May I say how pleased I am to have this debate in the closing weeks before the summer recess? The topic is important, so it is right that we should air it again. I am also pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), is present. I am sure that she will bring the same sympathy, compassion and dedication to her new role that she brought to her previous one.

Over the years, I have visited many refugee camps and prisons across the world. However, until I visited Cardiff prison two weeks ago with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), I had visited only one prison in the United Kingdom, which was a women's prison in Bristol. There are 44 asylum seekers in Cardiff prison of 20 different nationalities, including people from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kosovo, Albania and Zimbabwe. They have all been refused asylum by an immigration officer at a port or at their point of entry, and they have been refused bail while their appeal is under way. They usually have legal representation, but solicitors sometimes send agents, who are often inexperienced, to deal with bail applications.

The situation in Cardiff prison hit the press when asylum seekers were taken in handcuffs to a local hospital. That shocked many people in Cardiff and elsewhere. When we visited the prison, the authorities told us that asylum seekers were treated the same as other prisoners because they were in a prison regime.

Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North nor I have any criticism of the staff at Cardiff prison. We found them sympathetic, and they were both concerned and resentful at being asked to perform a duty that they felt they should not have to perform. A constituent of mine, who is a prison officer there, told me, "I think it's absolutely disgraceful. These people should not be in prison." All the prison officials with whom we spoke echoed that view.

Most of the staff who deal with the asylum seekers receive some training. One group had visited Belmarsh prison. As far as we could ascertain, no extra resources are given to the prison authorities to educate asylum seekers. The asylum seekers are held in cells, in which they are usually locked up for 12 hours a day. We managed to talk to a few of them, but communication proved difficult because no interpreter was available. It was, therefore, a halting conversation. One asylum seeker had kitchen skills, but the others' skills were not known to the prison authorities, which concerns me. The authorities know little about the asylum seekers' countries of origin. Although they provide special food and prayer facilities, they do not know the circumstances from which those people have fled.

The capacity of Cardiff prison is tight; there are about 640 inmates. At present, Welsh prisoners are sent to English prisons because there is not enough room for them in Cardiff prison. In one cell, we met a Pakistani—a very cultured man—who was a scholar, and the author of 37 books. He would have kept us there all morning if we could have spent that amount of time with him. He could not understand why he was being detained. We met a Tamil from Sri Lanka, who had left Sri Lanka because of the daily violence there. He had owned his own bakery. We met an Iranian who was a technician in an oil refinery. Due to language difficulties, it was not possible to find out why he had left his country.

One of the prison officers told us that the staff were concerned that the asylum seekers were mixing with other prisoners and were being introduced to drugs. In spite of the best efforts of the prison authorities, drugs are brought into prisons. It was also alleged that asylum seekers were being taught how to forge credit cards. Obviously, that skill may be useful to them in future, but they should not be learning it.

We met a man from Kosovo, whose father and brother had disappeared. He was frightened for his life so he decided to flee. Everyone understands why people fled Kosovo at the time that he did. He did not know the whereabouts of his father and brother; he believed that they were dead. The day before we arrived, he learned that his mother was in prison in Tirana, Albania. We asked whether he had managed to talk to anyone and he told us that access to the telephone was very limited—something that others have confirmed. There is one telephone per 50 of the prison population. Even when I visited refugee camps in Macedonia with the Select Committee on International Development, one of the points that we made to the authorities there, and to the Government when we returned, was that the first thing that people wanted to do when they fled their countries was to make contact with their family or friends. It is essential that they are able to do that. We managed to convince the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to arrange for mobile telephones to be brought into the refugee camps in Macedonia so that people could make those important telephone calls. The Kosovan man was ready to go back to Albania. He wanted to go to Tirana to see his mother. I hope that he will be able to do that soon.

The staff of Cardiff prison have been attacked in the press, and I repeat that those staff are doing the best that they can in the circumstances. I would not want anything that I say today to be considered as a criticism of their difficult work. If asylum seekers cannot speak English, it is important that interpreters are available. Similarly, if those seeking asylum want to learn English, those facilities should be available. That is a basic right.

This morning I received a letter that was handed to the Refugee Council on 2 May. It is from a Zimbabwean and others in Cardiff prison. There are a number of signatures attached. Obviously, in the light of what we saw there and the conversations that we had, we cannot verify the claims that he makes, but it is right that I place it on record. He said:

"As asylum seekers in this prison, we strongly object the inhuman treatment we are subjected to. We feel that there is a need for audience with both immigration and human rights support services within the country as we suspect that there is a conspiracy against us…Most of the detainees have relatives in England (London) but immigration have chosen to detain them in"

a Welsh prison. He continues:

"This is meant to deter you from seeking assistance from well-wishers/relatives and in London, some had personal solicitors in London of which they lost contact with, due to tricky unwarranted movements. During this period immigration expects you to source additional evidence to support your claim in court yet they are hampering all your access to information and you call this justice…Here at Cardiff prison we are treated like animals as compared to criminal remand prisoners and those serving sentences. Some of us we have never been arrested before, and just found ourselves in a prison cell sharing facilities with convicts of different crimes people committing suicide and unwarranted bullying from prison officers. You try and seek explanation from the local immigration officer, why you are in prison, 'the answer lies with immigration in London' all he is instructed to help you go back to your country if you are fed up…Association is divided between criminal remand prisoners and immigration detainees but you find that preferential treatment is given to the former evidenced by the following. From Mon 19/03/01 to Mon 02/04/01 we only got 2 hrs free from every 48 hrs, locked in the cells. From Tues 03/04 to Friday 06.04 we were locked up for more than 78 hours…no shower and no explanation, but fellow prisoners were allowed out all the time. Again this is not surprising cause we are not British.

We don't know the difference between us and other asylum seekers as these are not subjected to the same conditions ie Campsfield Detention Centre (Oxford) people are free to receive calls and interaction throughout the day until late, but here we are only allowed £16 worth of phone cards each week equivalent to 15 mins talking time when calling a mobile. You are expected to discuss with solicitors relatives both locally and internationally using just this…We used to think that Britain was the Cradle of Justice, human rights and equality the world over hence this level of abuse only prompts one to conclude that this is an epicentre of racism it only confirms that MPs statement which states 'Asylum seekers are compared to rats in a bucket who create social tension'. This is what we are fleeing from and we wouldn't expect this level of torture from a developed country, more-so a signatory of the 1951 Human Rights UN convention."

As I said, I have no way of checking that out.

Iraq, Sri Lanka, the Republic of Yugoslavia, Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan accounted for about half of all UK asylum applications last year. Serious human rights abuses, including torture, occur in all those countries, as even the British tabloids cannot deny. As Europe tightens its immigration controls, it is now virtually impossible for someone fleeing persecution to reach safety in the UK legally. Those asylum seekers who have entered Britain illegally may have had no other option.

Britain has signed the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, which gives anyone the legal right to claim asylum. Anyone who has claimed asylum has a legal right to remain in the UK until the claim has been assessed.

The truth is that we do not bear the greatest asylum strain—the world's poorest countries do. Most refugees have always gone to neighbouring countries and will probably always do so. I want to put the problem in context. Iran currently has something like 1.8 million refugees from Afghanistan. Pakistan has 1.2 million refugees. Britain had just 76,000 new arrivals last year. Some of us have visited refugee camps and have seen, for example, Kurdish refugees fleeing over the mountains to Iran or Turkey. In 1991, the Turkish border came down pretty fast; the Iranians kept their borders open for much longer. When we see the plight of those people, we realise that they leave their homes not because they want to, but because of persecution.

At the end of May, about 1,787 refugees were detained in British prisons. Some 396 were detained in an immigration detention centre, 247 at Oakington detention centre and 1,144 in prisons. During the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, the Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn, told the other place that he accepted, on the Government's behalf, the principle that

"no detainee ought to be kept in the prison regime. That cannot be brought about overnight, but we accepted the principle immediately…David Ramsbotham was absolutely right, and we said so at the time."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 717.]

The Government's report "Fairer, Faster and Firmer" stated that we needed a statutory framework for detention centres. It proposed to seek the power to regulate the rights and responsibilities of detainees and detention centre managers. Those rules have been approved by Parliament, and reflect the fact that detention centres must account for the difference between asylum seekers and criminals. The Refugee Council believes that if the rules are to serve their purpose and protect detained asylum seekers, we should cease to use prisons for that group.

Amnesty International's 2001 report notes with concern that, at any given time, there are about 1,000 asylum seekers in detention. The British Medical Association's new handbook for doctors on human rights says that the routine use of prison detention is an abuse of asylum seekers' human rights. The UNHCR's detention guideline 10, "Conditions of Detention", says that asylum seekers should not be detained in prisons. The "Sanctuary in a Cell" report on the detention of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland has found that

"the moral and legal obligation to grant sanctuary to those fleeing persecution is being systematically undermined by the criminalisation of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland."

The chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, has on several occasions stated that he does not consider the detention of asylum seekers to be a fit and proper role for the Prison Service. In January he said:

"I don't think it's right to hold people who have not been accused of or committed a crime, in prison conditions…prison rules do not apply to those who are wholly innocent of any offence".

The chief executive of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders said that prisons

"are wholly inappropriate for people in a distressed and vulnerable state."

The UNHCR's United Kingdom representative, Hope Hanlan, has also attacked using prisons in such a way. She says:

"There is nothing to justify putting people in prison. Once you do that you raise all sorts of humanitarian issues."

She added that no other country in Europe did that. The Asylum Rights Campaign has produced a summary of its concerns about how asylum seekers are detained, particularly in prison. It makes the point that prisons are understaffed and overcrowded and that there are excessive lock-up times, sometimes between 16 and 18 hours a day.

On the possibility of applying detention centre rules in prison, governors said that it would be impossible to run separate regimes for convicted remand and immigration detainees in a single establishment. An old Victorian prison such as Cardiff is in much need of refurbishment. The conditions are pretty bad for people who are meant to be in prison. When we visited that prison on a very warm day, we found the conditions to be particularly oppressive.

At the end of last year, the Government announced that a further 500 places for asylum seekers had been secured from the Prison Service. Ministers in the previous Government claimed that that was a temporary measure. The previous Minister said that prison places would be used as an interim, short-term measure. In 1999, Sir David Ramsbotham said of Rochester prison:

"Most of all I must express my concern at the poor treatment and conditions of the numbers of asylum seekers, immigration detainees and other foreign nationals who form almost half the prison population.

Detainees were treated as if they were unconvicted prisoners. This approach seemed to be based on guidelines from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and was adopted by prison staff in their dealings with them."

The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture sent me this week a study of Pakistani torture survivors who come to the UK that makes particularly disturbing reading. It has recorded 11 cases in which torture victims were detained in mainstream prisons instead of receiving temporary admission. I urge people to read the study. It states:

"Holding asylum seekers in prison, where they are forced to mix with people accused of serious criminal offences, conflicts with the Government's own policy as stated in the same White Paper. …

In each of the eleven cases, the asylum seekers were imprisoned—on average for just over 9 months, but in one case for more than 20 months—despite giving evidence of torture during initial interviews with immigration officers about their reasons for fleeing into exile.

Medical examination by Foundation doctors found that each of those held had scars—some a dozen or more—and other marks on the body fully consistent with the account of torture. One man had 32 scars, although when he was screened on arrival in prison, the word 'Nil' was entered in the section headed 'Abnormalities, scars etc.'

In only one instance was an asylum seeker quickly freed after being examined by a Foundation doctor. The others remained in prison for months after a medical report from the Foundation had been prepared."

All the asylum seekers described in the study had endured various torture methods in Pakistan. I will not go through them, but one in five of the sample had suffered sexual torture, some of whom had been raped. In spite of all the evidence of torture in Pakistan that human rights observers have provided, the Home Office made a formal legal declaration in 1996 that, in its view, there was generally no serious risk of persecution in Pakistan. Earlier this year, however, the Appeal Court confirmed the ruling that to characterise Pakistan in that way was unlawful and irrational.

The study concludes that the Home Office hardly ever makes a proper evaluation of the evidence of torture from the individual's testimony, or from what is known of torture in Pakistan and from medical evidence. The Medical Foundation also found the same deficiencies when the Home Office examined asylum applications made by its clients from Turkey, India and Sri Lanka. The foundation maintains that such deficiencies lead to a systematic failure by the UK to honour its international obligations to protect asylum seekers with a history of torture.

Over the past couple of days, Asylum Link Merseyside, which the Minister may know of, has faxed me a petition with 1,700 signatures. It is headed "Free asylum seekers held without trial in Walton prison". It is addressed to the Home Secretary.

"As our newly appointed Home Secretary we the undersigned urge you to use your office to release asylum seekers held unjustly in Walton (Liverpool) prison and other high security prisons. This situation is an outrage and cannot be justified and we ask for immediate action to release all asylum seekers so that they can be given access to decent conditions whilst awaiting a review of their claims for refugee status. We know you are an advocate for human rights and request you give this matter your urgent attention."

I have had a letter from the Immigration Advisory Service. It refers to the use of vouchers, which is, of course, a contentious issue. The IAS says:

"We take the view that the system is so flawed and now so expensive in comparison with giving benefits to asylum seekers while their cases are being considered that it should be scrapped. …the application of this system is causing widespread misery and has not had the intended effect of deterring asylum seekers from coming to the UK."

The Select Committee on International Development visited Montserrat in the early days of the volcano crisis and followed that up a year later with another visit. We discovered that the use of vouchers was one of the things that caused people on Montserrat the greatest concern. We managed to get the voucher system scrapped. If we can do that on Montserrat, we should also do so in the UK.

The Refugee Council has provided me with considerable briefing material, as have other organisations. It believes that asylum seekers should be detained only in exceptional circumstances and that they should not be detained in prison. It notes that something is seriously wrong if asylum seekers can be detained, sometimes in prisons, for long periods—sometimes approaching two years. The council calls for the Government to publish a regular breakdown by nationality, gender and so on of the number of asylum seekers detained under the Immigration Act 1988. I have tabled a question on that subject, which is awaiting a reply from the Minister. The council also believes that the bail provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 should be implemented as soon as possible.

The Prime Minister wrote in The Times in May:

"we must never cease to be a country offering refuge to the genuinely persecuted. Never forget, in all this fuss about the false cases, that there are still many people fleeing racial, religious or political persecution, who without our help would face death or destitution. We have a proud history of helping such people and many of them, their children and grandchildren are pillars of our society today."

So I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind the points that I have made.

I visited a camp that the British Government in Hong Kong ran for the Vietnamese boat people. Those people were caged, and held in appalling conditions. That was some years ago, and I remember coming back to the House and saying that that was no way for the Government to treat people who were fleeing their country, for whatever reason. The vast majority of people flee for perfectly legitimate reasons.

During our visit to Cardiff prison, my hon. Friend and I again saw asylum seekers who were caged. It is simply not good enough, in 2001, to treat people like that when they are fleeing persecution and have left their own countries and families. It is not easy to flee one's country—talk to refugees in any country in the world. Most of them do not want to do it, except with very good reason. I am sure that we all recognise that. We should all be deeply ashamed of the appalling things that have been said during the past few months about asylum seekers in this country.

rose—

Order. With the winding-up speeches due to start no later than 10.30 am, I appeal to those hon. Members who seek to catch my eye to bear it in mind that four more Members wish to contribute to the debate.

I shall be brief. I thank the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for raising this important issue, and particularly for focusing on the treatment of asylum seekers in our prisons. I shall speak briefly about the conditions for asylum seekers in Winchester prison in my constituency, and I shall focus on three matters—first, the pressure that holding asylum seekers puts on the Prison Service; secondly, the inappropriateness of holding asylum seekers in prison; thirdly, I shall ask the Minister to comment on some time scale questions about the use of prisons in general and particularly about Winchester prison.

First, I agree with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley about pressure in prisons. I have no criticism of the staff or the governor of Winchester prison. Publicly, they tell me that they can manage. However, some prison staff have told me privately that they find it extraordinarily difficult to do so, and that they feel extremely uncomfortable about it. They are not prepared to say that publicly, but I know that the prison authorities are worried that prison staff are finding it difficult to cope. Like many other prisons, Winchester is busy and it is under enormous pressure.

I do not make a direct connection between that pressure and the figure that I now cite; I raise the subject to point out the difficulties that the prison faces. During the past five years, Winchester prison has seen about five times more suicides than the average in prisons. Winchester clearly faces considerable difficulties and pressures and it can well manage without that additional burden. Will the Minister say what financial arrangements are made when prisons are used in that way? What sort of financial assessment is made of the difficulties that face prisons, and what additional financial resources do prisons have to help staff cope with the pressures involved?

The second issue is the appropriateness of holding asylum seekers in prison. When talking to folk in my constituency about that, I focus on the fact that putting such pressure on the Prison Service makes no sense. Asylum groups in Winchester have made public another important moral issue, which is that imprisonment is completely inhumane and inappropriate.

In informal conversation with those who have been held in prison and with those who have worked with them, I have heard concern expressed about asylum seekers' access to lawyers, and I have heard some pretty troubling stories about lawyers not being able to get through to them at the right time. It is worrying that many individuals who have been detained in prison are removed from prison late on a Friday evening, taken to centres near an airport on Saturday and have to leave the country on Sunday. As one of those trying to help, I have quite often found it difficult to challenge such decisions late on a Friday night or a Saturday. I know that lawyers can find it difficult to get into the prison on that final day in order to make what can often turn out to be a last-minute appeal. Access to lawyers for asylum seekers in prison troubles me greatly. I would appreciate it if the Minister were to give an absolute assurance that being held in prison was not a barrier to asylum seekers gaining access to the specific legal help that they need in such complex cases.

I am equally concerned about the language difficulties. Prison staff have pointed out the impracticability of moving asylum seekers around the prison from day to day because in some cases it is virtually impossible to communicate with them. Can the Minister say what kind of back-up and support there is for prisons in relation to language?

There are also simple things that would help. For example, can we do more to ensure that a range of newspapers is available? Such measures would make a great difference to the lives of individuals held at Winchester prison. Will the Minister talk about such pastoral issues, and what sort of financial support is available so that prisons can buy newspapers?

My final point is about time scale. When Winchester prison was being used towards the end of last year, I and others raised a number of issues with Ministers and with the prison. We were told that it was a short-term measure—a matter of five or six weeks—and that the individuals who were being kept at the prison had gone through every possible appeal process and were to be sent back to their countries. The position then changed. I received a ministerial response stating that it was the Government's intention that the use of remand accommodation at Winchester prison would cease by the end of October 2001. I probed again a couple of weeks ago and received a slightly different ministerial response, implying that that October deadline would not be kept. I was told that

"even in the long term, for reasons of geography, security and control, there would continue to be a need to hold some detainees in prisons."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 100W.]

This is of concern, in that the goalposts seem to have moved every time that I have asked about the time scale. I hope that the Minister can today give an absolute assurance, first that the commitment given to me in a ministerial response on 8 February that Winchester prison will not be used beyond 31 October remains and secondly, that the Government still intend that the use of prisons will end on the day when they open the detention centres, or at least within days of it. My worry is that prison use is now a long-term policy, that the detention centres will not meet the need and therefore, for reasons of geography and security, it will be necessary to continue to use prisons beyond 31 October. I shall be most grateful if the Minister will confirm that that is not accurate, and that the Government intend to end the use of prisons by 31 October.

There is much about the treatment of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom that causes concern—the voucher system, which is being reviewed, some aspects of the dispersal policy, which has started well in Cardiff, and the care and welfare of asylum-seeking children, which has been raised by Save the Children and other voluntary organisations.

However, I want to concentrate on the policy of holding asylum seekers in prison and I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing the debate. As she has said, one of the impetuses for it was our recent joint visit to Cardiff prison. The policy of holding asylum seekers in prison is inappropriate. I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and hope that she will be able to indicate when the policy will end.

During our visit to Cardiff prison we were told that the original intention had been that the asylum seekers would stay there until October, but that the prison staff had been told that they would be there until December. I hope that the Minister will cast some light on the policy and tell us when there is likely to be an end to holding asylum seekers in Cardiff prison. The policy has been strongly condemned in Wales. I have been inundated with representations from voluntary groups, the Refugee Council and the Churches. They all find it unimaginable that we are holding asylum seekers in Cardiff prison in the capital of Wales. The National Assembly for Wales, where all parties have condemned it, has come out against the policy and it is hard for people in Wales to understand that Welsh Members of Parliament have not been able to influence it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, 44 asylum seekers were detained in Cardiff prison when we visited it. Since the policy started in February 2001, 78 detainees have been received at Cardiff prison, of which 27 have been bailed, seven deported and 44 held. As Cardiff solicitors have become more used to the circumstances, the number of cases in which bail has been granted has shot up, which shows that when asylum seekers have an opportunity to put their case they are granted bail.

Like my hon. Friend, I have no criticism of the prison staff. They were welcoming and open to us, allowing us to go anywhere and see anyone we wanted. They gave us a list of all 44 detainees, and we were able to pick whom we wanted to see. We saw people in cells, and went to the landing where the detainees stayed. It is not fair to make the prison staff responsible for looking after a group of people whom they were not employed to look after. They have not had training in such work and do not have background knowledge about the detainees' difficulties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said.

The detainees have many needs that are different from those of the remand prisoners on whose wing they have been placed. Many of them have no or limited English. They have been transported from all parts of the United Kingdom and have no contacts in Cardiff at all. Many have families in other parts of the UK, and the fact that the detainees have been moved such a distance causes problems, as their original solicitors are based elsewhere in the country. They need access to telephones to find out information about their families and what is happening in their own countries, but their access is the same as that of the remand prisoners.

Above all, the detainees have not been charged with crimes. Most of them are awaiting appeal. They are not at the end of a long process, as I was given to understand when I was told that asylum seekers would be held in prison. They are not waiting to be deported. Since February, only seven have been deported and 27 have been bailed.

In Cardiff prison, the asylum seekers are on a separate landing on the remand wing, but they mix with the remand prisoners at association times. That has advantages and disadvantages. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that prison is a learning ground for crime, as we all know, and that asylum seekers were being taught how to deal in drugs and forge credit cards, despite the efforts of the prison officers. However, one can understand why it is the policy that everyone on the same wing should mix at association times and not be kept apart.

The detainees are held under the same conditions as the remand prisoners, which means that they are handcuffed when they go out to have vaccinations, X-rays and other medical treatment. In the Welsh press, there has been outrage from all political parties in Wales about the fact that people not convicted of crime have been subject to that public humiliation. It has been hard for the Welsh public to understand why that happens. I do not criticise the prison staff, who are in an awkward situation. They have been told to treat asylum seekers as remand prisoners, so they use the same guidelines.

No additional money has been given to the prison to cope with the diverse demands of holding asylum seekers so it has not been possible, for example, for detainees to learn English as a second language, as asylum seekers in the community can at no charge. Only now has the Prison Service taken money out of its budget to ensure that asylum seekers in prison have that opportunity.

Now that local solicitors are geared up to what is happening, many more asylum seekers are granted bail. We ascertained reasons why the asylum seekers were in the prison, and some did not seem serious. One person told us that under the dispersal scheme he had been sent to one address and then to another in a nearby block of flats. The letter asking him to report to the immigration authorities went to the first address, so he did not receive it and he was arrested and put in Cardiff jail. He was trying to contact a solicitor to establish what was happening. When he first went to Cardiff jail in February the service was not under pressure. Now, as we all know, the figures for people in prison have shot up. I was given anecdotal information yesterday by a Cardiff probation officer that all the Cardiff and valleys remand prisoners who would normally go to Cardiff jail are going to Park prison in Bridgend. There is not enough room in Cardiff prison, which already has a wing out of commission for refurbishment.

There is no logic, justice or point to the policy of keeping asylum seekers in prison. The practice of keeping them in Cardiff prison should stop for the sake of everyone involved—prison staff, remand prisoners who need local places and, above all, asylum seekers. The practice should stop throughout the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend has said, on 31 May, under the immigration powers. 1,144 persons were detained. That included 428 people in dedicated detention facilities. We are not talking about vast numbers of people. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should examine the policy seriously.

My visit to Cardiff prison had a profound effect on me, as I know that it did on my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. Treating asylum seekers like criminals is bound to make the public believe that they are criminals. It is bound to exacerbate race relations problems and to make the dispersal system less likely to succeed. So far, that system has been going well in Cardiff.

As I stood on the third landing in a wing of that old Victorian prison, in hot sunshine, talking to people from all over the world who had come to this country seeking asylum, it seemed unimaginable that this was Britain in 2001, with its great human rights tradition. I hope that my hon. Friend will seriously reconsider the policy and reassure us about the time scale involved.

While the debate has focused mainly on prisons so far, I want briefly to raise some other issues.

I recall debates on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It struck me then, and still does, that the fundamental problem with our treatment of asylum seekers is that the system established by that Act was designed to be punitive. It was quite deliberate. The Act was about deterring people from making applications. To that end, a tough regime was introduced, which applies equally to every asylum applicant, whether genuine or not. What is happening now with the voucher system and detentions is an inevitable consequence of the Act.

I am glad that the Home Office is bringing the applications backlog down at long last, and making progress, but I have never changed my view that if we are serious about dealing with asylum applications we need to make decisions efficiently and quickly, and enforce them. I know that that means that some people must be removed. We must face that. However, it is far and away the best approach.

I would like to make some brief points on several separate issues. I apologise if I become a little disjointed, but there is not enough time to go into detail. First, I would like to deal with the operation of the National Asylum Support Service. I spent the best part of a day at NASS a few weeks ago and what struck me when I talked to people there and saw what they were doing was that there were a lot of people working hard to make an impossible system work. The voucher system has been reviewed, and I do not want to go into that this morning because I hope that when that review is published there will be some fundamental changes. However, there are still some problems that need to be tackled.

There are delays in processing applications at NASS. As a London Member of Parliament, I tend to see people who are not being dispersed but are applying for vouchers. I cannot understand why people who apply for vouchers only are waiting six, seven, eight, nine, or 10 weeks to get decisions on their applications. What on earth are they supposed to live on during that period? If they are applying for vouchers they are, by definition, claiming to be destitute and in most cases they genuinely are. The issue of how to deal more efficiently with applications for voucher support only must be tackled.

Then there is the question of who gets dispersed. There is an ongoing discussion about what happens to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children when they reach the age of 18. Before that age, they are in the care of local authorities, but when they turn 18 they become the responsibility of NASS. Just because they are asylum-seeking children does not mean that they are not covered by the provisions of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which refers to the continued responsibility of the local authority. Arguments seem to be going on between the Department of Health and NASS about how those children should be treated. NASS, having originally drafted some guidance that said that 18-year-olds would be treated as exceptional cases, now says that it will "consider" treating such children as exceptional cases. That needs resolving.

Another dispersal-related issue is that of people with health problems. I have been contacted more than once by medics in London who deal with people with HIV. Such people are dispersed and then find that they do not receive treatment. That raises serious public health concerns.

Figures have been quoted about detention. The figure of 1,800 people detained is a snapshot. The last set of figures that I saw for a complete year showed that something like 15,000 people had been detained at some point during the year. In the past couple of years the Home Office has said that it is unable to answer parliamentary questions on the matter and does not have the figures for people detained whose cases have not been determined. When those figures were supplied, a year or two ago, such people were in the majority.

How many of those people who are detained are then given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain? Some of them certainly are, but I suspect that the Home Office does not know how many. Probably, if one examined the figures, one would find that the rate of acceptance of those detained was not very different from the rate for people who were not. Detention generally has no rational basis and is often more connected with the nationality of the person than with anything else. The bail provisions of the 1999 Act have already been mentioned. It is important that they should come into force.

My final point is on decision making. Huge numbers of people are now being refused asylum on grounds of non-compliance. All that we are doing is shifting many of those cases into the appeals queue instead of having a proper first look at their case. We must give people longer to put the forms in—or, at the very least, ensure that the forms are translated into appropriate languages. There are notes to go with the forms, but they do not always get to people when they have to fill them in.

The issues that I have highlighted in regard to the way in which the system is working—in the context of my fundamental disagreement with it—need serious attention.

rose—

Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I inform hon. Members that the winding-up speeches begin at 10.30.

Thank you, Mrs. Roe. I shall be brief. First, we owe a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for raising the matter today and for visiting Cardiff prison with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan). That has given us the opportunity to highlight the treatment of asylum seekers in this country. I recall parliamentary answers from five years ago that stated that 700 or 800 asylum seekers were held in custody in prisons, police stations or detention centres at any one time. My latest information is that that figure is now more than 1,700 and rising. Not one of those people has been charged with any crime, anywhere, or had the opportunity of appearing before a court. They are held solely under immigration law. That means that 1,700 people are being held without charge or trial. We should be ashamed of that figure.

Anyone who has visited people detained under immigration law in prisons, detention centres or police stations finds a sense of incomprehension on the part of those people. I visited Rochester prison and several other prisons and detention centres last year. People look at me with pleading eyes and ask, "Why am I in prison, when I thought I was fleeing the regime in Afghanistan?"—or Iraq, or wherever it happens to be. When we condemn inadequate judicial systems in other parts of the world, we should reflect on our own.

Quite rightly, our attention has been drawn to the conditions under which people are held. I do not blame prison staff. I had long discussions with prison staff in Rochester and other prisons. They deal with the cases as sympathetically and decently as they can. However, such conditions as shared association time for asylum seekers and people charged with serious criminal offences are a recipe for long-term disaster. Similarly, the police do not want to hold asylum seekers in police stations. The immigration service is so inefficient in dealing with asylum cases that it often does not know exactly where asylum seekers are. Police officers have told me that they constantly phone the immigration service to say that they are not allowed to hold asylum seekers beyond a certain amount of time without putting themselves into an illegal situation; they ask the immigration service to come and do something about it. It is simply outrageous that we should detain asylum seekers in police stations. I hope that the Minister will address that in her reply.

Last year the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees criticised the British Government for their treatment of asylum seekers. We take pride in our ability to house asylum seekers and give people fleeing from fear of persecution some safety and security—yet the UNHCR has condemned our treatment of asylum seekers; we should think about that for a moment. Some of the rhetoric used in the election campaign by the Leader of the Opposition did much to stir up racism and, indeed, feeling against asylum seekers.

I ask the Minister for help on three issues. First, when does she expect the review on the voucher system to be completed? Many people feel that the voucher system is inadequate. It causes many asylum seekers who are not in custody to live in terrible poverty. It is also deeply disturbing and embarrassing for children whose parents receive the vouchers when their parents have no cash to pay for school trips and the small things that are so important in life and make a difference for children. Many teachers dip into their own pockets and handbags to help children out, because they cannot stand to see children living in such poverty.

My second point relates to housing, the dispersal policy and all the associated problems. Many private bed-and-breakfast landlords are ripping off the public with the amount that they charge for housing asylum seekers, often in disgraceful conditions, which leads to health problems. Constant changes of address mean that many asylum-seeking children drop out of the education system. They move from school to school so often that their parents cannot keep up and no schools are available for them.

Finally, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to acknowledge, as I am sure that she will, that we understand the reasons why people seek political asylum—the horrors of the killings in Algeria, the civil war in Sri Lanka and all the problems with the Taliban in Afghanistan and so many other places around the world that we have a responsibility to consider in our foreign policy.

The previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), made noises about a new United Nations convention on refugees—that is, rewriting the 1951 Geneva convention. I become very nervous when I hear such remarks, as the 1951 convention is an important benchmark and the basis on which the world treats people who flee from oppression and violence for their own safety. If we rewrite it, put up borders around the wealthy countries and say, "It's nothing to do with us," we become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on an excellent speech and on having initiated today's debate. I followed her when I made my maiden speech in 1997, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps I had been wrong and Parliament was full of people of integrity, compassion and dedication. I am not sure that that has always been borne out by events, but it has in her case. She always makes a useful contribution to debates in the House and has done so again today.

The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred to the 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees. It is worth reflecting, 50 years on—we celebrate that anniversary this year—on the reason for that convention. After the second world war, the international community was determined that people would never again be unable to escape persecution such as Europe had just witnessed. The 1951 convention is an expression of what is best in international politics, and we tamper with it at our peril. Unfortunately, some people want to slip back from those high ideals and adopt what some people—not me—might call a pragmatic approach. One hundred and thirty-nine countries signed the convention. It is an important international document.

I, too, deplore the fact that before the last election a minority of people, including politicians, tried to exploit the asylum situation for narrow political benefit. That is disgraceful. It is worth remembering that in this country the number of asylum seekers is a pale shadow of that in other countries. It is not even the problem in number terms, if people want to view the matter in those terms, that applies elsewhere. For example, in the last decade of the 20th century, 424,000 asylum seekers came to the United Kingdom. The figure for Germany is 1,765,260, so refugees do not even necessarily come here. The big problem that some people perceive is a shadow of that in other countries.

I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that the legislation introduced a couple of years ago was an attempt to deter asylum seekers, which is bound to fail. Asylum seekers do not look at the legislation in this country and ask themselves whether they will get slightly more for a voucher and whether they will be satisfactorily housed. They come here to escape treatment such as torture that endangers their lives and genuinely threatens them. The countries from which the UK receives the most asylum seeker applications have appalling human rights records—Iraq, Sri Lanka, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia and the like. The idea that they can be deterred by something that the House does about the voucher system is ludicrous and inhumane. We should not go down that road, and I am sorry that we have.

The Government are almost embarrassed about allowing asylum seekers into this country. Their policy is seen as weak by a sector of the electorate; it can be attacked by the Conservative press and is considered to be a vote loser. There is an idea that appearing tough will protect the Government's standing with elements of the population. Asylum seekers should not be used as pawns in that game when the Government deal with the press.

It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter the country legally, which is contrary to the 1951 UN convention. Will the Minister spell out how it is possible for an asylum seeker to enter the country legally? I do not think that it is possible.

If asylum seekers come here illegally and are stigmatised by that, they are faced with considerable difficulties. They are given 14 days—10 working days—to complete the necessary paperwork to satisfy requirements on arrival. They must complete a 19-page statement of evidence form in which they outline their asylum claim. They must secure a legal representative within that short time scale even if they are dispersed around the country. Failure to submit the form in time or to complete it in English will be given as a reason to reject the asylum claim on grounds of non-compliance. Last year, more than 26,000 asylum claims were rejected for that reason alone. No consideration was given to whether the claims were genuine, or the claimants had been subjected to torture or intimidation in their own countries. The claims were ruled out of order because the claimant had failed to meet a very short deadline. I suppose that that appears tough, but it is not a sane, mature or compassionate way to deal with asylum seekers.

The voucher system is appalling and degrading, and it is an insult to a civilised country that people are expected to live on 70 per cent. of income support. The Minister will know, from her previous incarnation, that income support is defined as the minimum that a person can live on, yet asylum seekers are expected to be able to live on less. I do not believe that they can. To add insult to injury, the voucher system prevents the supermarkets giving change. Even the supermarkets object to that. Those bastions of freedom and civil liberty—Sainsburys and other supermarkets—say that the asylum system does not work and that they object to making profit at the expense of asylum seekers. Good heavens, do we want lessons in morality from Sainsburys—although in this case it is saying the right thing? Why do the Government not listen to Sainsburys when they normally listen to it and to their big business friends? They should listen to Sainsburys and change their policy. It is insulting that asylum seekers get only 70 per cent. of income support and cannot get change from vouchers.

The hon. Members for Cynon Valley and for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) rightly referred to detention. My hon. Friend quoted the written answer that he received on 3 July from the Minister, which said:

"even in the long term, for reasons of geography, security and control, there will continue to be a need to hold some detainees in prisons."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001: Vol. 371. c. 100W.]

Why will there be a need to hold detainees in prison? There is no explanation for that. Is it beyond the wit of the Government to find an alternative solution that is humane and consistent with our requirements under the UN convention, or must people be in prison because someone at the Home Office says that that is more convenient?

I have two questions for the Government. On what date will the last asylum seeker be removed from prison and be dealt with humanely in this country, and when will the voucher system be abolished? I understand that the last Labour party conference—I was not there—said that it did not want the system. We still have it, so when will the system disappear, or do the Government still think that it is appropriate?

There is also a wider question: will the Government stand up for the convention that they signed up to? Will they stop acting like a whisky priest, and start standing up for what I think that they believe in their heart? Will they stand up for what is right and moral, and stop kowtowing to the Tory press? In short, will they make their asylum policy more humane?

I congratulate all the hon. Members who have participated in the debate, and I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). She spoke movingly and passionately about the asylum seekers whom she had encountered, and about their appalling incarceration in Cardiff prison.

I want to make two initial points. First, the criticism of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) was exaggerated and unwarranted. However, every politician has a duty to avoid using language that inflames or exacerbates tensions. I also want to point out that, although asylum policy is an important national issue that should be debated, I did not refer to it in any of my election leaflets, because it is by no means the biggest issue—other subjects were of far more importance to my Buckingham constituents, and I chose to focus on them.

I believe that there is a consensus that it is wrong to incarcerate asylum seekers in prison; it is chronically inhumane, and it constitutes a flagrant abuse of the purpose of the institution of the prison. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) rightly pointed out that that consensus exists in the National Assembly for Wales.

I take as my starting point the statement that was made on 22 May 2001 in the National Assembly for Wales by the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities, Edwina Hart. On the strength of her discussions with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche)—who was, at that time, the Minister with responsibility for immigration in the Home Office—she stated that it had been clarified that the policy of the Home Office was

"that only detainees who are at the end of their application for leave to remain should be detained at Cardiff prison."

She went on to say that she had been informed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that the

"period of detention should…be secure and for a short period".

However, I think that the Minister will acknowledge that, at present, those criteria are not always met.

Detainees have been taken for hospital treatment in handcuffs. We have been told that such incidents happen because prison staff have little or no discretion in implementing the Home Office guidance, and there is a consensus that prison staff are doing their best in difficult circumstances. The normal day for detainees on the remand wing includes only one hour of exercise, and two hours of association outside the cells, excluding meal breaks. Prison staff accept that it is not appropriate that detainees should spend 18 hours each day in their cells. I agree with the solicitor who represents those asylum seekers that the key issue is not whether handcuffs should have been used but whether such people should be in prison at all. They should not.

There is, however, scope for legitimate disagreement between Members of Parliament about the question whether the applications of a substantial number of asylum seekers are not genuine. I shall word what I say very carefully, because there was a recurrent theme in the contributions of the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker), for Cynon Valley and for Islington, North that the great majority of asylum seekers are genuine. I presume that the implication of that contention is that those people should be entitled to stay in the country. I say to those hon. Members that there is a widely held view that, although substantial numbers of people are fleeing persecution and should, therefore, be granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain, substantial numbers of people have abused the system over a lengthy period. We must take account of, and reflect in our policy, that widespread perception, if we believe that it is true. I do believe that it is true, and the sincere contributions of those hon. Members who have spoken this morning have not dissuaded me from that belief.

We have a proud tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. I believe that it is incumbent on us to do so in a pluralist democracy and the faithful honouring of that tradition is a hallmark of a decent, civilised society. However, we know that the system is in crisis and there remains a massive backlog—applications in May were 290 up on April. We also know that the processing of applications is breathtakingly slow. In May, we discovered that the slow process of determination continued. In the first five months of 2001, there were 45,620 appeals, but only 19,030 went to the appeals authority to be heard.

We know—the Minister would be hard pressed to deny it—that the amnesty granted by the previous Labour Government assisted 21,000 people to remain in this country who had no justification to do so. An average time for decision making of 14 months is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable that the Government were loth to implement the law against illegal working. They said that they would not do so, then did a U-turn and said that the extent of abuse was so considerable that they were obliged to reconsider their position. However, only eight prosecutions took place last year, and only one the year before. Serious problems exist. Notwithstanding the observations of hon. Members who spoke earlier, 78 per cent. of applicants are rejected for asylum or exceptional leave to remain.

I respect the sincerity of the hon. Member for Lewes, and it pains me to sidle up to the Government, but he is unjustified in suggesting that the Government are trying to curry favour with the Conservative press. That is an unworthy charge to level at them. We should work on the basis that all parties are pursuing policies and advocating measures that they believe are right, on principle and on grounds of pragmatism. For the hon. Gentleman to behave in that characteristically Liberal Democratic, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou fashion does not advance his cause.

I would like to say something about the dispersal policy, not least in the context of the Royal Institute for International Affairs report, which said this month that the policy is fuelling racial tension and that the "cluster areas" policy has not been implemented. It continues:

"In practice what has happened is that dispersal is very much determined by the availability of cheap accommodation…housing is contracted through private suppliers"—

a point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North—

"and this has led to many asylum seekers being sent to inappropriate accommodation in areas of high social tension without sufficient consultation with local authorities, and this has led to the sorts of problems we have been hearing about."

I regard that as disturbing. It is also disturbing to observe the verdict of the Asylum Education Legal Fund:

"People are just being shunted into places where there is no one qualified to help them."

We need to know how the Government intend to address those problems. With only 12 minutes of the debate left, I am happy to resume my seat and I await the Minister's response with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat on my brow.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this debate and on her long-standing and doughty interest in human rights, which she pursues with determination everywhere she goes.

Hon. Members and others have many worries about the treatment of asylum seekers and the use of detention, especially when it is in prison accommodation. I share those worries. It is important to remember that few asylum seekers are detained. The power to detain, which is exercised by immigration officers, is used only sparingly and for the shortest necessary period. To put it in perspective, at any one time, only 1.5 per cent. of those who are liable to detention are detained. That said, depriving anyone of liberty, even for a short period, is a serious step, not to be taken lightly. A balance must be struck between recognition of the seriousness of any deprivation of liberty and the fact that effective enforcement of immigration control requires some immigration offenders to be detained.

A legitimate issue raised in this morning's debate is where such people are to be detained, and what regime is in force there. The Government have made it clear—this remains our position—that there is a presumption in favour of temporary admission or release. Detention must be justified in the case of the individual concerned and is normally justified only in these limited circumstances: first, when there is a reasonable belief that an individual will fail to keep the terms of temporary admission or release; secondly, when there is an initial need to clarify a person's identity as the basis of their claim to enter, or remain in, the UK, which applies because many people arrive with no papers or identification; and thirdly, when removal is imminent. In addition, a person whose asylum claim appears to be straightforward and can be decided quickly may be detained at Oakington reception centre.

As at 31 May, a total of 1,787 individuals were detained under Immigration Act 1988 powers. Of those, 1,237 were held in Prison Service establishments, including 428 in the dedicated immigration detention facilities at Haslar, Lindholme and Rochester. The figures do not distinguish between those who have applied for asylum and those who have not and many of them are clerically collected, which I am trying to do something about. However, it is likely that, on current trends, at least two thirds of those detained solely under Immigration Act powers have applied for asylum. No one is detained solely because they have applied for asylum. As I said, the overwhelming majority of those who apply for asylum in this country are not detained.

In addition to the three dedicated detention facilities, the Prison Service made available 500 places for immigration detainees in a small number of local prisons throughout the country: Cardiff, Elmley, Liverpool, Holme House, Winchester, Wandsworth and High Down. The total number of places available in those prisons is 445.

The regime in those local prisons is clearly very different from that which operates in the dedicated detention facilities. In my view, that is what we are talking about today. Immigration detainees in the prisons are held on unconvicted or remand wings and are kept separate from convicted prisoners as far as possible, although there is some unavoidable contact as my hon. Friends have mentioned. Many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have commented that that is undesirable.

The use of local prison places began in November 2000 as a temporary measure to help make up the identified shortfall in immigration detention capacity while the immigration service detention estate is being expanded. It was designed to support our removals targets for those whose claims for asylum have failed. The places were offered by the Prison Service within what was, at that time, surplus remand accommodation in various parts of the country. Only men aged 21 or over can be allocated to them.

The Government are determined to pursue a strategy of detaining people in dedicated detention facilities and reducing reliance on Prison Service accommodation. We fully recognise that the use of dedicated detention facilities is preferable to prisons in the vast majority of cases. We shall be discussing the timing and arrangements for withdrawal from the prison places, which has to be planned properly, with the Prison Service as soon as it is practicable. I can tell my hon. Friend that we hope that Cardiff prison will be emptied of its asylum seekers by Christmas.

As hon. Members know, we are engaged in an ambitious expansion of the immigration service detention estate, which will enable us to move people from local prisons into much more suitable accommodation. New detention centres will open this year at Harmondsworth near Heathrow, Yarl's Wood in Bedfordshire and Dungavel in Scotland, providing an additional 1,500 spaces. Overall detention places will have increased from 900 at the end of 2000 to 2,790 by the end of 2001.

On Cardiff prison, as at Friday 6 July 39 immigration detainees were held there, representing 21 different nationalities including Indian, Bangladeshi, Nigerian, Pakistani, Ukrainian and Kosovan. The majority are asylum seekers whose applications have been refused and who are awaiting the outcome of appeals or pending removal.

On the conditions at Cardiff prison, I understand that strenuous efforts have been made to accommodate the particular needs of detainees, within the constraints of a prison establishment. It is recognised that immigration detainees' needs differ from those of remand prisoners and where practicable such needs have been accommodated. However, it is true that the regime is much more restrictive than that of an immigration detention centre. That is why prisons are not the first choice for the detention of asylum seekers and why the Government wish to withdraw from those arrangements as soon as is practicable.

On telephone access and some of the practical, pastoral points that hon. Members raised, detainees in Cardiff prison have greater access to telephone cards than is the norm for remand prisoners, and rightly so. However, I acknowledge that problems might arise when accessing telephones during periods of heavy use. I have asked officials to look into the matter in conjunction with the prison authorities and to find out whether there is a particular problem that might be improved.

Detainees have free association periods, but they are kept in their cells for longer than is normal in a detention centre—nor do they have access to activities that are available in dedicated detention centres.

Immigration service staff visit the prison three times a week to give advice and serve papers. Local solicitors and legal advice agencies visit twice a week. Special arrangements have been made to enable legal advisers to use a converted cell for interviews with detainees. They are unsupervised, although the door is left open for security reasons. Legal representatives may also visit detainees under the usual legal visits arrangements.

A range of dietary needs, including halal, is catered for by the prison's catering service, and menus are supplied in eight languages. Information on other matters is also available in different languages. Where translation is required, immigration staff use a telephone translation facility known as the language line. An interpreter is used for longer or more formal interviews and is paid for by the immigration service.

As time is running out, may I ask now whether the Minister can give for other prisons the commitment that she gave for Cardiff? Will other prisons not be used for asylum seekers by Christmas?

The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully to what I am about to say. The Government intend to withdraw from those allocated spaces as soon as is practicable. It has been said that we will be able to fill up the new detainee estate in a day, but that cannot be done—one must fill up detained spaces gradually. Certain practical steps must be taken to ensure that the regime does not break down. Within those constraints, we will do our best to withdraw from the arrangements as quickly as is practicable. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman greater satisfaction, but I do not want to give a date that I am not certain we can keep to. I hope that he will appreciate the way in which I have attempted to answer his question.

Although it is important to realise that these practical issues are important and that those concerned find their situation distressing, we should remember that the number of people involved is small. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and others have noted, the answer is for the determination system to operate much more efficiently. We are dealing with that, although there is a legacy of backlogs. The most important thing is to ensure that we have an efficient and sensible way of dealing with asylum applications. It is also important to recognise that there are people who claim asylum in this country who are economic migrants. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is initiating a debate on how we might more effectively balance a migration policy with an asylum policy.

I reiterate that the Government are determined to pursue the strategy of holding people in dedicated detention facilities, not prisons, and that we will work hard to achieve that aim as quickly as is practicable.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley for raising an extremely important issue.

rose—

I would normally give way to the hon. Gentleman, but we are near the end of the debate.

Will the Minister say something about vouchers?

The fieldwork on the voucher review has been done and we are considering it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will make an announcement when we are in a position to do so.

I start with a small apology. It appears that the purpose of the debate was not made entirely clear, and there have been discussions among Departments about which of them should respond. If it is not possible for the Minister to answer some of my questions directly himself, I hope that he will at least seek responses from the Department of Trade and Industry.

My first point concerns transparency. One of the major issues that I came across in my research is the lack of easily available statistical data about the sustainable nature, or otherwise, of the projects that are supported by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and their impact on global warming. That lack of transparency and readily available information is a problem that we cannot ignore. The discussions and outcomes of negotiations on projects are kept confidential: there is almost an institutional paranoia about the public disclosure of any information about their impacts.

Most export credit agencies—I shall refer briefly to others, not only our own—do not conduct environmental impact assessments that are publicly disclosed in accordance with international norms. Most do not disclose the name, nature or location of projects that they back until they are well under way. In some respects, export credit agencies are the most opaque of any Government agencies, placing the needs of private corporations above the rights of citizens to protect their lives and environments and to ensure that their Government's objectives are being applied in countries abroad that are receiving financial support from that Government.

In the UK, the public have no idea whether the screening process for new projects that is used by the ECGD follows the guidelines or objectives that the Government have set in relation to sustainability and tackling climate change. As with any public body, citizens have a fundamental right to scrutinise the activities of the ECGD. Not only should the Government be notified about those activities, and the information be made publicly available, but other organisations, such as the Environment Agency, may have a role to play in advising on the effects of such projects. How do the Minister and his colleagues in other Departments propose to combat that lack of transparency?

What is the reasoning behind the reluctance to release relevant environmental and developmental documents to associated agencies for review? Does the Minister believe that the UK should issue a public international strategy on sustainability and climate change, similar to that which was issued on conflict prevention, to ensure that our international partners, business and non-governmental organisations precisely understand the UK's stance?

The lack of accountability is reinforced by the lack of expertise in the ECGD's council. It has ties with many Departments, and it is clear that cross-departmental activity is needed. It should not only be down to the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that sustainability issues are reflected in other Departments, and in particular the Department responsible for the ECGD. I hope that the Minister can clarify which cross-departmental activity considers not only the foreign and trade effects of the ECGD's activities, but their environmental and sustainability impact. With the coming G8 conference this is a good time for the Government to clarify their views on the issue so that the role of export credit agencies can be discussed in those negotiations, with the UK Government having a clear internal position on what the ECGD should be promoting.

I hope that the Minister will be able either to say something today or to write to me about the progress that has been made among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries on drawing up common standards for export credit agencies on the way in which they seek to promote sustainability in developing countries. When will such standards be in force? Will progress on those common standards be reported at the Johannesburg conference, which would be an excellent opportunity to make such a report? Furthermore, is he willing to work with his departmental colleagues to give the ECGD an explicit requirement to promote sustainability? It should be not only in the business of screening, but in the business of promoting the UK's policy agenda on sustainability, climate change and preventing global warming.

Export credit agencies such as the ECGD that are funded by Governments carry many responsibilities. The ECGD is in place to further British exports and businesses, and because of its nature as a public body it must take into account the Government's policies and goals. It must promote the human rights and social issues that surround the projects that it is undertaking while considering the sustainability implications of its actions. Greening of government, which is part of any modern institution, is something that we would all support, but it must be carried through in all Departments. The ECGD's mission and strategy should be convergent with the Government's aims in relation to debt relief, poverty alleviation, ethical foreign policy, compliance with multinational environmental agreements and sustainable development.

The ECGD should be supporting productive investments focused on the development of sustainable energy in the way in which the American export credit agency promotes projects that contain sustainable measures. There is a further conference—the G8 conference—at which there will be an opportunity, of which I hope that the Government will make good use, to raise these issues.

I shall highlight an area of perverse policy: if we scrutinise ECA-funded projects across the globe, we discover that many of them are unsustainable and have serious effects on climate change and global warming. From 1994 to 1999, $216 billion out of $376 billion of global expenditure by ECAs was spent on supporting energy-intensive projects, which included financing more oil and gas development and fossil-fuelled power generation. If that process continues, during the next 30 to 50 years the developing countries' annual and total contributions to CO₂ emissions will achieve parity with those of industrialised countries. The top destinations for these projects include leading sources of CO₂ emissions such as Indonesia, China, India, Mexico and Brazil. It would be better if the work were done now—as the Americans are doing—in terms of promoting sustainable projects through the ECGD as opposed to promoting projects that are heavily dependent on fossil-fuelled power generation, for example. Such projects, as part of a discussion subsequent to Kyoto, will inevitably be revisited. We may find that, within a matter of years, they must be reexamined and less energy-intensive projects substituted. What activities have been undertaken by the Minister's or other Departments to ensure that, here and abroad, there is a stricter policy of environmental reform for the export credit agencies?

On the recognition of the importance of the Kyoto agreement and of helping developing countries grow while minimising the emissions that they release, it will not be the OECD countries that will have the most effect on climate change in the foreseeable future, but many of the countries in which the United Kingdom is providing support. Given the size of the sums involved, if we can shift even a small proportion of that financing toward more environmentally friendly technologies, that could have a significant impact on the economies of developing countries and their carbon dioxide emissions.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government recognise that the ECGD can have a heavy impact on the environment and play a positive role in helping both the United Kingdom and developing countries achieve globally the targets that we must achieve in relation to carbon dioxide emissions? I support the Government's manifesto pledge to reduce such emissions by 20 per cent. Would the Minister like to see that reflected in the policies adopted by the ECGD? Is there not a case for ensuring that, over a period, the projects that are supported and funded seek to achieve the targets that we have set? Perhaps we could ensure that for each kilowatt of power that is generated, there is a similar reduction. I would like to see the Government act on that.

Should the ECGD have a role in promoting sustainability? Should it switch focus to take a more proactive role in so doing?

With regard to United Kingdom objectives being reflected abroad, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that our target for renewable energy generation of 10 per cent. by 2010 will be reflected in a similar target being set for the ECGD? That would make sense in developing countries where there is often enormous potential for renewable energy. In many cases, such countries do not have a grid and self-supporting renewable energy projects such as solar power can be competitive with traditional forms of power generation. The review of the ECGD issued by the Government concluded that

"in relation to issues such as sustainable development…the ECGD should align itself with the best of the other ECDs".

I would welcome that.

The Government have also agreed that the ECGD should aim to promote their wider objectives, which could and should include sustainable development. What concrete steps have been made to follow through on them since the report? There has been additional support for activity on sustainability from the Trade and Industry Select Committee's 10th special report, with which the Minister may be familiar. The report recommended that the ECGD reassess the weak stance that was taken by the environmental questionnaire used to determine whether a project was sustainable. Some projects spring to mind where a tougher policy might have stopped them from coming forward.

The ECGD has stated that

"there is no scope for agreeing more favourable credit terms for renewable energy as compared to conventional power plant".

Although I understand that that may make sense from a business perspective, it is an alarming statement from a sustainability viewpoint. Many companies shy away from more renewable energy because of the current additional cost, but considering the environmental implications and the cost reductions that can occur if more investment is made, the ECGD should re-examine the matter. As I said about fossil fuel power generation projects, what is a good investment today might not be tomorrow, particularly if we make progress on climate change and Kyoto.

In the United States, the Export-Import bank has a different approach to renewable energy projects and gives out loans at a preferential rate. As a result, environmental industries, which are creating jobs in the United States, benefit to the tune of exports worth about £1 billion whereas the figures in the United Kingdom are so negligible that we do not even know them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that manufacturers in the UK would benefit if we took advantage of selling our renewables technology resources and technology to developing countries?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and agree entirely with his point. The work of the US export credit agency on renewable energy is a welcome initiative and goes some way towards offsetting President Bush's activities in pulling out of the Kyoto protocol.

The ECGD states that it has an obligation to compare the projects against international standards such as those of the World Bank, which has much stronger investment safety clauses on renewable energy. If such comparison or benchmarking takes place, where is the evidence that the ECGD has revised its procedure to remain comparable with large organisations such as the World Bank?

I have raised many questions, to which I hope that the Minister will respond. As I said at the beginning, it is possible that some are not his responsibility and I hope that other Departments follow the debate closely and will respond to some of them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this timely debate and on his exposition of the key concerns. I congratulate also the Minister on his outstanding support for all methods of tackling global warming. His presence is an example of joined-up government and the links that the debate has between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry.

I should declare a constituency interest. The World Coal Institute and the IEA Coal Research centre for clean coal technology are both based in Putney. I should also add that my hot interest in the subject comes from attending a GLOBE International conference in New York last month. I have consulted the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and believe that it does not need to be registered.

The conference, which was on export credit agencies and global warming, brought together parliamentarians from Europe and the United States, non-governmental organisations such as World Wildlife Fund Belgium, Friends of the Earth from Japan and the United States, Pacific Environment, Environmental Defense and the World Resources Institute. There were representatives of the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Japan Bank for International Co-operation. Also present were private sector representatives from GE Capital and from Green Mountain Energy. The conference was a good example of GLOBE at work, and I urge all UK parliamentarians to join GLOBE UK and to use its facilities to learn about the issues and campaign for a better future.

The New York conference was timed to predate the 7 July deadline, which has now passed, for signing revision 6 of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development draft recommendation on common approaches to the environment and officially supported export credits. That, in turn, is due to go to the G7/G8 Genoa summit later this month. I understand that, as of yesterday, the UK had not signed; I hope that the Minister will explain the UK's position on the document. The OECD approach was supported by about 300 NGOs that met in May 2000 in Jakarta at an international export credit agency reform strategy session. The Jakarta declaration for the reform of official export credit and investment insurance agencies was a global call for reform that included: first, transparency—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned that—public access to information and consultation by ECAs and the OECD ECA working party; secondly, binding common environmental and social guidelines and standards that are no lower and less rigorous than the existing international procedures and standards for public international finance, such as those of the World Bank group and the OECD development assistance committee; thirdly, the adoption of explicit human rights criteria to guide the operations of ECAs; fourthly, the adoption of binding criteria and guidelines to end ECA abetting of corruption; fifthly, the adoption of a commitment to finance only economically productive investments; and lastly, the adoption of comprehensive relief for developing countries for ECA debt.

I am concerned that the latest consensus draft, which is potentially revision 7, does not contain credible commitments of ECAs to two key points. The first, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, is to disclose to interested parties the environmental impact assessments for review and comment prior to the finalising of the decision on financing—that is, transparency of decision making at all times. The second is to apply World Bank standards to all the projects that ECAs support. The draft is discretionary rather than mandatory on those two points. That is worrying, as these loopholes are possibly large enough to destroy the reasoning behind the document as a whole. I noted that a further review is due in 2003, but these points could be nailed down now.

What was interesting at the New York conference was the perception that, in its commitment to high environmental impact assessments, the United States was ahead of the rest of the world, including the UK. I was interested to see that the ECGD environmental impact assessment report on the Ilisu dam, which was published this week, made the point in its executive summary that

"environmental procedures and guidelines of the Ex-Im Bank of the US were used as the main reference."

The commitment of the United States comes from the United Nations framework convention on climate change to help developing countries mitigate future emission increases by enabling the transfer of environmentally sustainable technologies and providing the necessary financial resources to support such transfers. The convention was signed by the 41st President of the United States in 1992.

I congratulate the Government on the moves that they have made so far in changing the ECGD work programme and culture. The reports from the Trade and Industry and International Development Select Committees informed the decisions last July of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). The January 2001 ECGD impact screening and analysis procedures are a great improvement on the past, and I congratulate David Allwood of the ECGD and his team on their work on the new environmental guidelines. The impact questionnaire asks for specific information about a project's potential impact on the global climate, including quantification of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases from projects involving power generation from fossil fuels, and details of use of ozone depleting substances. The ECGD states:

"Through its process of constructive engagement, it promotes the use of high efficiency technology for power generation and supports the use of renewable sources of energy, wherever appropriate."

Members may say that we have not yet seen much action on that. I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the UK Government have allied themselves to the United States Government in their commitment to the greatest reform of ECA use.

The Genoa G8 summit will receive reports not only on OECD recommendations on common approaches to the environment and officially supported export credits, but from the task force set up at Okinawa last year on the development of renewable energy sources, which is, of course, headed up by the chief executive officer of Shell UK. The use of ECAs to provide finance to developing countries for renewable power will enable a billion people who are currently unable to access power to do so in future. Power markets fall into three broad categories: first, on-grid in OECD countries; secondly, on-grid in developing countries; and, thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman said, off-grid in developing countries. It is difficult for renewables to compete with conventional fossil fuels in on-grid markets. Capital costs are higher and the payback period is longer, and the per unit costs of power are therefore generally greater. Their output is dependent on variable or seasonal environmental conditions. Much greater potential exists for renewables to serve off-grid markets to reach 2 billion people in rural or isolated areas who cannot currently access power. Lower population densities and higher per unit costs mean that renewables are much more competitive versus conventional power sources. Renewable power sources tend to offer lower long-term costs.

To make renewables attractive to commercial funding, concessional and non-concessional funding need to be blended in a way that does not distort funding overall. At the same time, we must increase the market share of renewables to reduce their long-term financing costs. In short, ECAs can put in place—or, in the case of the US and UK, improve on—regular greenhouse gas accounting for all projects, financed or co-financed. ECAs should ensure that their staff understand renewable technologies to facilitate project assessment and underwriting. ECAs could put greater investment in business development to support renewables, working especially with small and medium-sized enterprises, which are often best placed for such projects. How many SMEs, which form the bulk of the companies in the "Guide to UK Renewable Energy Companies 2001" have been contacted by the ECGD? I fear that not many have. Could they be contacted in the next 12 months?

In the longer term, ECAs should develop a greenhouse gas accounting standard that facilitates the development of carbon markets. They should assess the feasibility of developing financial services tailored to small-scale renewable projects. Opportunities also exist for ECAs to explore non-energy projects in developing countries, with high potential to contribute to greenhouse gas reductions. "These could include carbon sink or land use projects, transportation, infrastructure and equipment, and improvements in efficiency.

Given the few UK companies specialising in renewable energy technologies so far, the impact of the ECGD taking a strong line and supporting such technologies is hypothetical. Let me therefore propose actions for the UK Government to make the hypothetical real in export potential for the UK renewables industry. First, I sounded out senior management at BP Solar as to the impact of such support through the ECGD. BP Solar has factories in the United States, Germany and Spain. Last week, it announced an expansion of the existing 15 MW production factory in Spain by a further 60 MW—the biggest in Europe. I understand that Sir John Brown met the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last night, at the latter's request, to discuss the establishment of similar manufacturing facilities for solar power equipment here. Given the weather conditions in the UK, as in Germany, the vast majority of the output of such a UK factory would be for exports to developing countries—countries dependent on ECGD ECA cover.

Has the Secretary of State offered preferential ECGD cover rates for such exports if a solar power factory was built here? Will the same apply to the product of the Vesta wind power factory that is shortly to open in the United Kingdom, and to all other solar and wind power factories in this country? I am sure that hon. Members would support such preferential cover. Such support is needed not only for the basic technology but to cover the set-up on the ground and enable it to continue to deliver for some years. The long repayment period available for thermal energy—that is, fossil-fuel power stations—should be available for renewable energy installations too.

The IEA Coal Research centre for clean-coal technology, which is based in my constituency, has put forward proposals for what it calls zero-emission coal-fired stations. They would produce zero emissions in that the excess CO₂ above the 70 per cent. efficiency levels achievable in clean-coal technology power stations would be injected into carbon sinks, perhaps using the depleted geological seams for gas and oil in the north sea and elsewhere. Could the ECGD provide concessional finance over and above that available for non-zero emission thermal power stations? Will the Minister confirm that he is talking to his colleagues within the G7-G8 about such an approach for thermal power stations?

Will the Minister phase out support for ECGD cover for thermal power stations that do not seek to achieve zero emissions? The argument may be given that it is inappropriate for the ECGD to seek such an approach. I understand that the French and German governments, while espousing the Kyoto protocol, are opposed to the US proposals for concessional finance and to a playing field tipped in favour of renewal energy. As a business man—that was my profession before entering the House—the only role that I see for government as opposed to commercial finance is to provide such a rigging of the market. Indeed, the study by National Economic Research Associates on the ECGD, published last July, was entitled "The Economic Rationale for the Public Provision of Export Credit Insurance by ECGD". Clearly a choice must be made of projects that are soundly financeable, and I do not suggest that the ECGD should back power projects that are not sound. However, it should not finance projects that have a greater CO₂ greenhouse gas impact than those that do not.

So far, I have covered only the role of the ECA in encouraging sustainable energy technologies. Almost as important is the measurement of reduction in greenhouse gas and CO₂ emissions resulting from all other ECA capital financing, which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Two separate cases should be mentioned in that respect: high-energy consumption industries and aircraft emissions.

In the former case, investments determine emission trajectories over a long period—25 to 50 years. ECAs are big investors in oil and gas development, transport equipment and manufacturing industries such as chemicals, cement, pulp and paper. There must be a veto within ECA procedures to ensure minimising of CO₂ emissions. We must not export old technology high carbon burn techniques. The latest technology, with maximum combined heat and power for manufacturing processes, must be the norm.

In the latter case, aircraft emissions appear to have been omitted from the OECD agreement. The Americans will not accept ECA aircraft financing as needing to come within the new proposed restrictions. However, aircraft emissions represent 5 per cent. of greenhouse gases, and many are worried that their impact may be the equivalent of 15 to 20 per cent. of greenhouse gas emissions. Aircraft emissions are of course increasing with the growth of air traffic. Our gift to the world through Airbus would be a low or zero-emission aircraft. Boeing in the US would have to follow suit. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry on the specification of the new Airbus? The Government have provided over £400 million in launch aid and the ECGD will be used to help to sell the new planes around the world.

What is the Minister able to do to ensure that those two areas—high-energy consumption industries and aircraft emissions—are dealt with by the OECD ECA agreement and by the taskforce on renewable energy at the G7-G8 Genoa summit?

So far, I have not mentioned the need for ECA countries—the G8 countries, one might say—to adapt their economies to avoid global warming. I am glad to say that the UK is committed to the Kyoto protocol. Last week, two books were published on the issue: "The UK Transition to a Low Carbon Economy" by Paul Ekins of Forum for the Future and "At the Energy Crossroads: Polices for a Low Carbon Economy" by Steward Boyle and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). They provide a blueprint for the review by the Minister for Industry and Energy of UK energy needs for the next 50 years and a basis for the UK's 60 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gases.

From our commitment, there comes a new industry that will be producing renewable energy for export. That will, I hope, be based on the environmentally friendly ECA policies that will be ushered in at the Genoa summit.

I hope that the United States will still commit itself to the Kyoto protocol. In early-day motion 94, on global warming, I publicised the 43rd President's reconfirmation of the 42nd President's executive order of 3 June 1999. Independent advice leads me to believe that the United States could, by at least 2010, reduce its greenhouse gas total by 5 per cent. on 1990 levels. I hope that that American commitment can be used at the seventh conference of the contracting parties—COP7— in Bonn later this month to reopen the way to American ratification. United States support for dealing with global warming through changed ECA methods is also on the record.

American legislators believe that the Kyoto protocol is fundamentally anti-American and that there is little commitment to change on the part of EU industries. The American proposals for the use of the Ex-Im bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation—the United States Government reinsurance company—to deliver renewable energy to developing countries and the President's recommitment to his predecessor's executive order clearly show that there is a wish, certainly in Congress, to do a deal that is not anti-American.

I hope that Japan will reconsider its position, too. It could sign with the EU. The position of the Japanese Government and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation—Japan's ECA bank—on the use of ECAs to combat global warming has changed significantly in the past few weeks.

To summarise, in 1998, all 36 OECD Governments agreed to negotiate common environmental approaches for their ECAs. At the 1999 G8 summit in Cologne, the leading industrial countries went a step further and agreed to adopt common environmental guidelines by 2001. That was confirmed at Okinawa by the addition of the sustainable energy task force.

This July, in Genoa, the UK can work with the United States to persuade their G8 partners that ECAs can be a key weapon in dealing with global warming through sustainable energy technology transfer across the world. There can be a step change in thinking about what goods developed and developing countries want for their common future.

All the G8 countries still need to sign the Kyoto protocol. Alongside it, however, OECD recommendations can reinforce the message that global warming must be stopped and can be with the will of the world.

rose—

Order. I remind hon. Members that the winding-up speeches are due to begin at 12 noon.

Although this seems to be an extremely esoteric subject, there could be no better day on which to have this debate. Today is "Stop Exxon Day", which is better known as "Stop Esso Day" in this country. The debate gives us a way of underlining the responsibility of international corporations on global climate change. We know that Exxon unfortunately joined the Global Climate Coalition in America, was a key funder of President Bush's campaign and has ended up as the bad boy of global warming. If we as parliamentarians can put pressure on Exxon/Esso to change its attitude, we might be able to approach President Bush, too.

The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) made it clear in his comprehensive remarks that, although this is a complex and esoteric subject, it has a real impact on the way in which we do business in the United Kingdom. He also made it clear that we can support measures to mitigate climate change through the actions of our own Export Credits Guarantee Department. I want to concentrate my remarks on our ECA.

The Environmental Audit Committee recognised the importance of the issue when it began an investigation into the Export Credits Guarantee Department and its relationship with sustainable development in the last Session of Parliament. Unfortunately, the small matter of the general election cut across what the Environmental Audit Committee was undertaking at that stage, but some of the initial information that came out of it underlined the evidence that has been given by the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Putney.

There are difficulties with export credit agencies. The first, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made clear, is transparency. The second concerns what an ECGD supports. Does it, for example, support effective protection of the environment? We should look at projects such as the Sual plant in the Philippines—a coal power plant, and not a clean one—or the Mossel Bay gas fields development in South Africa, and we should consider the prudent use of natural resources. For example, the Alumbrera copper and gold mine project in Argentina contributes to the global over-supply of that metal; that is not a prudent use of natural resources. Historically, our export credit agency has supported the accelerated use of fossil fuels, flying in the face of what we say we want to achieve in the Kyoto protocol.

It is a matter of concern that our ECGD does not commit to international best practice. As the hon. Member for Putney has pointed out, the United States has higher standards in this area. They might not be as high as the World Bank group or non-governmental organisations would like, but they are higher than ours. Is it not a paradox that we support Kyoto—we shall be in negotiations with Japan next week in Bonn about saving it, and about ensuring that America somehow comes into the Kyoto fold—yet in daily dealings the United States has higher environmental standards? I hope that the Minister, whom I welcome to his well-deserved continuation in the post, will want to get rid of that anomaly, perhaps through the Green Ministers Committee.

The ECGD says that it wants to meet the Government's environmental objectives; it says that it works with other Departments; it says that it is part of the greening government initiative—in particular, it has put sustainable development in its guidelines. For example, it says that it provides credit support for the most heavily indebted countries only if it will benefit the country's economic and social development. It also says that its criteria for granting export credit to the 63 poorest countries are those that assist social and economic development, that give maximum benefit to areas most in poverty, that tackle problem areas where private investment is not available, and that encourage viable self-financing projects. Those are important principles, but there is no reference to environmental benefit in the guidelines.

Historically, export credit agencies have been concerned about environmental impact locally, but not about the global situation. That is why this debate, concentrating on global warming and export credit agencies, is valuable. It focuses our scrutiny on what is being done in the name of greening government and I hope that it will help Ministers to think again about how we might achieve the objectives that we have set out for ourselves as a nation.

We are missing a trick. Through different use of our export credit agency, we could support our indigenous businesses. A memorandum from the Environmental Industries Commission, which was submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee, made clear how great the gap is at the moment. The ECGD focuses so much on the defence, aerospace and power industries that in 1997 less than 1 per cent. of its £3.7 billion business related to the export of environmental protection technologies. In fact, the level of support was so small that the ECGD did not keep figures on it. Yet that is a massive opportunity. The worldwide market is worth something like £330 billion a year and is set to go up to £600 billion by 2010. It would be the same size as the aeronautical industry, and the Government have accepted that. In 1999, the Department of Trade and Industry stated that

"the UK's performance in environmental technology industries has been disappointing relative to European competitors…the UK appears to have lost ground in key export markets over recent years."

Where do we get the support to win back that ground? Is it not a key task of an export credit agency to support our industries in doing that?

In October 2000, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry called for a 20 per cent. increase in our world market share of these technologies. One of the key reasons why we have not been able to achieve that is that our own package of export support measures such as export credit does not match those of our competitor countries in America and in the European Union. For example, the USA is the world's largest exporter of environmental technologies, to the value of $14 billion a year. More than $1 billion of that sum is supported through its export credit agency. In this country, we do not know the figures—they are negligible—but in the USA they are $1 billion and $14 billion. We are wasting our huge potential, as well as failing to get the best deal for developing countries.

There is a way forward, because the international discussions to which the hon. Member for Putney referred have involved these issues, and there are key ways in which we can advance matters. In June 1999, the G8 countries met in Cologne to discuss the environmental guidelines for ECAs. The communiqué from the summit mentioned climate change but did not include it in the environmental guidelines. Until comparatively recently, environmental issues were approached through export credit agencies by considering carefully the local, but not the global, impact. That is reflected in the current guidelines, but I understand that doors are opening and that some time this year—the hon. Gentleman referred to it—there will be an opportunity to consider how we might strengthen the guidelines.

We should ensure that export credit agencies encourage investment in energy efficiency, shifts to less energy-intensive products and switches in fuel. Our export credit agency is undermining our Government's climate commitments. An example of that is the global environment facility, where we have gone in with other countries to help transfer technologies to assess climate risks in developing countries, and to remove barriers to the development of renewable energy. That is not growing in the way that it should be.

How have we avoided this for so long? Why has it not been a feature of the debate on climate change? One of the reasons is the lack of public scrutiny. For example, in February 2000—these are the latest figures that I could get—only four out of 12 of the leading OECD countries' export credit agencies actually published their environmental guidelines. That is transparency gone mad—if we cannot even get the figures, how can the debate advance? Of those four countries, only two routinely shared the figures, solicited public comment and reported CO₂ emissions. That is the key. If we can get our export credit agency to report on its effect on global CO₂ emissions, we will have taken a great step forward and so will the Government.

Environmental guidelines do not consider climate change, but I hope that the G8 countries will re-examine that in their meeting this year. I understand that there is a working party on export credits and credit guarantees. We need to institutionalise consultation and information disclosure within our export credit agencies. We need to get them to report on greenhouse gas emissions and open up their decision-making processes. That could eventually become part of common environmental guidelines.

Adoption of export credit agency environmental guidelines that conform to international best practice for environmental assessment and evaluate potential climate impact will not be an easy task because, as we saw in the case of the Ilisu dam, these matters are very complicated. That dam might, for example, pass one threshold—it could be said to be environmentally beneficial as it is hydro-electric and a positive step forward. However, in terms of the wider social and environmental impact and of sustainable development, perhaps the dam will not be seen as so positive.

Although I recently read the report, I did not pick up on what the hon. Member for Putney pointed out about the guidelines used for the analysis of the Ilisu dam being not our own, but those of the Ex-Im bank in America. Why do we not have our own export credit agency, with sufficient guidelines for us to deal with complex matters such as the Ilisu dam? Why do we use environmental guidelines from America? Have we not done enough in this country to develop our own environmental standards for our own export credit agency? Until we do so, we are not putting our export money where our mouth is.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing the debate. It may be esoteric and it has not packed the Chamber, but it is pretty central to our survival as a trading nation and as a planet. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has responsibility for the environment, and that the Export Credits Guarantee Department effectively comes under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Industry. Nevertheless, we must examine the ECGD's impact on the environment, and I hope that there is enough joined-up government to recognise that.

Although we welcome the fact that the ECGD's mission statement has been specifically revised to accord with the Government's objectives on sustainability, we need to monitor what the ECGD does to determine whether that makes any difference. Perhaps the mission statement should be more proactive. The agency underwrites in excess of billion of business a year, and its fundamental aim remains the promotion of British trade rather than the promotion of sustainability.

The American credit agency appears to have a more proactive environmental stance, which is interesting. One only hopes that it will survive the current Administration far. President Bush is passing through the country and meeting Ministers next week. The Minister may not be able to suggest it, so we can suggest to him that it would be surprising if, at the heart of their discussions, there was not pressure to rethink the inconsistencies in American policy. If America benefits substantially from exporting sustainable trade and products, why is it not in America's interests to encourage more of that by signing up to the Kyoto protocol or some development of it? I do not have a problem with the Americans arguing that what they have been presented with is unsuitable, but we all have a problem with them walking away from the process. The British Government have a responsibility to try to persuade them to recognise the inconsistency.

Let us think in terms of pure economics. The oil price is approximately $25 a barrel. Compared with previous cheaper prices, is it sensible for America to concentrate on increasing oil and gas production in its environmentally volatile backyard, rather than to reduce wasteful energy use, promote alternative energy and develop or strengthen its export business on the back of that? The rationale is to persuade President Bush or his advisers that they are mistaken in their analysis of American self-interest. I hope that there will be some discussion with Mr. Bush when he is here next year to persuade him in that direction.

I am grateful to the Library for a useful note that it provided to me before the debate. It contains some basic facts that are worth recording about the importance of export credit agencies to world trade, and their potential for good or evil. For instance, 8 per cent. of world trade is underwritten by export credit agencies—that is $400 billion of trade a year. Of that, $50 billion goes into infrastructure developments, many of which have been rejected by international environment agencies.

I am pleased to say that in most cases Britain has not been party to that rather disgraceful scramble. However, it underlines the need for international agreement on the operation of export credit agencies, which the OECD has been trying to achieve, to ensure that international environmental objectives are not undermined or destroyed by Government agencies. Nevertheless, it is clearly happening. The Three Gorges dam and the Ilisu dam are two classic projects that either should not have gone ahead—if the ECAs not been prepared to underwrite them, they may not have been built—or they should not have been guaranteed and underwritten in such a way.

We have some reason to be satisfied that the mission statement and the Government's review of the ECGD has moved the organisation at least to acknowledge its role in considering the sustainability of the projects that it supports. However, I suggest that it should have a more proactive role, making a detailed analysis to ascertain the extent to which the balance is shifting. Given the hot competition for trade, many of us feel that the tendency is to think first of jobs, and Britain's balance of payments. The sustainability criteria come under severe pressure when such choices have to be made.

To use a mixed metaphor, we cannot be fair-weather environmentalists. If the clear objective is to ensure that sustainability is at the heart of the policy, we cannot bury it just because times are hard, even though we may need the exports and the jobs. Principles are principles, and they have to withstand the fluctuations of the trade cycle and must not be knocked off course.

It is useful, courtesy of the Library, to see the ebb and flow of this debate. We in the Chamber are expressing our desire for environmental criteria to be central to the operation of organisations such as the ECGD, whereas businesses seeking trade complain that the parameters have been drawn in a way that could compromise potential exports. That difference can be resolved by making a clear public statement of the policy objectives. Some businesses obviously think that the objective of the ECGD is to underwrite what they regard as risky exports because it is in the British national interest to secure business that might otherwise not be secured.

That is the simple economic case; that is why the ECGD and all other ECAs exist. Businesses must understand that we have an ethical foreign policy, and that an increasingly important environmental strategy lies at the heart of it. They must be part of it, and should not waste their time chasing business that does not meet those criteria. The EGCD can do still more to explain that.

In one or two recent newspaper articles, some business men have complained that they do not understand the rules. They feel that the rules are working against them. To be fair, the previous Minister for Trade said that he thinks that the new strategy is clear and that it will not lead to a loss of business, but there is clearly a difference of view between the Department and those businesses that are actively seeking trade. If they understood our objectives, it would save everyone a lot of time and heartache.

The United Kingdom cannot yet claim to be anywhere near the sharp end of the green revolution. Many of our continental partners are way ahead of us in several ways. The Americans seem to be far ahead of us in technology and their awareness of it, even if they remain the world's greatest polluters and reluctant to apply joined-up thinking.

We have four or five years of this Parliament in which to look to the Government to raise our environmental standards. I accord with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) in welcoming the Minister back to his post. He knows how widely welcomed his reinstatement was among many of the organisations that deal with environmental issues, because they recognise his commitment. A Minister with his sort of commitment is extremely important for the new Department, and the appointment sends a positive signal, which I welcome. I am sure, nevertheless, that he will not mind my saying that we need to move forward.

A new super-Department, which is what I hope we have, brings the need to review all our targets. The Minister could, if that were done, relate to the Department of Trade and Industry and the ECGD in a way that would make sustainability more than something to take on board from their mission statements—it could be made a key objective for them to market proactively. It could be viewed as a development export opportunity on the back of a much invigorated environmental policy, from which British companies at the front end of environmental development could benefit. That would give us both an environmental and a business objective. The United Kingdom would be determined to secure its own place in the world in establishing improved environmental targets, and the place of its businesses in helping other countries to act accordingly. The right role for the ECGD would be providing guarantees for the countries that really needed the technology, to ensure that the business could be done.

If that is the outcome of debates such as this one, I hope that the participants will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington has put down a timely marker. I hope also that the Minister's reply will reveal a positive dynamic behind the policy, not just a statement of good intent.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing the debate, and I thank his office for explaining to me what he was driving at. The title was sufficiently opaque to leave ambiguities, which his office cleared up. I was relieved to hear from his opening remarks that those ambiguities affected the Government as well, when they were deciding which Minister should respond.

I add my congratulations to the Minister for the Environment on retaining his position while moving sideways to a new Department. I am sure that he welcomes the opportunity to reply this morning, not least because, given that the issue falls neatly into two halves—the environmental issues and the performance of the Export Credits Guarantee Department—he will show himself to be better than anyone at replying on the former aspect, while happily referring all the difficult questions about the ECGD's performance to his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry.

Most of what I say will take the form of probing questions. Given the current excitement in my party it would clearly be foolish to propagate any detailed policy. The policy—and, even more likely, its propagator—might prove temporary. I shall concentrate on asking the Minister to clarify the many ambiguities that have been pointed out by hon. Members. Those ambiguities fall into two broad sections: first, what the ECGD's strategy should be in this important area and secondly, how practical it is to move towards the changes that hon. Members have suggested in this debate.

I start with what the strategy should be, perhaps for export credit agencies generally. The debate raises a wider point about the usefulness of Westminster Hall and where it should concentrate its fire. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that he wished to improve standards across the export credit agencies of all OECD countries, but concentrated most of his fire on our own ECGD's performance. That was sensible, because I suspect that the extent to which debates such as this are useful is in direct proportion to how narrowly focused they are. If they explore part of the Government's performance, they can be useful, but the more they become simple, moral lectures to the world at large and to other Governments about how they should perform, the less useful they are. The more we stick to our domestic performance, the greater service we give to the Government and to Parliament's reputation.

Following my rubric, I will stick to the ECGD's performance in this part of my speech. I echo comments made by several hon. Members about the ambiguity and opaqueness of the guidelines in the environmental sector of the ECGD's performance. Its objectives put sustainable development up front, stating:

"ECGD will press for reform on sustainable development and human rights issues in relation to export credits."

Its policies state that the ECGD will

"increase its awareness and understanding of project impacts…screen applications for cover to identify and thereafter analyse, any adverse or beneficial environmental, social or human rights aspects of relevant projects."

Such policies are laudable, but will the Minister address what they mean in practice? We have heard specific examples of projects that have been environmentally controversial. The very good point has been made that while local environmental impact is often studied carefully, there is much less assessment of wider environmental impact. Are the ECGD's current objectives effective in their own terms?

Does the Minister wish to extend the ECGD in a more proactive direction as advocated by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats? Should the ECGD actively seek out environmentally beneficial projects, rather than simply not supporting, as I hope is the case at present, those that are environmentally damaging? There are two separate questions on that topic for the Government to address: first, whether it is desirable for the ECGD to move in that more proactive direction and secondly, whether it is practical for it to do so.

Last year's review of the ECGD's mission and status, which has been mentioned, sought to delve into that matter. It said:

"ECGD's initial environmental screening process helps identify whether a particular project on which cover is sought may raise sensitive issues. When such projects are identified, they go through a second stage process of 'due diligence'—in which ECGD and the project lenders find out more, taking independent advice as necessary—to help assess project risks and related issues and determine how to take matters forward."

Is that enough? What happens after that process seems slightly fuzzy round the edges? That raises questions about whether the Government wish the ECGD simply to avoid damaging projects or to spread its remit to encourage—perhaps only to encourage—certain approved types of development. The Minister will be aware of the pitfalls in that approach. If he is saying that the proactive stance is not only desirable but practical, and it is the direction in which the Government want the ECGD to move, has he straightforwardly calculated the effect of that on exports? It would not necessarily be damaging in the long term.

The Minister is aware, as I am, that the environmental industries in the UK sometimes feel that they are treated too much as the Cinderella sector, when in fact they are one of the growth industries of the 21st century. They feel that Britain is not punching its national weight in their field compared with other sectors. In the long term, moving the ECGD further in that direction may be beneficial. In the short term, however, it would be likely to cut out some projects that would be otherwise approved and cause damage to existing British companies that provide jobs. That would be a bad thing.

I have been unable to find some hard numbers, which would enable us to make the assessment of the balance—from contributions to the debate, it is clear that other Members have had the same problem. I will be interested to hear whether the Minister can provide those numbers. In practice, would there be an increase in exports of renewable energy projects, and in the promotion of such projects, and would that compensate, or more than compensate, for the existing projects that would presumably be excluded?

The second broad area that raises questions relates to practicality. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised issues about energy-intensive projects. Besides anything that the Government may be doing to change the ECGD's focus, what are they doing to change the focus of exports? I was fascinated to hear the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) refer to clean coal technology, as based in his constituency, because one of our leading renewable energy companies told me of its despair when, during a delegation to China a few years ago—they were a mixed crew of businesses and officials—the Chinese asked, "What do you do in the renewable field?" The Chinese were clearly interested in renewable technology, but the only thing that the official element of the British delegation wanted to talk about was clean coal technology. That may be gratifying to hear for the hon. Member for Putney. No, he is shaking his head, so even he, as the constituency representative of the clean coal industry, feels that that was too narrow a focus.

Clean coal technology is better than dirty coal technology. However, if Government delegations abroad are referring only to clean coal technology, we have some way to go. The Minister also has some way to go to influence his colleagues and promote joined-up green government in this area. Perhaps he will tell us what are the limits of his ambition. Does he think that he is having an impact on his colleagues and does he think that it is right and practical to use the ECGD as a moral example to other countries? He knows that Britain's record in renewable energy is generally not the best—we are behind other European countries. Does he agree that until we show a better national performance, attempting to use the ECGD as a stick—or perhaps rather as a carrot—to give as an example to other countries will be impractical? It cannot be a battering ram that gets us through to countries, the performance of which we wish to improve.

Another specific question is where does nuclear technology fit in? The Government have announced their review, which has not come up in this debate, but it does have a wider impact. It would be helpful if the Minister clarifies whether the Government regard nuclear technology as having anything to do with this debate.

I suspect that it is not a matter of dispute in the Chamber that we want this country to have a better national performance in terms of the percentage of renewable energy that we produce. If we could create prosperous industries that, with the backing of the ECGD, could become world leaders that promote projects around the world, it would be hugely desirable as both an economic and environmental objective. I am aware that the ECGD is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but he is aware that important issues are at stake. I hope that he will use this morning to clear up some of the many ambiguities.

It is, of course, protocol on these occasions to congratulate the opening speaker on his or her choice of debate. I do so with real sincerity and feeling because far from regarding this matter as esoteric, which it may be to some, I regard it as essential. If we are looking for drivers to push forward sustainable development and environmental considerations in both this country and abroad, export credit agencies have some of the most important roles to play. Until recently we have underplayed the issue but that is changing dramatically.

I am grateful that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred to the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall try to answer all the questions that I possibly can, but it is important that all Departments take the message on board and reflect it in their policies. This is not only a matter for my Ministry, regardless of which Department it may happen to be in. I take the view that was put forward by all hon. Members that the ECGD needs to be more proactive. I am sure that the DTI and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who is the Minister responsible for these matters, will take that on board. I also take the point, which was made in a rather nice phrase by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), that we want to see a positive dynamic, not merely a mission statement. That is what the Government are trying to do, but it is fair that hon. Members are looking for that to be fully reflected in policy.

Export credit agencies play a significant environmental role by ensuring that the exports that they support do not make unacceptable contributions to global warming and by actively promoting the use of sustainable technology. The OECD agreement on common approaches to the environment that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) discussed at length will be a big step towards ensuring that all ECAs take account of the environmental impacts of the projects that they support, thereby contributing to a reduction in the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Export credit agencies' attitude to the environment has tended primarily to focus on trade promotion objectives. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) is right to say that we shall not abandon those, but it is a question of better integration. Until the last few years, the main consideration was whether the financial risk was acceptable. Much less emphasis was given to the nature of the export, the project to which the export was destined or the impact that it may have on the environment. Thankfully, all that is changing. All OECD country ECAs now recognise the need to consider the environmental impacts of the exports that they are supporting, and they are working to promote environmental sustainability. That is demonstrated by the fact that in the past couple of years many OECD country ECAs have recruited professional environmental advisers. The majority of them now have systems in place to determine the environmental impact of the projects that they are supporting.

I am slightly surprised that no one has mentioned the Ilisu dam—

I did.

I failed to take account of that. Of course, this provision is one of the ways in which that contentious project is being professionally and formally assessed.

Several hon. Members referred to US standards and performance, and it is certainly true that the US wants a common standard. The Export-Import Bank of the United States and domestic companies have a competitive disadvantage, in that they must meet America's own environmental test before lending can proceed. The US wants other countries to fall into line, but in that regard I rather take the view of the hon. Member for Gordon. We fully expect America to take account of its own interests, but it would help if it took on board that other countries want it to fall into line with our views on the Kyoto protocol. A massive internal expansion of oil and gas production is understandable, given that the lights keep on going out in California, but it must be reconciled with attitudes to the Kyoto protocol.

I accept that the Export-Import Bank of the United States has high standards, but they apply only to large projects. Only about10 per cent. of exports are supported by those standards, whereas the ECGD's environmental assessment applies to all civil exports. The ECGD can, and does, offer the same terms to renewable energy exports as the Export-Import Bank of the United States: better still, it offers them to all exporters. That is an important consideration.

Several hon. Members mentioned transparency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney talked about better disclosure of the environmental impact assessment in particular. An important point is that it is now ECGD policy to make publicly available what information it can—subject to issues of commercial confidentiality and ownership—and that ought to include the environmental impact assessment. The Department is looking to expand the information provided on its website, and will provide briefings on issues of public concern relating to export credit guarantees. We are trying to be transparent.

The Export Guarantees Advisory Council is now responsible for ensuring that the ECGD complies with its business principles. To reflect that broadened remit, the council's membership has recently been extended. Seven new appointments reflect expertise in small and medium-sized enterprises, corporate responsibility, the environment and sustainable development.

The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington, for Gordon and for Ashford—indeed, probably everyone—mentioned proactive measures. So far, I have talked about systems that the ECGD has put in place to ensure that it does not support exports that damage the environment. At the same time, it is attempting to be more proactive, particularly in its support of SMEs, including manufacturers of environmentally beneficial equipment. Several regional presentations have been made to SME audiences this year, and more are planned for the autumn.

As part of that initiative, ECGD officials have already met representatives of the Environment Industries Commission, as have I on several occasions. They made presentations at last month's environment technology 2001 exhibition. As well as making available to UK manufacturers of renewable energy equipment its normal range of assistance, the ECGD is trying to identify some targeted measures—within the scope of the OECD arrangement, it must be said—that will meet the needs of SMEs.

Several points were made about that. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) cited several power projects that were supported by the ECGD. Let me mention four that come into that category: the Oman liquefied natural gas plant, 1997; Shandong coal-fired power station in China, 1998; Manjung power station in Malaysia, 1999; and the Ho Ping coal-fired power plant in Taiwan, 1999. The point about those projects is that they predate the introduction of the ECGD's environmental assessment system. Although I am not prejudging what would have happened under the new system, they would have been assessed on entirely different criteria, and I suspect that in several instances there would have been a different result.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to support for the 10 per cent. renewable energy target and asked whether the ECGD could be more helpful in trying to promote it. The Government are trying to promote it most of all through the clean development mechanism of the Kyoto protocol, specifically to favour smaller-scale renewable energy projects. Many countries are seeking to exclude larger-scale hydro projects, and especially nuclear projects—a highly contentious issue to which the hon. Member for Ashford referred. In our opinion, it is all very well for the exporting countries to take a view on such matters, but we must take account also of what the developing countries want within their own territories. That is a significant factor. As those countries have been the first to tell us in the course of many negotiations—no doubt they will do so in Bonn next week—they have a right to decide what they want to take. Nevertheless, I take the point, and the ECGD is actively seeking to promote its facilities to manufacturers of environmentally sustainable equipment.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I am reluctant to do so. I was about to mention my hon. Friend, who asked about preferential financing for renewable energy exports.

The OECD rules that allow a maximum of 12 years' repayment terms for conventional energy projects apply also to renewable energy projects. The OECD consensus arrangement would prevent the ECGD offering preferential rates to BP or to any other exporter of renewable energy technology. Unless the arrangement rules are changed, it has to be done in that way. The alternative that my hon. Friend proposed—refusing ECGD support for low-efficiency fossil fuel technology—would be contrary to the ECGD's current mission of supporting the UK economy by supporting UK exporters. That leads to the conflict that the hon. Member for Ashford mentioned. His principle of promoting the UK economy is perfectly proper, but it is a question of finding a way that can reconcile the two objectives.

Is my right hon. Friend able to comment on the signing of the OECD consensus guidelines, which will go before the Genoa summit later this month?

My hon. Friend is telepathic, because I was about to come to that.

The change in attitude that I have been talking about can be most clearly seen in the OECD negotiations on common approaches to the environment and officially supported export credits. Over the past few years, the OECD's export credit group has been working towards an agreed system for assessing and controlling environmental impacts of the exports that all ECAs support. We are not in a position to sign anything, because the negotiations are still going on, but we hope that they will be concluded by the end of this year. That should provide a unified framework that ensures that all ECAs take proper account of environmental impacts, resettlement, other effects on vulnerable groups and cultural heritage—all of which are important in the case of the Ilisu dam—and supports exports to projects that comply with acceptable standards.

I have one minute to explain the problem that we are encountering. The United States rejected the OECD agreement because it does not commit to the use of a single set of World Bank standards that projects should adhere to and does not require, as opposed to encourage, the publication of the environmental impact assessments and standards to which my hon. Friend referred.

We sympathise with the position of the USA. We would also like the agreement strengthened but with this, as in regard to Kyoto, the USA is alone in arguing that all projects should meet the standards of the World Bank. The problem is that if one insists on that, it is more likely to provoke a negative reaction from other OECD and G8 members.

I am pleased to be able to deal with pay in the further education sector and the concerns and challenges facing that sector in Gloucestershire.

Education is a priority for the Government. They have made clear through their vision for lifelong learning that they want high-quality education to be made available to all who want it. Lifelong learning recognises the need for individuals to develop their potential, tackle social exclusion and equip local economies with the skills necessary to compete globally. A national framework has been put in place with the learning and skills councils working with the learning partnerships to provide diversity and the necessary provision to meet the needs of the customer.

The key provider in the agenda is the FE sector, which has 4 million students in 271 colleges—the numbers have more than doubled since 1992. If the sector is not properly resourced, funded and rewarded, we will not be able to deliver the Government's agenda and vision. For too long, further education has been the Cinderella of education. It is now time for her to have the dress and carriage and go to the ball In the past four years, the Government have put resources into the schools sector through initiatives such as nursery funding, the new deal for schools, money for books, the pay awards, the standards boards, the new threshold for teachers, the laptops for teachers and money going direct to head teachers. That has all had a major beneficial impact on raising standards.

There is more to education than school provision, however. Now in their second term, the Government must match that provision for the FE sector. Indeed, the funding and resources invested in the schools sector have only exacerbated the destructive differential between the two. The Government are aware of the serious long-term underfunding of the FE sector, which has affected levels of pay and rewards of college staff. They demonstrated that by awarding £300 million over three years for college lecturers' pay, which is the first time that colleges have had earmarked funding for pay. As I shall explain, however, that is not the solution to the problem.

Lecturers and staff in the FE sector deserve recognition and respect for their achievements. Pay is crucial for colleges to be able to recruit, reward and retain staff. The poor comparison between pay in the FE sector and schools damages morale in the sector. That has led to a recent national day of action by members of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education on 22 May and a lobby of Parliament on 3 July. During the day of action in May, I met local staff from the Royal Forest of Dean college. In June, I organised a meeting with Gloucestershire principals, chairs of governors, other Members of Parliament, trade unions such as UNISON and NATFHE—bodies from across the county—so that I could hear their concerns. Three Labour Members of Parliament attended and the Liberal Democrats sent a representative; the Tories are not interested.

Most of the points that I make today arise from those two meetings. The picture that was presented at them to me was not a good one. It is clear that the demand for a fully funded flat-rate increase of £3,000 for all lecturers and managers is a valid start to closing the gap between lecturers and school teachers. College lecturers' pay is around 10 per cent. below that of a school teacher. Even if a lecturer in an FE college had received every pay increase agreed at national level since incorporation in 1993, that difference would still exist.

Many colleges have not received all the nationally agreed increases, however. Since 1993, colleges have been responsible for setting their own pay levels and awards, in line with local conditions, need and affordability. Unlike schools, colleges have to meet the cost of pay awards from existing resources. It is clear from data from the Department for Education and Skills that colleges' resources have been significantly reduced in the past five years and that the unit of resource will not be restored to the 1995–96 levels until next year. In fact, the money available per student in further education is actually expected to decrease by 4 per cent next year.

In the case of the Royal Forest of Dean college, lecturers have not received all the nationally agreed increases and their pay is now a further 5.8 per cent. behind. Yet the college is the local sixth form for the Forest of Dean and its teachers do the same work as sixth form teachers in other schools. Its results are excellent, placing it in the top 10 colleges nationally for A-level passes and making it the top non-selective sixth form A-level provider in Gloucestershire. At the Royal Forest of Dean college, a newly appointed, fully qualified teacher with a degree earns £16,423; that compares with nearly £18,000 for most new school teachers. The maximum that a fully qualified, experienced lecturer can earn at the college is £24,459—that is reached after 10 years—but teachers in local schools after nine years' experience can apply to cross the threshold and, if successful, gain access to a nine-point scale that exceeds £30,000.

The pay differential affects recruitment and retention of staff. Greg Smith, the principal of Gloucestershire college of arts and technology, said that there have been recruitment problems, particularly in maths, science, computing and engineering. Gloucestershire's economy is based on aerospace, engineering and manufacturing, with 23 per cent. of employment based on manufacturing and 35 per cent. in the forest. We face major skills shortages in those areas yet, only last year, a maths lecturer with 20 years' experience left the Royal Forest of Dean college to take up a post in a local school. His pay is higher, he has less responsibility, and he no longer has to teach evening sessions. Clearly, the pay discrepancies cannot continue.

There has not been a fully funded pay award to further education since incorporation in 1993. The teachers' pay initiative suggested by the Government is not the solution, as it represents only a 2 per cent. increase in the college pay bill for this year. The competition between schools and colleges was intense before the new system allowed so many school teachers to go through the threshold, and now it is even worse. The equivalent offer to the FE sector does nothing to bridge the gap: the money is guaranteed for only three years and is allocated to colleges in relation to student numbers and not the number of fully qualified, experienced staff who could stand to benefit.

The TPI provision allocation to the Royal Forest of Dean college for the first year is £73,000, which is less than £700 for every full-time member of staff who qualifies. There was a strong feeling at my meetings with the Gloucestershire colleges that TPI is not the solution as it is divisive, and that was deeply regretted by all.

Another way out of the problem is to go for growth. The amount of money per student, however, has not increased but gone down and is expected to fall by another 4 per cent. next year. In addition, Gloucestershire might not be able to attain growth. Participation is already high, and the county enjoys very low levels of unemployment, so it will be difficult to grow quickly to get extra money. The high participation rates achieved in Gloucestershire and the good state of the local economy are testimonies to the success of the FE sector. Surely, we should not penalise that success.

A representative of Stroud college told me that the number of full-time students drops year after year because so many young people are able to find work. They do not wish to do long courses but instead want to earn money and learn skills while working. What they demand are part-time vocational courses, which cost more to deliver than courses in the sixth form sector. In addition, it is difficult to recruit and retain lecturers with vocational experience in a rural area, and the possibility of growth in 16-to-19-year units is particularly difficult to achieve in Gloucestershire because there is a substantial competitive sixth form sector with a very high stay-on rate. It is estimated that only Cirencester college will be able to grow in the sector.

Many further education colleges in Gloucester serve wide, dispersed rural areas and that gives rise to particular problems of transport and access. Vocational courses and the upskilling of the work force must be done throughout the county and in small classes. Those classes are expensive and difficult to organise and deliver in rural colleges that are often small, as Stroud and the Royal Forest of Dean colleges are. Gloucestershire does not qualify for the educational maintenance allowance, which is only at the pilot stage in places such as Hereford, Devon and Cornwall. There is a case for Gloucestershire to receive it as well. Gloucestershire does not qualify for any special postcode funding either, but a special case should be made because of the sparsity of our large rural areas, our pockets of deprivation and the need to skill an engineering and manufacturing work force.

Further education colleges can draw down extra money, such as money for staff development and training, only by matched funding from challenge funds. That system is inflexible and Gloucestershire colleges do not believe that it is the answer, because they do not have many unqualified staff. The colleges recognise that the standards fund is useful and flexible in schools, but they regret that nothing comparable is available for FE colleges.

There are problems in recruiting and retaining support and administration staff, who are so vital to FE colleges. Colleges are unlike schools because they have a mix of students with a wide age range and deliver many different courses. Teaching times are not set between 9 am and 4 pm, but go on into the evening and Saturdays. That means that there is a bigger burden in further education than in schools on departments such as administration. We face double jeopardy, however. As we have low unemployment, colleges face intense competition from district and county councils and the public and private sectors for quality administration and support staff. In some colleges, it was reported that staff turnover in those departments was as high as 33 per cent. The other competitors can raise salaries—Cotswold district council talked about raising administration staff pay by 15 per cent. and then putting up the council tax. FE colleges cannot match such salary increases because they do not have the funding, so they lose out to other sectors on vital staff.

The colleges in Gloucestershire are proud of their achievements, and rightly so. They believe in and want to meet the Government's agenda, and work in partnership. They have confidence in the national Learning and Skills Council and are wholly supportive of the vision for lifelong learning. They want to demonstrate and deliver quality value-added post-16 education and will continue to work to achieve that. However, for too long the sector has not been flexibly and adequately funded. Staff pay has fallen behind and is uncompetitive and the solutions being offered will not close the gap.

The cost of further education is the same as in 1995, but the sector's productivity has increased by 40 per cent. It is successful and meets the targets set by Governments. Colleges in Gloucestershire have examined everything to reduce overheads and costs, including the sale of buildings, and making redundancies is now the only way to meet their budgets. The Government's vision and priority for education must address the fact that the FE sector has a recruitment, reward and retention problem. They must ensure that highly valued staff do not walk out the door and prevent us from delivering the vision of high quality education for all who want it. The Minister should come to Gloucestershire to listen to the concerns of the people I met in my June meeting. He should meet the principals, heads, staff and trade unions of all colleges in Gloucestershire to find a way forward out of their present difficulties.

I listened with interest and empathy to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ). I warmly congratulate her on securing the debate about matters that she, the Government and I feel strongly about. I listened with empathy because, similarly to my hon. Friend's constituency, my constituency had a long—though now sadly past—association with the coal industry and my constituents, like hers, still cherish the opportunities that further education and training can bring.

I am pleased to respond because I have an early opportunity in my new post to place on record my appreciation of the work that teachers in further education colleges—not only in my hon. Friend's area of Gloucestershire but throughout the country—are doing to open up opportunities for people in the communities that they serve. As my hon. Friend said, further education colleges are key providers in that field.

I also pay tribute to the manner in which my hon. Friend champions her constituents and, especially, to the detailed work that she has done on the matter, which strikes me as an exemplar of how good constituency Members should operate. She has pulled together the principals, chairs, unions and the learning and skills council in Gloucester. I am glad that they welcome the Government's vision of lifelong learning and that they want to play a part in realising that vision. I will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend's delegation, either in Gloucestershire or in my Department, to do justice to the detail of her case.

I want to ensure that my hon. Friend understands the context in which we must view the concerns that colleges have raised with her, and I shall touch on the most relevant Government policy that is being put in place.

More than 4 million people are learning via further education and the Government recognise the commitment and dedication of the staff who deliver education and training. However, too much of the provision is patchy and the levels of learner recruitment, retention and achievement are too low in many areas. That is why we are committed to raising standards. Colleges have responded well. Standards of teaching and levels of achievement have substantially improved, although we must build on that improvement. Colleges will continue to be challenged and supported by the Government, the Learning and Skills Council and the independent inspection carried out by the Office for Standards in Education and the new adult learning inspectorate. We have charged the LSC with developing a strategy to raise standards. This year, that is backed with funding of £160 million in the new standards fund, which is double the sum that we invested last year.

On pay, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 established an independent further education sector through the creation of independent corporations to provide further education and training. The governing bodies and principals of colleges are required to secure efficient and effective management of all their college's resources, expenditure, capital assets, equipment and staff. They are also required to conduct academic and financial affairs to balance their budgets. The appointment of local governors means that the needs of local people, local employers, the local community and the local economy can be better met.

Each college must settle the annual pay and conditions of its staff in the context of the overall resources that are available and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, local need and local conditions. Those are matters between employers and staff within the broad parameters of public sector pay policy.

To help colleges solve the retention and recruitment problems mentioned by my hon. Friend, to reward high calibre teaching staff and support the restoration of proper career development within the sector, starting this year and running over the next three years, we have made an additional £300 million available in the FE teaching pay initiative. I am disappointed to hear my hon. Friend describe that as divisive and not the answer to the sector's problems.

I am also disappointed that the local colleges that she has spoken to dismiss the initiative. We expect more than two thirds of teachers in general FE colleges to qualify for payments of at least £1,000—in many cases, up to £2,000 a year. In addition, we expect 10 per cent. of such staff to secure the restored principal lecturer grade, which will carry an additional payment of up to £4,000 a year.

Alongside that initiative, sixth form colleges are offering a professional standards scheme with payments to experienced teachers. Both schemes are designed to encourage and reward eligible teachers on a par with the threshold payment scheme for school teachers. From April this year, all payments can be backdated to 1 April. No college need lose out even if it is slow off the mark in submitting a declaration of intent to the local LSC.

Colleges should be examining ways to restructure their pay systems to base promotion and rewards on competence, professional development and high quality teaching. The sector must seize both the opportunity and the extra funds that we have provided to improve staff pay. It has been wrongly suggested that there is a bureaucratic delay in getting the new money for pay to colleges, so I will make the position clear: colleges received their provisional allocations for this year's funding for pay in April.

Our discussions on implementation are continuing separately with sixth form colleges. The onus has been on all the other colleges to submit to the LSC a brief summary of their implementation plan for the FE teaching pay initiative. Three months on, less than 10 per cent. of colleges have done that. None of the five colleges mentioned by my hon. Friend that serve her county have done so either. Once colleges have sent in the information, they will receive their funding. I urge colleges to get on and complete their summaries, so that their lecturers can benefit from the extra funding that we are providing to reward their work.

My hon. Friend pointed out that the teacher's pay initiative funds have been spread across the FE sector this year in line with the allocation of core funding to colleges, or, as my hon. Friend described it, in line with student numbers. Our purpose, however, is to recognise the different retention and achievement rates in different colleges. Let me be clear: I will press ahead with plans to examine the scope for refining the TPI arrangements for next year in discussion with the learning and skills council and representatives of the colleges.

My hon. Friend made great play of the comparison between schools and the FE sector. Work is under way to ensure that the FE sector benefits from some of the initiatives already proposed for schools, such as golden hellos and help for new teachers working in shortage subjects to pay off their student loans. I am also conscious of the high proportion of part-time staff in the FE sector and I am considering ways to strengthen the teaching delivered by and support available to such staff.

Qualifications and training are as important as pay. I do not know whether my hon. Friend appreciates that, in many respects, an equivalent of the standards fund exists in the FE sector and I hope that it will have an impact similar to that which she acknowledged it had in schools. Of the £160 million that would be in the standards fund, £80 million will help new FE teachers to gain teaching qualifications and support existing college lecturers and teachers with continuous professional development. The extra money for standards is part of an increase of £527 million for FE in this year alone—a 12 per cent. real terms increase on the money available last year—and next year it will increase by a further 3 per cent., not decrease, as my hon. Friend suggested. That funding includes support for the introduction of the new FE pay arrangements, for new centres of vocational excellence in FE, for higher standards of teaching and learning and for a step change in capital investment, including in IT infrastructure.

Further education has been crying out for such resources after years of neglect. I am certain that the proposal will enable further education to support the extra students that we all want. During the debate, my hon. Friend forcefully pointed out the disparity in pay between some FE lecturers and teachers in schools. We are all well aware of the historic funding gap between schools and FE and how it opened even wider during the 1990s. We are pledged to increase funding and ensure upwards convergence. However, being realistic and honest, that can be achieved only in time. With the TPI for FE colleges and the professional standards payments scheme in sixth form colleges, we have made a start. I understand that the association colleges have offered a 3.7 per cent. general pay increase this year. I am bound to say that that, in combination with new schemes such as TPI, is one of the best outcomes in FE for years.

My hon. Friend also referred to individual colleges where nationally negotiated pay increases are not implemented in full. As I explained, it is for colleges to make such decisions in discussions and negotiations with their local work force representatives. They must operate within their budgets and make what I appreciate can be difficult decisions. As my hon. Friend said, those decisions are for her five local colleges. I understand the uncertainty that that can cause members of staff and students, especially in rural areas such as the Forest of Dean.

I end on a positive note about a powerful new player that the FE sector should regard as its ally, not its administrator. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the new Learning and Skills Council. Its creation in April is one of the most significant and far-reaching reforms ever enacted in the post-16 learning sector. For the first time in 100 years, the planning and funding of all post-compulsory learning outside higher education will be integrated. The local learning and skills council in my hon. Friend's constituency, in Gloucester, is central to our purpose and to ensuring that the needs of local learners, lecturers, staff, employers and communities are properly met.

Order. As the Minister and the hon. Member concerned are present, we may start the next debate.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss several transport issues that are of huge importance to my constituents.

I begin with the urgent need for a full north-south bypass for Dunstable. The residents of Dunstable have been asking for a bypass since 1936, and this morning I read with some disappointment an Adjournment debate initiated by my distinguished predecessor, Sir David Madel, on 8 November 1972, in which he asked

"when will construction work begin on the A5 north-south bypass?"—[Official Report, 8 November 1972; Vol. 845, c. 1154.]

It is depressing to be here as a Member of Parliament for South-West Bedfordshire asking the same question 19 years later.

As one travels up the A5, it seems that every town and village apart from Dunstable has been successful in getting a bypass. Travelling through the village of Markyate this morning, I noticed that the A5 goes around the village, which has reclaimed its high street. The traffic that wants to go to the village flows smoothly and the community is able to enjoy its high street environment. The same thing has happened in Redbourn.

The need for the bypass is overwhelming, and undisputed except by a few per cent. of the people in the town. The overwhelming need is environmental, as the quality of life in the town centre is abysmal for those who have to work and live there. There are 11 schools very close to the route of the A5. On a daily basis, the children in those schools have to endure the fumes produced by almost stationary traffic. As any automotive engineer will confirm, traffic that flows freely produces less pollution than traffic that is nearly at a standstill. The proposed A5 bypass would skirt round the foot of Blows downs—it would not go across them—and, with screening, an environmentally acceptable solution could be found for Blows downs and the Houghton quarry.

There is also an economic need. From an industrial point of view, I have to tell the Minister that Dunstable lost 1,500 jobs in the 12 months up to July this year. I hope that he does not respond by saying that unemployment has fallen in South-West Bedfordshire, so there is no problem. Unemployment has fallen, but where are the jobs? I want local jobs in my constituency. If my constituents must travel out of the area to Stevenage, Luton, Watford, Milton Keynes or London to get jobs, that adds to the severe transport difficulties.

Next to the proposed route of the north-south bypass are 80 acres of brownfield sites that are ripe for regeneration and to which the bypass would give access. They include the old AWD site, the Woodside industrial estate in Houghton Regis and the Renault buildings. From an economic standpoint, the retail centre of the town is in a distressed state. Some 25 per cent. of the shop frontage in Dunstable is vacant because people cannot easily get in and out of the town to do their shopping. Therefore, most people avoid it.

We are told that the north-south bypass is being considered in the multimodal study for the south midlands. I am somewhat cynical about that, and the people of Dunstable view it as a stalling mechanism to delay giving them the bypass. How is it that a full western bypass for Bedford, which was also supposed to he considered in the multimodal study, has been granted? A similar process has taken place in Great Barford. Furthermore, I understand that the Government Office for the East of England is pushing for a Luton eastern bypass. If Luton were to get a bypass before Dunstable, there would be an outcry, considering the length of time that we have been pushing for one.

Last year, my hon. Friend, the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) visited my constituency and called for an immediate public inquiry. I hope that, as a minimum, the Minister will announce a public inquiry today to get some progress on the Dunstable bypass. When my distinguished predecessor spoke in another Adjournment debate on this subject last year, he said:

"I very much hope that, by December, the Government will agree to a public inquiry in Dunstable and that a bypass will be constructed." —[Official Report, 27 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1386.]

It is now July 2001 and we are no further forward. The matter is urgent and I beseech the Minister to make some progress. I invite him to visit my constituency to see the situation for himself.

An extension of the Leighton Buzzard southern bypass is also needed from the Thorn turn, where it meets the A5, to the Ml. A huge volume of traffic uses that bypass, which has successfully taken much of the through traffic out of Leighton Buzzard to that town's advantage. However, the bypass ends short of the M1. Therefore, when traffic meets the A5, much of it turns right and goes straight through Dunstable, which adds to the 3,000 heavy goods vehicles that go through the town every day. That traffic wants to go through, not to, Dunstable. I hope, therefore, that the extension of the Leighton Buzzard southern bypass to the M1 will be forthcoming. Traffic also passes through other villages, such as Toddington, which are highly unsuitable for HGV traffic en route to the M1. Both bypasses are needed to relieve traffic congestion and to contribute to the urgently required economic regeneration.

There is a feeling that the Government are blackmailing us by holding a gun to our heads. We have been told that we have no prospect of getting a bypass unless we accept the green wave of co-ordinated traffic flows from the A5. However, if that is merely a sop and the Government are saying, "Make do with the green wave because that will alleviate the need for a bypass", that simply will not do.

The Government have also told us that, unless we co-operate with their Translink proposals for a guided busway from Luton to Dunstable, our chances of a bypass will similarly diminish. That is an unacceptable way to treat people in my constituency. I have nothing against guided busways: in many parts of the world they can be advantageous to the people whom they serve, as they greatly ease traffic flows. However, I strongly object to the establishment of a guided busway on the site of the existing railway line from Luton to Dunstable. Anyone who drives on the roads in the south-east of England will know that they are becoming more congested daily. Surely many of the branch lines that Dr. Beeching axed should now be brought back into use.

I hope that the Government will not only open the branch line from Luton to Dunstable, but, in time, will connect that line with Leighton Buzzard, to where it used to run. It is true that part of the track that runs from Dunstable to Leighton Buzzard no longer exists, but it would not be difficult to route a track alongside the Leighton Buzzard southern bypass, which could join the main line to London near Cheddington.

If that were done, the possibilities for economic regeneration for the region would be tremendous. Birmingham, Milton Keynes, Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable, Luton and Luton airport could all be linked and that means that the many people who travel to the airport from the midlands could reach it in comfort by rail. At the moment, the Strategic Rail Authority has reserved the line between Luton and Dunstable for rail use. An over-enthusiastic local group wanted to run a railway carriage up and down the track, and some of the sleepers were removed. I understand all that, but I beseech the Minister not to proceed with Translink on the existing route at the expense of restoring rail links to our towns. As I said, I am not against guided busways per se, but I would prefer a rail link.

Leighton Buzzard is a major commuter town to which many people have moved because of its supposedly good rail links to London. It is vital that Silverlink trains retains full access to the fast rail line to London and that neither Virgin nor any other rail company is allowed to elbow Silverlink aside so that it is unable to provide an acceptable commuter or other regular service to London.

In addition, there are no lifts at Leighton Buzzard station. That means that people who are disabled, who are in wheelchairs, who are carrying luggage, or who are mothers with young children have difficulty reaching the platforms. Silverlink was wrong not to have installed a lift in the first place, but it now says that it would not be economic to do so, as the franchise has only two years to run. Given that franchises have only two years to run and that companies do not know whether they will have them renewed, will the Minister consider telling them that if, say, they install a lift, they will receive a credit for it if they do not win their franchise next time? Is there no mechanism for encouraging such important capital improvements that allow access for disabled people and others to our railway network? It is not good enough for the remaining years of the franchise to be years in which capital investment stops altogether. Will the Minister consider whether there is any way in which Silverlink can proceed with lift installations, without it being penalised in the final years of its franchise?

My final point—the debate may be coming to resemble the film "Planes, Trains and Automobiles"—concerns Luton airport. I am delighted that the airport is so close to my constituency. It provides ample and welcome opportunity for my constituents to travel abroad at reasonable prices. It is also a great advantage for any region, both economically and as far as jobs are concerned, to be close to an airport, and I welcome it unreservedly.

That said, however, the airport consultative committees are something of a joke. There is no worthwhile accountability to the people over whose homes the aircraft fly from Luton or from many other airports in the United Kingdom. Time and again, sensible-looking approved routes are shown to members of the consultative committees. Aircraft are not scheduled to fly over people's homes on a regular basis, but are subsequently regularly vectored off. They are taken off the approved routes merely to save the passengers a couple of minutes' journey time.

That is wholly unacceptable. As I said in my maiden speech, it would be the equivalent of a bus driving across a village green to save two or three minutes. There would, quite rightly, be outrage if that happened. Why do we allow aircraft to fly wherever they want over people's homes when that could and should be easily avoided? With the increase in flights predicted for Luton airport— possibly 30 million passenger flights a year rather than the 7 million or so at the moment—the issue will become more and more serious and will relate not just to Luton airport, but to airports all over the country. Will the Minister urgently consider giving real teeth to the consultative committees to which the airports are responsible? I am not anti-airport, but we must strike the right balance between the economic advantages and jobs that airports bring, and the environmental impact on people over whose homes aircraft fly.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) on securing this debate and on the delivery of his well researched speech. I knew his predecessor, Sir David Madel, extremely well; he was an Opposition Whip when I was a Government Whip and we frequently haggled behind the scenes about Bills. Perhaps I will come to know the hon. Gentleman just as well. His predecessor was a courteous, well informed and witty man, who acted as a vigorous advocate for his constituents, particularly on the issue of transport. The hon. Gentleman has shown that he will follow in his predecessor's footsteps in that respect.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned how transport policy affects the quality of life and liveability issues are at the heart of our transport policy. He mentioned the importance of economic regeneration and prosperity in South-West Bedfordshire, and such considerations are in our minds when we formulate policy. We are mindful of the substantial job losses in his constituency. The unemployment rate is still below the national average, although that is no satisfaction to those who have recently lost their jobs. I assure him that every effort will be made on behalf of his constituents, even when the matter extends beyond my remit. I am sure that he will lobby hard to secure greater employment in his area. The current economic climate favours regeneration and the creation of new jobs; we must be pleased about that.

I hope that I have enough time to deal with all the h G's points. Some general comments on policy will show how South-West Bedfordshire fits into a wider framework. Debate on transport in the area is controversial. It has gone on for at least 29 years; the hon. Gentleman's predecessor held an Adjournment debate on the subject in 1972. I expect that other hon. Members can go back still further. The other day, someone told me that it was 60 years since a particular bypass was first considered.

We have established an integrated transport policy and a 10-year transport plan to provide resources for improvements to our transport system. It is widely acknowledged that we have inherited a legacy of under-investment and it will take years to put that right. For the last two years, we have increased the resources available for all forms of transport and, along with local authorities and transport providers, we have committed ourselves to a major sustained investment programme. We established the Strategic Rail Authority, which has a mission to develop the railways as a positive national asset, rather than as a service run at minimal cost to the Exchequer.

The long-term franchises that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will provide the requisite major investment in rail services. I have taken on board his comments about disabled access at stations and will take that message back to the Department. The Strategic Rail Authority is working on a strategy for the whole network and that is due to be published later this year. I accept that the railways have had major problems, but that will not deflect us from our long-term aims.

The motorway and trunk road networks are important to South-West Bedfordshire, which is at the hub of many major networks. We have established, and are committed to delivering, a targeted programme of about 40 schemes for improvement. Many of those are under construction, but others will start in the next few years. We are a long way from the time when people made wish lists, which often promised very little. We have established a programme of multimodal studies that examine comprehensive proposals for dealing with our transport system's most intractable problems.

We have initiated five-year local transport plans to enable local authorities, such as those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and their partners to decide what must be done in their areas and to have the confidence to take their plans forward. The thrust of his argument is that there has not been enough local determination or ability to be able to carry out those plans. The whole transport network plan process is a major step forward and has been widely welcomed.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the integrated transport policy in South-West Bedfordshire, and how solutions are being developed. He described in some detail the need for improvements in safety and in environmental and economic redevelopment. As he described so graphically, congestion is, without doubt, endemic in Dunstable. Diversions from incidents on the M1 can also make that congestion much worse. Bus services cannot run on schedule and timetables have to be adjusted to cope with the regular disruption.

Those problems are not new and we seek to tackle them with the main players in the locality. It is accepted that some of our major projects could take time to be implemented, but the whole approach involves systematic development rather than a series of wish lists.

With regard to the railways, the west coast main line through Leighton Buzzard is being upgraded and new trains are already operating on the midland main line through Luton. The public inquiry for the Thameslink 2000 project is finished and the inspector is working on his report. The Queen opened Luton Airport Parkway station in November 1999. About 30 per cent. of the airport's passengers use public transport—a figure up with the best. The hon. Gentleman will agree that that also contributes to reducing congestion on the roads.

The hon. Gentleman raised the possibility that Silverlink services on the west coast main line might suffer as a result of restrictions on the use of fast trains. At the west coast forum on Monday, the consultants issued a report that set out actions to deal with that problem. The Strategic Rail Authority will consider the report and decide what action to take in consultation with other interested parties.

South-West Bedfordshire is covered by two local transport plans. Leighton Buzzard and the more rural areas fall within the Bedfordshire plan. The Dunstable and Houghton Regis area has combined with Luton to produce a single transport plan for the conurbation. We are delighted that the Luton, Bedfordshire and South Bedfordshire councils have come together to work on a comprehensive transport strategy, as that is the best way to deal with the area's substantial problems.

We have already provisionally accepted the joint Bedfordshire-Buckinghamshire A4146 Stoke Hammond and Linslade western bypass major scheme. That will complement the southern bypass by removing further through traffic from the urban area of Leighton Linslade. Bedfordshire council is also developing local programmes for market towns, such as Leighton Buzzard, and the rural areas of the county.

The authorities propose two major schemes in the joint plan. The hon. Gentleman referred to Translink—the guided busway—a major project that links Dunstable and Houghton Regis with Luton and the airport. All the authorities have identified the scheme as being of the highest priority and are now firmly behind the busway project. He described the huge problems of congestion that prevent reliable bus operations. The authorities consider that Translink will create the required sea change in bus operations for that conurbation.

If the hon. Gentleman has any doubts, he should enter into discussions—if he has not done so already—with those local bodies that have shown themselves to be so much in favour of the project. He will understand that we will listen to the local bodies and those responsible for views on local matters. It is not for us to make a decision from Westminster, but to listen to the local decisions and recommendations.

I am aware of the controversy surrounding the scheme and the alternative ideas for the heavy rail use of the old Luton-Dunstable line. However, the local authorities and local partners must decide which scheme to promote. We expect to receive the full appraisal of Translink at the end of July, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will receive careful attention.

The east Luton south corridor improvement, between junction 10 of the M1 and the airport, is the second major scheme. We recognise the project's importance in respect of regeneration, and its appraisal is expected soon. My officials have visited both major schemes to ensure that we are fully aware of the details of the projects.

In addition to such major schemes, we have substantially increased funds for maintenance and integrated transport in the Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis area. The figure for 1999–2000 was £1.544 million, rising to £2.574 million for 2000–01, and to £4.919 million for 2001–02. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the area that he represents has received substantial increases, and we have indicated that similar funding will be made available for subsequent years.

The plan identifies public transport as the highest priority, followed by walking, cycling and freight access. Those priorities are determined locally, and they will form the basis of the implementation programmes that are developed by the authorities. Local authorities, in conjunction with their partners and transport operators, must decide which programmes to pursue, and they are keen to take up the challenges that are offered by the substantial extra resources that we have made available for transport projects in urban and rural areas.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the London to south midlands multimodal study. We are conducting multimodal studies to deal with the most difficult transport problems. The widening of the M1 and the A5 Dunstable bypass has been referred to the London to south midlands study. Work is under way to develop broad strategies for the first round of consultation with the major players and that will take place in the autumn. More detailed consultation on the proposals for the main corridors, such as the M1, the A5 and the west coast and midland main lines, will take place early in summer 2002. Those consultations will allow for full discussion of the strategic options for South-West Bedfordshire, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to contribute to them.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman's predecessor contributed to the planning conference on the Dunstable bypass that was held in 1996. There was disappointment that no serious action was taken following that conference. The plans for the A5 bypass propose to construct a major grade separated dual carriageway through the urban area. Such a scheme would have a great impact on the urban area, and surrounding open land and sites of special scientific interest. As the h G will be aware, the project is still very controversial.

I am grateful to the newly dapper Minister for allowing me to intervene. Before he reaches his peroration, I want him to explain the thinking behind the Government's decision to detrunk major A roads in Bedfordshire, which means that now the county council, rather than the Government, will foot the bill for maintenance.

If I address that matter in detail, there will not be enough time to deal with other issues raised in the debate. However, we feel that decisions on the 30 per cent. of the roads that are trunk roads would be better made locally. We have put in place the funding for that and we have transferred it to the local highway authorities to enable them to manage those roads. The major trunk roads will, however, continue to be managed through the Highways Agency.

The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire made several points about Luton airport, and I have some complex arguments that I would like to present to him. However, we might not have sufficient time to discuss them, so I hope that he will find it acceptable if I promise to write to him about Luton airport and vectoring off. If he wishes to discuss the matter further, I will be happy to do that.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject and for the way that he has conducted the debate. I look forward to debating with him in the future. I also thank him for giving me the opportunity to explain the Government's position on the important matter of transport in South-West Bedfordshire.

It is no pleasure to raise the issue of whaling in the House. I have done it on many occasions, but I am grateful for the opportunity to ask questions of the Government. It might not be a pleasure to raise this issue, but it is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State in his place. He is held in high esteem in the animal welfare movement, and he is trusted.

Slaughter of the great whales was and remains one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated by human beings against our own or another species. For 50 million years, the great whales lived in perfect balance with nature, the seas teemed with whales and fish were in superabundance. However, within the space of 200 years or so, we all but wiped out some of the most magnificent creatures ever to have inhabited our planet, and brought many of those fish stocks to crisis levels. Human beings did that—we cannot blame others—yet we continually blame other species for problems that are entirely created by our own selfishness and venality.

One can say a great deal about whales as a species—although there is not enough time—but certain points need to be made to put the matter into context. Eighty species of whales exist. The blue whale, for example, is the largest living creature to have existed on the planet—even larger than the most massive of the dinosaurs. The sperm whale has the largest brain of any living creature, including that of human beings. The song of the humpback whale is evocative, intricate and capable of being heard by other humpback whales over hundreds of miles of open ocean. The toothed whales have natural sonar echo location equipment, which is 95 per cent. more accurate than the most sophisticated equipment developed by man.

Whales great and small are highly intelligent, communal, warm-blooded mammals with complex social behaviour patterns. They deserve to be studied and held in awe. There is so much that we need to know about them, and perhaps even learn from them. Over the centuries, however, we have slaughtered these gentle, social, harmless creatures, for such prosaic purposes as pet food, candles and perfume. I am reliably informed that, in Japan, one can buy whale ice cream. I can think of few worse insults than that—the great whales turned into a confection for fat kids.

The danger that we might wipe out the whales caused the International Whaling Commission to effect a moratorium in 1986 on commercial whaling. Despite the moratorium, 21,000 whales have been killed since 1986, either in defiance of the moratorium or in the name of so-called scientific whaling. The countries that have primarily defied the IWC in world opinion are not dirt-poor countries or bandit states, but among the most economically prosperous countries in the world—Japan, Norway and Iceland. Japan and Norway together kill more than 1,000 whales every year—mostly minke whales, but last year I understand that the Japanese Government added sperm and Bryde's whales to the list. Every year, Japan kills more than 500 whales using the loophole of scientific whaling. Japan has the audacity to claim that it is killing in the name of science. All I can say—I know that I can get emotional about this—is that that is exactly the same sort of claim that was made by the Nazis when they were killing people in the name of science in the concentration camps.

Meat from the so-called scientific slaughter ends up, unsurprisingly, in markets or on plates in Japanese restaurants. The Norwegians use the same loophole and export the product of scientific whaling as food to other countries. I have noticed, over the years, that the Japanese are especially touchy when confronted on this matter. They tend to accuse those of us who are trying to end the slaughter of being cultural imperialists, or, at times, downright racists. They say that it is an attempt by the European meat-eating cultures to impose their will on Asian fish eaters. It always seems perverse to me that with all the so-called scientific whaling, we are still unable to show the Japanese or, apparently, the Norwegians, that whales arc not fish but mammals. So much for scientific whaling.

The Japanese, in particular, say that whales are taking too many fish. How often have we heard that before? Industrial fishing has depleted fishing stocks around the world. Nature has its own balance—it is only human beings that have affected that balance. We have caused stocks to fall, so we turn around and blame other species such as whales or seals for depletion. That argument is as absurd as blaming woodpeckers for deforestation.

On the "Today" programme recently, someone from the Japanese embassy compared the hunting of whales with the hunting of deer. When I raised the issue with the then Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, she went further and compared whaling with fox hunting. Those comparisons are grotesque, odious and totally irrelevant, but they reveal the bankruptcy of those who try to defend their arrogant defiance of world opinion. We should remember, when we talk about hunting, that there are those outside this country who use our hunting issue to undermine our stance on wider, more significant animal welfare issues.

Whaling is an animal welfare issue, because we inflict terrible pain and suffering on warm-blooded mammals when the harpoon is fired into them. The time it takes for a whale to die often exceeds one hour; it is estimated that on average 50 per cent. of whales are not killed by the first weapon impact. An independent study financed by Her Majesty's Government showed that some whales were still alive when the whalers cut them up. There is no way of finding a painless way to kill a great whale. Not only is organised whaling economically unnecessary and ecologically unacceptable, it is also extremely cruel.

The attitude of countries such as Japan and Norway is breathtaking in its arrogance and defiance of world opinion. It is sometimes difficult to understand how such economically powerful and supposedly civilised countries can continue such offensive and cruel slaughter of the great whales. In so far as the whales are owned by anyone, they are owned by all of us.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I agree absolutely with everything that he said. Would he care to comment on the falsification of figures in the past in returns to the International Whaling Commission by countries that have taken up so-called scientific whaling? Would he also like to comment on the number of massive fishing fleets, especially in the Pacific and the south Atlantic, that have taken and sold whales illegally and not reported the fact to anyone? Does he not think that there should be a much better surveillance system on all fishing fleets to protect what remains of the great whales?

I absolutely agree. I want to ask the Minister about our involvement in the revised management scheme and the DNA records. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has worked with me on this issue in all the years we have been in Parliament and knows the matter as well, if not better, than I do.

The moratorium has worked more or less and certain populations of whales can be argued to have reached healthier levels. It is at this point that we are told that they can survive being harvested—a horrible euphemism for slaughtering that ignores the cruelty. We brought whales back from the brink of extinction and yet there are countries, including some of those that brought that crisis about, that now want to reintroduce commercial whaling. They must not be allowed to succeed.

One of the most contemptible practices employed by the Japanese is the buying of votes in the IWC—providing development and fisheries aid to a number of countries on condition that they will vote with Japan at the IWC. I have a list here: Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Morocco, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, Grenada and Guinea. Two more countries—Panama and Peru—are likely to join the IWC this year as part of the Japanese vote-buying strategy. Namibia and Togo are rumoured to be potential IWC members, having signed fisheries agreements with the Japanese.

The Government must challenge Japan on that vote buying, because if it is allowed to succeed at the IWC it will, in effect, buy a return to whaling. Most of the countries that I listed are members of the Commonwealth. Has the issue been raised at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, or will it be raised at them in the future? The Minister or the Foreign Office should call in the high commissioners of each of those countries and tell them that if they accept conditional aid from the Japanese, the British Government will withdraw development aid from them. We must impose appropriate sanctions on countries that continue to whale or to allow whaling in their territorial waters.

The plenary meetings of the IWC will begin in London on 23 July. We Londoners must let the whaling nations and their vassal states know how this country feels about what they are doing. At the meetings in Hammersmith, there will be discussions about the revised management scheme that has been mentioned. By definition, we cannot accept a revised management scheme if we oppose the idea of whaling, but it is essential for us to be involved in the discussions. No mechanism has yet been proposed for the enforcement of the rules and for the penalisation of those who infringe them.

Whaling nations oppose any advancement of the RMS because they object to international observation and inspection. They say that that is on the ground of cost, but we know what it is really about: they do not want the world to bear witness to what they are doing. Similarly, they oppose the establishment of an international DNA database to track legal and illegal whale products. Of course, they also oppose any discussion of the humane considerations surrounding whale killing.

I would like the Minister to spell out the position that the Government will adopt at the IWC, and I shall ask him a few specific questions. First, will he insist that humane considerations be given priority? Whales are slaughtered without any legislative framework to provide standards or even recommendations about methods of killing. In Monaco in February, a large number of countries spoke in support of the UK's data collection protocol and we must build on that.

Secondly, the scientific committee does not have sufficient expertise on welfare matters. What proposals do the Government have to provide such expertise? Thirdly, what resolution will the Minister propose on the ethical considerations associated with the whale kill? Fourthly, will the Government support an independent DNA database? Fifthly, will he do what he can to ensure that Iceland is not permitted to rejoin the IWC while it maintains its reservations to the moratorium?

This House is united in the objective of ending whaling completely. In the meantime, however, we must put in place the most rigorous rules to try to mitigate the damage being done by countries such as Japan and Norway. Ultimately, the so-called civilised nations that continue to slaughter whales must be forced to acknowledge that what they are doing is not pursuing cultural or historical activities, but perpetrating crimes against the planet and world opinion. No country, however big and powerful, should be allowed to get away with that.

I thank the Government for their refusal to allow Norway to count minke whales in our waters. I tabled an early-day motion on that matter and it is attracting considerable support from hon. Members in all parties. I wish the Minister well in his efforts to control and ultimately ban all forms of whaling. When he goes to the IWC, he will take the support of all parties in the House. I feel strongly, and I think that world public opinion does too, that whaling must be brought to an end. I wish the Minister well in his deliberations to achieve that objective.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on initiating the debate. He has articulated strong views, which a majority in this country share and which are also held internationally. He has been a longstanding campaigner on the issue and can speak on whaling with authority and knowledge. I hope that the countries that are still involved in it will take note of his comments because he is articulating an important strand of thought.

My hon. Friend is right that the International Whaling Commission will be holding its third annual meeting in London between 23 and 27 July. I can confirm that the UK delegation will oppose all forms of whaling, other than some subsistence whaling by indigenous people, which is insignificant in comparison with the whaling carried out by Japan and Norway. We strongly support the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling and will robustly resist any attempt by other countries to weaken or reverse it.

My hon. Friend is right that there will be further detailed discussions on the revised management scheme that is being developed to regulate all aspects of commercial whaling. We are totally opposed to any return of commercial whaling. We recognise that whaling has been going on and that there is a need for proper regulation. We have participated constructively in work on that to ensure that our voice and scientific expertise are involved.

I should make it clear that we are in no way satisfied with the current content of the RMS. As it stands, it provides insufficient safeguards. Like many like-minded countries, the UK is seeking a comprehensive RMS that would ensure that no form of whaling was a threat to whale conservation and that catch limits and other rules were strictly observed.

One key aspect of any RMS—this is one of the points that my hon. Friend outlined—is that there must be an effective and robust DNA database. There must also be provision for international observers on whaling vessels. Without those two key elements, the RMS will be completely ineffective. We are not satisfied with the procedures that have been agreed so far and we will not compromise on the points that I mentioned.

I welcome the Minister's remarks. What plans does he hope the International Whaling Commission will produce for the observation of illegal whaling in the Pacific and south Atlantic and of massive over-fishing and over-catching? What does he hope that the IWC will do about the use of long nets, which catch many smaller mammals in addition to the fish that they are designed to catch, resulting in the loss of the food source of many whales? Does the Minister accept that a comprehensive strategy is needed, as well as the strongest possible intervention against illegal fishing?

I certainly accept my hon. Friend's points. Indeed, an observer programme might well be part of an international approach to the problems of cetacean bycatch, which involve both great whales and small cetaceans. One of a number of fundamental disagreements that the UK has with the pro-whaling lobby in the IWC is that we believe that the IWC has competence on issues such as small cetaceans. We also believe that it should have an evolving role—it should evolve away from regulating the commercial exploitation of whales, which it was originally set up to do, towards dealing with environmental threats to whales, which come from several sources, including pollution, over-fishing and a range of other issues that it is important for the IWC to note. The IWC has a good scientific base and the UK plays a full role in that regard, along with other countries. We should use that scientific base to tackle the issues that I have mentioned.

International over-fishing goes beyond the competence of the IWC. However, the UK takes the matter seriously and has raised it with UN organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation to ensure that there is international action on regulating the illegal fishing that has been taking place on the high seas.

I echo my hon. Friend's argument that, scientifically, it is ludicrous to try to hold whales responsible for the perilous state of many international fish stocks. Whales are an integral part of the marine ecology and the state of whale stocks is a biological indicator of the ecological health of our seas. The fact that many species have not recovered well suggests that all is not right in relation to the exploitation of our seas. We must tackle that internationally. Speaking as a Minister with responsibility for fisheries, I know only too well that the impact of modern fishing fleets on fish stocks all over the world is much more detrimental than that of any whale. I made that point forcefully to the Japanese commissioner and scientists who gave an unimpressive presentation on the subject at the most recent IWC.

We are disappointed with the lack of compromise demonstrated by the pro-whaling countries. Nevertheless, we shall continue to take part in discussions, as it is important that we have input on issues such as the revised management scheme. We will make it clear that our participation in that work is without prejudice to our declared opposition to any form of commercial whaling. There should be no misunderstanding about that.

A key element of conservation of whales that will arise in the IWC is the creation of regional whale sanctuaries. We strongly supported the initiative proposed last year by Australia and New Zealand to create a south Pacific whale sanctuary. This year, Brazil will propose a south Atlantic whale sanctuary. Those sanctuaries will afford greater protection to whales in areas that are highly important for their breeding and feeding and are on their migration routes. It would be irresponsible to oppose those sanctuaries, which would be an important step for conservation, on the grounds that they might interfere with commercial exploitation. We will support the proposals strongly and argue for them robustly.

With the majority of IWC members, we have also consistently criticised Japan for its whaling operations authorised under special permits—the so-called scientific whaling to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham referred. Like him, we were appalled last year when Japan extended those whaling operations to cover two further species, sperm and Bryde's whales. Under the IWC's parent convention, IWC approval for those proposals is not needed and it is for Japan to authorise whaling under special permit. However, we expected Japan to take note of the IWC's views and those of its scientific committee. We will again register the Government's strong objection to the activity and urge Japan to restructure the research so that its objectives are achieved by non-lethal means. Whales need not be killed to be studied.

We also intend to ask Norway to reconsider its whaling activities, because we believe that they are contrary to the IWC moratorium. Iceland has no case to rejoin the IWC with a reservation on the moratorium. A country cannot set out its reservations to an international organisation before it has joined it. We are taking legal advice on Iceland's position. We are especially disappointed that Norway, which generally has a good environmental record, has disregarded the decisions of the IWC and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species by deciding to export whale products. That is a principal reason why we have refused permission for its whale count in United Kingdom waters this year.

We will also raise the argument about cruelty that my hon. Friend mentioned.

I think that it is on the record that I have had a financial relationship with the International Fund for Animal Welfare in the past.

I congratulate the Minister on his radio broadcast of a couple of days ago. It probably reached a bigger audience than the debate will, and made many of the same points effectively. He said that the Government had blocked the Norwegian survey in our waters this year. How will he come to a judgment on future years? Is that matter still open, or is it likely that the Norwegian survey will continue to be blocked?

Generally speaking, it is important to have good science and to co-operate internationally on collecting and sharing data. That is the fundamental basis for a sound scientific approach. Our objection to Norway is that it has ignored international conventions, and CITES in particular, by trying to restart the export of whale products.

We object to the Norwegian method of calculating its self-imposed quota for taking minke whales. We do not think that the survey makes sound science or that it helps whale conservation. Of course, if Norway changes its stance and the criteria that it applies in its approach to whales and its study of them, we shall reconsider our decision in future years, but we are not prepared to assist Norway in the matter of information relating to the quotas it has set itself for the slaughter of whales, particularly given that country's behaviour internationally.

The UK will express its concern about the cruelty involved in whaling and about inhumane methods and lack of regulation in the hunting of not only great whales but small cetaceans. Video evidence from the Environmental Investigation Agency showed appalling scenes of the slaughter of small cetaceans. We raised that matter at the IWC last year. We shall also promote the practice of whale watching, which is a way for many countries to benefit from whales without killing them. Even whale watching needs regulation and management and that is an important function of the IWC.

I endorse what my hon. Friend has said about whale watching and whale tourism. I understand that that could be a way to change the mind of some of the smaller countries whose votes have been bought by Japan. They may be persuaded that there is more in it for them in the future if they pursue ecological tourism and whale observation than there would be in accepting gifts from Japan in a trade-off for votes to permit the continuation of scientific whaling. Are the Government prepared to think further about that?

Yes, I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend. We have been actively involved in that approach and sponsored a study of the benefits of whale watching in the Caribbean. I am glad to say that we received support from several Caribbean countries. At this year's IWC we shall present a properly researched analysis of the benefits of whale watching off the west of Scotland, so that small countries can see that there is an economic return from whale watching—perhaps a greater one than can be had from the sort of commercial exploitation that is now taking place.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham will know that Japan strongly denies vote buying, but it is accepted that there has been, shall we say, recruitment. It is for the Governments concerned to answer for themselves on those issues, but there is strong public opinion about whaling in the countries involved. The relevant Governments are democratically accountable and I hope that they will account for their actions. They are individual delegates to the IWC. They do not have to follow a given line; they can listen to the arguments. We shall be arguing strongly on issues such as whale sanctuaries, which are important.

I should be disappointed to be given evidence that Japan, for the sake of argument, had tried to use whatever influence it had to persuade delegates to vote in a certain way. That would ultimately rebound strongly on the Governments concerned and it is one reason for our intention to resist moves for voting in secret at the IWC. We are all accountable to our electorates and Parliaments. People should be able to witness a transparent, open process at the IWC.

Our Commonwealth links are strong and I set great store by them. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been active in its contacts with our Commonwealth partners and other countries, in raising international and conservation issues in both the IWC and CITES contexts. I pay tribute to what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has done. It has managed to air the arguments in a way that is not patronising or threatening to the countries concerned; it has simply put the case for whale conservation and explained what would be at stake if commercial whaling returned or CITES were relaxed. It has outlined the risks—not only the prospect of cruelty, but the risk to many whale species that are still on the brink of extinction.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham that I know the views of the House very well and he has put them forcibly and strongly. We will ensure that they are articulated firmly at the forthcoming IWC.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.