on which my hon. Friend might wish to comment. It says:

The Supreme Monitoring Committee of the National Arab and Islamic forces call upon the masses of our people to immediately assemble in the streets and public squares in order to express their rage and strong stand against the barbaric Israeli aggression and their determination to continue the intifada.

That is a direct quote from official Palestinian television. Will my hon. Friend comment on that in relation to the so-called spontaneous, unorganised acts of protest and violence?

Any suggestion that such a statement, made on Palestinian television, would be sufficient to bring people out on to the streets shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what is happening, of the feelings of the people in the camps and of those who have been displaced. Furthermore, the view that Yasser Arafat is now an unreliable partner also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. All Palestinians, whatever their political opinion, will say that they regard the PLO as the sole legitimate negotiating representative of the Palestinian people. However, if we want a long-term solution, we must recognise that the negotiations that have taken place over the past few years have not been negotiations between equal partners, but between an occupying power and an occupied people. They have been negotiations in which the role of the United States has not been seen by the Palestinians or the Arab countries to be that of an honest broker.

In regard to the region as a whole, the effects on other states must also be taken into account if we are to reach a solution. Other states in the region are now the host countries to hundreds of thousands of refugees. What attempts have been made over the past few years to examine the rights of those refugees? They have rights that are recognised under international law and in UN resolutions. The most recent UN Security Council resolution, 1322, goes back to the basic questions. It reminds us of the demands of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

We regard at our peril recent events as the product of a single happening in Jerusalem which led to an explosive reaction, and which can be dealt with simply by returning to the Camp David agenda. We need to take a step back and think about what will be needed to deliver long-term peace in the region. That would be in the interests of every country in the region, including Israel. Everyone knows what the elements of a long-term peace are. They are not new. They include Jerusalem and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, which would involve a withdrawal from occupied territories—not a percentage of occupied territories. UN resolutions have made it clear again and again that what is needed is a withdrawal from occupied territories and a recognition of refugees' rights of return.

The problem is not solely for Israel and the Palestinians. It has international dimensions. Anyone who has visited the region will have been reminded time and again of our historic responsibilities there. The problem has an international dimension. International law and UN resolutions are involved. It is not sufficient to leave international involvement almost entirely to the United States. We need to consider our role and that of the EU. The problem may be more difficult now. Although we may be seen to be going backwards at the moment, we need to step back a little to consider the medium and long term, how to deliver a settlement and how to use our influence internationally to do so, rather than relying as we have on what has been unbalanced negotiation between an occupying power and people who have experienced occupation.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate, although I approach the matter from a slightly different point of view. He has done us a service in doing so.

I join the hon. Gentleman in his expression of sadness over the loss of life that has been occasioned in the conflict in the holy land. As is only fair, I recognise, as did he, that the majority of those who have sustained casualties were members of the Palestinian community. There have been casualties on the Israeli side, too, but the majority have been Palestinians. There have been many tragic incidents on both sides.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the events that have taken place. However, it would be a mistake to dwell too long on the mechanics of events in the conflict. I have some sympathy with the balanced approach of Amnesty International in a letter to today's newspapers, which considers Israeli methods of crowd control and the Palestinian authorities' failure to control those who participate in the uprising.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned proportionality. He must recognise the fair point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) that, if Israeli soldiers are fired on by Palestinian gunmen, it is proportional for them to return fire. However, that recognition does not condone everything that has taken place.

The hon. Gentleman gave us his analysis. I disagree with his view that the two sides are unequal. Each side has something to offer the other that only it can give. Israel has a tremendous desire for security. That is the uppermost consideration in the minds of Israeli citizens, a fact that conditioned how they voted in recent elections. The Palestinians want fulfilment of their rights, economic improvement and autonomy leading to eventual statehood, which they have never had.

The hon. Gentleman dwelt too long on the mechanics of what has taken place. He failed to appreciate the wider political context and, especially, to acknowledge that the Government came to power in Israel in May 1999, after a period of stagnation in the peace process, with a clear mandate for peace and security for the Israeli people.

The Israeli Government have kept faith with that pledge, pushing forward the peace process at both Sharm El-Sheikh in September 1999 and Camp David earlier this year. We should not overlook the fact that they have done so in the face of severe internal difficulties. Whatever else one can say about Israeli democracy, besides the fact that it is the only democracy in the middle east—that it is a good thing as a democracy is not an especially good advertisement for proportional representation—in the face of internal difficulties, the Israeli Government have tried to push forward the peace process. There is dispute about exactly how much was offered in the Camp David agreement. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that a large number of commentators—many of them speaking from an objective position—regard Prime Minister Barak as having offered a great deal to the Palestinians in the negotiations. They have also commented on his willingness to compromise on some of the most vexed issues at stake, including the most vexed of all: Jerusalem. Those offers and concessions were made in the face of severe difficulties.

It is sad that nothing came from those offers and that the peace process could not be taken further forward at that stage. I agree that subsequent events were tragic. The hon. Member for Walthamstow said that Mr. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was provocative. Many members of the Jewish community in my constituency have told me that the visit was provocative and ill judged. Whatever one's view of Mr. Sharon's personality or of the place that he visited, however, one could not suggest that his visit justified the subsequent outpouring of violence. That was a mere visit to a religious site, but at least one of the holiest sites of Judaism has been desecrated—the tomb of Joseph. I do not think, therefore, that particular parties can be regarded to have demonstrated great sensitivity to religious sites.

It is hard to resist the conclusion that Mr. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was not the cause of what has occurred, but the occasion. It is also hard to resist the suspicion that, even if the violence was not encouraged by some members of the Palestinian leadership, it was at least condoned. It has certainly been fuelled by the Palestinian media, including its state-controlled elements.

The hon. Gentleman has a constituency interest and is playing heavily to it. He appears, however, to have entirely ignored the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). He did not mention the 200,000 people who are living in settlements in what is supposed eventually to be an independent and autonomous state for the Palestinians. He did not mention any detail about the so-called offer on Jerusalem. He is dancing on the head of a pin on the issue, presumably for votes, and is ignoring the cause of the problem. The territory is occupied and Israel appears to intend to remain the occupier.

I had hoped that I had explained sufficiently clearly for the hon. Gentleman that Israel was seeking security more than anything else. Of course, there are demands on both sides and we could consider in detail the wider background, including refugees. The hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members must be realistic about the matter and accept that there is a framework within which compromise can occur. Furthermore, they should accept that security is the Israelis' main consideration within that framework. I could go back into the past and speak about all the grievances that have arisen, such as the bus bombs in Tel Aviv, various terrorist acts, invasions of Israeli territory by overseas terrorists, the work of the Hamas, the Hezbollah and the Iraqis, and all of the other poison that keeps pouring out of the situation, but it would not do any good. There is a compromise to be made on both sides. I would certainly encourage the Israelis to compromise, but it is my view that the Israeli Government have a clear mandate for peace, have been prepared to offer concessions and compromises and have stretched forward the hand of peace, but have yet to receive an embrace in return. I hope that that will come, but things look very bleak at the moment.

What is Israeli public opinion? Israel is a democracy. At the end of the day, the Israeli Government can make concessions only in line with public opinion. Let me tell the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) that that opinion was strongly in favour of making concessions for peace. What are the Israelis supposed to make of the scenes of the intifada, the resulting violence and the attitude of the Palestinian media? I do not want to go into detail on particular instances, such as a dreadful incident involving a 12-year-old child at a crossroads in Gaza. Another terrible incident involved the lynching of members of the Israeli armed forces in a Palestinian police station. Whatever the reasons why they were there, I presume that they were under the protection of the Palestinian state.

What is Israeli opinion meant to make of all this? My conclusion—I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate—is that, if there is to be a peace process in the future, and the prospects look bleak at the moment, it can happen only on the lines that were discussed at Camp David and previously, with concessions on both sides. The basic framework for those concessions, and for that peace process, is security for Israel in return for Israel meeting the aspirations of the Palestinian people, and making the concessions that are sought in return. Up to now, many among the Israeli electorate and leadership have been prepared to make those concessions, but that does not diminish the fact that things look extremely bleak at the moment.

In the brief time remaining, I should like to stress two things. I ask the Government to impress on the Palestinian leadership that resorting to, condoning or allowing uprisings and violence as a negotiating tactic and way of seeking further concessions will not, in fact, bring further concessions. It is a way of driving the parties away from the peace process. I would encourage our Government to use whatever offices they have to impress on them that violence will not bring returns at the negotiating table, and that if the violence continues, the aid that this country gives to Palestine, which I and my constituents, as taxpayers, are happy to give to Palestinians to improve their lamentable economic conditions, will be put in doubt. Surely we cannot justify giving such aid if the Palestinians continue to resort to violence of such proportions.

We must also be concerned that the violence and tension do not spill over into this country. People on both sides of the debate hold strong views, and should be free to express those views. They should do so without any violence or threat of violence. People should not be put in fear because they are a member of a particular religion or race. I know that there are concerns within the Jewish community about certain incidents. I do not want to overplay those, but I urge the Government to ensure that the violence does not spill over into this country, and that people and the right of free speech are protected.

Things look bleak at present, but I hope that one day the parties will be able to return to the peace process. There are other factors in favour of a peace process, and each side has something to offer the other, although a great deal lies in the way of that at present. I hope that, at some stage in the future, the obstructions to peace can be cleared.

rose—

Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind all hon. Members that this is a short debate in which many people want to take part. Hon. Members should be brief to allow as many people as possible to speak.

In mid-September, before the current disturbances began, a festival called Palestine 2000 took place in Rubery church centre, about half a mile from where I live in Birmingham. The idea behind the festival was the promotion of a greater understanding of the Palestinian people, who they are, where they live, and the conditions under which they live. One of the main speakers was a visitor from Israel, a Melkite priest called Abuna Elias Chacour. He is a Palestinian and an Israeli citizen, and has been involved in the Mar Elias education institution for the last 30 years, in the village of Ibullin in Galilee. The objective of that institution is to promote greater understanding between Jews, Christians and Muslims. One of the brightest students of one of the schools involved was a young man called Asel Asleh, who was 17 years old. He was involved in an organisation called Seeds of Peace, an American programme involving more than 800 Arab and Israeli teenagers and other young people who go to summer camps together. This was all designed to promote dialogue. To quote from The Washington Post, Asel was

by all accounts, a model of what a Seed should be—an immoderately prolific e-mailer and letter writer and phone caller who invested time and energy into making Jewish friends and keeping them.

Asel is now dead. The report in The Washington Post continues:

What happened with Asel—how he died—is in question. He was killed in a clash on Monday with Israeli forces on the outskirts of his village, Arabeh, in Upper Galilee. Whether he was throwing stones, helping the wounded or simply watching the action is unclear. More than a half-dozen Israeli Arabs were killed that day, and Israeli police say all died in the riots that swept the region. A spokesman said he could provide no specific information about Asel's death. Asel's family, which saw his body before burial on Tuesday, say his wounds, including extensive bruises to the back, arms and face, suggested he had been beaten with rifle butts before being shot. No autopsy was conducted

into Asel's death.

I mention the case of Asel, not because his death is any more tragic or painful to his relatives and community than any other death in the region—Jewish, Muslim or Christian—but to make the point that it took place not in Gaza or the West Bank, but inside Israel itself. That seems surprising, and, in such circumstances, we, as an overseas Parliament, should ask questions about how an Israeli citizen was denied access to the laws of the land of which he was, apparently, a citizen. It is strange that no autopsy took place, and that no investigation has taken place.

Having made this speech, I reflect on the possibility that we may see a report from the Israeli authorities saying that I have over-simplified the matter and that events were not as I have said. That may be right. I cannot comment on that. However, I can comment on the fact that I find it a little strange that the Israeli authorities reject the notion of an international investigation into what is going on there so that we can establish the truth. If this can happen to a Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen, is it surprising that they feel like second-class citizens in their own land? Is it surprising that they feel that they are, at best, tolerated in the land of Israel, and that they are not equal with other citizens of that country? Is it surprising that they feel such an affinity with Palestinians living in the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? If that is how Palestinian citizens of Israel feel, what must the situation be like for those who live on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?

I accept what my hon. Friend says about this horrific incident. However, although there is clearly a problem in Israel with the relationship between some Israelis and some Palestinians, does he also accept that 20 per cent. of the electorate in Israel is Arab, and that there are Arab members of the Israeli Parliament, even Ministers, including the Deputy Foreign Minister, who came to the Labour party conference, where I had a chance to discuss these matters with him? The circumstances are not as simple as my hon. Friend suggests. They are far more complex.

The statistics that my hon. Friend quotes are absolutely right. I would not deny that. However, if one talks to Arabs who are Knesset members in Israel, including Asmi Bishara, who stood for Prime Minister of Israel, they will not say that they are treated as equal citizens alongside Jewish Israeli citizens.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, when I met the Deputy Foreign Minister, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred, in Israel, soon after the then Labour Government had taken power, he told us that, in his view, part of his role as an Arab member of the Labour party was to point out to fellow party members the gross discrimination against Arab Israelis? Of course, he does not say that when he is speaking on a platform at the British Labour party conference as a Deputy Foreign Minister, but he has made it clear.

My hon. Friend makes the point well.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I shall not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) again, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).

:I do not think that any hon. Members who are friends of Israel would deny discrimination against Israeli Arabs. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South pointed out, the situation is more complex than that outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). Attacks in Israel by Jewish extremists have been condemned by Prime Minister Barak and by other Israeli political figures. The problem is that Palestinian leaders do not engage in similar condemnation of attacks on Jewish people in the West Bank and other occupied territories.

I shall return to the complexities of the situation in a little while. I mentioned Asel to say something about the circumstances of Palestinians in Israel. If that is the position of Palestinians who are Israeli citizens, what is that of Palestinians who are denied citizenship and are not Israeli citizens—those who live under occupation? My hon. Friend said earlier that the present Israeli Prime Minister had offered more concessions than any previous one. That may be the case, but we must ask why an entire people feel the need to say no and to rise up in the manner that we have witnessed during recent weeks.

Often, the concessions and the peace process are discussed in an almost theoretical manner, but it is different if one visits the area and sees what the process has meant to Palestinians on the ground. I was there in June and I saw that Israeli settlement building, which was then the subject of international discussion, was continuing. The evidence of my eyes was such that I did not perceive a great deal of difference between the circumstances that I witnessed this year and those that I saw two years ago when Likud was in power. On that visit, we were warned by a number of Palestinian academics about the road plan that was being designed for the West Bank and Gaza, splitting the area up. Two years later, I found that those roads were either built or were being built. They bypass Palestinian towns and villages and link up settlements that are illegal under international law. I saw Palestinians who felt that their lives and livelihoods were being bypassed and that they were treated as guests in their own land.

This year, I visited a small village called Issawiyya, just outside Jerusalem. I saw with my own eyes Palestinian homes that had been demolished and Palestinian farms that were denied the water that they needed to irrigate their land, when an Israeli settlement across the valley received water in much greater quantities. These are the realities of what has been happening in the area. If we want to end the problems and achieve a settlement in the middle east rather than merely comment on it, we must, sooner or later, confront the realities. Afif Safieh, the Palestinian general delegate to the United Kingdom, made a comment the other day that said a great deal. He remarked that often when the peace process is discussed, it is almost as if we want to achieve an everlasting peace process rather than everlasting peace. We must do all we can to achieve the latter.

My hon. Friends and, indeed, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), have pointed out that we must recognise the strength of feeling in Israeli public opinion, which I accept. The hon. Gentleman said that it could be tested because Israel was a democracy with an elected Government. However, I ask hon. Members also to consider Palestinian public opinion. Public opinion is not easy to express in an occupied country. What is it that makes a people do what the Palestinians have been doing during the past few weeks? What makes them say that their lives under Israeli occupation can no longer be tolerated? There is no future in the idea, which the Prime Minister of Israel appears to be considering, that the parties involved should take some time out from the peace process and establish firmer borders, possibly splitting the West Bank off on a permanent basis. Israel rightly demands security, but there can be no security in that part of the world unless the peoples there agree to live together and recognise their interdependence. That will not be achieved by fencing people off, destroying their homes and building settlements on land that is illegally occupied.

The fears of Israeli Jews are real and understandable, and the history of the Jewish community bears testament to that fact. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertsmere that those of us with a background of sympathy to the Palestinian cause have a responsibility to state clearly that the issue is not one of religion, and that it should not be allowed to degenerate into a religious issue in this country or anywhere else. However, Israelis must recognise that there is no security in the path that they are currently taking. They need to ensure, if they are to hold up their heads as a democracy in the international community, that they behave as a democracy by respecting international law no less than any other country. They should not allow a situation to occur whereby the Palestinian community in Gaza and the West Bank is relegated to living in conditions akin to those of a bantustan.

The international community is right to call for calm and the end of the violence because while the violence continues the chances of a settlement are that much less. However, we must address the causes of the violence. We must tell Israelis that they have the right to live in peace, within secure borders, and we must stand by that, but we must also tell them that they are not above international law. If the words of United Nations resolutions in relation to the Balkans and Kuwait are precious to us, those in relation to the middle east and Palestinian rights should be equally precious to us. Palestinians say that they hear about what the west has done in Kosovo and how it cares about the United Nations, but that there are refugee peoples who lost their homes in 1948 and that United Nations resolution 194, which states that they have the right to return, has never been implemented. They know about resolutions 242 and 338, which have also never been implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate is right to say that the situation is complicated. There can be no quick-fix solution, but sometimes it is important to state that there is a bottom line. We in the international community have an obligation to discuss the bottom line, which is that international law must be the basis of any just settlement, and that that involves the withdrawal from occupied territories, recognition of Palestinian rights and a just solution to the refugee problem.

rose—

Before I call the next speaker, I repeat the plea made by my predecessor in the Chair for short speeches. This is an important and current debate in which everyone is interested, so I should like to call as many Members as possible. If hon. Members keep their contributions to three minutes, we shall be able to hear a lot more speeches.

I believe that it was Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian peace negotiator, who said to me a year ago that there were friends of Israel and friends of Palestine, but that today there were also friends of peace. The House must consider itself a friend of peace. The values that we are expressing today should be shared by all Members. The difficulty for those who have spoken and will no doubt speak this morning in defence of the Israeli Government is that it is becoming clear that their values and approach, methods or "mechanics", as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) described them, are not in the same frame as ours.

I come from a family whose origins were in southern Africa. We had kith and kin in what was then called Rhodesia and in South Africa. As I grew up, it became clear to me that the values that my family had imbued in me were not shared by the people we had previously regarded as our kith and kin in that part of the world. The challenge today for members of the Jewish community in this country and in the United States is to face the prospect that people living in Israel, whom they regard as their kith and kin, may no longer share or act on the values in which they fundamentally believe.

What is at stake is not merely property. My hon. Friend is wrong. Jerusalem is not the major issue in today's debate. The issue is not property but people; it is the Palestinian people and their basic human rights. The fact that those basic human rights were not covered at Camp David sent a signal back to the region that neither side's leadership was in tune with the people whom they represent. Although Prime Minister Barak, a brave man, no doubt went further than any previous Israeli leader in his own terms, it was well known at the time that his coalition was collapsing about his ears, and that there was no certainty that he could go home and deliver even on the promises that he was prepared to make.

A presidential election is being held in the United States, which I visited last week with the Select Committee on Education and Employment. In that context, I was struck by how much more even-handedly the threat to the peace process in the middle east is being presented. There is an increasing awareness in the United States that two sides are involved in the debate, and I hope that following this morning's discussion we can take that awareness forward.

It is the duty of those who represent the Israeli cause in the debate to make it clear to their side that the basic human values to which everyone in this Chamber subscribes must prevail in the middle east, and that we are not prepared to accept even a regime with the patina of respectability and democratic government unless it conforms to international standards.

Like many others, I was horrified by not only the pitiful death of an innocent Palestinian boy but the butchering of two Israeli soldiers. I am reminded of another tragic incident in another place, the butchering of two British soldiers in Northern Ireland, and I ask myself what happened after that incident. Our troops did not go around the streets of Belfast singling out Catholic boys to have them shot and maimed with sniper bullets. The response to the butchering of those Israeli soldiers—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way in a moment.

As the Israeli response was reported on the front page of all newspapers in this country, it sent a clear message that we are dealing with a regime that is becoming increasingly detached from the ethos and morals to which we subscribe.

If the Israeli Government are realigned and turn their back on the peace process, that will be as decisive a moment in our consideration of our relations with people in that region as were the Soweto riots of 1963 and 1975 to the attitude of white people in this country to the apartheid regime in South Africa.

I should like wholeheartedly to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in opening the debate, and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and those of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). I shall concentrate on how the Israeli Government are flagrantly breaching the fourth Geneva convention, which clearly sets out the obligations under international law of an occupying power, which is what Israel is in Gaza and the West Bank.

I draw heavily on a press release issued in Israel by B'Tselem, the highly respected Israeli human rights organisation. Many extraordinarily courageous people in Israeli society stand up, putting themselves in great personal danger, in support of the principles of human rights and democracy that I share with most hon. Members in this Chamber. We must remember that, and we should support them because they are the correct voice of Israeli and Jewish values, not some of the acts that are being perpetrated by the Israeli Government.

B'Tselem's press release clearly sets out the need to protect civilians and to distinguish between armed and unarmed persons. It also makes it clear that the fact that the other side does not necessarily stick to the rules does not relieve the Israeli Government from sticking to their obligations under international law. It is clear from the huge number of Palestinian deaths, many of them children, that lethal firearms are being used excessively and inappropriately by the Israeli Government. Of those people who have been wounded or killed, 42 per cent. were under the age of 18 and 40 per cent. had head and eye injuries. It is clear that the Israeli forces are aiming deliberately at people's heads. Furthermore, 72 per cent. of those who have been wounded were injured by live bullets, some even by dumdum bullets that cause appalling injuries.

As for the distinction between armed and unarmed people, I shall read from the e-mail of an American charity worker that was sent to me and to his contacts throughout the United States. Describing what he saw at Netzarim junction in Gaza, he said:

As ambulances ferried the dead and wounded we spent nearly an hour in the Red Cross/Red Crescent triage center where skilled medical staff were working under the protection of the ICRC…to stop the bleeding before the casualties were taken to hospital operating rooms or morgues. Most of the wounds were from American Apache helicopter gun ships or snipers. Several people far from the onerous fortress intersection dropped to the ground from head wounds

The charity worker said that the people were shot by snipers from 1,000 m or more away, who were picking people out of the crowd from the roof tops. He wrote:

Four of the awful gunships kept flying over the residential area spraying it with machine gun fire and directing LOW antitank missiles at homes and apartment buildings.

Such action is disproportionate violence and is wholly at variance with Israel's obligations under the Geneva convention. Moreover, it is clear that snipers are being used to shoot unarmed people who are participating in demonstrations against an occupation. The right to demonstrate against occupation is recognised under international law. We are discussing people who are resisting an unlawful occupation.

I refer to other ways in which the Israeli Government have flouted the Geneva convention.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No, I shall not give way.

The Israeli Government have not protected wounded persons, medical personnel or ambulances. I draw attention to the infamous shooting of the 12-year-old boy in Gaza. The ambulance man who was attempting to rescue him was also shot and killed. The security forces have not attempted to stop the violence that has been perpetrated by Israeli civilians, yet they are obliged under the Geneva convention to protect Palestinians. On 7 October, settlers attacked the village of Bourin and destroyed two medical clinics. They shot and killed 22-year-old Fahed Mustafa Baqer in Biddiya and besieged villages around Nablus. The recent shooting in that area was provoked by armed settlers under the protection of the Israeli army, which tried to reassert its illegal occupation of settlements around Nablus.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No, I shall not give way.

There has been interference with the freedom of movement of ordinary civilians in the West Bank. There have been widespread closures in the area. Sick patients have been unable to reach medical care. A 37-year-old man died of renal failure because he was unable to reach hospital for his regular dialysis because of closures. Three journalists were shot and wounded by the military near Ramallah on 21 October, one of whom reported for Paris Match—not a journal that is usually associated with such situations. The two other journalists reported for Agence France Presse and one for Wattan Television. The day before that a photographer was shot near Khan Younis.

There has been collective punishment—again, in flagrant disregard of international law. The closures are collective punishments of the whole civilian population because of the violence of a minor fraction of that population. Water has been cut off to villages near Jenin. Buildings have been demolished.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No.

If we are to have a just and viable peace in the middle east, we must have a new peace process, which is built on international law and UN resolutions. One of the few good things that came out of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement was that the European Union and United Nations, which do believe in international law, were involved. They may be able to start injecting a correct framework into the peace process—one built on international law and UN resolutions.

I want to address my colleagues who say that they are friends of Israel. The international community must insist that Israel acts responsibly and respects the Geneva conventions. Israel has recently joined the group of western nations at the UN. However, that implies responsibility on the part of Israel to behave like a western nation and respect international law.

Surely responsibility is a two-way process. We have heard a lot from my hon. Friend about what Israel has done. Does she have any criticisms of the Palestinian leadership's handling of these events?

Clearly, criticisms exist on both sides—

My hon. Friend has not aired those on the other side.

They have been well aired by other hon. Members. I simply make the point that the Palestinian authority is not yet a recognised state. It is not in occupation of anybody else's land. Israel is in occupation of other territories, which it took by force. It would be a dangerous precedent if the international community were to turn a blind eye to the fact that Israel has acquired territories by force, is annexing those territories, is settling them illegally with its own citizens, and has expropriated huge quantities of Arab land in order to settle Jewish Israelis. Only Jewish Israelis are settled on that land. My hon. Friend will be aware that, even within Israel, the high court has only just been able to make the point that it is illegal for public funds to be used exclusively for the benefit of Jewish Israeli citizens. However, we have yet to see that high court ruling being put into effect, and Israeli Arabs being allowed to acquire homes within areas in Israel designated for Jewish settlement alone.

Israel is rightly proud of being the only democracy in the middle east. However, democracy is based not only on the will of the majority but on the rule of law and international law. In terms of respect for the rule of international law, Israel does not qualify as a democracy as most democracies would wish to do. Israel and the occupied territories are falling into an abyss. A deep corrosion has entered Israeli society as young people in the armed forces are being encouraged to have a casual disregard for the lives of Palestinians, which is carrying over into the treatment of Israeli Arab citizens. When Israeli Arabs in Galilee demonstrated against their Government, they were met with soldiers using live bullets. When Israelis of Jewish origin demonstrate and take vigilante action, in mob form, against Arab citizens, they are met with water cannons—

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

No.

That is the appropriate way in which democracies control demonstrators—with the minimum of force. It is not to Israel's credit that the crowd control methods that it uses against Jewish Israeli citizens are different from those that it uses against Palestinian Arab citizens. That shows a casual disregard for the lives of Palestinians, which is corroding Israeli society deeply. That is a much greater danger to Israel, as a democracy in the middle east, than the supposed threat from outside. Britain has an obligation, as the former mandate power, to be much more active in trying to make Israel live up to its obligations under international law. The situation is so grave that we should press for a UN monitoring force on the ground between occupier and occupied. Only then can we start to rebuild the bridges—such as the Seeds programme that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield mentioned—between Israel and Palestine, and construct a peace which delivers to both communities and, therefore, has a chance of lasting.

I shall call one more speaker, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), and I shall ask him to speak for just two minutes because the Minister and the Opposition spokesman both need time to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak in this debate with a great sense of sadness. The debate in the House in recent years has not been about the basis of the peace process but about the pace of change and progress. It is sad that we are here today debating the current outbreak of violence. As a friend of Israel—I think that I speak on behalf of all friends of Israel in the House—I want to say that we remain totally committed to the concept of a just and lasting peace in the middle east. There is no doubt about that commitment from the point of view of those who proudly say that they are friends of the state of Israel.

I also speak as someone who is proud of having a multi-faith constituency, in which Jews, Christians and Muslims live alongside one another in an atmosphere of mutual respect, friendship and tolerance. I hope that every responsible Member of Parliament will join me in condemning those who would use this delicate situation in the middle east to whip up tensions between Muslims and Jews in Britain. Recent increases in anti-Semitic attacks do not reflect the mainstream views of Muslim people in this country. They are the actions of the fundamentalist few.

I also want briefly to mention the presentation of the current situation. Certain sections of the media—and, indeed, certain Members of Parliament—seem unable to view the situation objectively or with any sense of balance. I have not heard one person today say that it is unacceptable to sit at the negotiating table one day and, a day later, when one does not get what one wants, to turn to violence. I have heard hon. Members talk today about the historical grievances and the historical sources of tension and conflict between both sides. However, that is exactly why we have had a peace process that has made so much progress in the middle east in a relatively short period of time: to resolve that conflict and those tensions.

If we look at the chronology of events, it was at Camp David that the Prime Minister of Israel offered the best deal that has ever been offered in a peace negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. When Yasser Arafat walked away from that negotiating table, he went to visit a variety of world leaders and tried to enlist their support for the fact that he had refused to make progress on that offer. Those world leaders made it crystal clear that they could not support his walking away from the negotiating table. That was when the violence began. I illustrated in my earlier intervention how that violence is not spontaneous, but orchestrated and encouraged. That does not mean that there are not strong feelings among the Palestinian people. One reason for the strong feelings is that those people have not seen a great improvement in their living standards as a consequence of the peace process. A primary reason for that is the misuse of foreign aid by the Palestinian authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Savidge) spoke earlier of the tragic vision of a young Palestinian boy being killed. That will live in the memory of many people. So, however, will the lynching of the two Israeli soldiers and the brandishing of the hands, dripping with blood, from that window. That is why those of us who see both sides, and who try to have an objective perspective on the situation, reject the bias and lack of objectivity with which this tragic and longstanding conflict is often presented by some hon. Members and by large sections of the media. We should focus on ending the current violence, initiating a period of reflection and trying to restore co-operation on the ground. It is to be hoped that we can then rebuild confidence, enabling both sides to return to a peace process that is the only way forward for Palestinians, Israelis and all who live in the region.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate, the most powerful that we have had in Westminster Hall. Emotions have been forcefully expressed and I accept that all hon. Members have strong views on the matter.

I visited Jerusalem in June. I went there with no strong emotions and no attachment to any side of the argument. I went also from a new generation that did not have the student hang-ups—if I may put it that way—that featured in the debates that occurred decades ago. I saw two things that had a profound impact on me. First, the Israelis took me to the holocaust museum, where I saw things that made me cold and which have stayed in my mind for a long time. Secondly, the Palestinians took me into a refugee camp. I had not seen poverty in my life, in which I have been very lucky. What I saw in the camp, where I witnessed at first hand the conditions in which Palestinian children were living, had a profound impact. I learned then and have grown to understand why the emotions and anger that we have seen this morning are so strong.

The visit was also optimistic. Speaking to politicians on all sides, I felt that the peace process was making good progress. I would have predicted then that a deal could have been struck by Christmas of this year. The Camp David agreement in July had seen progress on many core issues, and it is right to acknowledge that President Barak had moved further than many people had said he would. But the problem then is the problem now: Jerusalem.

Two people who seemed to be a whisker away from peace six months ago are now separated by a gulf, as they are sucked regrettably towards the orthodox position in both camps. Since Camp David, things have fallen apart and it is frustrating that we cannot take and bank some of the agreements that were made. There was agreement on 70 to 80 per cent. of the issues, but that is now falling away. However, we are where we are. The attempt to obtain a ceasefire is in ruins and violence occurred again last night. There may be encouraging signs as the violence seems to be less intense and might be reducing, but it is alarming for all of us to see how quickly a peace process can unravel.

Some argue that the closer to peace that we come, the more violence will occur. They cite the example of South Africa and say that, as the peace process gets closer to a conclusion, the militants bed in and become harder. Such people suggest that we might be seeing merely the last throes of violence before peace is established. I doubt that. How many last chances can the region have? Israel's internal party politics will play a key role during the next 48 hours. Barak seeks a coalition and he is talking to Sharon. Obviously, that is not an issue in which the United Kingdom should become involved. Israel must decide how it governs itself. However, it would be regrettable if conditions were imposed to end the peace process as part of a coalition agreement.

It has also been suggested that Mr. Sharon is playing it tough in order to remain leader of his party. Some people say that his visit to the Temple Mount was more about internal party politics than the exercise of his religious rights. If that is true, it is to be regretted, but it is not helpful for me or others to participate in a blame culture, a little of which we have seen in today's debate. I shall not do so and I do not think that others should do so. The United Nations took great care to avoid mentioning individual names in its recent resolutions, although we must note that it condemned Israel's use of excessive force.

What are the steps forward and what should happen now? The language must change and the violence must stop. There is no chance for the time out proposed by President Barak. However, Palestinians must recognise that he has moved some way. He should be cautious about domestic deals that make a return to the peace table much harder and Israel should be open to allowing the international community to step in and consider the United Nations claims. The United Kingdom also has a role to play, working with its European Union partners. I hope that the Minister will set out his plans in that respect, especially as a gulf will be left when President Clinton ends his term in office next month.

We are not discussing a party-political issue. It is not about being pro-Arab or pro-Israeli, oil reserves or memories of the holocaust. It is about 14 and 15-year-old children throwing stones and 17 and 18-year-old soldiers retaliating. The grown-ups should become involved. Where are they at the moment? Deep down they must know that without a ceasefire there will be no progress, and that without progress there will be no peace.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate. This has been a remarkable parliamentary occasion and the situation in the middle east has been aired from every possible point of view.

Recently, the world rejoiced at the disappearance of Milosevic in Serbia and at the return to democracy. Similarly, we have recently seen North Korea and South Korea come together. I welcome the re-establishment of diplomatic relations. Many good things have been happening in the world during the past few weeks, so events in the middle east seem all the more tragic and unwelcome, especially after seven years of painstaking and halting progress. It is very disappointing that Camp David was not a success.

As well as those in the region, British citizens have also been affected. Our Muslim minority has been affected by anti-social activity that has arisen from the problems. We have in Britain a long-standing and distinguished Jewish community that contributes richly to our national life. Events in the middle east have, therefore, come into Britain not only through the television screens in our living rooms, but in the mindless attack on the young Jewish student in north London and attacks on synagogues. British citizens have felt anxiety that derives directly from events occurring many miles away. I hope that in today's meeting, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews will receive assurances from the Home Secretary that protection will be provided for all British citizens and their religious buildings at this difficult time.

At Sharm El-Sheikh, President Clinton delivered to the press an address that set out the basis for the agreement. It is worth while to look back at that agreement. Of course, it called for an end to violence, but it also set out specific ways in which progress could be made. Disappointingly, that has not happened and the reality has been very different.

Before we consider the events and prospects in detail, I should pay tribute to the way in which Arab leaders have sought to calm down the situation. There is always a risk that anti-Israel protests will take on a momentum of their own and spill into domestic grievances. The role of King Abdullah and of President Mubarak in trying to stabilise the situation—a role that they have played with considerable statesmanship—deserves unstinting praise from the international community. I also welcome on behalf of the Opposition the visits made to the region by the Minister of State and, most latterly, the Foreign Secretary's attempts to be of direct help. Obviously, it is the United States that overwhelmingly influences the situation, but we in Britain have historic links to the region and ties of trade and friendship—a relationship that we value immensely.

Although Arab leaders in general are to be commended for their moderation and desire for a cessation of hostilities, that cannot be said of Saddam Hussein. He is a man who will seek to gain advantage for himself through any instability in the middle east. If violence continues, he may be tempted into some unwelcome actions. His confidence is growing as sanctions are, as the Minister knows all too well, being flouted by an increasing number of countries. That is a serious cause for concern.

Since the Oslo accords, Israel has boomed economically. It is at the forefront of biotechnology, communications and information technology. It is a considerable and admirable success story. However, juxtaposed against that is the fact that Palestine is absolutely and relatively poor. I greatly welcome the recent offer made by Arab countries, now richer on the back of the oil price, to give more aid. Young Palestinians in particular, their political passions inflamed, do not have anything like the same economic opportunities as their Israeli neighbours. In the longer run, it is fundamentally important that the question of the economic viability of the West Bank and Gaza be addressed. Two situations polarise the problem. The extent to which Chairman Arafat can control the situation on the ground is not clear, nor is the extent to which he can accept any son-of-Camp-David terms that may emerge in future. The violence will have given fresh support to Hammas in the south and Hezbollah in the north.

Yesterday, in the House of Commons, we elected a new Speaker by a rather arcane route and, in this mother of Parliaments, we saw how bizarre circumstances can arise. However, nothing in the House of Commons compares with the difficulties of trying to run a Government, even with a parliamentary majority, in the Knesset. Religious parties have a wholly disproportionate influence in that body. As we have seen on our television screens, specific events have inflamed the situation dramatically. Even Mr. Barak has described Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount thus:

I cannot say that it was the most brilliant idea of the month.

Indeed. Terrible images of young people, including young boys, being shot and killed, haunt everyone who saw them. Similarly, the deaths of the two Israeli reservists in the police station in Ramallah tore at the emotions of the Israeli people. The catalogue of horror continues day by day.

For the moment, the drawbridge is effectively up, and there is fury and anger on both sides. However, it is imperative that the ceasefire should begin to take hold, as agreed at Sharm El-Sheikh. The Israelis have endorsed the ceasefire, and it is important to have the Israeli army's rules of engagement spelt out clearly. It is to be hoped that an enduring basis can be agreed for an impartial inquiry into what led to the tragic events of the past few weeks.

It has always been at the heart of British foreign policy that the state of Israel should be kept secure and independent, and that the Palestinians have the right to national self-determination in a viable political and economic entity. Much progress was made at Oslo. Israel withdrew from South Lebanon earlier this year. There is every hope that the new Syrian leader will come to an agreement with Israel about the Golan heights. There are still enormous hurdles to overcome, but there is no alternative to trying again when tempers have cooled. This is a small corner of the world which is precious to Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. Miracles have happened elsewhere in the world in resolving suspicion and hatred between peoples. I can only pray that the same also happens between Israelis and Palestinians.

I welcome the debate. The strong views that have been expressed here by well informed Members show the Chamber at its best. I also welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), which was valuable in the current situation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for giving me the opportunity to express the Government's deep concern about the tragic situation in Israel and the occupied territories, and I agree with the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) that this presents an opportunity for the House to show that it is a friend of peace and to take that process forward.

I acknowledge the long-standing and expert interest in the problem taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. He has long been an eloquent advocate of the cause of the Palestinians. I agree with him—because it is factually self-evident—that the vast majority of those killed have been Palestinians. The latest estimates put the number of dead at more than 130, of whom at least 125 are Palestinians. The killing of Palestinian children has made the horror even worse. The lynching of two Israelis by Palestinians in Ramallah confirmed the bleak darkness that has shut out the peace process.

I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that Israel must not be above international law. Indeed, with full United Kingdom support, on 7 October the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1322, which condemned the violence, especially the excessive use of Israeli force. It called for an end to all violence and the immediate resumption of peace negotiations.

My hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, South-West and for Walthamstow, together with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), asked whether Britain's role in the peace process could be greater. Before I deal with that question, I welcome the acknowledgment of the hon. Member for West Suffolk of the Foreign Secretary's hard work in the region between 11 and 13 October when, in an intensive round of contacts, he met President Mubarak of Egypt, President Assad of Syria and King Abdullah of Jordan. He met Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat twice and he also met the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. I think that his work paved the way for the Sharm El-Sheikh summit. Last week in Cairo, I received a firsthand report about the summit from Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa. It is important that we continue to engage in such a process.

The American presidential transition may provide an opportunity for the European Union, and Britain in particular, to continue to engage in the peace process. We have a unique friendly relationship with the Palestinian people, the Israeli Government and their people, the Americans and the Arab world, and can perhaps play a more prominent role in the process than we have been able to do. If we are asked to do so, we shall, but we can do so only with the consent of the other parties involved, including the Americans who have been in the lead up to the present time.

The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said that the Israeli Government under Prime Minister Barak had faced enormous internal difficulties. As an elected Prime Minister, he must take account of volatile public opinion, yet he has pushed forward the peace process. The hon. Gentleman was right to acknowledge that and to praise it. I caution him, however, against making a demand for aid to be cut to the Palestinians. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) made a similar point. Britain contributes about £25 million worth of aid to the Palestinians and will continue to do so. We shall not turn our back on them, especially at this time. It is vital that we continue to stand together with them and the Israeli people to find a way in which to bring them together in peace not conflict.

I never suggested, nor do I believe, that aid should be withdrawn from the Palestinians. We should ensure, however, that that aid is used properly and not spent in a way that cannot be accounted for. It must directly benefit the Palestinian people.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's clarification. I agree that there is far too much corruption within the Palestinian authorities.

I also agree with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hertsmere that there is a real danger of the conflict spreading. I felt that myself when I received a delegation of Muslim leaders at the Foreign Office last week. Indeed, the new leader of the Board of Deputies of British Jews said in her introductory statement at a reception last night that there is a real danger of the conflict spilling over into British society. Attacks have already been made on Jewish synagogues and Muslim citizens, and we do not want our community relations poisoned by the conflict spreading to this country. We must make efforts to ensure that it does not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield is another longstanding advocate of the Palestinian cause, and rightly so. He said that one of the really serious consequences of the conflict was the deaths of Israeli-Arab citizens and referred most movingly to the experience of his friend Asel. We must discourage such a development. The hon. Member for Guildford made the important point that, if reconstituted, the Israeli Government must not turn its back on the peace process. It is a matter for the Israeli people, and the Prime Minister is currently deciding who should be members of the Government. Whoever is a member of the reconstituted Israeli Government must be a friend of the peace process. Britain will stand firmly by that position.

Will my hon. Friend also assure us that he will make it clear to the Palestinian leaders that they should rejoin the peace process? Will he point out that they have breached one of the agreements of Oslo and the Wye accords by resorting to violence, rather than negotiating to resolve difficulties?

I am happy to say that I spoke to the Palestinian foreign spokesman, Nabil Shaath, this morning and urged the Palestinian leadership to re-engage with the peace process and make every effort to stop the violence. They should have made more effort to stop the violence than has been the case in recent weeks.

It is equally important to point out that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership also have a domestic constituency. It may not have elected them, but there is a strong feeling and a danger that the moderate leadership that he has driven forward will lose out to a much more hard-line and extreme opinion in the community, especially in the current situation.

In trying to discover the reasoning behind the violence, will my hon. Friend go so far as to accept that the British Government ought to back calls for an international inquiry? I had the misfortune to be in Gaza and the West Bank during the worst of the violence, and witnessed individual children being targeted with live rounds from the Israeli defence forces. On visiting a hospital in Gaza, I saw children who had been hit by dumdum bullets that had exploded inside their brains. Given my first-hand evidence, does he feel it necessary for the Government to call for an international inquiry so that we can find out where the violence came from and who was responsible for those deaths?

It is precisely because of the points raised by my hon. Friend that we support the decision of those who took part in the Sharm El-Sheikh summit to agree on an internationally based inquiry. There will be one as a result of that summit. It was agreed to by all concerned, including the Israeli Government. No doubt the summit will deal with the matters he identified.

I should briefly tackle a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West about a United Nations force, as demanded at the Arab summit. I pay tribute to that summit for urging that the peace process be resumed, and showing a moderate leadership in difficult circumstances. I do not rule such a force out but it is difficult to put a UN peace-keeping force in the middle of warring parties, as we have seen in Sierra Leone, where there was a peace agreement, and can still see in the Congo.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South said that, as a friend of Israel, he was a friend of peace. Given the passions displayed this morning, it is important that we remember that the majority of Israeli citizens backed Prime Minister Barak in his seeking to resume the peace process. I am convinced that the majority still back a peace settlement, even after the events of the past few weeks.

It is a tragedy that the parties know how close they came to an agreement at Camp David. They were in reach of a deal that would have changed the face of the middle east. There is a contrast between what we have seen recently and what I saw on my visit at the end of August. Within a few hours, I spoke to Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat, and it was clear that they were close to a deal. Sometimes that is the most difficult time of a peace process, as we saw in Northern Ireland and South Africa in the early 1990s.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?

No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.

The agreement would have led to the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state with clearly defined and secure borders. It is inconceivable that any other route will lead to such an achievement, so the Palestinians must persevere on it. Further delays in the peace process will lead to the Palestinians being offered less than they have been. The Palestinians must realise that they will have no better partner for peace than Prime Minister Barak, and the Israelis must realise that they will have no credible partner for peace other than President Arafat. It is vital that they continue to work together for peace.

Only peace will enable the Palestinians to express fully their right to self-determination and enable the Israelis to enjoy the security that they rightly demand. Only peace will remove the instability and uncertainty that hangs over Israel. Once it has been achieved, the two peoples—who share not only land, but a history and a future—might realise that reconciliation and co-operation will achieve much more than conflict and confrontation. It is our responsibility, through patient diplomacy and constant engagement with all our friends in the region, to promote that peace settlement. We have had a lot of experience, and compromises will be needed, as in Northern Ireland and many other areas of the world, in order to secure that peace.

I congratulate hon. Members on an excellent debate on an important issue. The next debate will be initiated by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley).

This is a timely moment for a short debate on the Hague convention on international child abduction. First, child abduction beyond the boundaries of the country in which the child is normally resident is, regrettably, an increasing violation of human rights. That is because of greater ease of international travel, decisions made by a number of countries for different reasons to reduce border and passport controls, within the EU area for example, and, sadly, because the incidence of marriage break-up is rising rather than falling. That combination of factors tends to put an increasing number of children around the world at risk from the evil of child abduction.

Secondly, we are six months away from the quadrennial review of the Hague convention, which is due to take place next spring. It is a desirable to have a major debate in the House, and more widely in Britain among all those who are involved in trying to deal with the issue, on what stance should be taken by the British Government, fellow members of the European Union and other Governments who are signatories to the Hague convention before the convention meeting next spring.

As I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, there is widespread concern in the House about child abduction. In July, before the House rose for the summer recess, the all-party group on child abduction tabled early-day motion 980, which is headed "Review of the Hague convention on child abduction" and states that the House

deeply regrets that some of the signatories to the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, including certain EU member states, fail to give effect to all of the Convention's provisions in some individual cases.

That motion had attracted a total of 118 signatures by the time the House rose last night, which indicates the width of concern, in all parties, on the matter. As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the officers of the all-party group followed up the early-day motion with our letter of 25 July to the Lord Chancellor, which drew his attention to our early-day motion and stated:

we wish to urge that you as head of the Central Authority for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that Jim Wallace as head of the Central Authority for Scotland take early steps to consult with interested and expert parties, and most particularly with Reunite, the national charity for child abduction, on the improvements in the working of the Hague Convention that you both would wish to see being agreed at the Hague Convention review meeting next year.

That letter was sent on 25 July, and until a few minutes ago we were still waiting for a reply. Any reply before a debate such as this is better than none at all, but I would have preferred to have received it earlier than 10.47 this morning, on my fax. It was thrust into my hand by my secretary as I came quickly from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to this Chamber. The Lord Chancellor offered an apology that the delay was caused by an administrative failure in his Department. In any case, I should like to express my thanks that we have received a reply at the last moment. I shall refer to that reply in the course of my remarks.

On the consultation paper, to which we attach great importance, the reply states that there will be further consultation later in the autumn. The weeks and months before the spring meeting of the special commission are passing, and I hope that autumn will mean in a few weeks' time. It is imperative that hon. Members, Reunite and all specialist practitioners in all parts of the United Kingdom have a proper opportunity to make their own detailed consideration of the Government's proposals, and give their responses to the Government.

I want to make some detailed suggestions as to what we should try to achieve from the Hague convention review meeting next year. Before I do so, I turn to another aspect of international child abduction—abduction of young women, sometimes from this country, who are taken overseas for the purposes of a forced marriage abroad. I appreciate that it is a culturally sensitive matter and I applaud the Government, who, unlike any of their predecessors, have faced up to the issue and taken steps to produce policies that address the matter from a human rights standpoint. I applaud the Government for setting up the working group on forced marriage and, following the working group's report, the Government's response in their action plan, which, by and large, was thoroughly positive. I have one question for the Minister in that regard. Do the Government consider that the existing ambit of criminal law in relation to the removal of young women from the jurisdiction of this country for the purposes of a forced marriage overseas is satisfactory? On that key point, the Government's action plan, at paragraph 4.3, is somewhat ambiguous. It states that the Government will:

Prepare detailed information for all our staff about the criminal law in the UK on abduction and how it applies in cases of forced marriage.

That does not make it clear whether the Government are satisfied with the current criminal law or believe that it should be strengthened. In particular, do the Government accept that adults who conspire, in the UK, to remove a young woman from the jurisdiction of this country to a country overseas for the purpose of a forced marriage would be guilty of a criminal offence in this country? I hope that the Government accept that it would be a criminal offence and I believe that that is the Government's position. If it is, are they satisfied that criminal law is sufficiently wide to ensure that it is a criminal offence for adults to conspire to send young women overseas for the purposes of entering into a forced marriage?

It is generally accepted that, whatever the imperfections in the operation of the Hague convention, there is no prospect—nor, perhaps, is it necessary—for amendments to be made to the text of the convention, but that there should be improved operation and enforcement of the convention under the present wording. At the Hague convention review next year we should seek to get agreement to a remit to the Hague secretariat to produce a series of codes of practice on key areas of the operation of the convention. That would represent a great step forward.

I hope that at the review meeting next year we will not simply provide a generalised remit to the Hague secretariat to produce codes of practice, but go further and specify the particular areas in the operation of the convention in which codes of practice are necessary. I would like to propose five such areas.

First, we need a code of practice on prevention of international child abduction. As we all know, prevention is infinitely preferable to the trauma of an abduction that actually takes place, both for the child involved and for the parents from whom the child or children are taken. Extremely valuable work has been carried out on prevention in the United Kingdom, not least by Reunite, the national child abduction charity, and I believe that this country would make a considerable input to any Hague secretariat code of practice.

Secondly, I hope that we can create a code of practice on embarkation controls and procedures. Once a child has been abducted, the only likely protection against that child being removed from the jurisdiction of the country in which he or she is normally resident will be at the port of embarkation—the airport, railway station, frontier point or sea port. Therefore it is essential that embarkation procedures and controls are in place rapidly to identify children who have been abducted. As I hope the Minister is aware, the all-party group is concerned about the reduction in embarkation controls that have taken place in this country, and believes that it exposes children abducted in this country to a significantly greater degree of risk.

Thirdly, I hope that there can be a code of practice on judicial training for judges dealing with Hague convention cases. All the experience to date shows that a specialist group of senior lawyers is needed properly to enforce the Hague convention. In this country, we have such a group of lawyers. The subject has always been treated as one for specialists here, and we have a group of judges who are familiar with the Hague convention and have expertise and experience in dealing with such cases. Sadly, in too many countries that task is simply left to the normal judicial hierarchy with the result that judges in lower courts may have to deal with Hague convention cases—probably for the first time in their professional careers. There have been many examples of individual judges treating Hague convention cases as custody decisions, when they should be dealing with the fundamental issue under articles 12 and 13 of the convention, which is the question of whether or not a child should be returned to the country of his or her habitual residence. That is the key judicial function for the purposes of the convention. We need better, more specialist training, and a code of practice would be desirable.

Fourthly, we need a code of practice providing guidance to new state parties. There are only about 50 state parties to the convention at the moment, but we hope that there will be many more over the next few years. We must give the new parties all possible help in implementing the convention from the outset to the highest standards.

Fifthly, I hope that we might have a code of practice on enforcing the access provisions of the Hague convention. The Hague convention is explicit about that; article 21 states clearly:

The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfilment of any conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject. The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights.

Access rights are clearly enshrined in the convention and, sadly, in several cases, those rights are not being upheld. Catherine Meyer, in a case with which the Minister is familiar, has had only 24 hours of access to her children in Germany since they were abducted six years ago. That is a sad and deplorable state of affairs and points again to the need for a clear code of practice on operating article 21.

Finally, since sending our first letter to the Lord Chancellor in December last year, the all-party group has been pressing for a quantum leap in achievement from the review meeting of 2001, which will be the fourth such meeting. None of the three previous meetings has achieved anything in practical or concrete terms, although I am sure that they have been invaluable in enabling the participants to exchange views.

I am glad that the Lord Chancellor, in the letter that I received this morning, says that he believes that

the Special Commission this time should look to achieve more than in the past, with a new focus on improving the operation of the Convention, and on making sure that the countries newly acceding to the Convention are in a position to live up to the requirements it imposes.

If that is to be the case, it is essential that Ministers attend the special review conference. I am glad that the Lord Chancellor is much more positive on the subject in his latest letter than he was in his previous letter of 1 March. He says:

I agree that Ministerial attendance at the Special Commission could also be helpful, by raising its profile and providing more political impetus than it has had previously, and we have put this point to the Hague Secretariat.

I urge the Government to do their utmost to secure ministerial attendance; only if we get that attendance will we achieve a positive outcome on an issue of profound human rights importance. If the Minister, in her reply to this debate, can announce that there will be ministerial attendance, I know that that would be widely applauded as a helpful and important initiative by the British Government.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) for initiating this Adjournment debate. As he rightly says, it is a timely opportunity to discuss child abduction and the preparations that we are making for the special commission in the Hague next year. Although this debate is less well attended than the previous one, it is no less important and will attract the same amount of attention outside this place. People will read carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said and my response to him.

The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the all-party group on child abduction have already drawn the attention of the House to this important and sensitive issue through the early-day motion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The group does enormously valuable work in keeping the issue in the public eye and in supporting the work of Reunite, the international centre for child abduction. I was happy to attend and speak at the reception that the all-party group arranged for Reunite earlier this year.

I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for having, in the terms that the right hon. Gentleman described, written on the subject just before the summer recess. I am sorry that the reply to that letter was delayed during the recess, and I sincerely apologise for that discourtesy, but I hope that the contents of the letter will at least have been worth waiting for. One advantage of the delay was that the reply could report on the common law judicial conference on international child custody, which took place in Washington last month and to which I shall refer later, if I have time.

I have read the reply from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which represents the views of the Foreign Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is worth emphasising at the outset that our Departments work closely together on this important subject. Staff in the family policy division of the Lord Chancellor's Department and in the child abduction unit at the Official Solicitor's Office are in regular contact with their counterparts in the consular division of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The right hon. Gentleman asked several important questions, including whether the Government believe the existing ambit of criminal law to be satisfactory. Whether a criminal offence has been committed in a particular case must depend on the circumstances of the case. For example, it is a general rule of law that a conspiracy cannot exist between a husband and a wife, which clearly presents difficulties in this sensitive area. It is, therefore, not a prima facie criminal offence for parents to plan to take their children abroad, as millions do every year. However, I shall pass the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for developing criminal law and will be interested in them.

Forced marriages are an important subject and an increasingly recognised problem that we take seriously. We have promised to do all that we can to help victims of forced marriage. The Foreign Office and the Home Office have launched a joint plan to turn that promise into action. The plan sets out a comprehensive strategy on the overseas dimension of forced marriage. It launches a major programme of co-operation and training between key police forces in the United Kingdom and their counterparts overseas, and it reviews how our staff overseas handle victims of forced marriage from the moment they walk through the door to the time that they return to the UK.

The right hon. Gentleman makes the criticism that that does not go far enough. The plan calls for a joined-up approach in which we work together to give victims the support that they need, and envisages a partnership of the Government, communities, women's groups, the police and others, working together to help victims. The dozens of commitments amount to a genuine manifesto of practical action.

We have taken our cue from the Government's working group on forced marriage, which published its report last month. The group has done an outstanding job in breaking once and for all the taboo on discussing the subject. It endorses what my Home Office colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said when he set up the group. He commented that

cultural sensitivity is no excuse for moral blindness.

We take on board the right hon. Gentleman's point.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned embarkation controls. I am afraid that what I have to say will not satisfy his call. Currently, there are no formal embarkation controls to prevent child abduction. Our view is that formal controls would be disproportionately expensive. However, Government agencies are working with airports, seaports and carriers to increase awareness of the issue. We will obviously monitor the impact of improvements in the working practices of the organisations involved.

The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about judicial training. I agree that convention cases should be dealt with by judges who are familiar with the convention and the relevant legislation to ensure uniformity across the board. The permanent bureau in the Hague is currently developing an international child abduction database. The project is intended to provide wide access to case summaries and a full text of leading international child abduction cases, of which a significant proportion will be English, Welsh and Scottish. The Government are keen to promote wider dissemination of useful information in all areas of public interest. International child abduction is an especially important matter, in which the sharing of information should carry considerable benefit. I am pleased to say that as part of our commitment to the database, the United Kingdom has contributed £5,000 to the cost of INCADAT for 2000.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about ministerial attendance, in respect of which we have much sympathy with the view of the all-party group. It is not, however, a matter for the United Kingdom alone—a point that we must always bear in mind when dealing with this difficult and potentially intractable matter. If we are to be effective in making improvements to the operation of the convention, we need other member states to join us and to reach a consensus. So far, however, the Hague secretariat reports that other countries are not as enthusiastic as we are about the suggestion that Ministers should attend, although the secretariat is sympathetic. We will continue to work on the matter.

We want also to consider with the Hague secretariat and other member states the admission of new members to the convention. So far, the policy has always been to encourage everyone to join. We in Britain have changed our view about that, and I shall want to discuss the matter further at the special commission.

Before the Minister finishes, will she tell us whether the British Government agree that it is highly desirable for the outcome of the Hague convention review to be a formal remit to the Hague secretariat to produce codes of practice in defined areas such as those that I have suggested and to which the Government may want to add? Is not that a desirable objective for the Government?

It is clearly a desirable objective, and I confirm that we shall press for it. We would all agree that the 1980 Hague convention on child abduction was a positive and significant step forward in dealing with international child abduction. It is, however, by no means perfect and we have not reached the end of the road. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the increasing mobility of populations means that people who would probably never have met in the past are more and more likely to meet, form relationships, marry and have children. That is occurring across barriers not only of nationality, but of language, religion and culture. As we have heard, there can be difficulties, but there can also be advantages. The difficulties become especially acute if the relationship between parents breaks down. Children may end up with parents in different countries with different cultures and social expectations. Inevitably, for the parent with whom the children do not live, there is a temptation to take the children back to his or her own country or to keep them there after a visit.

Order. However important the debate is, time is up.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important subject again.

A great deal has happened since my previous Adjournment debate on this topic, just before the Budget. I shall start by saying a few words about the events of the summer. I want to stress that the Government's attitude towards the fuel blockades over the summer was absolutely correct. It is not right for any section or interest group to try to use its economic muscle to blackmail a Government into a change of policy, especially when that policy affects not only that group but the great majority of the population. The Government were right to insist that they would not be pushed into any knee-jerk response while under such pressure.

Of course there is concern about the price of petrol and, within that, about the level of fuel taxation. However, the Government's response to these concerns should be properly thought out with an eye to the long term, and should be based on core principles. For a Labour Government, the most important principle underpinning taxation policy surely has to be a progressive one—that is, the principle that, whenever Practical, taxation should bear less heavily on those least able to afford it.

When we apply that principle to petrol taxes, we find that in practice it is the low-income households in rural areas on which the burden of petrol tax is bearing down hard and disproportionately. In urban areas, the Government have a reasonable argument when they say that the operation of petrol tax is progressive in a rough-and-ready way. In such areas, low-income households tend not to have cars and therefore tend to be exempt. For example, in Glasgow, only about 34 per cent. of households have access to a car.

The same argument cannot be made about remote rural areas, however. I shall concentrate on my own constituency, because I am most familiar with that area, but colleagues will be able to draw their own parallels with other rural areas. In the Western Isles, for example, 62 per cent. of households have access to a car—twice the percentage of Glasgow, and higher even than the Scottish average of 57 per cent. Using a car in a place such as the Western Isles is not a luxury; it is a necessity for getting to work and to the shops, and for being able to lead a regular, ordinary life in the community.

In remote communities, car ownership is not related to income or wealth. Average incomes in the Western Isles are substantially—about 25 per cent. —below the national average. A remote community such as the Western Isles has substantially lower incomes than the national average but is substantially more dependent on private car transport. Logically, therefore, a flat rate of petrol tax must hit my constituents disproportionately hard.

I am not exaggerating the difficulty that this issue creates for my constituents. I checked this morning and the price of unleaded petrol in the Western Isles is 92.3p a litre—a price well above that which provoked the public outcry and the blockades on the mainland this summer. I know that petrol tax is not responsible for the phenomenally high prices in the Western Isles, but the Government cannot ignore the fact that petrol tax is part of that price; nor can they ignore the fact that petrol tax has a significant impact on rural communities.

The hon. Gentleman is referring to private road users. Does he agree that the same applies to road haulage in rural areas such as his constituency and my own in Montgomeryshire where the only means by which to transport products to the shops is by way of road hauliers who tend to pay proportionately more for fuel?

Yes, haulage is affected by petrol tax, too. The further that one is from the main trading centres in Britain and Europe, the greater the impact.

Aspects of unfairness in the tax system sometimes can be tolerated when the tax concerned is relatively minor and when it would either be too cumbersome or expensive to make it more progressive. However, as a tax increases and its impact on low-income households becomes greater, any unfairness becomes less acceptable. That is the key problem with petrol taxation. When petrol tax was relatively small, it could be argued that the cost of adjusting it to make it fairer was disproportionate to the improvement in fairness that would be achieved. All that has changed because of the impact of the fuel escalator that was introduced by the Tory Government. The present Government abolished the escalator, and I warmly welcomed that, but its legacy lives on. Petrol tax has risen, mostly under the Tories. It was a relatively small tax, but it is now one of the higher taxes operated by the Treasury. It raises £22 billion a year, making it the fourth highest tax after income tax, value added tax and corporation tax.

Petrol tax needs to be reformed. I do not believe that it is wrong in principle. On the contrary, I accept that there are strong environmental arguments for petrol taxation. It is important for the Government to have a range of taxes to fund their public services. However, petrol tax needs to be reformed because its size has so increased that it demands our making a serious effort to make it more progressive in its impact on remote areas. We shall never make it completely fair, but we can try to make it fairer, and that is what the Government should now be examining.

The solution would be to provide a rebate in vehicle excise duty for motorists living in remote rural areas. For example, a rebate of about £100 in excise duty for the island communities in Scotland would cost £3 million or £4 million. That is a modest sum compared with the £22 billion collected by the tax, but one that would go a long way towards signalling the Government's sensitivity to the matter of fairness.

There are arguments against such a targeted solution. First, the Automobile Association has argued that my solution would be unfair because well-off people in remote areas would benefit while some vulnerable groups in urban areas would still be affected. The fact is that any solution can only make the tax more fair, but not perfectly fair. We accept the rough edges in the case of value added tax exemptions on food and children's clothes, given that rich and poor alike benefit from them. That is similar to the Government's new policy on television licences for the elderly as a result of which rich and poor pensioners alike will benefit. The impact of petrol taxation in remote rural areas is so clearly regressive that a solution directed at those areas can be justified as it will result in substantially improving the overall fairness of the tax.

The second argument against my solution is that it would be difficult to draw or to justify the geographic boundaries that would receive the reduction in vehicle excise duty and those that would fall outside such areas. Such an argument would have some validity if broad swathes of rural Britain were to be included. However, I am not suggesting that. If a vehicle excise duty reduction were confined to genuinely remote areas where the problem was at its most acute, the difficultly would not be insurmountable. The geographic boundaries of remote island communities are certainly obvious to the naked eye and I believe that such a solution would be widely acceptable.

In the case of the Scottish islands, there is a precedent of which the Treasury is aware—the reduction in vehicle excise tax payable on heavy goods vehicles on particular islands. The logic of that targeted reduction for lorries should now be extended to cars.

I believe that the objections to a targeted approach can be answered. The technical obstacles to a targeted reduction in vehicle excise duty that is intended to balance the disproportionate impact of petrol tax on remote communities can be overcome. I grant that a targeted solution has some residual awkwardness and that the Treasury tends to shy away from such measures. In defence, however, I plead the essential residual awkwardness of the geography of the country in which we live. It would be good if Britain were a nice, convenient square shape such as that of France, Germany or Spain. Unfortunately, however, Britain is not shaped like that. It is long and narrow. Most of the population is situated at one end of the country and there are only scattered communities at the other end, on the outer fringes of Europe.

I am not blaming the Treasury for the shape of Britain, but it can be held responsible for policies that ignore the social and economic realities that are dictated by geography. That is why I urge the Government to take those realities into account in framing their fiscal policy during the coming months.

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for initiating this and previous debates on the subject under discussion. I should like also to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for agreeing to make a brief contribution.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles, I represent a very rural constituency. It is the largest Labour seat in the United Kingdom and stretches from the Atlantic to the North sea. Obviously, the community in this large, spread-out rural area is dependent on cars. The constituency contains a number of island communities, which are a special consideration in this debate. They include Rhum, Eigg, Muck and Canna. For more than a decade, fuel prices have been an issue in my and many other rural constituencies. As the price of fuel approaches £4 a gallon, the problem is becoming more acute. I can safely say that the matter is now the No. 1 issue in my constituency, narrowly beating the Child Support Agency into No. 2, although there is not much in it.

As my hon. Friend said, the car is not a luxury in rural areas. My constituency has a very high car ownership, so increases in fuel duty hit low-paid motorists and essential users especially hard. Rural hauliers in particular have been badly hit. During the past three years, I have approached the issue in a number of ways. I have raised it at Prime Minister's Question Time, initiated Adjournment debates and participated in a number of meetings, not least with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary but also with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, along with some other rural Back-Benchers. I have also met those on the other side of the equation: the key companies. I have met the chief executives of British Petroleum, Shell, Esso and Texaco, which was useful in gaining understanding of the issue and have encouraged many of my constituents, not least rural hauliers, to make some contributions to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which is discussing the issue as we speak.

Of course, there are many critics of the level of fuel duty. At present, I think that all the tax and duty adds up to around 72 per cent. of the pump price. Ironically, with all the recent uproar, the proportion has fallen since the previous Government were in power, when it was around 78 per cent. of the pump price. As we heard earlier, the Tories invented the fuel escalator, which the Chancellor has now abolished.

We must be careful not to make false comparisons with other European countries on taxes. For instance, Britain does not have motorway tolls and tends to have lower corporation and direct taxes. Of course, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries has played an important role in the equation. By restricting output—some other political games are going on, especially with Iraq—the spot price of fuel has gone from around $10 a barrel to around $36 a barrel, which is a gigantic increase. Of the last 19p worth of price increases during the past 16 months, which was a big jump, duty contributed only 2p. We must therefore be careful when discussing this equation. OPEC raises much wider issues, such as globalisation, the level of control that individual Governments can have, and what pressure they can bring to bear on OPEC. I am not convinced that the American strategy of releasing the strategic petroleum reserves is the answer. Given the current high petrol prices, I also believe that now is the time to put more pressure on our oil companies to start exploring in a new fields and utilising the existing fields. More than 300 so-called fallow fields in the UK continental shelf are not being developed at all.

What is the future? The easy answer is a cut in fuel duty. A 2p reduction, for example, would cost the Treasury more than £1 billion in revenue. However, the Chancellor also has a responsibility for economic stability. In his reply, will the Minister answer the criticism, which I hear in my constituency, that the Government have made record VAT returns because of the high price of fuel? I would be grateful for his thoughts.

Is there an answer? I would say yes. First, we need a fairness charter to target concessions aimed at lower-income motorists. We must keep the freeze on liquefied petroleum gas—LPG—which is an excellent environmentally correct fuel and only a third of the price of conventional fuel. We should introduce an essential users' allowance for rural hauliers, which would be similar to that for the bus industry. There should be further reductions in road tax for fuel efficient vehicles and a road tax reduction for those in rural areas, as my hon. Friend said. Finally, we need a fuel regulatory setup that monitors prices across the country, as I have no doubt that there is exploitation of the so-called soft market, especially in rural areas. I thank my hon. Friend for initiating this debate.

rose—

Order. Has the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) had the permission of the initiator of the debate to speak? If so, I hope that he will be brief and allow the Minister sufficient time to reply.

It is very much in the interests of all hon. Members that we receive a reply from the Minister. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for the opportunity to say that, in the highlands and islands, this matter does not divide political parties. There is a common perception that the issue is one of social justice, and that if there is a will there will be a way to deal with the gross disparities of petrol prices between sparsely populated remote areas and densely populated urban areas, where totally different considerations apply.

It is easy but mistaken to suggest that an alteration of petrol taxation affecting those areas would send the wrong signals about the environmental commitment of the party making the adjustment. Adjustments of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Western Isles would have no material impact on the environment. It should be recognised as primarily a matter of social justice. The variation of taxes in our country to take account of wholly different circumstances is not only theoretically but demonstrably possible, as it has been done even in countries of a different geographical shape from our own. Even a square country such as France has varied petrol duty to take account of the problems of insularity and remoteness. That has been held to conform with the rules of the European Union, not to speak of variations that have taken place in other comparable parts of northern Europe.

I wholly endorse the views expressed by the hon. Member for Western Isles and regard the matter as a test case for the Government to demonstrate their commitment to inclusivity and to recognise that their employment initiatives can be set at nought if they do not tackle this problem in the Budget statement.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on securing this debate. I know that what he and others have said reflects genuine concern in their constituencies.

I was interested to hear the comments made by all three speakers, and I was also surprised to note the absence of any representatives of the Scottish National party in this debate, because they have spoken a great deal about these matters. However, they have clearly chosen to leave it to others to raise them in this Chamber. I also want to say how much I agree with my hon. Friend's opening remarks about the Government's response to the blockades last month. He was absolutely right to make those points.

I want to repeat the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that we understand the deep concern over high fuel prices expressed in today's debate. I spend a great deal of time meeting and listening to road hauliers, petroleum retailers and others who have been particularly affected by the recent price increases. However, I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), that the recent price increases are not the result of fuel duty. The Budget in March this year saw no real-terms increase in either petrol or diesel duty, and none of the price increases since March has been a consequence of fuel duty either.

The Government have had to make some tough choices over the past three and a half years. Those choices have delivered unprecedented economic stability, benefiting all parts of the United Kingdom. We have cut the deficit, put the public finances back on track, and converted a £27 billion deficit at the time of the election into an £18 billion debt repayment last year. Those provisions have led to very significant gains for the country in terms of the record low unemployment figures announced last week.

Furthermore, because we have been successful in reducing debt and cutting unemployment, we have been able to allocate money that would have gone in debt charges and unemployment benefits to improvements in public services. That will produce important benefits for rural areas over the next few years. Those are the changes that we were elected to deliver, and we are now delivering them—not despite the decisions that we have made on taxation, but because of them. We are now determined to reap the benefits of those tough choices. That means no irresponsible lurches on tax policy and no other reckless moves that some hon. Members—not in this Chamber but elsewhere—have proposed, which would jeopardise the new stability in the economy which is so important for all our futures.

The increases in fuel duties in recent years have produced a number of important benefits. They have given motorists and manufacturers clear incentives to design more fuel-efficient vehicles and to limit unnecessary journeys. The increases have also played a significant part in putting the United Kingdom on track to meet our Kyoto commitments. It has been estimated that real-terms increases in fuel duties between 1996 and 1999 will produce CO₂, savings of between 1 million and 2.5 million tonnes a year by 2010. That is a significant contribution towards meeting the Kyoto objectives, which I think that everyone here would support. We have also successfully used duty incentives to improve local air quality. We have significantly reduced the sulphur content in fuels, which has produced widespread benefits.

My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles proposed a measure relating to vehicle excise duty. We are sensitive to the concerns that he and others have raised. I shall briefly outline the steps that we have already taken on vehicle excise duty, which has already been cut for smaller cars. We introduced a lower annual rate of £100 for cars with engines of up to 1,000 cc, which was a £55 cut benefiting 1.8 million small cars. In this year's Budget, we announced that, from next March, that reduced rate will be extended to apply to all existing cars with engines up to 1,200 cc. That will bring in another 2.2 million cars, making a total of 4 million cars that will benefit from a lower rate. That will provide an incentive for motorists to make their next second-hand car purchase a smaller and more environmentally friendly model. Many of those about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles expresses concern—I am not referring to those for whom a car is a luxury, but those on modest incomes for whom it is essential to have a car—will benefit from next March from the lower rate that we have introduced, if they have a smaller car.

In addition, also from next March, the vehicle excise duty for new cars will depend on the level of CO₂ emissions that the engines of those cars produce. Under the scheme, up to £70 less tax will be charged on 95 per cent. of new cars, and the lower the level of emissions, the lower the rate of duty. The new arrangements will encourage people to buy new cars as opposed to old, and cars with a lower level of CO₂, emissions and better fuel efficiency. It is no surprise that the changes that we made in Budget 2000—although that may seem a long time ago now—were warmly welcomed by the press and motoring organisations.

Travel difficulties can be acute in rural areas for particular groups of people, and it is important that we take account in this debate of those unable to use a car, of whom there are quite a number in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other rural areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles referred to the high price of petrol in the Western Isles. He will know that there has been a recent investigation of the pricing of fuel in the highlands and islands, which concluded that:

there is no evidence of any general problem of excessive pricing or profits.

The investigation came to a different conclusion about the Western Isles, making the point that:

it cannot be concluded that the market in the Western Isles is working competitively. Prices are higher than elsewhere and this cannot be explained in terms of lower volumes or by what we currently know about costs.

The Competition Commission will therefore undertake further work on the issues raised by the Western Isles.

My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles proposed a reduced rate of vehicle excise duty for motorists in rural areas. The proposal is interesting and merits serious consideration, but it could carry significant risks of fraud, and difficult questions of practicality and fairness would have to be answered as well. Would the measure assist the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber? If it were targeted only on islands, very few of my hon. Friends' constituents would benefit. It would be difficult to decide who would qualify for the reduction. The existing concession for lorries up to 12 tonnes applies only to lorries that do not travel to the mainland or travel on specified journeys to and from the mainland. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles would envisage that restriction applying to his proposal too; it would be much harder to apply to cars. I am well aware of the concerns being expressed and am interested in what he proposes, but I do not want him to think that the measure could be introduced quickly, even if it were decided that it was worth while.

Briefly, I refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber about VAT. Of course, people may be spending more on fuel, but they are spending less on other things. Broadly speaking, therefore, the receipts on VAT are not exceptionally different from those that were expected at the Budget.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends and to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for expressing their concerns and those of their constituents. I have no doubt that we shall return to these matters both before and after the forthcoming pre-Budget report, whose date of publication is likely to be announced later today in a written answer to a parliamentary question.

We have run out of time and we now move on the last of this morning's debates in Westminster Hall, which will be initiated by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George).

I am delighted to have secured this important debate, and I am pleased to be here with a Minister who was so persuaded by my arguments last time we were in the Chamber debating the subject that he put down his notes and spoke without his brief so as to respond to my specific points. I hope to persuade him with my arguments again today so that he is encouraged once more to speak without his brief. I contacted his office to give a clear indication of the line of questioning and I hope that that was helpful. I am sure that the Minister knows that the regulation of cable companies in Cornwall is a serious issue and that the special circumstances that apply there should be properly understood and appreciated.

Many people who know me will be surprised to see my name associated with a debate about anything to do with the internet and information technology. If I am not the most IT-Challenged Member of Parliament, I must at least be one of the most challenged in the House and, therefore, the world. Despite that obvious handicap, I shall continue, as we must discuss important issues that relate not to use and understanding of the internet but to the practicalities of laying cables in an area such as Cornwall where transatlantic communications cables are being laid.

I want to bring to the Minister's attention the impact of what I consider to be the lax regulation on people, their livelihoods and the environment of west Cornwall. I shall speak about the lessons learnt about the regulatory framework surrounding the laying of telecommunications infrastructure and make a case for updating it. I had hoped to raise the matter sooner, as important developments have occurred this year. I refer especially to cable landing stations. Those large aircraft-hangar-style developments have been initiated in the middle of sensitive landscapes. Many of them will cover some 2,500 sq m, and we expect more. Despite all that has occurred in west Cornwall, I do not think that to introduce tougher measures now we would be to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. Our experience so far is not the end of the road and there is further development to come.

First, we need to understand what fibre optic cables are. As I understand it, such cables carry laser light signals for long distances and provide a quick and high-quality means of sending internet communications. Now they are available in multicolour form. I understand that up to 100 colours are available, each of which can provide a different stream of information. During the past five years, eight companies have brought transatlantic cables to the Cornish coast, which is the most economically attractive place for such development. On each occasion, the local community was given scant notice and suffered a lot of disruption. People's lives and businesses were often blighted and the environment also suffered through the rutting of country lanes, and so on.

Not just cables but landing stations are needed to transfer data streams between transatlantic cables and on-land cables, and they need a controlled environment for multiplex trackers and various other voodoo-sounding things that I do not understand, but which I imagine to be important to the technology.

During the past three years I have written 20 or 30 letters to Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to raise issues on behalf of constituents who are extremely troubled about the fact that local authorities are pretty powerless to influence the way in which such companies operate. I had a meeting with the then Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), in February last year. Fortunately, he accepted that there were problems and agreed to approach some of the companies to ask them to stage an exhibition in the local community to demonstrate the benefits of the technology for the community. It was a cunning ploy on my part, as I knew that there were no benefits for the local community because the fibre optics went straight out of Cornwall to other areas and that local businesses were being disadvantaged, not advantaged, as a result. I shall return to that point in a moment.

I also asked the Minister to contact all licence holders under the Telecommunications Act 1984 to ask them to find ways of co-operating in future. Rather than company after company disrupting our lives in west Cornwall, they should be forced—or, rather, encouraged, as nothing is specified in regulations to force them to do—to co-operate and bring their cables through together, in shared multiducts. The Minister honourably wrote to all licence holders in March last year. It was a nice letter, but he could use only the art of persuasion and not regulation, and it has made not a jot of difference to how the local community has suffered.

The problems experienced are not limited to obvious disruption for people using what is often the only route out of their village to the nearest town. They include long delays, sometimes in the middle of summer; long queues and unacceptable disruption to people's lives, to businesses and to people coming to the area on holiday; damage to the road surface, as I experienced when on a bicycle recently, and an increase in the number of manhole covers. According to the highways department at Cornwall county council, in some areas the road is in a serious state of deterioration. That blights businesses and communities. In addition, the Wildlife Trust tells me that, where cables are laid off the road in sensitive habitats that are not sites of special scientific interest, companies are not compelled to reinstate the environment.

Cable landing stations are a blight on a sensitive landscape and seriously compromise planning regulations. In all other circumstances, we would not allow development such as we have seen in west Penwith. Furthermore, development is piecemeal. We do not know what will happen next. Another cable company may come, or it may not. Ten may come. We are obliged to accept that. No strategy or structure is involved. Development is virtually unregulated.

What benefits does such development bring? In responding, DTI Ministers have constantly emphasised that the intention is to make the United Kingdom the best place in the world to engage in e-commerce, and we should all applaud and work towards that. For Cornwall, however, there is precious little benefit. The fibre optic cables go to switching stations up country, and we have no access to the fibre optic technology ourselves. In that respect, we have all the pain and none of the gain. Indeed, many small, vital information technology businesses, some of which have relocated to the area and some of which have grown in the area, are now at a commercial disadvantage because they send pictures and designs on copper wires, and are therefore much slower than their competitors who have access to fibre optic technology.

Why is that happening in west Cornwall? Companies are landing their transatlantic cables on the coast of Cornwall, not sending them to London or elsewhere, because such action lowers the cost, lessens the risks of broken signals and maximises technological efficiency.

What benefit does this bring to Cornwall? Some people in my area answer that question by saying, "Sweet fibre optics." The scales of natural justice are tipped so far in favour of the cable companies that it makes the situation absurd. It costs £700 million to lay a transatlantic cable. We think that we are doing well in Cornwall because we have objective 1 status and that will give us about £300 million over seven years. We consider that that is a bonanza and we want to make a difference to the future economy of Cornwall with that money. Given that it costs £700 million to bring a cable across the Atlantic, the amount of money that it costs to install cable stations and lay the cables along our roads is chicken feed to the companies involved. It is a multi-billion pound industry, but it is not regulated or enforced to pay any compensation to the local community for the fact that it is disrupting lives.

What regulations exist? From my conversations and correspondence with Ministers in both Departments, it is clear that we are probably talking about deregulations not regulations. The Telecommunications Act 1984 provides companies with a licence. It is a licence for them to do pretty well what they want to do over a 25-year period. Companies need to give the local council only 28 days' notice if they want to dig up the road. In most cases, that is all the notice that they do give. There is precious little that the local authorities can do even about reinstatement. They can force the companies, but sometimes that is difficult if the reinstatement is not up to an adequate standard.

The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 contains some planning regulations, but few. Planning policy guidance notes 8 and 12, the Town and Country Planning Order 1995 and circular 1/97 are all relevant, but they do not seem to have made an impact on the planning side of the technologies and developments. I accept that they have resulted in an amount of stone facing and scantle slate roofing of the structures in some cases, but the regulations do not deal with the size of the structures and the fact that they are genuinely alien to the landscape. In the past, local authorities used to work alongside the electricity, gas and water boards. I know that that is regarded as a joke by many hon. Members, who think that one board dug up a road one day, while another board carried out some work a week later. However, at that time local authorities felt that they had some control over such matters. Now they have no control.

An urgent review of the regulatory framework is needed to give local authorities the teeth to reduce disruption and damage, and enable them to protect the environment. Moreover, they must be able to insist on compensation commensurate with the damage done. I appreciate that the Government are expected to ensure regulatory stability by both European and our standards, and that the industry expects regulatory stability, but what about community stability and the economic stability of small businesses in rural areas? What about landscape stability and the integrity of planning stability? Much could be done about that.

The Government need to consider several options, including giving local authorities greater notice and allowing them to have more say in such matters. Local authorities must be able to insist on routing being carried out elsewhere along motorways and railways. They could require the companies to pay a fee or provide a bond to the local authority that is held until it is satisfied that the road has been adequately reinstated. They should insist that cable companies have single windows of opportunity to lay their cables and that they should use those windows to lay a substantial number of cables. The terms and conditions on which excess cables are sold or leased should then be negotiated. An occupation charge should be levied for the use of the highway, to encourage those who are laying the cables to do their job quickly and not to hang around. There should be penalties for companies that do not comply with the regulations. Perhaps the Government should consider charging the internet equivalent of a barrelage charge in places such as Cornwall, where we have to suffer the landing stations as well as disruption to our lives.

When I asked for this debate, I received calls from a number of companies with interests in mobile phones asking me not to raise questions about masts. I shall not do so, but if I had the opportunity to do so, I would say that they, too, need planning—I got that one in as well, after all.

It is difficult to predict the future of the technology. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), wrote to me in November 1998, when she was a DTI Minister, in response to an issue that I raised with her. She said that she saw my concern as something of a temporary problem. She thought that it would be resolved in a few years and said:

it is unlikely that it will bring a rash of new companies.

Hardly had the letter appeared on my desk when a rash of new companies arrived.

We do not know what will happen in future, but we do know that we are talking about a multi-billion-pound industry. It is important, and we want to support it, but we also know that people's lives and livelihoods are blighted, that the planning system and landscape are compromised and that we can see only pain and very little gain in a place such as Cornwall. The Cornish economy and internet businesses are being disadvantaged as other areas and businesses benefit. A local organisation called Digital Peninsula is currently making proposals on behalf of 100 small companies in the area, which constantly tell me about the problems caused by their obvious disadvantage.

People in my area believe that the scales of natural justice have tipped so far in the companies' favour that the situation has become almost absurd and the scales have almost fallen over. They believe that the regulatory framework has failed to keep pace with technology and commercial developments and needs to be updated after the enactment of the Telecommunications Act 1984. It is now time for the Government to take action and urgently to review the regulations.

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), but I am afraid that I shall stick fairly closely to my brief as I am probably as IT challenged as he is. In fact, I am challenged by almost all forms of technology beyond the bicycle.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter that I recognise to be a cause of great concern among many of his constituents. He did so reasonably and cogently. I appreciate that work by telecommunications operators has caused disruption not only in Cornwall, but elsewhere. However, a number of factors in Cornwall mean that such works can have a greater impact there. Those include narrow lanes, proximity to the Atlantic and the various other factors about which the hon. Gentleman spoke.

The recent growth in international communications traffic is a reflection of the United Kingdom's success. The modern broadband networks that are now under construction are vital to meeting our target of making the United Kingdom one of the best places in the world to do business electronically. I must challenge one point made by the hon. Gentleman in that respect. He seemed to suggest that Cornwall would not benefit from these developments. That is not quite right. Although Cornwall may be slow to benefit from competition in modern telecommunications development, it will do so in due course. Some benefits have already been provided, and in future there will be big benefits for Cornwall and the rest of the country. Cornwall county council is a member of the South West Grid for Learning, which has secured Department for Education and Employment standards fund money. In the first phase of the project it is planned that 31 secondary schools will be broadband connected by March 2001. It is also planned to link libraries and primary schools into the network in the near future. Those are definite benefits to Cornwall. Developments in information and communications technology offer a real opportunity for peripheral and rural economies such as Cornwall to overcome some of the disadvantages of location and the scale of local labour markets.

The information society is a theme of the objective 1 programme. It is early days yet, but the indications are that several projects are expected to come forward for increasing the number of businesses utilising e-commerce and improving the ICT infrastructure within the county. Those should all ultimately benefit Cornwall's economy.

Pressure for more development will continue and we believe that the key to avoiding or minimising disruption from street works and other development lies in a combination of measures. The planning system is one of the tools available. Local authorities are not completely powerless, a point that I shall touch on in a minute. National and local planning policies play an important role in respect of many mast developments and cable landing stations, but other measures also contribute to controlling cable-laying activity.

A modern network brings many social and economic benefits, but it is essential that the drive to develop the industry is balanced against environmental objectives. Planning policy guidance note 8, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is the relevant document. In particular it emphasises the need for telecommunications development to take place in a way that keeps the environmental impact to a minimum.

Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, licensed telecommunications code system operators have the right to lay cables without the need to make an application for planning permission. However, a prior approval procedure applies to cable laying in areas such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and sites of special scientific interest. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman has a number of those in his constituency. In those areas the local planning authority can refuse approval where it considers the development will pose a serious threat to amenities.

The powers granted to telecommunication operators by the DTI enable companies to lay cables in public streets without the need for separate licences from local highway authorities, but those rights come with obligations.

Will the Minister give way?

I want to give the hon. Member for St. Ives a full answer and he left me only 12 minutes in which to do so. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall carry on.

Licences contain conditions designed to reduce disruption from street works activity. For example, licences require operators to explore the possibility of duct sharing in order to reduce unnecessary digging. Where practicable they are expected to install sufficient ducting for future growth in demand, so reducing the need for further street works and wherever feasible to install ducting in footpaths rather than the road, to minimise traffic disruption. I recognise that some of the roads the hon. Gentleman described do not have footpaths. I am familiar with Cornwall.

In view of growing concerns about the impact of cabling activity the Government have reminded operators of their licence obligations and we have urged them to do all that they can to minimise the disruption arising from the construction of new networks. We shall continue to do so and I take the opportunity to repeat that message today.

I am sorry to hear that this has not had much impact. There is one rather more practical measure that may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. Street works carried out by licensed telecommunications operators are subject to the controls contained in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Except in the case of protected streets, where street works may be executed only with the consent of the street authority, the Act does not allow authorities to refuse undertakers permission to carry out street works if they have a statutory right to do so. But it is not a free for all: undertakers—utilities and others with apparatus in the street—must reinstate road surfaces. They must give the required notice of forthcoming works and they must co-operate with each other and the street authorities.

For their part the authorities must co-ordinate their own and undertakers' works. Further powers in the Act are aimed at controlling the time spent on street works and at minimising disruption. Undertakers, whether in the telecommunications industry or other fields, have statutory rights to carry out street works as part of providing the public with services that are regarded as essential in a modern society. On the other hand, road users and local residents are rightly entitled to the minimum disruption from those necessary activities.

For some years now, the liberalisation of the telecommunications market and the resulting growth in the number of excavations has given rise to increasing concern about the consequent disruption to traffic. There has been some consensus that there may be a need to tighten controls. Accordingly, we consulted on ways of countering traffic disruption caused by street works, and announced our intention to implement section 74 of the 1991 Act, which allows charging for contractors who overstay. Provided that Parliament approves the section 74 regulations that we intend to lay before the end of this year, they will be brought into force early next year. We will also introduce guidance on best practice on street works. I hope that that will provide a little comfort for the hon. Gentleman. Additional controls may be needed, and we shall carry out an early review of the effectiveness of the existing ones, including the section 74 regulations. In that context, the Government have tabled amendments to the Transport Bill in another place, as a reserve measure to allow highway authorities to charge undertakers for street works from the first day of works—so-called lane rental. That, too, meets one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman in the concluding section of his speech.

I am aware of concerns about the insensitive siting of cable landing stations. Licensed telecoms code system operators are permitted, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, to install, alter or replace any telecommunications apparatus. However, cable landing stations normally consist of buildings—large and, in some cases, inappropriate buildings—which are specifically excluded from the definition of telecommunications apparatus. Developers proposing to install such a building will therefore need to apply for planning permission. I assume that all those to which the hon. Gentleman referred applied for local planning permission. Local authorities therefore have some influence on the siting and construction of such buildings.

Where planning applications are submitted for telecommunications development, it will normally be for the local planning authority to determine the application. The starting point in that process will be the development plan. The Cornwall structure plan includes a policy that provides for telecommunications development in ways that will maximise the use of existing sites to limit the impact on the landscape. Local plans can contain more detailed policies such as the emerging Penwith local plan, which provides detailed locational and environmental guidance.

Penwith district council has also recently published supplementary planning guidance on "Cable Stations and Associated Development". The guidance makes clear that the council believes that there are few if any sites where landscape needs can be fully addressed by further development of the kind that has taken place up to now. For that reason, the guidance introduces more stringent criteria. We are pleased that the council is seeking to provide a more detailed framework against which planning applications for cable landing stations in Penwith can be assessed.

I appreciate that my intervention must be brief. Will the Minister or his Department issue guidance on the use of obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, especially in relation to achieving some form of compensation from companies for the disturbance and blight on the landscape that has been described?

I cannot comment on that at the moment. It is one of a number of practical suggestions that the hon. Gentleman has made, which I shall consider. Under the section 74 measures that I mentioned, it will be possible, where companies overstay, for a hefty charge to apply.

Telecommunications development is vital to the success of the British economy. The benefits are accruing now and will continue long into the future. However, the Government fully acknowledge the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for St. Ives about the localised but often significant disruption that such development can cause. Cornwall will benefit from the new technology, and, as far as future development is concerned, we want to make various changes—I referred to some—to the regulatory regimes within which the industry operates. In addition to introducing overstay and lane rental charging, we are consulting on revised planning guidance and we are prepared to consider licensing controls. The Government are willing to consider any new ideas to tackle what I acknowledge is a serious problem.