I am delighted to have secured this morning's debate on regional economic development, as it is important to my constituency and to many regions throughout the United Kingdom. It is disappointing that so few of them are represented here this morning. The debate provides a good opportunity to review the success of objective 1 in Cornwall—particularly from the perspective of my constituents in St. Ives, west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—and the progress being made by the regional development agency. It is approaching its second birthday, so this is an appropriate time to review progress.

Credit must be given to many people for the significant progress that is being made. The Government should be credited for the progress being made on objective 1, for having the right idea, which was to establish more regionally based and devolved decision making on economic development, and for the establishment of regional development agencies. However, as I shall explain later, perhaps that was not appropriately executed.

Many people were falling over themselves to claim credit for securing objective 1 status for Cornwall—and, I believe, for the other three objective 1 regions in the UK—including the regional development agency, although it came along rather late in the day. I recollect that the regional chamber claimed credit for having achieved objective 1 status for Cornwall, when in fact it simply promised at a rather late stage not to get in the way. The political process was important, but at the end of the day the credit should go to the people of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, because they put up with an economy in need of regeneration for many years. The popular campaign mounted by local people raised the temperature of and the pressure on the political process and was key to securing objective 1 status.

It is clear that there has been significant progress since objective 1 started formally in July last year. I strongly congratulate the local community, local partnerships and the local objective 1 office. Last week, in its first year review, it showed that 36 projects had been approved so far, 88 others were advancing through the process and £30 million of objective 1 funding had been allocated so far. There is, therefore, no question of the Cornish level failing to support local initiatives. It is working well, despite obstacles. The purpose of this debate is not for me to say that everything is tickety-boo, as that would be a waste of time, but to draw attention to some of the significant obstacles that affect local people and local businesses. Many of those obstacles are not new—and are not to be placed at the door of the present Government—but have been affecting access to European structural funds for many years.

The first difficulty relates to the complexity that European structural funds inevitably involve, in the case of objective 1 and objective 2 areas and before Cornwall secured objective 1 status it related to objective 5b. Basically, there are at least three Government programmes—the European regional development fund, European agricultural guidance on the guarantee funds and the European social fund—all with different rules, different approaches and different application forms.

In order to draw down the money, one has to secure matched public funds and the responsible Government Department has to identify a range of Government and public sector funds, all with different application forms, deadlines, criteria and rules. That makes the process extremely complex. In addition, the rule on how and when a successful applicant can draw down the money makes the process even more complex and difficult.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend recalls that when we and our colleagues went to Dublin to try and gain from the Dublin Government's experience of administering objective 1 funding, it was apparent that they had found a way through the complexity to which he refers. It became equally apparent that the complexity has nothing to do with the rules set out by the European Commission in Brussels, but has been caused by member states' application of those rules.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is interesting that both Ireland and France have established systems involving a single point of entry and a single application form. Their purpose in that is to take the weight of complexity and red tape and bureaucracy off the shoulders of local partnerships and businesses and to work out those issues out internally, rather than to weigh down projects with the burden of what is unquestionably a bureaucratic system, bound in red tape. That often applies to matched funding, which can have forests of strings attached. Many projects are weighed down by bureaucracy, red tape and guidance.

The second obstacle involves the appropriateness of Government intervention. In my constituency, that difficulty has been overcome by the development of integrated area plans based on a number of parishes working together on projects, with the support of the Government offices. In the Lizard and Helston area, for example, they had worked for months, if not years, on plans and had established a committee. The project was bringing the community together and those working on it were largely ahead of the game compared with other parts of Cornwall. They had worked well and achieved unanimity as to how they might progress their plans and programmes for the area to kick-start objective 1 and develop appropriate projects.

However, very late in the day, having discussed the issue with the RDA and the Government Office for the South West, the Government office insisted that they change their area, so the whole process had to begin again. That is not an edifying way to help a local community that has been enthused by the opportunities made available by the success of having achieved objective 1 status.

Thirdly, many businesses have expressed concern to me, and I am sure to other hon. Members, about the fact that their approaches to the objective 1 process are met in a complex and confused way, and they are not given the help that they need.

One business wrote to me recently saying that last summer it had

"made enquiries about accessing Objective One funds to develop certain parts of the business. The enquiry was passed from one department to another, mainly around the Government Office for the South West. Each department was polite but ineffective; the general tone was 'It's not my responsibility. I'm not sure who deals with that sort of thing. I'll get someone to phone you back later today.' Needless to say, after several days no-one had phoned back and we had to chase them again. Eventually we received an application form for starting a project. This was completely inappropriate to a very small business. The amount of administration, form-filling and reporting would have exceeded the amount of useful work we were planning, so we threw the form in the bin and abandoned the idea."

Despite the fact that the purpose of objective 1 is to help business, that experience is by no means exceptional.

Although the local office has been working effectively to try and make sense of the system and get the best out of it, allocating the money is one thing—the £30 million that has been allocated so far represents excellent progress—but drawing it down is another. While some projects in Cornwall have received European structural fund money, so far not a penny piece of objective 1 funding has gone into any capital programmes there, and that is a matter of great concern. At the end of the day, we will need to judge objective 1 on its fundamental strategic success to Cornwall—not on whether the pot of money has been spent in a first come, first served basis in an unstrategic way—and on what sustainable economic developments have been established through objective 1, that would not have happened otherwise and that have made a significant difference in turning around the depressed Cornish economy.

A significant project is the combined universities in Cornwall, on which there is unanimity that the project must be properly and effectively established within the seven-year period. I would welcome any encouragement that the Minister may wish to give local people that the project will go ahead and that the Government office will take a flexible view when considering the various strands and stages in its development.

Another important project in Cornwall, in which we will invest much effort, is building on Cornwall's distinctiveness. Cornwall does not have a lot going for it, but at least people know where it is. Some like it and some do not, but generally people have a positive view of Cornwall as a distinctive place with a distinct culture and a strong environment. Moreover, Cornwall produces a range of unique products and it wants to develop a unique and distinctive brand image. It does not want Government offices and regional development agencies preventing that.

Cornwall has a number of distinctive features and opportunities. Its maritime potential has been ignored for far too long. It has the busiest shipping lane in the world within three miles of the largest natural harbour in Europe. In the past, the sea has been something to be paddled in or gazed at, but it could be a great economic resource. If only we could get a small proportion of the passing trade to come to Cornwall—that is a realistic prospect—objective 1 could make a very significant contribution. It is important to identify the strengths of Cornwall, rather than consider it to be weak because it is not the same as everywhere else. I will return to that theme later in my speech.

Hayle harbour is another important project in Cornwall. It is important to develop communities where the economy has failed and Hayle harbour is one such example. The project, which has strong local support, involves a multi-million pound development of the harbour and it wants Government backing. I understand that the recent planning application that has been approved by the district is now with the Government. Hopefully, it will not be delayed unnecessarily. Although the use of taxpayer's money should be properly scrutinised, I hope that the plans that are being considered by the Government Office for the South West will move forward swiftly.

The local Federation of Small Businesses has expressed concern about objective 1. It has 2,500 members in Cornwall, but not one has yet succeeded in getting objective 1 money. It makes the rather amusing comment that it is concerned about the

"velocity at which Objective 1 is progressing—it has been overtaken with ease by an arthritic snail".

Whether or not the hyperbole is fair, local businesses are concerned about progress.

There is also the issue of matched funds. Regional selective assistance should provide an important source of matched funds in objective 1 areas, but it is aimed primarily at large projects. The minimum eligible capital expenditure is £500,000. Many small businesses in Cornwall would not be able to afford a project of that size. However, another fund available to small businesses is the enterprise grant, but the total budget throughout the whole of the seven counties region is £450,000 per annum. If Cornwall got its fair share, it might get £50,000 of the money on a pro rata basis. That will hardly make a significant impact on the development of objective 1 projects in terms of matched funding.

Recently, the Western Morning News carried out a poll of business leaders in Cornwall and Devon, most of whom had a frequent or occasional contact with the RDA and, according, to the newspaper, represented "the cream of business leaders" in Cornwall and Devon. In answer to the question:

"How well does the RDA represent Cornwall and Devon's interest?",

57 per cent. said that it represented their interests badly, 41 per cent. responded "quite well", and 2 per cent. said "very well".

In response to the second question:

"How do you rate the general performance of the RDA to date?",

55 per cent. said "poorly", 2 per cent. said "excellently" and 12 per cent. said "good".

The third question was:

"Are they doing enough to attract inward investment?",

to which 58 per cent. responded no and 11 per cent said yes. The newspaper concludes that the RDA has not delivered for the local business community.

I am a little puzzled by the line that the hon. Gentleman is following because, as far as I am aware, the RDA is a business-led organisation. Therefore, is it not a criticism of the businesses in our region? He should be careful about pursuing that line, as indeed should the Western Morning News.

I am interested by the hon. Lady's intervention because, as I am sure she will recollect, the RDA was set up by an Act of Parliament and its board members are appointed by the Government and not by business, so it is a Government-led quango. It is important to reflect on that when one examines the success of the RDA, because at present it is insufficiently business led. The hon. Lady might like to take up her other criticisms with the newspaper. I am simply reporting what it said.

Perhaps I could add a point. In addition to being accountable only to central Government and not the local community, despite the presence of the chambers, are not all the RDAs experiencing the same crisis of confidence in their ability to represent not just business interests but regional interests? The Minister may be able to tell us whether the Government feel that RDAs are becoming more accountable throughout the country or whether the south-west is unique in that respect.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. No doubt the Minister will take note of that question.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Does he know how many businesses took part in the survey and which ones they were?

As far as I am a ware, the Western Morning News has not disclosed the identities of the 45 businesses that took part. It consulted a wide range of businesses in the area, but whether they were representative is a matter to which the RDA will no doubt address itself. However, to question the validity of the poll is not an appropriate response for responsible politicians in Cornwall and Devon. The hon. Lady will understand that the survey findings ring true with the experiences of businesses in my constituency. One chief executive said:

"The RDA is bureaucracy gone mad. It is inefficient and is just an organisation that pursues its own ideas for its own sake."

When is it appropriate for the RDA to intervene? I raised that in a letter to the Minister about the South Crofty tin mine, which was recently purchased by Baseresult. Is it appropriate for the public sector to compete with the private sector, raising the hope value of a site and undermining a commercial proposal? The Minister wrongly described it in a recent debate as

"a waste-to-energy plant, using the mine to dispose of the power station ash and debris".—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 416.]

Mr. Williams, who is the managing director of Baseresult and a constituent of mine, was not unnaturally very disappointed by those comments. He is bringing forward plans in a new and innovative way to develop South Crofty as a tin mine

In a statement to me yesterday, the RDA said:

"we will not stand in the way of their development of South Crofty."

But it has already tried to do that. It went on to say:

"We continue to believe that tin mining is incompatible with progress to prosperity."

But turning Cornwall into a replica of everywhere else by covering that site with conference centres, shops and offices closes off opportunities for the future. It is not the appropriate way to respond to a commercial organisation—a private sector body—that is trying to bring forward proposals despite the interference of what is effectively a public sector body.

A further example involves a company in my constituency that needed to restructure. The RDA sought to purchase the factory unit from under its nose, thereby increasing the market value of the factory and almost putting the company out of business.

There is also the issue of unfulfilled promises on a number of projects. The Hypatia Trust in Penzance is an internationally renowned charity. It intends to establish an important project geared at promoting the understanding of women. The project would be based in Penzance, and would offer the prospect of bringing hundreds of thousands of pounds in investment to the town centre. For many months, the trust was convinced of the RDA's intention to support that project, but shortly before Christmas it received a letter saying that the RDA had changed its mind. That has thrown the whole project into serious jeopardy.

The RDA should be playing a strategic role. The south-west continues to go through tremendous turmoil. It is appropriate that we should have an organisation dealing with strategic issues such as transport. To travel to my constituency—which is a five-and-a-half-hour rail journey from London—one has to get off the train at Tiverton or Exeter and take the bus, adding a further hour to the journey, as well as the inconvenience. There has not been a squeak from the RDA on issues such as transport, on which it is appropriate to have a body with a wide-ranging remit. The RDA should be taking the lead on issues such as transport, instead of interfering—as it has been doing—and telling Cornwall that it should not have its own brand image.

Cornwall has a strong brand image. Frankly, the south-west as a region exists only in the minds of people who work on the basis of bureaucratic convenience; it has no brand value whatever. The RDA should not be getting in the way of Cornwall's brand value; it should offer support and allow Cornwall to build on its strengths.

The RDA has the right idea in respect of devolving decision-making power and allowing the Government to let go and enable people in the regions to take decisions that affect them. The problem is that the idea has been wrongly executed. The Government preside over 30 or more regional quangos, and they all take their lead from Westminster or Whitehall—not from the business community. Their members are all Government appointees and are answerable to Ministers and not to local people.

We need a distinctive approach. The Government must let go a little, and give control freakery a holiday. They must marry decision making in Cornwall to the objective 1 region and let distinctiveness flourish. They must also realise that in Cornwall there is genuinely a new spirit and a will to succeed, which is already producing some excellent projects. That initiative does not need to be strangled by inappropriate Government interference, red tape and complexity. The Government must give more control to Cornwall and provide opportunities for more exciting, innovating, cutting-edge projects. That would be risky, but it would be less risky than not letting go—as the Government are still holding on to regional development in Cornwall. There is initiative and drive in the region, but it is being killed off by the dead hand of too much Government interference, placelessness and a lack of recognition of its distinctiveness and identity. Cornwall can compete, but not by trying to be the same as everywhere else; it must be different and distinctive. It needs to get away from the RDA model, which is suffocating that distinctiveness.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on obtaining a debate on a key issue affecting all parts of the country, and I share his disappointment that other regions are not represented here today.

Or other parties.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I represent the same party yet. The lack of Conservative representation here today is unfortunate.

I want to reflect on the size of the challenges represented by the legacy of the previous Conservative Government to the present Government in 1997. It is ironic that Devon and Cornwall—the part of the country that all hon. Members present in the Chamber today represent—suffered most under the policies of the previous Conservative Government, yet only four of its 16 Members of Parliament are Government Members. Let us hope that the forthcoming general election will change that; it will be detrimental if it does not.

Cornwall qualified for objective 1 status, which demonstrates how seriously it suffered. My constituency contains the poorest ward in England. In common with all regions, our region's economic performance was below the European average. I look forward to hearing the Minister remind us of the importance of regional development agencies to the achievement of growth in all regions.

The hon. Lady referred to the previous Conservative Government. Does she also recall that successive Conservative Ministers failed to recognise that Devon and Cornwall's circumstances were special and refused to apply for NUTS2 status, which would have brought a local dimension to solving economic problems? Only when that obstruction was overcome did Cornwall manage to gain objective 1 status, and parts of Devon objective 2 status.

Absolutely. I was about to reflect on the achievement of objective 1 status and to pay tribute to several groups and organisations, some of which the hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned. I did think that he underplayed the role of the regional development agency and was rather unkind about it. After all, it was the first regional development agency in the country to get off the starting block, go to Brussels and present the case just made so well by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I also pay tribute to Mr. Robin Teverson and to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), who is carrying out several longstanding engagements in her constituency today.

Many of the groups mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Ives lobbied to ensure that the voice of Cornwall was strongly sounded. Without the energy of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the ear of the Prime Minister would not have been obtained. Without the Prime Minister's attention, I doubt whether the representations from Cornwall—however strongly made—would have been pressed at the right time and in the right place.

I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives would agree that the previous Government left a dire legacy: the role of the regional development agency has probably been more significant than he allowed. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman speak a little more positively than usual about progress made under objective 1. He referred to the annual report. In a news statement, the leader of Cornwall county council, Pippa Englefield, said:

"This is brilliant news which should go a long way to silencing the doubters who have been criticising the Objective One programme. It is clear evidence that Objective One is working and working very well in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. We have achieved a huge amount in the first year and will now build on these successes in the remaining seven years of the programme."

The hon. Gentleman's speech was in marked contrast to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne in her Adjournment debate on 31 January, which gave a comprehensive account of progress in her constituency, where she has worked hard to enable her constituents to benefit from all the Government's policies that contribute to the region. I was impressed to hear the Minister refer to the progress made in the opening five months and I congratulate those who have been party to making that happen, including those in the RDA who have supported the work.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulty and complexity of working with the many different funding streams, and that is echoed by my own experience. I, too, was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate about this time last week when I drew the Minister's attention to the complexities that my constituents often bring to me, and looked to her for some observations on the role of the local strategic partnerships. I am not sure whether hon. Members know that Plymouth aims to be one of the first local strategic partnerships; the 2020 partnership is a well-established private, voluntary and public sector partnership organisation that is laying the final plans to be in that position, hopefully within the next few months.

I will not rehearse all that I said in that speech, save one fact, of which we in Plymouth can be proud because it demonstrates the success of our economic regeneration and that we are on the right path: youth unemployment has dropped by 90 per cent. and long-term adult unemployment by 60 per cent, in my constituency. Those figures are a sign that regeneration is happening in Plymouth.

The RDA in Plymouth is working closely with local partners and the community and has investment commitments of some £18 to £20 million, including the Tamar science park, the Plymouth international business park on the former Seaton barracks site and, at long last, the Royal William yard. The Phoenix trust project, which is headed by the Prince of Wales, is at planning application stage. I went to meet members of the local community in the area surrounding the Royal William yard, who are delighted to see the progress that is being made, for which they have waited for many a long year. That progress is in part a tribute to the way in which the RDA has taken up that difficult site in the middle of my constituency, which is of not just regional but national significance.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Western Morning News survey. I looked long and hard for a named business person in my constituency to whom I could speak about the issues that it raised. The survey seemed to reproduce the same anonymous voices that predicted cataclysmic consequences if we dared to introduce a minimum wage when that was being discussed before the last election, telling us that unemployment would escalate and get completely out of hand. The figures that I have quoted speak for themselves and I shall not repeat them. Time is short and I want to let the Minister reply.

I was particularly surprised by the criticism of the Language Energy Centre—criticism which is not borne out by my experience. It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I was not among its original enthusiastic supporters as I had grave reservations on environmental grounds. However, when businesses approached me, I decided to find out what the regional development agency thought about the issue, and received a positive response. The successful outcome of that contact was announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) shortly before she became Secretary of State for Scotland. I was accompanied by Sir Michael Lickiss and business partners throughout the region in lobbying for the BAE consortium backing for Airbus. That important investment affects people throughout the country, especially in the south-west, where the supply chain is extremely important to the defence sector in my constituency and in parts of Cornwall.

The sea surrounds the entire peninsula, from Poole to Penzance, from Avonmouth to St. Ives, and the hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned the maritime sector, on which the RDA has a task force. It is a good example of why a bigger, wider RDA has advantages and synergies for the region. I hope that the Minister will remind us how important regional growth and development is for the country's well- being.

In conclusion, I want to say something that may not suit the hon. Gentleman's agenda The RDA has the unfortunate tendency of topslicing bits of Plymouth's budgets for the single regeneration budget and objective 2 funds for rural areas, but urban areas are the engine houses of the regional economy. I hope that the Minister will keep her eye on any such tendency in future. Plymouth needs a thriving rural area, but the rural areas need a thriving economic engine. In Plymouth, our glass is half full. Our economic policy is set fair to fill the glass gradually, year by year, and to keep it topped up above the half-full level, rather than letting it decline, as it has in the past 20 years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing the debate on an issue of great importance to the economic well-being of the country, not just to one region. I thank him for his courtesy in letting me know in advance the issues that he intended to raise, which helped me to improve my response to the debate.

This is the second occasion on which I have debated economic development issues in the south-west with the hon. Gentleman. I spent a considerable time discussing the subject in two recent Adjournment debates secured by my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). I do not complain about that because the matter is important.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of the Government's initiatives in tackling economic development in the English regions and their part in the process of securing objective 1 status for the area, which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned, and which was long overdue. It was an important milestone in the economic development of the south-west. Despite the content of much of his speech, the hon. Gentleman ended by supporting the principle of devolving decision making on economic matters to the English regions, and I welcome his support.

The crux of the hon. Gentleman's speech was the performance of the South West of England regional development agency. The report in last week's Western Morning News highlighted criticisms of that body by some members of the business community in the region, stating that most of the respondents believed that the agency had neglected Devon and Cornwall. I take that report seriously, as does the RDA. RDAs were set up to tackle economic imbalances between regions and, just as significantly, within regions. The particular diversity of the south-west gives rise to some significant sub-regional differences in GDP, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The RDA must take that into account in implementing its programmes.

I do not want to back away from the findings in the survey. They are disappointing, but the picture is not all gloom, as the Western Morning News has emphasised fairly. Apart from the fact that there were also positive comments from some of those business people in the article about the RDA, we need to bear it in mind that the point of RDAs was to take regional views into account. The RDA needs to take account of the survey and to act upon it. It has responded by saying that it will do just that.

On a more general point, RDAs represent a long-term investment in our regions. It is still less than two years since they came into existence. The picture will vary between regions, but, overall, RDAs have been an undoubted success in England. The 35,000 jobs that they have created or saved in their first year of operation is one indicator of that.

The RDAs are providing leadership and taking a proactive response to issues affecting regional economies. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I have detailed discussions every six weeks with the chairs of the RDAs about what is going on. All the chairs and board members, including those from the south-west, are committed to the task that they have in hand and want to bring a lot of energy and expertise to that task, as well as to achieve success—not alone, but with other people.

The point cannot be emphasised too strongly that the RDAs are evolving bodies. It has always been accepted that they will develop expertise and build on their achievements over time. We in Government are trying to play our part in assisting them to do that.

From 2002, the RDAs, including the South West of England RDA, will have significantly increased resources and greater freedom to direct those resources to meet regional priorities. The hon. Gentleman must understand that those additional resources and that increased flexibility is a measure of our increasing confidence in the RDAs and their potential role in delivering improved economic prosperity in the regions.

Interestingly, the Minister has pointed out that she meets the chairs of RDAs regularly, which contrasts with the idea that they might be business-led. They are clearly accountable to Government. I welcome the announcement of additional resources for RDAs, but does she accept that one of the problems—the theme of my opening remarks—is the level of control that the RDA has over local decision making, which in Cornwall is significant and can undermine initiative? After all, the RDA has taxpayers' money and can give advice. Other than its other strategic roles, which I outlined earlier, handing that down to local people is surely the most significant task. The RDA should be delivering that.

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands—I put it no more strongly than that—the point of the meetings with the RDA chairs. The fact that we meet them does not mean that they are not autonomous bodies that are business-led. The fact that we have a dialogue does not mean that there is Government control. If he were a fly on the wall at those meetings, he would see that clearly. The fact that we meet does not detract from the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton rightly made, which is that these are business-led organisations. That was a deliberate decision. The people who are running the organisations come from the business community in their region. That point must not be lost.

On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the RDAs have money, resources and some powers, but they cannot achieve what they need to in their regions unless they gain legitimacy among other important stakeholders, including the community, local authority and business and voluntary sectors, and work by consent and with consensus. They are trying to do that. It is not a question of a powerful body coming in and laying down the law. If we are to create sustainable change in our regions, the RDAs understand that they need to do that above all by working in partnership. That is the hallmark of the way in which RDAs, including the South West of England RDA, have gone about their business.

The South West of England RDA certainly needs to take on board what was said by the albeit small sample of business people in the south-west. It needs to listen to the survey's verdict and to strive even harder to ensure at the very least that what it does is well known and that it is accessible to the business community. However, without wishing in any way to distance myself from or to disparage the survey, I note that the business sample is small and we do not know who the people are.

The hon. Gentleman cited a number of contentions, which I do not doubt, about what business people have said, but he did not provide any evidence or raise the matters with me previously. He has not written to my Department about any of those concerns. If he can do so now, I invite him to provide me with the detail of some of those stories, and I shall be happy to investigate them. I am not trying to set the survey aside. I am simply saying that, whatever role newspapers want to play in raising issues in the way that they do, we as Members have a role to play. We must ensure that our claims are fair and that we are not allowing an organisation to paint a picture that may not be fair. We simply do not know the extent to which the views of the 45 companies represent those of the business community in Cornwall as a whole.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him to be brief, because I want to make other points.

I called for the debate before I knew about any report in the Western Morning News. The Minister is wrong. She must accept that I wrote to her only recently with regard to the case of South Crofty to point out that the RDA's intervention was not helpful. Will the Minister reassure me on the matter?

I am happy to confirm that the hon. Gentleman wrote to me last week about South Crofty, but I was referring to the core of his speech, which was a claim that the business community in the south-west had lost confidence in the RDA. That claim arose partly as a result of a newspaper story and partly from one or two of his experiences with people who made claims or statements to him. First, we do not know how far the views of the 45 companies represent those of all the companies in the south-west. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman has specific instances of business people's experiences that I can investigate, I will be happy to do so. So far, however, he has not given me the details.

If we can persuade the Western Morning News to bring to the Minister, on a confidential basis, the information available to it as a result of the survey, would that satisfy her?

I, and others, would be interested to know who replied to the survey, but my basic point relates to the number involved and how far their views are representative. I make no bones about the fact that those views, even from only 45 companies, are worrying. I am not putting them aside, but we simply do not know whether they represent the views of the wider business community. People who have had more contact with the RDA may have said something rather different—we just do not know. Certainly, those views are of concern. The RDA is rightly concerned and has more work to do in making links, building bridges and getting across more clearly the work that they are doing.

The hon. Member for St. Ives has written to me about his concerns that the RDA has not given a fair hearing to the Baseresult company's proposals to re-open tin mining at South Crofty. I will reply in detail to his letter, which I received at the end of last week. He may be aware that Baseresult has now accepted the RDA's offer to present its proposals to the Camborne, Poole and Redruth partnership board, which also includes the local authorities and the Prince's Foundation. The partnership is working to plan strategically the future regeneration of that area, which is the RDA's first priority area in Cornwall. So there is dialogue about that.

Does the Minister agree that that is an important development? My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne made the point that it is the people of Cornwall who should have a say in what happens to the mine.

I agree with my hon. Friend, who has anticipated my next point. That is why that is an important development, and without making any comment on the merits of the proposals, it is right that the views of local people on the alternative possibilities for the area are fully canvassed and should form part of the final decision as to what happens at South Crofty.

The hon. Member for St. Ives also talked substantially about objective 1, which was long overdue in Cornwall. The fact that Cornwall now has objective 1 status is testimony to the commitment of many groups and individuals mentioned by both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton. However, as my hon. Friend said, it is also testimony to the legacy that Cornwall has inherited and the serious economic and associated issues that need to be addressed.

I know that the hon. Member for St. Ives is concerned about the speed with which he feels that Cornwall's objective 1 programme is proceeding. Public grant schemes of this size rightly have conditions that must be met. Care is needed to ensure that the money is spent properly. We are accountable for those funds, and it is essential that we do not compromise the need to ensure that public funds are spent in an efficient value-for-money way. That may sound like a bureaucratic answer, but it needs to be stated. Large sums of money are involved and we have to account for them and make sure that they achieve our aims in the most effective way.

The progress that has been made in committing money is more than reasonable in Cornwall. The Cornwall and Scilly programmes made a good start. A total of £29 million in grant has been approved since the programme started in August 2000, and programmes to a grant value of £36 million are under appraisal. Together, that represents more than 20 per cent. of the programme's total allocation in its seven-year programme. That is a fairly rapid implementation, compared with other areas of the country that have benefited from EU funding.

The hon. Member for St. Ives is right to say that we need to cut unnecessary bureaucracy to an absolute minimum. However, we need to strike a balance between probity and value for money, and ensuring that the money gets spent and drawn down.

The hon. Member for St. Ives cited some specific examples of problems. If he writes to me with the details, we will certainly investigate whether they raise more general issues about where we could improve the process. I agree with a point that the hon. Gentleman made later in his speech, which to some extent cut across some of his other contentions. The proof of the pudding is not in the spending of the money or how quickly we spend it, but in getting the spending of the money right and being committed to programmes that will create sustainable change. Given that we are not much more than six months into a seven-year programme, I am not concerned at the moment that the process is far too slow.

The hon. Gentleman raised some points that I do not have time to deal with on the Hayle harbour and other issues. If he writes to me about them I will certainly reply as fully as I can.

In short, we are committed to helping every region, particularly the south-west, to address their longstanding economic problems. I believe that Cornwall has a lot going for it.

Order. We now move to relations between the United Kingdom and Libya.

This is the 16th Adjournment debate that I have initiated on Libyan matters since 1989. The sixth was answered by Douglas Hurd as Foreign Secretary. Incidentally, I am told by senior Clerks that it was the only occasion since the war that a senior Cabinet Minister replied to a Back Bencher's Adjournment debate. That afternoon he happened to see me chatting with my parliamentary neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), now the Foreign Secretary. My diary entry for 1 February 1995 reads:

"Douglas swooped down on Robin and myself in the corridor by the window opposite the Clerk Assistant's Office. He said, 'I really do ask you two to believe that as Foreign Secretary I cannot tell the Crown Office what to do, nor does the Foreign Office have detailed access to evidence which they"

that is the Crown Office—

"say they have. You must understand that the law officers really are a law unto themselves.'?

My diary entry continues:

"Robin and I agreed that Douglas Hurd was not unfriendly towards us, and was probably correct in outlining the rules. Robin said that he guessed that Hurd was being honest with us and did not know the full story. I shrugged my shoulders, and told Robin he was probably right."

I put all that on the record because I am aware that the most sensitive questions should be addressed to the Crown Office and to Lady Thatcher and her innermost advisers at the time, rather than the Foreign Office and the ministerial successors of Douglas Hurd. I am also conscious of the sub judice ruling set out in yesterday's Official Report at column 35.

First, I think that I would be wrong not to mention the dignified reaction of the British relatives who still seek truth and justice and are honouring an undertaking to hold a full independent inquiry after the conclusion of all legal processes. I have permission to quote from the letter to the Foreign Secretary dated 5 February from John and Lisa Mosey of UK Families Flight 103. The Minister has a copy of that letter. It states:

"Dr Swire put it well when he said that we must deal with the Libyans where they are today—not where they were in 1988. We hope you will stand firm against the pressures from the USA to think that we can bomb people into behaving decently. That is the route to yet more retaliation and suffering. Our daughter is, undoubtedly, dead because of someone's idea of justice based on retaliation."

The letter ends rather movingly:

"Mr. Cook. I trust that all of this is of some value to you in your very difficult and important job. Our secretary, Pam Dix will be writing to you in due time with more specific thoughts on what we would like to see explored in an independent inquiry. Thank you for your kind comments in the house about Jim, myself and the group. Be assured that we do want to seen as a determined but responsible group of people."

Indeed, Pam Dix wrote on 8 February to the Foreign Secretary:

"Given your statement in the House of Commons on 31 January that of course others in addition to Abdelbaset Al Megrahi were involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103, we would be grateful if you would clarify what further steps are being considered to bring these 'others' to justice. (We are aware that the intention to appeal has been lodged.) The US State Department representative's statements seem unequivocal in their focus on further criminal investigations, yet that is not the impression we gain from the Lord Advocate's public statements."

The difficulty is that the Crown Office is responsible to the Parliament in Edinburgh, but the question asked by the relatives' secretary was a genuine one.

In a subsequent more detailed letter, a copy of which has been sent to the Minister, Pam Dix says:

"We are aware that a great deal of time, effort and expense has been expended on different forms of inquiries into Lockerbie. We are not unappreciative of these efforts. However, each inquiry had its own necessarily narrow remit that did not permit the examination of many of the important questions. The superb technical investigation by the AAIB was confined by statute to establishing how the explosion took place and its effect on the aircraft. The specific put pose of the Fatal Accident Inquiry was to ascertain who died, and how, when and where they died. In addition, the FAI findings established that the disaster was preventable. Since the indictments of the two Libyans in November 1991, the criminal investigation has focused on establishing their guilt or innocence and has not addressed wider issues such as the reasons behind the bombing. The primary focus of the Report to the President by the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism of 1990 was largely on US institutions."

Pamela Dix continues:

"Each one of the above inquiries fulfilled a particular objective. An independent judicial inquiry, however, could draw upon the findings of all these separate inquiries, pulling together the information that has been established, plus examining key areas that have not yet been addressed. This inquiry would provide the means that is needed to understand the overall picture of events leading up to and resulting from the Lockerbie bombing. It is only with this understanding that it will be possible to identify where the failures occurred and lessons can be learned. I know you will share our understanding, and that of many others, that the purpose of an independent inquiry is to establish the facts of what happened and to learn lessons for the future. In his Thames Safety Inquiry Final Report, Lord Justice Clarke makes the point that 'the public (and especially the survivors and the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives) has a legitimate interest in learning the truth of what happened without anything being swept under the carpet.' (Page 7, paragraph 5.3.) With regard to Lockerbie and the issues surrounding tile disaster, we feel that there are a number of specific questions that need to be answered."

She continues:

"It is clear that while the motivation for the bombing has been endlessly speculated on by the media and others, we remain in the dark as to what the motivation was. This is a matter which causes some of the relatives the greatest concern. 1. What is known about motivation and reasons behind the bombing? 2. What, if any, diplomatic lessons can be learned from what is known and can be established about the conduct of the countries involved in Lockerbie? 3. Is it appropriate that 'legitimate' businessmen can sell timers to organisations, individuals and countries, when it is suspected that the purpose of those timers is to blow up aeroplanes, and not be held to account?"

I shall miss out some passages, but Pamela Dix also states:

"One form of possible inquiry is a judicial review that would come under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. Again in the words of Lord Justice Clarke, 'In some cases, public confidence may be undermined if there is not a perception that an inquiry is full, wide-ranging and independent of Government; for example, in cases where the regulatory functions of the investigatory body are called into question.' (Page 166–7.) It seems to us that such a tribunal of inquiry would meet these requirements."

She moves on to express the considered view of relatives about the witnesses:

"Whatever the status or position of potential witnesses during the period under investigation, the most important point is that the inquiry needs to be such that it has the power to compel witnesses to come before it to give evidence and produce documents. Where possible, witnesses should come from abroad. We would not wish to see a situation where Public Interest Immunity Certificates are issued, as happened at the Fatal Accident Inquiry. It is essential that witnesses cannot use 'parliamentary privilege', for example, to allow them to escape giving evidence."

I do not expect the Minister to respond to these complex issues off the top of his head today, but having received the letter I hope that he will reflect seriously upon the matter.

I refer, too, to the sterner letter to the Prime Minister from Martin Cadman and his wife Rita, who lost their son, Bill, who was 32, which states:

"Rather than guessing we should have the facts. There are people in the UK and the US Government service who know the answers to all our questions. We doubt if any has the courage to speak out unless made to. So we'd better go for the inquiry you and Robin Cook agreed with relatives could be the way ahead. Robin Cook told us on 15 January that after the trial his would not be the lead Department on Lockerbie. He said he would talk with colleagues about his meeting with us. We have not forgotten that Transport Minister Cecil Parkinson offered us an inquiry in September 1989 subject to agreement of colleagues. He subsequently told us his request was refused at the top level. We now wait to hear from Robin Cook."

I am extremely worried about that. I am sure that Cecil Parkinson offered an inquiry in good faith, and just as the relatives were going out of the door, he said, "Mark you, it is subject to colleagues." There was only one colleague who would overturn Parkinson as Transport Secretary, and the question why she did it bothers many of us.

The letter continued:

"What sort of inquiry, and who would run it? I doubt if a US inquiry could be trusted given the US is so involved. In this regard you may know that the US President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism (with special reference to Pan Am Flight 103) recommended on 15th May 1990 that government resources should be prepared for active measures—pre-emptive or retaliatory, direct or covert—against a series of targets in countries well known to have engaged in state-sponsored terrorism.

Would a UK inquiry be trusted and would it have the power to subpoena witnesses from the US Government services in particular? We doubt it. We need an international inquiry with powers to subpoena, backed by UN sanctions. It should be a UN inquiry set up by and reporting to the General Assembly and not involving the Security Council."

Martin and Rita Cadman deserve an answer. They state in their letter to the Prime Minr dated 6 February that they

"cannot put the case for an inquiry better than the Daily Mirror last week: 'An incident which results in a single death is often fully probed. An atrocity that kills 270 people demands a full, open and public inquiry. There must be one and it should explore every avenue, every question, every suggestion. That may raise issues that the Government does not want aired, but that is no reason for not holding one. The quest for the truth must go on.'"

That expresses the urgency with which the relatives want the matter to be pursued. I suppose that the British and United States Governments have no control over Lee Kreindler, the New York lawyer who is asking for $10 billion for the American relatives, but I should like an assurance that neither Government will make demands for $700 million or any other compensation figure until the appeal has been heard. If the issue really is sub judice, are not calls for compensation from Libya at this stage out of order? We should not be quick on the draw.

I again ask the Foreign Office to approach the Swedish Government for the facts about the significant quantity of clothing that could have been bought in Malta, Cyprus or 101 other places in the Mediterranean in the flat of Abu Talb in Sweden. I sat in the court at Camp Zeist and heard Abu Talb being questioned by Bill Taylor, QC and Richard Keen, QC. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:

"In the fullness of time, this…may produce other leads".—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 363, c. 311.]

This is another lead that was not discussed in court.

Will the Government ask the Libyan Government for a candid account of how members of the strategic centres in the 1980s used agents with coded passports and other complex documents to obtain spare parts for Libyan Arab Airlines, which bought planes that had been manufactured in the US or UK and had been subject to sanctions?

I also asked the Foreign Office about its answer to President Mandela on sanctions. President Mandela was as responsible as anyone for getting a trial in a third country. I quote from The Independent:

"Tony Blair and Nelson Mandela are locked in a diplomatic stand-off after the former South African president complained yesterday that Britain had reneged on its undertaking to press for the final lifting of sanctions against Libya.

Mr. Mandela told The Independent yesterday that Britain and the US had 'moved the goalposts' on the issue of lifting sanctions, after he played a vital mediation role with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, to secure the handover of two Libyan suspects wanted for the Lockerbie bombing.

One defendant, former intelligence agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, was sentenced to at least 20 years jail…

Mr. Mandela said that he found Mr Blair's letter 'encouraging and very reasonable' and was responding to the Prime Minister yesterday. But he is concerned that the British may be under pressure from the US to maintain sanctions. After the verdict, Washington and London demanded that the Libyan Government pay compensation to the victims' families"

—which I think was slightly premature, in view of the appeal. Is President Mandela being contacted and, if so, what is the outcome? President Mandela sent his secretary to the Cabinet, Jakes Gerwel, on a special mission that made possible the trial in a third country.

I would also like to ask the Foreign Office about a matter that has never been raised. Will it ask the US Government in what circumstances Richard Stirwell in 1991 was sent to Togoland to examine and acquire timing devices made by Ulrich Lumpart and why the CIA and Mr. James Thurman thought it necessary to replicate such timing devices for American use? We are entitled to wonder whether the timer at the centre of the whole argument was ever on "The Maid of the Seas" and whether it was replicated by someone in the United States for his own purposes.

Will the Government obtain an explanation from Colin Powell of why CIA officers cultivated a Libyan traitor, Mr. Majid Jiacha, for nearly two years, reaching serious decisions in respect of his credibility, honesty and motivation, yet were prepared to pass him to the FBI and the Department of Justice without apparently passing on their serious doubts and questions?

I also ask the Foreign Office to contact the Government of Jordan for a CV of Marwan Khreesat, including the years when he was not in the service of those favourable to the west.

Will the Government ask the retired bomb expert Peter Gurney, George medal and bar, for his opinion of the skills of Marwan Khreesat?

I refer to the Foreign Secretary's statement:

"I particularly mention the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, who worked very hard to secure the terms under which the two men were handed over for the trial. I hope to speak to Kofi Annan by telephone tomorrow, and we shall see how we can follow the matter up in the United Nations."— [Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 363, c. 312.]

I do not want to delve into private conversations, but any information about that crucial telephone call would be extremely interesting. In particular, may we have a clarification of the agreement or secret annex in which Kofi Annan apparently gave an undertaking that it had been secretly agreed in the west that if either of the accused were found guilty, no attempt would be made to implicate or indict the Libyan leadership and that there would be no other prosecutions? I genuinely do not know about the background to that, which must be clarified.

Will Her Majesty's Government seek a meeting with the Government of Malta about the security set-up at Luqa airport and in particular ask officials with knowledge of baggage reconciliation systems to discuss procedures with Mr. Immanuel Darmanin, the head loader in charge of operators? As he was not called by Crown or defence, I am entitled to ask that question, which was never asked at the trial. Many people find it concerning and confusing that, some years ago, following the transmission of a documentary made by Granada Television wherein it was alleged that an unaccompanied bag had travelled on Air Malta flight KM180, Granada Television was successfully sued by lawyers representing Air Malta, and an out-of-court settlement was reached.

Will the Government try to confirm with the Government of Malta a story that the Maltese Government applied, before 1988, for financial assistance from the United States Federal Aviation Authority to improve the security at Luqa airport, but were turned down on the basis that Malta was not a third-world country and it was believed that security at Luqa airport was satisfactory?

Another issue about Mary's House was never raised in court and needs to be clarified. Megrahi was present in Malta on 7 December 1988 but not on 23 November 1988—the only other date on which the clothes and umbrella could have been bought. Having bought the clothes, the purchaser left the shop to engage a taxi. It was raining at that time, which is why he bought the umbrella. The meteorological evidence—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I would feel much happier if he kept away from constant references to the evidence given at the trial. I remind him of yesterday's ruling by Mr. Speaker. The case is sub judice. It is difficult to interpret what might be in transgression of a sub judice ruling, but I must err on the side of caution. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to refrain in the remainder of his remarks from any reference to the trial or to where the appellant might have been at any time. I hope that I have made myself clear.

You have been very patient, Mr. Benton, and I, too, am extremely conscious of the appeal. Having been through the huge 81-page judgment with a fine-toothed comb, I have deliberately not asked a number of questions and have kept out of anything that was referred to in that judgment. To the best of my knowledge, the matter that I am raising was not raised in evidence to the court. It was not raised in the judgment. My question is to the Government of Malta and about geography and meteorological conditions. It was raining at the relevant time on 23 November 1988, but there was no rain on 7 December or, at most, a few drops, which would not have proved sufficient to wet the pavements.

Order. I honestly accept the hon. Gentleman's good will, but I must point out that, if he refers in any way, shape or form during the remainder of the debate to the trial, the appeal or anything of significance to them, I will have to rule him out of order. That will be a final ruling. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that that places constraints on him, but we must err on the side of caution. I hope that he understands exactly what I am saying. I assure him that he will receive as much largesse as possible from the Chair, but I must be firm on the sub judice ruling.

I must be obedient to the Chair. I must leave out questions that I genuinely thought had not been raised. If there is any dubiety about it I am, of course, obedient to the Chair and a respecter of courts. I do not know whether it is in order to ask about American representations in the court itself. I think that I am on delicate ground in asking about Mr. Bhiel and Mr. Murtaugh. If there is any doubt about that, I had better not do so.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. I appreciate that it is a difficult situation. We are handicapped by the fact that we do not know what material might be presented in the appeal. I am afraid that once again I must stress that I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would restrain from remarking upon the trial itself and the form that an appeal might take.

You have been very patient, Mr. Benton. I have had my 25 minutes. I just rest the case on the difficult issues of the civil test of the balance of probabilities and finding murder beyond reasonable doubt. Those are grave issues and we must wait for the appeal.

Part of the difficulty, as I said on a point of order in the House yesterday, is that this is not an ordinary trial. Potentially appalling international consequences hang on this verdict. It must be a matter of general international concern that these questions should be asked. If one had the assurance that nothing would be done by Britain or the United States in terms of sanctions, let alone military action before the appeal procedure is exhausted, I should be happy. There are various accounts of the meeting on 8 February between Colin Powell and some of the American relatives. Some of those American relatives, if the serious American press is to be believed, told Colin Powell that he should bomb Tripoli. There was also a call from people whose names I know, but will not reveal here, for nuclear weapons to be dropped on Tripoli. That has been reported in the American press. I hope that there will be none of that ever, but certainly not before the legal processes are exhausted.

I thank you for your patience, Mr. Benton, and I look forward to the Foreign Office reflections. I would not criticise the Minister if he did not address these points today, but sooner or later they must be addressed.

10.58 am

I thank my old and honourable Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for initiating the debate and for his continued interest in Libyan affairs. As he said, this is his 16th debate on the subject and I hope that it is productive for him. Apart from anything else, it has revealed that he has been keeping a diary all these years. I am sure that when the record is read, publishers will be beating a path to his door.

Just as my hon. Friend began with a little historical context to the debate, I should recall the background to the original rupture of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Libya. As we are all aware, for more than a decade two separate issues prevented us from maintaining normal diplomatic relations with Libya, not just Lockerbie. Diplomatic relations were broken off in 1984 over Libya's refusal to co-operate with the investigation into the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot while carrying out her duties in front of the Libyan People's Bureau in St. James's Square. The second issue, which prevented normal diplomatic relations, was the Libyan refusal to hand over the two men charged with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988.

United Nations sanctions were imposed on Libya in 1992 as a result of its refusal to comply with the investigations into the bombings of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 and of the French UTA airliner in 1989. As my hon. Friend is well aware, the diplomatic stalemate over the Lockerbie issue was broken by the Government's initiative in offering a trial before Scottish judges, under Scots law, in a third country. Intensive and patient diplomacy produced an agreement by Libya to hand over both suspects who subsequently stood trial at Camp Zeist, and, following the surrender of al-Megrahi and al-Fhimah in 1999, UN sanctions on Libya were suspended.

That agreement did not solve the outstanding bilateral problem relating to the killing of WPC Fletcher. In the weeks following the handover of al-Megrahi and al-Fhimah we engaged in repeated exchanges with the Libyan Government in an attempt to secure their co-operation with the police investigation and that resulted in a joint statement by the two Governments.

In that statement, Libya accepted general responsibility for the actions of those in the Libyan People's Bureau at the time of the shooting and it expressed deep regret to the family of WPC Fletcher for what occurred and offered to pay compensation to the family. The Libyan authorities agreed to co-operate fully with the continuing Metropolitan police investigation and to accept its outcome.

At this point I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the Fletcher family, who have born Yvonne's loss with dignity, and those police officers who have carried out and continue to carry out this long investigation. I can assure hon. Members that the Government will continue to press the Libyan authorities for their full co-operation.

I endorse that tribute to Queenie Fletcher who, like the Lockerbie relatives, behaved with great dignity.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.

However, the immediate point in this context is the positive one that those two agreements opened the way for us to resume diplomatic relations with Libya in July 1999, and the British interest section in Tripoli was upgraded to embassy status. At the end of 1999 we appointed an ambassador and we have worked to bring the embassy up to full strength. As a result, the 4,000 or so British citizens there had full consular protection restored to them, and full diplomatic representation has the positive effect of enabling us to monitor Libyan cooperation with the police investigation into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher. As I have said, we expect Libya to honour its commitment to co-operate fully with the police investigation at all stages, and that, logically, must include the final stage if any individual is identified by the police.

I come now to the Lockerbie trial, although I am obviously mindful of what you have said, Mr. Benton, and the fact that we are all subject to the constraints that the pending appeal imposes upon us. Again, I take this opportunity to offer my sympathy to the families of the victims and pay tribute to the way in which they have dealt with this devastating tragedy. I remember being in the House of Commons on the night of the Lockerbie bombing. It is something that I will never forget, with which, in one way or another, however tangentially, we have all lived since that night. As we all know, the Scottish judges in the Netherlands—my hon. Friend has as good a reason as anyone to respect Scottish judges—returned their verdict on 31 January, and one of the two accused, al-Megrahi, was found guilty of the murder of 270 people on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. The second, al-Fhimah, was acquitted.

The criminal investigation into the crime was the largest in British history, and the dedication of the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and the efforts of the families in their pursuit of justice were admired by all. Without their efforts and the complex diplomatic initiatives, the Lockerbie trial would not have come about.

As Mr. al-Megrahi has appealed, hon. Members will understand if I do not comment on the substance of the legal arguments. It might be worth mentioning, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact, that if Mr. al-Megrahi's appeal is not upheld, we have given an undertaking to Libya that it will be allowed consular access to Mr. al-Megrahi in Scotland.

Following the verdict at Camp Zeist, international attention has turned to the question of whether the United Nations—I stress the United Nations should lift sanctions in Libya. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Foreign Secretary to the House of Commons following the verdict. The initiative to hold the trial at Camp Zeist was taken by the Government and secured by agreement with the Governments of the Netherlands, the United States and Libya. However, we made those arrangements in accordance with resolution 1192 of the UN Security Council, a resolution that is binding on all member states. Libya has complied with some of the requirements of the Security Council, such as handing over the two suspects. In the light of the guilty verdict, we now expect the Libyan Government to fulfil the remaining requirements.

I can announce that the UK and the USA will begin talks today in New York with Libya. We will focus on the remaining requirements—no more, no less. Those requirements are not fulfilled simply by the trial having come to an end.

I welcome the fact that there will be talks and urge the Libyans to be as candid as possible on the questions that I have asked about the whole sanctions-busting efforts in relation to Libyan/Arab airlines. They must be candid.

I welcome that constructive response from my hon. Friend. It is clearly right to engage in the discussions that begin today.

I again set out the requirements that remain outstanding. The Security Council—I stress that it is the Security Council that imposes these requirements rather than individual countries—requires Libya to accept responsibility for the actions of its officials and to pay appropriate compensation. Libya also needs to satisfy us that it has renounced terrorism and disclosed all that it knows of the Lockerbie crime.

Hon. Members may ask how the Security Council can expect Libya to accept responsibility for the actions of its officials. If an internationally wrongful act is committed against a state or its nationals by the agents of another state acting as such, that state is responsible, in international law, for the wrongful act. The Scottish court found al-Megrahi guilty of the charge in the indictment that:

"Megrahi, being a member of the Libyan Intelligence Service … while acting in concert with others, formed a criminal purpose to destroy a civil passenger aircraft and murder the occupants in furtherance of the purposes of the said Libyan Intelligence Services"

The opinion of the court stated:

"The clear inference which we draw from this evidence is that the conception, planning, and execution of the plot which led to the planting of the explosive device was of Libyan origin"

We shall be discussing with Libya how we can achieve compliance with all the requirements and I can confirm that, once satisfactory arrangements have been made, we will agree to the lifting of sanctions. It is important that those who wish o see the issue resolved successfully and quickly should not upset the delicate, diplomatic discussions.

To lift sanctions before all the requirements have been met would be premature and it would send a worrying message to countries that are subject to sanctions about the Security Council's determination to ensure that necessary conditions are met before sanctions are lifted.

My hon. Friend referred to the comments of Nelson Mandela and recognised that the Prime Minister had been in touch with him and reassured him that the requirements for the lifting of sanctions had not been changed and were set out in UN resolutions that represented the collective will of the international community. My hon. Friend acknowledged that the response from Nelson Mandela to that letter recognised the Prime Minister's good will.

I tm very glad to hear that the Government are in touch with ex-President Mandela.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I come now to the demand for an independent inquiry. My hon. Friend fairly referred to that at length, as well as to the views of the relatives on the type of inquiry that they want. The detail is secondary to the fundamental question of whether there should be such an inquiry. As the Foreign Secretary said in his immediate post-trial statement, it would simply be inappropriate to reach a view on an inquiry at this stage. That is because al Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence official found guilty by the Scottish court, has submitted an appeal, and no inquiry can start until it is concluded. It is right that my hon. Friend has put the views of the relatives on the record, but it is equally right, as I am sure he recognises, that I cannot comment, beyond saying that it would be inappropriate to reach a view on an inquiry at this stage.

Hindsight is a marvellous thing, but it is a pity that Mr. al-Megrahi was never put in the dock by the defence.

Order. Any reference to Mr. al-Megrahi, and to the previous court sitting is out of order. I have already explained the position.

My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that the views of the relatives would be the subject of serious reflection. I give him that assurance.

In addition to our engagement with the Libyan Government in international, multilateral forums on issues of international concern, since 1999 we have had the opportunity to conduct a full bilateral dialogue. We welcome the Libyan Government's appointment of a senior ambassador to London, which will allow our exchanges to deepen further. The best way to handle our differences is through such a dialogue—both critical and constructive.

My hon. Friend must also be aware, not least because of his remarks regarding the comments made in the United States, of the criticism of the Government for developing our relations with Libya too quickly, without due regard for the past. That is misplaced. The restoration of diplomatic relations does not mean that we give up on the difficult issues. On the contrary, on a wide range of issues of concern—UN sanctions, Libya's human rights record and its attempts to acquire enhanced missile technology—we can engage with Libya with greater frequency and to greater effect as a result of the dialogue that those exchanges have promoted. We are convinced that we cannot expect to influence Libya's behaviour without such engagement. That is the context in which it should be understood.

Our long-term aim is to have a Libya that co-operates with the international community and that respects international law. That will not only ensure that there is no return to support for international terrorism, but encourage the emergence of a responsible partner willing to devote its many assets and energies to the positive promotion of prosperity throughout the region. We look forward to a future in which Libya plays a full part in the European-Mediterranean community and in the Barcelona process. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, that will be in all our interests.

I shall look carefully at the record of my hon. Friend's remarks to see if there are any matters on which I can usefully write to him. I recognise the diligence with which he has pursued these issues and the spirit in which he has raised them.

11.13 am

Sitting suspended.

It is a privilege to initiate this debate on the proposed public-private partnership for London Underground. I declare at the outset a deep political interest. My constituency of Ruislip-Northwood contains eight tube stations served by three lines—the Metropolitan, the Piccadilly and the Central. The Metropolitan is a sub-surface line; the other two are deep lines and the underground system is vital to my constituents who want to get to work and to visit the capital, as it is for many people up and down the country.

The proposed public-private partnership for London Underground is an essential element in the manifesto pledges made by the Labour party at the last general election. Many of these have been only partially fulfilled. The electorate understand over-optimism from a political party and condone over-optimism so long as they can see that honest efforts are being made by the party in government to deliver on the undertakings given.

The Government have totally failed to fulfil their promises about the modernisation of the London underground system, promises extravagantly proclaimed in the Labour party's manifesto for London, which urged people to vote for new Labour "because London deserves better".

The London manifesto's slogan is true today, but I doubt very much whether Londoners will be compelled to vote Labour. At the last election, the Labour party received a huge majority of seats in the capital on a swing of some 13 per cent. against the national average of some 10 per cent. Of course, as a consequence, the Conservatives hold only 11 out of the 72 seats in the capital. The electorate obviously believed that, in the Prime Minister's words on the London manifesto, which were proclaimed with his signature underneath, echoing very much his boasts about the Millennium dome, that London would be "a showcase for Britain". Central to the renewal of the capital would be "A modern transport system". London's Labour manifesto stated:

"Londoners want a clean, efficient, safe and reliable transport system to get them where they want when they want. Other cities in Britain and Europe see modern railways, trams and bus services as vital to their future. London's transport system suffers from a lack of investment and direction. Londoners have no say.

We will change all that. In future, the Greater London Authority, elected by Londoners, will appoint the Board which runs London Transport. Even more important, it will have overall strategic responsibility for transport in London.

The Tories' only answer is a wholesale privatisation of the tube which would be a poor deal for the taxpayer and passengers alike. Most Londoners reject the idea. Yet again, public assets would be sold off cheaply. Much-needed investment would be delayed. The core public responsibilities of the Underground would be threatened. Labour plans a new public/private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers."

Of course, privatisation of the London Underground system is history. What might have been, we can only speculate about. We can be certain that it would be in place by now, and the modernisation would have been well under way. However, history moves on, and we in politics move on.

By May last year, it was clear that Labour's failure to deliver on the public-private partnership for the modernisation of London Underground had already cost the Labour party majority support in London, with the Tories leading Labour by 36 to 34 per cent. in votes for the Greater London Assembly. Labour's official candidate, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who stood loyally by Labour's commitment to the public-private partnership for the underground, trailed lamentably behind the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) who, with almost every breath on the hustings, declared the Governments' public-private partnership for the tube to be anathema.

As for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, his only visible contribution to London's transport system is the notorious red traffic lane from Heathrow, personally designated by him for ministerial Jaguars and the occasional bus.

What about the long-suffering public, whose interest was to be safeguarded by the public-private partnership, and for whom value for money was to be guaranteed as taxpayers and passengers? For them, it is persistent interminable delays, overcrowding, unreliable services, dirty underground trains and stations, disinterested staff and frequent strikes, for which daily horrors they pay fares which each year increase by well above inflation. Annual breakdowns on the London Underground system have been some 20 per cent. higher since 1997 than under the Conservatives. Does the Labour party ditty "Things can only get better" ring ironically in commuters' ears, as they strap-hang stoically towards a late arrival at work or vital personal appointment, trapped in a seething, malodorous, frustrated mass of impotent humanity? One might imagine that the arrival of the people's mayor to office would have changed all that. After all, did not Labour's London manifesto say that he was needed:

"to provide a voice for London"

promoting, among other things,

"a top quality transport system"

Under him, Labour's transport system's lack of investment and direction would be of the past. The manifesto boasted:

"We will change all that. In future, the Greater London Authority, elected by Londoners, will appoint the Board which runs London Transport. Even more important, it will have overall strategic responsibility for transport in London."

The reality is of course very different. The mayor, instead of providing a voice for London, effectively promotes industrial action by the trade unions, which is in itself a remarkable dereliction of duty to the wider public that he was elected to serve. He seems keener to serve a narrow sectarian interest. I hope that you will allow me to make this observation, Mr. Benton. I understand that it is normal to give notice to other hon. Members of an intention to criticise them, but I am not so much criticising him personally. We all like the hon. Member for Brent, East—it is the office of mayoralty that has not lived up to public expectations.

Transport for London, which was to provide strategic decisions about the future of transport in London, has had to become operational without its principal constituent element, London Underground. Its chief executive, Bob Kiley, brought in at great expense from the United States by the mayoralty to institute the modernisation of the tube, found when he arrived that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would not give him the full facts and figures on which the Government?s public-private partnership for the tube is based. He also found that he was in the crossfire of a publicly conducted war of words between his political master, the mayor, who wanted to fund the tube's modernisation by a bond issue, and the DETR in the rumbustious figure of the Secretary of State, backed by the Treasury, which, conscious of the consequences for the public sector borrowing requirement of a Government-backed bond issue, stuck by the PPP, despite the fears of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the National Audit Office, the rail unions, countless experts and the anxious public that, without unified management and a clear line of command, the underground system would prove inefficient and less than safe. As for the financial figures, even the NAO seemed hardly able to add them up and came to a clear conclusion. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking, not just towards election day.

There are serious issues at stake. Moneys from the sale of infrastructure leases from the PPP to the infrastructure companies—to the bidders—should have been coming on-stream from April 2001. The Treasury has made no provision from the end of this financial year for grants from the Exchequer to fund the tube system. Instead, because of the delays in instituting the PPP, the underground system will have to remain on drip-feed from the Treasury, while the backlog of improvements to the system grows. Perhaps most important of all, the bidding consortiums for the two groups of deep lines become more financially exposed. The consortiums bidding for the sub-surface lines, which are running behind in the bidding process, are of course also exposed

Small wonder that the main headline on page 1 of Construction News, 8 February 2001, screams "Tube bid teams at end of tether". The article states:

"Teams short-listed to revamp London's Tube network are on the verge of splitting up as privatisation plans descend into chaos."

It is worth putting on record what Construction News calls "a countdown to confusion", and the chronology of events as evidence of the horrendous delays and incompetence over the bringing about of the PPP, if indeed it is to come to fruition. On 20 March 1998, the Secretary of State announced the tube's PPP plans. On 5 July 2000, bidders were short-listed for the deep tube lines contracts. On 13 December 2000, the newly appointed Transport for London chief Bob Kiley attacked the Government's PPP and put forward his plans for a bond-funded alternative. On 18 December 2000, bidders for the two deep-line contracts were told to re-price the job, and selection of a preferred bidder was put back until the end of January 2001. On 2 February 2001, the Government and Bob Kiley announced plans to work together to find mutually agreeable changes. Bidders were told that they were likely to have to re-submit revised proposals. On 5 February 2001, best and final offers were handed in by LINC, Metronet and Surface Lines Group for the £4 billion sub-surface lines upgrade.

Bidders need certainty, so that they can cost-effectively deploy their resources up to the end of the contract, which they hope, of course, will be at an early date. When will those contracts be let? I ask the Minister, who has responsibility for London, to state unequivocally what the dates will be. The companies, those who work for them, their investors, shareholders and not least the travelling public deserve to know.

As I made clear in that chronology, the Secretary of State made the first announcement to the House in March 1998. The manifesto was issued in May 1997. The Government must have known, or should have known, what a public-private partnership entailed before putting it in a manifesto. If they did not, it was, in essence, a fraudulent prospectus. There have been estimates that, if the PPP were to fall apart—there is no certainty that the PPP will be carried into effect following the latest concordat that seems to have been struck by the Transport Commission and the Secretary of State—a new system for tube modernisation might take up to two years to put in place

What are the financial implications of all that? I spoke about the drip-feed from the Treasury, but the Treasury is hardly going to be delighted about further recourse to public funds by London Underground, particularly when its spending plans are under criticism from the European Union and many commentators, not least the Conservative party. The fact is that the Secretary of State was forced to climb down from his insistence on the public-private partnership by the fear that the Transport Commissioner might walk away and return to the United States amid much public acrimony.

Bob Kiley has, in protracted negotiations with the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, forced on the Government a total rethink of the PPP. There is speculation that the preferred bidders for the two deep-level sets of lines will not be known until after the general election. If so, the Government would have utterly and completely failed to fulfil their manifesto commitment.

What would happen if the delays forced the bidders— I ask the Minister to reply to the point—to make a claim on the Government for the costs of their bids? Presumably, if Bob Kiley has indeed forced a rethink on the Government, the original bids in answer to the original tenders will have to be modified. It will cost them money, as will further delays while those bids are scrutinised and decisions made.

Bob Kylie may want a unified management structure. Surely, it should have been insisted upon at the outset of the bidding process, so that the bidding companies knew how the overall system would be managed before they responded to the tenders. In the words of a bidder quoted in Construction News on 8 February:

"Prescott's handling of all of this has been abysmal. What has he delivered on? It's probably easier getting contracts in central Africa."

Perhaps it is. I am not a central African expert. Nor am I an expert on Ugandan affairs, but whether after the next general election, or even after the next mayoral election, I am sure that we Conservatives w ill have to clear up the mess.

Bob Kiley has the good wishes of the House any— professional should have them—as do the consortiums that have deployed their resources financial, material and intellectual, to answer the tenders of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. The modernisation of the tube system is the earnest desire of our constituents, not least in London constituencies such as mine, but the bidding contractors for the PPP, in current circumstances, also have our sympathy. As for Her Majesty's Government, for indecision, procrastination and sheer incompetence, they win all the booby prizes.

11.49 am

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing the debate. I am always delighted to respond to any debate that he secures, even though at our last encounter he described me as a poor imitation of Frankie Howerd.

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's continuing ability to be taken by surprise at the progress of the public-private partnership. On the occasion of the debate when the hon. Gentleman made those kind remarks about me, he and other Conservative Members excelled themselves by demanding that we enter into discussions with Bob Kiley that were already under way, and by insisting that we provide information—I am tempted to say "titter ye not"—that we had actually supplied some time before. Now they are treating the agreement reached between my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Kiley as some kind of unexpected and dramatic development. It shows that the Opposition still have not caught up.

That agreement was, in fact, the result of weeks of discussion with Transport for London, including four meetings between the Deputy Prime Minister and Bob Kiley. We made it clear in the House and elsewhere that the Government welcomed Mr. Kiley's appointment, and that we looked forward to working with him to find the best solution for London Underground. That is exactly what we are doing now.

A further area where the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are having difficulty in keeping up with the argument is their attitude to the future of the underground. We are, of course, determined to avoid the mistakes of past privatisations, mistakes that the hon. Gentleman seems determined to repeat. In January 1999, he said:

"Sadly, we never had the chance to float London Underground and find out what the market price would be."—[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 424.]

But as the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, history moves on. However, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has caught up with it because apparently things are starting to change. The Evening Standard last Monday said:

"Under the new policy, to be announced later this month, the Conservatives will accept that London Underground should remain state-owned under the control of transport commissioner Bob Kiley."

State-owned—that from the party which gave us rail privatisation, that from the party which, until last week, was in favour of flogging off London Underground to the private sector lock, stock and barrel. The lady may not have been for turning, but her successors in the Conservative party have made so many U-turns that they are in danger of disappearing up their own vortex. The noble Baroness Thatcher must be spinning in her seat in the other place.

However, far be it from me to reject the sinner who repenteth. Evidently, the Opposition have finally recognised the benefits, on which we and Mr. Kiley have been agreed all along, of a publicly owned, publicly controlled tube, and I welcome them on board—better late than never. But after taking so long to come to such an obvious conclusion, I have to admire their cheek in saying that the PPP is taking too long to implement.

We have heard plenty of speculation about the agreement between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Bob Kiley, so I shall make it clear. The Deputy Prime Minister and Bob Kiley announced on Friday 2 February that they would work together to develop modifications to the PPP. Contrary to press speculation, those talks are about modifications designed to strengthen the PPP framework, not to replace it. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's assertion, there is no question of the PPP having been abandoned.

We have agreed that Mr. Kiley will now take the lead in working with the Government in developing mutually acceptable modifications to the PPP. That will involve retaining the key feature of transferring risk through private sector equity in the three Infracos.

The existing tender process will continue with the current bidders; we will, of course, be discussing any possible modifications to the PPP with them. We expect, if there is agreement, that there is likely to be another round of bidding with the existing bidding consortiums being asked to provide last and final PPP bids.

Will the Minister explain more fully what he means by modifications to the PPP? Are not those bound to lead to revisions of the tenders submitted by the bidding companies, and who will pay the extra costs of that additional bidding process? Will they be reimbursed, and when will the contracts be let?

The hon. Gentleman has left me with relatively little time, but I hope to deal with precisely those questions in the short time remaining. The Government and Transport for London will jointly evaluate any revised bids to decide whether they are acceptable to both parties. London Underground remains responsible for the PPP and will award the contracts.

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I was struck by his comment regarding the short time left. The debate has until 12.30 am.

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Stevenson. Knowing of your inveterate involvement in Adjournment debates, when you entered the Chamber I assumed that you had come for an Adjournment debate, not to chair our proceedings. I am delighted to discover you in the Chair, and to learn that we have more time to deal with the hon. Gentleman's questions. I hope to deal with them as fully as possible in due course. The key tests that the Government established for the PPP remain the same: is it best value for money, tested against a public sector comparator; and will it maintain and improve safety? In other words, is it the best deal for London?

We have also heard speculation about the safety implications of the proposals. That was ostensibly the reason for the recent industrial action. I reiterate that our approach to safety and the PPP is unchanged. The Government will not contemplate any solution that does not contribute significantly to improved safety. The legal position is that the PPP cannot go ahead otherwise.

Two major revisions to the London Underground's railway safety case have already been accepted by the Health and Safety Executive, and a third is subject to on-going assessment by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, and further improvements by London Underground. The point of those revisions to the safety case is to ensure that the PPP brings continuing improvement to safety on the tube.

London Underground's safety record is good, but it can always get better. Increasing numbers on the tube have put more pressure on the system, and that led to increases in passenger injuries during the 1990s. Recently, lapses halve been noted by HMRI, but that is very much what we would expect. The shadow running of the PPP is designed to test and expose the system with the utmost rigour, so that any problems that emerge can be put right. Safety authorities have consistently made it clear that they will rot allow the PPP to proceed until they are sure that that has been done.

In the light of that, claims that the recent industrial action was somehow in response to the compromising of safety are just wrong. I greatly regret any inconvenience to passengers caused by the industrial action, and am glad that the action has been suspended. I hope that London Transport and the unions come to agreement without any more unnecessary disruption.

I come back to the point that the effect of the PPP will be to improve safety. The tube is already running on a safety case that the safety authorities regarded as an advance on previous safety cases. In the longer term, the best way to improve the safety of the system is to ensure that it gets the high and stable levels of investment needed. That is exactly what the PPP will bring.

Will the Minister give way?

The hon. Gentleman asked me many questions and I was about to deal with some of those, but with the new flexibility that we discover in our proceedings I will be happy to deal with further interventions.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the competition process. With regard to whether we will have to scrap the old competition and start again, the answer is no. Mr. Kiley will develop modifications to the existing PPP competition. What will happen to the existing bidders, and will we invite new bidders? Let me emphasise again that the existing tender process will continue with the current bidders. We will, of course, be discussing any possible modifications to the PPP with the bidders.

It has been suggested that the bidders are becoming impatient, and that they might be tempted to walk away due to delays and changes. The hon. Gentleman certainly alluded to some rather dramatic headlines. However, I do not believe that they will. The bidders recognise the benefits in Mr. Kiley and the Government working together to get the best out of the PPP. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of more guarantees to cover costs. London Underground has already revised the arrangements for bid cost support to take account of the likelihood of a further bidding round. There is nothing unusual there. Arrangements for bid cost support have been revised before as the PPP competition has developed.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the time scale. The process that we have announced is to take forward the three existing competitions. The Government, London Underground, the mayor and Transport for London are all working together to get the deal done without unnecessary delay. Our aim is to agree any modifications to the PPP by the end of February. With regard to the completion date for the competition, we do not intend to allow an artificial timetable to get in the way of ensuring that we get the best deal. There is no change in Government policy on that matter.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation about the time scale. Will he amplify his remark that the intention of the modifications to the PPP was to strengthen the public-private partnership, not to replace it? He went on to say that the PPP would be examined against the public sector comparator. Is it, therefore, the case that Mr. Kiley has forced on the Government a fundamental re-examination of the principles of the PPP? If the PPP is in the frame against the public sector comparator, and if it will be implemented only if it produces better value for money than the public sector comparator, surely there are still elements in doubt that could lead to an extended time scale.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be labouring under a misapprehension about the public sector comparator. We have always said that we would submit the final proposals and bids to a public sector comparator. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to the work of the National Audit Office, which we asked to come in precisely to test the robustness of the public sector comparator. The public sector comparator will go forward and test the bids against conventional funding. Only if the bids stand up to that test with the public sector comparator will we go ahead. That has always been unequivocally a central element in the Government's approach to the matter. We have always said that the essential criterion wil1 be that the PPP contributes to enhanced safety.

I repeat that there is no question of an abandonment of the PPP. Mr. Kiley is now engaged in examining, with the Government and London Underground, modifications within the structure of the PPP. It is too early to say what exactly those modifications may be. Mr. Kiley will focus on what changes will be necessary to give Transport for London the degree of control that it needs to ensure that the PPP delivers the best deal for London.

I must conclude my remarks. However, it is worth going back to the beginning and reminding ourselves why the London Underground PPP was necessary in the first place. It arises, of course, from the miserable legacy left to us by the previous Government, whose years of under-funding of the tube had left a massive backlog of investment, and whose planned cuts at the time they were kicked out of office would have accelerated the decline of the system still further.

It is a cliché to say that a problem cannot be solved by throwing money at it. It would be more accurate to say that money alone will not solve a problem. In the short term, money was what the tube needed, and we, the Labour Government, provided it. We have provided an additional £365 million for London Transport in 1998 over and above existing plans; £517 million of additional resources announced in 1999; and last year a further £65 million for London Underground on top of all that, plus an additional £40 million to deal with claims on the Jubilee line extension—almost £1 billion extra Government support already.

We always said that in the long term what was needed was a stable form of funding, insulated as far as possible from the stop-go annual funding round and the need to compete with claims from other good causes, such as the NHS and schools. That is what the PPP is designed to do, and that is what it will still do, in any improved form that we agree with Mr. Kiley. As I said earlier, the key feature of transferring risk through private sector equity in the three Infracos remains in place.

We are working hard with London Underground, Bob Kiley and Transport for London to settle on the optimum version of the PPP acceptable to all parties. There is still a lot to do, but we share the overriding objective of providing the best possible underground service for London. Once we have settled the matter, we will finally have the publicly owned, publicly accountable and, most important, properly funded tube system for which Londoners have had to wait for so long.

Because the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) is present, and I understand that the Minister will reply, we may begin the next debate, which must finish by 1 o'clock, so we have a bonus.

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. I also thank the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, who will be responding to this debate. I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend, who was my Whip for a year. I saw a great deal of him then—probably a good deal more than he would have liked, considering my voting record.

Today's debate follows the debate that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) two or three weeks ago, to which my hon. Friend the Minister responded, and it draws on the same issues and material. It is concerned with the c2c railway, which was known previously as the London Tilbury Southend railway, the LTS railway. For some reason that I cannot understand, the name was changed to c2c, which is an unfortunate acronym, as it gives rise to all sorts of nicknames. Carriages too crowded is one that circulates in Rainham in my constituency. As well as passing through my hon. Friend's constituency of Thurrock, the railway passes through Rainham in my constituency. I am concerned mainly with that part of the railway, the Tilbury loop.

I travel on the railway regularly—just about every day. I usually travel on the main line and sometimes on the Tilbury loop. The service is not great on either, but I shall concentrate on the service on the Tilbury loop. For many years my constituents who travel from Rainham—and some of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock who travel to Rainham and then catch the train from there—have had to put up with shoddy conditions, delays, cancellations and regular overcrowding.

More than two years ago I was one of the founder members of the Rainham rail users group, which is a fine campaigning organisation. We have met the management of c2c or LTS, or however they prefer to be known, many times, but it has not had an enormous impact. My constituents are enormously patient. They have been patient in the meetings, in their correspondence with the railway company and in putting up with all the delays and overcrowding.

Let me provide an example. One of the founding members of the Rainham rail users group who has chaired the group on more than one occasion recently wrote to me. She is not one of my constituents; she lives in Thurrock, but regularly travels from Rainham. She told me that she often had to travel in the guards van, once with 36 other people. That is clearly unacceptable. It is an anecdote, but it is an example of the conditions that people have to contend with on the railways.

Let me provide some figures. For the period ending March 2000, LTS had timetabled 109,717 trains, of which 13,132, or 12 per cent., were either late or cancelled—an unacceptably high figure. Short formations—when eight carriages are reduced to four, for example—have increased by 486 per cent. in the past few months.

The longstanding reason behind the delays, the overcrowding and the huge increase in short formations is the lack of new trains. Almost since privatisation began, we were promised new trains, and over the past three years, we have heard even more frequently—particularly from the engineering company Adtranz—that new trains are on their way. Brand new class 357 trains were ordered some time ago in preference to models with an existing safety certificate—another serious concern.

The Rainham rai1 users group was in continuous discussions and correspondence with LTS and was continuously given promises. I received a letter from Ken Bird, the managing director of LTS, on 2 July 1998. He pointed out in that letter, which exemplified the customary verbosity for which he was famous:

"We are currently investing £320 million in new trains… We are now at the tail end of removing what nationalisation meant for LTS Rail between 1975 and 1990, i.e. no investment. I know, I managed it."

That is a bit rich. At the tail end of public ownership, the only significant investment in the LTS line over the past few years has been the £150 million signalling system. We are still waiting, for the new trains. At the end of the letter, Ken Bird said:

"We are not there yet but give me another 18 months and judge us then."

That was more than 18 months ago, so it would be churlish not to judge LTS against its own criteria. It is now 18 months later and the class 357 trains are still not in service.

What happened? The trains started running in March last year, but promptly broke down. The software, among other things went wrong and the trains did not work properly. I recall being stuck behind one for an hour in Limehouse on the way to a meeting in Hornchurch. That was a pretty regular problem while those trains were in operation. They all broke down and were all taken out of service. They may still be experimenting with two or three class 357 trains, but they are not in service, so we are stuck with the old slam-door stock, which is a minimum of 40 years old.

Unfortunately, when the class 357s came into service for that brief period last year, c2c jumped the gun and prematurely scrapped much of its old slam-door stock. It was then left short of trains, because when the new trains went out of service, there was insufficient stock. It has since leased in some more of the old slam-door stock, but it is simply not sufficient. The company admits quite freely that it is well down on the stock that it needs to provide a suitable service for LTS or c2c customers. To give an example in respect of the new trains, c2c is now on software package 10.5. Obviously, it started with software package 1 and is now on 10.5. Apparently, in November all the software went back to its supplier in Switzerland.

I also point out that Adtranz ran out of penalties. In the original agreement between c2c and Adtranz there were obviously penalties in the event that Adtranz was late in supplying the trains. That agreement was so poorly put together that there are now no more penalties, so presumably Adtranz could take from now until doomsday to supply the new trains. There would be no more penalties, so it could carry on in its own sweet way.

The former managing director, Ken Bird, who is no longer in place, consistently promised wonderful improvements to the stations, including Rainham. I regularly asked him specifically about Rainham and I know that certain other Members of Parliament asked him about improvements to stations in their constituencies. The stations now have automatic ticket barriers. I admit that c2c successfully installed the automatic ticket barriers, but they are simply insufficient to cope with the volume of people going through the station in peak hours, so they are left open. I was talking to one of my constituents two days ago and he said that every time he goes through, the barriers are open. People can wander in and out of the station because the barriers cannot cope with the volumes of people.

There is no public address system at Rainham station, and the waiting room is still awaiting renovation. It has no window, no door and no heating. The toilets are also awaiting renovation and the clock on the London-bound platform is inoperative. One or two of my more cynical correspondents would say that it is so that people do not know when a train is late. I am not entirely sure that that is the case, but that is the local suspicion that exists.

In the summer of last year, National Express decided to take over Prism, the parent company of c2c. The directors of Prism recommended that the takeover should go ahead. Some vested interests may have been involved because certain Prism directors benefited from this takeover to the tune of £37 million. I made a few what I thought were quite mild, liberal and well-judged comments in the local press, as I always do. I then received an interesting letter from the new general manager of c2c, who attacked me in what I considered to be fairly harsh terms for pointing out that these directors had no right to benefit to the tune of £37 million. He took exception to the comments that I had made and continued:

"It is quite wrong and misleading to give people the impression that the income from a sale is some kind of undeserved additional payment that the directors are granting themselves."

Well I though that that was exactly what it was. It was some kind of additional payment. Some of the directors become multi-millionaires overnight simply because of the way in which privatisation was structured when the Conservatives decided to rush it through and turn back the British railway system, not to pre-1948, but to pre-1924—it was broken up to that extent. We are now experiencing rationalisation, which some of our political opponents describe as a very good thing—something that they supported from the beginning. It is funny that they did not do that when they sold the network off. People such as the directors of Prism are benefiting enormously from takeovers, mergers and so on.

I have to say that Mr. Chivers had the grace to apologise for the remarks that he made in his letter. However, it says it all that while the directors and shareholders of these companies make a fortune out of takeovers and the process of rationalisation, the travelling public—my constituents and those of many other hon. Members—continue to suffer from poor conditions, overcrowding and lack of investment. We were always told that privatisation would result in investment and that these wonderful private companies would pour money into the railways.

During all my meetings, and in all my correspondence with c2c, it has always been a case of jam tomorrow. We were told, "Don't worry. There will be new trains, the station will be renovated and it will be like a palace the next time you travel. The trains will be like travelling palaces; they go at enormous speed and they are air-conditioned. They are superb."

Three and a half years after I was elected to Parliament and started taking up my constituents' concerns, we are in precisely the same situation—slamdoor stock and very poor conditions.

As a footnote to the National Express takeover, I was recently told by Councillor Harry Webb of Havering council, who has campaigned for a long time for proper cycle racks at Rainham station, that National Express had decided to freeze all capital investment. Perhaps it is because so much money is pouring out into the pockets of shareholders and directors that the company can no longer put money into facilities that people need, such as bike racks. The plan to install secure bike racks at Rainham station has been cancelled because of the freeze on capital investment. It seems that the Government's laudable vision of integrated transport is being undermined by the people at National Express who make these sweeping decisions.

I have campaigned for the new cycle racks at Rainham station; Councillor Harry Webb has campaigned for a long time. He is a well-known and very effective local councillor who is being undermined by people in an office miles away deciding, at the stroke of a pen, not to invest. That says it all about the process that LTS and c2c have gone through over the last few years.

Before I allow the Minister to respond, I would like to thank the Rainham rail users group, which has done a superb job over the past two and a half years. It is a great campaigning organisation and very patient. In particular, I would like to thank Les Bragger, one of my constituents who works in the City and uses the railway line every day. He has put an enormous amount of effort into collating the facts and figures that he sends me. I meet the Rainham rail users group regularly and I hope that at some point there will be some genuine improvements to the service. It is really not good enough that in 2001 people have to travel in slam-door guards vans when they go to work in the City. I look forward to what my hon. Friend has to say.

rose—

Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman that according to the rules, these half-hour debates are restricted to the hon. Member who has secured the debate and the Minister replying. However, as we have extra time, I am prepared to accept an intervention from the hon. Member for Upminster, who may wish to make his point as briefly as possible. I am sure the Minister will take note of what he says.

I intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and congratulate him on introducing the debate. Does he agree that some of the problems to which he has referred lead to significant overcrowding in trains from Rainham in his constituency and from Upminster into Fenchurch Street station? Part of the problem that our constituents have in accommodating the problems that we have all experienced during our travels on those lines is that they make travel unsafe.

My hon. Friend raises a matter that I took up with the Health and Safety Executive. We now have such a state of overcrowding on the LTS line that I was concerned that there was some breach of health and safety legislation. I wrote to the HSE which tried to address the problem honestly, but there was nothing much that it could say apart from the fact that it becomes hazardous when there is a crash, which is a fairly obvious statement. It said that c2c was not contravening any health and safety legislation or regulations and that overcrowding became dangerous if the train stopped suddenly, there was a crash or it bumped into something. That is fairly obvious, and I should have thought that prevention was better than cure.

We were told by many people connected with c2c that the new class 357 trains would not be four-car units but only eight-car units and larger. That was part of the plan to encourage people to travel during off-peak times. Many people in the City, for instance, work flexi-time so they can go in later or earlier and can travel when the trains are less busy. There were going to be longer units, but precisely the reverse has happened. We now have more and more four-car units, even during the rush hour. I regularly travel during the rush hour on both routes and the four-car trains are enormously overcrowded.

Interestingly, the new class 357 trains, if they finally appear, will encourage people to stand because they have fewer seats than the old slam-door stock. Their capacity overall is slightly bigger, but that capacity relies on more people standing. That is slightly worrying. I have travelled on the new trains and when they work they are quite nice. They are quite comfortable, but it is worrying that the railway company seems to be encouraging people to stand. We have had some notorious accidents over the past few years on our railways and I should have thought that it was safer for passengers to sit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) is quite right. The overcrowding on some of these old stock carriages can be quite alarming and it reaches worrying proportions at times. I have travelled on trains from time to time that are so overcrowded that one wonders whether people will start to faint. The great hope is that at some point the class 357 trains will come into service and there will be improvements. There has always been a history of jam tomorrow with c2c. We are told not to worry and that there will be great improvements, but they simply have not happened.

12.27 pm

May I begin, as is usual, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss rail services in Havering on the c2c network—formerly known as London, Tilbury, Southend or LTS Rail. I should also like to thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of some of the key issues that he wished to raise in the debate. It was useful also to hear the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), whose constituents have a great interest in this matter.

I am pleased that c2c's performance has improved in recent weeks. Latest figures for the four-week period up to 6 January show that 87.8 per cent. of services arrived at their destination on time. That compares with 74.5 per cent. and 75.5 per cent in the previous two four-week periods. I hope that that upward trend in performance continues. However as my hon. Friend has made clear today, regular users of the c2c network in his constituency will testify that performance over the past year has been far from satisfactory.

C2c has avoided the worst of the disruption caused by Railtrack's rail recovery programme, but problems with the introduction or new rolling stock have caused widespread disruption, overcrowding and frustration for the many passengers who rely on the service as their main method of getting to and from London. Disappointingly, out of an original order of 44 new units, which should have been in operation by November 1999, only 12 have been operational at any one time. Faulty electrics and software problems have made the trains prone to breakdown and not capable of providing a reliable service.

C2c has withdrawn the trains from service while Adtranz, the manufacturer, carries out the necessary modifications. I appreciate that the replacement mark I trains do not offer the same comfort as the new trains. Indeed, they have their own performance problems due to their age. I understand that c2c's last customer satisfaction survey showed that passengers were unhappy with the cleanliness of the trains, and that c2c has agreed an act on plan with the Strategic Rail Authority to address that problem.

My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that all mark I slam-door stock on the network must be replaced by the end of 2004. For c2c to provide a reliable service, it felt that it had no choice but to withdraw the new trains until Adtranz could show that they were capable of performing reliably C2c has set Adtranz a benchmark quality target for the new stock, and will not introduce the trains until they can clock up 10,000 miles between significant malfunctions or breakdowns.

Last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister asked Sir Alastair Morton, chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, to set up a pan-industry working group to identify and tackle the problems being encountered in bringing new stock into service. Although some progress has been made, episodes such as the c2c saga show that there is clearly much more to do.

I can reassure the House that Ministers will continue to put pressure on rolling stock manufacturers, and will make it clear that their current performance in delivering new stock is not acceptable. Manufacturers must ensure that they provide new stock on time, and that it is reliable from the word go. I am pleased that a package of passenger benefits was negotiated by the Strategic Rail Authority to compensate passengers for the disruption that they have had to endure as a result of the problems with the new rolling stock. The order of new trains was increased from 44 to 46, and c2c made a commitment to procure a second tranche of 26 new trains to be delivered and in service by 30 June 2002. That will achieve the complete replacement of the c2c's remaining slam-door stock. C2c is also committed to extending booking office opening hours at many of its stations.

My hon. Friend also referred to unacceptable overcrowding on c2c services. I understand that passengers travelling on the line from Rainham have experienced unacceptable levels of overcrowding on some journeys as a result of the problems with the late delivery of rolling stock. The Strategic Rail Authority monitors overcrowding on commuter services into London, and has powers to take action should passenger counts show that contractual levels of overcrowding are being broken. The last passenger counts showed that c2c remained within its contractual limit. However, the results of the autumn 2000 counts will shortly be published by the Strategic Rail Authority, and if c2c is above the limit, it will be obliged to implement an action plan to remedy the problem.

Considering the problems that c2c has experienced over the past year, it will have come as no surprise to my hon. Friend to discover that last year's autumn national passenger survey found that only 63 per cent. of passengers were satisfied with their journey, and 21 per cent. were dissatisfied. When I debated this matter a fortnight ago with my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Basildon (Angela Smith), they were surprised that as many as 63 per cent. of passengers were satisfied with these services, but that was what the survey found. More to the point, only 33 per cent. of passengers thought that c2c offered value for money. Compared with the 10 other London train operators, only Silverlink scored lower However, I have been assured by c2c's managing director that it is taking the concerns of passengers highlighted in the survey extremely seriously. C2c has agreed an action plan with the Strategic Rail Authority to address the problem areas, and I hope that tangible improvements will be seen in the near future.

There is some good news. Increases in rail fares are never welcome by passengers, especially when the service delivered falls below their expectations. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents welcomed the decision by the franchising director to cap c2c's fare increases this year as a result of poor performance over the year to July 2000. The average permitted increase for c2c's regulated fares was just 0.3 per cent., which is 3 per cent. below inflation.

In June last year, further passenger benefits were secured when the Strategic Rail Authority reached an agreement with Prism Rail, then the franchisee of c2c, on the restructuring of the group's portfolio of passenger rail franchises. Prism committed to invest £20.5 million in areas to be agreed with the Strategic Rail Authority, and in addition will fit closed circuit television to the current order of 46 new vehicles. Under the agreement, the c2c franchise is retained through to 2011, and its other franchises are being restructured to facilitate the Strategic Rail Authority's franchise replacement programme.

Shortly after that deal was struck, the National Express group agreed to buy out Prism. The deal was accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 17 January following a consultation exercise in November last year.

My hon. Friend expresses concern about the payments made to Prism directors as part of the takeover deal. Decisions on whether to make such payments are a matter for the companies involved. However, I am pleased that National Express has undertaken to honour the obligations Prism entered into and are currently working with the Strategic Rail Authority, the rail passengers committee for eastern England and other local stakeholders to determine the best use of the committed £20.5 million.

My hon. Friend also criticises Rainham station for its various inadequacies. C2c has an obligation in its franchise agreement regularly to clean and maintain its station, and to ensure that minimum standards of facilities are met in respect of shelter, information and lighting. The Strategic Rail Authority recently secured additional customer information screens at the station to remedy some minor breaches of the franchise plan discovered during an inspection of the station last summer.

As part of an on-going exercise nationwide, the Strategic Rail Authority is considering various options for improving stations, and is discussing with Railtrack possible work at Rainham. I understand that there are no commitments as yet, but I hope that the discussions will lead to real benefits for passengers.

As I said, Prism is now a wholly owned subsidiary of National Express, which is committed to meeting all the contractual commitments that Prism had entered into with the Strategic Rail Authority.

C2c had a commitment to install bike racks at six stations that previously did not have them, but Rainham was not one of the stations chosen. As I have stated, the Strategic Rail Authority is negotiating with c2c over the £20.5 million investment secured as part of the restructuring package. My hon. Friend and the redoubtable Councillor Harry Webb may like to contact the authority expressing their wish for bicycle facilities to be provided at Rainham. We are keen to encourage integrated transport, and I would welcome any improvements for cyclists. However, Ministers are not party to such negotiations.

I accept that the quality of service experienced by passengers on c2c since privatisation, as with much of the rail network, has not lived up to expectations. We inherited a railway system that was suffering from years of under-investment, fragmented by privatisation, and with no framework for the strategic planning of the industry as a whole. Since 1997, we have been working to turn the railways around, but delivering our plans for a rail renaissance will require substantial investment and coherent strategic direction over the next 10 years. We intend to achieve those plans through implementation of our 10-year transport plan, new powers in the Transport Act 2000, new resources and new longer franchise agreements.

We want to deliver a bigger and better railway with increased punctuality and reliability, reduced journey times and higher standards of safety, service and comfort. As we set out in the 10-year transport plan, we want 50 per cent. more passengers and 80 per cent. more rail freight. We want longer franchises in return for investment in additional capacity, better performance and better customer service.

I hope that my hon. Friend is encouraged by the planned improvements that lie ahead for the future of rail services nationally and, critically, in his constituency. Once the new rolling stock is fully introduced and the £20.5 million of additional investment comes to fruition, I am sure that his constituents will experience a more reliable and comfortable service.

Not so many years ago, the c2c network was frequently described as British Rail's misery line. As today's debate has shown, we still have some way to go before we can achieve our vision for the railways. The legacy of years of neglect cannot be turned around over night, but we expect the privatised train operating companies and Railtrack to work in partnership with one another and the Strategic Rail Authority to turn the vision of our 10-year plan into reality.

12.40 pm

Sitting suspended

In 1993, 17-year-old Sarah Reading died after eating a lemon meringue pie in the restaurant of a well-known departmental store. She suffered an anaphylactic shock—an extreme allergic reaction when blood pressure falls rapidly and the patient quickly loses consciousness. The simple dessert that she ate on that day contained peanuts, to which Sarah was fatally allergic. That is an extreme case, but is certainly not rare. In 1995, Louise Westlake was served bread containing walnut butter at a dinner in a Manchester hotel and died. She knew that she was allergic to nuts, but did not expect to find nuts in butter. Laura Thesher was 19 and in her second day at St. Catherine?s college in Cambridge in 1998. The menu said:

"strawberry shortcake on red fruit sauce".

The shortcake contained undeclared nuts, and three days later Laura was dead. Ross Baillie was a national athlete, but after a training session in Bath in 1999 he ate a coronation chicken sandwich. Nuts were used in it, but not declared, and he died aged 21.

It is estimated that about 1 million people suffer allergic symptoms that could be life threatening. One in 6,000 cases treated in casualty departments in our hospitals is the result of anaphylactic shock. One in 200 children are affected, and for some the threat to their lives is very real and constant. However, nationally too few allergy consultants are available, and the GPs in my constituency report that referrals for specialist allergy care is overwhelming, yet specialist care packages can make a life threatening condition manageable. Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking in the NHS plan to recruit and train consultants, and to offer a more rapid and sophisticated service in the treatment of allergies?

Part of the management of allergies is the avoidance of products that can cause as anaphylactic shock. Avoidance is not helped by the quality and legibility of the allergen risk labelling. Far too many major United Kingdom food manufacturers fail effectively to communicate allergen risks on their products. The font may be too small, the information is often hidden under wrapping or away from the ingredients list, which is where sufferers will automatically look for information. It is crucial that labelling on foodstuffs and loose ingredients, particularly in restaurants and food chains, is not only mandatory but conforms to strict guidelines laid down by trading standards.

It is clearly nonsense that failure to declare a genetically modified ingredient when there is no proof of harm can result in a £5,000 fine, whereas the display of information about allergens when death is known to occur is an optional extra. Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to make food labelling for allergens mandatory, and to ensure that environmental health officers are effectively trained to carry out inspections of food premises?

For adults managing a life style with the possibility of anaphylactic shock, the risk is problematic but bearable. Tens of thousands cope with that problem every day, and most lead perfectly normal lives. They do so often with the help of an epipen auto injector or a similar device that enables a severe anaphylactic shock to be immediately stabilised with an injection of adrenaline until hospital treatment can be secured. The adrenaline epipen is a security policy that gives enormous comfort and security to allergy sufferers. Those at risk always carry their epipen, and a 10-second self-administered dose is usually sufficient to stabilise the condition.

However, failure to carry or have access to an epipen could prove fatal, as it was for Nicola Ratcliffe, a first-year student at Durham university. She ate an Indian meal with friends, and although she knew that she was subject to anaphylactic shock, she had left her epipen in her room. She died aged 18, before treatment could be administered.

The training of first aiders in the use of epipens and their availability when training has taken place could save a person's life in the workplace. It is on a par with a defibrillator. As recently as 5 February this year, the Health and Safety Executive supported work-based training by St. John Ambulance in the use of epipens in the workplace. Will the Department of Health consider extending first aid training to include the use of epipens in the workplace? Although no one would consider making them freely available, surely trained users in large food courts would be of particular value to the public.

The principle reason for seeking this debate is to highlight the problems faced by children subject to anaphylactic shock. It appears that children can and are being discriminated against. Only last month, Martha Atkins, a pupil at St. Paul's primary school in Radlett, was forced to move to another school because staff would not let her use an epipen in an emergency, and they refused to administer it themselves. Although such action by a school is rare, and Martha has now found a place in another school where staff will use an epipen in an emergency, the case highlighted the very real confusion that surrounds the treatment of anaphylactic shock in children.

Department for Education and Employment guidance says that children with medical needs

"have the same rights of admission to school as other children and cannot generally be excluded from school for medical reasons."

Under section 166 of the Education Act 1993, a health authority must provide help to a local education authority and to a school to support the medical needs of a child. That help could include training in the use of an epipen. The Medicines Act 1968 allows the use of prescription-only medicines by injection in emergencies when life is threatened. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 places a duty on heads and teachers with regard to the health and safety of staff and children in their care.

However, the first aid at work regulations, which go back over 20 years and have not been amended in that time, do not permit invasive techniques, even in the case of anaphylactic shock, even though they are known to be an effective treatment and a life saver. There is no legal or contractual duty on school staff to administer treatment or supervise children when taking it, although there is of course a common law duty to act as any prudent parent would, and that includes administering medicines in an emergency.

The current state of affairs is totally unsatisfactory. Heads and teachers need to know exactly where they stand in law. Given that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill is about to enter the Commons, having gone through the Lords, will the Minister consider drafting a new clause specifically to include the emergency treatment of anaphylactic shock and the training of appropriate staff? That in itself would go a long way towards resolving the problem. Such a measure would not only clarify the present situation, but would enable teachers or support staff to be trained in the most simple of procedures and to be insured against any possible claim for negligence. Such clarification would bring huge comfort to thousands of parents and would remove from those children's minds the nagging doubts about the threat of an allergic reaction.

Finally, I want to draw the Minister's attention to the appalling situation surrounding Mathew Johnson, one of my young constituents. Mathew is 10 years old and suffers from a severe tree nut allergy. For the past four years he has been denied access to local authority leisure schemes—not because of his allergy, or because there is anything else wrong with him, but because of his need to use an epipen if he inadvertently goes into anaphylactic shock. The leisure centre staff say that Mathew can take part only if he is accompanied by a parent—both his parents work—or a trained nurse at the cost of £100 to £150 a day. Otherwise, he has been offered a place on a one-to-one scheme for children with learning or physical disabilities. That is totally inappropriate for a young boy who wants to play with his peer group and take part in activities.

Mathew is a normal child. He is not ill. There are thousands of Mathews up and down the country. There are 12 in my constituency alone, and I have been informed of others in Leeds, Birmingham, Croydon and Tonbridge. No child should be discriminated against in that way. It is a betrayal of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, article 31 of which states:

"Every child is entitled to rest and play and to have the chance to join in a wide range of activities".

The British Government have signed up to that article. Furthermore, Government policy supports an ever more inclusive society for our children. In paragraph 41 of "From Exclusion to Inclusion", David Blunkett is proud to say:

"We owe all children—whatever their particular needs and circumstances—the opportunity to develop their full potential."

How hollow are those commitments if children subject to anaphylactic shock can be so easily discriminated against?

I understand the situation of staff leading leisure or sporting programmes or playgroups. They are placed in an impossible position. I do not object to their trade association instructing them not to use these invasive devices. The law should protect them, and they ought to be insured against negligence. They should also receive formal training. Things could be so different. Extending existing legislation and DFEE guidance to cover all local authority approved leisure and play schemes would help. Including specific regulatory provision in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill to include leisure and play schemes would certainly help. Ensuring that all first aid training includes the administration and use of epipens and similar devices would take away much of the mystery and mystique. Establishing a common code of practice that provides the basis for local authority legal cover for all staff using epipens, provided they have been trained, would solve the problem in a stroke. The outdated first aid at work regulations that do not permit invasive techniques, even for anaphylactic shock, clearly need to be updated.

Anaphylaxis is an increasingly common condition affecting children, and it is on the increase. It is easily managed with adrenaline. Surely a caring Government can manage their responsibility to those children affected.

1.13 pm

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on securing this debate. He has raised a wide range of important issues, and has illustrated them by reference to some distressing deaths that have occurred as a result of anaphylactic shock He has also talked about the interesting case of his constituent who has not been able to get on to play of leisure schemes because carers are not prepared to administer adrenaline injections for anaphylactic shock. As of today, it is the only case that I am aware of that has been brought to the Department's attention, but that does not diminish its importance and the need to discuss the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Every parent in the country is apprehensive about how they would cope if a sudden medical emergency, such as an anaphylactic attack, befell one of their children. Our children's health is so precious to us that we want to be reassured that the NHS, schools and others can cope in such a situation. About 1,000 children aged 15 and under are admitted to hospital each year as a result of anaphylactic shock.

Anaphylaxis is an acute, immune reaction needing urgent medical attention that may occur in children who suffer from severe allergies. When such severe allergies are diagnosed, the children concerned are made aware from a very early age of what they can and cannot eat or drink. I am happy to say that, in the majority of cases, children go through the whole of their school lives without incident.

The most common cause of an anaphylactic attack is a severe allergy to food. The hon. Gentleman talked about nut allergies, but certain drugs such as penicillin, and the venom of stinging insects, such as bees, wasps or hornets, can also result in an attack. In its most severe form, the condition is life threatening, but it can be treated with medication. That may include antihistamine, adrenaline inhaler or adrenaline injection, depending on the severity of the reaction. Most patients are normally prescribed a device for personally injecting adrenaline. The device looks like a fountain pen and is pre-loaded with the correct dose of adrenaline. It is not possible to give too large a dose when using this device.

I should like to say a little about food allergies in general, and about what we are doing in conjunction with the Department for Education and Employment and voluntary organisations, such as the Anaphylaxis Campaign, to cope with these attacks in a school setting. I should also like to talk about the work of the Food Standards Agency in increasing our knowledge of the causes of food intolerance.

Food allergy or food hypersensitivity are broad terms that cover a range of abnormal immune responses to foods. Such terms are often misused and can sometimes be confused with other conditions that do not involve an immunological response, such as food intolerance, food poisoning or digestive tract disorders. A wide range of foods has been implicated as causing food allergies, including milk, eggs, peanuts, fish, shellfish, nuts, seeds and fruit. It has been reported that over 90 per cent. of adverse reactions in children can be attributed to four major foods: nuts, eggs, milk and soy.

Nut allergy is an umbrella term given to hypersensitive reactions to proteins found in nuts and peanuts. Oils extracted from nuts and seeds, such as sesame, are sometimes used by food manufacturers in the unrefined form. Allergens may therefore be present in a surprisingly wide and varied range of foodstuffs. Testing for an allergy to nuts will usually be combined with a general allergy test. Unfortunately, many nut allergy sufferers only learn of their allergy when they experience an adverse reaction for the first time. Once the allergen is identified—for example, arachis oil in peanuts—allergy clinics can begin advising on the most effective treatment. Tests are usually carried out in a primary care setting, although allergy clinics can provide more advanced and specific tests.

The Food Standards Agency is doing important work to improve our understanding of food allergy and intolerance. It is concentrating on three areas. The first is raising awareness of the condition among the public; the second is funding research into the causes of food allergy; and the third is encouraging informative labelling.

The FSA is continuing the "Be allergy aware" campaign launched in 1997 to raise awareness of the problem of food allergy among the catering industry. The campaign has taken the form of posters, leaflets and stickers, which were sent to over 200,000 catering establishments, including schools, with advice on how caterers can help those with severe allergies. The FSA also funds research on allergy and intolerance, with particular emphasis on severe allergies. A large programme of research on food intolerance and allergy, costing around £1 million a year, is currently under way.

The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment published a report in 1998, which addressed some of the issues behind the possible causation of peanut allergy. A further report on adverse reactions to food and food ingredients was published in July 2000. The FSA has welcomed those reports, as they help to raise awareness of the problem among consumers, the medical profession and the food industry.

The FSA has already taken on board a number of the research recommendations outlined in the COT report. It invited proposals for some of those recommendations in its research requirements for 2000–01. That research will help to formulate future FSA policy on food intolerance.

The FSA is also working to ensure that labelling is informative, so that allergy sufferers get the information they need. The UK has been urging the European Commission to bring forward proposals for changes in EU law so that certain named allergenic ingredients are always clearly and recognisably labelled. I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman made, and there is a need to press for effective action in this area. It is also worth recognising the problems that can be caused by the over-use of the commonly seen label "may contain". There is a danger that that may restrict consumer choice unnecessarily, so accurate and safe labelling is important for people who are prone to this reaction.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about allergy clinics and full-time consultant allergists. There are currently about 90 NHS allergy clinics in England and Wales, few of which have a full-time consultant allergist in post. The demand for them is high, and there can be lengthy waits. The process of confirming the source of an allergen is sometimes lengthy and difficult. Clinical immunology and allergy has recently been recognised as a separate medical specialty. Post-graduate training courses on allergic diseases are now available. It takes many years for a senior house doctor or registrar to become a fully qualified consultant. At least that process is under way, and we will be able to plan for an expansion of fully trained consultants in the years to come. That is one of the provisions to which the extra investment in the NHS can sensibly be applied.

I should like to deal with the individual case that may have given rise to this Adjournment debate, and was previously raised by the hon. Gentleman in an early-day motion. If a child has an anaphylactic attack outside school hours, I would expect, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree, that the child's parent or guardian would be the person best able to deal with it. If the attack is severe, the child's own GP or local accident and emergency department should be contacted for advice and, if required, treatment. However, that cannot apply in some settings.

In 1996, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment issued joint guidance "Supporting pupils with medical needs in schools". The guidance was welcomed by the Anaphylaxis Campaign, and was sent to health authorities and local education authorities. It covers treatment and the development of health care plans for pupils suffering from potentially life threatening medical conditions, including anaphylaxis.

The guidance suggests that if the child is not old enough to carry his own medication, it should be kept in an accessible place. It says that the injection should be given on a purely voluntary basis. Although aimed primarily at schools, the guidance was also recommended to special schools, nursery schools and further education colleges. It was produced after extensive consultation with interested parties, including professional bodies and voluntary organisations such as the Anaphylaxis Campaign.

The guidance makes it clear that each school should have an effective policy for ensuring that those pupils with medical needs receive proper care and support at school. Formal systems and procedures, drawn up in partnership with parents and staff, should underpin the policy. The objective of the policy should be to encourage the child's regular attendance and participation in school life.

Existing practice in schools is good, and is based on good communications and good protocols. Many children with long-term medical needs may not require medication during school hours, and when they do, they can administer it themselves. The hon. Gentleman was a head teacher, so I am sure he agrees that schools should encourage that approach, so that the child does not feel different, or excluded from the normal run of school life.

On the legal issues, as a general rule school staff should not administer medication without having had appropriate information and training. The Medicines Act 1968 places restrictions on dealings with medicinal products, including their administration. There are exceptions for the administration of certain prescription only medicines in life threatening situations.

However, there is no legal or contractual duty on school staff to administer medicines, or to supervise pupils taking them. That is a purely voluntary role. I have some misgivings, which I am sure are shared, about allowing unqualified or untrained staff to administer prescription medicines as a matter of routine, which could be dangerous. That would be a cause for concern. Normally, the local health authority or trust can advise the school of the main contact to provide the necessary medical support to the school. It may be a school nurse provided through the school health service.

If pupils have medical conditions that, if not properly managed, can limit their access to school, it is helpful for schools to draw up individual health care plans. These should give school staff sufficient information to understand and support a pupil with long-term medical needs. Such plans should be prepared in conjunction with parents and the child's medical advisers, and should set out the measures needed to support the pupil in school. As a matter of routine all schools must have a clear procedure for summoning an ambulance in an emergency. In the unlikely event of a severe anaphylactic reaction, immediate medical treatment may be necessary while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. The child's doctor will prescribe medicine—usually in the form that I described earlier—in the event of an allergic reaction.

Many hundreds of children in the nation's schools are at risk of anaphylaxis. The vast majority of them are happily accommodated in mainstream schools. That is largely due to good communication and consensus between parents, teachers, medical advisers and education authorities.

Could the Minister address the specific issue of children who are not in school, but who are in local authority play schemes, leisure centres and other settings? It is those staff who need protection under the law.

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next few remarks. Existing practice, albeit within the existing legal framework in schools, is good and seems to work based on good communications and good protocols. There is an argument, as put forward by the hon. Gentleman today, that that practice should be extended to out-of-school and pre-school activities. The Anaphylaxis Campaign is keen and willing to get involved and to help iron things out. In the past, it has intervened when parents have raised an issue. It would like guidance to be issued similar to that issued to schools. I also acknowledge that St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross would be willing to provide training in administering adrenaline shots. They are entitled to do that already, and the Anaphylaxis Campaign is very supportive of that.

One of the purposes of Adjournment debates is to raise issues that may not have otherwise appeared on the agenda. I am unable to commit the Government to taking such a route, but I recognise the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has raised based around that individual case, and I give him a commitment to consider the arguments for extending the guidance, if appropriate, to other settings. I shall write to him in due course when my colleagues and I have had a chance to consider the issue.

The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill is the responsibility of colleagues in another Department, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to their attention. I shall write to him on the issue of the first aid at work regulations I am not clear whether they are the substantive obstacle to improving the quality of provision in the workplace, but I undertake to consider those issues and get back to him.

May I say how grateful I am to secure this debate? I was contacted and encouraged to take up this issue by the Nationa1 Association of Licensed House Managers in partnership with the Transport and General Workers Union. It relates to the workings of the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980. Pubwatch also flagged up related and slightly different issues.

The common theme has been how violence and threatened violence on licensed premises are dealt with and how the position could be improved. Most types of crime are decreasing. However, it is a timely debate given the general concern about violence and alcohol-related crime. I acknowledge the measures that the Government are already taking in respect of the problem in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which is going through the House. That introduces fixed penalty notices for offences of disorderly behaviour. It contains powers for the police to close licensed premises immediately to deal with such behaviour. It prohibits the drinking of alcohol in specified public places and raises the age of child curfews. The police already have powers of arrest to deal with violent individuals.

Violent crime is an issue and a significant number of crimes are committed on licensed premises. There are some dreadful examples in my constituency, as there are in many other hon. Members' constituencies. The result of the independent British crime survey 2000 suggests that 19 per cent. of all violent incidents occurred at pub or club premises, whether inside or in a nearby street or car park. Licensees, staff and customers were the victims and my constituency has seen its fair share of such incidents.

One response at the courts' disposal, when someone is found guilty of violence, or threatened violence on licensed premises, is to make an exclusion order, under the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980. The order can be made in addition to any sentence imposed by a court and be effective for any period from three months to two years. It may exclude an individual not only from the premises where the offence took place, but from any other designated premises.

The application of those orders has, however, been poor. In 1991, 70 orders were issued. In 1992, 62 were issued. In 1993, 47 were issued. In 1994, 25 were issued. In 1995, 28 were issued and, in 1996, 23 were issued. I am unable to obtain more recent figures from the House of Commons Library and wonder if they are still being collected as a way of monitoring the use of such orders. If not, can the Minister say why that decision was taken?

In 1997, a concern was stated in a Home Office circular, describing the orders as little used. It was distributed to the courts and police reminding them of the powers under the Act. It also urged that the order be included in training given to magistrates. I understand from anecdotal evidence provided by the pubwatch scheme that there has been some improvement in the use of orders, but it is not sufficient according to those in the licensing trades, and their use varies from area to area.

Reasons for a slight increase in numbers may be due to the reminder by the Home Office circular, an increase in pubwatch schemes and a greater partnership approach by the police. There is, however, a long way to go before the orders are used consistently and appropriately.

There are several reasons for a possible lack of progress. There is still a lack of awareness of the Act among some licensees, magistrates and police. That is an issue that the Government perhaps need to give more thought to. There is no statutory provision for the hearing of licensees' representatives who want an extension of the order. There is no specified method of application for licensees who want to be included.

There are, however, examples of excellent practice. In Derby, the police have drafted a pro forma statement signed by all licensees in their pubwatch scheme. That is retained by magistrates and Crown courts and is accepted by them as evidence of their support for an exclusion order. Bromley Licensed Victuallers Association has sent exclusion order application forms to all members, so that, if an offence occurs, the application can immediately be handed to the arresting officer. That ensures that the request is on file and will be considered by the magistrates or Crown court at hearing.

In Bradford, the local licensee association urges members to request in any witness statements that magistrates grant an exclusion order. In my county of Derbyshire, officers are encouraged to apply where appropriate and to include a list of premises taken from pubwatch booklets from which the person should be excluded. Magistrates are sympathetic and the record of granting exclusion orders is, unsurprisingly, quite good. In 1995, 28 orders were issued nationally. Nine of those were specifically granted in east Derbyshire. In 1997, out of 23 orders issued nationally, 14 were made in east Derbyshire. I hope that that reflects not a higher proportion of disorderly behaviour in my locality, but a proactive approach by the authorities to ensure the safety of those in licensed premises.

Police information on violence occurring on licensed premises is often not used to good effect. In Bradford, a computer system automatically informs the process sergeant when such an offence is going to court, enabling the sergeant to decide whether an exclusion order should be sought—again, an effective system. Similar good practice exists elsewhere.

Usually, it is the police who recommend that an exclusion order be used, but a court can choose an exclusion order without other recommendations. A duty on a magistrate or judge to consider an exclusion order would be a way forward. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response on that, as it is already flagged up in the White Paper entitled "Time for Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of Our Licensing Laws".

More fundamentally, why is an exclusion order not used automatically for anyone found guilty of serious assault or threat on licensed premises, be it on the licensee, other staff or the public? Does that run the risk of not being proportionate to the offence? I would be grateful if some light were shed on that.

On the granting of an exclusion order, no data is available on violent crime on off-licence premises, whose staff often feel intimidated. Does Government thinking remain committed to an extension of exclusion of named individuals from specified off-licence premises, as mentioned in the White Paper?

On the enforcement of exclusion orders when issued, the licensee or employer can remove any person who enters premises in breach of an exclusion order and a police officer, if requested, must assist. However, refusal to leave is not an arrestable offence, but a report for summons offence. If the person disobeys the order and is summonsed, he can be fined up to £1,000, sent to prison for one month, or both.

I could not obtain any information from the House of Commons Library on how often action has been taken when a breach occurs. The feeling is that action against breaches is infrequent. In any event, a summons can take between two to three months to be heard and numerous breaches of the order can be committed in the interim. Does not a more effective way of placing breaches of the order before the courts need to be looked at? It is intimidating for all concerned when an excluded person re-enters premises and blatantly flouts the law.

Enforcement is hampered by the licensee's difficulty in identifying persons who have exclusion orders placed on them. There is no provision in the Act for use of photographs. A powerful statistic is that 33 per cent. of violent offences on licensed premises are committed by strangers. The use of photographs is therefore essential.

Some forces, such as Derbyshire and Wiltshire, do supply photographs to licensees and to their staff for their confidential use. They are a useful device. Care is taken to return or to destroy them when the order ceases. Others do not use photographs and take the Act literally. I believe that a code of practice was drawn up between the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Can the Minister confirm that that exists and, if so, what status it has? Clearly, forces that do not use photographs are less confident about the existing guidance. What official guidance is given, or is it simply a practice that has emerged?

When exclusion orders for football offences are imposed, section 35 of the Public Order Act 1986 permits the use of photographs. Cannot that power be extended to exclusion orders under the 1980 Act, as the common denominator is violence in the social environment?

Pubwatch, a voluntary community-based crime prevention scheme, aims through partnership with the police and others to deter troublemakers and to reduce the risk of assault on licensees, staff and customers and, in essence, provides a safe social environment for all. Its activities in no small part help to challenge and to reduce violence on members' premises. When behaviour is anti-social, pubwatch operates bans on an individual or individuals, which all its members support.

Some impressive examples of schemes, such as that in Walsall, have dramatically reduced the incidence of violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) was instrumental in organising an impressive pubwatch scheme to combat the rising tide of serious assaults in his constituency, where there were 73 assaults in 12 months. In the nine months after its formation, 11 people were banned from its members' licensed premises and there was no serious assault in that period; even now, there are few such incidents. Social exclusion in that context causes isolation and can be most effective, at little cost.

Pubwatch, for all its good work, faces challenges. First, its legality in banning people from pubs in the scheme when exclusion orders have been granted has been challenged under the European convention on human rights. Pubwatch schemes in Gloucestershire and the north-east have been pressurised by solicitors acting on behalf of clients banned from pubs, stating that their actions are in breach of articles 6 and 8 of the convention. In Gloucestershire, a local inspector sought legal advice on behalf of the local pubwatch scheme from constabulary lawyers, who felt that the challenge would probably fall foul of the High Court, but as the legislation was untested, no definitive advice was given. On that occasion, it was not pursued, but the pubwatch scheme has introduced an appeals panel to strengthen its position. In the north-east, two solicitors' letters pressing the convention were sent to local watches, which lifted the bans rather than face court action.

What are the Minister's thoughts on the issue? For example, given that in common law licensees have the right to exclude anyone from their premises, does he think that a pubwatch ban can be construed as a joint exercise of an individual member's right to refuse access? Such matters need clarification because pubwatch, as a voluntary scheme, does not have the resources to fight a judicial review and lifted bans caused by uncertainty impair the effectiveness of the scheme.

In pubwatch schemes with no known policy, the use of photographs of banned persons is even more nebulous. In most instances, the police are unable to provide them, either because such photographs do not exist or because the police are precluded from doing so by the Data Protection Act 1998. The alternative is to print photographs taken from premises' CCTV films. It is unclear how the use of photographs measures up against the issue of civil liberties. Clear guidance is needed, as it is when photographs are used in town centre watch schemes.

Pubwatch is a national scheme, although its coverage is not yet national. Many schemes already have a proven track record and, in the light of increasing responsibility placed on licensees, they should receive Government encouragement— perhaps some financial support. The brewers and most pub companies are reluctant to finance and to support watches, although there are exceptions, such as the Unique Pub Company, which embraces and supports pubwatch.

Pubwatch wants to produce a national database, and more briefing information, co-ordination and training in the light of the Government's partnership agenda to tackle crime. Has the Minister any thoughts on providing such support?

Bans of up to 10 years are flagged up in the White Paper, but they will not be effective if the exclusion orders cannot be improved. Will the Public Order Act 1980 be tightened and included in a new licensing Act? Will the Minr take note of my points about the workings of exclusion orders in that respect? Will his Department collect and monitor both the statistics on orders served and summonses in breach of those orders that result in convictions? Will the Minr ensure that advice on best practice is circulated and co-ordinated to the police and magistrates in support of pubwatch? I look forward to his reply to my questions.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) on securing the debate and on the way in which she put her case. As a Government, we have tried during recent years to give a much higher priority to the issue. My hon. Friend set out many of the reasons why that is necessary. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), who is in the Chamber. He has campaigned assiduously on pubwatch and has raised the matter with me on a number of occasions. He is an energetic advocate of that scheme on the basis of his constituency experience.

Before addressing the specific points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, I shall set out a little of the context of the Government's approach. Although most people who drink lawfully on licensed premises do so for entirely acceptable reasons—to relax and socialise with others—there is a minority for whom that is not true. Almost 90 per cent. of the adult population take alcoholic drinks, spending about £25 billion a year on them. The village pub or "local" has been an important feature of life for a number of generations.

We expect the industry to do all that it can to manage premises responsibly and to minimise the risk of lawlessness and disorder arising from alcohol abuse. In a civilised society, it cannot be acceptable that 14 per cent. of people who responded to a Portman Group survey last year said that they had been the victim of violence inside a public house. That figure, albeit from a survey, shows the scale of the problem to which my hon. Friend referred and sits alongside other statistics to show the nature and seriousness of the issue. For example, about 13,000 violent incidents take place on or around licensed premises every week and 80 per cent. of peak time presentations to hospital accident and emergency units at the weekend are alcohol related. I commend the excellent work done by the accident and emergency department of the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff—which is spreading to other such departments—on the careful consideration of those presentations and their use to help to map the incidence of crime in particular localities and particular pubs where violent crime has taken place

The problems are not intractable, provided that the licensed trade, in the first instance, accepts that it has the primary responsibility for properly managing licensed premises to prevent trouble from arising in the first place or to ensure that it is nipped in the bud. It is an offence for a licensee to permit disorder on his or her premises. I am glad to say that the licensed trade and the wider drinks industry are showing that they take their responsibilities seriously and that they are committed to the partnership approach, which I shall set out in a moment.

I have chaired three seminars involving organisations from the licensed industry, police magistrates, local government and groups such as the Portman Group, precisely to see how we can address the issues in a partnership more effectively. That has led to a number of initiatives, first, to encourage sensible drinking and discourage unsociable drinking that leads to unruly behaviour and, secondly, to take positive action to minimise the opportunities for misbehaviour that might be exploited by those intent on making trouble. Pubwatch schemes, based on good and strong relationships between local police and licensees, show what can be done to keep known troublemakers out of pubs and clubs in a local area.

I shall respond now to my hon. Friend's specific points on pubwatch and deal with exclusion orders shortly. I am familiar with the points that she made on the European convention on human rights, but there is no foundation for concerns in that respect. As a Government, we are keen to promote the pubwatch idea, because there is so much good evidence to support it. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force last October, and many people are putting to the courts their arguments about a human right being violated by a particular action. My Department monitors the whole range of challenges to practices across all aspects of life that are being made under the 1998 Act. So far, the highest courts in the land have in general sustained our expectations and practices in this country. Obviously, that may not always be the case in the future. However, I will state publicly, in Committee and more widely, that we should continue to develop pubwatch. People should not be frightened of human rights legal action, and we should proceed on the basis that that is the right way to operate. It is not a Minister's role to second-guess the courts if cases are brought in those circumstances, but it would be a mistake if the valuable pubwatch initiative were in any sense derailed or diverted by legal concerns as the result of some hypothesis in those circumstances.

I am prepared to consider funding for the national pubwatch scheme to see that develop further. At one of the seminars to which I referred earlier, we discussed how we could use resources to strengthen the campaign against alcohol-related violent crime. We are already taking a number of initiatives. We have not had a formal proposal from pubwatch, but I am certainly prepared to consider a proposal positively and to see what we can do. We do think that the pubwatch approach is powerful.

The issue of photographs is a difficult one. As my hon. Friend said, in 1994 the trade body—the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association—issued to licensees guidance about photographs of excluded persons that had been agreed by ACPO. That dealt with such matters as where photographs should be kept and what should be done with them, in particular at the end of the exclusion order, but also more widely. I accept that there may be value in refreshing that document, and the Government are prepared to help do that in order precisely to raise its status.

It is important to note that the Cabinet Office's policy research unit is conducting a detailed survey of data protection issues, and some important data protection issues surround the use of photographs in such schemes. For example, there are schemes for providing retailers with photographs of shoplifters in particular shopping centres. We believe, for the record, that it is perfectly legitimate to do that, and to send photographs of known offenders around pubs in the way described. However, it is important to consider the whole situation. That is why the Government review, which is taking place at the moment and will report shortly, will take the issue forward. Allowing a local pubwatch to use photographs in the event that no legal action had been taken would be a more difficult human rights issue. However, I will consider the use of photographs in the context of our overall approach. I shall deal in a moment with the legislation proposed in the licensing White Paper, to which my hon. Friend referred. Hopefully, that will provide the vehicle for any legislative steps that are needed to ensure that that happens in the proper way.

It is striking that 40 per cent.—a high percentage—of crime and disorder partnerships, which now cover the whole country, have highlighted drunkenness as a crime and disorder issue in their crime audit plans. Nearly 60 per cent. of crime and disorder partnerships related public order problems explicitly to alcohol. Those figures simply reinforce the central thrust of the argument made by my hon. Friend.

A series of measures are being taken in that area, including the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which is currently in Committee, which address a number of aspects, including drunkenness and disorder on licensed premises, and closure of certain licensed premises. The central context is our White Paper "Time for Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of Our Licensing Laws" which covers the series of proposals that we intend to make to try to address the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend.

With regard to exclusion orders, which were highlighted by my hon. Friend, I can confirm that the White Paper proposed that the courts should be put under a new duty to consider making an exclusion order in any case in which someone is convicted of an offence involving disorder or violence on licensed premises or in a registered club. Registered clubs have emphasised to me that they are often the recipients of drunkenness rather than its cause. People often go to a club from pubs in the locality late in the evening, and are drunk when they arrive, rather than being drunk as a result of having been in the club. They are keen to point out that the various requirements of legislation should apply to everyone in those circumstances.

The White Paper also proposed that the courts should be able to exclude people for longer than two years, and in the most serious cases involving violence it should be possible to impose a lifetime ban on access to licensed premises, which would be a serious sanction to deal with the problem. We need to develop more rigorous use of these orders, as our figures show. Perhaps I can say a word on the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

The Minister mentioned exclusion and lifetime bans. What happens when someone ignores an order, or when the publican does so by serving a drink? Will there be a law to reprimand the publican or to fine the person who is ignoring the exclusion order?

That issue will be addressed in the White Paper, but I can give my hon. Friend an immediate response. First, if the individual who is banned goes into a pub, he is in breach of a court order, which can be enforced by the courts using the most swingeing penalties. Secondly, it would have to be shown that the publican knew that he was serving drink to someone who had been banned. That is obviously a more difficult issue to address, but we will deal with it explicitly in the White Paper. The particular powers that we suggest are an extension of the current powers, under which people can be excluded for a period of between three months and two years.

The overall issues that my hon. Friend for Blyth Valley has raised wi1l be addressed in legislation. It is the Government's intention to introduce legislation on this matter at the earliest possible legislative opportunity. As always, there is strong competition, but the Government believe that this is a high priority, for a wide variety of reasons.

Since 1996, information has been collected on exclusion orders along with data on other local orders which otherwise are dealt with on conviction. It has not been possible to disaggregate exclusion orders in that time, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash could obtain only the data up to 1996. We are reviewing the way in which statistics are recorded at the moment across different areas, and I give my hon. Friend an undertaking to consider how we could record this information in a more public way.

However, her fundamental point was not statistical; it was about the relatively low-level use of the orders, and how that can be increased. The key is to develop partnerships between the licensing magistrates, the police and the local licensed trade industry and to establish local crime and disorder strategies to address the issue, informed by proper data on public houses that are not orderly, including data from accident and emergency departments about where violent crime is predominantly occurring. I can assure my hon. Friend that the strengthening of those partnerships, particularly with exclusion orders in mind, will be an aspect of the discussions in our seminar groups. I shall report back to her on that in due course.

Could the Minister expand on the strategies that are in place to deal with breaking of exclusion orders that have been served, because that is an issue of concern?

To be frank, we have not done as much work on that aspect as we should have done, but I will guarantee to take that further. I mentioned the role of the magistrates courts, the police, local government and the local licensed industry in enforcing these orders, because they can be more effective if they work together.

I conclude by saying that this issue is of exceptional importance and the Government take it very seriously. We have a great deal more to do to be able to claim that we have addressed it comprehensively, as my hon. Friend set out in her powerful speech, but I can commit the Government to doing what we can to achieve the goals which she has set, not least because of the evidence—which is unquestioned—of the close relationship between alcohol and violent crime.