I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the United Kingdom's fish processing industry, which has a long and honourable history, but faces serious difficulties. That is not a Scottish problem; it is a UK problem—indeed, it is fair to say that it is a European problem.

Industry leaders have advised me that this is an historic debate, because it is the first time that the House of Commons has debated the fish processing industry in its own right. The subject is usually tacked on as an addendum to general debates on the fishing industry, in which the focus is always on the fish catching side, because it is much more dangerous and has a certain glamour. The industry is extremely important, employing about 136,500 staff in the UK. That huge figure comes from the recent Sea Fish Industry Authority report on training, which makes it clear that the industry is not limited to the catching side; it also involves processing, merchants, retail, fishmongering and the frying and restaurant business. The industry penetrates every aspect of our society.

I shall speak mainly about my local industry in Aberdeen and the Grampian region, which I know best, but this is a UK debate and many right hon. and hon. Members from around the country are present to take part. In the Grampian region, 5,000 people are employed in the fish processing industry, 2,000 of whom work in the city of Aberdeen. The past few years have been extremely difficult for the industry, mainly because it has had to come to terms with a raft of new regulations. The first sentence of the recent report on the industry by the Select Committee on Agriculture says:

The fishing industry in the United Kingdom is often represented by itself and others as an industry of victims.

That is a little harsh. However, the industry has had to cope with a tremendous amount of new regulation, although not as a result of the actions of the current Government; most of it has emanated from Europe and been applied by successive Governments. The regulations on food hygiene and packaging, the new veterinary regulations and the urban waste water directive have all applied pressure on the industry, and my local experience tells me that the industry has responded magnificently.

Today we have an industry that has modernised itself. It concentrates on providing consumers with what they want—a quality product at an affordable price. It is important to recognise that. There has been a big shakeout in the industry: both locally and nationally, there has been a considerable reduction in the number of its employees.

The industry relies, above all, on supplies of fresh raw product. The shortage of product is creating the most serious challenge that the industry has faced for many years. As I said, the problem affects more than the UK; it is Europe-wide. The industry depends on supplies of quality fish, but this year alone, landings at the quayside in the UK are down by about 40 per cent. My hon. Friend the Minister occasionally goes to Brussels and his officials are working away furiously behind the scenes in the current round of negotiations on next year's total allowable catches, although we do not know what to expect in terms of detail from these negotiations. We know that the Minister is doing an excellent job for the industry here, but the scientific evidence suggests that the news we hear will not be good. At worst, we expect a total ban on cod fishing and, at best, a 50 per cent. cut in cod catches, 23 per cent. in haddock, 20 per cent. in whiting and cuts in most other species.

We have had cuts before and casualties as a result, but the industry has always managed to pull through. This time, however, the situation is much more serious. In my area, the industry has always managed to deal with the inevitable peaks and troughs. In the good fishing months of summer, it stockpiles fish in cold store to be processed through the months of January, February and March when fish stocks are very low, but this year, it has been virtually impossible to stockpile because of shortages of fresh fish at the quayside. Yesterday, I spoke to an industry adviser who had been dealing with a company in Aberdeen. Its accounts are audited every year and its accounts for this year have just been audited: in 1998, it stored £390,000-worth of fish for the winter months; last year, it managed to store £ 360,000-worth of fish; this year, the figure is zero. The company would have bought fish if it could have, but it was just not there to be bought.

A reasonable question is why such companies do not import foreign fish, as they do, for example, on Humberside. Frozen fish can be bought from Norwegian, Icelandic or Faeroese trawlers and then processed. However, we in the north-east of Scotland have a particular problem with that sort of fish, because it is large. The north-east has traditionally processed smaller fish: that is what our skilled workers are trained to do and our machinery and equipment are geared to process. Therefore, we face a significant problem.

We have been buying Baltic fish from Russian trawlers, and several companies in the north-east have survived on that trade. However, I see that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is here, and he might tell us about a company in his constituency that specialised in that area, but has recently had to close its doors. There is a serious problem with Baltic supplies of cod and haddock—our staple product. The fish is not available to buy.

Recently, other Russian vessels have been selling fish at Aberdeen quayside—they have been selling cod and haddock caught off Rockall. Since the area was opened up, Rockall has become a fairly emotive topic, especially for our fishermen. There are no restrictions on the size of catches or quotas on fish caught off Rockall. Yesterday, I spoke to a fish processor who had been offered haddock that were only 6 in long—less than the minimum UK landing size; if the fish had been caught in the North sea, it would have been illegal. There is another potential disaster in the making off Rockall, because the seas there are being plundered. The fish caught there can be sold in the UK because it was not caught in the North sea, but it is not of the quality that our processors or the customer want. It does not meet the demands of the market, so it is not a long-term solution.

Another solution is under consideration in my local authority area. Aberdeen City council and the local enterprise company are examining the possibility of setting up a co-operative to buy foreign fish that currently goes to Humberside and other ports. Some risks are attached to the project and it is difficult to assess at this stage, because final decisions will not be taken until January. It will not be a perfect solution, even if the co-operative is established and is able to persuade Norwegian and Icelandic boats to land their fish in Aberdeen. Large fish are suitable only for large operators who can afford to adjust their processes; smaller and medium-sized businesses will be unable to do so. Furthermore, the price of foreign frozen fish has rocketed recently, so a new purchaser coming on to the market will have repercussions for the rest of the UK industry, and the price of that basic commodity and staple food source will rise even higher. I welcome the initiative of my local council and local fish merchants association in conceiving and pursuing their plan, but I am worried about the consequences for the UK fishing industry as a whole. We must consider that very seriously.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important matter. I represent the second-largest fishing port in England and Wales, so I am familiar with the problems that he mentions. We have a co-operative comprising about 100 boats, which works extremely well. When the Government took office, the Minister stated that 50 per cent. of all fish caught by European boats would have to be landed in Britain. I wonder whether that has happened and whether it impinges on the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.

To be honest, I cannot answer that question, but perhaps the Minister can. I know that there are significant landings of foreign fish in the UK, but we all know that the price of fish still goes up. If my local area attracts that sort of fish, we shall have to pay a premium price for it, which may affect supplies to other parts of the country—including Totnes.

I have tried to describe the biggest crisis that I have ever seen in the industry—the shortage of product. We are already seeing the consequences, both business and social, of that crisis. Pressure is being applied now. If my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she might talk about a large company in her constituency that has gone into receivership in the past couple of weeks, largely because of the problem that I have identified and the pressure that it creates. I know from contacts in the industry in my area that between now and Christmas, many companies are expected to go to the wall with many redundancies. The position is as bad as that.

One of the most serious problems is the attitude of the banks. Like everyone else, banks read press reports. Some companies are heavily committed to the banks, because they borrowed heavily to meet the new hygiene regulations and other requirements that I mentioned earlier. That has had a serious effect on their business. The banks are currently negotiating with the companies overdraft limits for next year. The banks are adopting a severe line, because they are worried about protecting their investment in the industry. I would not go so far as to suggest that the banks are panicking, but all the signs are there and additional pressure is being placed on businesses that are already seriously pressured.

I hope that today's debate will persuade my hon. Friend the Minister to send a message about the long-term future of the industry. Although he cannot say anything about individual businesses, it is important to give a clear signal about the future of the fishing industry, because that will help companies whose banks are putting them under pressure. In my area, a number of businesses are likely to go to the wall between now and Christmas, and the position is no different elsewhere. The result of the negotiations in Brussels will be a crucial determining factor. I hope that the businesses can fight through, but I fear the worst.

I especially concerned that the most exposed companies are those that borrowed heavily to meet the hygiene regulations and other requirements. They put quality first and are trying to cater for the market that they identified. My fear is that if those businesses go, the industry's hard-won reputation for quality will plummet because only those that have not modernised will be left. Such businesses managed to meet the minimum requirements of the regulations, but they have not worked in the same markets as the more go-ahead companies. That is a serious problem. The food industry's reputation has suffered a number of knocks from the BSE crisis and other difficulties. I would hate the fishing industry to be in that situation, although there is no fear of it at present. None the less, if the larger companies that invested start to fail, there will be serious difficulties.

There 2,000 highly skilled workers in the industry in Aberdeen, but those skills are not easily transferable. The workers' profile is interesting: about 50 per cent. of the work force is female, of whom 50 per cent. are single parents and therefore the main breadwinner in their household. The fact that their jobs are threatened is a serious worry. We do not have a major unemployment problem in Aberdeen, but the same cannot be said of other parts of the country, where the employee profile is likely to be similar.

There is a caveat: in the 1970s when the herring fisheries collapsed, there was no scheme to encourage the retention of the skills of the work force. Therefore, when herring supplies were reintroduced, the skills were not available to cope with the supplies. The north-east of Scotland lost that business because there was no one with the skill to take it on.

I am painting a bleak picture. I do not do so lightly. It is important to present the truth, with all the qualifications, but I am struggling to find qualifications, because the industry is heading for crisis and it is difficult to know what can be done about it. There might be short-term solutions. The problem of job losses must be considered. About 30 years ago, there was a temporary scheme in place to retain workers, who were paid a premium during difficult periods in the fishing industry, so that they would be available for work when fish were again landed at the quayside. I would appreciate the Minister's consideration of such a scheme, which would operate through the Department for Education and Employment. The banks, too, are important; some indication of confidence in the industry should be given to help customers' discussions with their bank.

There is a serious excess capacity in the industry—not only in catching and processing —which will continue at least for the next few years, although accurate predictions are difficult. There may be difficulty with North sea quotas for two years, and it might be as many as five years before the stocks recover. It is best to plan cautiously and to prepare for the most difficult eventuality. If a longer-term problem develops, the point about overcapacity will become even more relevant. We need to look seriously at restructuring an industry that is the epitome of private enterprise and the application of market forces —but which will not be able to survive with market forces as its only support. The Government must consider what contribution they can make to restructuring the industry.

As the Minister knows, the Select Committee on Agriculture reported, in its eighth report, on the sea fishing industry in the 1998-1999 session. It made a firm recommendation:

However, our overriding concern is that the Government establish a settled, transparent long-term strategy for management of fisheries which takes into account the competitive position compared to other EU countries and within which the industry can plan, confident that any necessary changes will apply equally and be introduced fairly, with proper consultation and with regard to clear and agreed objectives.

The Government welcomed the report and the Minister asked the Sea Fish Industry Authority to consider that recommendation. I stress the pressing nature of the case to the Minister. He is expecting a report in January but he should give some indication of our direction in regard to a longer-term strategy. Every business has to produce and apply a plan of operation and we need a long-term strategy for the whole fishing industry—the catching side as well as the processing side.

I began by mentioning the Sea Fish Industry Authority figure of 136,500 people employed in the industry. That is a significant level of employment. I am old enough to remember the major problems we experienced about 30 years ago, when potato prices went through the roof because of potato shortages. I remember the tabloid headlines about losing our fish supper, because, although we had the fish, we lacked the chips. The nation does not want to live on chips. We want to continue to have fish suppers.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on introducing the debate. As he said, it is the first debate of its kind. However, without being too churlish, it is interesting to note how many Scottish and how many English Members are present. I hope that, with your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Scottish Members will not monopolise the debate—although we are grateful to the hon. Member for having brought the matter to the attention of the Committee.

It is not in the power of the Deputy Speaker to determine who turns up for a debate and decides to take part. It is up to us to turn up if we wish to take part.

That is a fair comment, but Scottish Members have two bites of the cherry. They have both the Scottish and the Westminster Parliament for debate, but English Members have only one Parliament.

Is that not all the more reason why the hon. Gentleman's English colleagues should have taken the opportunity to attend today? Is not the fact that some—by no means all—Scottish Members have the opportunity to speak twice in fishing debates a comment on how their work rate compares with that of the hon. Gentleman's English colleagues?

Order. It would be helpful if that argument were reserved for another place and we devoted our time now to the fish processing industry.

I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Alan, because the Minister is here to deal with English as well as Scottish matters—even though Scottish Ministers can also deal with Scottish matters.

I welcome the debate, as I represent the second largest fishing port in England and Wales, and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central who introduced it. He chairs the all-party fishing group—

indicated dissent.

Well, he talks as if he carries out that function. I am glad that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the real chairman of the all-party fishing group is here. English Members of Parliament have turned up in force to the debate, but we will not get much chance to speak given the number of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies who are here.

The problem with the fish processing industry is that it is dependent on the amount of fish that are caught. That reminds me of a debate that has been held many times in the House about the extent to which other European countries have access to our waters. Many people argue that the intrusion of Dutch and Spanish vessels has affected our fishing stock and fishing processing industry. Huge articulated Spanish lorries are on the quay each morning in the small port of Salcombe where I live. Inside those lorries are massive tanks in which are placed tens of thousands of crabs and lobsters. The lorries are then driven back to Spain each day. How much easier it would be if the crabs and lobsters walked across the water to Spain and France, and saved all the time and trouble taken to drive them there.

We are losing enormous quantities of fish and shellfish to the Spaniards who, of course, have over-fished their waters to such an extent that no fish are left. They therefore plunder our stock—albeit legally, as it turns out—by buying our quota. Instead of the fish being processed in Britain, they are processed in Spain, France or Holland. I do not know whether the Minister can do anything about that, but early in this Parliament he said that a new deal had been struck with the Europeans. I do not know if that was part of the Amsterdam treaty, but I recollect that 50 per cent. of all the catch of European boats had to be landed in this country.

It might be helpful if I clarified the situation. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the economic link conditions that we negotiated. They included landing 50 per cent. of the catch in the United Kingdom for all UK-registered vessels. However, that was one of several conditions because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, some UK vessels want the freedom to land wherever they like, and that includes the European market, which is an extremely important export market for his constituents. In Spain alone, it amounts to about 60 million for the south-west.

I am most grateful to the Minister, but there must be something that we can do to ensure that the fish that are landed in Britain are processed in Britain. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can make such arrangements, but with his creative imagination and commitment to the fishing industry, I am sure that he and his officials could devise a fruitful and attractive scheme to deal with such a problem.

I welcome the opportunity to make a modest and short contribution to the debate. The procedures on bringing fish into the UK are full of red tape and made difficult for no apparent reason. The importation of fish is of prime importance, given that the diminishing stocks available of the relevant species in the United Kingdom make sourcing more difficult. Import tariffs need to be considered because if we cannot sustain our own needs from within the United Kingdom, it seems ridiculous to have to put trade tariffs on the necessary raw materials. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's response to that problem.

As for the European debate, the general feeling of the fishermen in Brixham, Dartmouth and Kingswear is that we are not playing on a level playing field. We have increased burdens of regulation on water. For example, effluent charges from our own water industry are about to hit our fishing industry, and grant funding available from Brussels through the Government seems difficult to access. Passing funding to regional sectors might help alleviate the problem. Fishermen feel that the Government, albeit with the best possible intentions, are allowing on-costs on the fishing industry that other European Fisheries Ministers are removing. Will the Minister comment on the on-costs on our fishing industry compared with the European fishing industry?

On profits, the United Kingdom fish processing industry is working on returns of about 1 per cent. on sales, which is a sub-economic rate. Increases in raw material prices and shortages in the supply of UK fish are creating a squeeze on margins because retailers and large customers are refusing to allow prices to be increased in line with market forces, which puts extra strain on processors.

Moneys collected from fish levies could be spent on research and funding aquaculture projects such as lobster restocking at Padstow, which is intended to restock the Devon and Cornwall shores with lobsters for the future. It needs more support. As the House may know, the 80 miles between Plymouth and Torquay has probably the most attractive crab and lobster catches in Great Britain. Stocks are being severely depleted not only by English fishermen but by French, as no quota applies to lobster or crab. I am sure that the Minister will say how much he is doing, but more needs to be done to restock those seas.

No one is more worried about conserving our fish stocks than fishermen, who are not the rapists of the sea that they are often made out to be. Of course there are a few rogues, as in any industry, but, in the main, fishermen have invested thousands of pounds in their businesses and are highly skilled business men. However, in this country, they are often viewed more as gypsies than as business men. Many have guaranteed their houses against loans of hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep their businesses afloat. They are encumbered by rules and regulations imposed by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is seen as the bogeyman, while his officials are seen as aiding and abetting him, and making their lives more difficult by burdening them with ever-more overheads on their already beleaguered businesses.

Technological improvements in catching fish have had adverse effects on the fishing stock, as is only too evident from the depletion of fish stocks in Spanish waters, which I mentioned a moment ago. We want fish to become even more of a delicacy, but it will not if the present arrangements continue. We can make an accurate assessment of developments in our fishing ports only by talking to those who are directly involved and have a vested interest in ensuring that our fish stocks are conserved—fishermen, wholesalers and the related industries depend on plentiful fish supply.

Fish wholesalers depend on fishermen to keep their trade going. Charles Newman, one such wholesale fish producer in Brixham, tells me that the situation is out of their hands. Everyone seems to be controlled by someone elsewhere whose finger is not on the pulse. It is of course in fishermen's interests to keep stocks well supplied. If fishermen try to rip out the heart of the sea in which they fish with other fishermen, nothing will be left for them tomorrow. They will be unable to cover overheads, and businesses may go under. Fishermen in Brixham are deeply put out by the fact that fishermen from overseas have the right to pillage their stock when, on the whole, they themselves have tried to conserve fish stocks in their area.

Let me give a fuller picture of the state of the fishing industry. We must look at the type of vessels operating in our seas. The local fish habitat in Brixham has been besieged by a fleet of nomadic Scottish scallop dredgers that have been working non-stop around the clock in what have, until now been the traditional grounds of the inshore fishing fleet. These huge vessels, towing gear weights eight to ten tonnes or more, are working those traditional grounds and are consequently causing great damage to the sea bed and the fish habitat. They are uncontrolled. They can bring in as much gear as they want to within the six-mile limit.

The huge scallop dredgers can use three times more gear than the local vessels, and, by the time they move on, they leave a completely wrecked sea bed in their wake. Those big fleets have been working right up to the six-mile limit—the traditional fishing ground for the small fleet of vessels operating in Brixham, which incorporates 250 inshore men. Those men are having a terrible struggle against the huge vessels, which are not subject to any legal controls. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is doing nothing to help, although that is no surprise, because there is no regulatory framework for this type of fishing. The big vessels can tow the type of gear that no Brixham fishermen have at their disposal. Fishing vessels of 9 m beam are the norm in the local fleet in Brixham. They have to stay outside the 12-mile limit and operate on less than 22 1 kW. In contrast, the huge dredgers from Scotland are in excess of 800 to 1,000kW and, quite legally, up to 40 m of beam in length.

In only three months, the effect on the infrastructure of the sea bed has been devastating. Unless the problem is looked at immediately, the inshore grounds of Brixham and Devon will soon resemble a barren lunar landscape, and the local economy and way of life will be put at risk because of a few vessels whose owners have little interest in the future prosperity of the Devon area or, it seems, any care for the conservation of fish and the environment.

Although I have made an impassioned plea for the Scots to get off the Devon sea bed, I should add that the Scottish boats do not land their fish in Brixham. Therefore, there are a great number of fish-producing organisations and inshore fishermen who do not benefit from the fish caught by the influx of new fishermen. Kingfisher, Riddlers, Samways, South-West Fisheries, Brixham Fish Marketing, Channel Fisheries Ltd. and Paramount 21 Ltd. are all involved in fish processing and all deeply worried that the supply will be reduced. If the problem continues, and the Scots come down to Devon and plunder what Devon fishermen regard as their traditional fishing beds, may those fish processors will be unable to continue in business. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in his winding-up speech because it is causing tremendous upset and concern, not only among the fish processors, but among the fishermen of Brixham.

I remind hon. Members that the winding-up speech customarily begins at 10.30 am. If all hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye are to be called, it is necessary for hon. Members to be brief.

Today, we are talking about the problems of the processing or merchant side of the fishing industry; on Monday night, we debated the problems that fuel charges were causing the fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Minister is getting a bashing from both sides of the industry this week.

The basic cause of the processors' problems is, simply, the shortage of fish. We have a massive conservation crisis around the coast: landings are down by 40 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) said, and there is a world shortage of quality fish. In addition, vessels are staying at sea longer to catch less fish, so the fish is not as well-preserved or of such good quality when it is landed.

I agree with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) that the basic cause of the problem is the common fisheries policy. The problem was foreseeable. It might be unfashionable to say so. but if we controlled our own waters, the problem would not have happened, because we would have been in a position to exercise effective control. Such controls exist in Canada and Iceland, and, although stocks are currently down in both those countries, they are rebuilding thanks to national controls. It is worth stating at the start that lack of control is the basic cause of the problem, although there are additional causes to which I will not refer because the matter is too emotive. Today's debate focuses on the consequences of the fish shortage.

The industry, especially the primary processing sector, is, rightly, calling for help from the Government. The big processors, including those based in Grimsby, also have problems, but they are problems of restructuring. Owing to the traditional ingenuity of the industry, constant upgrading, adding new value, preparing new dishes and exploitation of marketing power, big processors are in a better position to deal with the problems than the small primary processors on the quayside. The big processors have benefited from the high pound because it makes imports cheaper, but small ones have been penalised because they export the product and the high pound makes exports dearer and less competitive.

The industry has two needs. First, it needs financial help from the Government for restructuring and reorganisation. Some such help is available, but the processing side of the industry has not had grant in aid for three years. Of the £10 million available through the financial instrument for fisheries guidanceFIFG—£5 million is predicated for the south-west, which leaves £5 million for the rest of the country, for three years. That is not very much money, so financial help is needed if the industry is to face the crisis and restructure.

Secondly, burdens on the industry need to be eased. There is an accumulation of burdens and increasing costs, which press heavily on an industry that primarily comprises small producers. Traditionally, this country gold plates European regulations and there is overzealous enforcement: for example, Grimsby was in the front line in respect of waste water charges, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was, to be frank, of little use in restraining the rapacity of the water companies. My hon. Friend the Minister did his best, but the Department concerned did not. At the end of a long battle, the water companies agreed to reduce the charges, but they still represented a heavy increase to an industry that was already facing difficulties. That increase is now spreading to Scotland: I have heard of a Scottish merchant who is facing a 300 per cent. increase from 1 April 2001. There should have been a national approach to the matter to ensure that charges throughout the country were equal.

That is one example of our propensity to increase charges on an industry that is already in financial difficulty and unable to sustain the burden. Another example is the veterinary inspection charges made necessary by European regulations. Those charges would have been even larger, but I persuaded the deregulation taskforce to consider the issue, and Lord Haskins secured some modifications to those regulations, thereby establishing a more sensible approach. None the less, the charges are still substantial, and Grimsby merchants feel that they are paying substantial charges to the environmental health department of North East Lincolnshire council for a service that they are not receiving—an inspection that does not take place.

Such charges for unnecessary services are especially problematic in relation to imports. There is intense competition in the fish industry throughout the world; we are dependent on imported fish and must compete for it with other nations, and prices are on the increase. Thanks to port health authorities' excessively stiff approach, cargoes are being turned away or held up by pernickety inspection procedures. The matter may not fall within the portfolio of my hon. Friend the Minister, but I hope that he will take it up with the relevant Departments. Veterinary charges for inspection are five times as high on frozen fish—which does not present a health problem—as on wet fish landed in this country. European Economic Area imports are subject to five different levels of charges, depending on whether the fish is chilled, frozen or fresh and where it is going. None of that is related to the cost of inspection of the raw material. Charges on the processor accumulate as fish is transferred from one side of processing to the other. If, as is the case in Grimsby, companies are scattered over several sites, a charge must be paid each time the fish is transferred to another factory, even if it belongs to the same company.

In relation to port health authorities, there is a constant argument about what constitutes packaging. The country of origin and establishment number has to be indicated on the packaging, but does it have to be on the outer or inner packaging? Most fish and other products are imported in two sets of packaging—inner and outer. Incomprehensibly, port health authorities insist that both must be labelled, even though the European Commission has ruled that only the outer packaging must be labelled. The Department of Health has agreed with port health authorities that it is more practical to ensure that both inner and outer packaging are marked, which is barmy. Packaging is being ripped open to inspect whether the labelling is the same inside and outside. Furthermore, port health authorities are refusing to admit products labelled with adhesive labels, even though adhesive labels are not proscribed.

In one instance, a shipment of Chinese fish marked "Quindao" instead of "China"—Quindao is the main source of Chinese fish—was turned away, even though the documents said its origin was China. Products have been returned to distant countries and arguments have taken place about whether the name of the vessel was spelt correctly on the packaging. Russian fish, on which Grimsby is dependent, often comes in via a third-country port, and some port health authorities require certificates from the country of origin and the third country involved, which causes long delay, during which the products deteriorate. That is insane and a handicap on our industry. The industry is also subject to the burdens of the climate change levy, about which I have had a major correspondence with a Grimsby firm; packaging legislation, whereby firms are charged for the disposal of packaging; and the increase in fuel costs. The industry is in difficulties, and needs help to sustain itself.

My hon. Friend the Minister knows that there are about 12 jobs on shore for one at sea—ancillary jobs in transport, packaging and support services backing up the processing industry. That is not generous enough to the catching side—although, clearly, the balance must be swung towards supporting both. Support must be given to assist reorganisation, restructuring, and upgrading of quality and marketing techniques on the processing side. If today's debate has one outcome, I hope that it is a united industry —across England and Scotland and the whole United Kingdom—that pleads that something be done about the crisis if faces.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on securing this debate. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) was anxious about contributions from Scottish Members. If he were a Member of the Scottish Parliament, which is not likely to be imminent, his speech would have been restricted to four minutes. Perhaps the Westminster Parliament would be wise to consider such an innovation for debates such as this. I shall speak for less time than the hon. Gentleman—probably for only slightly more than four minutes—so that others have the chance to contribute.

I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central. I have been Member of Parliament for Banff and Buchan for 13 years, and the crisis now facing the processing sector is the most severe it has had to face during that time. There is a general crisis afflicting the fishing industry, but certain aspects of it are bearing down hard upon the processing sector. I shall not rehearse all the arguments, because the hon. Gentleman touched on most of them.

First is the key matter of supplies. This year alone, there have been 40 per cent. fewer landings in Scottish ports and a 47 per cent. increase in quayside prices, which have caused the processing sector severe difficulty. As the hon. Gentleman said, the industry has been unable to build up stocks for the lean times of the coming winter. Secondly, the sector has suffered the imposition of an extraordinary number of regulations—packaging regulations, veterinary charges regulations, the climate change levy, inspection charges and, crucially, the urban waste water directive, several aspects of which were introduced recklessly and irresponsibly.

Thirdly—these are matters on which the hon. Gentleman did not touch—those changes have combined with a 29 per cent. increase in transport costs during the past year. That affects Scotland in particular, as its fishing industry is export-driven: about 75 per cent. by value of our white fish and shellfish products are exported. In addition, in the past three years, we have suffered a switch in exchange rates of 30 per cent., relative to other European currencies. Even the price of fish boxes has risen—a few years ago, the industry was pressing hard for new fish boxes, but because they are an oil-based product, the price rose last year by 40 per cent. That combination of pressures is bearing down hard on the industry.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central said that I would talk about Abacus Seafoods at Mintlaw, a fish processing company in my constituency that is facing closure; it is still operating, but the staff are now working out their redundancy notice. Although 30 workers have been found temporary jobs in another company at Fraserburgh, at least 100 jobs remain at risk. It is a modern factory with a fine work force and, crucially, it has its own water processing plant, which is a huge and substantial advantage, given the charges that bear down on other companies. The loss of 100 jobs in Mintlaw, which is a rural area in central Buchan, is the equivalent of the closure of a massive steel mill or of a shipyard in a shipbuilding area, because the firm is the largest employer in an area with little alternative work. Unless we are very careful, that story will be repeated in one fish processing area after another.

I realise that the Minister does not have a magic wand. We have known each other for some years. I have spoken in just about every fishing debate in this place and I know that he has good will toward the industry, but I want to suggest some priorities to him. First, we are approaching a vital round of negotiations. The crisis is deep, not only in cod stocks but in stocks of other fish. It must be remembered, however, that a continuity of supply is essential in a mixed fishery if the processing sector—let alone the catching sector—is to remain in existence next year. Measures that are optimal for one stock are not necessarily optimal for another, or for securing future supply and, thereby, the future of fishermen and fish processing workers. The Minister understands that and is experienced enough to argue a position that offers the industry the maximum benefit over a period of time.

Another factor that has a big impact on the industry is water charges. One processor in my constituency has reduced water consumption by between 80 per cent. and 85 per cent., but that required prudent investment. Given the pressure from banks, many companies do not have the capital available to invest. Such investment, however, would help conserve water, and help the industry soften the impact of water charges. The Government can and should act—although I am of course aware that it is a matter for the Scottish Executive as well as for the Minister.

Another factor is transport charges. Two weeks ago the Chancellor announced some relief for the haulage industry. There is a strong case for more relief to be given to the fish processing sector, because of its huge dependency on transport in terms of exports and the fact that much of its production takes place in outlying areas.

We have been speaking largely about the white fish sector and to some extent about the shellfish sector, but we should also remember the pelagic sector. I am not going to rehearse all the detailed arguments that I have put to the Minister in private meetings. However, I believe that, if the right approach is taken to regulation, our mechanism could make it easier technically for the Scottish pelagic boats to land their product in Scotland. The Scottish pelagic fleet—the tank boat fleets that are crucial to my constituency and to Orkney and Shetland, for example—could allow more landings to take place in Scotland, rather than Norway. The impact on jobs in pelagic processing would be substantial and would help to offset what I fear will be a substantial loss of jobs in the white fish sector.

I would like to refresh the Minister's memory about the eighth report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, published last August, which was generally welcomed and recognised as a positive and forward-looking report. In its key recommendation it stated:

We recommend that the Government establish for the first time a clear, agreed and coherent strategy for the management and development of the United Kingdom fishing industry, which will unite all concerned in working towards greater efficiency and competitiveness.

That was in August last year. I know that there are moves planned for January of next year, but the Minister should announce that that strategy is in place now—not that it is going to be in place, or that it might be in place in the future. The crisis is upon us, the factories are beginning to close, the outlook is not bright, and I fear that, unless the Minister can offer substantial initiatives, there will be a shakeout of, not hundreds, but thousands of jobs, and not in one constituency, but in many. We will see the decimation of a way of life for many of our constituents.

The official Opposition spokesman has kindly offered to forgo some of his allotted time, which will allow me to call other hon. Members to speak before the Minister winds up the debate.

I echo other hon. Members who have welcomed the opportunity to debate this important subject. I speak on behalf of the fishing communities of Whitby and Scarborough. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister knows that there are roughly 1,000 onshore jobs connected with the fishing industry in my constituency. Unlike the 40 per cent. reductions that have been experienced in Scotland, we have experienced a 14 per cent. reduction in landings. The reduction has, to some extent, been mitigated by an increase in shellfish—a direct consequence of the northwards migration of fish such as cod, which benefits shellfish.

Whitby, which is well known to many parliamentarians, is synonymous with fishing and sea fishing. I am concerned on my constituents' behalf about the socio-economic impact of reductions on such a small community. It is evident that, throughout history, the fishing industry has comprised people from the private sector who have responded positively to challenges and change. However, since the 1930s, there has been a serious decline in sea fishing, especially in Whitby and Scarborough. Partly as a response, the families involved have been inclined to diversify and find other ways of responding to immediate challenges.

I congratulate Scarborough borough council on its recent work in the spirit of diversification and finding other ways to make a living. The council recently established the Yorkshire coast fishing forum, and I am grateful to the secretariat of that organisation, especially Mr. Duncan Amos. He took the job after a considerable period in the Canadian fishing industry and first-hand experience of its failure, which involved 45,000 jobs. I hope that he is not preparing for a similar failure here. The impact will be no less considerable in my constituency, unless concerted action is taken. I am disappointed that Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency in Yorkshire, does not appear to recognise the importance of the issue for part of my constituency and its community. Wards in Scarborough and Whitby immediately associated with the fishing community are the top 10 unemployment wards in the region. A considerable decline has already taken place.

I think it was the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) who stated the need for some sort of national initiative. I support that approach. The problem is no less significant to my community and to those others represented in the Chamber than was the possible failure of Rover is to its local community. It is time that we, as a nation, thought about taking concerted action in the form of a taskforce. I recall the Coalfield Communities Campaign; perhaps Members of Parliament should consider setting up a fishing communities organisation to lobby in a similar way.

There has been diversification over the past 70 years in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the recreational side of sea fishing is now important: in Whitby alone, it contributes about £2 million annually to the local economy. I ask my hon. Friend to consider the impact that any quota arrangement would have on that vital part of the community. The matters are linked: the families involved in fish processing are the ones that are involved in recreational activities. In a community of about 16,000 people such as Whitby, £2 million would be an extremely large loss.

Fishing and Whitby go together. We want to plan for a positive future and for diversification. I commend the recent arrangements that have benefited my constituents who are involved in agriculture, and I would like to see the serious question that faces many others of my constituents given a high national profile.

I shall try to be brief and not to repeat what has been said, as I realise that time is getting on. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) suggested a fishing taskforce. That is a good idea, but I think that we can be slightly more optimistic about the fishing industry and fish processing than about other industries, such as those of steel or coal. Fish are a renewable resource and the industry is sustainable, not necessarily ailing.

I want my hon. Friend the Minister to provide some solutions to the industry's temporary problems. I know that, even with the best will in the world, he cannot magic fish into the sea. A large part of the problem is the lack of fish due to over-fishing, and there is nothing for the processors to process if the fish is not there. The amount of fish landed in Scotland is down 40 per cent. My hon. Friend has a difficult circle to square—I do not envy him—but I want something to tide the industry over its short-term blip, until the longer-term measures being put in place take effect and the stocks begin to recover.

I believe that the brood stock in haddock in the North sea is good, but it will be three years before it can be fished. My contacts in the industry in Aberdeen say that supplies of black fish have virtually stopped, so the regulations are tightening up. Good things are happening in the industry, but their results are not yet apparent, and will not be for another two or three years. Perhaps I am overoptimistic, but I am sure that the industry is not on its last legs and that it will not die, provided we secure help for it in the short term.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) mentioned a company in my constituency that called in the receiver a couple of weeks ago. I have had contact with several processors in my constituency that have cash flow problems and whose creditors are beginning to call in their debts. Those debts are not new, having arisen, not in the past couple of months, but in the past few years, but the creditors are beginning to lose patience. They foresee a bleak two years and that is why they are calling in their debts. That is causing great problems.

Many of the processing companies involved are primary processors, producing a product of very high quality. The company that has gone into receivership was processing fish for Marks & Spencer and Harry Ramsden's and the receiver hopes to find a buyer. However, meanwhile, half the work force have been laid off. Those are the people I worry about. What will happen to their skills in the short term? Many such skilled workers live in Torry in my constituency. Already they are looking for jobs. Perhaps we in Aberdeen are lucky, in that it is possible for them to find other jobs, but if their skills are lost, they cannot be brought back into the industry.

I recently spoke to a young woman who was looking into a job as a care assistant in an old folks home, which might pay less than a job in the fish industry. Should she go, she is unlikely to return. There is reason to worry about the skills base of the industry. If it disappears, there will be no people to do the work if fish stocks and the industry recover. Short-term help is needed to prevent the loss of the skills base and to enable people such as my constituents to remain in the industry. A strategy is needed so that what happened to the herring industry in the late 1970s does not happen to the industry based on cod and the other fish that we process in Aberdeen. When the good times come, we shall need workers with skills to take advantage of them.

I appreciate that we are now running quite late. Not only is it important for Back Benchers to contribute, but if they are to get anything out of the debate the Minister must have time to respond, so I shall try to keep my remarks short.

I welcome the success of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) in securing today's debate. I am pleased to see the Minister here. I know that he has other pressing issues to deal with, but the subject that we are discussing affects many of our constituents and a major United Kingdom industry. I appreciate his willingness to meet representatives of the industry. Members of Parliament articulate constituents' worries, but those whose work gives them an understanding of the technicalities and problems can communicate more directly with the Minister about possible solutions.

As has already been explained, regulations are frustrating enough at any time, but in a crisis, when there are no profits, they really hurt. I hope that the Minister will try to avoid gold-plating and that he will attend to what our hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, especially about some aspects of imports and labelling. If it was not obvious that the city in question was in China, I wonder what the people who looked at the labels were thinking about.

If there has been a 40 per cent. drop in fish landings, the key issue to be dealt with is the shortage of fish to sustain the industry. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) made the point that fishermen are not the villains of the piece. They need to fish: an individual confronted with the choice of paying the bank manager or conserving stocks has no choice but to pay the bank manager. However, in the long run, everyone will lose by that approach. We must acknowledge the way market forces are heading. The industry is highly regulated and controlled, so the Government are part of the equation and cannot avoid being part of the solution, which is sustainable fishing.

The key message that I have received from the industry is the need to decommission excess fishing capacity, to establish a retirement scheme and to secure a balance between fishing capacity and long-term sustainable fishing stocks. That will provide a stable future for the industry, which the processors can plan around.

Will the Minister explain what is happening about square mesh introduction in England? Small fish that are not caught become bigger fish the next year and can be caught then. The message from the industry is that fish do not respect boundaries, so management of the whole fishery is crucial. That is why the Government's role in Europe and their willingness to make the issue a priority in their European negotiations are so important. We need to work towards zonal management of fishing sectors, in which both those affected by the consequences of decisions and those affected by the need to sustain fishing have a say and play some part in the control of fishing policy.

The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) highlighted the need for action. Our communities and the industry they rely on may be small, but the impact on them when things go wrong is proportionally as serious as on major industries. What happened in coal, steel and farming means that the Government should not turn their back on restructuring the fishing industry. Fishermen expect, not permanent support, but a restructuring to enable them to achieve a sustainable, long-term and effective fishing industry.

Fish processors need fish and a viable catching industry needs fish processing to get its fish to the market. The Government must recognise the seriousness of the situation. Fishing may not be as sexy or headline-grabbing as other industries, but a great deal of dedicated hard work in Europe will be necessary to deal with the problems. That work must be done now, not in a few years time. We must secure the right balance, a sustainable fishery and a sustainable fish processing sector.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on securing today's timely debate. He has chosen a topic—fish processing—that is an important feature of his own constituency, but every speaker this morning has highlighted the essential problem of lack of fish stocks, lack of fish landings and the wider crisis of sustainability that is facing the industry.

I have two main questions for the Minister, following on from the hon. Gentleman's point about processors and the bankers. We need to hear a strong message from the Government that they want our fishing industry in all its aspects to have a viable future. There is less Government money going into the fishing industry now than at any time in the past. The Government must recognise the crisis and the Minister must approach the Treasury for funding. Why can the French receive fuel subsidies whereas our Government refuses to respond to the real problems faced by our fishermen right now? Why are decommissioning and safety grants restricted or taken away? More money must be invested in the industry. As I said, the Government must send out a strong message that they believe that our fishing industry has a future.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issues and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he made his case. Being Minister with responsibility for fisheries is not the easiest job in the Government, but one positive aspect is that hon. Members who attend fisheries debates do not come along for petty knockabout. They represent fishing constituencies, many have been involved in the industry for many years and they speak with great experience, knowledge and sincerity about an important industry. I accept the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and others about the need to recognise that fish processing is a vital part of our food sector. It employs many thousands of people, contributes to national GDP, it is important for regional employment opportunities and we as a Government want to give it our full support.

I am the UK Fisheries Minister. I am pleased that hon. Members from all parts of the UK have taken part in this debate, because there is a strong interrelationship between all regions. A lot of the fish that is landed at Peterhead goes down to Grimsby and keeps the factories there going. The whole industry is important nationally, but, having said that, I recognise that there are important regional elements. I work with my colleagues in the Scottish Executive. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for his work as part of the UK team. Rhona Brankin has now replaced him: she has already met with industry representatives, and I know that she understands their concerns and the importance of the industry in Scotland, which are matters for the Scottish Administration.

One way to help the industry involves the regional dimension, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) pointed out. The regional development agencies in England will play an important role, as will the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, in delivering support to their industries. We have given an undertaking to the Agriculture Committee that we will develop a fishing strategy; we are consulting now and we hope to bring it forward as quickly as possible. My officials have invited the Fish Industry Forum and the Sea Fish Industry Authority to take the lead in drafting the strategy by January. That will provide a basis for broader consultation with the industry. It is clearly sensible for the industry to take a prime role in putting that strategy together—people have to be involved and it takes a bit of time, but I recognise the importance of the issue. I am also aware that the Scottish Executive is drafting its own strategy in consultation with the industry.

There are back-up funds that we can offer the industry. The financial instrument of fisheries guidance is providing £6 million over the next three years in England, and there are funds available for Scotland within that scheme. The scheme will provide support for capital investment in the fish processing sector; it will include marketing and processing grants and options to improve fish quality on both the catching and the processing sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a valid point, which is that the value of the processing side can be increased by concentrating a bit more on the quality side.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talked about the funds that are available, but we must bear in mind that there are funds from different agencies and different options. I mentioned the regional development agencies for England. Also coming on stream is the new English rural development programme, which will include both marketing and processing grants. Fishing is especially important in isolated areas, and the rural enterprise scheme can make capital grants for marketing and processing.

There is a range of opportunities for financial support for the industry, including for restructuring, but an operating subsidy for the processing sector would be against state aid rules and it would not resolve structural problems. The regional development agencies have funds for training and retraining, and a regional approach is crucial, as is the Government's national framework of grants from structural funds.

As hon. Members have said, the bottom line is the shortage of supplies—especially of cod—which creates problems for the processing industry. The Government intervened to secure Russian landings into the United Kingdom and I had talks with my opposite number in Iceland to ensure that we secure the supplies needed by our processing industry. The processing sector has always relied more on imported fish from third countries than on fish landed in the UK.

The processing industry has expanded considerably to supply quality, value-added, prepared foods. There are good new markets for the processing sector—for example, to supply fresh, quality fish for restaurants—but there must be fish to supply those markets. Therefore, we are taking action to develop a more sustainable fisheries policy and introducing recovery plans, such as that for cod in the Irish sea.

I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that the North sea is a mixed fishery and that some of the proposals for recovery, such as one-year bans or tie-ups, which will affect supply and have knock-on effects on shore jobs, will not necessarily work in mixed fisheries. The matter is being discussed with the European Commission and we emphasise that there should be a range of options for cod recovery in the North sea.

We pressed for cuts in import tariffs—a matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I can tell him that the duty on cod will be reduced from 12 per cent. to 3 per cent. next year. That will significantly reduce the cost of imported raw materials, which will be of considerable help to the processing sector.

Conservation measures are needed for shellfish and we shall introduce a licensing scheme for shellfish, including scallops, although I recognise that we must be careful about changes in fishing patterns. Fishing is a dynamic industry and regulations must be enforced fairly and effectively. I had the impression that the hon. Gentleman thought that regulations were bad for fishermen in his constituency, but good for Scottish fishermen—he was keen on the enforcement of regulations for the Scots, but felt that it placed a burden on local fishermen. However, some of his constituents have been using gear such as French dredges, a very bad method of fishing for scallops, which causes me great concern.

I believe in fair enforcement in respect of all who fish in our waters, wherever they come from, even though that may not make me the most popular person in the fishing industry. Some of the industry's previous problems, including lack of enforcement and black fish landings, have mostly been squeezed out of the system, but they had already done great damage.

We want improvements in quality, and I accept the point made about on-costs and waste water charges. The negotiated agreement between the processing industry and the water companies in Grimsby is a model for other sectors of the industry and other parts of the country. A balance must be struck between the need for hygiene to protect consumers and acceptance of the principle that the polluter pays for pollution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby has years of experience of the industry and is one of its greatest advocates. I am concerned to hear about petty regulations on labelling and I ask him to write to me about that. I would be only too pleased to pursue the matter to ensure that a more sensible approach is adopted.

The Minister—whom I have heard speak many times—is being his usual sensible, informed and reasonable self and it is difficult to dislike, let alone disagree with him. The case that I am not alone in making is that the ingredients exist to generate a full-scale crisis in the processing sector. The Minister may find himself overtaken by that crisis, as we all will when our constituencies suffer a blizzard of closures. Will he acknowledge the scale of the potential problem? In the face of the threat to our constituents, sensible and informed logic is perhaps more important than niceness and reasonableness.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the potential pressure on the fish processing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said that we should not exaggerate by presenting the fish processing industry as being on the verge of collapse, but I accept that it has problems. In the light of the restructuring that the catching side may have to undergo, particularly in regard to recovery plans, we may have to reconsider certain matter, for example, the amount of funding available for decommissioning. I remain open to changing that and am prepared to make a case for it if necessary.

However, funds are available now and new funds are coming on stream in April, some of which are directed towards the processing industry, which I am sure will not be slow to consider what use it can make of them. I have written to hon. Members representing areas where fish processing is important, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. He is already ahead of the game: he has taken up the issue by asking what the future holds for the industry, explaining that funds are available and that the processing sector should be thinking about how it can help, particularly through investment in machinery plant and infrastructure. I am also keen to get more pelagic landings into the UK. That, too, will involve investment in processing infrastructure, some of which may qualify for grant assistance. If we can get more landings into the UK, that is all to the good.

Will the Minister give way on the issue of square-mesh panels?

I have only 3 minutes, but I intend to address that point. Our proposals on square-mesh panels are awaiting clearance from the Commission. There has been a delay, for which I apologise, but we intend to have those important regulations—of which I am a firm supporter—operational as quickly as possible in English waters.

I hope that I have covered most of the other points that have been raised, but if hon. Members feel that there are issues that I have not addressed—such as the difficult issue of the reduction of transport costs, I am happy to do so outside the Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken action, especially in respect of vehicle excise duty, which for diesel vehicles has been cut considerably. I suspect that, like all things, the cost of fuel goes in cycles: we are at a peak of the cycle, as there is maximum demand for heating oil in winter, which affects the price of diesel, but as we go into the spring, we will see a notable fall in prices, which will have a beneficial knock-on effect on the industry.

On-costs relating to waste water and the climate change levy were mentioned. The Government have offered the industry an 80 per cent. rebate in the climate change levy. Our energy targets are not unreasonable and the processing sector should be able to achieve them — indeed, the fish processing industry will enjoy overall savings if it meets the target. In addition, under the climate change levy, there will be a reduction in employment taxes; that will be beneficial to the labour-intensive processing industry. While those extra costs present difficulties, they are important in terms of pollution control and health and safety and thereby benefit the industry. Hon. Members should bear in mind that our business taxes and social taxes are the lowest in Europe.

I assure all hon. Members who have spoken that the Government take their points seriously and we will follow them up. I am happy to meet representatives of the processing industry to see what we can do by working together nationally, regionally and locally to help that important industry.

Order. I remind hon. Members that the House has decided that members of the Chairmen's Panel who take the Chair in Westminster Hall should be addressed by name. I should be addressed as Mrs. Roe.

It is a pleasure to debate again the European Union charter of fundamental rights; we debated it nine months ago when the process had just begun. Now, from the convention's point of view, that process has been completed. When the body met for the first time before Christmas 1999, we were in truly uncharted territory. The mandate outlined at the Cologne European Council in June was both as clear and as ambiguous as the members of the body wanted it to be. The large number of members of the body—62 was the figure decided at Tampere in the October European Council—threatened to make it unworkable. It was feared that the talking could become interminable, with wide-ranging debate and no decisions.

Attending the first meeting in December 1999, I felt that the European Councils of Cologne and Tampere had presented us with a more than considerable challenge by asking us to complete a draft charter for the Council by December 2000. Within three months, even that challenging timetable was speeded up, with talk of the draft being ready by the end of July. With some additional meetings and with some two-day meetings turning into three-day sessions, a preliminary draft text, known as convent 45, was produced before the summer break.

Throughout the process, the secretariat and praesidium of the convention—as the body quickly agreed to call itself—had a mighty logistical task on its hands. The pre-preliminary draft text, known as convents 28 and 34, was subject to more than 1,000 amendments—27 of which were mine—so it was a miracle that convent 45 was produced by the end of July. The process had thus reached a sufficiently advanced stage for all the substantive issues to have been well aired and negotiating positions made plain. A summer of hectic activity behind the scenes was assured to fine tune the July text and find a form of words to clarify the ambiguities that many convention members saw in the Cologne mandate when the convention met again in September and October.

For me, the Cologne mandate was clear. The convention was directed to consolidate in a charter the fundamental rights applicable at European Union level, so that those rights themselves and their overriding importance were clear to the Union's citizens. The mandate also directed us to the sources for setting out those rights. The charter was to be based on the European convention on human rights, the constitutional traditions of member states and general principles of Community law.

In addition, we were told to include

economic and social rights as contained in the European Social Charter and the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers (Article 136 TEC), insofar as they do not merely establish objectives for action by the Union.

The latter point was at the centre of the political debate about which economic and social rights should be included in the charter and how they should be expressed. In the economic and social sector, how was the judgment to be made between a fundamental right and an objective for action by the Union? The temptation for progressive political opinion was simply to accept that the European social charter and the Community charter should be regarded as statements of fundamental rights without any attempt to decide which were desirable political objectives.

The argument continued that, as we moved into a new century and prepared for a further expansion of the EU, a wider all-embracing view of the charter was needed. The strongest, though not the only, protagonists of that view were most of the 16 Members of the European Parliament who were on the convention. They saw, and still see, the charter as an opportunity to strengthen the European Union and to enhance the rights of its citizens and the role of the European Parliament. To be fair to the MEP convention members, however, some were willing to distinguish between fundamental social and economic rights and desirable political objectives for the European Union and its member states.

There were also a few who viewed the exercise as an opportunity to regain for member states some of the sovereignty that they have pooled within the European Union. The majority, however, wanted a charter that would at least be a protocol of the treaty and seen to be a legally binding document that covers all aspects of European Union activity, including common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs and institutions such as Europol. Of the elected members of the convention, the European Parliament had the most opportunity, time and resources to develop an institutional view of the charter. In drawing up its report on the charter with rapporteurs Voggenhuber and Duff, at least six of its committees provided opinions for the committee on constitutional affairs.

The 30 members of the convention representing national Parliaments broadly fell either into the maximalist view of the majority of European Parliament Members or what I describe as the discerning view—because I took it—on social and economic rights for inclusion in the charter. Indeed, it would be unfair to define rigid blocks of opinion, particularly in the latter group, non-maximalist Members, such as myself, wanted rights to be included—for children and minorities, for example—that possibly strayed beyond a strict interpretation of the Cologne mandate. However, I think that the charter has satisfied such demands for children, if not so much for minorities.

The nature of the charter is critically important. The Cologne Council decision stated that the charter was not to be a legally binding document, although it raised the possibility of the Council making it so at a later date. Despite there being a significant number of convention members who would have liked the charter to be legally binding rather than a declaratory document, they were on the whole content to leave the European Council to make a decision as laid down in Cologne. That has meant, however, and not unreasonably so, that the convention, in its deliberations on the charter, sought to draw it up in such a way as to facilitate the process for it to become legally binding. I have always considered that that argument had more to do with the process than the principle. Even though the charter was not meant to be legally binding immediately, the fact that its purpose was to make existing rights more evident and their overriding importance and relevance more visible means that European Union citizens and residents will have legal redress against the Commission and member states when creating or implementing Community law.

Lord Goldsmith, the representative of the British Government, came forward with a proposal at an early stage to link the charter rights clearly with their legal source in a single document with two parts: part A stating the rights, and part B stating their legal source. During the early stages of the convention discussions, there seemed to be sufficient agreement to proceed along those lines, although several members of the maximalist school expressed strong reservations. The preparatory versions up to what were known as convents 28 and 34 of the charter had a two-part style, but not that envisaged by Lord Goldsmith. Perhaps that was a typical euro-compromise.

Late in the day, after the European Council in Feira, rumours began to circulate that the incoming French presidency wanted to use the charter process to develop the concept of a European social model. That was given form in the Braibant-Meyer proposals on social and economic rights—Braibant being the representative of the French Government and Meyer, the representative of the Bundestag.

Progressive opinion had no problem with the sentiments expressed, but doubts arose from two different angles. On the one hand, to be enforceable, any rights in the charter must have a legal base in the European convention on human rights, Community or national law, or international conventions signed by member states. On the other hand, convention members from states such as Sweden, which has well-developed progressive social and economic rights legislation, wanted to be reassured that, if such rights were included in the charter, the European Court of Justice could not use the charter as guidance and make decisions that would undermine national legislation in areas in which Community law was not strictly applicable.

Article 46 of the pre-preliminary draft charter—known as convent 34—provided reassurance on that latter point. It stated that the charter did not establish any new competences or modify existing ones, as defined in the treaties. Furthermore, the charter was addressed to the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the member states exclusively within the scope of the treaties and Community law. Those proposals were further developed in articles 49 and 50 of convent 45, the preliminary draft text. Those articles should reassure people, whatever their thoughts on the nature of the charter, because they place the charter within the context of Community competences. Of course, the very existence of such reassurances provides rabid anti-European Union scaremongers with the opportunity to raise unfounded fears about a back-door European Union takeover of all aspects of member state law and competences.

Over the past 11 months, I have been struck by how the British press has portrayed the charter as a nascent European constitution under which Governments will lose their powers and citizens their democratic rights and historic freedoms. That argument has been supported with quotes from the minorities at each end of the European spectrum.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would describe the Foreign Minister of Belgium as a member of the minority spectrum. When he was asked in a recent interview how much importance he attached to the European charter of fundamental rights, he replied:

It is an essential document that foreshadows the future European Constitution we are hoping for.

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that quote in the light of his previous remarks?

Yes, it is easy to comment. One has only to consider the position of the entire Council and the 62 members of the convention to conclude that that is a minority view and at one end of the spectrum. If it were not, the charter would have come to us in a different form and there would have been a majority in support of making it a directly legally binding document. That is not the situation. We must face the fact that, however distinguished the Belgian Foreign Minister, he is part of a minority.

Further to the observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), I take it that the hon. Gentleman regards Mr. Prodi, the President of the European Commission, as representative of a minority. He said that the Commission was behaving, step by step, like a growing Government. In support of the hon. Gentleman's thesis, and in reflecting on the justiciability of the charter, what assessment has he made of article 6 (2) of the Maastricht treaty?

I will refer to article 6 (2) of that treaty. The charter in its present form, as currently agreed by the Council, will not be a directly justiciable document. My thesis is that each article of the charter has a legal base, as shown, in convent 49; I will return to that matter.

On the one hand, there is the federalist spectrum, which represents a minority view. However distinguished the people who propound that view, one cannot escape the fact that it is a minority view. Otherwise, we would have a different charter. At the other end of the spectrum is the nation-statist, who vows to fight to the end the perceived threat. The implication was also that all this was happening in dark corners in Brussels, where members of the British media had to use every kind of investigative subterfuge to bring the charter process into the light of day. The truth is that all of the convention proceedings—every meeting, every minute and every second—were open to the public. Not a single private session took place. In addition, every document issued by the convention appeared on the charter website. In fact, one newspaper, The Times, published the preliminary draft charter with banner headlines about how it had discovered a secret plot. The charter was there for anybody to see. It may be that the British press did not always follow the charter in detail—only reporting on it from time to time—but that was not the fault of the charter and its proceedings. Everything was open to the public.

I strongly believe that the outcome of the convention is a charter emphasising the legal protections and democratic rights of individual European Union citizens and residents, the responsibilities of EU institutions, bodies and member state Governments to uphold the law and provide good administration, and the responsibilities of individuals to uphold the ethos of the charter in their respect for the dignity of other people, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree with that. We should not get stuck on the wilder shores where the charter is seen as a nascent European constitution. The critical debate is on the realities of creating practical processes to give effect to the charter in promoting individual and institutional rights and responsibilities in the context of the European Union.

One area of critical concern is the way in which the European convention on human rights will fit into the charter and consistency be maintained in judgments made by the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights on issues that are common to the new charter of fundamental rights and the European convention on human rights, with its half century of case law determining levels of protection. The charter of fundamental human rights must be clear on the role of the European convention on human rights in providing minimum levels of protection. It must also ensure that the obligations of EU institutions and bodies are consistent with those of its member states.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of what is stated in the preamble to the charter. Is it not significant that, in the preamble, references to national domestic law or statute concerning rights are omitted? However, article 9 of the charter, which refers to the right to marry, states that that should be guaranteed in accordance with national laws, which are not even mentioned in the preamble.

Although there is no specific reference to national law in the preamble, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that the charter reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and tasks of the EU and the principle of subsidiarity, the rights as they result in particular from constitutional traditions and international obligations common to member states. Although it does not refer to national law, it refers to constitutional traditions and the principle of subsidiarity, which, as everyone knows, is about the implementation of national law.

I am afraid that resting on subsidiarity is not acceptable. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the protocol on the application of principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam? It states:

The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance…it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding a relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account article F(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which "the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."

It is game, set and match for justiciability.

Despite that impressive quotation from the treaty, I beg to differ. At specific points, the charter recognises that the European Union does not have competence to become directly involved in how laws are implemented in member states. That is why at specific points the charter refers to the fact that the right is determined by how it is implemented by national law. No court can undermine that.

Although member states of the European Union are signatories to the ECHR, the Commission is not. The charter must, therefore, make provision to deal with inconsistencies that could arise with charges of a two-tier system of protection developing between Strasbourg and Luxembourg 0—between Council of Europe members that are in the European Union and those that are not.

The French Government has led the argument against the need to refer to ECHR case law in the charter, while the British Government has been in the vanguard of those arguing for such a reference. The ideal solution would be to allow the Commission to become a signatory to the ECHR, but that presents political and legal difficulties. The European Court of Justice ruled in 1994 that the Commission did not have the legal standing to sign up to the ECHR. On the political point, it also raised issues about the potential statehood of the Commission and about the Community assuming the same identity as a state, so that was off the agenda.

The Council of Europe observers on the convention, Marc Fishbach and Hans Christian Kruger, have expressed their satisfaction with the draft charter as approved at the informal European Council session at Biarritz on 14 October. However, they rightly point out the critical importance of the way in which charter rights will be applied by the European Court of Justice to avoid establishing two different levels of rights. Their solution—that the Strasbourg court interprets European convention rights in the charter—seems to be a reasonable way of maintaining consistency in the field.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again; he is very patient. Does he, as a Member of this Parliament, share my anxiety that we are moving towards judge-driven law rather than law made by the representatives of the people in the Parliaments to which they are elected?

No, I do not believe that that is a danger. Parliaments still make the law; judges interpret it. If at any point a Parliament should feel that, whoops, perhaps it did not specify a matter clearly enough for that matter to be properly interpreted, it has the right to change its law. Most modern democracies have a system of judicial review, which is stronger in some countries than in others. In Britain, judicial review is possible of the application of laws by the Government or local authorities, for example. I therefore do not perceive that as a danger.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been extraordinarily generous in giving way. Earlier, he was quizzical about the contents of article 6 (2) of the treaty of Maastricht, to which I referred. Given that that article suggests that the charter's justiciability derives from the general principles of Community law, and that those take precedence over British law, I do not understand, and I should be grateful if he would explain, how he can dispute the point about justiciability.

There is a difference in interpretation. I do not believe that any one part of the sources of the charter's rights takes precedence over another source. The charter may state that a certain right could have a base in any one of several documents. However, if it states that a right was implemented under national law, that stands fast. I shall refer later to one or two relevant examples. It is a reasonable way in which to maintain consistency.

Debate within the convention was constructive and good-natured. The occasions were few when tempers were aroused and stand-offs threatened. That was to the credit of its members and the presidency in the chair, especially of President Herzog, the former President of Germany, who chaired the meetings superbly. There was a period when, unfortunately, he was absent because he had a slight stroke, and then his wife died tragically. However, we were still aware that he was exercising a calming influence behind the scenes.

We now have a charter that is a statement of rights, responsibilities and duties addressed to the institutions and bodies of the European Union with due regard to the principle of subsidiarity and to member states when they implement Union law. It does not establish a new power or task for the Community or the European Union, or modify powers or tasks defined under the treaties. However, it achieves the purpose of the Cologne mandate of making the rights of citizens and residents more clear. Convent 50, in its second revised form, dated 9 November is the current English version to which hon. Members can refer. It needs to be read alongside convent 49, which can be regarded as the Goldsmith version, with a text of explanations directing the citizen to the legal base for each right.

For example, article 10 on freedom of thought, conscience and religion is based on article 9 of the European convention on human rights. Article 32, the prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work, is based on directive 94/33/EC, article 7 of the European social charter and points 20 to 23 of the Community charter of the fundamental social rights of workers. Article 28, the right to trades union collective bargaining and action, is based on article 11 of the ECHR, article 6 of the European social charter, points 12 to 14 of the Community charter of the fundamental social rights of workers, and, because the right to strike is defined differently in member states, national law as laid down on that subject.

It would be tempting to consider the legal base for each article and then discuss the possible effectiveness of any action that might be taken. I believe that the picture is more clear for some articles than for others, but that would be for lawyers to decide in building up a case.

The charter is not a proto-European constitution. It is, however, a step forward for citizens and residents of the European Union. It ensures that both European and national law concerned with the development and implementation of EU policies does not infringe their fundamental rights and that redress is available should that happen. I remain amazed that the clearly stated purpose of the charter can be traduced by anyone as a plot to create a European super-state. The charter should be welcomed without exception.

As a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the convention, I should like to draw attention to the accuracy with which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has recorded the events. He outlined them very clearly. However, having listened to some of the interventions that have been made in this and previous debates on the charter, I have the impression that some hon. Members think that we do not need the charter and that it is just another exercise in bureaucracy and red tape and control by Brussels of our own affairs. How does that sit with the constant call for more clarity in the European Union, a clearer statement of the rights and responsibilities of nation states to their citizens and a clear description of the rights, responsibilities and limitations of the EU institutions?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I shall not give way just now.

We also need a clear understanding of the rights of individual citizens. It seems rather paradoxical that many of those who question most avidly—and, perhaps, rabidly — the relevance of the charter also call for more clarity.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, we have heard enough for the moment.

This is a debate.

No.

It seems that the same people who question the validity of the charter also ask for more clarity in the EU, a clearer statement of rights and responsibilities and, most important, a clearly stated limitation on the EU institutions. That surely is the purpose of the charter.

I shall add to the debate my reflections about the meetings of the convention in Brussels. It was an interesting experience to be a member of the UK parliamentary delegation to the convention that drafted the charter. As the hon. Member for Bridgend said, the convention was drawn from widely different parts of the European political establishment and included delegates from the Governments of EU member states and from the well-organised European Parliament, and Members of Parliament from the various states of the EU, including our own.

The process of drafting and amending the charter was far removed from the procedures followed in this House. There is no ruling party with a built-in majority, so we did not have to put up with anyone steamrollering through ill-thought-out clauses—something that we have learned to live with here. Progress could be made only through consensus. Strange and unknown as it may have been to members of the UK delegation, a climate of debate instead of dictatorship by majority prevailed. Sometimes extreme political groupings tried to use the charter to advance their political philosophies, but the power of logic, sound argument and persuasion was the most convincing and invariably won the day.

The UK delegation often led the way in ensuring that the charter was a triumph of principle and sound practice over the bizarre and extreme—of which we have heard a good example this morning. We should recall that the convention universally recognised the major contribution made by the UK in the drafting of the charter. That gave me and, I hope, many others a clear demonstration of the fact that when we engage in Europe we can play a leading role, which is welcomed by other member states.

The charter now goes forward to the intergovernmental conference. Instead of exercising old prejudices, we should be debating that move. The charter is likely to be proclaimed by the heads of state at the intergovernmental conference in Nice. I am not quite sure what that means; it may be a means not of accepting it in general but of putting it to one side. We need to consider whether the charter should become binding, but I believe that it should.

We have the opportunity this morning to establish how the charter could be used to benefit the citizens of Europe. Should it be incorporated into the EU treaties? Should it become justiciable within the European and national courts of law? It is intended to offer protection to the citizens of Europe from the abuses and excesses of EU agencies that the official Opposition party seems so concerned about. I and my colleagues would argue for a rational approach.

We should not necessarily be afraid that the charter will pave the way to a constitution for the European Union. That outcome may be some years away, provided that we do not try to form a constitution that implies the creation of a European state. I understand that fear. I understand the big beasties that the Opposition see around every corner, but that does not mean that we should not engage in the debate about how best to protect the citizens of Europe. I would like to see not a proper constitution, which would imply the creation of a European state, but a statute of limitations on the competencies and powers of the European Union. It could clearly define and limit the role of EU agencies. It is important that we state the rights of the individual citizen of every nation and the means by which rights can be protected and preserved, a point touched on in the opening remarks made by the hon. Member for Bridgend.

The European Union is now working to a programme of accession for a further six states or more to join by 2004. I would like the Minister to commit to requiring those states to satisfy their obligations under not only the European Union treaties but the charter of fundamental rights.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on his fine exposition of the situation and of how we arrived at the charter. It is the second time that we have had the benefit of his wisdom and experience. He rendered clear what the British press has often seen as murky and made a powerful speech enunciating what had been achieved and the congratulations due to the British delegation in the negotiations.

I want to raise several matters contained in the charter. One of the weaknesses of arriving at documents in the current manner is that, for example, we do not have an opportunity to try to amend them. That is a weakness of international treaties and I understand it.

I tried to secure a debate in Westminster Hall in July, but the way of the world and the luck of the draw are such that I did not succeed. A debate then would have enabled people to make observations that I could have taken to the September session.

I do not criticise my hon. Friend, but the system means that we parliamentarians do not have the opportunity to do so; we have to depend on him to be a postman for us and find a letterbox in which to post our observations. That was not possible on this occasion.

Several matters concern me about the charter, but first I should say how much I welcome articles 1 to 4. They are on human dignity, something that is under a great deal of attack. The first three state:

Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected…Everyone has the right to life…No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

Those are firm statements. It is to the credit of the Council of Europe that Europe became a capital punishment-free zone this year for all civil offences and for all military offences in many countries as well. That is to be welcomed.

The hon. Gentleman may be pleased to know that I strongly agree on that point. However, I do not believe that signing up to the abolition of the death penalty now should preclude the House considering the issue again. He was vocal during the passage of the Bill that became the Human Rights Act 1998. Is it his understanding that its incorporation and that of the charter would mean that the House of Commons was not permitted to consider the death penalty again?

The House of Commons would not he prevented from considering it; the House of Commons can consider anything, even whether the moon is made of green cheese. It is certainly true that if we took positive action, we should have to withdraw from the Council of Europe and, presumably, if the charter were incorporated in the fundamental treaties of the Community, from the Community too. That was one reason for my strongly urging, against the Government's advice, that we should incorporate protocol 5 of the European charter on the death penalty into the Act that establishes the convention. It would make it as difficult as possible for the death penalty to be reintroduced in this country. Happily, on a free vote, many colleagues supported that argument.

I welcome the charter, but I am interested in interpretation, on issues such as cloning and euthanasia. I take what might be regarded as a fundamentalist approach to those matters. In any event, they will be important. Equality and non-discrimination will also require attention. Again, I welcome current thinking on those matters, but several exceptions exist in the sphere of non-discrimination. With respect to women the draft charter states:

The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.

In the article dealing with integration of persons with disabilities, it states:

The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.

I welcome both those provisions and the general principle that there should be no discrimination, but those are not the only forms of discrimination. It is hard to see how the present articles would allow affirmative action programmes to be started to help people who had suffered discrimination on grounds of colour, religion or gender, or to raise their living standards or establish positive social programmes to provide them with advantages that they would otherwise lack. Specifying two exemptions—women and disabled people—to the established general principle might make it difficult to create special programmes to help, for example, black people in this country, Turks in Germany or Algerians in France. I regard that as a weakness in the charter.

Article 23 also states:

Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment. work and pay.

However, it does not include education. A general reference to education is made elsewhere in the document, but without equality in education for men and women, opportunities for women could be severely limited. I am surprised that the lady members of the Assembly did not notice that point.

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting question, but I wonder if he could explore it further. I do not think that anyone could claim that girls are disadvantaged in education in comparison with boys, to judge by entry to universities and medical schools —more women than men are entering medical schools at present. For those who work in education, equality of opportunity and advancement would surely be covered by the general reference to employment. What specific weaknesses has my hon. Friend identified?

I am well aware of the situation in my country, but my hon. Friend will know that other countries want access to the Community. They would presumably in due course be governed by the principles in the charter. Some of them might have different traditions governing the way in which they perceive women. I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that point. It would be interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Minister's observations on that matter.

On justiciability, one of the major concerns raised in debates in the House and in the Council of Europe—I should explain that I am a member of the human rights sub-committee of that council—has been having a two-tier system of justice, one for members of the Community and another for the rest of Europe. It is of the utmost importance that the accession of the Community to the European convention be resolved. I understand the decision of the European Court of Justice that because the Community is not a state per se it cannot sign up to the European convention. I accept that, but it should not be beyond the bounds of human ingenuity for the European Union and the member states of the Council of Europe to amend the convention to enable the EU to sign up to it. That should be done without giving the Union any of the appurtenances of statehood, which might cause consternation to those sitting on my right and my extreme right.

Such a course of action should be carefully examined, as it would overcome the problem of potentially dichotomous judgments or judgments going in opposite directions from the same basis of interpretation within the European Union. That should be seriously addressed. I say that for another reason, because we not only have the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and the European convention, we also have a plethora of charters springing up all over Europe. They include the convention of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Commonwealth of Independent States—that is, those countries that are dominated by Russia. Those countries have proposals that in many ways lack the strengths of the European convention. If we ended up with a justiciable charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, a general one for the rest of Europe, and then a further, weaker one for the CIS states, we would be in a grave position, with conflicting ideas, jurisdictions and decisions. That being the case, it is of the utmost importance that the Community and the Council of Europe get together to find some way in which the convention can be amended so that the Community can join.

Finally, I would be grateful if we could be told precisely what will happen at Nice when the matter is discussed. When an announcement is made from the top of the casino, will we be told that our aspirations to gather together the rights, duties and responsibilities of Governments and individuals in the Community are merely aspirations? Some people have said that the charter will have an indirect persuasion on the powers of the Luxembourg court, being a document to which it may refer under the Maastricht treaty. That treaty contains certain human rights provisions, and some of us were opposed to their inclusion because of possible conflict with the Council of Europe, which could be dangerous.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer some of those questions and, again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend for securing a debate on this matter.

I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for securing this debate. I am mindful that he initiated another earlier in the year, and both have been helpful in exploring exactly what is intended with respect to the European Union charter of fundamental rights. Having paid tribute to him, however, I express my great disappointment that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) was not prepared to give way. He made certain assertions, but refused to take any interventions. He rightly said that there was some doubt about the purpose behind the charter of fundamental rights and went on to explain how he envisaged it. His refusal to accept any interventions precluded other views from being expressed. I cited the Belgian Foreign Minister earlier, but the hon. Gentleman should be aware that the French Minister for European Affairs also recently said:

The discussion on the Charter's future is closely related to the discussion…to provide the European Union with a Constitution… Post Nice…there is the issue of transforming the treaties into a single constitution.

The hon. Gentleman should have given way to allow me to express that point.

We are not confused by intention, and nor do we want to be, but we hear conflicting signals from all quarters, including from senior politicians. We are conscious of the spat in our own country, in which the Foreign Secretary has told the Chancellor, "You are not Prime Minister yet", and that he is the boss. What the Foreign Secretary says about negotiations on the treaty of Nice is what counts, and he does not want any interference from the Treasury. It is not possible simply to discount what the Foreign Minister of Belgium or the French Minister for European Affairs say. They are senior politicians with a responsible attitude towards these matters. I must draw the Chamber's attention to the fact that our own Minister for Europe described the charter as the Beano.

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it is difficult. We have this treaty, that treaty, this treaty and another treaty: what is wrong with putting them all together? Consolidating the treaties in that way would not create a constitution.

I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not the right person to answer his question. The purpose of today's debate is to find out from our own Government representative exactly what is going on. Where is it all leading us? I shall give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Bridgend, but before I do, let me pose this clear, direct, simple and straightforward question to the Minister. Is the charter of fundamental rights a prelude to a European Union constitution? Today, the Minister has an ideal opportunity to give Parliament a categorical assurance that the charter either is or is not a prelude to a European Union constitution. That would clear the air, and I would then be able to take cognisance of my own Government rather than being confused by the statements of senior politicians in other countries.

The hon. Gentleman quoted two out of 15 Foreign Ministers in the European Union. Yes, some people view the charter as a step on the road to a European constitution, but they are in a minority. On the other side of the fence, some people do not want a charter at all, but they are also in the minority. The broad spectrum of opinion in the middle wants the charter to remain as it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a further step towards creating a European constitution requires amendment to the treaties, to which every member of the Union would have to agree; in some member states, a referendum must be held before any agreement. We should get real about the possibility of creating a European constitution from the charter. That will not happen or, if it does, it will happen so far into the future that it need not concern the hon. Gentleman, or me, or the next few generations.

That is all very well. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who presented his case extremely well; he gave a full exposition of his involvement in bringing the charter thus far, and some background to our present position. I do not have a definitive note of what all 15 Foreign Ministers said on the subject although I know what some said, and have I quoted two. The House should be more interested in what our own Minister for Europe thinks about the subject. Does he believe that the proposal is a prelude to a European constitution? Does he want the charter to be a prelude to a European constitution? With due respect to the hon. Member for Bridgend, it is the Minister who must answer those questions.

As with so many other features of the European Union, the hon. Gentleman, trotted out the canard that we should not worry because what we fear will not happen, that "this is as far as it goes". But we have seen it all before. In the past few days, a European army has been announced, even though people continue to deny it. The world press shows how the announcement is interpreted in other European countries. For example, according to reports in Die Welt yesterday, there is no doubt in the German mind that what is proposed is a European army, yet a few months ago people denied that. They said that it was a figment of our imagination and that we must not become hysterical about it. Policies adopted by the European Union always start as a small cloud no bigger than a man's fist, but before we know where we are they becomes something quite different.

I share my hon. Friend's disappointment at the style and the federalist stance of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). Is my hon. Friend aware that by contrast the excellent prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Eastleigh constituency, Mr. Conor Burns, is a strong supporter of national self government? He fervently opposes the incorporation of the European charter of fundamental rights and freedoms into British law. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will make it much easier for Mr. Burns to overturn the precarious, wafer-thin, 754 majority of the hon. Member for Eastleigh?

My hon. Friend tempts me to pronounce on the electoral prospects of the Liberal Democrats at the next general election, but I do not wish to depress them unduly now, as there are other things to talk about.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I must make progress and I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

This is the right place and the right time to ask the Minister questions. At the back of my mind is a press report a few months ago in which the Minister for Europe said that we must have a proper debate on European matters and get all the facts into the open. The last time that we debated these matters, the Minister, although always genial, was not entirely serious. In response to serious comments, we got flip remarks such as, "The hon. Gentleman is only demonstrating his opposition to European union." That does not answer our questions. I shall therefore repeat them. What is the need for the charter of fundamental rights? What is the motivation for it? Is it, or is it not, a prelude to a European Union constitution?

I have taken a considerable amount of the House's time. It is only fair that I should sit down now to make way for others who wish to speak, but more particularly so that there is time at the end of the debate for the Minister to address himself seriously to the questions that have been put to him.

In February the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) provided a progress report to the House on the convention and the drafting process. I am grateful for this opportunity to revisit the issue and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. Two things are clear. The first is the wisdom of continuing to hold Westminster Hall debates because they provide an opportunity to discuss important issues. However, I am concerned that we have to rely on the luck of the ballot to review an important piece of European policy. I concluded my contribution to that debate in February by saying that we should monitor progress carefully to ensure that the charter is implemented at a time that is appropriate to the best interests of individuals throughout Europe. It is appropriate, given that an intergovernmental conference will occur in a couple of weeks' time, to revisit some of those issues.

Ensuring that fundamental human rights are in place is a prerequisite to unlocking the potential of individuals throughout the European Community. We have heard a great deal today about articles and theories, but we have not heard much about individuals. People must be our starting point when we judge whether this is the right form of policy to have throughout Europe and what impact it has on individuals' daily lives. I find it increasingly frustrating that the media appear to be like rabbits caught in the headlights. They are obsessed that the charter is yet another step to what they describe as a superstate. Others may be happy to regard the charter as another jigsaw piece in their conspiracy theory. Such a distorted and dismissive view has little constructive value.

The objectives of the charter are clear and well intentioned. The road to execution has been less than straightforward although few will have expected it to be anything other than a bumpy ride. Back in August The Economist painted a bleak picture of what we then had before us:

It resembles not so much a Charter of Fundamental Rights as a badly organised package tour. The authors of the European Union's proposed new human-rights declaration have stuffed in a bit of everything, from the obvious to the incomprehensible.

That was always the concern that many of us had about the charter: too much had been included with little idea of what was most important. The article continued:

It is written in exactly the sort of eurobabble that nobody except lawyers, interest groups and other connoisseurs of the genre will ever read.

That was my second concern. If something were to come out of the charter, it had to be clear and understandable to the individuals whom it would affect. Fortunately the draft of the charter was significantly revised in September. In the approach to the Nice conference, the Foreign Secretary spelled out last week what he believed the charter is trying to achieve. He said:

The Charter of Rights will be a political declaration, not a binding document. It will set down, for the first time in one place, the rights to which the EU's residents are already entitled.

It is clear that there is no agreement between member states about the charter's status. Recent reports suggest, and I hope that the Minister can clarify Britain's position, that Britain is not alone in rejecting a fully justiciable charter in the short term. Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands and others have said that placing the charter in the treaties at this juncture would be inadvisable. At present, EU treaties contain no explicit code of human rights, and the convention on human rights cannot give redress when EU institutions breach convention rights because the EU has not acceded to the convention.

Liberal Democrats argue that decisions about what should and should not be a legitimate concern of the EU must not be made ad hoc. We are clear and public about the need for a constitution for Europe that defines and limits the powers of EU institutions, setting out which decisions should be rightfully taken at which level. Such clarity should be welcomed and not feared, as some Conservatives who have spoken fear it.

The draft charter of fundamental rights is an important part of the process, as it will set out the rights of the individual citizen in the European context and the correct forms of redress against any misuse of power in the EU. To incorporate a new charter at this stage, however, would significantly increase the burden on the legal system, which is still adjusting to the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into domestic law. Surely the correct place for such a charter, if it is to be justiciable, is at the heart of a constitution for Europe. Only a constitution that clarifies and defines the functions of the European tier of Government would provide a stable and legitimate framework for the democratic development of European politics at all levels, help to reconnect European institutions to the people, and guarantee that decisions are taken at the most appropriate level. Mr. Winterton —

Order. I have achieved little in this place in 30 years, but the one thing that I have achieved is the title of Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, your colleague Mrs. Roe gave us a ruling that that convention had changed. I am aware of confusion among hon. Members, but I was abiding by that ruling in addressing you as Mr. Winterton.

Mrs. Roe is not a Deputy Speaker.

Many hon. Members are confused, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and would be grateful for your clarification.

Four members of the Speaker's Panel have been given the title of Deputy Speaker for Westminster Hall, of whom I am one. Others who chair Westminster Hall from time to time are addressed by name, because they are simply members of the Chairmen's Panel. Mrs. Roe, who was in the Chair before me, is one of them. Other additional Deputy Speakers include the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for that clarification. The rule is more confusing than some of the stuff that comes out of Brussels.

The Nice conference should seek to establish a constitutional convention, composed of representatives from member state Governments, national Parliaments, the European Commission and the European Parliament, which would be charged with drawing up a constitution of the EU. The charter's passage should not take place in a vacuum. How many of Europe's 372 million citizens know that it exists? Perhaps only slightly more than the number of people who appreciate why it is relevant and what it is intended to achieve. If the charter is seriously intended to help European citizens and bring together a people's Europe, surely a key aspect is making them aware of that fact. More work should be done to ensure that the charter is given greater publicity, so that people will know how changes to their lives could take place. The blame for that lack of awareness lies partly with the media, but politicians and the Government must take overall responsibility for failing to take the issue to the people and consult more widely.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing today's debate. I also congratulate all hon. Members who have participated. The previous debate on the issue took place on 16 February. Then, as now, both sides of the House approved of many of the principles on which the charter was said to be based. Fundamental rights must be guaranteed if democracy and individual freedom are to flourish. However, at that time, concerns were expressed about the effect of setting out such wide-ranging principles in that document.

The reason why the British people do not, in the main, feel that their human rights are under threat is that we have developed, over a thousand years, a legal tradition that protects those rights. Over time, the balance of rights has been shifting gradually towards the individual citizen. Those rights are not set down in a written constitution or declaration but have evolved through British common law and are based on common sense. The charter cannot claim to have been based on such common-sense practice. We could at least have had a charter that bridged the alarming gap that already exists between EU citizens and EU institutions—by significantly improving the specific right of redress, for example. A key function of fundamental rights is, after all, that of protecting citizens from over-mighty or intrusive Government authorities. A charter protecting Europeans from overbearing EU bureaucracy would have been widely welcomed, but unfortunately this charter will not achieve that.

It is worth noting the predictions that the Minister made during our debate in February, which give an indication of the validity of reassurances he might make today. He said:

New rights will not be added.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 241WH.]

Perhaps the Minister could explain why, in that case, the French European Minister is, to name but one, so misinformed? That Minr said in Strasbourg on 3 October:

Quite obviously, the charter does not only reaffirm pre-existing rights. It enshrines many new rights.

Why also was Mr. Moscovici able to welcome the charter as

the greatest collective advance, as far as the affirmation of social rights is concerned, since the beginning of the European enterprise?

:Spin!

It certainly has something in common with the Government that the hon. Gentleman supports.

The Minister went on in that debate in February to tell us that the drafting body would ensure that there was no duplication with the convention on human rights. In fact, there is a huge amount of duplication. Indeed, the Council of Europe's observers have now warned that the charter

is bound to take on a dynamic which is almost certain to affect the harmonious and consistent interpretation of fundamental rights.

They go on to warn of the danger of decisions of the European Court of Justice being at variance with those of the Strasbourg court, putting members states in "a very awkward position".

It is, however, on the far more central point of the charter's legal effect that the Government's assurances have proved especially misleading. Ministers told us that they had made sure that the charter would not be incorporated into the treaties and briefed the press to that effect. We now know the real value and weight of those assurances because almost every legal and political expert outside Whitehall has made it abundantly clear that the charter will have a major impact on national law even it if is not incorporated in the treaty. The European Commission could not have been clearer about that. It stated:

It is reasonable to assume that the charter will produce all its effects, legal and others, whatever its nature.

In case the Minister and others did not get the point, the Commission document continued:

It can reasonably be expected that the charter will become mandatory through the court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of Community law.

So much for the Minister's reassurance that the charter's effect would be equivalent to that of the Beano or that the document could take the form of a small pledge card.

Less than a month later, the vice-president of the European Court of Human Rights emphasised the same point, saying:

The fact is, whether the charter is declaratory or not, it will be a source of inspiration and reference, in domestic courts and the European Court of Justice.

The Council of Europe's observers have stated that it is "highly probable" that the charter will

generate a far higher number of references for preliminary rulings

than the European Court of Justice presently receives. The vice-president of the convention that drew up the charter went on to point out that, before it had even been completed, the charter had already been cited four times as a source of European values by the group of wise men investigating Austria. So the Prime Minister's solemn assurance after the Biarritz summit that the charter would not impact on national law was far from the reality. The Prime Minister was wrong, and that is not the only Government claim that has gone awry. We were told that the charter would set out only those rights already included in European legislation, but that is not the case. It includes not only several rights from the European convention, social charter and ECHR case law, but also rights said to have derived from member states' national laws. How does that meet the Minister's aim, as stated on 16 February, that the charter should explain exactly how people benefit from membership of the European Union? How does the right to strike, for example, derive from EU membership? What will be the effect of setting out such rights in a document that will influence the judgments of the ECJ?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I beg the indulgence of hon. Members as there are only a few minutes available and I want to make a number of points. I apologise to the hon. Lady, although she was not, I believe, present and participating earlier.

If the charter is intended solely for EU institutions, perhaps the Minister could explain precisely which EU institution is the intended target of article 19, which prevents member states from extraditing criminals to countries where they might be subject to the death penalty? In February the Minister told hon. Members not to get carried away with seeing the charter of rights as a European constitution. Perhaps he should address his remarks to EU ministerial colleagues on the continent, many of whom have called for just that.

We now learn that another intergovernmental conference is being planned to take place once the general election is safely out of the way. Its specific task will be to start work on a European constitution, with the charter featuring as a possible preamble. That will result in a charter that the courts will use to interfere more in national law, especially in the area of social and employment policy, and transfers yet more power to make choices from elected representatives to unelected judges. The Minister compares the charter in importance to the Beano, but the European Commission says that it will mark a turning point in the integration of Europe, moving it away from the essentially economic logic of its origins towards becoming a real political union. When the Government's claims are refuted so comprehensively and dramatically by every independent legal and political opinion, who are we to believe? Sadly, on past performance, not the Minister.

The people of Britain have enjoyed comprehensive protection in what is one of the most liberal and tolerant societies in the world. We have done so with a legal system that has clearly limited the role of the judiciary in politics. Parliament has always been central to that. The charter will simply speed up the process of judicial involvement in our national life, and further alienate people from European institutions. It will make many lawyers rich and busy, and it will make our laws increasingly judge-driven, which is certainly more than the Beano ever sought to do.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to respond to this excellent debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for the enormous amount of work that he has done on the charter drafting committee and for securing a debate to allow other hon. Members to join a discussion on this important document.

I welcome the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). It is right that we should mention that the delegation to the convention was an all-party delegation, as was demonstrated by the excellent contribution of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). We must also pay tribute to the noble Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord Bowness who is, I believe, a member of the Conservative party. That all-party delegation was important, because it was good that, yet again, we were represented by first-class parliamentarians in a European forum.

As usual, although they have done an excellent job, there are still voices of criticism. I was going to call them the four horsemen of the apocalypse, but only two turned up today: the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who has since got on his horse and ridden away, and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), whom he has left behind. They jumped up and down as if they were chihuahuas at the Battersea dogs home, interrupting everyone, lovingly looking for potential owners, and leaving me only a few minutes to dispel the myths put forward by the Opposition.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) should really have written his speech after he heard the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, rather than before. If he had done so, he would have heard my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Eastleigh deal with all the points that he made. They—along with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten)—set out clearly the intentions of the charter and what we hope that it will achieve.

We should consider the five key myths to which Opposition Members and others referred. First, the hon. Member for Ludlow said that the charter represented the beginning of a European constitution. If a telephone directory were published in Brussels, the hon. Gentleman would believe that it was the forerunner of a European constitution. We are not going to have such a constitution, so I am happy to deny categorically his statement. The charter is, as it claims to be, a political declaration of rights and principles that exist in the European Union. I must tell him that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) signed up to it. The Union was founded on

the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law.

Who signed the document that contains that phrase? The shadow Foreign Secretary, in his own hand. I was under the belief that only Labour Members believed in fundamental human right, but have discovered that the shadow Foreign Secretary believes in them too.

The second myth perpetrated by Opposition Members was that new rights were created by charter drafting committee. That, of course, is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, the hon. Member for Eastleigh and their colleagues ensured that the principles and rights that are recognised in the European Union were adopted in the charter. The committee has no mandate to extend the law of this land, and it knows that. My hon. Friend was at pains to explain to the House the necessity of maintaining existing rights and principles—and that is what happened.

In response to the point made earlier about the right to strike, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that there has been a right to strike in common law for a long time. It has long been the case that any act that would otherwise be illegal is entirely legal if committed in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. Did not the agreement made at Maastricht simply consolidate that?

My hon. Friend is right, and she did not have to be here for the whole debate to have made the point.

I was here for most of it.

Exactly. The point was made on previous occasions. Indeed, the employment protection legislation passed by the Conservative Government in 1992 enshrines those rights.

Thirdly, Opposition Members asked whether the charter would be binding. I appeared recently on the "Today" programme with the shadow Foreign Secretary, when I suggested that he would have to eat the charter if it were incorporated in the treaties. He was convinced that it would be incorporated into the treaties and would be judicially binding and that, as a result, the sky would fall in. I went to the conclave meeting in Brussels on Sunday night and—to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester—I took a head count of the Ministers for Europe and Foreign Secretaries. It was basically even-stevens between those who supported incorporation and those who did not. The opinion that the United Kingdom has a minority view on that issue is absolute rubbish. Many countries do not believe that the document should be incorporated into the treaties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend stated.

rose—

Before the hon. Member for West Suffolk asks me about the Beano, I mentioned it because I know his usual reading material, and was trying to keep matters simple for him. The document will not be binding; indeed, it will be a declaration surrounded by gold stars, as the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have said until we are blue in the face. It is not going to happen.

I am afraid that, characteristically, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The guarantee that we were trying to establish was whether it would be incorporated in the treaties or be legally enforceable? I was trying to tell him that it will be legally enforceable. That is the guarantee that we sought, which he has signally failed to deliver.

It will not be legally enforceable. After the debate, I will give the hon. Gentleman a list of lawyers whom he can consult, and who will be able to advise him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North said, the declaration will be proclaimed at Nice. That will be another victory for the superb negotiating of the UK delegation. What a pity that the Conservative party cannot support the good work done by some of its members.

What is the fourth euro-myth? It is that everything has been done in secret. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend pointed out, the great exclusive in The Times was also available on the worldwide web. Everybody could read the deliberations of the drafting committee, because they were accessible to all. The hon. Member for West Suffolk has made several criticisms of the charter. Did he write to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, who was on the drafting committee, with his suggestions for improvements?

May I say—

Yes or no?

That, coming from the Minister, is a truly fantastic question.

Yes or no?

Order. Hon. Members should not make sedentary interventions.

Those points were made by Conservative Members of the European Parliament who were involved in the convention. If the Minister does not know that, he is also in ignorance.

The shadow Minister for Europe has told us, in a roundabout way, that since February this year he has not taken a single opportunity to write to a member of the drafting committee to express his views. That sums up the attitude of the Conservative party.

What is the last euro-myth? It surrounds whether the charter will amount to anything more than a showcase. Is it a launch pad for something new, if not an EU constitution then something else? Of course it is not. It is a showcase of existing rights. All democratically elected Members of Parliament should want to make sure that citizens of this country know their rights. We want to make sure that the charter is celebrated, so people are aware of what is happening. That is why we welcome the charter. It will be proclaimed at Nice, and we will support its provisions and debate its importance for some time to come. What is the Conservative party's argument? The hon. Member for Ludlow referred to a speech from a Belgian Foreign Minister who was not even a member of the convention drafting committee. The hon. Member for West Suffolk—who probably cannot even spell Moscovici—told us about the French Minister for Europe. Of course they are entitled to their views. There are 300 million people in the European Union, and every Minister in every Government is entitled to his or her views—we live in a democracy. Ultimately, however, decisions on the charter are made by member states—by Prime Ministers and heads of Government, sitting at Biarritz, as they did in their informal meeting, and now at Nice.

On the issue of a European army, the Leader of the Opposition said that if it sounds like an elephant and looks like an elephant it must be an elephant. The Leader of the Opposition would not know an elephant if it sat on him. The EU force to which we shall be contributing has the support of NATO and of all our allies.

One of the great pleasures of being a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is the opportunity to meet people from many other countries throughout the world. I was in Jakarta recently at a meeting primarily of the human rights commission of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The human rights commission is a little known part of the IPU's work. It usually meets in parallel with the main IPU conference, at which time it is head down, ploughing through country after country, delegation after delegation. At the end of the week, we are lucky if we manage a swim in the swimming pool. The work is that intense.

However, the commission's work is immensely rewarding. In the 23 years of its existence, it has examined complaints concerning 1,128 individual or collective cases in 92 countries involving Members of Parliament. It would surprise most people that Members of Parliament in many parts of the world are not able to fulfil their mandate in the way that Members of Parliament in this country or in most democracies are expected to do. Not only are they prevented from carrying out their mandate because they have never been allowed to take up their seats in Parliament—as in the case of Burma—but some elected Members are in prison; some are being tortured; some have disappeared and some have been murdered. The intensity with which investigations are carried out in such cases varies.

At present, there are nearly 40,200 Members of Parliament throughout the world. As the work of the IPU human rights commission is now widely acknowledged, the number and scope of the complaints that are submitted to it are increasing. It has before it allegations relating to the situation of at least 180 serving and former parliamentarians in 25 countries. Thanks to the reliability and consistency of its work, the commission is respected even by countries that it has to rap over the knuckles. Above all, it has obtained satisfactory settlements for a great many cases by acting on its own or with other international supervisory and settlement bodies.

I have before me a list of 134 elected representatives of Burma who have been subjected to detention, imprisonment or forced resignation. It covers the period from 1991 to this year. Running down from the top of the list, it contains reference to parliamentarians who have been sentenced to 25 years, to 20 years, to 20 years, to 12 years, to four years, to 25 years, to seven years and so on. It is a horrific illustration of circumstances in which elected Members cannot exercise their mandate. Given our past close links with Burma, we know that, although it was badly damaged in the second world war, Burma had the best health care system, the best civil service and the highest literacy rate in south-east Asia. It has since become one of the world's poorest, least developed and most disastrously governed countries. This year the World Heath Organisation ranked Burma second to last among 191 nations in the quality of its health care services. Unelected generals run Burma even though the party of Aung San Suu Kyi — who, although she was never elected because she was prevented from standing for election, is the acknowledged world leader of her party, the National League for Democracy—won 392 seats out of 485, or 80 per cent. of seats, in 1990.

According to Amnesty International, more than 1,000 political activists were sent to Burmese prisons last year alone. At least 55 members of parliament elect are known to be in prison, five have died while in detention, and some have died after torture.

In late September this year, the generals again ordered the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, the winner of the 1991 Nobel peace prize, who has spent more than six of the past 11 years under house arrest. Senior leaders of her party have been imprisoned or placed under house arrest, and two of the most influential monks in the country, who wrote letters begging the generals to talk to Aung San Suu Kyi, are being watched by military intelligence. The army halted huge pro-democracy demonstrations 12 years ago by killing several hundred people and jailing thousands more. Since then the generals have doubled the size of the armed forces to more than 400,000, although Burma, with a population estimated at 50 million, faces no serious foreign threats.

In the past five years, the military has forcibly resettled tens of thousands of potentially restive poor people from city centres to distant slums. It has closed most urban universities and has sent students to remote rural campuses. Trade unions are banned. No elections are scheduled, and none seem likely.

I should like to mention not a Member of Parliament but a political prisoner who is typical of those jailed in Burmese prisons. When he was in his 40s, he was arrested by military intelligence for associating with a banned political party. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison at a secret trial with no civilian witnesses or lawyers. Human rights groups say that his experience is typical. The former prisoner's incarceration began when guards forced a stinking blue cotton bag over his head and asked him questions for four days without allowing him to sleep. He said that the bag, which kept him from seeing the faces of his interrogators, was fouled with sweat, mucus and blood. He said that it smelled unimaginably bad. He was later caught with a magazine in his cell. At that time, prisoners were not allowed to read or write, and his punishment was three months in solitary confinement without access to a toilet or shower. Unlike some unlucky prisoners who are not allowed to clean up after themselves, he said that he was occasionally permitted to scrape excrement from his cell. I am glad to say that the International Committee of the Red Cross began making prison visits in May 1999, and as a result some prisoners' conditions have improved.

Following the latest arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, all central committee members of her party were also placed under house arrest. They had all won seats in the general elections. Those leaders join the endless list of Members of Parliament—the numbers vary, because problems of access to prisoners makes counting them more difficult than in most other countries. Dr. Sein Win, the leader of a coalition of parties in exile, attended the IPU conference in Jakarta and talked to our commission. He believes that about 200 Members of Parliament are incarcerated. About 55 have been charged and given long prison terms. The rest, who are held in what the military call guest houses, live in conditions that are, I suppose, something like minimum security prisons.

According to Amnesty International, political prisoners in Burma are often tortured during interrogation by military intelligence after they are arrested. They can also be tortured after sentencing if they break arbitrary and harsh prison rules. Political prisoners are denied adequate food, medical care and sanitation. Dozens have died through lack of proper care. The Members of Parliament who have died in prison under those harsh conditions are Kyaw Min, who died on 1 July 1999 of hepatitis contracted in prison; Tin Maung Win, who died in January 1991 after torture and Khin Maung Kyi, who died on 8 February 1991, also after torture. Hla Than died on 2 August 1996 after torture and Saw Win died on 7 August 1998. The Burmese in exile are very concerned about the health and safety of other Members of Parliament who are under detention.

Ten women were elected during the 1990 elections and one has died since then. The military authorities still have six of the remaining nine women Members of Parliament under detention. One is Daw San San, a labour activist and central executive member of the National League for Democracy, who was arrested in connection with a plan for establishing a parallel government during the 1990s, which led to the formation of a coalition group outside Burma. She is serving a 25-year prison sentence for the second time. There is great concern about her health.

We were told by the Prime Minister in exile of the story of Daw Mya Mya Sein, a senior party organiser for women's affairs, who became paralysed after she was tortured during the recent crackdown. Five other women Members of Parliament and female members of the National League for Democracy face tough and harsh prison conditions. The Prime Minister of Burma in exile is calling on the international community to help. He stated positively that he wants the rest of the world to act, and that it is time to say loud and clear that being elected should not be a crime anywhere, including Burma.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the horrifying circumstances that she has described, income generated by Burma from tourism is helping to sustain the undemocratic regime? Burma's pro-democracy movement has urged tourists not to travel there. Should not holidaymakers take that into account before deciding to go there and should not tour operators and tour guides also consider it?

That is an important point. It has been made by campaigning organisations, and I agree with it. It gives the regime in Burma the wrong message if tourists visit the country just as if it were somewhere in Europe where democracy and human rights were upheld. They are not upheld in Burma and people should be made more aware of the need to show dislike of the regime and the need for it to change. That can by done by boycotting it as a holiday destination.

Several organisations have called for other action. The National League for Democracy calls on the Government of Burma to release all MPs-elect immediately and unconditionally and to end all violations of the human rights of the people of Burma. The league wants the military Government to recognise the rights of the duly elected representatives of Burma to convene the Parliament and immediately cease all restrictions placed on them. It also wants the military Government of Burma to engage with the National League for Democracy and the representatives of ethnic nationalities in a dialogue to achieve a peaceful transition to democracy.

The Burma campaign in the UK calls upon the Government to impose investment sanctions and to encourage Scandinavian countries and other sympathetic countries to do the same, as requested by Aung San Suu Kyi. The campaign calls on the Government not to attend the Association of South-East Asian Nations summit in Laos in December unless she and her party members are freed from house arrest and allowed to carry out political activities freely. The Committee Representing the People's Parliament, a coalition of all the elected members, should be recognised by all Governments.

Human Rights Watch believes that ASEAN should make it clear to Burma that its actions risk disrupting ASEAN's relationships with key aid and trading partners. As you know, Mr. Winterton, ASEAN leaders defended the 1997 decision to grant membership to Burma on the ground that engagement would induce reform there. Human Rights Watch says that ASEAN leaders should use their influence to call for an immediate lifting of restrictions on the elected Members of Parliament and to respect their basic rights. They also want the European Union to announce that it will not proceed with plans for the EU-ASEAN summit in December if the restrictions are not lifted and if the Burmese officials responsible for the recent crackdown are invited to the summit. That is a big shopping list for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I am sure that he will respond generously.

I am convinced that if thousands of Members of Parliament throughout the world step forward in support of their persecuted colleagues in Burma, it will not only make a difference to how the latter are treated but it will be a significant step towards bringing a national nightmare to a close. I hope, Mr. Winterton, that as many Members of the Westminster Parliament as possible will sign that declaration of solidarity. It has been circulated in Parliaments throughout the world, thousands have signed it already, and I am sure that Members here will want to do the same.

Order. The hon. Lady is always extremely courteous and I did not interrupt her speech, but the rule in Westminster Hall is that occupiers of the Chair, particularly myself, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), are addressed as Deputy Speaker. Other members of the Speakers Panel are addressed by name. I did not interrupt the hon. Lady, but I hope that she will bear that in mind.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for giving us the opportunity to debate the imprisonment of parliamentarians in Burma. She mentioned her work on the Inter-Parliamentary Union committee for human rights. She is well respected at Westminster, in Britain and, increasingly, internationally as a campaigner and champion of human rights. She courageously takes that campaign into corners of the world that others would find uncomfortable.

My hon. Friend does not allow that seamless web of human rights to be sidelined and she campaigns consistently, tenaciously and without fear or favour. I say all that because, although she mentioned the work that she does on paper and behind the scenes, it is amazing how often her attention to detail bears fruit. It is important that we do not forget the names, faces and personalities of all those real people who are wiped out as a result of the denial of human rights. I particularly warmed to her line that being elected should not be a crime.

There will be 40 elections in the world this year, more than half of which will be in countries that have never had the full franchise before. Democratic elections are relatively new. At the other end of Westminster Hall, not many yards from here, is a little cupboard with a plaque on it to Emily Wilding Davison, who championed the rights of women to have a vote in Britain as late as the 1920s. It is significant that all hon. Members in this room are women, apart from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and me. Democracy is pretty new and it is a fragile plant on our globe that should be protected and defended.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the denial of human rights to our imprisoned Burmese colleagues. Perhaps we can send them some hope and solidarity from our debate, from her campaign, and I hope from the Government's actions as well.

On a campaigning note, perhaps I can encourage other professions—doctors, lawyers, journalists—to raise concern about their imprisoned Burmese colleagues with their national and international bodies. My hon. Friend spelled out the recent changes in Burma, which has, according to the World Bank, dropped down the league table to become one of the poorest countries in the world. That is since the election in 1990, when it was loosely at the bottom of the middle-income countries. The decline was unnecessary because it had rice, which gave it the means to feed itself. It now has to import food to fight off starvation. That is the tragedy.

The internal political situation is intense. As we know, Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy, attempted to travel outside Rangoon this summer and was blocked by the regime. Our debate is timely, as it is the anniversary of the second month of the latest incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues from the National League for Democracy in their homes. That followed their arrest on 21 September, when they again had the audacity to try to travel within Burma—to exercise what we would call ordinary human rights, never mind political rights at a parliamentary level.

Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues had been involved in a nine-day standoff in a village south of Rangoon in the summer. During that time, our ambassador in Rangoon tried to gain access to her and her party, but was turned back by Burmese soldiers. He was also manhandled by the authorities when he tried to gain access to the house of U Tin Oo, the deputy chairman of the NLD.

Those events and that in the summer when Aung San Suu Kyi tried to catch a train to Mandalay, demonstrate the efforts and lengths that the regime will go to to prevent even movement. After nine hours of delay at the railway station, where diplomats were refused access to her, she was again returned to her home. She has effectively been under house arrest. Security is tight and we have not been allowed access, nor have diplomats from other embassies. U Tin Oo is reported to be held in an interrogation centre.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs issued a statement on 21 September condemning those events and demanding an explanation. However, the only person to have seen Aung San Suu Kyi since then, apart from her doctor, is Mr. Razali, the special envoy of the United Nations. The situation is tense. We must keep up the international pressure. In every possible forum, my right hon. Friend has condemned the action and called on the Burmese regime to release people without condition immediately.

I am sad to say that those people are the latest in a roll-call of parliamentarians and activists in Burma who have found themselves imprisoned for nothing but their political beliefs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley told us. The International Committee of the Red Cross estimates that there are 1,500 political prisoners in Burma. That includes 35 NLD Members of Parliament-elect in prison, and 46 Members of Parliament-elect, 43 of whom represent the NLD, in detention in Government guest houses. They are not only held in prison, but in their homes as well. There is a clampdown.

The regime is attempting to implement a policy of effectively salami slicing the NLD to detain activists and prevent political activity. Party offices were even trashed in the summer. The regime wants to undermine the organisation and crush it. The NLD won the election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley pointed out. It won 80 per cent. of the popular vote and 60 per cent. of the seats but has been denied access to power ever since. The regime is determined to stamp out any democratic opposition to its brutal dictatorship. We do not have the time here to spell out how human rights are denied in Burma to ethnic minorities such as the Karen and the Shan people, who are driven across the borders.

On forced labour, our ambassador and our EU colleagues have made representations to the Burmese authorities whenever possible, and we will continue to take every opportunity to do so, including occasions when representatives of Burma attend public events. We will go out of our way to make the point, uncomfortable though that may be. I can assure my hon. Friend that such representations have been made recently.

In 1990, the elections took place, but have been ignored ever since. Some 100 of those elected have been forced to resign or have gone into exile and two have died in prison. Only 132 of them are still active.

In September 1998, the regime detained without charge 1,000 opposition members, including 200 Members of Parliament-elect, in response to the NLD having convened a committee to represent the people's Parliament, to set up their own alternative organisation because they had been denied power. That committee was formed to try to circumvent the regime's pointblank refusal even to engage with the elected representatives and convene a Parliament. Between 12 April and 5 June this year, the regime detained 137 NLD activists, including 22 Members of Parliament-elect and 78 members of the youth wing, following a relaunch of the party's youth organisation in some of the townships around Rangoon. The regime is crushing the youth movement of the political parties as well. Historically, the authorities have repressed any political activity to try to kill it off.

Political prisoners are not the only example of the regime's disgraceful record on human rights. There are 22,000 refugees in Bangladesh and 120,000 in camps on the Thai border. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Thailand, he visited those camps to see, first hand, what was happening.

We know that forced labour takes place in Burma, but more encouragingly, the International Labour Organisation held firm when it met this month in Geneva. The ILO had warned the regime that if it continued to fail to implement three specific measures on forced labour, action would be taken against it. Last Thursday, the governing body of the ILO went ahead with actions against Burma for the first time in its 83-year history. We encouraged and supported that.

I emphasise that we have been at the forefront of action in international forums. We have been encouraging the ILO and supporting and strengthening the EU common position on Burma. In April, we argued to ensure that the export of equipment for the repression of terrorism to Burma was banned. There is already a full arms embargo, a ban on defence links and on non-humanitarian aid. There are visa restrictions on the regime. We have extended restrictions to suppress the bank accounts of members of the regime so that they cannot travel around the EU or out of Burma. We have sponsored resolutions in the UN condemning human rights violations —in the General Assembly in November and at the Commission on Human Rights in April.

In June 1997, we stated plainly that we did not encourage trade with or investment in Burma. We suspended all financial support for trade missions and trade promotion. British companies who inquire about trade with Burma are informed of the political and economic human rights situation there. In March, I told Premier Oil—the largest and practically the only UK investor left in Burma—that we would welcome its immediate departure from Burma. That statement was made publicly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) will be interested to know that we drew attention to the views of Burmese democratic leaders that tourists should not be encouraged to visit. The late Derek Fatchett, the Member for Leeds, Central, who died prematurely, called on the tourist industry to take action, and that has been followed up regularly. We cannot prevent people from going to other countries and then back-packing across the border, but it should be pointed out that every tourist who enters Burma must pay an entry fee of $200. Every one of those dollars supports the regime in its atrocious, brutal attitudes and actions. Our ambassador will make regular representations and we will hold discussions with our colleagues in the EU about the situation in Burma. We will make contact with politicians and parliamentarians in Burma. We shall take that action because we want to bring all the pressure that we can to bear on the regime and to encourage it to enter into dialogue with the democratic groups, take them seriously and allow them the power that is legitimately theirs.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. We do not intend to relax our campaign. We will keep up the pressure in every forum, including Westminster. However, we shall sometimes need to deepen the campaign and turn it into a popular issue, so that all groups can join hands until the regime's grip is broken.

It is a pleasure to have secured this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially as you are in the Chair.

My advice surgeries and mail in recent months have been taken up with cases of individuals and organisations who cannot obtain funding from social services in East Sussex. They include the old, the young, those with disabilities, people looking for respite care and others right across the spectrum. One such individual is Mr. Denis Stringer, of the Eastbourne blind society, who has written to me about the long and wholly unacceptable delays in blind and partially sighted people having their condition assessed. The voluntary sector has been hit hardest: Eastnet, which provided information technology training for disabled people in my constituency, has recently been forced to close.

At their most acute, the delays are causing the bed blocking that is the subject of my debate today: by that, I mean that there are people occupying beds in the district general hospital in Eastbourne who could and should be discharged, but who cannot be discharged because of the turmoil in the social services budget. I shall give the House an idea of the dimension of the problem. Angela Knight, the chief executive of the primary care group wrote to me, saying:

The bed blocking situation at the DGH is new and peculiar to this year. Prior to this there were no delayed discharges.

The hospital wrote to me, setting out the size of the problem. A total of 88 patients fall into that category, representing almost one in six of all beds. The most worrying thing is that 36 of those patients are awaiting assessment by social services. On average, patients have to wait four weeks to be assessed. The hospital authorities suspect that the social services department has purposely slowed down—I put it no higher than that— assessments so as to massage the figures that show the number of people who have been assessed, but cannot be moved out of hospital beds.

Wherever the blame lies, however, the numbers are increasing inexorably. The hospital said also that the trust had "virtually no delayed discharges" last winter. The hospital mentioned the financial difficulties of the social services department, in particular noting that

the price that East Sussex County Council is willing to pay is significantly below DSS rates. At this rate there are virtually no available beds in Eastbourne, although at a higher rate beds are available.

The hospital is considering

persuading patients and relatives to accept a placement in other parts of the county.

That, however, is wholly unacceptable for those who have recently been in hospital and who may be elderly or confused or both, and who need their families nearby.

The health authority has provisionally made £100,000 available to ease the situation. To be fair to the hospital authority, I should state that it is taking all sorts of imaginative steps to minimise the impact on waiting lists and operations. It has invested £500,000 in additional capacity at nearby Uckfield hospital and it is making heavy use of the Esperance private hospital in my constituency, which provides another good example of the private sector stepping in to help with problems in the public sector.

Despite those efforts, the authority is still not hitting its targets. Current figures— the Minister may have more up-to-date information—show that it is still 242 short of the waiting list target. Trolley waits of more than four hours increased to 10 in October, compared with two in August, and there were 21 cancelled operations in October. I suspect that if it is not tackled, the problem will get worse as the winter takes hold and flu and other complaints strike down some of my constituents. The medical assessment unit that was recently opened in my constituency seems to be making a difference, but, like all such attempts to improve matters, it only makes a bad situation slightly better, as it is not designed, as it should be, to improve an existing stable situation.

East Sussex health authority wrote to me confirming that it put £100,000 into the area; it stressed that, although it does not have that money at present, it is delighted that it is already making a difference. That shows how desperate the situation is. The authority put in the money on a wing and a prayer, hoping that it would get the money back from the Government in due course. The county had overspent by a staggering £3 million only two months into the new financial year. There were 550 people in category 1 to whom the authority has a statutory obligation to provide care once they are assessed. Thus, the county council is breaking the law on a large scale by not offering those people care, and because of incompetent budgeting it has to cut spending on social services.

It is a sorry story. As long ago as 1997, councillors were warned of the long-term trends: first, people are living longer, and, secondly, more people privately arrange to go into homes and later have to be funded by the public sector because they have run out of savings, or because their savings have fallen below the statutory limit. The county administration either ignored that advice or failed to take account of it. The authority might, as I hope, get extra Government funding, but will it be able to find beds in the private sector? That concern was flagged up by the hospital.

The problem is compounded by the unwillingness of East Sussex to pay the proper rate to the private care sector. I should be interested to know the Minister's thoughts on the matter. I have raised the subject in the current and the previous Parliament and the situation remains the same. the county of East Sussex makes the second lowest payments to the private care sector. It pays about £434 per bed per week to its own social-services run homes, but only £229 to the private care sector, which is unsustainable. Professor Walter James, who is chairman of the local community health council said recently:

The county council could save £3.25 million if it showed financial prudence…27 per cent. of its budget is spent on management and support costs.

A bad situation is compounded by the unwillingness of social services to face up to the benefits of using the private sector more, and an unwillingness—or an incapacity —to budget properly. For example, social services recently entered into an agreement recently to place some patients in Parker house, a residential home—not a nursing home—in my constituency, paying £630 a head per placement. To be fair, Angela Knight, who represents a primary care group, states that there are other factors to be taken into account in those calculations and that the rate quoted is for an average of 10 days. That may be correct, but it illustrates the county's bizarre approach to budgeting and best value— which are what we are told to look for in local government—that they pay over the odds compared to the private sector, especially private nursing homes.

We know the likely effects of implementing the "Fit for the Future" proposals in respect of the private care sector—that could be the subject of another long debate—yet we must remember that more than 90 per cent. of the care beds in East Sussex are provided by the private sector. Many have closed already and many more are under threat of closure. There is is an incompetent county administration whose ineptitude at managing its own budget is having a detrimental impact on the most vulnerable of my constituents.

I believe that the leading cabinet member responsible, Councillor David Tutt, should apologise and resign. Being Liberal Democrats, of course, they attempt to blame everyone else, which will not get them too far. As Mr. Tony Andrews, chair of the East Sussex residential care homes association recently pointed out, even if East Sussex social services receives extra funding, there will soon be insufficient beds in the residential care sector. He accuses Councillor Tutt of doing too little, too late.

Nevertheless, there is an element of truth in the council's blaming of the Government. The council refers to changes to the standard spending assessment 1999–2000, especially the decision to exclude from a local authority's assessment of spending needs some elderly people living in institutions, which reduced the SSA by £2.5 million. It is estimated that 8,400 East Sussex elderly people currently in residential care are simply ignored in the SSA calculation, and because of a freeze on SSA calculations, that unfairness has been carried forward to the current year. The council says that the change resulted in a reduction of the increase in the SSA for social services to only 1.2 per cent., compared to an inflation rate of 2.5 per cent. The national average increase was 5.8 per cent. The council also suffered because of the loss of the special transitional grant. Area cost adjustment is another problem, with councils such as East Sussex likely to be disadvantaged when the Government fiddle with the formula. Therefore, there is some basis for the county's allegation that the Government are, in part, to blame.

The problem is not limited to Eastbourne, or even to East Sussex. I have a briefing from the NHS Confederation, which states that other areas experiencing problems include Hertfordshire, west Surrey, west Kent, Cheshire and part of the south-west. The briefing speaks of the need for a joined-up policy between the NHS and social services. The Minister may have come here today with her departmental cheque-book, but the NHS Confederation is right to express its concern that the NHS should not be regarded as an alternative to properly funded local government.

Finally, some important questions remain to be answered. Ministers have known about the problem for weeks, if not months, so why has action not been taken? Will the Minister announce today that she will meet in full the bid of £860,000 made jointly by the authorities in East Sussex, and if not, why not? If the answer to that question is yes, how soon will those funds be available to make a difference to people on the ground? Will even such a sum be sufficient to deal with bed blocking over the winter? Can the Minister confirm that it equates to more than £3 million on a full yearly basis?

What will happen next year and in subsequent years? Will there be an adjustment to the SSA calculations, or will any funds announced by the Minister today amount merely to a cynical ploy intended to prevent further problems for the Government this winter and in the run-up to a general election? What about all the other clients and potential clients of social services in East Sussex who will not be covered by such a payment because they are not in hospital or about to go to hospital? My constituents need convincing answers to these questions now.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on securing this afternoon's debate on bed blocking in Eastbourne district general hospital. I also pay tribute to Eastbourne as the first place in England in which I spent any time. That was where 1 discovered that one cannot play cricket when it rains.

The hon. Gentleman raised some important issues. One is wide in scope and concerns public services, how the NHS and local government are affected and how Government Departments are working together. In that context, I am sure that he will warmly welcome the Prime Minister's announcement today of a commitment to spend £43 billion in the next three years on public services.

All public services working together contribute to the nation's health. I can do no better than to quote the Prime Minister who said,

Every school we invest in helps our children earn more. Every nurse we employ in the NHS is a guarantee people won't be forced to pay privately when they are ill. Every penny spent on new track and trains, even amidst the present problem, is a step towards the transport system…this country, the fourth largest economy in the world, needs.

He added:

Yes it takes time. Yes it takes patience. But it takes, above all, investment.

I want to talk about investment and planning, particularly as they relate to the NHS working with social services. Some consists of short-term measures for dealing with immediate problems, but more crucial is the underlying investment aimed at sustainable public services. All our public services face a common challenge. Some people say that they cannot be run and funded and that at a time when the consumer is king the private sector is the answer. 1 take issue slightly with the hon. Member for Eastbourne for saying—I hope that I am not misquoting him—that the private sector had to step in to help the public sector when it could not cope. I prefer to say that we hope to work together with the private sector in a constructive and strategic way.

It is most important that the health service exists for everyone: the elderly and young alike. It is for young people leaving care and for society as a whole. However, we must recognise that the NHS has problems. We inherited a system with services that were too slow and standards that were too variable. When we published the NHS plan in July, few of us had any doubt about what was at stake. The system was chronically underfunded and short of staff. It needed investment, new buildings and new equipment, but also, very importantly, new ways of working together. It needed money, but that money came at a price: a commitment to change the way in which the various agencies work together. In the end, we want first-class public service, whether in health or social services.

Last week, we announced further funding to speed up the pace of implementation. The announcement included confirmation that from April next year health authorities will receive an average cash increase of £29 million. East Sussex, Brighton & Hove health authority will receive £594.5 million in 2001–02. That is a cash increase of £44 million and it compares favourably with the much lower increase in 1997–98 under the previous Government.Social services are also receiving more resources. In the previous Parliament, spending on personal social services rose by an annual average of just 0.1 per cent. in real terms. Under the Labour Government, by the end of 2003-04 spending will have risen by 22 per cent. in real terms.

East Sussex county council's overall standard spending assessment increased by 5.4 per cent. The national average increase was 4.4 per cent. in 2000-01. The council's personal social services SSA increased by 5.3 per cent. compared with a national average of 5.1 per cent. The increases have been above national averages. Those resources will help to tackle the constraints faced in the past, which are partly to blame for the problems raised today. The reform of the NHS and social services and the additional resources that the Government are investing in those services will count for nothing if the two do not work in partnership.

Next month, the Government will be publishing a detailed NHS plan implementation programme for the health service and for social services. It will set out the investment and the progress that will need to be made by health and social services in the next year. They should be in no doubt that we expect them to work together to deliver our reforms. The East Sussex, Brighton and Hove winter plan highlighted strong local planning systems and the development of good joint working relationships between health and social care at an operational level. However, a joint strategic approach is also crucial and I have instructed the health and social care regional offices to ensure that that is in place.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne does not need to remind me that winter is just around the corner and that some parts of the NHS will come under intense pressure. However, I take a slightly cynical approach if a winter crisis is being talked about in the media. We must be realistic about what is happening and how we intend to tackle it. Such pressure would not have arisen if many of our services had not been neglected for so long, particularly the NHS. We have already asked those areas throughout the country that are experiencing particular problems to inform the regional offices of the NHS Executive of the risks that they will face this winter and the immediate measures that must be taken to ensure that local people have the services they need, when they need them.

East Sussex, Brighton and Hove took part in that exercise and we considered the information that was provided, along with representations that we received from my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), who I am delighted to see in the Chamber. We expect shortly to make an announcement about the additional funding to help those areas. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Eastbourne that I have not arrived today with a cheque. The announcement will be made shortly—it is part of the plans. The money will come with a clear expectation of what is to be delivered on the ground. The additional funds will be spent on ensuring that health and social services throughout the country can cope this winter and that patients receive appropriate care and treatment. Dealing with issues such as bed blocking will be a priority in any funding allocation and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with details when the announcement has been made.

The additional funds are for short-term solutions, however. The regional offices will closely monitor their use to ensure that they deliver what has been promised. We cannot live in the long term on quick fixes. We need to build an NHS that offers people fast and convenient care that is delivered at a consistently high standard. Eastbourne has already made a start and the hon. Member for Eastbourne has recognised some of the improvements that have been made. Eastbourne hospital's NHS trust opened its medical assessment unit in September at a cost of £300,000. Although the verified official figures are not yet available, it is making a considerable impact on the throughput of patients. The trust has spent 1.3 million in additional activity to reduce overall waiting list sizes. It has also received £844,000 capital funding this year to reduce out-patient waiting lists. It is using those funds to build a purpose-built eye and cataract unit to undertake an additional 400 cataract procedures a year, to improve capacity and the environment of the trauma and orthopaedic outpatient department, and to extend and enhance outpatient consulting facilities in the ear, nose and throat department.

The trust has received £900,000 to build an extension to the accident and emergency department, enhanced by an additional donation of £400,000 from the local league of friends, to which I pay tribute. Furthermore, £250,000 of the £63 million additional funding that has already been provided by the Government for this winter has been spent on initiatives in Eastbourne and Wealden, including a multidisciplinary intermediate care rapid response team. That is important because it prevents unnecessary hospital admissions from nursing and residential homes and the local community as a whole. The funding will enable a social services assessment officer to cover Crowborough and Uckfield hospitals between December and March and will expand the community psychiatric nurse out-of-hour services during the Christmas and new year period and the CPN elderly service from December to February. It will provide additional general practitioner surgeries during the weekend prior to Christmas.

As the hon. Member for Eastbourne will realise, it is not all doom and gloom in Eastbourne as he would have us believe. I have outlined the good foundations that can be built on, and build on them we shall because we want to ensure that patients in Eastbourne receive health services that the spending plans of a Conservative Government would fail to deliver. Investment in public services is key to all the success this winter and in future, and there will be a continued development of intermediate care. Such treatment is concerned with promoting independence, providing care closer to home, preventing avoidable hospital admissions and supporting timely discharge and active rehabilitation following hospital.

The NHS plan announced that, by 2004, there would be an extra 7,000 beds in the NHS. Of those, 5,000 will be in intermediate care in a variety of settings. There will also be an extra 1,700 non-residential intermediate care places. The NHS plan also announces an extra £900,000 million for intermediate care and related services by 2004. Although that investment was announced in the NHS plan, the money is for both health and social care, recognising the interdependence of the services in delivering intermediate care.

Intermediate care will be a vital weapon in meeting the target that the Government set in the NHS plan, which was to end widespread bed-blocking by 2004. Eastbourne has already made a good start in developing intermediate care services. I shall give some examples. Two community and rehabilitation teams have been established in Eastbourne and Wealden. Funding for the rapid response team that I mentioned will be made available throughout the year. Also, four additional intermediate care beds will be provided through the local community trust during the winter months. Of course, we expect much more to be done and the social care and NHS Executive regional offices will continue to provide support.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked some specific questions. I did not come with a cheque today, but an announcement will be made shortly. We insist that the announcement be linked with some realistic plans and careful monitoring. That is because it is not meant as a way in which social services, or health economies that do not work together as effectively as they should, can be used simply to buy a way out of short-term problems without tackling the bigger difficulties. For example, I note that East Sussex social services prefers to spot purchase places in the private sector.

Our relationship with the private sector was best signified by the concordat. We want a long-term strategic relationship by which the two sectors work together, but not by which one develops at the expense of the other. We expect some strategic planning, which would be best value. I do not agree with the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's comments. He thinks that best value is some sort of gimmick, but it is a real issue.

The hon. Gentleman quoted the NHS Confederation and I found myself in unexpected agreement as I also thought it important to quote it. It said:

Whilst it is a short term solution, it is not sustainable in the long term. Inevitably money spent on social services means money is not spent on modernising the NHS.

We say that money that goes to both social services and the NHS must be spent in a strategic, co-operative way, so that we end up with a long-term, sustainable structure.

The winter emergency services capacity and planning team, which we fondly call WEST, plans to visit East Sussex in the next month, and the regional intermediate care change team plans to visit in the new year. Those visits are part of the national programme and will ensure that good practice and the most efficient patient pathways are shared with the local health service.

We all know that there will be problems in parts of the NHS during the winter; it would be foolish for me to pretend otherwise. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we listened to his concerns. People will see two streams of funding, one dealing with immediate problems, the other with long-term investment. That will mean that the services increasingly improve and that we can show that public services funded from taxation are the way forward, rather than the private sector alone. Our commitment is clear. We want first-class treatment for every patient free at the point of delivery and a first-class national health service delivered by first-class public services.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, not only for his presence this afternoon but for his continuing and active interest in this subject.

I sought the debate to discuss the report of the Home Office working group on forced marriage, "A Choice by Right". My intention was not to give the Minister a load of moans about the Home Office but to stress the cruelty of forced marriages, whether the enforcement is carried out or avoided. My message is to parents and community leaders—secular, political and religious. I also want to put it on record that neither the Government nor I are opposed to arranged marriages. I am well aware of the many problems arising from our own less organised, less well-thought-out practices.

Arranged marriages, as explained to me by people of Asian and North African descent, are an excellent way to achieve the most important agreement into which people enter. The basic ingredient is one of valid and voluntary consent—their choice by right—with an absolute right to refuse, whether because the suggested partner or the timing is wrong for them. Many suggestions that might help greatly in achieving consent have been made, including that families should alter radically their views on where their future son or daughter-in-law should come from. They should question the received wisdom that their children should be perfectly happy marrying a first cousin from a tiny village in a rural area. Such a person may have no English, and, frequently, little education, with not much chance of getting a job in the UK. That combination leads to sons and daughters refusing to go along with parental demands, leading to the young person being forced into an unsuitable marriage or losing their family, either of which is a tragedy for the young person. The family, however, may feel that their honour has been protected, that there is no other way to deal with such a bad girl or boy, and that they are justified in their actions.

The community must discuss what is family honour and family shame, and examine the outcome of their actions, not only for the child but for the fortunes and the image of the community. Were families to seek potential sons and daughters-in-law from their own community in the UK, and preferably not first cousins abroad—I have been prompted to mention that the Bangladeshi community tends not to have a tradition of marrying first cousins—we would see a marked improvement. Children would start school with English and the ability to take on many other demands straight away. The number of children born with genetically transmitted diseases and disabilities would be reduced almost immediately. I have seen far too many parents and families devastated by the constant demands put on them by caring for such children.

According to the Department for Education and Employment publication based on research by Warwick university—"Minority Ethnic Participation and Achievements in Education, Training and the Labour Market"—the Pakistani and Bangladeshi population, time and again, do less well than the Indian population in academic achievements and levels of employment. Table 8.2 shows that, in 1999, 49 per cent. of the Indian

population who were economically active qualified to at least NVQ level 3, whereas the figure for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis was 37 per cent. As many of my constituents are from the latter communities, I am deeply concerned by those findings, and want to know the reasons why.

I attended a meeting recently at one of my local schools. I joined the head teacher and the chairwoman of the governors in a discussion with three local imams about why children from the two local Asian communities were underachieving. It is too early to assess whether the kind, well-considered comments of that dedicated head teacher will have a positive effect on the lives of the children. Two of the imams recognised the problems and said that they would do their best to influence their communities, and I hope that the third imam will recognise the need for change eventually. Were families not only to allow but to encourage their children, especially daughters, to stay on at school, go to university, perhaps enter the professions or obtain another kind of job, the academic and economic well-being of their communities would eventually be enormously improved, especially if English were spoken in the home to give children the kick start that is too often lacking at present.

Low self-esteem is often given as the reason for students of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin underachieving. Perhaps more of our schools should challenge accepted attitudes and practices within communities. For example, if the schools do not weigh in on the side of those trying to stop forced marriages, the work of implementing the recommendations of the Home Office working group will be more difficult, lengthier and will produce more heartache for a growing number of young people.

I should like to touch on the two categories of victims created by forced marriages. The most vulnerable are without doubt those young people, but particularly girls, brought in as spouses. Often their only view of the UK is while they are taken from the airport to their in-laws' home. They then, in the worst cases, are expected to be virtual domestic slaves. If they complain, they are sometimes beaten and/or threatened with being sent home. They do not speak any English and do not know their rights. They frequently do not realise that their treatment is against the law and totally unacceptable. They have nowhere to run to and no one to turn to.

In Bradford and Keighley, help is at hand only when their predicament is noticed by an observant doctor, nurse or health visitor, or, if they have children, a teacher. Then the admirable Philip Balmforth comes on to the scene. If the woman so wishes, he will help her and her children to escape to a safe place. Philip is employed jointly by Bradford social services and West Yorkshire police. He is loathed by some, but greatly loved and appreciated by many more.

We could question whether those unfortunate women were forced into marriage. The question is academic. The outcome, whether they were forced or simply not asked, is tragic. If her husband has not obtained her permanent right to remain, the refuge or other secure accommodation to which she is taken may well not receive money as she is not entitled to benefits. One refuge in Bradford, having taken in a number of such women within a short time, faced financial problems. I should appreciate a comment from my hon. Friend as to how we can deal with that problem.

The other category of victim of forced marriage or threat of it, is better documented because it involves girls and young women—sometimes young men—born in the UK who have a better idea of their rights and where to turn to for help. The Home Office working group report is full of the sad stories told to them by this second category. I will just add my most recent cry for help, which happened yesterday. It is typical of what goes on in West Yorkshire. It is so typical and I know it so well that I could almost set it to music.

A girl telephoned my office yesterday saying that she had been forced into a marriage in Pakistan. She wanted to see my assistants, but was frightened to do so. She asked to be let in at the back door because if she was seen entering by the front door she would probably be beaten by her parents. She explained to us that she had been to Bradford Law Centre to ask for help in getting out of applying as a sponsor to bring her husband in. I must check this out, as I do not have the back-up information. The helper at the law centre advised her not to write to the Islamabad high commission—I know that this does not involve the Department of my hon. Friend the Minister and that I will have to take it up with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—because the officials there would show her husband the letter when interviewing him and the cat would be out of the bag. He and her parents would know that she was opposing his entry.

She had been taken to Pakistan by her parents earlier this summer. Her brother was marrying a cousin in Mirpur and she was going as a guest. When she arrived it was the old, old story: she discovered that the wedding was not just for her brother, but for her. She was to marry a cousin and really did not want to. She argued with her parents, but they insisted. There are always threats of removing passports. Anyhow she was forced into it, and now she is back in Keighley. She is extremely reluctant to apply for his entry.

An application has been made. Her uncle filled in and signed the forms on her behalf. Her family have also obtained information about her work record from a friend who is an employer and he has provided them with bogus pay chits to demonstrate that she is in full-time employment. She is not. I am pleased that she is in full-time education and doing A-levels. I do not want to blow the whole thing by raising it too high, and I will not mention names. If she does not want to have him here, we will do what we can to stop his entry. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, things become difficult when a couple have gone through with the marriage.

The working group report does not support the creation of a new criminal offence for forced marriage. However, it suggests that there have been prosecutions in connection with enforcement to marry, for threatening behaviour, assault, kidnap and murder. What, I wonder, about rape or conspiracy to rape by the family? Such a rape is usually carried out at the time of the forced marriage, and is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of our courts. Action cannot be taken, even when those implicated return to the United Kingdom. French courts, however, now have the remedy of prosecution of parents who procure genital mutilation or female circumcision for their daughters outside of France. That practice happens frequently in former colonies such as Senegal—it is illegal, but continues. I wonder whether something similar can be done about forced marriages.

The Home Office and Foreign Office have created a joint action plan called "Forced marriage—the overseas dimension", which is full of suggestions to deal with the questions raised by "A Choice by Right". The Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular division is developing the community liaison unit. I have spoken at length to some of the people working in that unit; they are enthusiastic and have a lot of good ideas that will help young people faced with the trauma of forced marriage. Our Government are clearly committed to finding ways of ending the practice of forced marriage, but is that commitment shared by ethnic minority communities? Are their leaders part of the problem or will they become part of the solution? The jury—our young people—are still out, but I look forward to a positive response. I hope that our communities will take up the challenge and work with Government Departments and local authorities to give to all young people the most fundamental of human rights—a say in whom they should marry. That should be a choice by right.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) for raising this important issue in an Adjournment debate. She brought the problem of forced marriage to the House's attention in the debate on the human rights of women held on 10 February last year. That debate was followed by a seminar at the Institute of Public Policy Research which led me to set up the working party chaired by my noble Friends Baroness Uddin and Lord Ahmed last July.

The working party's report, "A choice by right", was published on 29 June. It reflected consultation with a wide range of women's groups and took account of the victims of forced marriage. The report highlighted the problems faced by those victims and the difficulties experienced by women's groups in trying to offer help and advice to them. It recommended ways in which the Government, service providers and the affected communities could work together to tackle the problem. Its recommendations included raising awareness of rights and responsibilities and the protection available by law, and developing a shared understanding of the problems faced daily by those at grass-roots level.

The working group did an excellent job by breaking the taboo on the subject once and for all—a taboo that existed in many ethnic minority communities. They knew that it happened, even if on a relatively small scale, but there was no open discussion about it. Such discussion is now taking place widely. As I said in response to our previous debate on the subject, multicultural sensitivity is no excuse for moral blindness on such issues.

I am pleased that, in response to the work undertaken by the working group, community and religious leaders have strongly condemned the practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley is right to say that community leaders must become part of the solution. I was pleased by the response of many community leaders to the comments and recommendations in the working party report, although I would have liked more of them to speak up much more forcefully on the issues. I thank community leaders who have taken a strong stand and call on those who have so far maintained silence to speak out. It will, of course, take time to see the impact in communities. Indeed, paradoxically we may see an increase in the number of cases coming to light in the short term—that will be a sign that victims are more ready to report their plight and seek help.

I reassure communities that we do not wish to challenge the tradition of arranged marriage—the point emphasised by my hon. Friend—which has operated successfully within many religious and ethnic communities for a long time, and continues to do so. It is essential to distinguish between forced and arranged marriages: unlike forced marriage, an arranged marriage relies on consent. The distinction is clear. As Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers said when launching our joint action plan on 4 August,

We wish to make it clear that this action plan is about assisting young people whose fundamental rights are at risk; we will not be using this to create more restrictive immigration rules and most certainly will not re-introduce the unfair and discredited Primary Purpose Rule.

That refers to an anti-family policy which we condemn.

Our action plan sets out a comprehensive strategy on the overseas dimension of forced marriage. It launched a major programme of co-operation and training between key police forces in the UK and their counterparts overseas and set in train a review of how our consular staff overseas handle the victims of forced marriage: people in the UK being forced into a marriage against their will or people coming to the UK to enter a marriage that is not genuine—although they may sometimes know that it is not genuine. In such circumstances, consular officials must be alive to the relevant concerns and ensure that they address them appropriately and sensitively.

We therefore want a joined-up approach, in which the Government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office dealing with entry clearance, the Home Office dealing with law and order issues, voluntary groups and communities work together to ensure that we protect the victims. We envisage a partnership between the Government, women's groups, the police and others. We have said that we will shortly report on our progress. I have made plans to meet officials at the end of next week to review progress and I hope soon afterwards to state when we will issue a report.

I am pleased that good progress, on a widespread basis, has already been made on the joint action plan. For example, in October the Foreign and Commonwealth Office set up a dedicated community relations desk to deal with forced marriage, combining both casework and policy. Work has started on producing credit-card-sized information cards which young women can carry discreetly when they go abroad. We aim to provide a number on those cards so that women who think that they are just going on a holiday will be able to contact that number quickly if anything adverse happens. I hope that we shall receive the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies in the relevant country and that consular staff will do what they can to address these people's needs. All too often, it is young, vulnerable people—sometimes men, but more typically women—who are forced into these difficult circumstances.

Consular staff are being consulted about a draft memorandum of understanding for co-operation with other countries on tackling forced marriage problems. We are engaging with Governments of other countries and receiving, at least at senior level, a positive response and a willingness to address the issues. The co-operation that we receive from Governments and senior police and other enforcement agencies should also be delivered at a local level. We well know that the Governments of some countries may be helpful to British citizens who are caught in these difficult circumstances, but the police chief at the local level may be less helpful.

We are publishing revised guidance on dual nationality and a strategy is also in place for treating cases with a human rights dimension where forced marriage is in dispute. We want to ensure that it can be tested. We are actively engaged in pursuing these difficult, complex and important issues with other Governments and we want to develop a careful analysis on how best to deal with them within our law.

A conference has been arranged for January in Bradford to help UK police forces to establish closer links with police forces abroad in order to tackle forced marriages and other problems. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has made it clear that victims of forced marriage and domestic violence will be covered by the proposed extension of the priority unintentionally homeless groups for rehousing. Twenty of the 75 projects funded by the new Home Office connecting communities fund are women's support groups who offer counselling and helpline services to victims of domestic violence, including forced marriage. We must be careful about those to whom we refer forced marriage problems.

An important debate is taking place among women's groups, particularly those representing women from ethnic minority communities. Some are cautious about engaging with voluntary groups that seek to assist them; others are much more open. We must approach these issues with sensitivity and care. I am well aware of how that debate is developing.

I am pleased to say that at its meeting on 20 November the interdepartmental group on violence against women agreed to monitor action across all Government Departments, as recommended by the working group. All Departments must now be aware of issues relating to forced marriage. Where the emphasis may previously have been on the need for multicultural sensitivity, the message for all Departments now is that there is no excuse for moral blindness. That is right. That was recommended by the working group and we are delivering it. The IDG will review progress at its next meeting early in the new year to ensure that the appropriate mechanisms to review action are in place.

I am also pleased to report that the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence, has agreed that the group will regard forced marriage as an issue within its remit and work programme. The debate will not rise and die away. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley is determined to ensure that the issue remains at the forefront of concern. It will be the remit of an all-party parliamentary group and the Government will remain aware of, and alive to, the issue in the years to come.

I welcome the way in which the all-party group took those decisions and the monitoring arrangements that it will put in place. All that shows that the Government and Parliament are serious about tackling the problem. As I said, however, we cannot solve it alone. As the working party said in its report, it is for communities, and especially parents, to take the lead in eradicating forced marriage. There is a need for dialogue and education among parents, children and opinion formers in affected communities in order to change attitudes and prevent the sad ramifications of forced marriage. Leadership has been shown, and I want more to be shown in some communities.

The joint chairs of the working group have had meetings with community groups not only to collect information for the report, but to report back to those communities on the recommendations that they have made to the Government and our response. We are trying to encourage support in communities for tackling the problem by explaining the report's contents and ensuring that the issues are addressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley referred to particular cases. If a spouse is brought to this country and is isolated by an inability to speak the language and lack of contact with others, domestic violence may result. The Government introduced a domestic violence concession on 16 June 1999, which is intended to benefit those who suffer domestic violence during the probationary year and make an application to the Home Office while they still have extant leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.

A person who informs the Home Office that his or her marriage has broken down because of domestic violence and who makes an application for settlement during the validity of his or her leave to enter or remain could benefit under the concession. Applications made after the expiry of an applicant's limited leave that meet all the other requirements of the concession will be considered sympathetically and account will be taken of the reasons for the delay in making the application. Long-term overstayers may still make an application for leave to remain exceptionally outside the immigration rules.

Each case is decided on its merits, taking into account any compassionate factors relating to an individual's circumstances. Spouses are entitled to take employment during the probationary year and continue to work while an application under the concession is considered.

I shall deal with a couple of the points raised by my hon. Friend. She referred to genital mutilation. I do not know whether you saw Channel 4 yesterday evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was shocked by its horrific report on genital mutilation in the UK and people being subjected to that practice abroad. I am very concerned about what I have heard and I shall discuss with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health how we ensure that the issue is addressed and that prosecutions result where appropriate.

My hon. Friend also raised a concern about how entry clearance problems are addressed and mentioned a case in her constituency. A man may go to entry clearance officers in order to enter the UK for a marriage that I assume he or at least his intended spouse knows is not genuine, because it is not being entered into voluntarily. The difficulty at entry clearance is that the application must be decided in an open and straightforward way. Any evidence used in a decision must be the subject of an appeal. My hon. Friend is concerned that that information may prejudice the circumstances of the young lady in the UK. We are working through complex legal issues. We know that there is a problem and we want to address it.

Forced marriage is wrong. The Government are determined—as many hon. Members are—to ensure that we prevent it from happening in this country in so far as we can do that. We seek the support of communities in doing that. We have received a lot of support so far, but we want more. The issue is a moral one and we are determined to continue addressing it.