During this season of Lent, hundreds of my constituents and many thousands more across the two counties of Wiltshire and Dorset, which comprise the diocese of Salisbury, have been lobbying their Members of Parliament about the situation in Sudan. The link between the diocese and the Episcopal Church of Sudan was established by Bishop George Reindorp in 1972, working with people such as Ted Bickersteth, who served there as a civil servant for many years. That link has developed and prospered and is now under the chairmanship of Bishop Peter Hullah of Ramsbury.

In this short debate, I have three objectives. First, I hope to establish beyond doubt that the United Kingdom has a moral responsibility to work for peace and the restoration of stability and prosperity in Sudan. Secondly, I hope to establish exactly who in our Government is in the lead on Sudan policy, and what Her Majesty's Government and our allies propose to do. Thirdly, I hope to make the case for self-determination for the people of Sudan, both north and south.

The world is focused on the war against terrorism, preoccupied by the situation in Afghanistan, mesmerised by the prospect of renewed military action against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, staggered by the violence in the middle east and horrified by the situation in Zimbabwe. However, by far the biggest killing fields of recent years, the worst humanitarian disasters and the greatest forced displacement of people are to be found in Sudan.

Nobody knows exactly how many people have been killed or driven out of their country. Best estimates suggest that between 1.5 million and 3 million people have been killed during the 40 years of civil war, and between 3 million and 5 million Africans have been driven out of their homes in southern Sudan. There are some 4 million internally displaced persons—more than anywhere else in the world. A million more have dispersed into neighbouring countries. Some 30 million people live in northern Sudan, and about 16 million in southern Sudan. Northern Sudan is Arab, southern Sudan African. Northern Sudan is the seat of a militant Islamic Government. Southern Sudan is the heartland of the Christian faith and the animist tradition.

Why did Britain get involved in the first place? We were never threatened by the people of Sudan. There was then no mineral or other natural resource to exploit. We did it to protect our interests in Egypt and to stop the French expanding east of the Nile watershed. That culminated in the Fashoda incident, when General Kitchener moved south down the Nile into Sudan, defeated the Mahdists and claimed the town of Fashoda, now called Kodok, for the Government of Egypt. The French withdrew. Thereafter, Sudan was administered by the British, who set up a condominium with Egypt.

The British recognised the effective split of the country into northern and southern interests and, through a system of indirect rule, left the administrative and judicial functions to agents of the traditional tribal authorities. That lasted until 1 January 1956. On 20 December 1955, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Harold Macmillan, made a statement to the House of Commons:

"The Sudanese House of Representatives yesterday passed a Declaration in favour of independence … Her Majesty's Government, therefore, after consultation with the Egyptian Government, have issued a statement welcoming the Declaration by the Sudanese Parliament."— [Official Report, 20 December 1955; Vol. 547, c. 1857.]

Meanwhile, in the House of Lords, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the Marquess of Reading, made an identical announcement. For the Labour party, the Earl Jowitt said:

"We should also convey to them—

the Sudanese—

"our hope that if we can in any way at any time help them, Her Majesty's Government will be only too ready to do so."

For the Cross-Benchers, Lord Rea said:

"The Sudan, of course, has always been in a particular relationship to this country, a very favoured and rather affectionate relationship."

The Marquess of Reading responded for the Government, saying that

"any assistance which they may ask from Her Majesty's Government will be most willingly given."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 December 1955; Vol. 195, c. 364-65.]

A moral responsibility for the future of Sudan was undoubtedly established.

As part of the campaign in the diocese of Salisbury, and part of Christian Aid's campaign, constituents have asked me to write to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about oil exploration and extraction in Sudan. I await a reply. Meanwhile, I have corresponded with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw); the Secretary of State for International Development; and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, whose most recent letter, although extremely helpful, referred me to the hon. Member for Exeter.

It is, therefore, with some surprise and great delight that I see that another Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), will respond to the debate. He is warmly welcome, and I know that we can count on his professionalism to provide us with the answers that we seek. I hope that he will, for a start, tell us who is now leading the Government's response. Is it Baroness Amos, in the House of Lords?

During the 1990s, Sudan's relations with the international community suffered because of its links with terrorist groups such as the al-Qaeda network and Egypt's al-Islamiya. In 1996, the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions 1044, 1054 and 1070, demanding that Sudan end all support to terrorists. The United States Government designated Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism and imposed a trade embargo. By the end of 2000, however, Sudan seemed to be making progress. After 11 September 2001, its Government condemned the attacks on the USA, and terrorism in general. On 28 September 2001, the UN Security Council lifted the 1996 resolutions. The US embargo remained in place, but the President announced a new initiative.

There is no doubt about the commitment of our Secretary of State for International Development. She has visited Sudan and convinced the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that Britain must take a lead. The Prime Minister recently announced the appointment of a UK special representative for Sudan, who will be answerable jointly to the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary. A dedicated team, drawn from both Departments, will support the special envoy, Mr Alan Goulty, who is head of the middle east desk at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was our ambassador to Sudan and is deeply knowledgeable about the country, and we wish him well. We also wish the Government every success in working with the Government of Sudan, other Governments and, in particular, the people of southern Sudan to find a way through this tragic crisis.

On 6 September 2001, President Bush announced the appointment of Senator John Danforth of Missouri as America's envoy for peace in Sudan. The President said:

"We're committed to bringing stability to the Sudan, so that many loving Americans, non-governmental organizations, will be able to perform their duties of love and compassion within that country without fear of reprisal."

Jack Danforth is a former United States Senator and an ordained minister. In accepting the President's commission, he said:

"I am prepared to deal constructively with both sides of the conflict, the government of Sudan and the SPLA."

He has been as good as his word, and I congratulate him and the Swiss on brokering a six-month ceasefire in the Nuba mountains.

However, I say this to Senator Danforth and the Prime Minister: the UN resolutions, the sanctions, the aid money from US and British taxpayers, the voluntary contributions of international humanitarian agencies and the deaths of millions of people will all be in vain if, in pursuing the war on terrorism and for justice in the world, the USA and Great Britain turn from Afghanistan and towards Iraq without so much as a glance at Sudan. Indeed, if we do not help Sudan to find its way back to the table of civilised nations, terrorism will continue to use the country as a safe haven and evil will triumph. Death and destruction will carry on in southern Sudan.

Many people are calling for Sudan's oil industry to be closed down, at least until after the war. I understand that view, but I am not convinced that it is the answer. Existing extraction should continue, but with UN agreement and supervision, so that revenues are used exclusively for humanitarian purposes. We would certainly expect any arrangements to be a great improvement on those put in place for Iraq.

So, what is the policy? Are the Government of Sudan part of the "axis of evil"? Last week, a man from Juba told me that Osama bin Laden had been seen there. He said that people in the south regard the regime in Khartoum as a terrorist Government. The mujaheddin are certainly in the area, and they are unmistakable. I met them face to face in Bosnia when I was an election observer for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The facts of the daily situation are clear. As President Bush said of terrorism only last Monday:

"These facts cannot be denied, and must be confronted".

Last week, some hon. Members present had the privilege of meeting Archbishop Paulino Lukudu, president of the Sudan Catholic Bishops Conference, and Paride Taban, Bishop of Torit in south Sudan, at a packed meeting of parliamentarians in Portcullis House. They told us that the Government of Sudan's agenda is to impose Islam and Sharia law on the whole of Sudan.

It is clear that the message from the Government in Khartoum is perceived by the people in the south to be totally uncompromising. Those people believe that the Government in Khartoum say that Christians in the south should convert to Islam, flee their homeland or wait to be killed, usually by the Antonov bombers or helicopter gunships that are such a familiar and terrifying part of their lives.

Last Saturday, the Bishop of Salisbury kindly invited me to his house to meet Archbishop Joseph Marona, Primate of the Episcopal Church of Sudan. What a brave and charismatic Christian he is. He explained to me that it is imperative for his people that there be an end to the fighting, the construction of basic infrastructure such as water supplies and roads, the introduction of medical and educational services, and then a plebiscite on self-determination.

On 3 March, the World Council of Churches convened a meeting of the Sudan Ecumenical Forum at Campion house, Osterley, near Heathrow airport. As a result, the Sudanese Churches have issued a detailed statement on the background to the right to self-determination, the mounting consensus for self-determination and the basis for peacemaking through the self-determination process.

The Osterley statement urges the parties and stakeholders to abide by their commitments and enact the referendum law, which should fix a firm date for a free, fair and internationally supervised referendum. That should be agreed within not more than two years. If agreement cannot be achieved, people should be entitled to exercise the right to self-determination. In other words, if no agreement is reached, the lack of agreement itself should trigger the process of self-determination, not only for the people of the south, but for other Sudanese people.

Meanwhile, President al-Bashir of Sudan has been put on the spot. He is now confronting a test of his seriousness about peace. Should he fail to decide in favour of peace, or fail to impose his will on his Government and army, the prospects for peace will diminish. If that happens, my aspiration is that the UN swiftly becomes involved. The international community will be challenged to propose serious strategies to protect civilians in the war areas.

The hon. Gentleman has described the situation and the conditions for the peace process clearly. Does he agree that one of the biggest issues is who benefits from the oil in southern Sudan?

Yes, of course. I shall refer to that key point, which the hon. Lady is right to mention.

The UN should suggest strategies to protect civilians, and those should not include the supply of weaponry to escalate the conflict. They might include the United States identifying safe havens and no-fly zones.

I have given the Minister notice of five questions, which I ask on behalf of not only my constituents, but people of good will around the world. This may be only an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, but the Minister's answers, the whole debate and all my correspondence with Ministers will be available shortly through the internet on my website, www.robertkey.com.

Will the United States, Great Britain and all our allies against terrorism consider the death and dispersal of the African people in southern Sudan in the same way as the plight of the marsh Arabs and the Kurds in Iraq? Will the British Government, with or without the US, go back to the UN and seek international agreement on a new UN resolution to condemn the Government of Sudan and impose new sanctions on the al-Bashir regime, including a freeze on further development of the oil industry? There should be no new investment, exploration or extraction until the bombing, scorched earth displacement and starvation have stopped.

Will the UN insist that revenue from existing oil extraction in Sudan be redirected from Government arms purchases to infrastructure development in the south—water, shelter, health care, farming, roads and education? There is a huge opportunity for the oil wealth of that nation to be shared between north and south. In addition, will the British Government insist on the establishment of UN peacekeepers, military if necessary, in southern Sudan to guarantee the safety of a new international humanitarian relief effort, and will the UN set in train the political processes that will lead to self-determination for the people of southern Sudan? No one could have put it more concisely than President Bush on Monday. Speaking of the consequences of terrorism, he said:

"Our coalition must act deliberately. Inaction is not an option".

I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—perhaps he would prefer to be known as robertkey.com—on obtaining the debate. It is extraordinary that, over the years, so little attention has been paid to the continuing bloodshed and disasters in Sudan. We should say a word of gratitude to Anglican and Catholic priests and others, and to the charities that have constantly tried to raise the issue. A few years ago, an Anglican minister spent a week fasting in Whitehall to draw attention to Sudan's plight.

As the hon. Gentleman explained, that country of some 25 million people has lost at least 2 million and possibly 3 million killed in the warfare, and about 4 million are internally displaced—refugees in their own land. It is a country of at least 25 different tribes or nations that has experienced continuous civil war since 1983. There were other wars before that and 40 internal conflicts over tribal rights, such as those to water, are also going on. One suspects that the Government in Khartoum, whose main interest seems to be spending what money they have on armaments, are deliberately encouraging the tribal conflicts by supplying arms to those who are interested in keeping the warfare going.

It is becoming a familiar story throughout Africa and in many parts of the world that, where the stomachs are empty, the weapons are shiny and new. Sudan's Government stated that the recent incident in which a helicopter fired on a queue of people waiting for food aid was a mistake. I assume that that means that it was the wrong queue; I do not know what the intended target was. That is just one small example of completely gratuitous bloodshed. It has nothing to do with any aim of that Government or of anyone else, but it is part of the eternal tragedy that causes that nation such immense suffering.

I shall not detain hon. Members, but I must draw attention to the optimism that now exists thanks to the brave words of President Mbeki and initiatives from the rest of the world, especially the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which he introduced. He talked about a future for Africa that we would all like to believe in, but, in the light of recent experience, we are depressed about the prospect of achieving it.

We must give attention to the issue, both in Parliament and in the country, and many hon. Members have repeatedly tried to raise interest in it through Foreign Office questions and early-day motions. Hidden calamities have taken place in East Timor and in Cambodia, when the world was not looking, and it was a matter of cold luck that the world noticed what was happening in Ethiopia. It just so happened that Michael Buerk had a weekend off and a spare camera crew, so he went on an excursion to Ethiopia. The moving film that he produced roused the conscience of the world.

Sudan is virtually unknown on the political landscape and the landscape of public opinion. There would be no reaction if one mentioned Sudan, but an immediate reaction if one referred to tragedies that are taking place even further away, but which seem to happen in the corner of our living rooms because the television cameras draw our attention to them. However, because the interests and nostrums of the news media are different from ours, a series of tragedies has been largely ignored by the public and by the Government.

Perhaps there is a reason for that. Some young, ambitious foreign correspondent from one of our national newspapers might say to his editor, "We must do something about Sudan and print an article. Give me 10 minutes to explain what is going on." By the end of the 10 minutes, the editor, confused by the history and the complexity of events, would turn away and say, "I am publishing a newspaper, not an encyclopaedia." That is one main reason for that impenetrable country—both geographically and because of the alien nature of the situation there—being largely ignored.

I make one suggestion. Perhaps the Foreign Office should consider intervening in a special way, because the agenda is controlled not by the Department for International Development or the Foreign Office, but by the perception of the press and the attention given to the situation. I am not saying that there is any malign reason behind that, but certain areas of the world interest us because we understand them, and few people understand the continuing disasters in Sudan. Should not the Foreign Office be obliged to draw attention to the situation and to provide publicity? Should it not have its own camera teams? Should it not be saying, "There are terrible things happening in the world. We are dealing with the ones that MPs and others bring to our attention, but we know that probably one of the worst continuing crises is taking place in Sudan, which is forgotten and ignored."?

Should not there be an obligation on the Department for International Development and others not to react to the situation as it is presented to them, but to draw attention to it and make a film for television, as Michael Buerk did, to ask, "What are our priorities? Are they what is before the public eye or those of need?" That would be a worthwhile intervention.

It is good to see several MPs in the Chamber—for one debate on Sudan, there was not a single Member of one main party here—and good to see that interest in that country is gathering. I hope, however, that it has resulted not because of oil or because the only superpower in the world regards Sudan as a suitable place to fight out battles between the two opposing camps that are currently developing in the world.

In his final remark, robertkey.com referred to inaction. There is inaction that one likes to see, because there is such a thing as stability in the world. When the President to whom he referred came to power, there was stability between North Korea and the rest of the world. Rapprochement was being built up between North Korea and South Korea, but the new President effectively wrecked that.

Iran has changed its policy substantially over the past five years and it was moving closer to becoming an acceptable member of the family of nations. The Iraqi situation was relatively inert. Some 10 years ago, Iraq was belligerent, threatening and making weapons of mass destruction. It was as dangerous then as it is now, possibly more so.

In relation to the so-called axis of evil countries, therefore, there is an advantage in having stability in the world. The great danger of saying that inaction is not a possibility is that we are likely to replace a dangerous but stable situation with a highly unstable, perilous one.

I conclude by begging the Minister and Parliament to consider the dreadful history of Sudan, which seems to be a country filled with endless tragedies.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on introducing the debate. He is the lead Member in the diocese of Salisbury, which has put tremendous emphasis on raising public awareness of the plight of all people in Sudan. In my constituency, half of which lies in the diocese of Salisbury and the other half in Winchester, the parish of West Parley and the parish of Ferndown have been in the forefront of the campaign to raise public awareness.

The Rev. Charles Booth, rector of the parish of West Parley, has sent me several letters, as have some of his communicants, about the problems in Sudan. In a typically Christian spirit of generosity, they write of their concern for all the peoples of Sudan, regardless of faith allegiance, whose lives are blighted by the civil conflict. They established Ash Wednesday, which was 13 February this year, as a designated diocesan day of action.

There is widespread public concern, not only because of the civil conflict and the number of people being massacred and persecuted, but because of the increasing evidence that some of that is religiously motivated. Christians are writing to me in growing numbers to say, "We are a Christian country. Why are we not standing up for Christians who are being persecuted worldwide on a much larger scale than Muslims?" From the figures, we can see that as many as 100,000 people a year, over 20 years, may have been massacred in Sudan because of their religious beliefs.

One would have thought that, at a time of increased worldwide awareness of and concern about religiously motivated conflicts, the conflict in Sudan would be top of the political agenda. Unfortunately, it is not top of the political agenda in the Department of Trade and Industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, he and I have sent a large number of letters to the Secretary of State. If the matter is important to her, I am sure that she would have responded, and the fact that she has not done so is disappointing. She and her officials must have known about this debate. Normally, by convention, Ministers seek to clear their correspondence on issues being discussed in the House so that people have the chance to consider their response.

Yesterday, I was lucky enough to draw No. 18 in the ballot for oral questions, but sadly my question was not reached and not answered orally. I received a written answer, however, drawing my attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for International Development visited Sudan in January and that the Foreign Secretary's representative was going there this month. I would have hoped, in the light of the undoubted efforts being made by senior Ministers in Sudan, that they would do more to inform the House and the people of this country about their assessment of the situation. We may have a volunteered statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on her visit, and that of many others, to the Doha summit, so why can we not have a volunteered statement from the Secretary of State for International Development when she returns from Sudan?

It is vital that the issue be raised higher in public awareness. The diocese of Salisbury motivated my hon. Friend and me and to participate in this debate, which shows how ordinary people can influence affairs of state in this country. I hope that this is not the end of the process, but the start of a major debate and the raising of public awareness about an outrageous situation. The persecution of black African Christians threatens to continue.

I appreciate all that the hon. Gentleman says about the persecution of Christians, but we should remember that many people in southern Sudan are of the old animist religions. They, too, are God's children, and we should remember their suffering.

I agree with the hon. Lady on that issue. That is the view of my Christian constituents, who have written to me about the matter. We are concerned about all the consequences of the civil conflict in Sudan—the enormous loss of life and the displacement of people.

A six-month ceasefire may have been negotiated in the Nuba mountains, but it is by no means clear whether it is being carried into effect. As with all such things, our problem is not knowing what sanctions will be imposed if those commitments are not kept. There seemed to be a quick willingness after 11 September to lift some sanctions affecting Sudan, but we must consider the question whether the major world powers have been taken for a ride by President al-Bashir of Sudan.

I shall say no more, because I hope that we shall have plenty of time to listen to the Minister's response, which is what the people really want to hear. They want to know what their Government are doing about the problem.

It is a pleasure to take part in this exceptionally important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on the admirable way in which he introduced it, and I agree with every word he said. As chair of the all-party group on Sudan, I have been applying regularly for such a debate, as have others, so I pay tribute to his ability in succeeding. I shall visit his website to see whether I can learn how better to manage the procedures of the House.

It is important that we debate Sudan today because there are hopeful signs, but above all because of the desperate and dreadful circumstances there. As we speak, the war rages. It has been going on for at least 35 of the past 46 years. The debate is fortuitous also because the all-party group will visit Sudan shortly after Easter. We all look forward to going to north and south Sudan, and to Kenya, to speak to people based there about their perceptions of the situation. We shall need a certain sense of humility and a desire to learn about, discuss and observe what is going on. Then, we must come back and make ever more forcefully the points that we believe need to be made in respect of the Government's involvement in Sudan.

One might ask why particular Members of the House have an interest in Sudan. The hon. Member for Salisbury displayed his interest and told us of his connections with the admirable work of the diocese of Salisbury. What others have said is absolutely accurate: one would not gain a good understanding of the situation in Sudan by reading the papers. The media cover the desperate circumstances of people living in Sudan about as regularly as they deal with the possibility of there being life on Mars. For most of the media, Sudan is about as far away.

I am interested in Sudan and became involved because of a constituent who came to me as a refugee from that country. He was an asylum seeker, seeking refuge from torture, oppression, imprisonment and the death of members of his family. He has become a colleague—he works with me in Parliament—and a friend. Lokiden Modi Kenyi is a member of the south Sudan civic forum. Once he gained a certain interest in the circumstances of his country, he assiduously introduced me to his colleagues at that excellent organisation.

We have a huge Sudanese diaspora in this country, and one in eight of all displaced people in the world are of Sudanese origin. The vast range of people from northern and southern Sudan living in this country whom I have met impressed me with their bravery, integrity, commitment to their country and desire to return there. It can be heartbreaking to hear their descriptions of how this country has helped them, although they are desperate to return to their own country and to have what the hon. Member for Salisbury rightly refers to as self-determination. A referendum on self-determination is at the heart of an overall deal that could create conditions for peace, development, increased respect for human rights and justice in Sudan.

We have already heard the facts: about 2 million people have died in the past 18 years as a result of fighting or its consequences; generations of children in Sudan, particularly in the south, have never had sustained opportunities to access basic education, health care, clean water or adequate food; and 4.5 million people have been driven from their homes. Those are desperate circumstances and they should command our attention.

The hon. Member for Salisbury is right that this country has a moral responsibility towards the people of Sudan. Under British colonial rule from 1898, we fused north and south Sudan, creating an amalgamation of territory and people. In 1956, we finally let them get on with it, and we are seeing the consequences now. It is clear that there is a direct need for this country to become further involved in any way it can to help to resolve the appalling circumstances in Sudan.

There is a link to 11 September, as Sudan was Osama bin Laden's haven before he transferred to Afghanistan. If we do not deal with the barbarous circumstances in countries such as Sudan, we know the consequences for countries such as the UK and the United States, which, before 11 September, comfortably assumed and complacently hoped that they were insulated from them. We must engage much more with the peace process and recognise the need to develop both respect for human rights, justice and democracy and a referendum on self-determination in Sudan.

There are signs that we are making progress. We can see them in the number of people from Sudan who are making their way to this country, the ecumenical forum that has been referred to in recent weeks and visits from, among others, a previous Prime Minister of Sudan, Sadiq al-Mahdi, the leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Army, John Garang, and the Governor of Khartoum. The Danforth initiative has been extremely important, as has the visit by the Secretary of State for International Development, who addressed a packed meeting of the associate parliamentary group on Sudan a few weeks ago on her visit and her hopes for peace there.

Many of the 70 or so Members from both Houses who are in the group were present, and well over 100 Sudanese people packed into a Committee Room, desperate for knowledge and eager to hear of any prospects of peace. The Sudanese people whom I have met hold the Government in the highest regard for wanting to engage further with Sudan, and the Sudanese people in that Room were pleased by what the Secretary of State had to say. Since 11 September, our Prime Minister has engaged with Africa and the new Africa-led economic policies for African development, and Alan Goulty has been appointed special envoy to Sudan. Such developments give us hope that we can make great progress.

According to a Christian Aid report, the Sudanese Government gain $1 million of oil revenue a day. Co-incidentally, $1 million a day goes to fund their armed forces and involvement in the war. Sudan has about 2 billion barrels of oil reserves, mainly in the south. That tremendous resource could be used to aid the country's economic development and to improve its education services and health facilities. British companies are involved in exploiting the oil, as are Swedish, Canadian, Malaysian and Chinese interests.

Our Government have a moral responsibility to become further engaged in Sudan. A peace process and a referendum on self-determination would be in the interest of all its people, who could see the benefits of oil and be given debt relief and further development aid. By joining the community of nations, from which they are excluded, they could play an important part in the desperately needed development of the continent of Africa. The boundaries of their country could be decided by democratic mandate rather than colonial imperatives. They could be part of a country that respected all religions, whether Islam, Christianity or traditional African religions, without seeking to impose one religion on all the people.

The Government should use the levers available to them much more effectively. British investment in Sudanese air traffic control systems—they support airfields from which Antonovs, helicopter gunships and other instruments of oppression operate—is a disgrace. Although there is a case for development aid, especially in some southern parts of the country, I am not sure that the aid from the European Union, especially for the northern parts of Sudan, helps the cause of bringing everyone to the peace table. I am sure that more pressure could be exerted through the Department of Trade and Industry on oil interests in Sudan and allied countries.

The Government have an important role to play in Sudan. The circumstances are desperate, and Sudan is one of the most difficult countries in the world to develop. There is, however, hope for the future, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on initiating the debate. As the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said, we cannot simply follow where the media decide to send their cameras, when countries are in the news today, or are politically sexy, so everybody cares about them. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) asked why people were interested in Sudan—but not one constituent has contacted me about it, and I have had no correspondence about the well-being of people in Sudan since I was elected last year. It is our duty as Members of Parliament to discuss issues and countries that the media ignore, and to encourage them to follow up relevant stories. Issue and events are no less serious because they do not happen to be in the news.

One such event, which was described as a mistake, took place recently. Twenty women and children were killed at a World Food Programme drop. Survivors said that one gunship circled overhead while another opened fire, hovering so low that the crowd could see the gunner's face. Rockets were fired into the drop zone and into a nearby village, while those who ran for cover were machine-gunned. It was the second attack on a WFP aid distribution in 11 days. Had such an attack been made on British or American citizens, there would have been a huge outcry, and calls for military intervention. The number of people killed is not too dissimilar to the number of American soldiers who died in Mogadishu—an event that had ramifications around the world.

People are hardly aware of the problems in Sudan. As has been said, a camera crew in Ethiopia opened the eyes of the world. We should therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury for raising the issue here today. One advantage of debates in Westminster Hall is that everyone present is interested in the subject. As a new Member of Parliament, I must say that that is not always the case in the main Chamber.

Today, I would like to hear that Britain can and will play its part, that inaction is not a possibility and that we shall work in partnership with our European allies and through the United Nations. It is also imperative that there are observers on the ground to see what is happening. There have been stories—I do not know whether they are true—about slavery, and about children in Sudan and bordering areas being abducted to serve in the military. It is important that we find out exactly what has happened so that we can concentrate on the issues that must be dealt with.

The appointment of the special representative is welcome, but Britain cannot make progress alone, and we must work with others. An end to the hostilities is obviously a top priority, but there are also people who have no food in their bellies, and it is our responsibility to spread the word about such issues as much as possible. We must pressurise the media, so that people at home and abroad are more aware of the problems out there.

I join others in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. I also pay tribute to the Bishop of Salisbury and to dioceses and parishes across the country for keeping the subject alive very effectively: without them, it would have disappeared without trace. Indeed, it was my church—St. Anne's on Kew Green—and a fellow parishioner who worked for Christian Aid, that helped me to go to southern Sudan three years ago, six or seven months after the famine. The media paid attention to the famine—they always pay attention to dire events, but never to anything less extreme.

Ever since I went to Sudan, I have been tabling questions, trying to call debates and having meetings, but without getting very far. I share the hon. Gentleman's frustration with the "Not me, guv" attitude in the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. One hopes that that attitude has come to an end with the visit of the Secretary of State for International Development. I saw her yesterday and she was obviously enthusiastic and determined to find a solution to the problem.

I shall describe what I saw and experienced on my visit three years ago. The situation has not changed since then—that is what is so awful. I went to Turelei in Twic county in the Bahr al-Ghazal area, which suffered the worst of the famine. It is difficult to describe the poverty in which the people of that area lived. They had straw huts and straw stockades around groups of huts—until raiders from the north came and burnt them down, which is a regular occurrence. I suppose that it is lucky, in a way, that the huts are built of straw, because it is easy to put them up again. Everything that those people possess, including their animals, cooking utensils and any clothing that they may have, disappears during those raids. They have nothing.

In the little enclave where I stayed for two days and two nights, there were two huts, two cows, a few dogs, a goat and about 30 human beings, but although the people there were treating honoured guests from the British Parliament, there was hardly any food to eat. We had a little bit of dried fish, because the floods had just subsided and they had managed to catch some fish. Southern Sudan is often flooded for half the year and arid for the rest of the year, so the only chance of getting protein is when the floods come. There was also sorghum wheat bread, which is inedible to people with western tastes, as it scratches and hurts when one swallows it. Apart from the okra soup, which is awful—I do not recommend it—that was about it for the food.

Those people still faced starvation a year after the famine ended. For example, the women told me that they were desperately worried because they were no longer menstruating. I introduce that subject because it is interesting to me as a medic. Girls who suffer from anorexia nervosa, which is enforced starvation, do not menstruate after a while. The women in southern Sudan had been starving so long, through none of their own fault, that the same thing happened to them. That shows how starving they are.

Things have not changed. The people of that area live on the edge of survival, they are bombed by the north, and when the floods go down, raiders come on the wonderful train that runs from the north to a place called Wau in southern Sudan, full of Marahaleen armed to the teeth. Those are unofficial paramilitaries of the Sudanese Government, who are not paid but are allowed to loot, take slaves and destroy, everywhere the train stops. When I was there, the news came through, "The train has started moving—beware, the attacks are going to start again." That is a terrible situation.

Three years ago the SPLA—the Sudan People's Liberation Army—was fighting the Sudan People's Democratic Front, so there was civil war in southern Sudan. Thankfully, a peace agreement has been brokered between those two forces and there is much better co-ordination of activities in southern Sudan—but, boy, are those people tired of war. That terrible situation has been going on since 1956.

In the area that I visited security has improved, but the problem has shifted to western Upper Nile, where the oilfields are. As we have heard from some hon. Members, the situation is repeating itself there, with a scorched earth policy. The oil is flowing, but at what cost?

Does my hon. Friend agree that oil is one of the biggest obstacles to the peace process?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Nothing is more important than what is done with the oil. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, the revenues are being used to make war when they should be making the people of Sudan comfortable, well off, well fed and well housed. Instead, they are just making things worse, as the excellent "Scorched Earth" document published by Christian Aid showed.

One of the peace initiatives brokered by Senator Danforth was to bring peace to the Nuba mountains. That is great news for the people there, but it has released the soldiers on both sides to go to western Upper Nile and swell activities there. There are so many problems surrounding oil, and I am sad to say that British firms, such as Weir Pumps in Scotland, are involved in the extraction of oil. I wonder what advice the Government have given them.

There have been some initiatives. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development process, which has not yet been mentioned, was much scorned. When I was in Turelei I met a group of men called "the intellectuals". They told me that the IGAD process was useless—just a talking shop for politicians. They said, "Politicians are like monkeys: the higher they climb up the coconut palm, the more backside they expose."

Senator Danforth has been involved with some other initiatives. He thought that it was important to protect civilians from military attack, and called on the Sudanese Government to do so—but attacking civilians around the oilfields is one of the strategies of the Sudanese Government. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre knows, that is what the Government do to drive people from the area in order to get at the oil. So there is no success on that front, and we have already heard about the accidental attack on the food queue in Bien on 20 February.

Senator Danforth also set up a commission to investigate the question of slavery as between the south and the north, as well as the subject of child soldiers, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett). Some NGOs have been involved in redeeming slaves, but when I was in Sudan there was much worry about those activities, because it was felt that a good business was being developed involving taking slaves, selling them back to Christian Solidarity Worldwide and then using the money to buy arms for soldiers. The international community must investigate that.

Aid has been mentioned, but it is no good giving aid to the Government of Sudan in the present circumstances because the aid does not go to the people in the south. As I have said until I am blue in the face, southern Sudan is a very big area. At times parts of it are at peace, and some education must be provided in those areas. Generations of children are growing up without any education. I was told that all they need is the odd teacher, some slates and some chalks. They can hold schools under trees, and do not need schoolrooms or fancy equipment. That would be so valuable and would keep what children are left occupied, because one of the problems for children in war is that there is nothing for them to do, as well as nothing for them to eat.

Human rights observers are needed. We need monitors in the Nuba mountains to monitor the ceasefire and ensure that the war in that area has really stopped. We need safe havens for civilians. Southern Sudan is a big place and there should be internationally monitored safe havens where people can go while the horrible situation is sorted out.

The biggest problem of all, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, is the sharing of oil. An accommodation must be reached between the north and south of Sudan on who owns the oil and who benefits from it.

Last week the all-party group on Sudan met John Garang, who is an engaging man and the leader of the SPLA in southern Sudan. I did wonder how often he visits southern Sudan, but he is clearly trying hard to pursue a peace process. He thinks that the two problems are oil and the fact that the south do not want Sharia law imposed on them—they would prefer self-determination. Time and again we come back to the point that the self-determination process is prevented by the problem of oil. We also met bishops from southern Sudan, who seemed depressed. They said:

"John Garang and the Government of Sudan come to the UK to talk peace whilst at home they prepare for war."

On my wrist I wear this old bracelet made of cartridge cases—the only freely available commodity in southern Sudan. It was given to me three years ago by a woman in Turelei, and I was made to promise that I would keep it on my wrist until Sudan had peace. I have a horrible feeling that I shall go to my grave wearing it, if the Government do not pull out all the stops and get a peace process going in Sudan.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for securing a debate of special importance to all hon. Members. He went into great detail, and all those in his constituency who take an interest in Sudan, and anyone else who heard him, will be impressed by his mastery of the issue.

The civil war in Sudan has been raging for many years, at a terrible cost to human life and in human suffering. It has brought destruction and poverty to an already economically vulnerable country, and has raged for too long, apparently unnoticed or—even worse—deliberately ignored by too many in the international community.

The only hope for that blighted country is a ceasefire followed by a determined internationally supported drive for peace. I pay unqualified tribute to the churches in the south-west and their friends in Sudanese churches for championing such an important agenda for peace. The impetus that they have created will serve to advance a cause that will save the lives of many thousands of Sudanese in years to come. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has received several letters from his constituents as a result of that link, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has taken a close interest in the issue and is firmly committed to championing an agenda for peace in Sudan, has received letters too.

The civil war has too often been neglected by Governments and the media. It is seemingly little understood, and perhaps some have thought it easier to ignore. I could not disagree more. We have a moral duty to do what we can, and if we have any interest in regional stability we should clearly see the political imperative to act.

The many attempts to simplify the conflict in the Sudan and characterise it as a religious war between a Christian south and a Muslim north fail to address the causes of the underlying tensions and conflict. Economic issues that revolve round the distribution of resources, concerns about exclusion from the political process, desires for self-determination or at least inclusion, and religion, all play a part in creating a complex mix of motivations and tensions. The concentration of power and wealth in the hands of small competing groups of elites—as can be seen in other countries—has deepened the resentment and the economic, political and religious divides in the country.

An underlying problem in finding a solution is the multiplicity and shifting nature of each group's agenda. On one hand there is the Government—the National Islamic Front under President al-Bashir—and on the other there is the National Democratic Alliance, the largest component of which is the Sudan People's Liberation Army. Each group has its own agenda, be that dominance of the country and exploitation of oil revenues or independence and secession from the state of Sudan as we see it now.

Into that mix can be added other groups, including, importantly, the Churches. Every one of those groups must be willing to participate in a peace process in good faith and be willing to work on reconciliation and building a better future for the country. At the moment none of the warring parties seems committed to the cause of peace, except when it feels that its fortunes are on the wane. We must all work to change that outlook. The sustained concentration of an international effort and negotiations is needed.

One of the great problems to be overcome in attempting to create a successful peace process is the lack of unity of purpose and co-ordination—and a degree of that must be achieved. At the moment, various sporadically active peace initiatives are under way. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development—IGAD—process, which has already been mentioned, and the Egyptian-Libyan efforts are just two of the most notable. Although the intention of such initiatives may be worthy, they often end up competing with one another, allowing the warring parties the opportunity to play them off against each other while no genuine progress is made towards peace.

An extra-regional negotiator of international stature is required to take the lead and become an over-arching influence, bringing together the various initiatives currently being pursued. Co-ordination and involvement by all interested parties, internal and external, is essential. The appointment by President Bush of former Senator Danforth marks an important step forward by the United States in recognising that it has a role to play in conflict resolution in Sudan.

I particularly welcome our Government's appointment of Mr. Alan Goulty as special envoy to Sudan. In Mr. Goulty we have an able, knowledgeable and dedicated diplomat, who we all hope will be able to play an important role in creating and moving forward a peace process. It is reassuring that the Government have been able to find such an able envoy in our diplomatic service and have not felt the need to look outside it. His seniority and skill ideally equip him for the task. For the sake of the many whose lives are at risk, we wish him well. We urge the Government to give their continuing support and attention to his efforts. I hope that the Minister will confirm that they will not just dump him in it and leave him to get on with it.

I do not intend to suggest a detailed prescription to remedy Sudan's ills, which I must leave to those better informed than I. I shall make a few observations, however, on which I am sure the Minister will comment. In the first instance, a ceasefire, or at least a moving apart of the two warring factions, is required. Any subsequent deal must be constructed to incorporate mechanisms to share the country's wealth and oil revenues equitably. I shall come on to those in a moment. It should build a secular democratic Sudan and allow religious freedom. Any negotiations should closely and carefully examine the various suggestions being made about a referendum on independence, self-determination for the south, or a federal solution allowing each region much, autonomy in law making. I do not presume to advocate any one of those solutions at this early stage in the process, but they seem to form the agenda that matters.

In passing, I must mention the attack that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made on the idea of air traffic control. Things are bad enough already. Every country needs infrastructure, and the thought that planes would be bumping into each other would do nothing for Sudan's international reputation. It was a mistaken attack, although I accept that the hon. Gentleman believes that the system is used for military purposes only. It is not; it is also used for civilian purposes, and people will not fly to Sudan if they do not have confidence in the infrastructure that keeps them safe.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a huge problem if those control systems are being used to aid the repression of, and the attacks on, civil populations that we have heard about.

Yes, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is attacking the wrong target.

I would be failing to present the whole picture if I did not touch on oil exploration and development in Sudan. As everyone in the Chamber admits, the revenues that that industry generates and their use cannot be divorced from recent developments in the country. The NIF Government see oil as the factor that will give them the decisive advantage in the war against the NDA and the SPLA. Development of the proven oil resources in Sudan began in about 1999, and the Government's expectation was that the resulting revenues would allow them to purchase a significant enough military advantage to secure victory. On the other hand, the SPLA has focused its campaign on damaging the oilfields as a means of hitting the Government's revenues.

There are some—we have heard their argument today—who have called for international pressure on the Sudanese Government to stop oil production altogether and stop the development and exploration of the fields. They point out that essentially, oil is fuelling the war. Although I fully appreciate that view, I suggest that we should focus instead on bringing pressure to bear on the Sudanese Government and the oil companies to channel the revenues raised from oil into education and health rather than armaments. Effective mechanisms to monitor the use and equitable sharing of those revenues should form part of any peace deal.

Cutting oil revenues altogether would only be a step towards the creation of equal misery. What is the point of that, when distributing the wealth responsibly would be a much better option? The revenues from oil represent the best hope for Sudan's long-term prosperity and a means by which it could lift the condition of its people. We should be wary about irresponsibly undermining that potential. In fact, the oil in Sudan generates an impetus for peace. First, the keenness of the Sudanese Government to secure access to western markets for their oil means that they are working to end their isolation and build better international relations. Being receptive to a peace process is an important aspect of that. Secondly, so long as the Government have income from oil, they do not, we hope, need to have recourse to alternative income from terrorist or extremist groups, as happened during the 1990s.

The churches of the south-west, through their strong links to churches in Sudan, have done a great service in drawing attention to that country at such a crucial time. Where the current British Government have—until now—stood back a bit from taking an active role, the Church has been energetic and focused. It is encouraging that the Government are now according this issue a much higher status, and it is important that they work with the Churches and all the parties to the conflict to advance the agenda for peace. A co-ordinated determined international approach has the potential to lead to peace in a war-ravaged country, and we must seize the opportunity that the current international situation has opened for us.

It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for introducing it, because the issue is important. The contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) as well as those by the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) have all been valuable—and they will almost certainly be read on robertkey.com, which will now be my morning internet turn-on. They will also be available on the parliamentary website. The contribution by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was most valuable as well. I thank him for the tributes that he paid to Alan Goulty and to the quality of Foreign Office diplomats, who are fewer in number than in many other countries of comparable size, and deliver a big bang for their not very significant bucks. We should be proud of their contribution.

This time last week I was speaking about international policy matters at a church hall in Roundhay, Leeds. Although many of my hon. Friends in other Departments spend more and more of their time travelling overseas, as a Foreign Office Minister I am spending more time travelling in the United Kingdom, explaining the importance of international engagement to our citizens. While I was there, a Mr. Peter Riaak sent me a note asking why the British Government were not intervening to stop the civil war in Sudan. I was able to tell him that I would send him a copy of the Hansard record of this debate, because Sudan is a major parliamentary issue. I should also like to place on record our thanks to those who have consistently raised the issue in another place. If hon. Members care to read the House of Lords Hansard, they will see the replies from my noble Friend Baroness Amos, the lead Minister on Africa in the Lords, who takes the matter very seriously.

That reflects the Government's commitment to engaging with Africa. The Prime Minister recently visited that continent, and the cynical sneering condemnation of his commitment in a large number of our right-wing newspapers—and, I have to say, by many commentators from the left—was deplorable. That cynical indifference to the Government's commitment shames all our political chattering classes and those who spin the cobwebs of comment in the name of the London elite.

The New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD, is an important step forward, and the Government are fully committed to seeing that it works. There is a window of opportunity for peace in Sudan, and hon. Members are right to say that the UK has a major role to play in ensuring that that opportunity is seized. Last month my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the appointment of Alan Goulty as the new UK special representative for Sudan. Mr. Goulty has served there twice, most recently as ambassador, and he will report to both the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development. We are setting up a dedicated unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which will be staffed by officials drawn from both the FCO and the Department for International Development. That is part of our contribution to ensuring that Sudan is taken seriously.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, who spoke for the Opposition, referred to the need for Sudan to develop as a secular democracy that respects religious freedom. That is profoundly important in today's world, in which we see great clashes between people animated by faith. Everybody of faith believes that whatever they are doing, whether it is missionary work or whether —at times, alas—it is moving to the extremes of protest that can lead to violence, they are doing it in the name of some greater divine being. It is right for the House, which formed its parliamentary strength by defeating the divine right of anybody in authority to speak on behalf of the nation, to say that secularism in international affairs is of prime importance.

Although I join in paying tribute to the Churches, I ask them, too, to remember the need for secularism. Some years ago, as a Back-Bench MP, I was invited to go to Sudan on a trip paid for either by the Sudanese Government or by people associated with Muslim organisations. I refused, because as a British MP I did not want to be beholden to any particular faith or religion—and, while paying respect to all the Churches and faiths in our multi-faith country, I shall continue to stress the need for secularism in foreign relations in my work as a Minister.

Mr. Goulty will engage with all parties to the conflict in an effort to promote the case for peace. The UK will continue to support the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace process because it is the best chance to bring an end to the civil war through a negotiated settlement. As an active member of the IGAD partners forum, we will step up our efforts to revitalise the IGAD initiative, which both parties to the conflict have agreed to negotiate. We shall also work closely with the Kenyan Lieutenant-General Sumbeiywo, the new IGAD special envoy, who visited London for discussions on Sudan in January.

To answer a point raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury, I should say that the IGAD declaration of principles foresees self-determination for the south, but we should also bear in mind the fact that an absolute fundamental principle of the African Union—formerly the Organisation of African Unity—is that there should be no redrawing of the borders of Africa. We must take that into consideration, but many arrangements allow greater autonomous control over regions, people and communities under an overall Government who permit people to have a sense of controlling their own destinies.

As many hon. Members have said, the new British Government commitment to Africa, and particularly to Sudan, was reflected in the visit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development from 6 to 11 January—as she is known to the whole world as Clare, for the sake of abbreviation I shall refer to her familiarly as Clare from now on. She was the first British Cabinet Minister to visit Sudan for more than a decade, and peace was at the top of her agenda. Clare discussed the peace process substantively with a full range—

Order, order.

Clare discussed the peace process substantively with a full range—

Order. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is quite right. Members of the House must be referred to by their titles or constituencies, not by name.

Then I shall have to refer to "my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, the Secretary of State for International Development". If my affection ran away with me and left the full parliamentary protocol and rules behind, I beg to apologise, Mr. McWilliam. I am occasionally a mouthpiece for what I really think, instead of behaving according to the full parliamentary rules. I hope that the House accepts my apology.

Perhaps it would be quicker to refer to SID—the Secretary of State for International Development.

Order. The correct shortened version is "the Secretary of State".

All those whom the Secretary of State met admitted that they had a responsibility to engage in serious negotiation, and said that there was now a window of opportunity. She stressed that we stood ready to play our part and press the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army to set out their key requirements for a just peace. She also emphasised the potential economic benefits for all, and the United Kingdom's readiness to engage in development if stability can be achieved.

There has been progress in Sudan this year. We are working closely with the United States special envoy, Senator John Danforth, and his efforts are a marvellous example of United States multilateralism, engagement in the poorest part of the world and a commitment by Washington to nation building. We should pay tribute to President Bush's wise decision to commit multilateral nation-building energy on behalf of his Administration. Senator Danforth held talks in. Berne in January with the Sudanese Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, with the aim of achieving a ceasefire in the region of the Nuba mountains. We are delighted that the parties reached an agreement under which civilians will be allowed to move freely within the region currently held by the SPLA. Demilitarised zones will allow the Nuba people access to fertile land, and humanitarian assistance will be allowed to enter the region by air.

I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that air traffic control systems are like systems of traffic lights. The idea that any country would benefit by not having roads or traffic lights is not sensible. We should be careful about patronising African countries that want to buy the best air traffic control systems.

The Norwegian general who will head the joint military commission helping to monitor the ceasefire has just made a recce visit to the Nuba mountains and we look forward to reading his report. It will be crucial to ensure that the monitoring mechanism is up and running by the end of this month. We are heartened, too, by the agreement of warring parties not to target civilians, and we stand ready to play our part in monitoring the agreement. I hope that the hon. Member for Salisbury will be heartened to know that part of the motivation for the Nuba mountains ceasefire agreement was to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, much of which comes through Kenya and is provided by Churches and Church-linked NGOs. Those monitoring the agreement, whether they are UN-mandated or not, will help to guarantee the safety of the humanitarian effort.

We are concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, particularly in the south, and continue to urge all parties to give all possible help to the UN and NGOs to ensure speedy delivery of humanitarian assistance. However, the only long-term answer to the suffering in Sudan is a peace settlement that will allow the people to rebuild their lives. Peace in Sudan must remain a priority.

In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Salisbury, I can tell him that we do not believe that the civil war—it is a civil war, as Mr. Peter Riaak of Leeds pointed out to me last week—is analogous to the situation in Iraq. There is fighting on several fronts, and several parties are involved. Our aim is to support efforts to stop the fighting and to work with international partners to mitigate the awful consequences of the conflict where peace has been broken.

We are concerned about the human rights of all in the Sudan, regardless of their ethnic or religious background, and we regularly urge all sides in the civil war to respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. That is reflected in the Foreign Office's annual human rights report. There is no doubt that many Christians and many of other faiths have suffered, and many have been killed, as a result of the civil war. We make representations to the Government of Sudan about individual cases as well as more general issues, and we have a very active ambassador who gets out and about in that country and who is a great credit to the diplomatic service.

We urge all sides in the civil war to respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, and fully to respect international law. We stay in close touch with Churches in the UK and in Sudan that are working in the north and the south of the country. One of those is the diocese of Salisbury, to whose work I pay tribute. Christians have specific concerns, but thousands of them are able to worship freely each week. The picture is a mixed one. Religious freedom was one of the main topics of discussion at the EU-Sudan dialogue meetings, chaired by our ambassador, in the latter part of last year. As Members have heard, only last week the Sudan ecumenical forum brought together the Sudan Council of Churches, the New Sudan Council of Churches and other Christians. I pay tribute to their work.

The EU-Sudan dialogue deals with some of the issues that the hon. Member for Salisbury mentioned: peace, relations with neighbours, terrorism, democratisation and human rights, including the issue of slavery. We believe that the Government of Sudan have made progress in improving relations with the country's neighbours and in adopting an acceptable approach to counter-terrorism. Progress in the peace process has been disappointing, as many hon. Members have said. However, there has been some progress on human rights and democratisation. The Council of Ministers, or Cabinet, is more broadly based and less dominated by the military. Sadiq al-Mandi, the former Prime Minister and leader of the opposition Umma party, is now back in Khartoum and has been able to resume political activity. Newspapers are permitted slightly freer expression of political opinion. I have no illusions, but we should not ignore the progress that has been made.

Abduction is a key issue to which we pay particular attention. At this year's meeting of the UN commission on human rights, the EU sponsored a resolution—

Before the Minister finishes his speech, will he comment on oil and say whether production should continue?

The EU sponsored a resolution on Sudan that set out our concerns about the violation of human rights. We want the Government of Sudan to continue to work with the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children, which was set up in 1999.

What about oil?

There has been much publicity about oil. My firm view is that Sudan needs more investment, more material prosperity and greater distribution of the wealth generated by its resources. Stopping oil investment and making Sudan poorer cannot be an answer. The DTI gives no particular promotion to British oil companies, but we advise all companies to take into consideration concerns about the political and human rights problems in Sudan.

The final answer must be the continuing international engagement of Britain, Europe and the United States. The Government are pledged to that policy, and I am deeply grateful to hon. Members for making their points in this important debate.

I hope that this is the beginning of a major national debate on "The Energy Review" document. I congratulate the Government on bringing the review to the House and to the nation. It is a wide-ranging and in many ways impressive document, but it is not without flaws. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and the Regions, who is substituting for my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy today, will not take too much offence if I criticise it. My criticism is well meant.

Life will be made easier if I begin with the parts of the report with which I wholeheartedly agree. The review recommends that Britain should reduce domestic energy consumption by 20 per cent. between now and 2010, and by another 20 per cent. between 2010 and 2020. We will make a significant contribution to future provision if we achieve that degree of energy conservation and reduce energy need by approximately one fifth. Energy conservation is, appropriately, known as the fifth fuel, because it is just as good as power generation.

By a happy coincidence, the energy saving target of 20 per cent. by 2010 is almost identical to the target of 30 per cent. between 1996 and 2011 set in the guidance issued under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. Unfortunately, that guidance is not statutory, and the implementation of that target is not a statutory duty of local authorities, so it is not surprising that some local authorities take their energy authority role more seriously than others. Performance varies accordingly: some excellent authorities have reported savings of 15 per cent., some have reported as little as 0.003 per cent., and others have not bothered to report at all. It is clear that the 30 per cent. HECA target will not be achieved under the current legislation, and nor will the target set out in "The Energy Review" unless we do something about it. The Minister will agree that there is a strong case for achieving that target.

I therefore proposed a new private Member's Bill—the Home Energy Conservation Bill—that would make the achievement of energy conservation targets set by the Secretary of State the statutory responsibility of local authorities. That would ensure the delivery of home energy conservation targets, on which the report and my Bill are in perfect harmony. Our objectives are the same, so I hope that the Government will maintain their support for my Bill and help to bring it to a successful conclusion. I appreciate that the Minister here today has no direct involvement with my Bill, but I remind him of comments made by the Energy Minister to the House of Lords European Union Committee in January. He said that energy conservation was going to form a significant plank of the report, and added:

"I take the point very seriously…we will be setting targets which will result in very significant increases in building standards so as to reach the targets we are setting."

I am happy with that expression of intent, but making new buildings or modifications comply with new building regulations is unlikely to make a sufficient contribution to energy conservation to achieve the national target. It is vital to address the energy conservation capacity of existing stock: we should remember that half our existing stock was built before 1914, does not have a cavity wall in site, is ineligible for the existing home energy efficiency scheme, and cannot take advantage of most of the energy conservation measures already in place. That issue must be revisited. The Minister for Employment and the Regions is strongly interested in energy conservation and I would appreciate his support for my Bill, which is an instrument already at hand to deliver one of the key recommendations of "The Energy Review".

I agree with the report that achieving large reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by moving to a low-carbon energy economy is a major challenge—one to which we must rise if we are to ameliorate climate change. Thanks to the legacy of 18 years of Conservative misrule, we now have a liberalised energy market, so achieving such a step change is a major test for the Government. It is achievable, provided that some of the recommendations of the report are amended. We are planning for the next 50 years and succeeding generations will judge us on what we do now.

The UK has four non-carbon options available for the generation of large-scale electricity. Setting photovoltaics aside—I shall not address the whole spectrum of energy provision in the report, because I do not want to take up all 90 minutes—

Thank God!

I value my hon. Friend's support.

I shall concentrate on the four non-carbon options that can generate large quantities of electrical power—the nuclear option and the three renewable energy sources—wind, wave and tide, in which the UK is uniquely rich.

I know that my hon. Friend is not a photovoltaics enthusiast, but I wonder why he sets them aside. Our competitors give vastly greater sums in direct Government support to that fledgling industry, with considerable success. Is not the lack of investment the main reason for setting photovoltaics aside? If we had the political will, we could change that.

I am not setting photovoltaics aside because I am opposed to them in any way. I am simply dealing with ways in which to feed large quantities of power to the grid, which is not a role identified for photovoltaics. They will have a valuable future role in embedded generation, perhaps through photovoltaic roofs of our houses, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should support the photovoltaics industry in this country. We do not disagree; it is simply that I do not want to take the whole 90 minutes of debate for myself.

Is the hon. Gentleman tempted to include biomass and biodiesel as renewable sources of energy? Not only could they provide large amounts of energy, but they have the potential to help rural communities at the same time.

I was going to mention biomass, although I am not a great fan. I can see some downsides. I am only a simple scientist and cannot understand the argument of supporters of biomass who say that it will reduce CO² emissions: that strikes me as being on the same level as the argument for perpetual motion; it does not stack up. Biomass would increase CO² emissions, and the question of potential toxic emissions would remain, as would considerations of cost. To the best of my knowledge, biomass has not yet achieved anything close to commercial costings. It may have a role, but it is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

The report mentions the reasonable concern that the United Kingdom's response to energy problems should not place it at a competitive disadvantage. The report uses the currently low generating costs of coal and gas as cost comparators, but they might not provide the most accurate guideline, because coal and gas prices are artificially low now and they not likely to remain as low in the foreseeable future. The report is also less than even-handed in assessing the relative contributions that the nuclear and renewables options can make. Surprisingly, it recognises that the costs of generation by nuclear fission with current reactor technology are too high to be commercially viable.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the recent pronouncements of the Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor David King, who has come out on a pro-nuclear platform? Does he regard that as a conclusion or a contribution to the debate?

It is unusual for me to disagree with the chief scientific adviser, but I do on this occasion. He was premature in making those statements on nuclear power. He must have read the report and accepted its conclusions without too much consideration. His statements were not a valuable contribution.

Current cost of nuclear generation is about 5p per kW, which is at least double the current baseline range. Even that figure is not a reliable estimate, because the nuclear industry has a long history of obfuscating the real costs of generation. To this day, one cannot be certain that costs include provision for decommissioning, waste disposal and so on. Remembering that, in the good old days when nuclear power was new, the Government said that electricity would be too cheap to meter, one must take anything that the nuclear industry says about costs with several tonnes of salt.

On the costs of the nuclear option and the uncertainty around it, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would help if the Government came to a decision about how they will manage waste in future? That would enable costs to be quantified and the debate to make progress. Does he agree that the Government should fix a policy for managing nuclear waste, above or underground, so that the engineers can get on with the work?

I agree entirely. Nuclear waste disposal is a problem that we have to tackle, whether or not we allow a new chain of nuclear stations to be built. It is inescapable.

The report describes nuclear power as a "mature technology"; it has had 50 years to develop, so that is not a surprising conclusion. However, it looks to future design developments to produce reactors with lower generating costs: a range of 2.5 to 4p per kWh is quoted. To achieve such costs involves extremely improbable operating assumptions that the nuclear industry has not met in its entire history. The putative costs are probably unreliable and unachievable.

Does my hon. Friend agree that environmental as well as financial costs should be taken into consideration? One of the advantages of the nuclear industry is that it does not produce any carbon dioxide.

I thought that I had made my views clear, but I shall reinforce what I said. The only reason I am even discussing the nuclear option is because it does not lead to CO² emissions.

We must remember the awful history of the early 1980s. Research into renewables, in which this country then led the world, was stopped, and more nuclear capacity was built. It is reasonable to suggest that to maintain the nuclear option, the possibility of renewables was set back 20 years. This country was ahead in wind power, but Denmark stepped in and took over world leadership. Wave power was coming along nicely, but it was stopped dead in its tracks and only now is it reaching the point it had reached 20 years ago. If we are not careful, the nuclear option could be developed at the expense of renewables. Although nuclear power stations do not emit CO², genuinely renewable options would save just as much CO² and be completely sustainable.

The other argument from the nuclear industry centres on jobs. I do not want to put anyone out of a job, and for the foreseeable future the nuclear industry would have jobs for all its personnel just cleaning up the mess, let alone doing anything else. I would hate jobs in an obsolete 20th-century industry to be saved at the expense of generating far more jobs in a sustainable, 21st-century industry.

Another principal feature of nuclear power is its use to solve intermittency problems to provide baseline load. It has been argued that it is necessary to replace sufficient nuclear power plant to serve that purpose, but tidal energy has the potential to do the same thing. One of the beauties of tidal streams as an energy source is that they are completely predictable; they run at sufficient strength in any given place for 23 hours of the day. The variation in the times of tides around the coasts means that in most places there is always energy at any given time. Furthermore, the grid can handle it very easily, as ScottishPower plc stated in evidence to the Select Committee.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have given way so many times that if I do so again I shall take time from other hon. Members.

The most baffling feature of the report is that although it recognises the enormous power-producing potential of marine renewables—wave and tide—it makes little reference to them thereafter, save to suggest that although they might be making a major contribution by 2050, but they will be making only a small, unspecified contribution by 2020. The report does not explain why, but perhaps one can assume that that is an assessment of what might happen if the market were left alone to decide the progress of renewables, with little or no Government intervention.

It is clearly convenient for those arguing for a new generation of nuclear plants to have an apparent energy and carbon dioxide saving gap until 2020. That would fit nicely with the suggested option of having renewed reactors by that year. I venture to suggest that that is an attempt, conscious or otherwise, at a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is a simple fact that we would not have a network of nuclear stations had the matter been left to a purely commercial market. Those stations, and the national grid system that links them, were built with public investment by a nationalised industry, just like the stations in France and other countries. As the report admits, pure market operation would not produce any more nuclear build: some Government assistance would be essential if any more nuclear stations were to be built in Britain.

The report's allegedly neutral stance towards different alternative energy sources does not bear close examination. There is a massive carbon dioxide-free energy source waiting to be exploited off our shores. The report refers to 100 tWh of electricity from offshore wind and 700 tWh per year from wave and tide. Given that our current electrical generation is 360 tWh per year, it is clear that we have more than twice the resource that we need to supply our entire electricity generation needs. However, the report does not suggest how we might reasonably foster that.

The report also makes no allowance for cost reductions that will arise naturally from development and commercial exploitation. It quotes costs for marine renewables of 4p to 8p per kWh, but that is for almost pre-commercial demonstration machines, and similar costs by 2020 are assumed, which is absurd. We have only to consider the history of wind generation, the costs of which have decreased remarkably as it has been exploited. The same will inevitably happen with wave and tidal generation. Given that we also have all the lessons from the wind industry, the development and exploitation time scale for wave and tide could be much quicker. I can see no valid reason why, with sufficient encouragement, wave and tide could not make a massive contribution by 2020, such that there would be no case for new nuclear build.

In the light of what he has said, does my hon. Friend agree with all the submissions from the non-governmental organisations that one way to achieve his objective would be to have targets that are far tighter than the current ones? We could use the tighter targets as stepping stones towards the energy consumption and production goals he mentions.

I agree that we should have tighter targets. Indeed, I was going to advocate that, because I believe that they would be achievable and would have precisely the effect that my hon. Friend describes. I hope that the Government will resist the blandishments of the nuclear industry, which is seeking the same favourable treatment as renewables. The nuclear industry has a history of doing anything to perpetuate itself.

I find the Government's reticence in the face of the enormous potential of renewables curious, to say the least. When £120 million was announced for renewable energy research and development last year, only £5 million was allocated for marine renewable projects. That is derisory in view of the massive potential of that source. There is another way in which marine technologies need help for rapid development: as well as research and development and start-up costs, there is the problem of grid connections. The main grid does not reach the remote areas where the best power generation sites are located. If early commercial sites have to bear the cost of building grid connectors, it would be a huge barrier to development based on pure market considerations.

If there is to be large-scale renewables generation in the UK the Government have to grapple with the modernisation of the grid. The current grid is an obstacle to future development of any source except nuclear power, in which plant will be sited next to old plant where the grid was built at public expense—in effect, yet another subsidy for the nuclear industry. The report virtually ignores that problem. I suggest that

"substantial upgrading of the national transmission system will not be needed in the short-to-medium term",

but that sounds like another self-fulfilling prophecy. There will not be large-scale renewables because the grid connections are not there, but those connections are awfully convenient for nuclear stations.

The report appears to give equal weight to several future generation technologies such as photovoltaics, combined heat and power, clean coal, biomass and municipal waste incineration. However, none of those has the potential to produce enough power to run the country, although together they could make a contribution. Only photovoltaics guarantee no CO², emissions, and all are either more expensive than marine technologies or have other serious downsides, such as the potential for toxic emissions with waste and biomass, and the fact that in waste incineration the material burnt is precisely the stuff that should be being recycled. A consideration totally ignored in the report's contemplation of the continued massive use of fossil fuel reserves is that they will assume increasing importance as chemical feedstock, and so will become too precious to burn.

I hope that the Government listen carefully to the responses to the report before they finalise their policy. If they follow the guidance of the report without question, they will favour the renewed use of nuclear power at the expense of genuinely renewable and sustainable technologies, yet the use of those technologies has to be the ultimate goal, and the sooner it is achieved, the better. The report contains a bias that is not justified by the evidence and must be seriously re-examined.

The achievability of any renewables target is hugely influenced by the political will behind it. I am convinced that it is possible to achieve far more than the 20 per cent. by 2020 envisaged in the report. There are clearly technological obstacles to overcome, but they are much less problematic than the task that the Government should be taking on, which is achieving a planned, low- carbon energy economy in a liberalised market. It would be the biggest challenge ever for new Labour, but the prize for success would be gigantic.

rose—

Order. I have no power to impose time limits on speeches, but a large number of hon. Members have written in and even more are trying to catch my eye. I appeal to hon. Members to be brief so as to enable as many as possible to speak.

I did not intend to speak today, only to listen and learn. I will make a short contribution as so many other hon. Members want to speak.

I am in favour of replacing nuclear with nuclear because it is right and inevitable that we should do so. Nuclear power in Britain is very safe, and it has been safer than many of the alternatives for many years. If, however, we are to do that we should make sure that we use the best possible plant and equipment. I am therefore disappointed that the Select Committee on Science and Technology, whose Chairman is staring me out, has decided not to take the opportunity to go round the world to see the latest reactors, research and plant. I hope that we can find time to do that soon to allow us to advise the House.

The bottom line is that if we were to replace nuclear with nuclear, we would increase the total waste that must be managed in Britain by a very small overall percentage. That would enable us to avoid known, serious and certain damage to our planet from CO². I rest my case on those remarks.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on securing the debate, but that is where that sentiment stops because I find myself on the other side of everything he had to say about nuclear power.

The report is timely. For the first time we are looking at our energy supply in the UK in terms of the next 40 or 50 years. For many years we have relied on fossil fuels with no thought of either the future or the health and environmental implications of our energy industry. The executive summary, which is on page 5 of the report, simply states:

"The future framework for energy policy needs to address all three objectives of sustainable development—environmental, economic and social—as well as energy security."

The review has let us down on that fundamental point. The future of nuclear power is missing from the PIU recommendations. It is addressed in the report, but it is not included in its recommendations.

My hon. Friend criticised the Government's adviser on energy matters, Professor David King, for giving his support to nuclear power. Professor King has joined the debate, and he has given his opinion, which it is important that a senior person in his position should do. I welcome his remarks, which on this occasion concur with mine, and I am happy that he has given his support and has reminded us of our responsibilities.

The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am a member, also produced a study on the security of energy supplies, which concluded:

"It is essential that there be no further delay in Government decision making: the Government should make a clear statement on the future of nuclear energy as quickly as possible."

No such decision was reached in the PIU report.

The hon. Gentleman did not say the way in which the Government should make that decision.

Yes, I know. I am trying to draw the Minister's attention to that recommendation, which the Government should examine.

It is incredible that one of the most important current and future power sources, nuclear power, has been dismissed out of hand. It is seen as a last-resort technology. The report recommends keeping the nuclear option in order to compensate for the failure of other technologies.

One of the remarks—I shall not say conclusions—in the report is that if all the costs of nuclear power were internalised and subject to market forces, it would simply not be economically viable. We should seek economically viable sources of electricity generation.

I recommend to my hon. Friend a European study that undertakes a cost analysis of nuclear generation. I shall come back to that, but I am conscious of time.

I return to the report's main safety, environmental and economic concerns. Of course there are safety questions here, as with every major industrial process. Risk is presented in everything that we do, however important it is. As a practising engineer before I entered the House, I regularly calculated risk in industrial processes. That was the nature of my job. Safety is an important issue, and it is part and parcel of making calculations and judgments, but the knee-jerk reaction of those who are against nuclear power is always that safety is serious and important. We recognise that. I also recognise that dealing with nuclear waste is a serious problem, which must be solved, whether new nuclear plants are built or not. The Government and we as a country must address it.

The Trade and Industry Committee report recognises, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, that the difficulties involved in the storage of radioactive waste are no longer seen merely in technical terms. I want to raise environmental concerns.

I should like to put on record the fact that Professor King's support for the nuclear industry, like mine, revolves around wanting to move from fission, which produces much disposable waste, to fusion. In the minds of the industry's scientists, we are now only a generation away from nuclear fusion. Is that not an important reason for keeping the nuclear industry alive?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, but I recognise that difficulties reside in the public's reluctance to accept the safety of various techniques. Suitable sites for the storage of waste material need to be found; we cannot duck public anxieties on that matter.

I am aware that Greenpeace, other environmental groups and hon. Members feel strongly about the importance of the environment. I was horrified with Greenpeace's reaction to the review. On the nuclear option, its website says that the review

"leaves the door open for a wave of dangerous new nuclear power stations",

which proves my point. I am sure that no one setting up an installation does so intending to create a dangerous one. That happens because of the nature of the process—a process that deals with hazardous materials.

Those opposed to the nuclear option on environmental grounds have to weigh up difficult issues.

My hon. Friend says that one of the difficulties of the nuclear industry is that it involves a hazardous process and hazardous materials. Does he agree that that, by definition, is not the case with renewables?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but we have not at this moment in time developed the technology for renewables. Although I admire his support for that great future ambition, we must recognise what is providing electricity at the present, whatever the process.

When will the perceived energy gap arise? Will my hon. Friend quantify that gap, and is that his justification for nuclear power? He is arguing about safety and environmental factors, but to conduct the overall energy review we must know the needs of the nation. Does he agree with the report's finding that there will have to be public subsidy if the perceived gap is to be closed?

I believe in the nuclear option that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned. I do not have any objection to renewables and other developments, but they would not be ready in time because the technology that is required would still be in a primitive state in 20 or 30 years' time. Nobody can take that risk because the lights will go out. Hon. Members should remember what happened in California. In order to ensure that that does not happen, we should remember that this technology works.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I want to bring my remarks to an end quickly.

We want more.

The hon. Gentleman says he wants more, but I am just trying temporarily to settle the score for nuclear power. It is crucial that those who argue the environmental case recognise that we have an obligation to deal with global warming, and there is a powerful case for nuclear power assisting us in that. It is no good harping on about our commitment to Kyoto. We ignore at our peril a known technology that works. I believe strongly in nuclear power as a technology for generating electricity on a large scale because it deals with greenhouse gas emissions. It is a sector that we need to protect because if we do not, we will undermine our commitment to a treaty that the Deputy Prime Minister signed a few years ago.

The economics issue has been mentioned. I recognise that it is one of the hardest issues on which we must square the circle. ExternE, a European funded study of energy costs, concludes that on a gross basis, nuclear power is one of the cheapest forms of energy presently available, but we must consider issues other than the price. Skilled personnel are required to maintain such installations, and the capital costs are significant because of the aforementioned safety provisions. The PIU report says that the nuclear option will be left open for years to come, but the difficulty is in maintaining the necessary skill base to operate any future facility. The outlay for new nuclear facilities is significant and companies are reluctant to invest such sums in an industry that is not recognised by the Government as having a clear, lengthy future. The review states:

"Because nuclear is a mature technology within a well established global industry, there is no current case for further government support."

Without Government backing, verbal or financial, the future of nuclear power is uncertain.

Is my hon. Friend arguing the case that nuclear ought to be part of the permanent solution to climate change, or is he endorsing the statement from the chief scientific adviser that nuclear has a role as a temporary stopgap until the full development of a renewable energy industry?

I am arguing that nuclear has an important role to play at the moment. It provides 21 per cent. of our electricity, and is an important sector. It is important that we maintain it to meet our Kyoto obligations, and to provide electricity. It plays a part in meeting our environmental targets. We should not take the risk of not being ready in future when all plants could be decommissioned. We must prepare for alternatives.

Will not continuing to subsidise the nuclear industry prevent the emergence of new renewable energies, so that we may never have alternative sources of energy? The Government's response to the energy review must take that up.

I am asking for the Government to make their intentions clear so that companies know where to invest. It is important that the Government come down on one side or the other. Plants take 10 to 15 years to build, and hon. Members will recall that the Sizewell B inquiry took many years —rightly, because important issues had to be addressed. The Government must make up their mind and state their intended direction. European countries such as Germany are to phase out nuclear power. If we are to maintain it, a course that I would support, the Government need to give a clear response. The report ducks that issue.

I remain committed to nuclear power, and that puts me in a minority on this side. I am glad to have taken part in this debate, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. Always, we have been on the same side and, for the first time, we find ourselves on opposite sides.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) tried to score a goal for nuclear energy, so I shall make a break down the flank for an alternative scenario and suggest a way in which we could meet this country's obligations by 2050 through the use of alternative energy resources. None the less, our nuclear output provides a stopgap, and no one is asking to close our nuclear power stations overnight.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the report ducks some issues. Never was a document better named: it is only a "review" of the current state of play, and offers little intelligent guesswork about where we might be in 10 or 15 years as regards renewable technology. He is also right to say that it does not address where nuclear technology could take us in that period. That puts the onus on the Minister to come up with some answers. Until we answer such questions, we will not be able to move forwards.

To my party, our parliamentary group and me, nuclear power is not a long-term option. The royal commission on environmental pollution recognised that there were at least two scenarios in which nuclear power did not need to be an option to meet our Kyoto obligations. I could not accept nuclear as a realistic long-term option until several issues were resolved to my satisfaction and to that of the public. One of those issues, which is higher on the agenda than ever before, is terrorism and the fear of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power station. Another is nuclear power's less than wonderful history of record keeping, reporting, openness and accountability, which does not engender faith in the industry's future.

How will new nuclear power stations take shape? We are told that there is a new design—I must tell the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) that it is based on fission, not fusion—but how will it work and can it be trusted? Storage and decommissioning must also be addressed. We already have a storage problem and there is no point adding to it. My concern is that more nuclear power production in this country would merely add fuel to the debate on recycling nuclear materials, mixed oxide fuel plants, and other dangerous technologies.

Finally, it is important to ensure that the cost of nuclear power is internalised to the industry. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East referred to an EU report which I have not seen; however, I have seen the "Annual Energy Review". It is clear from attempts to find ways to internalise costs that the best solution is wind power. It costs half as much as nuclear power, which is an expensive way of generating electricity.

We do not need nuclear power to meet our Kyoto obligations. Last week the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intimated as much in a statement made in response to questions from me and other hon. Members. It is important to confirm that and I should be grateful if the Minister did so this morning. The Kyoto treaty takes us to 2012 and we must look beyond that, but we do not need nuclear power to meet our immediate obligations.

I believe that there is a misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want the nuclear industry to be switched off, but that is what will happen unless the Government have the courage to make a decision to continue the nuclear industry so that the gap can be filled. If renewables and nuclear energy proceed sensibly, they will develop and there will not be a gap. As both forms of technology develop, we can make informed decisions, but unless the Government make a decision to support the nuclear industry, there will be a switch-off.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point and I am sorry if I misled him about my point of view. A switch-off is what I want, but I do not want that to happen overnight. I want it to be phased and natural. I want current nuclear energy production to come to a natural end. My position is the same as the Green party, with which my party is allied at EU level.

Events in Germany show a wonderful way forward. I recently visited Germany as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. I want to give a positive description of how we could move forward with renewables.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key issue is that it would be irresponsible to allow new build in the nuclear industry before the problem of radioactive waste management is resolved? We face costs of £85 billion to deal with the existing stockpile of radioactive waste. Surely that should be solved before we consider new nuclear power stations?

I agree absolutely, but I shall not go further down that route.

Germany has agreed to a phased, natural end to its nuclear power and is looking for ways forward. The Environmental Audit Committee looked at renewables during its visit. There is a gap in the future scenario: the German Government are not sure where all their energy will come from in 2050, but they are prepared to take a leap in the dark and to bridge that chasm by investing heavily in renewables. They have made that decision without great regard to the cost implications, in common with decisions in the 1950s and 1960s to invest in nuclear power.

The German Government estimate that they will derive one quarter of their energy needs from wind, and 36,000 people are already employed in the wind energy industry. That is a significant number of jobs with only 3 or 4 per cent. wind energy production. If production reaches 25 per cent. of need, more jobs will be created. It must be emphasised repeatedly that phasing out nuclear energy should not and must not lead to job losses in constituencies with nuclear power stations. We need investment now in renewables technology, using the high-level engineering and other skills that are used for nuclear power to achieve that aim.

If we are to achieve the investment needed—not only from project developers but from the supply chain industries that will create the jobs—to make the most of renewables such as offshore wind, industry must have confidence in the sector. That will require not only the renewables obligation and capital grants but a single, comprehensive, joined-up authorisation system. At present, there is no single point of contact. People have to deal with the Crown Estates, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence. Onshore wind has been knocked back by the planning process, and we must overcome that to achieve full confidence in investing in offshore wind.

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments, but local public participation must remain part of the decision-making process. I will address his points in a moment, but I wish to make progress so that I can finish in reasonable time.

Germany has invested heavily in alternative energy sources: for example, biomass is on the agenda. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) is not too happy about biomass, but it has a neutral carbon cycle—we can argue about that another time—and would have a huge beneficial effect in helping rural areas to overcome the results of changes to the common agricultural policy regime. Germany has also invested heavily in hydrogen research. Security and intermittency of supply are problems with some renewables. Hydrogen is a very good carrier of energy and, if we can overcome storage problems, it becomes even more attractive.

There is clear under-ambition in the review. We are aiming for 20 per cent. renewables by 2010, but that could easily be doubled with current technology, a bit of will and a bit more investment. A target of 30 or 40 per cent. for renewables—not only wind but the whole range of renewables—is achievable in this country and should be the target of any Government who want seriously to address climate change issues. Incidentally, such a renewables target would produce the amount of electricity that nuclear now produces—about 80 to 90 tWh annually.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) mentioned consents policy. There is certainly a problem. On the Opposition day last week, the Scottish National party initiated a debate on consents policy for nuclear power in Scotland. It became clear that if the Government made a strategic decision to site a new nuclear power station in Scotland, it would be built, whatever the Scottish Parliament said. The situation in Wales is even worse. The relevant power in section 39 of the Electricity Act 1989 has not been devolved to the National Assembly. As a result, it has no say on any development, including renewables, over 50 MW in Wales. The decision about a large 60 MW wind farm at Cefn Croes in my constituency, which will be the largest wind farm in England and Wales—perhaps the largest in the United Kingdom—was made by the Minister for Industry and Energy alone.

Although I support wind energy and agree with the decision, it has left a sour taste in the mouth. We have an Assembly that decides planning matters, yet decisions are taken directly by the Department of Trade and Industry without involving the Assembly. There is increasing concern in Wales that nuclear energy will be foisted on the people of Wales. Hon. Members may be aware that in 1982–20 years ago last month—Wales declared itself nuclear free; it was the first country to do so. Such a decision would be received very poorly in Wales.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I want to conclude.

The Minister must address the issue, because last week the Economic Development Committee of the National Assembly backed out of an ambitious 4 tWh target for renewables in Wales and left the country without a strategy. We have an energy review but no strategy for energy or renewables in Wales. I hope that that Committee and the Welsh Executive will get their act together and that the DTI will consult them. Germany identifies at federal level the sites that may be suitable for the production of wind energy, then lets local bodies get on with it. Wales is one of the most energy-rich parts of the United Kingdom, but we have identified no sites that may produce wind and wave energy and have made no effort to involve the local community in those decisions.

As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pointed out, people oppose new wind farm developments; no doubt, they will oppose offshore developments in the same way, as they are not part of the planning process from the start. I advocate a fresh view, as there is huge potential in Wales for developments such as a tidal barge on the River Severn and the proposed offshore wind farm in north Wales. Those developments would meet huge energy needs, but they are not free of environmental cost. Local communities and the whole of Wales must be involved in those decisions.

I have an alternative vision of where "The Energy Review" will take us. In 10 years, we should have doubled our target on renewable energy output, achieved the aims of the Home Energy Conservation Bill, and established an interconnector along the west coast so that we can bring wind and wave energy from energy-rich areas to energy-dependent areas. I hope that Wales will benefit from the economic development of those energy-rich areas. Offshore wind will develop much more quickly, as it has better potential than onshore wind to achieve those targets. I hope that we will see a real strategy for wind energy development in Wales, and the final death of the nuclear power industry in the United Kingdom.

rose—

Order. I am advised that speeches have been long, with the exception of the speech made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). That is a tragedy, as many hon. Members still wish to speak and we must conclude the debate soon. I ask all hon. Members to be as brief as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Amess.

I have made clear my support for the development of offshore wind energy in this country, but while the green lobby and the nuclear lobby slug it out, we must keep our eye on the decades immediately before us and ensure that we squeeze every drop of our oil and gas from the UK continental shelf. The Government's Pilot initiative is to do just that, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is still their priority.

When gas was discovered in the North sea 35 years ago, people said that it would all be gone in 20 years. They are still saying that. The resource might last longer, but we cannot be sure. The key is innovation, which is linked to keeping costs down. I am therefore concerned about anything that imposes greater costs on the industry. The regulator Ofgem—the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—has produced proposals on gas balancing which ILEX Energy Consulting, a reputable company, says will cost the industry £3.5 billion. Will the Minister comment on that?

We need independent regulators in any market, but we must take care to avoid proposals that undermine the Government's Pilot initiative. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take note of the recommendation made in the PIU report that Ofgem should conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis of its recommendations. Lord Haskins and the Better Regulation Task Force made that recommendation last year. I urge my hon. Friend to speak to the Minister for Industry and Energy to insist that Ofgem takes note of those two recommendations so that we can squeeze every last drop of oil and gas from the North sea for as many years as possible.

I shall make a few points briefly. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on initiating today's debate.

"The Energy Review" gets the nuclear issue about right, but we need to continue the debate and support further research into new nuclear generators. Some interesting suggestions have come out of research in South Africa and Canada, for example, and I support such research. Other hon. Members have flagged up the fact that the nuclear industry has received considerable support—far more than the renewables industry. It is right that the review focused on that and recommended that Government now accelerate the development of the renewables industry as the most important priority for energy in the next five years.

There are several system issues which have been touched on only briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked about the need for the energy network to be upgraded. We must recognise that the energy system in this country is predominantly designed for big power plants rather than the small ones that CHP and renewables inevitably offer. I was struck by the fact that a wind energy developer who wanted to build a wind farm on the Isle of Wight faced a £1 million bill for the upgrade of the network—needless to say, that wind farm has not been built. "The Energy Review" recognises some of those issues, and further detailed work in the Government's response—the coming White Paper—will be needed before we know how to solve some of the problems.

Another interesting comment in the review is its description of inertia in the energy system. Further incentives are needed to encourage the delivery of renewable energy across the system. Perhaps as part of a review of the Barnett formula or the funding to regional development agencies, there should be a performance-related element that depends on whether areas, regions or nations meet their obligations on their contributions to renewable energy. I note the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), but, regrettably, the National Assembly for Wales has blocked or held up many sensible wind farm developments, and I suspect his party of being part of the problem rather than the solution.

Turning to the institutional reforms advocated in the review, I welcome the suggestion that the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust merge to provide a clearer non-governmental response. I welcome the proposal at long last to establish a sustainable energy unit. I have long championed the idea of a sustainable energy agency, but I will settle for a unit if that is all that that can be achieved in the first instance. I hope that the Minister will confirm the Department of Trade and Industry's strong support for such an initiative to accelerate the process.

On planning, there is a frustration about the delays in grants for renewable energy options. In a speech to the parliamentary renewables group last week, the Minister for Industry and Energy said that two-thirds of renewables applications granted under the non-fossil fuel obligation process have not happened because of difficulties with the planning system. The Government should re-examine how we can speed up decision making in that process, although industry should be more innovative in introducing renewable energy applications. I commend National Wind Power for its innovative scheme to reward communities and farmers who have wind-farm applications on their sites.

Focusing briefly on CHP and renewables, I look forward to the much-delayed CHP strategy. The industry is worried about companies that were keen to develop CHP initiatives moving out because of market conditions. I look forward to hearing the Minister clarify how best to respond to that threat. I hope that the Treasury will quickly offer full exemption under the climate change levy to all CHP plant.

Catherine Mitchell, a member of "The Energy Review" team, speaking at the same parliamentary renewables group meeting last week said that

"economic regulation should be technologically neutral".

To be frank, Ofgem has not been as supportive of the renewables industry as it should have been. Until recently, it did not engage with the impact on the renewables sector of new electricity trading arrangements. I hope that we will soon see either a change of personnel at Ofgem, or the necessary legislation to require it to take sensible positive action.

One criticism of "The Energy Review" is the absence of any attempt to cost progress in the renewable energy sector. I strongly endorse the call for more funding for research and development, particularly for renewables. The review failed to deal with micro-renewables, particularly solarvoltaics and the importance of encouraging groups of individuals, farmers and local authorities to build up renewable capacity in their communities.

I welcome "The Energy Review" and commend the Government for their willingness to engage with the recommendation made by the royal commission on environmental pollution to establish a 50-year programme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. "The Energy Review" is clearly part of that process and I look forward to reading the White Paper, which will develop the debate further.

Order. The Minister has generously cut his winding-up time from 10 to six minutes, so I advise the two Opposition spokesmen to share the available time.

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I shall gallop through discarding notes and not following all the by-ways trodden by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). I agree with much of what he said—nuclear power is unprofitable, unpopular and unnecessary—but confronting all his arguments would require a longer debate. I hope that the Minister will take with him from this morning's proceedings recognition of the need for a much wider and sustained debate in the main Chamber to cover the key issues.

"The Energy Review" is welcome, if somewhat overdue. We look forward to hearing, today and in future, about how the Government will confront and respond to the issues. It is crucial to find new ways of generating electricity and better ways of conserving energy. The Energy Saving Trust has set targets of a 12.5 per cent. reduction in domestic energy use by 2010, which should be easily achievable, and 25 per cent. by 2020. I fully endorse the targets, the achievement of which would greatly improve people's quality of life in the home, turn economic costs into benefits, and reduce carbon emission and consumption. Those goals can be achieved almost entirely through regulation, without the need for primary legislation or much head scratching. It can be done through building regulations, fully implementing HECA and ensuring that appliances make efficient use of electricity in the home.

A great political paradox has been illustrated again this morning. We have been fighting over one or another source of energy, which is a necessary debate, but we can probably do more to reduce carbon emissions by tackling energy use than by changing the method of generation. We spend much political energy fighting to reduce transport use, and arguing about nuclear and renewables but we do not invest in reducing the energy used in the home and in industry. That is what we should be doing.

I am delighted that the Government have recently—at long last—introduced the renewables obligation, although I have some criticisms of it. I want an escalator beyond 2010 because long-term signals will encourage this country's renewables industry to make strides and to achieve the same success as the renewables industry has scored in Denmark and will soon score in Germany. Finally, I hope that the Minister will respond to this debate by promising a longer one in the near future.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) for initiating the debate, although to start off the debate on the right fight would have required a statement in the House and a full debate in Government time when the PIU report was published. I suspect that the Government regret that that did not happen.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on his measured and sensible approach to nuclear energy. I hardly dare intrude on the Labour party's private grief about the technology, which was exhibited in full Technicolor, but his contribution underlined the importance of having a serious and well-informed national debate on these issues. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on making an extremely important point about Ofgem, to which I shall return. The Minister for Industry and Energy is somewhere in—or possibly above—the North sea with Shell, extracting that final bit of oil and gas, but it is a pleasure to see the Minister for Employment and the Regions in his place; he is a fine substitute.

I believe the Energy Minister is celebrating the award of an important contract to a British contractor. Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that BP awarded the first important contract on the Clare development, for which we have waited many years, to a Norwegian contractor?

I am an internationalist and I do not wish to intervene in the commercial decisions of Britain's great oil companies.

The Conservative party greatly welcomes the review. We are fortunate to have such liberalised energy markets, in stark contrast to other European nations, especially France and Germany. I hope that this weekend in Barcelona the Government will continue to put enormous pressure on France and Germany to stir their stumps and wake up to the opportunities that await their consumers if only they will liberalise and not cling to the 19th century habits that they love so much. It is all very well EDF buying up London Electricity, infrastructure and energy companies throughout Europe, but not if it denies consumers back home the benefits of the liberalisation that it is so keen to exploit using lots of lovely soft French taxpayers' money.

"The Energy Review" should focus our minds on the really important elements of the debate on UK energy demand. The objective must be to provide the energy we need at the optimum price, to ensure security of supply, to achieve environmental objectives, balance and flexible sources, and to reduce energy waste in production, transmission and consumption. We do not start with a clean slate; we have an historic legacy of coal and town gas, and a distribution system—the national grid—designed to link coalfields with heavy steel industries in major cities, all of which have historic costs and expensive externalities.

If we are to be honest economists, or just ordinary consumers, we must recognise that there are externalities in all energy production. On the cost of the mooted west coast interconnector, the report, instead of coming up with the figure of £400 million to £600 million, says that it would cost £2.3 billion to provide a proper interconnector for wind farms in the Outer Hebrides. That should make us all sit up and think more clearly. We must spend more time considering CHP and energy from waste. The Government say that there are legal constraints, but they have the legal levers in their hands and can change things. It is also all very well talking about Denmark and Germany, but we could do anything if we charged the consumer Danish prices. It would be easy-peasy to talk about introducing lots of lovely clean electricity generated by wind or whatever we liked if we charged the consumer twice as much.

The other great trap into which we might fall if we are not careful is to regard the debate as a dogfight between renewable energy and nuclear energy. We should recognise from the start that the two are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. We should listen carefully to what the nuclear industry has to say and not confuse the disposal and clean-up of waste from previous generations of nuclear technology, based on the country's defence needs 50 years ago, with what might be achievable with new generations of technology. In particular, we can look two generations ahead to pebble bed technology, which could make an enormous contribution and which we should not write off at this stage.

Renewable energy technology is not an option but a necessity. I agree with the Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor David King, that we should consider replacing old nuclear power stations with new nuclear technology, for the best possible reason. I also agree that the Government must give the nuclear industry a clear signal, one way or another. Given the long lead times involved, if the Government fail to make an early statement on the future of nuclear energy, that will be as good as saying no, and the option will be closed.

We must consider the planning procedures for major national infrastructure projects, which the Government have addressed. Special parliamentary procedures already have precedents—not only in the Transport and Works Act 1992, but in various road schemes—by which decisions have come to Parliament. I recall the Okehampton bypass decision, the Lyndhurst bypass debate and so on. We must have a properly informed debate, because much of the effort we put in offers enormous future benefits.

As the hon. Member for Waveney pointed out, "The Energy Review" should give consideration to current bottlenecks. On gas, I draw the Minister's attention to the problem of entry capacity at St. Fergus, and to the problem of wet gas in the north North sea and dry gas in the south North sea at Bacton. One problem faced by the industry is the auction that has been going on at St. Fergus since 1999. Every six months the regulator changes the methodology because he claims that the system is "gameable"—in other words, because people can guess what the new system will be, they try to outwit it. Game theory is important. The problem is that discussions have been continuing with the industry for almost a year. There may be an opportunity to consider moving back to long-run marginal cost models instead of the six-monthly auction model.

The move to shorter balancing, which Ofgem proposes, is important. The UK has a 24-hour balancing system for gas; Ofgem wants to reduce that to four to six-hour balancing. That would mean extensive new metering for producers, shippers and consumers, and ILEX Energy Consulting has calculated that the consequences of shorter balancing could be a 3.5 per cent. price rise for domestic consumers of gas. What is the benefit in having a regulator if he puts the price up to satisfy his whim? There is also a disincentive to new entrants. The Dutch and the Germans are returning to a long-run marginal cost system, with 24-hour balancing. The hon. Member for Waveney is right to say that Ofgem has not done a cost-benefit analysis.

To be fair to the Minister, I must conclude. We warmly welcome this debate. We must consider all options in an open and sensible way and not rule out anything. We must not allow our prejudices to rule our minds, and in that spirit I look forward to the next six months of debate until the Government produce their White Paper.

I am an unworthy substitute called from the DTI subs' bench. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy is busy being industrious and energetic sanctioning a gas field off Scotland.

"The Energy Review" makes a valuable contribution to the debate on how best to meet our long-term energy requirements. It is important to make it clear that it is not a Government report, but a report by the PIU to Government, and we need to consider its recommendations carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said that he hopes that this is the start of the debate. He has had the historic opportunity to kick it off, as this is our first debate since the report was published. He also asked that we should not simply follow the guidance in the PIU report. We will consult widely and today's debate today will form an important foundation stone of that process. My hon. Friend said that he was a "simple scientist", but I think that that might be contradiction in terms. He was a very eloquent scientist putting forward his arguments today.

As part of the consultation, we will look closely at two relevant parliamentary reports: the Trade and Industry Committee's report on security of energy supply, published on 7 February and "How secure are we?" the report of Sub-Committee B of the House of Lords European Union Committee, published on 12 February. Those reports are timely and valuable in signalling Parliament's views about energy issues and indicating where the White Paper should focus. The Trade and Industry Committee has produced 48 conclusions and recommendations. There is a strong emphasis on network and infrastructure investment, and recommendations about the future use of economic instruments and regulation to achieve environmental objectives.

May I recommend that the DTI also take into consideration the recent Science and Technology Committee report on wind and tidal energy?

I was just coming to that report, of which we will take full cognisance. In another important contribution, the House of Lords has been conducting an inquiry into the European Commission's Green Paper on security of energy supply. That is another important contribution.

Trends in energy markets have been comparatively benign in recent years, and our energy policies have worked remarkably well with the grain of those markets. We are currently self-sufficient in energy, with our gas and electricity prices among the lowest in the G7 countries. We have diverse sources of supply from coal, gas and nuclear in power generation, and a small but growing contribution from renewables, and we are on target to meet our Kyoto commitments at the end of the decade. However, as the report argues, we cannot and should not be complacent: tough challenges lie ahead. The UK will become increasingly dependent on imported oil and gas.

The Californian crisis has highlighted the importance of getting the incentives for new investment right. The report concludes that the introduction of liberalised and competitive energy markets in the UK has been a success and should provide the cornerstone of future policy in the UK and internationally. It argues, however, that new challenges require new policies and that the policy framework should address all three objectives of sustainable development—economic, environmental and social—as well as security.

The report recommends that promoting energy efficiency and renewables should be the immediate priorities of a low-carbon energy policy. In renewables, we start from a very low base: they provide slightly less than 3 per cent. of our electricity supply. We have therefore set a challenging target of meeting 10 per cent. of electricity supply from renewable sources by 2010. There is a great deal to be done to achieve that target and we are introducing a range of robust measures. The report strikes the right balance: it stresses the potential for renewables, but recognises that nuclear energy, which provides around a quarter of UK electricity, offers a low-carbon electricity source that is larger than other plant options. The report also mentions the role of coal.

My hon. Friend Member for Brighton, Kemptown asked about his Home Energy Conservation Bill—indeed at one point I thought he was moving it. The Government supported that Bill on Second Reading, and we will continue to support it. We are at the start of an important process and I am happy to have heard the views of Opposition Members and my hon. Friends. Although the debate needs to be much fuller, my hon. Friend has made a great start by initiating it this morning.

The debate is timely, because record numbers of dolphins and porpoises have been found washed up on the beaches of Devon and Cornwall since January, and also off the coast of France. I pay tribute to Lindy Hingley, the founder and co-ordinator of Brixham Seawatch, who has monitored dolphins and other creatures for the past 12 years in the western approaches. She claims that the numbers are the worst that she has known.

Since January, more than 120 cetacean carcases have been found washed up on the beaches of Cornwall, Devon and Dorset. The carcases are also found in greater numbers on French beaches, where more than 800 have been washed up in the same period. That is more than 30 times the toll described as normal for this time of year. Scientists tell us that those washed up constitute only 1 per cent. of the total deaths, and that 20 to 30 animals can be caught at any one time.

The extent of deaths can also be shown by an increase in the numbers of rotting carcases found in the nets of beam trawlers and scallop dredgers. Conservationists and mammal experts blame the deaths on huge mid-water trawlers, and warn that the common dolphin could become extinct in the area within a decade. Some argue that a decade is a long time, and that the dolphins could be extinct in the area well before the end of it. In post mortems by the Institute of Zoology at London zoo, death has been proved to be a result of bycatch. The arrival of pelagic—mid-water—trawlers also coincides with the washing up of huge numbers of dead dolphins, porpoises and whales.

The dolphins are believed to be caught because of the high level of mackerel, the dolphins' favourite food, that heads up the western approaches to the English channel, and the predatory bass that feed on the mackerel. The bass are chased by nearly 15 teams of pair trawlers with nets that stretch between two vessels, that reach down to 30 fathoms and that are towed for eight hours or more. The trawlers hoover up everything that they come across, as do the more than 30 mackerel-fishing pelagic ships, which have trawls in the water for more than an hour.

Dolphins live in large family groups of up to 100. They can become bycatch victims when they engage in a feeding frenzy. The fish have been caught in the net, and the dolphin thinks, "Goody goody, here's a meal." It jumps into the net and is stuck there enjoying the food, but forgetting that it needs to pop up for air. When it tries to do so, it is too late. It cannot escape and dies an horrific death. Dolphins require oxygen. They can survive under water for a maximum of 10 minutes, but the nets stay submerged for hours. The dolphins panic when they realise that they are trapped, which shuts their air holes. They can then spend between 15 and 20 minutes trying to fight their way out of the nets, before they eventually suffocate.

Common dolphins are protected by schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and by annexes I and IV of the European Union habitats directive. It is illegal for fishermen to put a net into the water if they know that protected dolphins are near their vessels. Given the sonar equipment currently used by fishermen, deaths can no longer be attributed to accidents. Anyone who thinks that they are purely accidental should ask why numerous carcases have been punctured, cut up or chopped in half before being thrown overboard in the hope that they sink to the bottom of the sea. Evidence also shows that cetaceans have been speared while still alive and that they have bled to death.

Given the evidence of illegal activity, we must ask why there has been no attempt to prosecute those who perpetuate the carnage. Researchers who have studied the size of sea bass have seen evidence of dolphins being caught in large numbers. Even if that evidence cannot be used to prosecute, why can it not be used to press for action and to persuade the EU to prosecute offenders of all nationalities? Is the Minister prepared to increase researchers' powers so that they can inspect foreign boats? The Government have considered deterrents, but they are considered ineffectual for mid-water trawls. The Government have said that they will test new nets with special top openings that allow snared dolphins to escape, and trials will take place in March and April. It is claimed that such nets have been used successfully in New Zealand, but they were used to protect sea lions. Sea lions are not dolphins; they are significantly smaller, more flexible and more able to manoeuvre their way out of nets.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned sea lions, but he will be aware that it is not only cetaceans that are caught in British waters and elsewhere; birds, too, are found in bycatch. He may also be aware that the wildlife and countryside link marine charter, which was launched just before Christmas, has called for a national bycatch response strategy and action plan to reduce bycatch of protected species to levels that do not threaten their conservation.

That would be welcome, but I fear that action is more urgently required in the case of dolphins.

The second point about the tests on the nets is that they will take place in March and April. The season runs from September to March, so the tests will come right at the end and will not provide a true reflection of the catches that are made when the maximum number of dolphins are in our waters.

If the trials work, however, when can we expect the nets to be in use in all vessels? That could be several years down the track. Will their use be mandatory or optional in Britain and the EU? What will the Government do if the trials fail? Frankly, I think that they are a distraction from an urgent issue.

Any action must be multinational, because targeting British boats will only move the problem, not solve it. Awareness of the issue must be raised in the EU, and member states must be persuaded that joint action is needed to tackle the situation. The EU is gathering evidence on different scientific, technical and economic aspects of the issue and is prepared to propose amendments to fisheries legislation to improve the protection of cetacean populations. By the time that happens, however, there may be no cetaceans left in our waters to protect. What steps are the Government prepared to take to raise awareness of the situation within the EU and, more importantly, to pressure it to act?

Vessels with smaller engines cannot carry large trawls and have no problems with cetaceous bycatch, because smaller trawls have different mesh sizes. A dolphin immediately knows when it has swum into the net because of the change in water pressure, and it can get out before it runs out of air. By contrast, there is no change in water pressure with the larger trawls, so the dolphin realises that it is trapped and panics only when it needs to go up for air.

My hon. Friend makes a strong case for urgent action. He has concentrated on pair trawling. The Department has identified a problem in that sector. However, does my hon. Friend agree that although there is not yet any proof that industrial trawling for animal feed is responsible, neither has that been disproved? There has not been sufficient research to demonstrate whether cetaceans are being caught in that type of fishery.

My hon. Friend is right. Large factory vessels, many of which are not registered in member countries of the EU, could be a significant part of the problem. Whatever action I propose within the EU would have to apply also to those countries outwith the EU where factory vessels are registered.

Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Amess, this is an important debate and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has secured it. Whatever the Minister says, the test is Europe. Unless Europe enforces—against the French in particular, which has never been done in the past—we are crying in the wind. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the kernel of the problem?

May I tell the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) that I am content to be called by my own name, so long as it is not abusive.

My neighbour, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), is right. There is a problem in France, which has seen far more bycatch on its beaches than we have, in that the French Government do not recognise that there is a problem. My hon. Friends and I are approaching the French ambassador to see whether we can have a meeting. We shall let the hon. Gentleman know if one occurs, and I hope that he will be able to accompany us in order, through the ambassador, to put the case directly to the French Government. Would the Minister support a ban on pelagic vessels of over 500 horse power, including pelagic pair trawlers, if necessary? Such a ban would need to be introduced at EU level, as the boats mainly come from other parts of Europe, and it would solve the problem overnight.

The danger is that nobody knows how many dolphins are left. If we do not take action quickly, there might be none. Those of us who have the advantage of living in the south-west know the dolphin as a friend that comes to visit us in the late summer and through the winter. I represent an area that includes one of the most beautiful natural bays in the world, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that the sight of dolphins off Brixham, Paignton and Torquay is a pleasure for those who live there and those who visit the area. The tragedy is that if we do not act now, we may have had our last visit from those magnificent creatures—and we never had a chance to say goodbye.

I am sorry that I am not the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has a distinguished record in this area and has been involved in a lot of the negotiations mentioned by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). If he were not, unfortunately, out of the country, he would have responded to the debate, and he will certainly take careful note of what has been said.

The hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members who used the debate for lengthy and well-prepared interventions, rightly drew attention to the concern felt in their constituencies about the large number of dolphins being washed up on the beaches in the south-west, and I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has corresponded at some length with my hon. Friend on the subject. I need not stress that we share those concerns, but if we are to find solutions to the problem, we need to know exactly what is causing it. The hon. Gentleman is entirely convinced of his arguments, and I understand their force. Post mortems have shown that the majority of cetacean strandings are caused by fishing activity.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the work of the sea mammal research unit—the SMRU—at St. Andrew's university. That unit has done a good deal of work for my Department, and it recently isolated the fact that the dolphin casualties attributable to fishing in the western channel seem to be down to the offshore bass fishery. There does not seem to be much doubt about that. The SMRU has had observers on vessels fishing for anchovy, blue whiting, herring, mackerel, pilchard, sprats and bass, but dolphin casualties have been observed only in the bass fishery. That research has shown a zero response for all the others, but there were more than 50 cases in respect of bass. The evidence appears to be convincing.

Would the Minister be prepared to read out more of the figures? What I have seen of the Department's work suggests that many more observations have been made of bass than of other fisheries. To what extent has the Department investigated the operations of the industrial trawling sector?

We have certainly been looking at the allegations made about industrial fishing, and I shall come to that point later.

The hon. Member for Torbay referred also to mackerel, but the overwhelming evidence is that it is the offshore bass fishery. The bass fishery is not unique to British vessels. This year, only four United Kingdom vessels, all from Scotland, have taken part in that fishery, while 40 French vessels have worked in it.

The hon. Gentleman made the specific point that the huge bulk of boats working in the Channel are from other member states. For that reason, they are outside the jurisdiction of UK wildlife legislation. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has approached the Commission. The route to action is through the Community.

The question was raised whether industrial fishing was responsible for cetacean fatalities. In the Channel, Danish and other vessels fishing for horse mackerel are called industrial, even though some of the catch is for the table, and allegations have been made this year that the vessels are covering dolphins with other fish in their fish room or their nets. The SMRU's monitoring work has not included those vessels. Inspection of those vessels by fishery protection officers did not confirm those allegations. The fishery is international, and, under the rules of the common fisheries policy, we cannot require French vessels to stop working it. We are keen to do something. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has pursued the matter with the EU Fisheries Commissioner, Franz Fischler and Mr. Glavany, who, until recently, was the French Minister. He has written explaining the hard evidence that we have, which is compelling, and urging the Commission to set up an observer programme to broaden the information available. He has stressed to the Commission that urgent EU action will soon be needed, and he has also made those remarks directly to the French Minister.

I am glad to report that Commissioner Fischler sent an encouraging reply, which indicates that he shares the concern of people in the UK and agrees on the need to act at Community level where there are problems. That is helpful.

On the subject of inspecting foreign boats, which the hon. Gentleman raised, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has called for a co-ordinated observer programme because we currently have no powers to place observers on foreign vessels. Again, we must make sure that that is undertaken via the Commission.

As I see the Minister is running short of paper, perhaps I could put a question to him.

I am not; but the hon. Gentleman can go on.

Am I right in concluding that the Government are on the side of those who want to save the dolphin and do not want the massacre of those animals to continue? If that is the case and there is an international problem, am I right in presuming that the Minister believes that the answer can be found only through the European Commission? Furthermore, will he tell us—I am sure that the hon. Member for Torbay would appreciate it as much as I would—the timetable for making progress, and say whether there is anything that we modest Back Benchers can do to accelerate the process?

Of course we are on the side of those who want to stop the fatalities. Quite apart from the popularity of the dolphin, we would want to stop the unnecessary destruction of any mammal. We are taking action, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to know how quickly action will be taken at EU level, I should tell him that I have spent five years trying to discover the answer to that question in relation to all sorts of matters.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is a redoubtable and veteran campaigner on these matters, and we must rely on him to push for action. We are certainly not dragging our feet and want to see action this year. Indeed, what I shall say about the trials will be some indication of that.

Having discovered where the main problem lies—there is no difference between us on that—we have set about trying to find a practical solution. The expert advice is that the inclusion of separator grids in fishing nets may be the answer. That adaptation allows the dolphins that swim into nets to escape. With the full co-operation of UK skippers—we must give them credit for this —the adapted gear will be tested at sea under commercial conditions during March and April. The hon. Member for Torbay said that those are not necessarily the best times for testing the gear. There is no reason why testing should not continue, but we need to get on with it. After that, the bass fishery for this season will have come to its natural end.

The hon. Member for Torbay asked me about the mackerel fishery. SMRU research points to the bass fishery, rather than the mackerel fishery, although I note what the hon. Gentleman said. We believe that separator trawls are the answer. They may be equally effective for mackerel nets, and that can be tested.

The problem with separator trawls is that the catch itself may escape. If the dolphin cannot escape but the fish are escaping, that is no help to the fishermen. I come back to the fact that the dolphin is different from the sea lion. Contingency plans need to be in place in case the trials fail—otherwise, it could be too late.

I take both those points. Of course, the fish may escape. However, the scheme is being carried out with the co-operation of United Kingdom skippers and it is of credit to them that they are prepared to do the trials and test the results. Naturally, it would be a serious problem if the method had serious consequences in terms of loss of the main catch.

The work on separator grids is important, as it offers the possibility of a solution that will protect dolphins and—if the tests work and the fishermen are prepared to use the method— allow them to continue in pursuing the bass fishery. However, we must wait to see what happens.

Some have said that separator grids are not the answer. The hon. Gentleman referred to New Zealand fisheries tests with sea lions. The truth is that we cannot know whether the method works until it has been tried and tested under the commercial conditions that exist in the relevant fisheries. We know that separator grids work in some Norwegian fisheries and have been tried with sea lions. I agree that the sea lion is a mammal of different dimensions from the dolphin, for example. We need to try out the gear and tune it to discover whether it works in our conditions.

One way or another, an urgent solution is needed. There is every reason to suspect that the trial work on separator grids will succeed in developing a version that will work effectively in our conditions but, if they are not successful, nothing should be ruled out—including fisheries closures.

An allegation was made that fishermen are illegally killing marine mammals. It is not an offence to cause the death of a cetacean as an incidental result of a lawful activity, such as fishing, or to kill a seal to protect catches of fish or fishing gear. I do not believe that fishermen are deliberately killing cetaceans, and I do not think that hon. Members have suggested that. It is significant that fishermen are co-operating in current research into mitigation methods.

I was merely saying that, with modern sonar equipment, fishermen could not claim that they did not know that they might possibly catch dolphins. In that sense, they know when they are catching dolphins, but why do some fishermen then feel it necessary to cut them up and hide the evidence?

I take that point, but I thought that the suggestion was made that fishermen were killing cetaceans deliberately. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that fishermen should be aware that that could be the result, and take account of that fact.

The point was not raised, but I want to say something about porpoises, because they present different problems from dolphins. Porpoises concentrate on feeding on the sea bed and get caught up not by the trawls used for bass but in fixed gear used for hake and other species that live on and near the bottom. Again, the sea mammal research unit has done considerable work on that topic for my Department, with the fullest co-operation of the fishermen—indeed, it could not have been done without their co-operation. The most likely solution seems to lie in attaching pingers to the headlines of the nets. We are now in the final stages of working with pingers on Celtic sea nets. We have obtained a pattern of pinger that is much more fisherman-friendly. Once the detailed application of that gear has been ironed out, we will be better able to argue for the Commission requiring the application of that technology to the fleets of all member states working in fixed-net fisheries.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torbay for raising this important issue. Like him, we want to see urgent action. I am sure that my hon. Friend the fisheries Minister will continue to co-operate closely with him to reach the result that we all want: the preservation of cetaceans from accidental and unintended bycatch.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about a serious health issue that has never received the recognition that it deserves. Some 1.5 million British people of all ages, races and backgrounds have been diagnosed with diabetes and their lives are impaired and sometimes dramatically shortened by it. That figure does not include the further 1 million people with the condition who live their lives undiagnosed.

Treatment of diabetes is an urgent issue, as is the implementation of the Government's national service framework for diabetes, which is due to be published this summer. I wholeheartedly support the Government's intention to develop that national service framework. I was encouraged by the comprehensive scope of the document "Diabetes National Service Framework: Standards", published in December 2001. It was a welcome acknowledgement by the Department of Health of the importance of diabetes and its prevention, and of the distressing complications that many diabetics face, such as blindness, kidney disease, heart disease, angina, strokes, foot problems leading to amputation, and difficulties in pregnancy.

Such conditions, coupled with the devastating fact that diabetes can shorten life expectancy by as much as 30 per cent., and in the context of a projected increase of people with diabetes to 3 million by 2010, mean that diabetes is a problem that should be at the top of the health agenda. However, it is not. Simply, diabetes is a condition in which the body cannot turn the food that people eat into the energy that they need to survive. That is usually because of type 1 diabetes, in which the body does not produce the hormone insulin, or because of type 2 diabetes, in which the body does not produce enough insulin or the insulin that it produces does not work properly. There are other, much rarer forms.

The human cost of diabetes is devastating because it can seriously damage other parts of the body. In the United Kingdom, it is the leading cause of blindness in people of working age. It is a leading cause of end-stage kidney failure and of lower-limb amputation. If they have diabetes, people's chance of having a stroke is two or three times greater and their risk of heart disease two to five times greater. In ethnic groups in which the incidence of diabetes is higher—partly for genetic reasons and partly because of lifestyle—there is even more chance of such complications.

Estimates of the precise financial cost of diabetes vary, but according to one study, it accounts for £1 in every £10 of the annual national health service budget. That represents a total of £5.2 billion a year, or £14,245,367 a day—something like £165 every second. Diabetes has a huge impact on the NHS, and the costs are set to grow substantially because, owing to sedentary lifestyles and increasing obesity rates, the number of those with diabetes in the UK is likely to rise dramatically during the next decade and beyond.

Hon. Members will have seen and been alarmed by recent media coverage of the first cases of type 2 diabetes found in white children in this country, accurately reported as highly disturbing evidence of the threat to health posed by increasing obesity in the developed world. The potential long-term impact on those affected of what can only be described as a time bomb, and the extra burden on an already overburdened NHS, are frightening.

For too long, politicians from all parties have failed to take diabetes seriously. Last year, however, 375 MPs signed a Diabetes UK pledge calling on all politicians to begin to deliver on diabetes. The Government have listened: the 12 standards contained in the document cover the complete life cycle of diabetes from prevention and the prevention of complications for those with pre-existing diabetes to the management of complications once they are identified. If the 12 standards are implemented properly, the prospects for those with diabetes in the UK will undoubtedly improve, and the Government will have made a significant public health policy achievement. However, the document will be no more than tantalising paper if they are unable to support those charged with implementation with new money.

Although we are all acutely aware of the colossal and competing pressures on the Department of Health's budget and accept that many positive steps can be taken without throwing money at problems, there is a danger that the national service framework for diabetes will be unable to raise standards of care across the country without extra dedicated resources. As other comparable service frameworks have received dedicated funding to support their implementation, will the Minister take the opportunity to guarantee dedicated funding for the national service framework for diabetes? If she is unable to do that at this stage, will she provide further information on the Department of Health's time scale for decisions about the funding of the national service framework? There is certainly a need for extra investment. The Audit Commission's report, "Testing Times: A Review of Diabetes Services in England and Wales", published in April 2000, found:

"The prevalence of diabetes and the cost of providing services are likely to increase dramatically over the next ten years. Services are already under considerable strain, and little is taking place in the way of strategic planning."

A continuation of the status quo could have a devastating effect on the national health service, which is already under severe pressure from diabetes and its complications. That burden is due to rise because an ageing population with increased rates of obesity will inevitably translate into an increase in the number of people with type 2 diabetes in years to come.

I first declare an interest as an insulin-dependent diabetic. Is the hon. Lady aware of the "missing million" campaign run by Diabetes UK, which estimates that 1 million citizens in the United Kingdom have that condition but have not yet been diagnosed? Screening is one part of trying to identify those people, but the consequence would be an increase in the bill for treatment. We need to track down the missing million.

I am aware of the missing million. As a London MP, I am specifically concerned that a substantial proportion of those 1 million people will be based in London, given the higher prevalence of diabetes among people from the Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities. A parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) showed that the Government accept that as many as 1 million people may have type 2 diabetes without yet knowing it.

The longer people with diabetes go undiagnosed, the more likely they are to develop life-threatening and debilitating conditions such as heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, blindness and lower limb amputation. On average, people have type 2 diabetes for between nine and 12 years before it is diagnosed, the devastating effect of which is that more than a third and perhaps as many as half of them are already showing signs of complications when it is diagnosed.

The Government are aware of the need to identify people with diabetes early, and I urge Ministers to tackle the problem of how those people are to be identified early enough to prevent the onset of complications. A screening programme that targets people who are subject to a high risk of developing type 2 diabetes would help to provide a structured identification process. Opportunistic screening is clearly not working because the Government have accepted that an estimated 1 million people have diabetes but do not know it. Given that the costs of screening are lower than the costs of dealing with the problems resulting from undiagnosed diabetes, there must be a strong and urgent case for reviewing the way in which we screen for it, particularly in London where levels are reckoned to be 10 times the national average.

We must surely rethink the way in which we educate people about the risk of diabetes. I should be grateful to know whether the Minister will look into those pressing issues after the debate. The national service framework for diabetes provides a wonderful opportunity to address the nightmare scenario of a future NHS proving unable to cope with the financial and human costs of diabetes. Expectation among patients and healthcare professions is extremely high, and has perhaps been raised by the delay of the implementation of the national service framework, which was initially due to begin in April 2002.

The 12-month delay came as a blow to diabetics and health care professionals. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no further delays to publication of the crucial implementation strategy document, and confirm that it will be published in summer 2002, as she announced last December?

The Government must ensure that the months during the build-up to publication of the delivery strategy are used to the full to ensure that the momentum for raising standards for diabetes care is maintained. The requirement for all primary care trusts to undertake a local assessment of diabetes service provides the opportunity to prepare fully for implementation. The Government must ensure that once it is published, there is local ownership of the service framework, by health care professionals, and patients. I am aware of concerns that the standard document does not place enough emphasis on the need for partnership in service planning, or involving people with diabetes, despite the Government's stated priority to build

"partnerships and co-operation…between patients, their carers and families and NHS staff".

Given that the delivery strategy is due to be published in September, well in advance of the implementation date of April 2003, what do the Government intend to do to encourage preparation for the national service framework between now and then?

Given that people of south Asian origin are six times more likely to develop diabetes than Caucasian people, and that Afro-Caribbean people are four times more likely to do so, I would like to assure ethnic groups in Mitcham and Morden—I am an honorary member of the Asian Diabetic Support and Advice group there—that they will be fully consulted on and their needs incorporated in the national service framework.

User involvement in service delivery and decision-making has to be central to support empowerment. That is the only way to bring about the more patient-centred NHS that the Government are building. Local diabetes service advisory groups exist throughout most of the UK, and they can help in that process. Those groups bring together managers, health care professionals from primary and secondary care, people with diabetes and commissioners to advise on diabetes care. The fact that such care cuts across so many parts of the system requires that joint planning and integration are facilitated through joint working and local advisory groups. If supported and recognised, they provide the means of carrying out that planning.

The cost to the NHS of treatment of diabetes and its complications is immense. Substantial financial investment to support the national service framework could deliver savings in the future—I appreciate that every hon. Member who has an Adjournment debate about health makes that point, whatever the disorder might be. To demonstrate the need for Government to find comprehensive funding, Abacus International's recent report "Diabetes: the Problems, the Issue, and the Future" found that for every £1 spent on such treatment, £1.38 would be saved on complications.

I began by welcoming the fact that politicians have started to take diabetes seriously, and to listen to such eminent figures as Sir George Alberti, president of the Royal College of Physicians, who commented on the Abacus report that there is as

"urgent need to move diabetes up the agenda, alongside coronary heart disease and cancer for the sake of individual sufferers and the public purse. Early and effective implementation of the National Service Framework, properly resourced, is critical".

The national service framework standards document suggests that the Government are committed to tackling growing health concern. Translating those good intentions into delivery on the ground will require the promotion of user involvement in local planning and delivery, an increase in staffing, and a commitment to providing financial resources.

The implementation of the national service framework for diabetes provides an unprecedented opportunity to improve standards of screening, diagnosis, prevention, management and care. It will transform the lives of millions of British people, and pave the way for better future lives. That opportunity may not come again for a generation. Now is the time to deliver for those with diabetes.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing a debate on the important issue of the treatment of diabetes. I welcome many of her points, and I agree that this is a great opportunity to make substantial steps in improving care for those with diabetes.

I pay tribute to the work of Diabetes UK, which will hold its annual professional conference tomorrow. It has done considerable work for those who suffer from diabetes. It has raised awareness of the condition and has worked with health professionals and the Department of Health on the national service framework.

My hon. Friend is right that diabetes is a serious and complex condition that can result in a raft of debilitating complications and increase the risk of developing other diseases, including coronary heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, impaired vision, lower-limb complications, and additional risks in pregnancy. She is right that those with diabetes die sooner—on average, by more than 20 years if an individual has type I diabetes, and by up to 10 years if he or she has type 2 diabetes.

Diabetes can have a profound effect on people's lifestyles, relationships, work, income, health, wellbeing and life expectancy. My hon. Friend is right that it also has a significant impact on health and social services. It has been estimated that around 5 per cent. of total NHS resources and up to 10 per cent. of hospital in-patient resources can be used for the care of people with diabetes. Those with the condition are twice as likely to be admitted to hospital, and, once there, their stay is likely to be up to twice the average.

Around 1.3 million people have diagnosed diabetes, and evidence shows that it is becoming more common as lifestyles and life patterns change, even among children. My hon. Friend made it clear that the burden of diabetes does not fall equally. Significant inequalities exist in the risk of developing diabetes, in access to health services of quality, and in health outcomes. For example, type 2 diabetes is up to six times more common in people of south Asian descent, and up to three times more common in those of African and African-Caribbean descent, than it is in the white population. Mortality and morbidity are also affected by socio-economic deprivation. Such serious inequality issues must be taken into account.

The Audit Commission report, "Testing Times", highlighted unacceptable variations in the standard of diabetes service provision. It found some excellent areas of good practice in which staff worked across sectors to improve patient care. However, such examples were not widely shared across the NHS, and considerable improvements can be made. Those variations and gaps in the organisation and quality of diabetes services prompted the Government to announce the development of the national service framework for diabetes in England.

The number of national service frameworks that have been announced has been limited. Only a limited number of conditions and areas have been identified for those frameworks, such as mental health, coronary heart disease and the cancer plan. The frameworks have tended to concentrate on generic approaches, such as those for children and long-term conditions, and one for older people is already in development. The identification of diabetes for a national service framework was a significant step for the Government and the NHS because it stated the importance of diabetes and the issues that must be addressed.

As my hon. Friend said, standards for the national service framework were published in December. The delivery strategy will follow later this year so that implementation can begin next year. The standards document provides the first set of national standards on the treatment of diabetes for the NHS. They cover prevention, identification of those with diabetes, empowering those with diabetes by improving self-care, and clinical care for adults, children and young people. They also address managing diabetic emergencies, care of people with diabetes during admission to hospital, issues surrounding diabetes in pregnancy, and the detection and management of long-term complications. Considerable supporting information has been made available on the internet. and that includes suggested service models, performance indicators, proposals for practice-based registers and information on diabetes research. We welcome comments on the diabetes national service framework.

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that we intend to publish the implementation plan during the summer, and we have set up an implementation group to consider it. The group will work openly with a wide range of stakeholders to provide information on the strategy of the diabetes national service framework to ensure that implementation is manageable and sensibly paced and that it can be fully delivered during the 10 years of the programme and reflects the key priorities for those with diabetes and for the health professionals involved in their care.

I take on board the points made by my hon. Friend concerning partnership with those with diabetes to consider the care, education and joint planning of services. Those matters are being considered by the implementation group, and I shall ensure that it is fully aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend.

The implementation group is chaired jointly by Professor Mike Pringle of the Royal College of General Practitioners and Dr. Sheila Adam, director of policy at the Department of Health. The group includes two people with diabetes as well as members of the medical, nursing and allied health professions, NHS management and Diabetes UK. The implementation group is keen to hear the views of people with diabetes, those in the NHS and health care professions, and other interested parties on the priorities for action, the time scale for implementing different standards and what the priorities should be during in the first few years of the national service framework. A strength of the framework is that it has worked hard to involve all those who deliver the service or use it. Its purpose is to provide the care that people want and need. Another strength is that it covers all aspects of care, including prevention and treatment. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that problems may arise when there is insufficient integration of the different aspects of care.

The delivery strategy for the national service framework will set out the action to be taken by local health and social care systems, including milestones, performance management arrangements, service models, and national underpinning programmes to support local delivery. We have established a research advisory committee with the Medical Research Council and Diabetes UK to review current diabetes research in the United Kingdom and to identify the priorities for new research.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is developing clinical guidelines for type 1 and type 2 diabetes and is appraising a number of new technologies. We welcomed NICE's publication last week of the first two guidelines in its type 2 diabetes series, which cover diabetic retinopathy and diabetic renal disease. A diabetes information strategy is being developed because it is important to ensure that the right information is resourced to implement the national service framework. It will set out a vision for the information infrastructure, systems and services and what needs to be done to deliver it.

We have also set up a long-term conditions care group work force team to take a national overview of the challenges of delivering services to the diabetes national service framework standards and to identify innovative ways in which the skills and competencies needed in the work force can be delivered.

My hon. Friend mentioned the time scale for introducing the national service framework and publishing the implementation document. We must take account of the changing roles and responsibilities of NHS organisations and staff and recognise the current pressures on the NHS, especially in primary care but also in hospitals. That is why the decision was taken to have a proper debate on and examination of the implementation process once the standards had been published in order to engage closely with patients and clinicians and ensure that we can deliver the national service framework to the standard that we all want.

Developing the national service framework in two parts in that way will enable us to engage the NHS, partner agencies and those with diabetes more closely in planning and managing the framework's implementation. That is why publishing the standards in advance of finalising the milestones gave us an opportunity to be far more inclusive in developing the implementation programme. We aim to have a fuller process of communication and of raising awareness and agreement about priorities and practical implementation.

My hon. Friend mentioned resources. The national service framework implementation process will need to take account of resources currently being considered for the future of the NHS as part of the Government's spending review for the next three years. She will understand that it is not possible for me to pre-empt that or the discussions that will take place as part of the implementation group's work. However, I assure her that those matters will be considered not only in the light of discussions on the spending review and long-term investment plans for the NHS, but as part of the detailed discussions on the implementation time scale and milestones.

It is important to bear in mind, as my hon. Friend is aware, that we are investing considerable additional resources in the NHS across the board. As we shift power to the front line, primary care trusts will increasingly have to take responsibility for joining up their resources around the person and not simply around individual diseases. The national director for primary care is leading an important project to look at implementation across the national service frameworks to ensure that we deliver milestones properly and that the right investment is in place.

In the meantime, we are keen to avoid a planning blight in diabetes services. One reason for setting out the standards was so that primary care trusts and the health service could be aware of the direction in which the national service framework would go. We have also asked primary care groups and trusts to undertake a baseline assessment of population need and service provision so that they are ready to begin implementation of the national service framework next year. We shall shortly publish a template to support that task. Those already planning and investing in local diabetes services on an ongoing basis can take account of the broad direction in the standards document.

Other work in progress supports the broad thrust of the diabetes framework, including four of the first wave of pilot training courses in self-management, under the expert patients programme, which cover diabetes. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who spoke at the Diabetes UK annual professional conference, will say more tomorrow about the expert patients programme and its application to diabetes. NICE will evaluate patient education models for diabetes and issue guidance next spring.

We must take account of work that is changing and redefining traditional professional roles and boundaries. Two pilot sites of the changing work force programme, in Luton and Peterborough, are helping health and social care organisations to redesign staff roles and cover diabetes services.

My hon. Friend will be aware that much work progressing across the Government on the prevention of ill-health also applies to diabetes, including tackling obesity and improving nutrition and physical activity among children, as the prevention of diabetes is important too.

Diabetes is a serious condition but the future need not be bleak because evidence shows that the onset of type 2 diabetes can be delayed or even prevented and effective management of the disease can increase life expectancy and reduce the risk of complications. The diabetes national service framework builds on those foundations. As my hon. Friend said, the framework provides an important opportunity to improve patient-centred care delivered in partnership for those suffering from diabetes.

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring an important issue before the House. Five years ago, the Government issued a statement of intent on environmental taxation. The principle was simply stated:

"Over time, the Government will aim to reform the tax system to increase incentives to reduce environmental damage. That will shift the burden of tax from "goods" to "bads"; encourage innovation in meeting higher environmental standards; and deliver a more dynamic economy and a cleaner environment, to the benefit of everyone."

I support the Government in their attempts to protect the environment; it is in putting that principle into practice that the issues become complicated. Although I support the Government's principles, I cannot support an illogical tax that does not live up to the basic dictates of the Government's statement of intent.

Next month a so-called environmental tax will come into effect that will do little for the environment and bring nothing to the Exchequer. An environmental tax that has a neutral effect both on the environment and at the Treasury is a strange anomaly. If the story stopped there, it would simply be a case of a costly government exercise that will achieve little or nothing. Unfortunately, it does not stop there; for all its environmental and Exchequer neutrality, the aggregates levy is not a neutral tax. It will be disastrous for the quarrying and construction industry; it will drive small operators out of business, further hurt rural economies, decrease the international competitive position of domestic industry, and increase the cost of public works construction projects.

From next month, the aggregates levy will tax virgin aggregates at £1.60 a tonne, a rate that is three to four times the profit margin of many quarry operators. The figure is four times the tax in Sweden, six times the tax in Denmark, and more than 20 times the tax in France. The Government say that the tax will better reflect the real cost of aggregates extraction, but that "real" cost was arrived at by the fascinating exercise of asking people how much of their fictional money they would part with to close local quarries.

The £1.60 rate is made even harsher by the fact that it will be a flat-rate tax on an industry whose prices vary widely. The effect is that the price of primary aggregates in Scotland will rise by 40 to 50 per cent. as opposed to a more modest rise of 12 to 16 per cent. in the south-east of England. The aggregates levy is in effect a poll tax on chuckies and is perhaps the most anti-Scottish taxation measure since the poll tax.

The effect of that blunt instrument, which taxes all quarries the same regardless of differing environmental practices or product prices, will be to drive many small quarry operators out of business. As industry expert Leslie Campbell wrote, large aggregate producers

"will be better placed to pass on the rise in the cost [of the levy] than the independent producer. These smaller specialist companies will find it harder to increase their prices to customers. Their margins will be squeezed and some could leave the market."

The Quarry Products Association predicts more than 10,000 job losses from the tax throughout Britain, more than a quarter of which will be in Scotland. The British Aggregates Association similarly predicts the loss of 2,750 jobs in Scotland, split between the quarrying industry and related industries such as mechanical engineering, fabrication and plant hire.

Those job losses are the first-order effects of the aggregates levy, but there will be second-order economic effects about which we should be equally worried. A net effect of the new tax will be to increase the cost of construction projects, which will sometimes lead to decreased construction activity. I wish that we were debating the tax theoretically and looking forward to the imposition of a tax that had not yet hit us. However, the House can consider a real example of a jeopardised construction project.

The breakwater project in Peterhead bay in my constituency has been heralded as a huge economic opportunity. The breakwater would limit the effects of severe weather and allow trade all year round in the port. Port officials have worked diligently to secure funding for the project, which may give Peterhead the safest deep-water port in the whole of Scotland. The Peterhead bay authority recognises the substantial gains that the project would bring, and has planned to invest £10 million in the breakwater. The rest of the funding for the £20 million project will come from loans and grants.

That investment in Peterhead's future is projected to attract at least £40 million in follow-on schemes, and to generate 360 permanent jobs. However, the future of the project hangs in the balance, thanks to the aggregates levy. The bay authority must grapple with an extra £1.9 million as a result of this chuckie tax. The Minister should note that, in contrast, the bay authority will receive a benefit that amounts to £800 from deductions in national insurance charges. The authority requested help from the Scottish Executive, which unfortunately offered none. The community is already suffering a decline in its fishing industry, the rundown of RAF Buchan and several factory closures. It now stands also to lose one of the largest civil works projects in northeast Scotland.

The Government surely cannot have legislated for that sort of sustainable economic growth, nor can they have intended the imposition of this tax to have such an impact. As I said, this vital project is about coastal protection and marine safety. Almost all the aggregates used will be non-machine crushed and will be provided by a local quarry a few miles away. It is inconceivable that the project was an intended target of the aggregates tax, and I hope that the Minister will consider the unintended consequences of his proposals for my constituency.

The choice would be more difficult if we were trading such job losses for substantial environmental gains, as we would be faced with the competing need to protect industry and our natural resources. The irony of the situation, however, is that we are courting economic loss without a corresponding environmental gain. The plain fact is that the aggregates tax will do little, or nothing, to improve or protect the environment. The Government has conceded that the opportunity to switch to recycled aggregates is small.

The British Geological Survey's report of 2001 and the 2000 survey by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of construction and demolition waste show that even if the maximum amount of hard waste were recycled, that could, at most, substitute only 1 to 2 per cent. of virgin aggregates. Even if that number were doubled, and the calculations of the Government's advisers were wrong, the effect would still be marginal. Nor is it clear whether a reduction in the demand for virgin aggregates would be a good thing. If recycled aggregates are carted across great distances to construction sites, the pollution associated with aggregates would increase, not diminish. We must anticipate that that will be likely when the small quarries that usually service local projects are closed.

My hon. Friend mentioned the project in Peterhead. Is he aware of the impact of the tax on road building throughout Scotland? Local authorities use 40 per cent. of the aggregates used in Scotland. In my constituency, Angus council will face an additional cost of £2 million for the urgent dualing of the notorious A92 road.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Scotland will suffer disproportionately from the aggregates tax, as it has a large land area and a small population in comparison with more crowded areas such as the city we are in at present. If we include the national insurance rebate, the aggregates tax overall will put an additional £20 million into the economy of the south-east of England, but that sum will be drawn from the economies of rural England, Scotland and Wales.

The hon. Gentleman's mention of Wales brings me to the point that I would like him to consider. The community council of Old Radnor in my constituency expressed its concern about two local quarries: the Strinds at Dolyhir and Gore quarry. I understand from parliamentary proceedings on the aggregates tax that the Government considered having a rebate for quarries that operated environmentally friendly practices. Are the Government still considering that possibility?

I do not know if I can say what is in the mind of the Minister. We will have to wait a few minutes for that, but the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point. One would have thought that the best way to devise a tax on aggregates would be to consider the environmental damage caused by aggregates and different systems of production. One could consider the impact on the sea and air, and where quarries have good environmental practices, introduce a tax that was graduated and targeted. This flat rate levy will be full of serious economic consequences that are not desired by, I suspect, the Government or, I know, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).

My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made a very good point about the road-building programme in Scotland. Such concerns cast great doubts on the efficacy of the new tax. Further practical concerns should encourage the Minister at least to consider a delay in the introduction of the levy. As of this moment, a mere 18 days before implementation, the Government have not yet published the final guidelines for compliance of the tax. Even if those guidelines were published today, quarry operators would have just over two weeks to implement the new rules—a full two and a half months less than 12 weeks that the Government's own guidelines recommend for giving businesses time to comply with new legislation. The Minister must tell us why the Government are breaking their undertakings to industry on compliance.

Ambiguity remains about the phased introduction of the tax in Northern Ireland and how it will work there. The Government have rightly acknowledged the disastrous effects that the levy could have on quarries in Northern Ireland. I wish that they could have seen that the problem is not unique to Northern Ireland and exists in the other countries of the United Kingdom. We are still waiting to see how that delay will take shape and what it will mean for businesses, both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

As we debate the matter today, it is worth noting that industry representatives have been arguing their case in the courts. My understanding is that the matter will go to a full hearing and may result in a full judicial review. It is likely that that will be the start of a long process. Again, that shows the huge uncertainty in which the Government have placed the industry, a mere matter of days before their target date for implementation.

In closing, I should like to return to the Government's declared principle of environmental taxation and their desire to

"deliver a more dynamic economy and a cleaner environment, to the benefit of everyone."

The aggregates tax does not give us a cleaner environment, but it will have decidedly damaging economic effects. I urge the Government to delay its introduction until a thorough examination of the environmental and economic consequences can be conducted. We must delay so that we can make this new tax fair to rural communities, fair to Scotland and fair to communities such as Peterhead where major public works projects hang in the balance.

The choice for debate of the aggregates tax by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is welcome. He gives the Government the opportunity to restate our position on the tax and our support for it and to re-affirm our commitment to sustainable development on the day on which we shall publish a report on our achievements over the past year in delivering on our sustainable development targets.

The aggregates levy has been developed over an extended period and in close consultation with the industry. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman's analysis, I did not recognise the tax that has been so widely consulted on and welcomed by those who are concerned about our environment. Hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have had ample opportunity to debate the principle of the tax over the years. He pays lip service to that principle, but we are putting it into practice. He and his party should put their commitment to the environment where their mouths have been these many years.

Independent research clearly shows that the process of extracting aggregates imposes significant environmental costs in the form of noise, dust, visual intrusion, loss of amenity, and damage to biodiversity. The hon. Gentleman and those of his constituents who live near quarries recognise that there is a cost to the environment, and they are required to pay it. With the tax, we seek to internalise the externality and incorporate the cost of environmental degradation into the price of aggregates—no more and no less.

I am sure that my constituents who face the loss of economic opportunities will be pleased to know that the Government are internalising the externalities. The project that I described, which will be furnished by a local quarry, a mere five miles from the harbour, has support throughout my constituency. Why should that project, which involves transporting non-machine crushed aggregates a few miles to the harbour in a safe and economically processed condition, be subject to the levy, or is that an unintended consequence of the Government's position?

The aggregates industry generally supports the extension of the levy to include uncrushed rocks of the sort that will be used in Peterhead. It believes that the tax should apply to all forms of aggregate equally. If I may use a rather unpleasant and hackneyed expression, the industry seeks a level playing field, which is precisely what we have provided. That is another indication of the way in which the Government have consulted and listened to the industry.

The levy, which is to be introduced in April, is designed to address the problems of dust, noise, visual intrusion, loss of amenity and damage to biodiversity by incorporating the costs of environmental damage into the price of aggregates. That will allow the market to determine efficient and sustainable levels of consumption.

The concept of internalising the externality is not unknown to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he is well aware that that lies at the heart of all fiscal responses to environmental degradation.

Will the Minister give way?

No. The hon. Gentleman and his party must consider whether they support the use of fiscal responses to environmental challenges. If they do not, that is their position, but if they do, they will need to recognise that internalising the externality is what a fiscal response to an environmental challenge is all about. I give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can make his and his party's position crystal clear.

Will the Minister focus on the project? I have explained the clear environmental benefits: coastal protection, marine safety and economic opportunity. Will he specify the environmental damage of the breakwater project? If he cannot, will he say why he is imposing a £1.9 million tax on it and jeopardising the project?

The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He distorts the argument on the aggregates tax, which is the subject of this debate, by focusing on a particular project in his constituency. He knows that every tax will have its impact, and this tax is on aggregates. If a particular project utilises aggregates, it will pay the tax. That is the nature of such a tax. I do not want to particularise the general arguments to a specific project, save to say that on the advice available to me, his estimate that the additional costs are about £1.9 million is excessive.

However, that is not the point. We are debating a tax that is not a revenue-raising measure. The hon. Gentleman used that argument as if the tax were somehow defective. It was never presented as a revenue-raising measure and is neutral in that respect. All businesses will benefit from the 1 per cent. cut to employers' national insurance contributions, while areas affected by quarrying, including his constituency, will benefit from an annual £35 million sustainability fund. I did not hear a word from the hon. Gentleman about that fund, which was disingenuous of him. He knows well that his constituency and others will benefit from the fund.

Environmental damage affects us all, wherever we are in the United Kingdom, but for local communities affected by quarrying, the problems are more acute. The sustainability fund will provide funds to minimise demand for virgin aggregates and reduce the local effects of aggregate extraction. The devolved Administrations, including that in Scotland, have been allocated their share of the fund through the Barnett formula and will make their own decisions in the usual way about how to spend it. To suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the tax is somehow anti-Scottish is an absolute travesty. That distorts both language and sense, because the tax is no such thing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, not again. I look forward to continuing the debate with the hon. Gentleman. It is an important topic, but he must give credit where credit is due for a tax that has been designed in close consultation with industry. The process has meant that industry has able to inform the decisions that have been made in bringing the tax to its present point and that the aggregates industry has had an opportunity to affect the tax's development. A point was made about the start date of the levy, and the general guide to the levy was issued on 14 January. We have published a list of reliefs on the Customs and Excise website, as well as providing drafts of the general regulations to the industry through the Customs consultative group. There has been extensive involvement and, on that basis, the fears raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan are not justified.

Does the Minister agree that a flat-rate tax is a blunt fiscal instrument for achieving environmental objectives?

No, it is entirely justified in the circumstances. The research and the consultative process justify that approach. Discussions with the industry and with environmental groups have enabled us significantly to improve the levy. The definition of aggregates has been changed to capture materials that have not been crushed. Further improvements will be made in this year's Finance Bill and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and his colleagues will have another opportunity to reflect then and to make further exchanges—

Could I have an opportunity now?

Not at the moment.

The definition of aggregates now includes rock that has not been subject to an industrial crushing process. Various means are available for producing aggregates from rock: crushing is not always necessary as some quarries sift the rock produced by blasting and need only to crush the largest pieces. The change will ensure both the equitable treatment of all quarries and full realisation of the environmental benefits of the levy.

An interesting point about green quarries was raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). We were initially attracted to establishing whether some relief could be provided. After informal consultation with the relevant businesses—quarry operators and others—we decided that technical problems affecting the delivery of the principle at a differential rate would not justify such a measure. The tax still provides significant scope to bring real benefits to the community through recycling and using other waste products.

The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions estimates that 10 million tonnes of construction waste could be recycled—a real challenge that will bring real benefits. The levy is already providing an incentive for businesses to examine alternatives such as china clay waste and slate and to develop glass and tyre waste in aggregate mixes.

Will the Minister give way?

All that suggests that the measure will make a real contribution—

Will the Minister give way?

Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet and it is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

All that suggests that the measure will make a real contribution to the environment. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will, after a period of mature reflection, come to see the real benefits to the people of Scotland, England and Wales—and, indeed, of Northern Ireland—that the introduction of a revenue-neutral levy will provide. It is designed to promote better use of waste material and to assure communities affected by quarrying that those purchasing the product of those operations should pay a price that reflects the environmental cost. All in all, it is a carefully researched measure, implemented only after full consultation. I thoroughly commend it as an important contribution to the cause of sustainable development.