It is pleasing to see so many hon. Members with interests in fishing communities here on Budget day, which could be an advantage or disadvantage for this debate. In a sense, what better time could there be to put questions to the Fisheries Minister than immediately before the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers his Budget? We all anticipate that the Minister's powers are such that he will make a beeline for the Chancellor immediately after this debate to resolve a number of the problems that we shall have brought to his attention.

The Chancellor will say, "You again."

I do not know whether Hansard caught that aside; I might ask the Minister to repeat it in his speech.

The disadvantage is that we run a slight risk of the debate being overshadowed, although that was not a risk for yesterday's massive fishing industry demonstration of solidarity in Scotland, which involved 167 fishing boats in a procession that stretched for 11 miles and took the best part of two hours to pass under the Forth bridges. Having had a quick look at this morning's Scottish press, I am pleased to see that the demonstration is dominating the newspapers. As far as I am aware, it was the biggest flotilla of fishing boats ever gathered, certainly in peacetime. It was one of the largest such demonstrations in history.

That should send a signal to the Minister that, apart from some of the more general long-term problems that hon. Members from various parts of the country will want to raise this morning, there is an immediate crisis in the Scottish white fish industry that needs to be addressed. Those of us from Scottish constituencies have high hopes for this afternoon?s meeting between the First Minister and fishing industry leaders, but if the crisis is not urgently addressed, much of the long-term future—and today's debate—will become redundant. We shall see, effectively, a wipeout of the most important white fish stock in Scotland; the haddock fishery.

I spoke to the Minister privately last week, but I hope that this debate, whatever else it does, will show him the strength of feeling that exists, the importance of the crisis that has befallen Scottish white fish boats and the solidarity in the industry as a whole with a view to doing something about it. Yesterday's procession was made up not only of white fish boats. As it sailed down the coast of Scotland, there was a demonstration by the Shetland boats up at Sullom Voe. It picked up boats all the way down the east coast of Scotland, starting from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and going down through Angus and the East Neuk, which is within the constituency of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).

The procession picked up boats from the south-east of Scotland, which came up from Eyemouth, and 30 boats joined at the mouth of the Forth. Even the small fishing fleet in the firth of Forth joined the flotilla at the last minute as it started to sail towards the bridges. It was a remarkable demonstration of the strength of feeling by a variety of interests and sections of the industry. I have never seen the catching side of the fishing industry as unified as it has been over the past two weeks in response to the crisis.

The realisation of the problems with white fish by those who are not immediately affected is interesting and important. As we sailed down, we received a message of support from the scallop fishermen, who are largely on the west coast of Scotland. The prawn or nephrops fishermen realise that, unless something is done to solve the white fish problem, one of the next developments to occur after the demise of the haddock stock will be pressure on the prawn fishery, and chaos and dislocation will continue in the industry.

A number of the deep-sea boats in Scotland, which are equipped to go into far waters, were also part of the flotilla. Again, they have not been immediately affected by the crisis that has hit the medium-sized white fish boats; none the less, they realised that dislocation for one part of the industry would cause problems for the entire industry.

It was even more interesting to hear last week—not for the first time in my memory, but certainly for one of the first times—the statement of support from the Scottish White Fish Producers Association and again from Will Clarke by telephone as we sailed towards the Forth yesterday. They realise that every part of the industry will have little or no future unless the problem of the slaughter of juvenile haddock is resolved. I hope that the strength of feeling that was on display yesterday will be evident to the Minister. I also hope that he will excuse my fragile condition because, although the weather yesterday was fine, being on a fishing boat through the night on the North sea is something that few hon. Members will have experienced. It was worth while to see that strength of solidarity.

I urge the Minister to respond to the demonstration, because the industry has shown unity and an awareness of the crisis over the past ten days. Above all, it has been a responsible and dignified protest that has tried to take its concerns to the heart of Government. It is incumbent on the Minister to say something positive because, as he accepted last week, the situation is urgent.

I suspect that all hon. Members will agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Does he accept that one unique feature of the fishing community's present attitude is that, when it came to juvenile haddock, it voluntarily withdrew its effort because it recognised that, if it did not, the fishing industry in Scotland would cease to exist?

Yes, that is a vital point. In effect, we have had a voluntary tie-up of the fleet for the past 10 days or so, which has meant a substantial sacrifice on the part of the crews. They have mortgages on their boats and houses, and other financial commitments, yet they have voluntarily tied up their boats to illustrate dramatically that fishermen are sick to the heart of having to pursue a fishing strategy that will mean the decimation and slaughter of the fishing grounds.

Less than £10 million is needed to solve the immediate crisis. I am not talking about the long-term problems—which we might discuss later—or about something that many hon. Members would like to see; a step change in structural support for an industry that lags far behind those in comparable European countries. I am speaking about an immediate move to protect and preserve the vital haddock stock.

By any estimate, such a move would cost less than £10 million. As I said in the Scottish Parliament last week, that is less than the price of Tore Andre Flo, the recent Rangers star signing. Rangers fans might have a variety of views on whether that was money well spent. As one fisherman said yesterday, "It may be less than Rangers pay for a striker, but it's mair than Aberdeen pay." That is undoubtedly true, but the point is obvious. The sum needed to address the immediate problem is, at most, marginal for Government; £10 million from either the Scottish Executive or UK Government Budget would prove to be good value for the Minister.

Most hon. Members would agree that this is a crisis, but the question is whether the Scottish National party believes that it is appropriate for the Scottish Executive or the UK Government to resolve it.

I would welcome a resolution to the crisis from the Scottish Executive in their meeting this afternoon or from the Minister this morning. Like most of my fishing constituents, I am anxious for it to be resolved. We can worry afterwards who should take the credit for resolving it. Given the billions that have been talked about as the Chancellor's potential giveaway this afternoon, less than £10 million to meet this immediate crisis seems to me a very solid investment.

The argument for dealing with the immediate crisis is that it is man-made. It is not a natural disaster, an act of God or a great calamity that has befallen the industry because of the forces of nature. It is a man-made crisis. The key grounds that the white fish boats have been pushed into by the closure of areas under the cod recovery plan have been regarded by Scottish fishermen for generations as nursery areas for young haddock and whiting. No amount of technical innovation, in which the Scottish fleet has been first and foremost, is going to help in that situation. The sea to the east of Shetland, around the Fair isle, teems with huge quantities of young fish, particularly juvenile haddock; yet that is one of the few remaining fishing grounds left open to Scottish fishermen as a result of the closure of cod areas.

It would be a substantial and fatal irony for Scotland if the attempt to address the problem of the cod fishery—that may or may not work; it has had broad support—resulted in the destruction of the haddock fishery. Let us remember that haddock is twice as important as cod to Scotland. Many hon. Members are familiar with the map that I showed the Minister last week. It illustrates that the policy of closing 40,000 square miles of fishing grounds—as opposed to areas of the sea that are not fishing grounds—where a fleet of 150 white fish boats would have been pursuing the fishery for mature cod and haddock has forced the boats into what is effectively a nursery area for young fish.

When the Scottish Minister responsible for fisheries, Mr. Ross Finnie, was asked about that issue last Thursday, he said that he knew about the problem of the young haddock. I accept that he has other questions to deal with, as does the Minister. However, the young haddock are not a problem, but an opportunity. It has been many years since the sea held the vast quantity of haddock that the 1999 year class represents. If those fish are nourished, cherished and allowed to survive the next two to three years, we will regain a substantial haddock fishery in Scotland. Many of the other difficult questions that the Minister is grappling with, such as decommissioning and the structural power of the fleet, will be much less problematic if we have a substantial fishery. I will discuss the problems of the processing sector shortly, but a substantial haddock fishery would address the problem of supplies to the processing sector.

If people in the industry, both offshore and onshore, could see light at the end of the tunnel, or if they could see the prospect of a new fishery with substantial quantities, much of the current economic and financial pressure would be easier to bear. One of the biggest difficulties faced by the processors onshore and the fishermen offshore is that few people in the industry are optimistic about its future. The vast quantity of young haddock in the 1999 year class is one of the few bright lights, and that must be protected at any cost.

In the fisheries negotiations in December, the scientific advice was that the discard rate for haddock would increase as a result of the cod closure areas and might reach 2:1; that is, two boxes of dead undersized haddock discarded over the side for every box that could be landed and marketed. The ratio east of Shetland, in that part of the sea around the Fair isle, is 10:1 at present. Until the white fish fleet voluntarily stopped fishing there, 10 boxes of undersized haddock, which were illegal and could not be landed even if there were a market for them, would go over the side for every box landed. That slaughter has sickened the hearts of fishermen. That is why they have voluntarily tied up their boats and are making that economic sacrifice in an attempt to secure the future of the industry.

That remarkable demonstration is essentially about conservation and is supported by a number of Scottish environmental organisations, which issued a statement last weekend. It is also supported by the processors who have a huge stake in the long-term future of the industry. Would it not be an appropriate moment for the Government to agree that such an attitude and behaviour should be encouraged and that, in the light of this man-made crisis, things should be tided over for the next eight weeks until the closed areas are reopened? The case for action is unanswerable. It is a moral case, based on the reasons for this short-term crisis. It is a case for the industry; we are talking about what is necessary to secure its future. I certainly hope that we get encouragement from the Minister this morning.

Before I move on to the processing side of the industry I should like to say a word about the fishing tragedy off the west of Scotland, which the fleet heard about yesterday as it sailed in the Forth. Our condolences go to the members of the largely Spanish crew who were lost on that German registered boat. Such events unite people, regardless of nationality. Fishermen are fishermen in essence. That was certainly the feeling of the flotilla that was sailing down the east coast of Scotland. I know that the Minister, as is traditional and proper in a fishing debate, will refer to the danger that is inherent in fishing as an industry. He should not underestimate the public support that can mobilise itself behind an industry which, like mining, has a special place in people's hearts because its inherent dangers are recognised. They are aware of the real price of fishing.

Naturally, I share the hon. Gentleman's regret at the loss of the Spanish fishermen. Those who survived, including the man who was in the water for an astonishing 16 hours, were wearing survival suits. Does he agree that too few of our vessels carry that vital piece of safety equipment?

Yes. Every Member representing a fishing constituency, including my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and a number of others who have been through fishing tragedies in their constituencies, would support that call. We welcome the recent resumption of the grants for safety equipment on fishing vessels after they were quite scandalously interrupted. I know that Governments have pressing reasons for making cuts, but that was one of the most vicious cuts ever. We should all like to see further safety improvements in vessels. Although fishing tragedies are not necessarily the result of economic pressures, a combination of young skippers and older boats going to ever more distant waters in a desperate attempt to maintain their boats and their livelihood is inherently more dangerous. Obviously not every fishing tragedy is due to financial pressures, but they do make the industry more hazardous than it traditionally was.

Finally, I shall refer to the processing sector and I shall offer three documents in evidence. Unfortunately for my constituency—I am sure that other hon. Members will be deeply worried about processing factories in their constituencies—I have the notification from the receiver concerning Abacus Seafoods, which went into administration just before the turn of the year. There have been several expressions of interest but—perhaps unsurprisingly in the current climate—it is not clear whether this terrific factory, with its terrific facilities and first-class work force and location, will be able to maintain its position.

Although the factory has its own water treatment plants and its own access to water supplies—a common difficulty in the sector—it has yet to find a buyer. The fact that such a fine factory, at Lintlaw, has yet to find a purchaser demonstrates the problems facing the industry. We all hope for the best, but fear the worst. We also fear that the recent announcements about Abacus and others will, unless effective action is taken, be the first of a blizzard of closures in the processing sector.

Last week, the results of the year 2000 UK sea fisheries survey were released and I want to put one of the steering group's statements on record. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) looks interested, and the statement also encapsulates much of what he frequently says on the same issue. It relates to the processing sector's response to

"the stream of legislation emanating from Brussels at local, UK and European level and the costs of compliance… making an already difficult environment even more threatening to the future of the industry. The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Climate Change levy, Control Regulations, Hygiene and the Veterinary Inspection Charge are just some of the regulations. At local and national level some of this legislation has been handled by government agencies in a particularly robust manner and processors are not regarded as customers. They should help rather than hinder processors who have to compete, not only amongst themselves, but also against our European colleagues who may not always be subjected to equally stringent interpretations of necessary levels of compliance. The impact of waste water legislation will be ongoing and will directly affect not only costs but the way processing is carried out."

Every fish processor would agree with that statement from the steering group. It is the voice of the deeply depressed processing sector, which already has to struggle for supplies of fish and faces the additional burden of the heavy weight of regulations. The dramatic increase of water and effluent disposal charges has been a kick in the teeth to processors already struggling to maintain a business against difficult odds. The increase in water charges amounts to several hundred per cent. It is truly extraordinary. Whatever the Government say about private water companies south of the border and about the public agencies in Scotland, more could and should be done to help.

A company with a large factory—one of two in my constituency, but for obvious reasons, I shall not name it—has invested in new facilities and has a substantial programme for further investment. The company made that investment commitment under difficult conditions, but wanted a pause, or breathing space, in the present difficult circumstances before it proceeded. Millions of pounds were already committed to the factory, but it found that the water authority wanted to rush to court on the basis of compliance legislation. It is extraordinary that a public agency should behave in that fashion when people's livelihoods are at stake.

Would the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the co-operation of local processors in Aberdeen with the city council, other parties and the water authority in finding a solution to the problem?

I would indeed. I was coming on to discuss the Grampian Enterprise initiative document, which expresses the hope that the same process can occur with Aberdeenshire council. "Finding a solution to the problem" may be optimistic because, although the agreement represents an improvement on a disastrous position, it is hardly a solution, as the hon. Gentleman would accept.

The final document that I submit in evidence is the Scottish fish processing action group's plan for the industry, which was completed in January and is now with the Scottish Executive and the Minister responsible for fisheries. The document, which accurately details the problems of the processing sector, contains some good and hopeful initiatives. I particularly like the idea of a licensing scheme for processors; there are solid arguments that show that it could be of substantial help to the industry.

The document seems hidebound by the fact that its proposals must fall within existing budgets, a matter that the Minister may wish to discuss with his Scottish colleagues. The money specified in the document can be added up in several ways, but the most reasonable total—although it is still not new money—is £1.8 milllon, which will not go far in addressing the processing sector"s difficulties.

The action plans include working with companies to develop the ability to process alternative species and enter new markets, and a marketing campaign to help in that aim; that will be worthwhile and useful. Processors must be helped to adapt and marketing campaigns are important in that respect. Fish is one of the relatively few foodstuffs that is in roughly the same condition as it was 50 years ago. People can have confidence in it and be reassured; there is much evidence that pelagic fish is good for people's health. However, the problem with the admirable marketing objective is the cost—£30,000. I am not in the advertising business, but I do not think that £30,000 will buy us much space, air time or anything else to promote the action plan. The budget for that worthy and admirable initiative should go far beyond the amount specified in the document.

I have spoken before about the long-term future of the industry and most people accept that capacity must be considered. The Minister and his Scottish colleagues should take a different attitude; instead of reducing the capacity of the boats or the processors, they should consider how to increase stocks, an issue to which the Minister is deeply committed. It is a great opportunity, given the mood of the catching side of the industry. The Scottish fleet is prepared to experiment with technical measures; it is the only fleet in Europe that fishes with a square mesh panel. The mood of the industry generally is to co-operate in pursuing those measures.

The problem with the cod closure area is not that people do not accept it, but that there is no plan to deal with its consequences; despite warnings to Ministers in this House and in the Scottish Parliament that there would be a displacement effect on other areas. We must think of something for the 150 boats to do when the areas are closed. In return for the compensated lay-up scheme, which is critical in the next few weeks, Scottish fishermen are prepared for the area east of Shetland to be closed, to protect juvenile haddock and to secure the industry's future.

David McPherson, a member of the action group that met Scottish Ministers recently, died, tragically, last weekend. He was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray, who will speak about him in a moment. There will be an empty chair at the action group's meeting this afternoon, and that brings home to us dramatically that people are protesting for the noblest cause of all; the future of their industry. They can see the opportunities swimming in the sea; the vast quantities of young fish stock. They may not be growing as fast as they should, and the Minister may want to say more about the industrial fishing that is depriving the young stock of the food source that would enable them to grow faster. There is a massive stock of haddock in the North sea. I hope that the Minister will take the appropriate action, or tell us that appropriate action will be taken in time to make a difference. If the young stock is fished out, the Government will spend a lot more money on decommissioning an industry with no fish than on decommissioning part of an industry with a substantial supply of fish.

Despite the crisis atmosphere and pessimism, fishermen believe that something could be done. The processors' support for the demonstration illustrates their belief that something could be done. The Government have it within their power during the next few vital days to make or break a large section of the fishing industry. I hope that the Minister steers a wise course.

It may be helpful if I remind hon. Members that this debate will finish at 11 o'clock and that the winding-up speeches should begin at 10.30, commencing with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. If speeches are brief it may be possible to call all hon. Members who are trying to catch my eye.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing this debate. During the past few months, we have had several debates on the fishing industry, all of which have been important and constructive.

I was a little disappointed when I came into the Chamber this morning. It is the first time I have been here since it was realigned and we seem to be back to the old adversarial system. The previous arrangement was more constructive and Members felt that they were all part of a group discussing an issue—[Interruption.] I see that there is a rebellion from Opposition colleagues.

The fishing industry is important and I want to follow the constructive approach of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I disagree with little that he said. It is important to focus on the problems and how they might be resolved.

I have been in the House for approximately nine years and have attended debates on fishing every year. There always seems to be a sense of crisis in the industry; sometimes it is real, but often the industry is crying wolf. However, there is a serious problem now. The present crisis is distinguishable from previous crises by the way in which the industry has approached the problem. The Scottish Fishermen s Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which is based in England, have taken a constructive approach. The processing industry onshore has also been constructive. Ministers should examine that carefully because we hear language from both sides of the industry that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. There are discussions of sustainable fisheries and the fish processors have set up an environmental committee to discuss how to achieve long-term goals for the industry. That is backed by the important report of the Select Committee on Agriculture in 1999, which encouraged the Government to consider a long-term strategy for the industry.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan told us about the problem and it is important to focus on some of the solutions that the industry is suggesting. I am particularly pleased with the proposals from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—it is based in my constituency and I am pleased to have it—which is considering the problem in three parts. For the short term, it has proposed a tie-up scheme that covers the problem of closed fisheries and displacement to the haddock spawning grounds. The Government should consider a tie-up scheme because the proposals seem to be modest.

We must not think that this is simply a Scottish problem; the problem exists throughout the United Kingdom. The current focus is on the white fish side of the industry because of the closure of the cod spawning grounds, but it is still important to make wider points.

A decommissioning scheme is the long-term solution to the problem. In all my years as a Member of Parliament—especially when the Conservative party was in government—decommissioning has almost been a dirty word. The taxpayer has not obtained best value from previous decommissioning schemes because the industry has not played it straight. Boats were decommissioned but were later recycled, so decommissioning never led to a reduction in catching capacity.

The SFF has approached the situation constructively. It has recognised that the Government cannot pay the whole cost and that we need more than a simple decommissioning of boats. It recommends the decommissioning of the vessel catching unit, which is effectively the licence. It has recognised that there are three essential components to the value of a fisherman's licence; the boat, which has an intrinsic value, the vessel catching unit and the quota. It has come up with constructive schemes that anticipate the industry playing a part in finding finance for decommissioning so that we can get catching capacity down to a level that matches available stocks. That must be the long-term future for the industry. However, there must be Government support for such a scheme. I support that argument because I cannot see how the industry can be restructured towards a solid and profitable long-term future without Government support.

Finally, part of the long-term solution is the reform of the common fisheries policy. The SFF has come up with constructive proposals, which are not new but are in tune with Government thinking, on regional and zonal management. These would ensure that our fishermen became stakeholders, rather than being outside the decision-making process. Those are all constructive suggestions.

I shall make a brief political point to which I suspect the Conservative spokesman will refer later. The Conservative party's idea to withdraw unilaterally from the CFP is at odds with the wishes and interests of the industry; it should spend more time listening to the public.

My hon. Friend may remember that we heard that few Conservative Members turned up to the previous fishing debate because so many Aberdeen Members wanted to speak. Apart from the party spokesman, none of them have turned up today.

I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am anxious to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible can speak in today's debate, so I intend to sit down in a moment.

My major interest is the fish processing industry because there are 2,000 jobs in that sector in Aberdeen, all of which are threatened by a shortage of product. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred to the industry's work with Scottish Enterprise Grampian and the local authorities, which are working hard to help the industry through the restructuring process. Scottish Enterprise, the local Scottish enterprise companies and the enterprise companies in England and Wales are the appropriate agencies to tackle the processing industry's problems. However, I accept the need for extra finance. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that today, but if he can find more money in the short to medium term it would be well spent on this side of the industry.

The statement made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that he does not care where the money comes from concerns me. He discusses the Scottish Executive coming up with the cash when he makes statements in Scotland, but when he is in Westminster he discusses the Government coming up with it. This is a UK—indeed, a European—problem.

Given the extent of the crisis in the white fish industry, the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the last thing in the minds of fishermen at the moment is where the money is coming from. If they do not get the money in the next few days, much of the future that the hon. Gentleman described will not exist.

The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech and I accept it, but he does not make the same point when he writes articles for Scottish publications or makes speeches in Scotland.

As I said, this is a UK problem that requires a UK solution. I do not want the industry to be split by, say, the Scottish Executive producing one solution and MAFF in England and Wales producing another. A UK solution is important for the unity of an industry that, in a crisis, is taking a unified approach. The Government must ensure that the industry continues to take such an approach.

I shall try to be brief because I do not want to be an English voice crying in a Scottish wilderness; I see that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is here to add a Cornish perspective.

All the points made by Scottish Members are equally valid in respect of the English fishing industry. There is the same feeling of bitterness and neglect, and of making representations to Government that are ignored. There is also the same desire for fishing to be treated fairly. At the moment, the focus is on support for agriculture, yet fishing has coped for decades with very little help. The industry is experiencing a crisis that in relative terms is more serious than that experienced by agriculture, but still nothing happens.

I met representatives of the Grimsby Fish Producers' Organisation just 10 days ago, and they were 20 angry men. They were angry about proposals to increase mesh sizes, and about burdens such as light dues, inspection charges and higher landing charges. Such burdens should not be placed on an industry that is in financial crisis, yet they are being added to by, for example, the waste water processing directive. Nothing is being done to provide relief. The industry is being fed a constant diet of hope, but nothing materialises.

Industrial fishing, whether for sand eels or other species, should be stopped altogether. It produces a huge by-catch that is deeply damaging to the marine environment. Given the present state of conservation, catching edible fish to produce fish meal is a crime. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is concerned about animal welfare, but something also needs to be done about the seals. If the fishing quota is to be reduced, there should also be a cull of seals. The seal population at Donna Nook is expanding, and I am sure that seals take more fish than does the industry.

There is also the question of power stations. The Financial Times has highlighted the problems caused by Sizewell B. It is estimated that about 200 million fish a day are sucked into a water cooling intake that acts as a killing hole. Again, that is a crime against conservation. There is also an enforcement problem. The British enforcement police are taking an increasingly heavy approach to British vessels. The complaint has been made many times that fishery protection vessels are nowhere to be found—either they cannot be summoned or they never arrive—when friction or conflict with Dutch fishermen arises. However, there is a heavy weight of enforcement on, and constant interference with, the British fleet. Fishery protection vessels approach at night with fishing lights and board British vessels. I shall quote a couple of instances that were described in a letter from the Grimsby Fish Producers' Organisation. It states:

"Recently one of our members, a day boat, was boarded and inspected just before returning to port, inspected on arrival in port, and inspected on his return to the fishing grounds".

It was inspected three times in 24 hours because, according to one officer,

"the gunboat had nothing else to do".

That is ludicrous. The letter continues:

"The dangers were recently emphasised when in one incident two members of the boarding party fell in the sea in the dark."

That shows the scale of the problem. An industry that is already in crisis is being further pressed. I do not say that we should stop inspection, but should it be so oppressive, considering the industry's present state?

We have 25 vessels left in Grimsby—not many. Six are laid up, while many have to fish three-handed because they cannot afford to go to sea with more men. That is not safe. The industry faces a huge burden of debt and the banks are unhelpful and unco-operative because they know about the state of fishing. Something must be done. Operating and lay-up support is needed. A similar package to that offered to competing European industries is required. The danger is that our quotas and licences will be sold on and purchased by foreign vessels, which are kept viable because their Governments provide them with support. That support is not provided to our industry, which has been forced into financial crisis and to sell up.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the new aid, announced by the Dutch Government, of $15 million—roughly £10 million—for a fleet much smaller than Britain's?

That completes the picture of other Governments giving support to their industries, while nothing happens here.

I am not keen on decommissioning because it would work against the interests of Grimsby. I want to retain a viable fleet in Grimsby to provide the critical mass to support the facilities there. I would like to put an idea to the Minister. Why can we not give a loan or advance to the FPOs so that the licensing of quotas can be put in escrow—in reserve to be reactivated later, like a post-fishing credit—until stocks recover? That might be a way to hang on to an entitlement locally and revive it later.

It is important that the fishing industry operates in centres that have a concentration of facilities. Something must be done. Fishing is in a crisis that could be fatal, particularly for the English industry, which is harder hit than the Scottish one, although both are badly hit. It is no lodger satisfactory to say that MAFF has problems in agriculture—for example, with BSE and foot and mouth disease—and so it is difficult to get money from the Treasury. That excuse is no longer acceptable to an industry in crisis that will fold if it does not get support.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing the debate. I also offer my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives to the west of Shetland, and I ask the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) to pass on everyone's sympathies to Mr. McPherson's family.

It is important that we address the future of the fishing industry. It is of environmental significance to our country that we maintain our biodiversity and stocks, which, if handled properly will give us an industry for life and for future generations. If we do nothing, and simply stand back to watch the crisis develop, there will be no fishing industry. Fishing will not recover unless we take action now. Fish is a quality, healthy food and maintaining the world's fishing stocks and sustaining fisheries is laudable and sensible.

An excellent paper from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has been sent to MAFF and the Treasury and I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he has analysed its suggestions. It is time that we had more detail. The Minister has met representatives of the fishing industry in England, and we have heard promises of more substance in future. Time is rapidly running out. We must know what cost MAFF puts on proposals from the industry. The industry needs to know what is happening and where its future lies, otherwise it cannot respond constructively.

The document puts the point well. Many people think that total allowable catches and quotas refer to what one can catch but they are really a control on what can be landed. That is where there is a serious problem. If one catches the wrong stuff, it just goes back into the sea until one catches the right stuff for landing. The document hints at an added danger, which is that even where there is a very restrictive quota, someone might discard much of what he catches and continue to fish until he has found the valuable catch that he wants to land. The incentives and structure of the industry could lead in a dangerous direction if there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

The technical measures are an important part of the process—the industry has bought into them—but they must be developed further for long-term sustainability. Part of the light at the end of the tunnel should be a decommissioning scheme. That must be seriously considered. The document, and the comments of scientists, have made it clear that the sustainable level of fishing that will have been achieved even after five years will not match current catching capacity. The earlier a decommissioning scheme is sorted out, the earlier the Government will want a long-term sustainable fishery to be achieved. That would also partly address the problem of overcapacity.

As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) said, the paper from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation sees the Government's key role as buying back licenses. That would begin a regime under which quotas could be sold, in the first instance, to the remaining boats in the fleet, within the producer organisation. Where possible, other uses should be found for boats whose licences had been bought back. There are other commercial uses for such vessels; for example, as guard ships in the North sea. If a non-fishing use could be found, it would bring in money that had not come from the Chancellor.

The SFF's figures for the Scottish fishing fleet suggest that the Chancellor would have to find £15 million for buying back the licences to underpin the package. The industry would have to find £50 million to redistribute the quota. If another commercial use were found for the vessels, there would be no further cost. If the Government insisted on destroying the vessels, another £10 million would probably be needed. We will be interested to hear MAFF's comments on those estimates.

That is the long-term picture. However, overcapacity and over-fishing mean that there might not be a long term. The Government, therefore, must seriously examine the SFF's proposals on managing the lay-up scheme. It is crucial for the Government to know how big the cheque must be, and how open-ended the scheme is. An estimated 40 vessels would have to be laid off to get a 20 per cent. reduction in white fish catching capacity. At a cost of £1,000 per day for 180 days, the total cost has been estimated as £7.2 million in the first year. That would taper off to about £ 1 million in the fifth year, because as the recovery takes place, less lay-up is needed each year, until, finally, the sustainable fishery is reached. That is the light at the end of the tunnel.

The Minister has seen the document and the figures. Does he accept them? If not, why not? If he thinks that it is too early to comment, may I emphasise that it is urgent to move on from discussing the philosophy to discussing the nuts and bolts? I hope that today's meeting in Scotland will be constructive and helpful, but we in Westminster can add our weight. The all-party fisheries group is seeking to meet the Treasury Minister concerned. I do not know how far that request has got, but the debate has made it clear that the Treasury is at the heart of the problem.

The Minister said, in a sedentary intervention on the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, that the Treasury would say, "Oh, not you again" when he turned up. Perhaps he should emphasise that he will not be speaking just on his own behalf, but on behalf of all hon. Members in this Chamber and of all hon. Members who represent fishing areas. The all-party group wants to meet the Treasury Minister to get across to him the key point; we are talking about a UK resource, we have a UK Government and hon. Members throughout the UK are concerned about this serious structural problem.

If the Government decide to wash their hands of the matter and refuse to engage with these constructive proposals, they cannot hope that the market will sort things out, as it does in industries on the mainland. There will be no sustainable future for the fishing industry if it is left to the market, with its current regime and structures. All that would happen is that bankruptcies would occur.

When someone goes bankrupt, the value of what they have is sold on at a price that the market will take. Catching capacity will not disappear through bankruptcies; it will fall back to a price at which it is seen as worth buying. When overfishing kills off more fish stocks, bankruptcy will recycle that capacity back in. If it is left to the market, capacity will remain and fishing will disappear. The long-term future for a viable industry with a sustainable, healthy fishing product will disappear as well. The Government must start to respond to the problem with some detailed solutions.

Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that it is customary in Westminster Hall to commence the winding-up speeches at half-past 10.

I promise to be brief. I begin by offering my condolences to Mr. McPherson's family and to the families of the fishermen who died the other night when their vessel foundered. It is worth pointing out that those who survived were wearing survival suits. The rule in this country, by which survival suits must he carried only on vessels of a minimum overall length of 24 m, is not good enough. I have long campaigned for all fishing vessels to carry such safety equipment.

I agree with much of what has been said today. However, one bright note is the decision by the Minister's Department to award the contract for the new fisheries research vessel to Ferguson's, a yard with which I have long been associated and where several of my constituents work. The last fisheries research vessel built for the Department by Ferguson's at Port Glasgow is reckoned by naval architects to be among the top three such vessels in the world. The Minister and his officials did well to select Ferguson's.

The catching and processing sectors of the industry are in deep trouble, and our fishing communities should be given equal sympathy and consideration to that being shown to farming communities. The media have been swamped by discussions about the terrible plight faced by many of our farmers, but let us not forget our fishing communities. The Treasury must provide financial assistance.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has a strong case on the need to protect stocks of young haddock. It would be insane to destroy those stocks. The discard problem to which he referred is difficult to tackle, but the Norwegians have given us a lead and I should like to know whether the Scotland Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food believe that we can learn any lessons from them.

I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about industrial fishing. It is being reduced, but it should be banned altogether. It destroys valuable fish stocks and I do not believe that anyone in any maritime nation—with the possible exception of Denmark—can make a case for it. In fairness to the Danes, they are beginning to examine the question. My hon. Friend was brave to talk about a seal cull, which is another matter that must be tackled.

Our fishing communities deserve the sort of sympathy and consideration that is given to other communities, in particular farming. Let us have equality of treatment for our damaged fishing communities, which have been badly treated down the years by both Tory and Labour Administrations. We have a good Minister dealing with the industry's problems and it is time that the Treasury listened to the all-party case for assistance.

I advise hon. Members that the Opposition spokespersons have kindly and graciously agreed to reduce their contributions, which allows me to call the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).

I am grateful to the official Opposition for that concession. I shall be brief.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on his clear exposition of the crisis and I am delighted that so many hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland, have attended the debate.

I want to make a local point. I am grateful to hon. Members who mentioned my constituent David McPherson of Hopeman, who tragically died at the age of 39 last weekend, leaving behind a young widow and three youngsters. Our thoughts are very much with them, because their loss is most severe and heartbreaking. In addition, our fishing communities have lost a strong advocate for the fishing industry. Over the years, many hon. Members will have been in contact with David, who fought with great dignity and vigour for his cause and always presented well-argued cases. Last week, when he spoke at the rally in the Scottish Parliament and met Rhona Brankin, our Fisheries Minister, he put his case with his usual vigour. As my hon. Friend said, there will be an empty seat at the meeting with the First Minister this afternoon.

The dignity with which David argued his case is the dignity with which we should treat our coastal communities in responding to the issues that have been raised during the debate. This is one of the most despondent times that I have experienced in the years that I have represented the beautiful fishing constituency of Moray. The fleet has been in the van of technical conservation measures. It supports 25,000 jobs in our coastal communities and has a huge impact on our economic life These small businesses—floating businesses—are critical if a way of life is to have a future.

I conclude with words that were spoken last week in Edinburgh by one of David's fisherman colleagues. He said: "How can we talk of a long-term future if we don't have a present?" We must deal with the present crisis quickly and effectively, or we will not secure the future for the industry that we all want.

I was not expecting to be able to speak and I have drastically cut what I intended to say. I add my condolences to those of other hon. Members.

I want to concentrate on local issues. Recently I went to Troon harbour to speak to local fishermen and learn first-hand about their perspective on the situation. That situation is slightly different from that in other areas, but as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, individual circumstances have a knock-on effect on the whole industry. I found a dismal local picture. We are down to about 20 boats. I spoke to the owners of small family businesses in Troon, including a father and son whose family has been in the fishing industry for generations. I had intended to speak in detail about their plight, but I shall not take up time in doing do as all hon. Members will be well aware of it.

Through the partnership between the Labour-led Scottish Executive and the Labour Government here in Westminster, we will do what we can—notwithstanding structural change and the fact that we cannot artificially support market conditions—to deal with these crisis situations. We will be there to offer any support that we can. We have done that with shipbuilding and various other industries, some of which are represented in my constituency. Surely that also goes for fishing. Surely, we should support fishing as much as any other industry.

I ask the Government for their support on behalf of small family businesses in Troon, which have served our community well for many years. I shall not expand on that argument, as time is running short. I shall simply plead with the Government for their support. I know that they and the Scottish Executive are considering a response to the matter and I hope that it will come soon.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on having secured the debate. He passionately expressed the united desire in Scotland to sort the problems out. He also pointed out the consequences for nephrops and distant-water fishermen.

The debate provides an opportunity to reflect upon yesterday's deaths on a German-registered vessel west of Scotland. That reminds us of the danger that fishermen face so that we can have fish on our dinner tables. We must reflect on that

The nub of the hon. Gentleman's argument was the law of unintended consequences. Closing off areas for cod fishing has pressurised the haddock fishery. The 1999 year class has not yet reached minimum landing size. He stated that the discard ratio of the catch is 10:1—I was told that 90 per cent. is below minimum landing size. If such catches continue, there will be a drastic impact on stock. We should have anticipated that that would happen although it was an unintended consequence.

The primary purpose of the debate is to concentrate on the challenges facing the Scottish fishing industry. I was grateful that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out that those challenges have consequences for England in general and Cornwall in particular. The basis of the case being made either to the Scottish Executive or the Government is that there is an immediate need for £10 million, which was compared to the price of a striker recently bought by Glasgow Rangers. In terms of Government expenditure, that is a relatively small sum. If that investment were made, it would have a significant knock-on effect in protecting stock around Scotland, which would have consequences for the remainder of the United Kingdom.

I am interested in the Minister's response to whether such a relatively small amount of money could have such a dramatic impact. We are discussing £10 million, which sticks in the craw of fishermen who know that at least £55 million is being given away to Spanish and Dutch fishermen as a result of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 fiasco, which was botched by the Tories. Britain's fishermen believe that they have a right to compensation when times are tough because we are spending £55 million on a serious mistake. Conservative Members have not apologised and during the previous fisheries debate we heard a brazen statement from them that blamed Europe, which was not in keeping with what I believe fishermen wanted to hear. However, it might be helpful if the Conservative spokesman would shed a little light on the assistance that a Conservative Government would provide in the current climate and on their fishing policy, because it is not clear. Does it include withdrawal from the CFP and limiting fishing to United Kingdom nationals in some way? How would Tory policy help to solve the crisis in the Scottish haddock fishery? We would be grateful for information on that.

The matter is urgent and I should be interested in the Minister's comments on whether a settlement for Scotland would set a precedent throughout the United Kingdom. I understand that under article 16 of the financial instrument of fisheries grant, compensation may be paid for a biological event and loss of access to a third country. Spanish fishermen are being paid for their loss of access to a third country and United Kingdom fishermen will find it difficult to understand why they cannot receive compensation under that instrument when the Spanish can.

What assessment has the Minister made of the proposals of the World Wide Fund for Nature for long-term restructuring and recovery of the fishing industry? What assessment has he made of the estimate of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation of the cost of compensation and paying for the fleet to be laid up? What discussions has the Minister had with his counterpart on the Scottish Executive about the crisis? What consequences might arise if different financial arrangements were made in Scotland and south of the Scottish border? If the Minister has received cold comfort from the Treasury, would he welcome broad, all-party representations to the Treasury to strengthen the case for compensation for the fishing industry?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on this timely and important debate. As the official Opposition spokesman, I pay tribute to Mr. McPherson, who, tragically, died recently. His contribution to the fishing industry was immense and his words of wisdom will be sorely missed.

This debate is narrowly focused on the immediate problems in the fishing industry, which have been precipitated by the cod fishery closure programme. This is neither the place nor the time to make political points or an election address, although the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) seems to believe that it is. It is not the place to discuss the medium or long-term future of the industry, important as that is, nor the future of the CFP. However, the debate is not concerned only with the problems of the Scottish white fish industry, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, because they also affect the English east coast ports from North Shields to Lowestoft, many of which have beamer fleets which, at this time of year, would be fishing for their quota of plaice and sole in the areas that have been closed. It is important that if any compensation is forthcoming because of the problems precipitated by the closure of cod areas, it should be United Kingdom wide. That has been pointed out several times this morning.

The problem has been caused by the cod fishery closure programme and it is important that the Minister explains exactly how that came about and whether he was fully in favour of the way in which it was done. Was it based on accurate science? If so, why was there a second draft of the proposals and why were they different from the initial proposals? Was the closure programme based on the logbooks of vessels that were fishing in the traditional way in that particular area of the sea? If so, is it not an attack on fishing effort rather than a conservation measure? Was the timing of the closure appropriate? Fishermen to whom I have talked believe that spawning—which took place in November and December—was largely over by the time the recovery programme was implemented. Yet again, we have tried to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Why did the Commission not anticipate the problems that fishermen in the North sea now face? It was surely obvious to the fishing industry that catching effort would be switched to those areas and quotas that had hitherto been ignored at that time of year. It is no surprise to Scottish fishermen, who have picked up prominent early-year-class juvenile haddock, that there have been great problems in certain areas. A discard ratio of 10:1 is obscene in the extreme and credit must go to Scottish fishermen for voluntarily deciding to tie up in such circumstances.

The Commission's conservation measures seem too little too late and they take no account of the detailed knowledge of fishermen. If consultation had taken place earlier, some of the problems that we now face might have been anticipated and alleviated. If the closure programme was ostensibly driven by conservation considerations, why is industrial fishing for sand eels—an issue that has been raised by a number of hon. Members today—to be allowed to continue? Given the mesh sizes used, industrial fishing is the most environmentally damaging practice, particularly in the cod-spawning areas that we are supposed to be protecting.

There is a real crisis in the industry and the time for consultation and discussion is over. The fishing industry sees the Government responding positively to the problems in farming and agriculture and regards its own need for compensation as modest in comparison and no less warranted. If the Minister has no words of cheer this morning, he will confirm the industry's worst fear: that it is to be made dispensable.

As with all such debates, the speeches today have been thoughtful, serious and worthy of careful consideration and a detailed response. However, my time is limited so I want to focus on the main points.

I offer my condolences to those fishermen who were affected by the recent tragedy off the west of Scotland. I also echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) about the use of the survival suit. That was a truly remarkable feat of survival by the fisherman concerned. I also pay tribute to the remarkable efforts of our rescue services in finding a single person in the seas at this time of year. It was a tragedy that Mr. McPherson died as he did, particularly given that he leaves behind a young family. They and the community in which he lived will miss him, and I hope that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will pass on my condolences.

The debate has focused on compensation, which is linked to the cod recovery programme. I should make it clear, particularly to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), that I make no apologies for the cod recovery programme. It was the right action to take and was undertaken with the unprecedented involvement of the fishing industry. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan knows, the European Commission's original proposals were altered because the industry itself did not think that they were justified or would achieve their objectives. The final scheme was designed with the views of the fishing industry very much in mind, and was applied in a way that kept large areas of the North sea open for fishing. Alternative fishing grounds were available, although I do not dispute that a closure of that scale has an impact on the fishing industry.

The industry's involvement was crucial to the setting up of the cod recovery programme and I very much appreciate that. It is true that issues such as spawning dates need to be addressed, especially in the southern part of the North sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) brought inshore fisherman from his constituency to talk to me about those matters. We will take their points seriously, and consider them when we examine future arrangements about spawning dates; for example, whether there should be different arrangements for north and south, or changes to the proposed area. Such schemes are not set in stone; they are dynamic and they evolve, depending on the industry's views about how they can be made effective.

Compensation is the most important issue, and I understand that. When I have met industry representatives, I have said that I accept the case for compensation because of the pressures on the industry. I have made it clear to the industry that I will press its case, and I have kept that promise.

There have been unprecedented demands on MAFF's reserve this year, as has already been touched on. Foot and mouth, swine disease and the cost of the flooding—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will let me finish, I think that I can reassure them, because I know what they are going to say. The financial demands on MAFF have been enormous. That does not mean, however, that the fishing industry does not have a legitimate case for compensation. I am not saying that, for one moment.

I am glad that the Minister made that last remark, because he could see the outrage of hon. Members who represent fishing communities. They do not begrudge people compensation for foot and mouth disease; no sensible person would. However, if that were a reason for giving no compensation to the fishing communities, there would be mass outrage around the coastline. The Scottish fishing fleet has been voluntarily tied up for almost two weeks. If it is driven to sea by economic pressure, as it will be, the cod recovery plan will become the dent ruction of haddock plan. That will happen because haddock fishing is one of the few remaining areas where people can make a living, although they do not of want to make a living at the expense of the future Does the Minister accept that that is the reality? Can he offer us some help for the crisis period?

I understand the point, but I do not necessarily accept that that is the case. I will turn to the reasons for that in a moment.

I return to the demands on MAFF's reserve. Many people have demanded compensation, such as those who have suffered consequential losses because of foot and mouth—including the meat industry and the processing industry—and those who have suffered because of the floods. The Government cannot compensate all of them. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not saying that because of such demands, there will be nothing for the fishing industry.

I think that the language used causes problems when the Treasury is approached. The Minister must understand the structural problem. Compensation is not as important as the fact that MAFF has issued too many fishing licences. MAFF must ensure that there is restraint, or market pressures will mean that only some people take action. This is not a collective industry in which everyone can be forced to do something. MAFF has issued licences, and is part of the problem.

I understand that point, and I will try and address it in relation to choices and options.

The first issue to be examined is where the money comes from. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, in some ways the fishing industry is not concerned about that, and I accept that it is not its worry. However, the fact that there are devolved Administrations contributes to the issue. The Scottish Executive have their own budget, within structural funds. Two thirds of the white fish fleet is in Scotland, so much of the cost of any scheme could fall on Scotland.

I strongly support devolution, and with an element of it, different choices can be made. However, structures are available for assisting the fishing industry in both England and Scotland; I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on that. We must approach the matter on a UK basis. Although devolution means that England and Scotland can have different approaches to fishing patterns and needs, we want a broadly similar approach. I have been working closely with Rhona Brankin to find ways of doing that.

rose—

I understand that hon. Members want to intervene, but I have six minutes left to try and finish answering the points.

Will the Minister assure the Committee that he will do everything possible to encourage the Scottish Executive to use the funds available to them to compensate those who have joined the voluntary tie-up scheme?

I take it that the hon. Lady is not asking me, as an English Minister, to tell the Scottish Executive what they should and should not do. Devolution is about making choices and I have every confidence in my colleagues in the Scottish Executive. They understand the pressures on the fishing industry

As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, English fleets—including fleets in Cornwall, which, he suggested, is merely tacked on to England—are affected too.

How can we best help the industry? A case has been made for a tie-up scheme. I have carefully considered whether such a scheme would be effective and would meet the objective—which was the main point of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—of alleviating pressure on juvenile haddock. That is an important issue. The fact that we have one of the best year classes for many years is good news; it has the potential to be a good fishery for the North sea fleet. We need to protect that fishery.

The advice from the Scottish Executive's scientists at the marine laboratory is that the 1999 year class—twoyear-old fish that are predominantly undersized—is

"widespread throughout the northern North sea".

They have no evidence of a particular concentration of two-year-old fish in the areas that have been identified. That is the scientific advice, which I must listen to. Money will be difficult to find, so we must think about the best use of resources.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have only four minutes left so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me finish so that I can address all the issues.

We must decide on the most effective use of resources. For example, we might feel that there is problem with the Scottish fleet catching undersized fish. If we subsidise it for three months, after which it continues to catch undersized fish, it would be a bad use of resources. [Interruption. ]

Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Members will be aware that there are many ways of reducing the catch of undersized fish. Concerns have been raised about the length of extensions to nets, which, in some cases, have been more than 70 m. That will negate the effect of using a square mesh panel. One way of reducing the catch of undersized fish is by prohibiting lifting bags. I know that those practical issues are under consideration by the Scottish Executive and the industry, which knows full well how to reduce the level of discards.

The Minister should not only acknowledge the failings, but the fact that the Scottish fleet is further forward in technical conservation than the English fleet.The fishermen who demonstrated on those 167 boats know where the concentrations of juvenile haddock are. They were fishing in those locations to make a living. They refuse to fish there now because of the circumstances. Why can that area not be closed? The Minister says that closed areas work for cod, so why can they not work for haddock? Will he make it clear that he will not stop Scottish Ministers if they decide to do something about the crisis, a crisis that the Minister seems to be doing nothing about?

If the Scottish Executive have identified closed areas and think that they will be effective, I warmly welcome that. There is a case for closed areas where they are effective.

I was arguing that tie-up grants might be a short-term fix. I am not interested in short-term fixes, but in addressing the long-term problems of the fishing industry. We should also consider over-capacity, which raises the issue of decommissioning. Decommissioning has its downside, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby mentioned. If we are to go down the decommissioning route, we must consider the shape of such a scheme. I acknowledge that the federations have been thoughtful in putting forward ideas that are worthy of consideration. My officials are considering the proposals and costings. The suggestions are serious and sensible.

On seals and industrial fishing, hon. Members know where I stand. We agreed on closures, for the first time, for sand eels. Norway pout fishing is excluded from the closed areas because it has a big by-catch. There is a dispute about the impact of sand eel fishing, but we have agreed on a joint study with the Danes of the total allowable catches. We are sharing science and putting our scientists on their boats. That has not been done before.

It is too easy to look for scapegoats such as industrial fishing, seals or power stations. The principal reason for the problem is over-fishing and too much capacity and effort. My time has been too limited to deal with the sensible points put by Members, but I will consider them carefully. There are real issues here for the fishing industry and I will take them seriously.

I am delighted to introduce this debate on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which is the most important annual event devoted to human rights. The 57th session is due to begin on 19 March and will last for six weeks. It is an opportunity for the world's Governments, as well as human rights nongovernmental organisations, to consider the record of Governments and international organisations and to take appropriate action. The United Kingdom Government always play an important role in the meetings. This debate gives right hon. and hon. Members a chance to raise issues of concern, so that the Minister can take them into account when preparing for this year's session.

I will raise a number of general issues before making several specific points on Colombia. First, I want to underline the important role played by special rapporteurs. I pay tribute to Sir Nigel Rodley, the special rapporteur on torture, whose very effective term will end at the forthcoming commission. I also pay tribute to Asma Jahangir from Pakistan, whose work on summary executions has required great personal courage, and to Francis Deng, who has worked to develop new standards for people who are internally displaced as a result of war and conflict.

Those people receive no salary or remuneration for the difficult and sensitive work that they do. It is vital that they can make investigative visits and prepare their reports speedily and efficiently. I hope, therefore, that the Government will support arrangements to ensure that all rapporteurs are issued with standing invitations that enable them to make visits without undue delay or obstruction.

Secondly, I urge the Government to ensure that financial support for special rapporteurs' work is placed on a stable and sustainable footing. At present, most rapporteurs must raise their own funds and have little or no administrative support. Governments create those posts, so they should ensure that the positions are properly supported

The death penalty is likely to be raised at this year's commission. An unusual medley of states leads the opposition to its abolition: the People's Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America. I urge the British Government to use their influence to ensure that we see no further retreat from the progress that has been made towards eventual worldwide abolition of the death sentence.

Child soldiers are another important subject that will be raised. I am aware that UK Ministers do not accept the international majority view on the age limits for recruitment and combat. Although I do not want to use this debate to weigh the merits of their argument, I ask that those who put our Government's position have it in mind that the Governments of other countries, such as Myanmar or the Democratic Republic of Congo, will be looking to justify their policies of recruiting soldiers who are still far too young and who should be protected from the risks involved.

The world conference on racism, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance will he held in Durban in the first week of September. The conference will be chaired by the High Commissioner on Hunan Rights, Mary Robinson, and will be the subject of considerable discussion at this year's commission. Racial discrimination is a worldwide phenomenon. Although we in the UK are beginning to get to grips with the difficult issue of institutional racism, it is as much a matter of attitudes and values as it is of policy and regulation. I hope that the conference will help to produce a renewed burst of energy and ideas so that we can make further progress.

The issue that threatens to block progress at the world conference is compensation: the claim that people descended from slaves or others who have suffered from severe institutionalised racism should be compensated for the wrong that they have suffered and for the permanent depression of living standards that resulted. Given the importance of the world conference, I hope that the Minister will agree that it should not be diverted from its central purpose. I would be interested to hear his views on how that politically sensitive matter should be handled. At the very least, and as a first step, our schools should teach children the history of that period honestly and frankly. It is part of Our past, as well as that of people in Brazil, Caribbean countries and the United States.

The commission is the main international forum in which countries' record on human rights is publicly debated. Last year, a mild resolution was passed concerning the protection of human rights in Chechnya, but the situation there is no better and access to the territory no easier, either for Russian or foreign nationals. Reporting from Chechnya has been minimal, but serious allegations of human rights abuses continue to surface. I hope that the Government will encourage a full discussion of the issue.

Other hon. Members may wish to discuss other themes and other countries. I wish now to focus on the difficult and deteriorating situation in Colombia. In doing so I acknowledge the considerable assistance I have received from ABColombia and CAFOD. Colombia has suffered internal conflict for the last 40 years between the state and guerrilla groups—including FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and ELN, the National Liberation Army—and, more recently, an increasing number of paramilitary groups. The central directorate of the judicial police announced that 25,660 murders took place last year, in a country with a population of 35 million. Despite the heroic dedication of staff in the prosecutor general's office, the superior judicial council estimates that more than 60 per cent. of crime goes unreported, while 40 per cent. of reported crime goes unpunished. Even if the conviction rates were higher, that would create separate problems because the country's prisons, which were built for 30,000 inmates, already hold nearly 50,000.

The public ombudsman reports that 314 massacres occurred between January and August 2000. During the year as a whole 3,706 people were disappeared or kidnapped and 77 trade unionists assassinated. Civilians and representatives of civil society continue to be targets, not just the accidental victims of the conflict. Last October in Medellin, Angel Quinteró and Claudia Monsalve from the Association of Relatives of the Disappeared and Detained were themselves forcibly "disappeared".

Barrancabermeja is a town of around 250,000 people, of whom 480 were selectively assassinated during 2000. The total so far this year is 108. Last September the entire directorate of CREDHOS, a local human rights organisation, received death threats from the paramilitary group AUC. Such murders and death threats have created a climate in which anyone who stands up for human rights is likely to be labelled a military target. As hon. Members will know, that happened most recently to volunteers working with the London-based organisation Peace Brigades International.

The chilling letter from the AUC to members of CREDHOS says that its aim is to "carry out social cleansing". It claims that the human rights workers are friends of the FARC and the ELN and that

"if we eliminate them we will be building the country we desire".

I welcome the announcement in January by the Interior Minister, Humberto de la Calle, of an anti-paramilitary and anti-hitman committee to combat paramilitary forces and to respond to the deteriorating situation in Barrancabermeja. However, there have been similar initiatives in the past and that has not prevented the situation from worsening significantly.

Forced displacement is one of the great tragedies of Colombia. I well remember the displaced people whom I met two years ago in a disused basketball stadium in the town of Quibó in the Chocó region. They had been there for 27 months. Human rights organisations estimate that the number of displaced people could be as high as 2 million, with more than 300,000 displaced last year alone.

Displacement hits women and children the hardest. A third of displaced families are headed by a woman. Only 15 per cent. of displaced children have access to schools. Many settle on the outskirts of the big cities of Bogota, Medellin and Cartagena in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. Many lack access to health care. The legal requirement to respond to the needs of displaced people is not matched by the actions of a Government who are still failing to provide a systematic programme or budget.

The office of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Bogota reported that displaced people and those who work alongside them have also received death threats. Despite the recent partial implementation of law 387, many of the recommendations made previously by Francis Deng, the UN special rapporteur on internally displaced persons, remain only words. Mr. Deng reported last year that most of the recommendations that he made on a previous visit in 1994 remain relevant today. It is important that his mandate continues.

The Colombian Government have made attempts to improve their human rights record over the last year, especially in bringing human rights violations before the civilian courts. I am personally grateful for the efforts made by the Colombian ambassador to the UK, His Excellency Victor G. Ricardo, to ensure that Members of Parliament are kept up to date with developments. As recently as 23 February I received a detailed note of the action being taken in some 15 different cases.

None the less, the conflict seems to move ever more quickly and the US State Department's report on human rights for 2000 concluded:

"The Colombian Government's human rights record remained poor; there were some improvements in the legal framework and institutional mechanisms but implementation lagged and serious problems remain in many areas. Government security forces continued to commit serious abuses, including extrajudicial killings".

The report goes on to claim that paramilitary forces find a ready support base within the military, and that members of the security forces regularly collaborate with paramilitary groups by sharing information, allowing them through road blocks and providing them with supplies and arms. They also report that high-ranking police and military officers are rarely charged with human rights offences. Given such strong words, it is hard to understand why the Clinton Administration were prepared to waive the human rights conditions that ordinarily attach to foreign aid and to grant $1.3 billion to a largely military-based Plan Colombia, which places additional power and resources in the hands of the very forces that they criticise.

At Foreign Office questions on 23 January I urged my hon. Friend to take steps to ensure that he could learn directly from grassroots communities in Colombia about what was taking place in the country. The Minister announced that he had issued an invitation to Father Francisco de Roux, a Jesuit priest who lives and works in Barrancabermeja and is the director of the Magdalena Medio Peace and Development Programme. I am delighted to say that Father Francisco is in London this week to meet the Minister and his officials. I was also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and I had an opportunity to meet him earlier this morning.

I asked Father Francisco what his message was for our Government and the international community. He said the most important thing was to encourage a dialogue for peace, but added that such dialogue—fragile as it currently is—was threatened principally by the paramilitary forces. He told us in detail how they have taken control of half his city by cutting communication links and forcing local families to provide their homes for use by the gunmen. He told us about members of a women's organisation who had worked in Barrancabermeja for 25 years but were being threatened by the paramilitary and told to leave. He told us about his friend Omar Vera, his wife, Benita, and their two children who were forced to flee to Bogota because of their work for the community. He also explained how the actions of the paramilitary go unchallenged by the police and the military, who parade openly on the street: everyone knows where their headquarters are, but no one arrests or charges them.

Father de Roux gave a personal account of how he had negotiated with a local commander for a food convoy to travel to peasant communities in the Magdalena Medio area. Just 15 minutes later, the truck and the food were seized by paramilitaries. After Father de Roux complained to the commander, everything was returned and no one was arrested.

Father de Roux underlined his belief that some of the worst elements in the military have been removed, but such events suggest that considerable collusion between the military and paramilitary still takes place at all levels. I pay tribute to him and the people who work with him, who show great bravery and deserve our continued pressure for action to improve human rights in Colombia

As a last word, I make three strong recommendations to the Government in advance of the UN Commission meeting. First, we should press for more support for the office of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Colombia, including the opening of offices in regional areas. Secondly, we should insist on a strong statement from the Chair to emphasise international concern about the lack of progress on human rights and, in particular, the actions of the paramilitary. Thirdly, we should press for a commitment to monitor the impact of Plan Colombia and, in particular, the impact of crop spraying on rural communities and the level of military activity that arises from it.

I look forward to hearing assurances that my and other hon. Members' points will be carefully considered in advance of the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

This is the second time in the past 16 hours that I have risen to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins). I am grateful to him for introducing the debate and I congratulate him on his comprehensive and excellent speech.

It is almost a year since we last debated human rights in Colombia in this Chamber on 28 March 2000. Last night I refreshed my memory by re-reading our earlier debate. On that occasion, my hon. Friend pointed out that the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights had begun in the previous week. This year we are fortunate in being able to anticipate the 57th session.

I want to concentrate on three subjects: first, the human rights disaster that may be unfolding from the distortion of Plan Colombia, which has developed into a bilateral military aid project between Colombia and the United States of America; secondly, the emerging pattern of escalating violence in Colombia, which is targeted against the brave people who work for human rights; and, thirdly the lack of improvement in the persistent problem of impunity in Colombia and its consequential effects in denying human rights across the country.

In March 2000, hon. Members warned that the plan—originally designed for the purpose of advancing the peace process, improving the economy, contributing to the fight against narcotics, reforming the judicial system, promoting human rights and supporting democratisation and social development—was already losing its way. It was in its infancy, but was already becoming dominate I by a misconceived, anti-narcotics military plan between Columbia and the United States, posing a danger to the peace process with a potentially destabilising effect on the country. We now know that our worst fears have been realised.

That did not have to be the case. United States Colombia aid legislation passed in 2000 contained strict human rights provisions, for which human rights groups fought hard. They were intended to block United States aid unless and until Colombian armed forces ceased to support the paramilitaries. It was argued that without them the funding would inevitably support massacres, killings and disappearances. Although the House and the Senate agreed with them, they were qualified to allow a presidential waiver of the human rights provisions on national security grounds.

When paying the first tranche of money in August last year, President Clinton invoked the waiver provision; he allowed the aid to go forward, even as his State Department was preparing a report that showed that the Colombian forces who would get the money were inextricably linked to paramilitary groups, were implicated in human rights abuses, were ambivalent about allowing the civilian courts to deal with military personnel who were charged with human rights crimes, and failed to prosecute or even, in some cases, suspend officers implicated in abuses. It was worrying at the time that at least one of President Clinton's spokesmen was prepared to make human rights considerations subservient to their drug war. About that time, the United States drugs tsar, Barry McCaffrey, was reported as saying, "You don't hold up the major objective to achieve the minor." However, the official justification for the waiver at that time was a plea to allow the Colombian Government to have more time to make good their commitment to improve human rights protection.

More time was given. Five months later, in January, the second tranche of aid was due for payment. The human rights situation in Colombia had deteriorated; there was documented evidence of paramilitary activity continuing throughout the country and compelling evidence of collusion between them and the armed forces. Putumayo, the state where the drug eradication efforts are concentrated, had a high concentration of active paramilitaries. In his last days in office, President Clinton ignored the mounting evidence that Colombia was failing to meet the basic human rights requirements and agreed to pay over the money without the necessary human rights certification. He relied on a technical interpretation of the legislation to enable him to do so, arguing that he was bound to do so as a result of his earlier decision.

On 17 January, an estimated 50 paramilitaries conducted a chilling massacre in the village of Chengue in the province of Sucre. They killed 124 men by crushing their heads with heavy stones and sledgehammers in the main square of the village. Two bodies were later found in shallow graves. As they left, the paramilitaries set fire to the village.

The day after the massacre, the paramilitary leader, Carlos Castano, acknowledged responsibility for the killings and on the same day President Clinton announced that human rights protections were not relevant to the payment of the second tranche of money under Plan Colombia.

The experience of the implementation of the plan on the ground is that it is worsening conditions that have already deteriorated. If the initial objectives of the plan are to work, they must be consistent with a peaceful solution and not an excuse for an increased military presence in the guise of humanitarian assistance. The implications of the plan being reduced to a militarised anti-drug operation are being acknowledged. The Colombian Ombudsman has called for the suspension of crop spraying in Putumayo after confirming that the operations were damaging food crops. The spraying has stopped, whether in response to the ombudsman's call or not, I do not know. The European Parliament rejected Plan Colombia by a vote of 474 to one, for the same reasons and because of worries about the human rights consequences of the United States' support for that approach and its support for an army that retained links to paramilitary forces.

Alternatives are emerging. The local government of the six south-eastern Colombian provinces opposed the plan. They remind us of what we knew and debated last year—that there was no consultation with civic society when the plan was designed—and they introduced initiatives based on ways to help local peasant communities, alternative eradication methods and new infrastructure projects. The European Union and the new United States Administration now have an opportunity to assess the project thus far and to transform it into a development plan. Unless that opportunity, in conjunction with the up-coming human rights commission, is seized now we may lose the opportunity to achieve the project's initial objectives.

On average, 14 people die every day in the conflict between Government forces, left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia. On 1 February, the United Nations human rights observers reported that the human rights situation in Colombia was in a state of "alarming degradation". One of the most worrying features of the violence there is the targeting of human rights workers.

On that subject, the State Department report says:

"The Human Rights Community remains under intense pressure … Human Rights monitors were subjected to a systematic campaign of intimidation, harassment and violence. According to the Colombian Commission of Jurists, five Human Rights activists were killed during the year, three Human Rights Workers disappeared. A total of 49 Human Rights Workers have been killed or have disappeared in the last five years. On numerous occasions during the year, paramilitary groups in several municipalities circulated lists of the names of persons they considered 'military targets' which included the names of local Human Rights activists, Labour organisers and politicians."

As has been said, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East and I were privileged to meet Father Francisco de Roux this morning. He has a deserved international reputation as a champion of human rights, and lives in the city of Barrancabermeja. We met him when we visited Colombia in 1999. Our meeting this morning reminded me of the courage and dignity shown by many people whom we met during that visit.

Father de Roux's city is of strategic importance to the continuing dialogue between the Government there and the guerrillas, particularly the ELN. Traditionally, the city is a stronghold of that rebel group. The ELN requested that the Government grant it a safe haven for peace talks, such as the one that has been granted to the FARC. The proposed site was two hours by boat from Barrancabermeja, but the paramilitaries were determined to block that proposal. They vowed to cleanse the city of guerrillas.

Father de Roux reported to us this morning that almost half his city is now controlled by paramilitaries, who are employing their well-honed tactics of terror in poor neighbourhoods. They are forcibly placing their people in houses all over the city and are disrupting communications. There is no doubt that they have informal relationships with the military and police. They openly patrol the streets and, as part of their regime of terror, target human rights workers.

This year the paramilitaries issued threats against members of the People's Women Organisation. For 25 years, that organisation has been doing good work in the poor communities of the city. Its refusal to accept the paramilitaries has led them to turn their attention to the women and pressurise communities to expel their organisation.

In addition, members of the Peace Brigades International have become targets of paramilitary violence. A Swedish citizen, Lars Emerson, who works with the PBI, has been declared a military target. The authorities in Barrancabermeja are failing in their obligations to protect their citizens and the human rights workers.

Amnesty International has launched a worldwide campaign to protect human rights activists in Barrancabermeja. In the context of the meeting of the Human Rights Commission, a strong condemnation of the Colombian Government's failure to provide the necessary security for human rights workers or to combat the paramilitaries must be a priority.

The Colombian Government have attempted to improve their record in bringing those who perpetrate the violence before the civilian courts. However, their success rate is poor. The US State Department's report for 2000 states:

"The Central Directorate of the Judicial Police announced that 25,660 murders occurred during the year compared with 24,358 murders in 1999. The press reported that, on average, one person was killed every 20 minutes. The police and the Prosecutor General's office have insufficient resources to investigate most killings adequately. The superior judicial council estimated … that 63 per cent. of crimes go unreported and that 43 per cent. of crimes reported go unpunished."

That estimate was based on a 1997 survey. In 1999, when we were in Colombia, those whom we met estimated that impunity rates were as high as 97 per cent. Just as it is proper to record that the Colombian Government have attempted to improve their record on civil justice, it is also proper to record the personal bravery and commitment of the national officers who are charged with that task. However, impunity remains a serious problem and will continue to be so until those charged with human rights abuses, whoever they are, are brought to book before the appropriate civil courts. As long as paramilitary forces have a base of support in the military, the police and local civilian elites, that will be almost impossible to achieve. To quote the State Department again:

"Impunity for Military personnel who collaborated with paramilitary groups remains common."

I do not doubt President Pastrana's commitment to human rights. He has made serious attempts to combat human rights abuses. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that paramilitarism, impunity and the protection of human rights workers are important issues, and he is addressing them. However, I press him to set out the steps that the Government can take, and are taking, to ensure that those issues take a prominent place in our contribution to the pending 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

I begin by saying that I recognise the inherent difficulty that is faced by any Government—as opposed to an NGO or, indeed, a Back Bencher—in pursuing a human rights dialogue with countries with which we have a relationship that is complicated by factors other than human rights. The Government have made considerable progress in working out how to deal with such dilemmas. In the modern world, we expect a degree of consistency in the way in which we relate to countries across the board. When I occupied the Minister's role, I was always conscious of the fact that it was far easier to beat up Burma than to be critical of some of the larger states. We must try to get the balance right.

I shall refer to a number of countries with which it is genuinely difficult simultaneously to maintain a relationship and a right to criticise. That right does not spring from some automatic moral onus. We can influence the behaviour of Governments—sometimes non-Governments—who allow the systematic abuse of human rights only by exercising a proper approach and maintaining a proper dialogue.

The Geneva hearings are important both symbolically and because they bring the world community together in a human rights jamboree. However, I am tempted to say that human rights are not only for Geneva, but for life. In reality, human rights abuse in countries such as Colombia takes place day in, day out. For the victims, the erosion of opportunity—sometimes even of life—is absolute, and that is not improved by an annual jamboree. We need year-round consistency. I am not criticising the Government—they have done more than any Government of recent times to take that agenda forward.

The first country that I want to talk about is Afghanistan. It is sadly ironic that in recent days the vast attention of the media has been focused on the destruction of Buddhist monuments. Of course, it is right and proper for the world community to criticise the Taliban Government for that destruction, which is an offence against human dignity. However, they have not faced that sustained level of criticism for their systematic erosion of the rights of the population of Afghanistan—especially women, who have borne the brunt of the conflict for a long time. At one point, Afghanistan had some 6 million refugees, both internally and over the borders in Iran and Pakistan, and even now it has about 2 million people living outside its borders. The systematic abuse of the rights of women has been a consistent theme. In extreme cases they have faced death, and violence—especially sexual violence—has been part of a systematic policy of eroding their position in society.

Women do not have access to the world of work in Afghanistan. Women who have tried to work—something that we would consider to be a normal right—have suffered extreme penalties. Taliban extremists in Kabul have attacked women who have the permission of the Taliban Government to work for international aid agencies. Families that have tried to educate their daughters suffer astonishing attacks from zealots in the Taliban community. We ought to condemn that to the Kabul Government, but I freely admit to the Minister that it is difficult to know how to influence them. We must be consistent in our approach and say that their demands cannot be distinguished by reference to Koranic provision because many Koranic scholars would condemn their activities in Afghanistan as an outrage not only against women, but ironically against the code of Islam.

I have always been conscious that western European states have sought to maintain an ambiguous relationship with China. We perceive China as an emerging military and economic super-power, which are two things that it will become. Therefore, I would argue that we want good relations with the Government and people of China. In my city there is a large Chinese community, which actively operates between modern China and modern Britain; all the bridges that it builds are good and healthy.

However, the Chinese human rights record requires comment and criticism. The Chinese Government have allowed people from various positions in their society to be tortured. Political dissidents, people who exceed family planning laws, vagrants and common criminals have all suffered. I shall quote, although my Chinese pronunciation is not good, Mr. Hon Zongbin who, as chairman of the National People's Congress Committee for Internal and Judicial affairs, is a senior representative of the Chinese state. In December 2000, he reported on the findings of the NPC teams inspecting the implications of criminal procedure law in 12 provinces. He said that torture to extract confessions is

"rather serious in certain places, causing terrible social consequences"

and must be

"conscientiously dealt with rather than tolerated."

It is important that even in the Chinese state there are people who are trying to tackle issues such as torture. Nevertheless, we have a duty to ensure that the Chinese know that in our search for the best possible relations the protection of the Chinese people from the abuse of their human rights is an important measure of its Government's progress.

People from both sides of the divide in Kashmir live in Britain. Indeed, both sides are represented in my city. The last thing that I want to do is exacerbate tensions not only in Britain, but, through British Kashmiris, back in Kashmir. Although today's debate has nothing to do with a final settlement of the situation, I must say that I applaud the ceasefire, provided that it is genuine, imposed by the Indian Government. Despite the relative period of calm, violence and abuse against the civilian population by the Indian authorities is so extreme that we must place our concerns about the Indian Government, with which we would normally have the best possible dealings, on record. When we see an erosion of human rights, our friends must know that they are not immune to criticism.

I shall finish with a reference to Colombia, but I shall not reiterate what has been said this morning. I have great affection for Colombia and its people; it has a role to play in the world. Ironically, human rights abuse in Colombia, unlike elsewhere, is not an instrument of state policy or even accepted by the state as being incidental to its other ambitions. It is more complicated. Colombia has been involved in a civil war of many sides and there is enormous capacity for confusion in allocating blame and demanding improvement. With my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), I believe that President Pastrana's ambitions are acceptable to everyone in this Chamber. However, the sad reality of every recent Colombian Government is that their ability to control significant players has been less than we take for granted in the role of a modern state.

Many senior Colombians have tried to persuade me that the civilian Government are bringing pressure to bear on senior military officers to bring pressure to bear on the middle officer ranks. The crude reality is that too often the association between the army of the state and paramilitaries is so close as to make little difference and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East referred to that. The consequence is that the activities of the state are directly involved in the mass abuse of the rights of the Colombian people. I was going to quote 228,000 displaced people last year, but my hon. Friend says that it might be 300,000. Whether the figure is 228,000 or 300,000, the scale of human suffering and misery is almost unbelievable in a modern Britain.

We must retain Colombia at the top of the United Nations hearings agenda because international witness pays dividends for public perception of how matters are dealt with back home. The hearings are important and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East for introducing the debate at this time. It is important that the Government hear what is said in the Chamber during the Geneva hearings. The erosion of human rights does not occur only in countries that have been and will be mentioned today. It is a worldwide phenomenon and this country, with its free Parliament and a happy inheritance of relatively high respect for human rights by our institutions places on us the moral onus to maintain a human rights vigil 52 weeks a year, every year. I trust that following our debate the Government will consistently maintain those responsibilities.

Last week, the all-party group on human rights held a meeting and heard four excellent speakers with direct experience of Chechnya, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) for introducing today's debate. However, it should, more properly, take place on the Floor of the House, and it should be a full day's debate. It is ridiculous that we are expected to encompass these important issues in such a short time and those who initiate debates on these important issues in future should insist on a full day's debate. I should like to discuss many countries, but I shall confine my comments today to Chechnya, which is suffering a forgotten war. I am ashamed that, as my hon. Friends said, those of us who are free and living in a democracy where we can be heard sit back while terrible things happen in Chechnya.

The four speakers that we heard last week included a representative of Human Rights Watch, which is based in Moscow, an elected Chechen Member of Parliament, who, of course, has never taken his seat, and Anthony Lloyd, a reporter from The Times who was based in Chechnya. They highlighted continuing human rights abuses by both parties, and it is right to emphasise the involvement of both parties because although it is mainly the Russians who commit atrocities, the Chechens also bear some responsibility.

The general conduct of the Russian campaign in Chechnya has been a matter of concern, especially the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force against civilians. The razing of Grozny last year attracted a lot of press coverage, and it has also been reported that most of the territory within Chechnya, to which there is very little access, has been devastated. Most civilians, including more than 100,000 displaced people in Chechnya, have been left to fend for themselves with practically no assistance from the Russians. The Russian forces are accused of arbitrary detention, torture, extortion, disappearances and the continuing harassment of civilians. Unfortunately, those practices are reportedly a routine part of Russian operations. The notorious filtration camps such as that at Chernokosovo—in which Chechen men were allegedly systematically raped, beaten and killed—were widely reported last year.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. When talking about Chechnya, we should not forget the four brave British citizens who were so foully murdered in that country.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me of that incident.

I can recommend an excellent book published by Human Rights Watch, entitled "Welcome to Hell': Arbitrary Detention, Torture and Extortion in Chechnya", from which I should like to quote a couple of passages. It is reported that Russian guards said to one detainee:

"Welcome to hell. You're lost now. You will die a slow and painful death. We will teach you to respect Russian officers."

A former detainee said:

"They used the iron part of their sticks to beat me on the bottoms of my feet. They put a cloth in my mouth so I couldn't scream, and they handcuffed me. They made me lay down on my stomach with my head under the table. They took off my boots and socks, and beat my soles, especially on the heels. Then they made me stand against the wall with my hands up, lifted my shirt and beat me on the kidneys with the sticks."

Human Rights Watch has also reported the comments of the man who talked to the all-party group on human rights last week.

Last week, there was also a chilling report in The Guardian by one of Russia's most respected journalists, who writes for the Moscow newspaper Novaya Gazeta. She travelled deep into Chechnya to investigate reports of torture, rape and detention camps run by the Russian army. If there were any doubts about the veracity of the shocking stories that she heard, they vanished when she herself was detained by Russian troops. The journalist had turned victim, and she gave a graphic account in The Guardian of the way in which she was treated.

There were further reports this week of the discovery of what appears to be a mass grave near the main Russian garrison on the outskirts of Grozny. The number of corpses found has risen to more than 50, and investigators from Memorial, the brave human rights group in Russia, have reported signs of torture. Several corpses had ears missing. Most had their arms bound behind their backs, and many had been blindfolded. Several of the dead had disappeared after being detained by the Russians at the end of last year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East mentioned Sir Nigel Rodley, the UN rapporteur on torture. He has asked to visit Grozny in Chechnya but, so far, has not been told whether he can do so. That is regrettable, although the two rapporteurs responsible for children and armed conflict and for violence against women have been allowed to visit the area. I hope that the Secretary-General's other representatives who have asked to visit the area will be allowed to do so.

We are concerned about the lack of accountability of the Russian forces. The Russian Government have repeatedly refused requests for independent scrutiny of the alleged violations, except for the visits by the special representatives, and are deemed to be acting in bad faith in the conduct of their investigations. Only one agency has the authority to investigate crimes in Chechnya and, according to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, only 47 investigations of crimes against civilians have been launched. None deals with allegations of torture of civilians held in custody, which apparently was committed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs or army service men. In addition, there have been no indictments in connection with the alleged mass killings in three areas and one of last weeks' speakers referred to the black hole into which complaints that are referred to Russian officials disappear.

I pay tribute to Lord Judd, who spoke at our meeting. He is the Council of Europe's special rapporteur on Chechnya and has produced several good reports on the situation there.

All last week's speakers referred to the climate of impunity that now exists in Chechnya. Russian troops believe that they are free to do as they want because they are certain that they will not be held to account for their actions. Senior Russian Government sources refer to the elimination of terrorists rather than the elimination of terrorism and that is worrying.

Unfortunately, most other Governments have shown themselves unwilling to take effective action to ensure that the Russian Government brings those violations to an end. For example, no cases concerning alleged violations of the European convention of human rights by the Russian forces have been referred to the European Court of Human Rights. It was suggested last week that Governments should pressure the Russian Government to accept independent observers in Chechnya to investigate violations that have been reported to the authorities, especially the large number of documented disappearances on which no action has been taken.

No Governments have recognised the Chechen Government, whose election was upheld by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and former President Yeltsin. Mr. Idigov, an elected Chechen Member of Parliament, who was here last week, and former official representative of the elected President of Chechnya, told our group of his inability to meet representatives of western Governments to discuss the Chechen conflict. The Russian Government are also unwilling to talk to the rebel leadership to try to bring an end to the conflict.

Will the Minister try to give Chechen representatives an opportunity to address groups of people and Governments? If they were allowed to do so at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which will meet on 19 March, it would be a valuable contribution to a wider discussion of the issue.

The Chechen forces are responsible for violations of civilian immunity, mainly by killing, injuring or threatening civilians who work with the Russian-installed Administration in Chechnya. We must also ask what future the rebels foresee for the Chechen people and whether universal respect for human rights is part of their future agenda.

The conflict is taking place behind closed doors. Nongovernmental organisations and independent journalists face significant obstacles to gaining access to, and working in, Chechnya. Unlike in many other conflicts, there are virtually no aid organisations on the ground—we know some reasons for that—and very few witnesses to what is happening. A few weeks ago, Frank Judd said:

"The failure of Governments to act is one of the saddest reflections on the whole ugly story".

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to throw some light on the matter.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) on securing the debate, and I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). It insults suffering people all over the world that we have only an hour and a half this morning to discuss the problem. We ought to have a full debate.

The proposed agenda for the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva later this month is huge. We can do no more than scratch its surface this morning. It includes many issues and mentions 22 countries where human rights abuses are occurring. I will not deal with each in detail; if I did, hon. Members would never speak to me again.

We must seriously examine the language of the agenda. It includes terms such as affirm, reaffirm, commit, ratify, adopt, eliminate and maintain momentum. Where is the action? We are always reaffirming, but we never seem to get much action. Is the commission just a talking shop? The trouble is that there is no effective penalty against states that refuse to implement human rights. We hear, and we have heard this morning, appalling accounts of torture, abuse and murder. I could add to them at length. The commissioner travels around the world—on a very sparse budget compared with the rest of the UN— deploring and denouncing, but the UN must be reformed if it is to be a more active organisation and not just a talking shop.

I call on the world to stop the rhetoric—we could talk endlessly about human rights—and start to address the underlying causes of human rights abuse. In yesterday's debate on the International Development Bill, we talked at length about poverty. We must do more about trade agreements that discriminate against poorer countries. The AIDS epidemic, the scale of which has been recognised only in the past few years, seriously damages human rights. There is a lack of good government and democracy. There is a need to control the arms trade. Four years on, we still do not have a draft Bill about that. Where is it? The drugs trade is another huge problem.

I will not deny that there has been some progress. The International Criminal Court is good news, and the legislation for it is currently going through Parliament. When, however, will we ratify the protocol on child soldiers under the UN convention on the rights of the child? The land mine convention was an excellent move, and we were all pleased about it. However, the cluster bombs that have now come on the scene are probably doing more damage to people and their human rights than landmines ever did. There has been depressingly little progress on that front.

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe said last year, when he was a Foreign Office Minister, that in an ideal world the Commission for Human Rights would be free of country-specific texts. Sadly, it is not. Although I promised not to talk about all the countries, I will briefly mention two or three.

I endorse all that has been said about Colombia. I too have been there, and I stayed in a village in the jungle where the most appalling abuses of human rights were taking place. The drugs trade—the problem that overhangs Colombia—has not been mentioned. We must ask ourselves whether we are tackling that correctly on an international level—I merely throw that out to the Minister. The United Nations should be discussing the issue. The problems of Colombia will not be solved until we do something about the drugs trade. Even if Plan Colombia has any effect—which it will not; it will only increase the suffering of the people of Colombia—it will merely divert the growing of drug crops elsewhere in the world and create yet another problem spot. I therefore urge the Government to look at that problem.

I wanted to touch on Sudan but, sadly, there is not much time in which to do so. Colombia is one hell-hole that I have visited; southern Sudan is another, with people bumping along the bottom of existence. They have no food; they are taken into slavery, abused, burned, raped and pillaged. It is a mediaeval society about which we have done little in the 40 years since we left Sudan. The Sudanese people expect us to do something; they were our people at one time and we united the two parts of their country. However, there is precious little progress or resolve among the international community to do anything about that problem.

The main country I wanted to address this morning is China, which is a very different problem; the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) touched on it. Last year, the United States proposed a resolution condemning China's human rights record and in response the EU tabled a no-action motion to prevent discussion—many people say that that was just to protect our trade interests. The same may happen this year. China has nevertheless ratified the UN covenant on economic and social rights. It has not yet done the same in regard to civil and political rights but there seems to be a glimmer of progress.

According to Amnesty International—and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central—the wide-ranging crackdown on peaceful dissent continues in China: 260,000 people are in labour camps, there are great abuses of human rights in Tibet, the members of Falun Gong are persecuted and 18,000 people suffered the death penalty in the 1990s. In the USA, the death penalty is still imposed on people under the age of 18. I would call such people children—and they are being killed by the American Government. Will there be a UN action against the United States for that infringement of the rights of the child? That is an important topic and the USA should lead the world on it.

China is undoubtedly changing and progress is being made. Should we support that progress and condemn the human rights abuses? Should we encourage trade and cultural contact or suppress them until China changes? Should we stop the Olympic games in 2006 because of China's human rights record? Dealing with countries such as China is a dilemma for us; what I have said applies equally to Burma, which has been mentioned, and even Turkey. Maybe we need a carrot and stick approach. Will total condemnation and isolation only make things worse? I would like to know the Minister's views on those issues.

Let me make one thing clear: it was China who tabled the no-action motion and the EU voted against it—but it was passed anyway. That is a very important point. The hon. Lady said that it was the other way around.

I thank the Minister for that. I apologise; I misread my notes.

I wish to highlight an issue that has not been mentioned, which I hope the Government will raise at the UN Commission. Human trafficking in women and girls is the most extraordinary and sickening development in recent times. Two million women work as prostitutes worldwide; there are thousands in London. Some of them pay people traffickers £25,000 to come over to work in London as sex slaves, nothing more nor less. Paul Holmes of the Metropolitan police vice squad has said how many thousands there are in London, but doing anything about sex slaves and the problem of people trafficking in London is not one of the Met's performance indicators. I know it is not the Minister's area of responsibility, but it is a worldwide problem. People are coming from eastern Europe and it is happening around us in London. The international community spends millions of pounds on tracking drug traffickers. When will we start to spend the same amount on combating people trafficking? We must have some action from Geneva.

Lastly, I remind the Minister that many of us signed a renewal of the declaration of human rights. It was first signed over 50 years ago in 1948. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) signed it. We were in the Dining Room with the Foreign Secretary. I think that we used the same pen as him, which was pretty riveting stuff. What does it all mean, if it does not result in improvements? Liberal Democrats believe that the time has come to move from the process of declaration to the implementation of our commitment based on that universal declaration.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) on securing this debate. I also congratulate all those who have spoken. It seems to be the same crew every time, and here we are again. It is particularly apposite because the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will be held in Geneva from 19 March to 27 April. Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), I regret the fact that this debate is in Westminster Hall rather than on the Floor of the House and that the Government have not allocated any time for a debate before such an important meeting.

As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, the provisional agenda is comprehensive, covering everything from racism and religious intolerance to summary executions and the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms. Like her, I shall not read out the whole agenda. I simply ask: who will represent the UK at that meeting? Will the Minister place copies of the UK's position on each item of the agenda in the Library to summarise the lines that we will take on all the important matters that will be raised? I hope that the UK will be present throughout and will make a firm contribution. As the hon. Lady reminded us, we all signed up to a renewal of our views on human rights two years ago. This Government have made much of their vaunted ethical and moral foreign policy.

In the brief time left to me I should like to raise three specific issues. The first concerns Burma. I should like to pay tribute again to Wilfred Wong of the Jubilee Campaign, which consistently provides us with information about Burma. Recently it sent out some filmed evidence of atrocities currently being inflicted on Burma's internally displaced minorities. Would the Minister accept a copy of that video and let me have his comments on it? As I understand it, the British Government have yet to acknowledge that there is a genocide and neither has there been any financial assistance to the Kareni or the Shan. There are more than 342,000 internally displaced Kareni and Shan people in Burma, many of them hiding in the jungle from the Burmese army who normally kill them on sight.

That is not true. We are assisting them, although not in Burma as we do not deal with the Burmese Government. We are assisting in the refugee camps that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited in Thailand. That is the way to do it. That is where most of the Karen are.

I said that the Government have not given any financial assistance to the internally displaced Karen. I said that they have not given any financial assistance to the 600,000 internally displaced; I was specific in choosing my wording. I appreciate that there is help in the camps, but I want to know what help is being given in the country. It is not outwith the bounds of possibility for help and assistance to be given.

Like the hon. Member for Richmond Park, I want to raise the issue of China, because, once again, the United Kingdom will not be sponsoring a resolution condemning China's record on human rights, for which the Conservative party has consistently pressed since it has been in opposition. When the Conservative party was in government, we co-sponsored the resolution. The United States will introduce a resolution on China's human rights practices at the meeting of the Commission's meeting in March. I hope that the Minister will say now whether he will co-sponsor the resolution encouraging China to take positive, concrete steps to meet its internal obligations to protect the fundamental freedoms and civil liberties of the Chinese people. I am not encouraged to think that the Minister will give me that assurance, which is a great shame; when asked whether he would support the resolution on the Chinese Government his weak and weedy written answer was as follows:

"We and our partners are considering the EU's approach to China at the forthcoming 57th session … This process has not yet been concluded.—[Official Report, 23 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 562W.]

It is a little while since 23 January and I hope that the Minister will tell us today that he will sign and cosponsor the resolution; anything less is unacceptable.

Less than two weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and I went to Zimbabwe, where we met some of the bravest people that it has ever been our privilege to meet. We met residents of the high-density area of Harare, whose freedom and jobs are disappearing out of the window, farmers who have been casually thrown off their farms, and workers and their children whose homes have been taken from them who are forced to live in sheds that once housed working machines. We met farmers who have not been allowed to plant seed on their farm for more than a year and whose farms are going to rack and ruin. We met lawyers—the judges in Zimbabwe are the last bastion of the rule of law. We met Morgan Tsvangirai, the brave leader of the opposition MDC party, whose offices have been bombed and activists beaten up, some just for wearing an MDC tee-shirt.

Since we left Zimbabwe, in the last few days the seventh white farmer has been murdered—Mrs. Olds' husband was also cruelly slaughtered two years ago and within hours of his death Mugabe went on television saying that white farmers were "our enemies".

Where is the voice of the United Kingdom Government in all this? We have been deafened by their silence. The Chief Justice has been thrown out of office, foreign journalists have been expelled, the economy is in free fall and there will probably be food shortages by the end of the year, but the United Kingdom has done nothing.

What has Mugabe done in the past few days? He has taken off on a tour of Europe and been fêted by our so-called European partners while we stay silent. The Times this morning reported that not only did Mugabe have an excellent and friendly meeting with Mr. Chirac, but he was treated to a standard protocol fanfare from 75 plume-helmeted soldiers of the Garde Republicaine. Where was the protest from the United Kingdom Government at that reception?

I agree wholeheartedly with the Daily Mail editorial today, which stated that President Chirac alone is not to blame and that while the United Kingdom Government stays silent

"EU development commissioner Paul Nielson rolls out the red carpet for Mugabe, while the Belgian Prime Minister … actually invites him home. The terrorised people of Zimbabwe see their tormentor feted wherever he goes."

The livelihoods of people in Zimbabwe are slipping away from them; their homes have been taken and violence is continually threatened, yet Europe fêtes Mugabe and the UK Government remain silent. It is about time that we heard a voice from that Government. I should like to stiffen the Minister's backbone and the so-called ethical and moral foreign policy. The French and Belgians have breathed a new lease of life into a man who, by any stretch of the imagination, is clinging on to power through violence, creating chaos and destroying his country. When will the UK speak up for the citizens of Zimbabwe? When will the UK realise that there cannot be honesty in government unless we tell our European partners about our distaste for their actions and stand up for the people of Zimbabwe, who rely on us. Given the actions taken by the French and Belgian Governments, I certainly do not hold out any hope for a common European foreign policy—not that I ever did.

Today, while we discuss human rights, I am giving the Minister an opportunity to tell us on the Government's behalf where Labour's voice is and whether they appreciate freedom and hate tyranny. If he cannot in this debate condemn Mugabe's actions and join us in calling for sanctions concerning the closest supporters of Mugabe, he is practising the politics of convenience and betraying everything that this Government and country should stand for and certainly the people of Zimbabwe. The Minister is a decent and honest man, so I hope that the first words that he utters will be a condemnation of Mugabe.

My first words are that I hope that I will not be condemned for not being an honest and decent man, but I will return to the issue of Zimbabwe. It is a most serious concern, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) for raising it.

I start by complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), who has a record of raising matters of international development, justice and peace. I am tempted to say to him that, as other hon. Members know, campaigning on human rights in other parts of the world is not always popular when we are trying to be re-elected and to represent our own constituents. I do not mean that cynically in relation to the immediate election, but raising international affairs is not the easiest job in our society, and I compliment all those who do so regularly.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham talked about the same old crowd, but I am impressed by this morning's turnout. I also share the view that we should be debating the issue on the Floor of the House. I will take that suggestion back to my Department, because there are ways in which we can demand a full debate. Whether in the parliamentary Labour party or as Ministers, we can raise themes to debate properly on the Floor of the House. This debate is taking place before the 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, so it is timely.

This year, I held a meeting in the Foreign Office with a range of NGOs to get their input. We talked to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, Anti-Slavery International, Article 19, the UN association, Disability Awareness in Action, Human Rights Watch, the Law Society, the Catholic Institute for International Relations, minority rights groups, the Refugee Council, Save the Children, Amnesty, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the Index on Censorship and others. I cannot name them all, but there were more organisations. The purpose of the meeting was to hear their voices, to see what issues they wanted us to discuss and to ask them to suggest amendments that we should work towards in getting consensus and resolutions passed by the UN. Those organisations warmly welcomed that.

Having recognised the input of NGOs, perhaps we should do more to recognise the input of right hon. and hon. Members. As we have heard this morning, they have real expertise to offer on these matters. I will happily take back with me the proposal that we have a serious debate every year on the Floor of the House in anticipation of the commission, which would allow us to decide what our key themes should be. I will say why. Amnesty International's first priorities were Russia, Chechnya, Colombia, Sierra Leone, China and Saudi Arabia. Zimbabwe was not on that list, but perhaps it should be. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham for her contribution on Zimbabwe, which raises serious concerns. Many other countries were listed, as well as themes such as torture, the death penalty, forced disappearance, children, abduction and slavery in Sudan. The range of the agenda was there at the meeting, but perhaps we need to extend the parliamentary debate. Next year, we may be able to work together in different ways to achieve that.

The forum was a welcome contribution and we must not underestimate the wealth of knowledge and experience of NGOs and others who help us—Members of Parliament and Ministers—to understand what is happening on the ground. In the age of the e-mail and the fax, we can learn much more about the impact of the denial of human rights on local communities. We do not have to wait for telegrams from embassies, which should no longer be regarded as the source and fount of all knowledge about a country. We can receive direct information from our global communications systems—a helpful tool to encourage us to be more alert and responsive. We need to take further action, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said when she encouraged us earlier to move on from resolution-based politics.

We have tried hard; we shall continue to do our best to put human rights at the heart of foreign policy; but we have a long way to go. I do not resile from the task; promoting human rights is one of my passions. Of course we promote British interests and pursue British values, but they must be based on the rights enshrined in the developing corpus of international human rights law. Getting the laws and the words right is one thing, but I accept that implementation is crucial.

In its 2000 audit of the Government's foreign policy, Amnesty International referred to

"a record of real achievement—including the constructive role the UK has periodically played around the world, the passing of the Human Rights Act and the increasing importance accorded to human rights and international justice in UK diplomacy abroad."

We would have a solid delegation at the UN session. Yes, and our delegation will be led by Mrs. Audrey Glover CMG, the former head of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and a former senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office legal adviser. She will do a fine job; I hope to be there alongside her at the meeting. I shall address one of the sessions on 22 March. We will be there, and I can confirm that we shall be fully engaged in all the issues that are debated.

Will the Minister attend for a longer period than it takes to deliver his speech? How many days will he spend at the conference?

We are sending a full team to negotiate the wording and it will be in place for the whole period. Different sessions take place on different countries among different teams, so I could not physically attend every workshop to debate the wording the whole time. That is not the role of Ministers, but I shall be there as long as I can. I am going there to listen as well as speak.

How long?

I think that my diary will confirm that I shall be there for two full days. I am more than keen to attend for as long as I can. The hon. Lady might like to know that I am probably due to answer parliamentary questions on the Floor of the House and that I have other responsibilities in Parliament. I repeat that I want to attend the session for as long as I can, and that I have every confidence in the team. I want to move on because I have so much ground to cover in my remaining time.

Britain lobbied hard to be re-elected to the 53-member Commission on Human Rights and we secured a place last May for another three years. We were elected top of the western group and we should not take our place at that table for granted. We have to campaign for it and we need a respected track record to be there. Only six of our EU partners are on that commission, not including the current presidency.

We are keen to ensure that we retain a good track record. We shall actively contribute to EU initiatives on Sudan, Burma, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territories, Iran, Iraq, Chechnya, East Timor and Colombia. We shall also campaign on the death penalty and rights of the child. The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned trafficking in people, an issue that is thankfully moving up the agenda. It is every bit as serious as the international drugs trade. All those matters will be on our agenda and I shall ensure that the hon. Lady's representations are heard.

A key UK objective in all UN human rights forums is to uphold the human rights principles that all Governments signed up to at the world conference on human rights in Vienna in 1993. It is increasingly understood that human rights are the legitimate concern of the international community. Human rights are universal, a seamless garment applying equally to all human beings everywhere. Everyone with a name and a face has a right to be represented in terms of basic human rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East praised the work of the special rapporteurs, which I welcome. However, I should pick him up on one small point. He paid tribute to Sir Nigel Rodley, and I endorse that praise. However, I understand that Sir Nigel Rodley has no plans to step down at this session of the Commission on Human Rights, even though he has recently been elected to the Human Rights Committee. We will work closely with the Danes on their draft resolution on torture, which will renew the special rapporteurs' mandate. It is not a fait accompli—he has not finished his work yet, and I do not want to give that impression.

A number of countries—Norway, Canada, Iceland and the Czech Republic—have indicated that they will issue standing invitations in respect of UN thematic procedures. NGOs have been lobbying EU member states to do the same. We are in favour of the practice of issuing standing invitations and have been consulting other Departments to ensure that they are happy with that arrangement. I am optimistic that, when I get to Geneva, I will be able to make a positive announcement on that issue so that we can move the internal workings on to make them more implementary rather than simply resolutionary.

It is our policy to encourage all Governments to ratify the core UN human rights treaties with minimum reservations, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Internationally, emphasis and attention must now be given to implementation. Governments have freely undertaken obligations under the treaties, and they must fulfil them and co-operate fully with UN mechanisms. The UK is no exception: all our Departments have to respond in detail to the questions of special rapporteurs, and so they should.

We want to continue our efforts to eradicate torture and will continue the Foreign Secretary's anti-torture campaign, the second phase of which was launched in December 2000. We want the World Conference against Racism to be successful. It has been set up, and we want to follow it through and be actively engaged. I would like to go myself—if that would make the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham happy, it would make me happy—but events before the date of the conference might preclude that. We try to do as much as we can to ensure that as many countries as possible open their doors to UN rapporteurs and scrutiny. Openness to scrutiny is a start along the road of implementation.

We are committed to taking preventive action at all levels to protect children caught up in armed conflict. We have ratified International Labour Organisation convention 182 on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including the forced or compulsory recruitment of children for armed conflict. We are working with the ILO and NGOs on a global lobbying campaign aimed at achieving universal ratification of ILO convention 182.

Will the Minister give way?

I have three minutes to reply on Colombia. I have the whole world to cover, and Colombia was a key focus.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) mentioned China. We raise the matter of human rights regularly with China. Dialogue took place in February and, when Mary Robinson was there, there was some progress on China. We will not step back from pressing the Chinese on Falun Gong and the treatment of people who practise Falun Gong and are being harassed, even in this country. I personally raised that with the Chinese ambassador. We insist that they answer for a list of people in China whom we know are being tortured or are missing, and we will not step back from that. It is important to keep momentum behind that dialogue. We have the mechanism to push it, but there has not been sufficient action. We are not happy with progress on that matter.

What about Zimbabwe?

If the hon. Lady would stop nattering, I would be able to get to the points that need to be addressed. I will ensure that our positions and resolutions at the Commission on Human Rights are available in the Library for hon. Members to read. That back-up will enable me to respond in detail on all the countries that have been mentioned.

I met Father Francisco de Roux in Colombia. I do not have time to respond in full to the two hon. Members who raised the issue of Colombia, but I thank them for doing that. That situation has worsened. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is on her way to Washington, where she will discuss the implementation of the American Plan Colombia.

On a point of order, Mrs. Michie. Is it right that a Minister should reply to a debate, even in Westminster Hall, and ignore some of the main points that were made? The Minister has failed to reply to urgent questions on the Government's attitude to Zimbabwe. Is it in order for a Minister not to respond to a debate?

What the Minister says is entirely up to him. It is not a matter for the Chair.

If the hon. Lady would but listen, she would know that I have made it clear that we take the situation in Zimbabwe very seriously. I cannot go into detail on that because I want to reply to the hon. Member who introduced the debate. I am prevented from doing so by the hon. Lady, who is hijacking the debate.

Order. We must now move to the next debate.

Level crossings on public highways are causing my constituents serious problems. There is one in Hixon, three in Stone, one in Barlaston and another at Blythe bridge. There is also a level crossing on a private road at Wedgwood. Each has its own characteristics, but there are overall serious safety issues, particularly in the light of the proposed high-speed trains that will travel at 125 mph on the west coast main line. Serious traffic congestion problems are also causing my constituents enormous inconvenience. I am informed that in 1997, Railtrack confirmed to the highways committee of Staffordshire county council that it intended to remove all level crossings on the north Staffordshire branch of the west coast main line. That is the best solution. In late 1998, Railtrack still wanted to remove crossings wherever possible but asked the county council to investigate other options. The Health and Safety Executive requires the upgrading of all crossings to manual operation, with full-width barriers monitored by closed circuit television.

I shall give details of the crossings involved. There is an automatic half-barrier at Hixon, which was the scene of a major rail disaster in 1967; there have been two accidents in the past 18 months, with collisions between trains and cars, one of which was fatal. I am glad that Railtrack, in conjunction with the county council, has decided to provide a £2 million bridge for pedestrians and vehicles. That is an important precedent. There is an automatic half-barrier at Aston-by-Stone which raises serious safety concerns, particularly for children and local residents. It is adjacent to a major housing estate of 700 houses. The crossing at Church lane lies on the only access point to the local housing estate and the barriers fail frequently, cutting off the estate—and access for emergency services. The crossing at Meaford is manually controlled from an adjacent signal box. The one at Barlaston cuts the village in two, causing heavy traffic delays and congestion. The one at Wedgwood is normally closed outside the working day. At Blythe bridge, the crossing system fails periodically and repair staff from Nottingham can, I am told, take up to two hours to arrive. There should be a bridge or underpass at Aston-by-Stone and an alternative route provided at Church lane. Meaford crossing requires at least a traffic management scheme and, if possible, an alternative route. Further analysis is needed at Barlaston, with the option of bridges or other routes; in the short term, closed circuit television systems must be provided immediately.

I am grateful for the representations that I have received from Staffordshire county council, Stone town council and Railtrack. I have also had replies from Tom Winsor, the Rail Regulator and Sir Alastair Morton of the Strategic Rail Authority but as yet no reply to my letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. All the proposed improvements cost money. Excepting the bridge at Hixon, which is going ahead at a cost of £2 million, the county council has estimated that the bridge at Aston-by-Stone would cost £3.5 million, the one at Church lane £1 million and at Barlaston £2.5 million. That is a total of around £8.7 million.

Yesterday I took part in the debate on the special grant report, which supports local authority private finance initiative schemes, including that of Staffordshire county council, one of the list of 74 authorities. The Under-Secretary for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, by whom I mean the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), who responded to the debate in Committee yesterday, said that approximately £8 billion is being provided in credits, the maximum amount of grant in any one case being £160 million. I asked the Under-Secretary to confirm in principle that the special grant could be made available to Staffordshire county council to fund the closure and the radical solutions needed to deal with all the level crossings in my constituency, given the safety and traffic congestion problems. I doubt whether many constituencies have as many as eight level crossings in such a confined area, a situation crying out for special treatment. Indeed, road schemes, bridges and tunnels are all specifically mentioned in the nightmarishly complicated, explanatory notes relating to the private finance initiative. The Under-Secretary is investigating the matter and will write to me about it.

We are about to hear in the Budget speech about the massive war chest of billions and billions of pounds that the Government hold. That has been generated by increased taxation, some of which has fallen on my constituents. I therefore urge the Government to provide the necessary money for their safety and convenience. Where trains travel at 125 mph, there is a general rule that crossings should be closed—a point that was confirmed to me by the Rail Regulator. That is why, in 1997, Railtrack proposed to the highways committee that all the crossings should be closed.

There should not be an ultra vires problem with the PFI route, because once the bridge, tunnel or other route had been provided, the railway would continue unaffected, and the special grant procedure would apply to the provision of the new facility standing on its own. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary said that if, having investigated the matter, she found that a problem was caused by a railway crossing with a railway running one way and a road running the other, that would be a potentially hybrid situation that could present legal obstacles to providing the money by special grant. My answer to that—which is a reasonably good one, given that I have specialised in ultra vires problems for some time—is that once the crossing and apparatus had been removed and the bridge provided, what would have been provided in terms is of PFI would be a new facility, the bridge, owned by the county council and connected with the highway on both sides. The problem of the involvement of the railway would thus be eliminated. The railway would still be there, but it would go under the bridge, which would become vested in the county council as part of the local highway.

It is essential to bear in mind the fact that the county council or Stafford borough council could fund schemes themselves. However, I have a written reply dated 27 February from the Under-Secretary for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), which gives the figures for levels of spending on highways per head of population in Staffordshire compared with other counties. It reveals that, for 2000–01, Staffordshire has, by a massive margin, the lowest level of capital expenditure per head in the entire country, at £1.39. That is a disgrace, the responsibility for which lies with the Labour Staffordshire county council and the Government for their appalling failure to remedy Staffordshire's inadequate funding under the standard spending assessment system. Responsibility also lies with Railtrack, which, as we know, is cutting its investment programme. If it was prepared in 1997 to propose the closure of all the crossings because of high-speed trains, surely the money must be found as an urgent priority.

I have been in detailed communication, in correspondence and conversation, with the Rail Regulator, Tom Winsor. He has told me in writing that the Strategic Rail Authority could include the level crossings in the SRA's incremental output statement programme. I wrote to Sir Alastair Morton, and received a reply yesterday in which he stated that the local authorities, including the Labour county council, have not been in contact with the Strategic Rail Authority about improving the level crossings. I regard that as extraordinary and disgraceful, because improvements for level crossings are primarily a matter for the local highways authority and for Railtrack.

Mr. Winsor also wrote to me, saying that

"under condition 7 of its network licence…Railtrack is obliged to maintain, develop and enhance its network in accordance with best practice in a timely, efficient and economical manner so as to meet the reasonable requirements of its customers and funders to the greatest extent reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances including matters of financing. In that respect, therefore, the first question is whether Railtrack is already being funded to do the relevant work on the level crossings in question. Generally, as part of my periodic review of Railtrack's access charges (announced on 23 October 2000), Railtrack is funded to operate, maintain and renew the existing network, with enhancements (such as new capacity) being funded separately and in addition to the sustained network.

If Railtrack is already funded for these level crossing works, I have powers of enforcement under the Railways Act 1993, sections 16A-I (as inserted by section 223 of the Transport Act 2000) and section 55. If it is not, and the access charges and network grants which the company is to receive in the next five years do not finance these improvements, it is of course open to anyone else to provide the necessary funding."

Hence my earlier remarks. Mr. Winsor continues:

"This could be a local authority, one or more train operators or the Strategic Rail Authority."

As I have pointed out, I have been in touch with the Strategic Rail Authority and discovered to my grave concern that the local authorities have not made contact. Mr. Winsor continues by pointing out that, under the statutory arrangements, he is able

"to compel Railtrack to carry out the necessary works on terms, including as to price and quality, determined by me. You will see from section 16E"—

the statutory provision in question—

"that, before I order Railtrack to do the work, I must be satisfied that Railtrack would be adequately rewarded. In essence, this means that it will be paid a fair price. That process of determining adequate reward would take account of the efficient cost of the works, any financing costs which would be incurred and any benefits which will accrue to Railtrack."

He then repeats the statutory provisions.

The Minister will appreciate that the concentration of railway crossings constitutes a serious problem, and there is also an enormous problem with safety and traffic congestion. Ultimately, the question is one of funding. The Rail Regulator has the power to require Railtrack to complete the work. Railtrack itself had originally intended to close all the crossings, but as a result of pressures on finance that will not happen.

My constituents and I are grateful for the provision of a bridge at Hixon, which has set a precedent. However, the fact remains that, as Mr. Winsor said,

"Railtrack is obliged to … develop and enhance its network in accordance with best practice".

He has made it clear that, if Railtrack is funded, he can enforce the necessary changes. He adds that

"elimination of level crossings is necessary"—

I should be grateful if the Minister would grasp this point

"where linespeeds exceed 125 mph".

I would strongly argue that the dividing line between 125 mph and 126 mph should not he allowed to affect my constituents' safety. Under the Transport Act 2000, if Railtrack is given a fair price for doing the work, the Rail Regulator can take action, as we have seen. The situation regarding level crossings cannot be allowed to continue.

Cost must be weighed against safety and convenience. The Labour Government, the Labour county council and the Labour borough council can combine with Railtrack to solve the funding problem, but only if they have the will to help my constituents by tapping into the monumental sums at the Chancellor's disposal on this Budget day. There is no excuse for inaction, so if the normal financial channels are not available because the county council has inadequately funded the highways, and if Railtrack is reluctant, why not use the special grants under the private finance initiative?

One way or another the money is there, so I trust that the Minister will promise to find a means by which to tap it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on securing this important debate on safety at level crossings in north Staffordshire. I also thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of some of the detailed matters that he wanted to raise. However, I must chide him for his unreasonable complaint about the failure of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reply to him. The hon. Gentleman wrote only nine days ago, on 28 February, as part of what is evidently a late flurry of activity on his part. I assure him that he will receive his reply shortly.

Her Majesty's railway inspectorate gives detailed guidance on safety provision at level crossings, which determines the standard of crossings in relation to the type of railway operation. The Level Crossings Regulations 1997 are an order-making procedure enabling level crossings to be upgraded. In general, orders would be confirmed under delegated powers by the railway inspectorate. However, if the orders were subject to objection, they could be referred to my Department and the Secretary of State for decision. In other words, the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in such matters. Hon. Members will therefore appreciate that Ministers are unable to comment on current cases. More significant improvements, such as removing a crossing and replacing it with a bridge, would generally be subject to planning permission or transport and works Acts orders. The Secretary of State determines those orders, so Ministers are unable to comment on the merits of individual cases.

The west coast main line, which passes through Staffordshire, is one of the country's main rail arteries, linking London with the west midlands, Merseyside, Manchester, north Wales and Glasgow. The crossings that concern the hon. Gentleman are on the north Staffordshire line. Renewal and upgrading of the west coast main line is probably the largest, and certainly one of the most complex, investments in railway infrastructure in the world. The current estimate of the total cost of the project is £5.8 billion, which will enable Virgin Trains to run more, faster trains on the fast lines and make enhancements to meet the Strategic Rail Authority's requirement for additional capacity for local and freight services on the slow lines. Faster trains create a requirement to upgrade level crossings to ensure safe operation. Replacing the level crossing with a bridge, upgrading from a half barrier to a full barrier or, in some cases, closing the crossing and diverting the road can achieve that.

The six crossings on the north Staffordshire line between Colwich junction and Stoke-on-Trent especially concern the hon. Gentleman. Railtrack has identified level crossings on this section of the west coast main line as being unsuitable for anticipated increases in train speeds and has developed proposals to respond to that. It has discussed its proposals with the county council, the railway inspectorate and other public bodies, and it has issued a press notice indicating its intentions at each crossing.

I propose to discuss in turn each crossing that concerns the hon. Gentleman. First, Hixon is the most southerly of the level crossings, and provides the most direct route between the villages of Hixon and Stafford. The crossing takes the form of an automatic half-barrier. Railtrack has decided to replace the crossing with a bridge, and planning permission has already been obtained.

Secondly, the Aston-by-Stone level crossing is on the B5027, on the edge of Stone. The residents of approximately 700 houses must use that crossing to reach Stone. It is an automatic half-barrier crossing, unprotected by signals on the railway line or closed circuit television.

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is relying, to a certain extent, on the same briefing paper that I used; I can hear it being repeated. We do not need to cover all my points again, but I would like to know what will be done about funding. That is the crucial element. I am not arguing for the issue to be dealt with according to the county council's suggestions, but we need a solution, and that will entail money, whether it is for a bridge, a tunnel or whatever.

It is important to put on the record the proposals that are being made so that we can understand the scale of additional works that may be necessary. I am attempting to outline those proposals so that we can clear out the brushwood before we deal with the wider issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman raised the large and complex issue of funding arrangements only in the past 24 hours, and the Government need time to consider those serious proposals in detail. I want to give him some assurance, but he must let me make my speech so that we may all understand what we are talking about.

If the hon. Gentleman will indulge me, I will return to the subject of the Aston-by-Stone level crossing. For operational reasons, that type of crossing is effectively closed to traffic for two minutes, compared with 40 seconds for the existing half-barrier crossing. The extended closure time for the full-barrier crossing would cause delays to road traffic. That is of great concern to local residents, who consider that a bridge should be provided.

The county council has conducted a feasibility study for a bridge, which is estimated to cost £3.5 million. Railtrack concluded that that cost was excessive. It subsequently decided that, to minimise delays to road traffic, it would not increase the line speed through the crossing, thereby maintaining safety without inconveniencing local residents.

Thirdly, the Meaford full-barrier crossing is in the centre of Stone. The county council and Railtrack agree that a bridge would be impractical there. Railtrack plans to improve the safety of the crossing by adding CCTV, which will be linked to the signal box. It is also considering whether the introduction of new traffic management systems in the vicinity of the crossing will improve safety further.

Fourthly, the Church lane crossing affects the only access point to approximately 100 houses on the edge of Stone. The current CCTV system has proved unreliable, and residents have expressed concerns about being cut off from their homes at some times. Railtrack is committed to replacing existing equipment to improve reliability without increasing the time in which the barriers are in operation.

Fifthly, the next crossing, adjacent to Barlaston station, is manually controlled. Railtrack has considered a bridge option at a cost of £2.5 million, but has announced its decision to upgrade to a CCTV system.

Finally, Railtrack has proposed to upgrade to a CCTV system another manual crossing on the private roads serving the Wedgwood factory and visitors' centre.

I also mentioned Blythe bridge.

The hon. Gentleman signalled in advance his intention to talk about Blythe bridge. I am glad to be able to respond by saying that I am aware of the two incidents that occurred at Newtons level crossing at Blythe bridge, which has a user-operated level crossing with a telephone. In two separate incidents on 17 June and 9 July 1998, trains struck stray cows on the line. A further incident occurred on 27 October 1998 at Blythe bridge when a car obstructed the line. However, Her Majesty's railway inspectorate considered that none of those incidents was worthy of investigation. Therefore, I do not expect Railtrack to take any action.

The hon. Gentleman has raised important issues concerning the possibility of special grant through the PFI, but I have said that we are considering bridges and alternatives to level crossings. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this part of Staffordshire has an unusually large number of level crossings, although I was surprised to learn the extent of the problem. We are discussing significant sums of money, and there are limits in the PFI structure on borrowing powers by local authorities. In December, the Government announced generous arrangements that more than double local transport planned provision for local authorities, and we cannot move rapidly to commitments on such significant expenditure.

I hear what the Minister is saying and I am encouraged by his positive approach and recognition of the problem, which would have to be accompanied by resources if a result were to be achieved. However, I must remind him that capital expenditure per head in Staffordshire is the lowest in the country at £1.39, and that is the Minister's figure, given in reply to a question only a few days ago. That is phenomenal, and is clearly connected with the lack of provision that I am seeking to redress.

Allocation of resources is, as the hon. Gentleman implied, a matter for local highways authorities. However, in general terms, the Government believe Staffordshire to be an enterprising and successful local transport authority, which makes its own judgment on whether it puts funding into integrated public transport schemes or road maintenance. We have more than doubled the funding available for road maintenance and investment under local transport plans, and I expect to see important consequential increases in investment in roads in Staffordshire.

To sum up, the Government are committed to the development of an efficient, customer-friendly and safe national railway network. The upgrade of the west coast main line is a key part of that overall strategy. The core investment programme to modernise the infrastructure of the west coast main line, including renewal of track, signalling, electricity supply and structures is the basis for the modernisation plans. Work is already under way to bring about the necessary improvements. Major work at Birmingham and Euston has recently been undertaken, and approximately 30 per cent. of the work has been completed at a cost of £800 million.

On detailed provision for specific level crossings, I must again make it clear that this is initially a matter for Railtrack and Her Majesty's railway inspectorate in discussion with local interests. However, legislation on level crossings requires the Secretary of State to determine orders when there are substantial objections.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I am sorry. I want to complete my speech.

Her Majesty's railway inspectorate has made a submission to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on level crossings, and my officials are considering the information prior to advising Ministers on that important issue. I have already said that while those submissions are under consideration, and prior to a decision by the Secretary of State, I am unable to offer any views on the merits of any of the alternatives in specific cases. However, I confirm the undertaking already given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to write to the hon. Gentleman on the possible PFI arrangement for the crossings. Meanwhile, I remain grateful to him for his contribution to this debate and deepening the Government's understanding of the issues.

The object of my debate is to raise the issue of moral education. I wanted to raise the issue in a general way, but the Table Office told me that I had to make it specific to a Department, so I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), for coming here to field my remarks in so far as they relate to schools.

My central claim is that morality is a complex subject worthy of our attention. That is not a trivial point. Our aim should be for all children leaving school to be able to understand the complexity of morality. They should be able to grasp key moral ideas and understand the structure of ethical arguments. They should be able to make moral judgments and understand how the capacity to engage in moral discourse is integrally related to the development of moral character. The exploration of morality has occupied philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, historians, poets, novelists and political scientists. Any one of us has but a shadowy grasp of the world of ethics, but we should all aspire to develop such an understanding of the subject as would enable us to live a good life.

Although morality is complex, the list of "ists" that I gave of those who have sought to understand it would leave most of those who graduate from our schools numb with boredom. The view of many of them is that morality is trivial. They see it as a sphere in which there are many conclusions but little use of reason, and which produces much certainty—as contributors to "The Moral Maze" evince—but involves little mutual understanding. While most school graduates know that much study is required to explain why a table can support a vase of flowers, most think that they are experts on morality. They feel that they need use little reasoning power to form conclusions about whether their own, or their mates', behaviour conforms to the moral law. Although they might not put it that way, comments such as, "It's just not on", or "He's gone too far", can function as moral judgements.

Our educational system and our society trivialise the complex subject of morality. I suggest to the Minister that the Government should pay attention to that paradox and that there should be new initiatives in education explicitly to address the matter. I sought this debate because of the demand that the father of little Damilola Taylor made for moral regeneration in our society. If we can stop trivialising morality, perhaps it will be taken seriously.

There are two particularly strong agencies of trivialisation, which may serve partly to explain why Parliament has so far failed to react to Mr. Taylor's impassioned request. Our children are failed by an education system that marginalises ethical inquiry, but they are failed, too, by a press that trivialises morality, particularly by sexualising it. The press, for the most part, sees the realm of the ethical as the realm of the sexual, not least because that seems to be a recipe for exciting the curiosity of a large readership.

One reason why morality is seldom broached in Parliament is because no Department has specific responsibility for it. Moreover, hon. Members who raise the issue are liable to be subject to malevolent treatment by the press. Someone who talks in public about morality is viewed as a target to be shot down, even if that requires extensive inquiries into his or her past, which will, of course, produce stories of the "Moralising MP stole lollipop from nursery friend" variety. Such malevolent trivialisation often takes a sexualised form, as in the "Minister had love nest" sort of story. I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I was thinking not of her, but of religious ministers. I do not deny that each of us can use the fact that others are sexually attracted to us to hurt, degrade, denigrate, betray and exploit them, but the immorality lies in the hurting, degrading and exploiting, not in the fact of seeking out and having a sexual relationship.

Perhaps because of such pressures, we end up with a Parliament that does not broach this subject. That is partly because the last time that such subjects were raised, under the premiership of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), those who did so were ridiculed, and partly because their credentials as a source of ethical authority were vilified. As it happens, I think that the idea that one could conduct a sensible ethical debate under the slogan "back to basics" or the rubric "a return to common sense" was hardly more sophisticated than the trivialisation it sought to transcend. Nevertheless, to take on the debate at all showed courage, and the fact that it ended in dismal failure is now taken as a warning that the area of the ethical is one that politicians enter at their peril. The result is a society that acquiesces in the ignorance of our young people about the subjects that are most important.

It is perhaps contentious to describe this subject as the most important of all, but what I want for my own children and, though I am naturally attracted to the idea that they will pass zillions of exams, what would make me most proud, is their turning out to be good people. Contrary to the tabloid model, by "good people" I do not mean that I do not want them to have a sexual identity. A propensity to sexual activity is a normal part of life, and the more extreme religious systems notwithstanding, to be a sexual being is fully compatible with being a good person.

Young people emerge from our schools with a trivialised understanding of moral ideas. Talk of virtues is regarded as antiquated. Literature written by great practitioners such as Milton, George Eliot and Dickens, in part to explain the formation of moral character, is regarded as dull, over-lengthy and out of date. The word "wicked" is a term of commendation, and young people in the public eye who might function as models for behaviour—such as Eminem—are more likely to describe their abuse of another person than to recommend an attitude of care and considerateness. We are left to live with some of the consequences of that neglect of the ethical. Those who graduate from school are often far more interested in earning a great deal of money than in constructing a life that will involve service to one's fellow human beings. It is becoming progressively harder to recruit to caring professions—teaching, the police, social work—and ever easier to recruit to causes and careers that are handsomely rewarded monetarily. In the late 18th century, Mandeville wrote an ironic text in which he argued that virtue is vice and vice is virtue, but only at the end of the twentieth century did "Greed is good' become a slogan for a way of life. Those who try to teach ethics are referred to by terms of abuse such as "moraliser", "preacher" and—after investigation of the contrast between what they say and what they do reveals the inevitable character flaws that we all share—"hypocrite". Given the cultural propensity to denigrate morality, it is astonishing to discover the resilience of core ethical ideas. In my constituency, for instance, 115 young people have signed up to devote a portion of their spare time to helping others through a young person's volunteer bureau. Last week, so many people turned up to the funeral in my constituency of Martin Lynch, who was both a head teacher and man of virtue, that the service had to be held in a cathedral. They, at least, had been set the example of a good man. Although our society is morally abstentionist, the human capacity to do good still emerges. We must re-establish as an explicit aim the moral education of our young people, so that such facts are not remarkable but commonplace.

What form does the trivialisation of the ethical take? From my experience, as a university teacher, I found that it took two forms. I found that most of those who arrived at university had emerged from school with a view that ethics was subjective, a matter of taste, and, hence, that it is a waste of time to discuss the realm of morality. There was a pathetic ethical theory of the 1930s that gave some vestigial intellectual support to that view. One might call it the "hurrah-boo" theory of ethics, which held that if one said that an action was morally good, one was only saying, first, that one approved of it and, secondly, hurrah! That reduced ethical argument to the level of a pub discussion between a fan of Rangers and a fan of Celtic. You, Mrs. Michie, might be an authority on such discussions.

The second strong influence on our schools and culture is the obedientiary view of ethics, which means that all one need do to be moral is obey. That has strong roots in the religious tradition in so far as it is authoritarian. In that tradition, to say that an action is good is to say that God has commanded it, and, hence, one must do it, which is a view accepted by most religions. Although that view of ethics works well for young children—I approve of it for that purpose because it lifts them up so that they can stand on the first rung of the ethical ladder—by the time a pupil has reached the age of 12 or 13 obedience to authority has less hold, regardless of whom, be they parental or transcendental, the young person is being enjoined to obey.

An obedientiary model may be reasonable for a five-year-old—"You must do it because I am your father." It may, however, prove uncompelling to a 15-year-old"—Just who are you to lay down the law?" It is imperative, therefore, that we ask what kind of ethical understanding we seek to engender in young people. Only if we address that question, can we provide a clue to schools and colleges about how, they might manage the transition from an obedientiary ethic to one based on a footing that will help older children and adults to understand that ethical judgments are substantive.

Some people will say that the Government are addressing the issue. There is, for instance, the citizenship agenda. I welcome that because it addresses part of what it is to have a developed ethic. I was canvassing recently and spoke to a man whose door was slightly obstructed by toys, which I thought might belong to his children. I told him that I was his Member of Parliament, to which he replied, "Not interested." I was unable to resist saying that it was just as well that some people were interested, or the social system of yesteryear, which ensured that the children of most people were denied educational opportunity, would still be in place. He said, "Look, mate, I'm only interested in number one." Indeed, he said that aggressively enough for me to vacate his doorstep shortly afterwards.

Perhaps the citizenship agenda will produce people who understand what a local council does, how democracy works and what one gets for paying taxes. I do not doubt that that will be a massive improvement on a society that was democratic in name, but which relied on tabloid newspapers and radio shock-jocks to tell people these things. It is hard to be a citizen if one does not know of what one is a citizen. The fundamental flaw is that one cannot use a course in citizenship to teach ethics because some people are citizens of states that require them to behave in immoral ways. The citizen should always be empowered to judge ethically the state of which he or she is a member. The standard example of an immoral state is the Nazi regime, but it may be sensible to admit that the phenomenon is quite common. An education in ethics transcends an education in citizenship, because it gives people the tools by which they might judge with confidence whether the state actually deserves their compliance.

The Government have introduced critical thinking into the curriculum. I welcome that initiative, not least because I taught it for many years. The ability to anatomise an argument, to understand its structure and to ascertain the extent to which its conclusion is justified is a crucial skill that empowers pupils and students to base their judgments on something more than prejudice and dubious authority. However, critical thinking is not enough. The most crucial use of the power of reasoning is on moral subjects, and there is strong evidence that critical thinking courses will not provide the pupil or student with an understanding of ethical theories that would make possible the application of such skills to the ethical domain. Between citizenship and critical thinking, the Government have produced a tasty sweet. The sweet, however, is a Polo mint, and ethics is the hole in the middle.

I do not have time to spell out the implications of the trivialisation of ethics on our wider society, but it has repercussions, even in Parliament. I was struck by recent debates on the use of embryonic stem cells for research, during which the Government's spokesperson used, primarily, a utilitarian ethical system—which she then explicitly disavowed. The debate on Alder Hey children's hospital primarily employed a deontological, or rights-based, ethical system. My own view is broadly Kantian, which is bound up with the idea that one should not use one's capacity for free action to do things that curtail a similar freedom for others. An essential respect and reverence for other human beings is involved in that. In view of the time allowed, I cannot do more than hint at my own moral position.

What I have sought to do is show that ethics is a complex matter that should not be treated as trivial. Some will say, "Who are you, to make such claims?" I would respond that, just as one does not have to understand the whole of human history to be able to teach history, one need not be omniscient about ethics, or be morally perfect, to be able to transmit some ethical wisdom to the young. We, the older generation, often relinquish that responsibility too readily because it is thought of as too difficult. We then end up with young people who lack the capacity to conduct a moral discourse or to consider ethical judgments rationally. That some young people behave so well, given the poor grounding that we give them, says something for human ethical resilience.

One result of pupils understanding the complexity of morality may be a heightened respect for moral law. Such respect would require many parties—teachers, politicians, parents and editors of newspapers—to recognise that trivialising morality renders a grave disservice to our fellow human beings. The father of Damilola Taylor called for moral regeneration in our society. I ask the Minister to help that process by ensuring that both the citizenship and critical thinking curriculums give explicit attention to ethical subjects. That might help the next generation to be better at teaching, parenting, publishing and politicking than we have been. The memory of a little boy who died because some people did not see him as a human being, but as an object, deserves nothing less.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the debate. As he pointed out, the debate is very wide. It stretches beyond any single Department and into the realms of individual and family responsibility and how our communities and other influences, such as the media, operate.

For that reason, it is not possible for schools and the education system to be the sole forum for dealing with the problems that my hon. Friend rightly identified. Because we know that our teachers and schools can be effective, we must ensure that our schools and education system provide opportunities for young people to learn about ethical and moral dimensions. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I use the remaining time to concentrate on what schools and the education system can do.

I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to ensuring that young people are taught about ethical, moral and philosophical issues. As a Government, we have taken broad strides forward in the education system, especially by investing in developing pupils' critical thinking. We have introduced a new national curriculum, which includes, for the first time, a framework for personal, social and health education and citizenship for all children from the ages of five to 16. For the first time, a statement of values forms an integral part of the national curriculum. Part of that statement of values in the national curriculum handbook relates to the self. It states:

"We value ourselves as unique human beings capable of spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical growth and development."

That clearly sets the context for what we expect our schools to deliver and our children to learn within the national curriculum. Of course, ethical issues are also covered in a wide range of curriculum subjects. Certain aspects of science, history and geography develop children's cognitive abilities and investigative skills. However, I want to concentrate on ethical education.

There are already good examples of schools that are developing in young people the skills that enable them to make the kinds of decisions that my hon. Friend described. Schools that teach those skills demonstrate respect for the individual pupil, resulting in less disaffection. For example, Mason Moor primary school in Southampton has demonstrated the value of an emotional literacy strategy derived from philosophy in giving pupils appropriate means to express their emotions, rather than using verbal or physical violence. Pupils as young as five and six are developing a rich spoken and written vocabulary within the literacy hour, making the important curriculum link. The school has reported the impact of this work on behaviour—it is reflected in increasing attendance and reduced exclusions.

My hon. Friend said that he wants his children to leave the education system not only with the high standards of education towards which the Government strive, but as good people. I remind him that the Green Paper, "Schools building on success", which the Government published last month, explicitly set out our plans to promote standards and education with character. It emphasises the importance of creativity, flexibility, reasoning, logical thinking, and social and moral responsibility through citizenship. It stresses the need for schools to develop a positive, respectful and can-do ethos. Ethical education has a key role to play in future education provision.

A major step forward since my hon. Friend last introduced a debate on moral and philosophical issues—an interesting and wide-ranging debate that I was able to read before coming here today—has been our new personal, social and health education and citizenship framework. I shall turn to some of the shortcomings that my hon. Friend identified. However, I should point out—as we are talking about something that has to make a practical difference in schools—that the framework is supported by £12 million of standards fund money this year and £15 million next year. We are not asking schools to deliver progress without the necessary support and funding to spend on curriculum materials, resources and training.

Our new personal, social, health education and citizenship framework will provide children with the opportunities identified by my hon. Friend to think seriously about moral, social and political issues. It will encourage the development of inquiry, reflection and debating skills. It will enable young people to learn to take responsibility for themselves, to understand the implications of certain actions on a day-to-day level and for society. Young people should be taught at every age to consider social and moral dilemmas. For example, pupils aged between five and seven might learn about fairness and the difference between right and wrong. Between the ages of eight and 11 they might be taught about respect and understanding between different races and how to deal with harassment. The ages of 12 to 14 are particularly important as children grow and develop, so they could learn how their choices as consumers affect other people's economies and environments. At key stage 4, 15 to 16-year-olds could consider social and moral dilemmas such as genetic engineering. The personal, social and health education framework emphasises the development of respect for other people and the sort of attitudes that my hon. Friend identified. I shall refer to that later.

My hon. Friend suggested that citizenship covers only political literacy. Important though that is, I would argue that the citizenship curriculum has been framed to provide important opportunities for spiritual and moral development through awareness and understanding of meaning and purpose in life and of different values in society. It also supports moral development by helping pupils to develop a critical appreciation of issues of right and wrong, justice, fairness, rights, and obligations in society. It also places an important emphasis on active involvement. My hon. Friend gave examples of young people volunteering in his constituency, and that is important as we develop our work to promote citizenship education in schools. We are emphasising those three strands. Political literacy is important, but so is the active involvement of young people in decisions about themselves, their schools, their community and broader moral issues. From September 2002, citizenship education will be a statutory entitlement for all children in secondary schools.

My hon. Friend referred to sex, and I accept some of his points about the way in which our society deals with issues concerning sex, which are reflected in the Government's decisions to improve sex and relationship education. Many young people believe that their previous sex education put too much emphasis on the mechanics and too little on the importance of developing relationships, and research supports that view. Through personal, social and health education, and our guidance to schools, we are putting greater emphasis on developing the important skills for relationships and respect for themselves and others.

It is worth referring to the Government's policy on bullying. It is important that all schools have a policy for tackling bullying. The revised guidance that we issued last year emphasised that and the importance of schools involving young people in discussion and debate on how to operate policies on bullying most effectively. Personal, social and health education and the way in which that is reflected throughout the school provide an important opportunity for young people to engage in discussion about their own behaviour, the way in which they treat other people and the rules and decisions that are necessary in a school to make it the sort of environment that we would want for all our young people.

The debate is wide ranging. I have addressed only the areas where the Government, schools and teachers are playing an important part in developing young people who are able to make the kind of moral decisions that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead outlined. That is not a job for schools alone. We have a wider responsibility as individuals, parents and in our communities. However, I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that not only the Government, but the education system that we support, will continue to play an important role.

I am grateful to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for coming to the debate, especially as she has probably realised that my main aim is to lobby her.

I shall begin by explaining the current situation in relation to foot and mouth in West Dorset. For the record, I want to say that I have spent much of the morning, in between commentaries on the Budget, receiving calls from constituents enraged by the decision of the Jockey Club. It might have been insensitive to raise that, and I know that it is not the Minister's responsibility or fault, but I want the Jockey Club's authorities to register that if they had wanted to earn the disfavour of the agricultural and rural communities, they could hardly have taken a better step.

In a sense, foot and mouth is non-existent in West Dorset. We are—or, at lunchtime, we were—among the privileged agricultural areas that do not have any cases. Some are very close, and my own house lies within the 8 km range around some cases near Chard. However, it is not foot and mouth itself that is affecting West Dorset. That makes the situation all the more important and interesting from a national perspective. We have seen the extent to which, even where foot and mouth itself has not struck, its effects have struck deeply.

I am profoundly grateful for the short-term relief provided by the licensing scheme. I was involved in trying to enable one of my local abattoirs to receive licensed stock, and that has now happened. I pay tribute to the officials in the veterinary service in Taunton for enabling that. I would not want any of my remarks to be construed as an attack either on officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or on the Minister herself. However, the effects of foot and mouth on agriculture in West Dorset can be described, without hyperbole, as disastrous.

The examples that I could give of the disaster number hundreds, rather than dozens. One example is a constituent from Monkton Wyld, near Bridport, who is a lowland sheep farmer. In a letter to me, he said:

"Due to the export ban, which normally accounts for 30 per cent. of our lamb sold, market prices have crashed by more than 25 per cent. … We have now lost a huge export market … The loss of this export market and consumer confidence is a huge"—

and possibly terminal—

"hit to our industry."

That is purely symptomatic of a range of correspondence that I have received.

We have seen serious effects in both the sheep and beef sectors. As the Minister will be aware, there is a heavy concentration of dairy production in my constituency. The long-term effects of the previous beef export ban meant that there was not a huge amount of beef exporting, but such as there was has now ceased again. The long-range effects of the current crisis, added to the previous difficulties, will be severe for the beef sector.

My constituency also has some of the most efficient pig producers in the UK, including advanced process industries that combine dairy production with pigs in processes that run in cycles. The pig industry in West Dorset suffers from exactly the same problems as the beef and sheep industries. There is a near disaster in all those sectors, and in the last week or two it has been for some of my farmers not just a disaster, but the end.

There will also be the cost of restocking, which one can expect will be greater than the original cost of stocking, because of the effects of this crisis. There are also ricochet effects on a much wider range of businesses outside agriculture. I have received a letter from a constituent in Poyntington near Sherborne who is a livestock and general haulier. He writes:

"We are a small family run livestock haulier. Five years ago we ran a flourishing business with 6 lorries and 8 staff. Due to the BSE crisis, the pig industry on its knees a few years later, the fuel cost rising 42 per cent., we had no choice but to sell 4 lorries and make all our staff redundant, many of whom were very experienced livestock handlers."

That business now faces a further attack on its profits. My constituent writes:

"We feel that with all the knocks and bumps we have had, especially this week"—

that was last week—

"where we will not even earn a single penny due to the livestock movement ban … we are now surely entitled to compensation."

I have heard that call from many quarters.

Everything that I have said so far, not necessarily with particular reference to West Dorset, but as part of a general national phenomenon, will be well known to the Minister. West Dorset is no different from many parts of the UK in the current crisis: farmers face catastrophic or near catastrophic demise. Why has this single, and as yet not too prolonged, crisis had this effect? The answer lies in the background.

I was lucky enough to have an Adjournment debate on agriculture in West Dorset in April 1998. The Minister's predecessor, the current Minister of State, Department of Social Security, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), said:

"It is expected that the situation in agriculture will be temporary … I accept that there are difficulties in all sectors of agriculture, but we expect them to be temporary."—[Official Report, 20 April 1988; Vol. 310, c. 569–70.]

He was entirely honest. That was the genuine expectation al that time. As the Minister knows well, however, the difficulties have not been temporary. They have not been permanent, but, as Keynes famously remarked, in the long run we are all dead, and this has been a very long run. We have seen persistent drops in farm incomes from levels that, two or three years ago, we thought would be the nadir. They now look close to a zenith.

Throughout West Dorset an increasing number of young people are deciding either to leave the industry or not to enter it. We have seen problems in every sector of farming simultaneously. That is the worst feature of what is now a prolonged crisis. It is not the case that one thing has gone badly and another well so that farmers can switch from one mode of production to another. My farmers are not whingers. I have never met a group of people more inclined to be upstanding, entrepreneurial and effective, and to look after themselves without complaint. I do not mean that they do not complain about the weather or whatever, but those complaints are is not serious. They get on with the job. They intend to look after themselves and to provide for their families. They work hard. They have been working uphill these past three or four years and many are now crawling uphill, as an emperor once had to do to see the pope.

Against that background, what would have been a severe disruption to the industry or a serious inconvenience, has become a disaster, I am grateful that some steps have been taken. I am grateful that the efforts that some of us made to ban people walking across fields have resulted, in my own area, in action by Dorset county council over the past 48 hours to stop such people.

I am grateful for the agrimonetary compensation; my farmers will welcome it with open arms. I am also happy that efforts have been made to relieve some constraints on movement across roads from one field to another. Although it is a pity that it was not pre-planned, I am also grateful that so much work was put in so quickly and effectively to the construction of the licensing scheme, which is a lifeline for some of my farmers.

I want to take this opportunity to offer a laundry list—perhaps I should rephrase that. I beseech the Minister to consider a series of moves that I believe are necessary. Some of them are short-term, some medium-term and others long-term. All would have a significant impact on the disaster in the agriculture industry in West Dorset.

I believe that there is an overwhelming case for using some of the contingency reserve to meet precisely the kind of civil emergency that contingency reserves are designed to deal with. I accept that the agrimonetary compensation is helpful, but considerable additional compensation will be necessary in the light of what is happening in export markets. Without that support, many of my pig or sheep farmers will not survive.

The Minister might have made a start on this, but we need to address urgently the question of a fair market price under the licensing scheme. It is a problem about which I have received many calls and correspondence in recent days. I make no accusations against the abattoirs or supermarkets; it would be irresponsible to do so, and I am sure that they are doing their best. However, our farmers believe that they will be subject to serious pricing problems, unless a market price is established. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is already considering mechanisms by which some kind of proxy market could be established by next week, and I urge that to be done at full speed. I offer my co-operation, and I am sure that hon. Members from nearby rural seats would offer their help, in getting those mechanisms agreed and established.

We also need to widen the relaxation of the restrictions on animal movements on welfare grounds, and I will give the Minister some examples that have come to my attention in recent weeks. There is still an urgent need for sheep to get back to the main holding for lambing, which is not permitted under today's loosening of cross-road restrictions, and for calved heifers to get back to dairies for milking. Of course, my farmers accept that it will be necessary for movements to be carefully controlled in those areas. In the pig industry, the transport of weaners to fattening units presents exactly the same problems. Such problems are an inconvenience for a few days, but they are becoming a crisis. Action must be taken now.

I will now turn to the medium term and to problems that have been raised with me over the past few months and years by farmers. Action was needed anyway, but the need has increased as a result of the present crisis. Almost all my farmers in the dairy sector are extremely worried by the continued increase in the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis. There is no doubt that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the good guy in that debate, but I fear that its hand is not yet sufficiently strong in Whitehall. The BSE inquiry referred to compelling evidence of a connection between badgers and bovine TB. We understand that the Krebs experiments are not yet complete, but the fact is that bovine TB is, in effect, putting farms out of business in West Dorset. I would be happy to take the Minister around some farms if she wanted to see for herself. If action is not taken, we could see a crisis that is parallel in parallel in dimension to the current and BSE crises.

I have repeatedly raised country-of-origin labelling with Ministers, and so have other Members who represent rural constituencies. It is a persistent, and justified, gripe among farmers in my constituency that there is no clarity about the genuine origin of meat processed in the United Kingdom, and many consumers believe that they are buying welfare-friendly animal products when they are not. I admit that the Meat and Livestock Commission is not blameless, and I will ask why it is not doing more about the red tractor arrangements.

The Farm Business Advice Service is widely welcomed in West Dorset, and is all the more needed in the current crisis. More farmers will be on the edge, and the advisory service may help them to get over the edge without descending down the abyss, if I may mix my metaphors horribly. Alas, it is not available: the experience of farmers in my constituency is that they cannot get any more help from the service; 81 farms in Dorset—3 per cent.—have received help, but many others have been told that funds are not available.

On the subject of cattle passports, despite my repeated efforts and those of others, the British Cattle Movement Service remains a serious bureaucratic difficulty for farmers. I shall not trouble the Minister by quoting from letters that I have received from farmers with problems because the BCMS does not work correctly. There is no ill intention; it simply does not work well.

A radical review of the operation of BCMS and urgent consideration of the system of inspections is required. It is a paradox that the current disaster was not prevented by a highly intrusive system of inspection, although I accept that not everything can be prevented. One pig farm in my constituency was completely disrupted for about a week recently while an inspection was carried out. I do not deny the need for careful inspection, but it is being done in a way that makes it extraordinarily difficult for many farmers to continue their ordinary business, and that must be looked at.

I welcome progress in the organic aid scheme, but it is still not right and there is not enough aid. I have had prolonged correspondence on behalf of constituents with various levels of its bureaucracy; it seems that the strictest interpretation is always applied, and people find themselves excluded from the scheme.

The disposal of fallen stock is a disaster waiting to happen. I will not enter into the hunting debate, but the Minister knows that the steps that her Government have taken mean that the problem of fallen stock will probably be exacerbated by a ban on hunting. It is already a serious problem. We are trying to gather the forces of the National Farmers Union and the county council and so on, but central assistance is needed. MAFF must make an effort to catalyse local discussions. It is difficult to imagine how we will resolve the problem of fallen stock without incineration, and, alternatively, of how to get incineration without the local population objecting to it. It is a conundrum, and we need help from Whitehall.

Crisis-ridden as they are, my farmers welcome the statement that there will be a long-term review of agriculture. They would not want it to start tomorrow, and nor would the Ministry, which, like the farmers, has plenty on its hands at present. Such a review is needed, however, and if it is to be effective, it needs to consider the deep causes of the current problems. It must also consider renegotiation of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy and asymmetric legislation between this and other countries on animal welfare, as, at present, animal cruelty and jobs are merely being exported. It must consider the failure of the milk market, which I know has been examined before, but not adequately. The long-term relationship between environmental protection and agricultural subsidy must also be assessed. I persist in believing that agricultural subsidy is not justified on industrial grounds. The correct industrial configuration is a free market. Agricultural subsidies are justified in terms of environmental protection. This country has yet to undertake a serious analysis of the costs of maintaining the rural environment without farming and of the extent to which farming is diminishing rather than increasing the need for subsidy. The subject must be analysed with great care; without that, we shall never reach a stable view of agricultural subsidy.

I apologise for speaking for longer than I had originally intended and hope that the Minister will forgive me for squeezing her time to reply. In a sense, it is more important that these messages reach her Ministry than that we hear her reply. Doubtless, similar messages will come from other parts of the country. Actions must be taken in the short, medium and long term. If they are not, what is presently a crisis, and what has been, alas, a crisis for the past four or more years will lead to the gradual evaporation of agriculture in West Dorset and similar places. A whole society and a way of life will be lost. Farmers, my whole population and I do not want that to happen.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on securing the debate—his second on the subject, as he told us. I fully understand why he chose this subject for an Adjournment debate. He said that he wanted to lobby me, which is not an unusual experience for agriculture Ministers. I have taken note of his various points and shall endeavour to respond to as many as I can. I am also happy to write to him if he wishes.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the farming community in West Dorset, and I appreciate the manner in which he advanced them. No one could disguise the fact that these are difficult times for farming. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the current foot and mouth crisis is compounding other hardships that the farming industry has had to face across the country, not least severely depressed farm incomes, which are at their lowest level for many a year.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the earlier debate and to the replies of my right hon. Friend, the former Minister of State. The strength of our currency—perhaps I should say the weakness of the euro—meant that economic problems persisted much longer than many people anticipated. Developments in world commodity prices meant that downward pressure continued. Some agricultural sectors experienced improvements. Although farmers went through a difficult time, pig prices recently improved. The situation has not been entirely static, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's basic point that farmers experienced difficulties for much longer than anyone imagined or predicted.

Unsurprisingly, the hon. Gentleman spent some time reflecting on the problems caused by the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease and its effects on farmers in his constituency. He pointed out that although no cases have been confirmed in West Dorset, its farmers have, like others, been badly affected by the necessary movement restrictions and other measures that have come into force. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he lived in an exclusion zone. Although I live in an urban area, I, too, am in such a zone, because farms very much on the fringe of the urban area in which I live have also been affected and there have been confirmed cases there. I therefore understand from a personal point of view—as well as from the point of view of an Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister—the situation that he has described.

The number of confirmed cases stands, I am told, at 81, and thousands of animals have been destroyed. I welcome the strong support that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Opposition have given to the measures that the Government have taken and the general support for the containment, control and eradication strategy that is under way. I also welcome what he said about the fact that we have managed to get some animals moving to slaughter and therefore some British meat back on the shelves in our shops and supermarkets. Those issues have been discussed at both national and European level in recent days. It will interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, at yesterday's meeting of Europe an vets in Brussels, our approach was endorsed and that the slaughter policy, which has come under debate, was felt by them to be the most appropriate policy.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulties that have been raised with me by sheep farmers about the imminence of lambing and the difficulties that that is causing, particularly when ewes are in locations where it is not desirable for them to lamb. We are very much aware of that issue and are considering it as sympathetically as we can, while recognising the need for constraints to ensure that we do not help to spread the disease further.

We urge farmers to be responsible and supportive, as we believe that the overwhelming majority has been. We also continue to urge the general public to keep away from footpaths on livestock farms. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about some of the controls on footpaths that have been introduced in his area. It is fair to point out that, in considering foot and mouth disease, we must try to learn the lessons of the previous large-scale outbreak that we had in 1967. The number of cases started to drop after that time, and we then had a lull. Unfortunately, however, because the controls were not as effective as they should have been, we had a renewed and very damaging further series of outbreaks. Therefore, despite our sympathy for the farmers' very real need to be able to move animals in certain circumstances, everyone would want us to be absolutely sure that any lull does not lead to a relaxation of measures that could create massive problems in the long term.

The hon. Gentleman referred, understandably, to the losses being experienced by farmers in his constituency. The policy of successive Governments has certainly been not to pay consequential losses, because of the difficulties of drawing a line on where they begin and end, of defining them and of the public bill involved. None the less, we are considering ways in which we can help the rural communities and farmers most affected.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the payment of agrimonetary compensation. I believe that it is helpful; it is certainly helpful to some of the livestock farmers who have been affected. I hope that, like me, he will welcome the fact that we have not only agreed to pay that money but have entered into an arrangement with the European Commission by which we can pay the money much more speedily than is normal. The Commission has accepted that we are in a unique position and that it is important to be able to make the payments over the next few weeks, rather than having to wait four or five months, which would have been the normal arrangement in such circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman referred to pig farmers in his area. They do not benefit from agrimonetary compensation, because the European rules do not cover them. For that reason, we have been considering ways of making the pig industry restructuring money available to meet the circumstances of pig farmers been affected by the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the loss of exports that parts of the agricultural industry in his area are experiencing. Again, that points to the fact that we need—

Order.