I express my thanks to Mr. Speaker for selecting this important topic for debate, coming as it does in the midst of a national consultation on the significant new chapter of the strategic defence review. I hope that the many hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies use this opportunity to contribute their suggestions about the new chapter. The debate is important as it deals with the issues posed in the aftermath of 11 September and concerns the possible need for us to reconfigure our defence requirements as a result of such atrocities.

When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence outlined his reasons for opening a new chapter of the strategic defence review in December last year, he summed up his thinking in one line. When commenting on what happened on 11 September, he said that we must

"ensure that Britain has the right defence concepts, capabilities and forces to deal with threats of this kind and of this scale."

We are not starting with a blank page. The United Kingdom has a long and proud military history and our armed forces continue to be among the best in the world.

The original SDR that was conducted three years ago by Lord Robertson of Port Ellen was widely praised as a model of how modern defences should be planned and structured. It set out clear policy guidelines from which our military procurement and planning would follow, and laid out the range of capabilities needed to defend the UK. Indeed, the action that we have taken since 11 September has been made possible thanks, in large part, to the work carried out in the SDR.

However, it would be wrong to assume that our defence requirements are set in stone, and we must now ask some serious and probing questions about how equipped we are as a country to deal with the growth of asymmetric threats and rogue nations. Although the consultation document outlines questions and comprehensive options, I shall restrict my remarks to only one-that, which the document describes as "engaging the causes", in other words, dealing with the ways in which to prevent further atrocities such as 11 September. Incidentally, I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend resisted calling that chapter "Tough on asymmetric threats, tough on the causes of asymmetric threats", but that more or less sums up the position.

It is encouraging that the Government are actively consulting on ways in which UK forces can help developing states build better counter-terrorist capabilities for themselves, as well as assisting those developing countries in an ongoing humanitarian effort to defuse potential terrorist activity before it is too late. Such objectives are not contradictory and, even if they occasionally sit uneasily together, they should not be decoupled. I am pleased that the Government are giving a commitment to that end. That aim will mean a concerted and ongoing global effort, which the UK cannot do alone, and deeper co-operation with other agencies such as the UN, the EU and our NATO allies will be needed if we are to succeed in that noble task.

What are the implications for Scotland? There are three main areas. First, and most importantly, Scottish members of the armed forces have been at the forefront of many of our recent campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I hope that hon. Members agree that we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to those men and women. In future, even more may be asked of them, but I believe that they will be equal to the task.

Secondly, many of our Scottish bases may be asked to assume new or different responsibilities in the changing environment. The Ministry of Defence has 374 sites in Scotland, covering nearly 25,000 hectares, including some in my constituency. That amounts to about £1.3 billion in cash terms alone—a considerable investment. At present, 10 per cent. of those employed by the MOD work in Scotland, a figure that has grown in recent years.

I hope that those who are negotiating a transfer to the private sector at Faslane and Coulport receive favourable terms in relation to pay, conditions and pensions. I understand that good progress has been made between management and the unions, but I would welcome assurances on those points.

The third implication for Scotland is in the vital realm of defence procurement and defence-related jobs. In order to be brief, I shall restrict my remarks to naval procurement, in which I have a strong constituency interest.

I am delighted at the success of the Clyde yards in securing major new defence contracts, especially for type 45s, which are worth about £2 billion. The Government have announced their intention to embark on the largest warship building programme since world war two, and they have already brought a degree of job security to Clyde shipyards that we have not known in many years.

We await with keen interest the placing of the contracts for the new aircraft carriers. Yesterday's announcement in the Scottish press of the agreement between BAE Systems and Clydeport that the Inchgreen dry dock in Inverclyde would be used for assembling the aircraft carriers should the bid be successful was extremely welcome news. As a Member who represents a constituency that contains Inchgreen, I strongly urge my hon. Friend to support that excellent bid.

I thank my hon. Friend for having secured this excellent debate. I apologise that, because of a Standing Committee, I shall not be able to stay for all of it.

I share my hon. Friend's pride in the shipyard work and the warship orders that have been placed. Does he agree that while Rosyth dockyard and the Clyde shipyards hope to secure work on the new aircraft carriers, we are all clear that such work and a prospect of a secure future would not be available to us if Scotland were to go down the road of independence or had voted Conservative?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, with her customary foresight, pre-empts my next passage. I am sure that the Rosyth bid will be excellent.

When the Conservative party comes to government three years from now, we shall continue orders for the carriers.

I accept the sincerity with which that assurance is given. However, my constituents in Greenock and Inverclyde have been used to many assurances from previous Conservative Governments, and have learned to treat those assurances with the deep scepticism that they deserve. Indeed, our ability to build ships in Greenock and Inverclyde is recovering only now from 18 years of decimation brought by the Conservative party when it was in power.

On a wider note, following the introduction of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), today is the fifth anniversary of Labour's return to office. It was a glorious day, pretty much like today, as I remember.

Throughout the past five years, the Government have shown beyond all doubt our commitment to the maxim that a Government's first duty is to defend their citizens. It follows axiomatically that the first duty of a political party that aspires to government must be to explain to those citizens exactly how it proposes to defend them.

During a recent debate in a Scottish Grand Committee, some of my hon. Friends were uncharitable enough to suggest that the Scottish National party had a somewhat insubstantial defence policy. [Interruption.] I, too, was shocked to hear that. I decided to verify the matter for myself, and must report that to call SNP defence policy insubstantial would be flattering. There is next to nothing on the subject on the SNP's website, and a search of Hansard yields slim pickings.

In desperation, I turned to the SNP's 2001 general election manifesto, a document so compelling that it moved the SNP into third place in Greenock and Inverclyde—down from second place, unfortunately. It secured the party the princely total of less than 15 per cent. of the vote. The manifesto contains some interesting paragraphs on defence, although considerably fewer than those devoted to a fascinating article called "A Day in the Life of Alex Salmond", which I warmly commend to hon. Members who have not read it. To summarise it, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gets up, talks a lot of nonsense and goes back to bed.

The paragraphs on defence make fascinating reading. In them, for example, the SNP says that

"our opposition to nuclear defence will make our continued participation in nuclear alliances difficult."

The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who could not be here due to a long-standing engagement, sought to clarify the policy during a Scottish Grand Committee debate. I told him yesterday that I would quote him. He said that

"we cannot take part in an alliance predicated on the first strike of weapons of mass destruction. That is a principle on which we are not prepared to compromise."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 5 March 2002; c. 26.]

Nothing could be clearer: an independent Scotland will be out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on principle.

Does my hon. Friend agree that withdrawal from NATO would leave not only Scotland but Britain in an intolerable position? It would do nothing for the world's fight against terrorism.

My hon. Friend is right. It is bizarre that while countries across Europe are queuing up to join NATO, the SNP thinks that Scotland should leave it. Scotland would be the only country ever to leave NATO. However, if that is the policy, no one seems to have explained it to Mr. Colin Campbell, a Member of the Scottish Parliament and the official SNP defence spokesperson. He told the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament:

"The SNP supported full participation in NATO but the stumbling block of first use of nuclear weapons made it modify its stance.

The SNP states that an independent Scotland should not be part of the NATO command structure".

Mr. Campbell chose his words carefully. He could have said, "An independent Scotland should not be part of NATO—full stop", but he did not. He spoke of the command structure only. Mr. Campbell knows full well that, as France has proved, it is possible to be in NATO but not in the command structure. So which is it to be? The SNP can either be out of NATO on principle, which is what the hon. Member for Moray clearly stated, or it can be out of the command structure but a member of the rest of the organization, as Mr. Campbell desires. It cannot do both. The point is important, and the SNP must clarify the matter urgently.

As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the SNP states elsewhere in its manifesto that it would

"negotiate a phased withdrawal from NATO but will retain military co-operation with NATO nations as a result of…other proposed international involvements."

We have heard about withdrawal from NATO from one quarter, participation in NATO but not in the military command structure from another, and withdrawal but co-operation from yet another. Is not that just one more example of the inconsistency of the SNP's policy on membership of NATO?

My hon. Friend is correct. The Scottish National party's policy is nothing short of a shambles. Each option is fraught with difficulties and questions that must be answered. When the party has made up its mind on the options, there are a series of questions— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) wishes to intervene so that we can hear the word from the horse's mouth. Would the SNP leave NATO on principle, or would it stay in the NATO political structure but leave the command structure?

The hon. Gentleman has discussed the Scottish National party's defence policy at length. I am more interested in Scottish new Labour's defence policy, especially on nuclear weapons. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the extent to which he supports that policy?

I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might ask that. Whenever SNP Members are asked about the shambles that is their defence policy, they trot out elderly resolutions that were passed by Scottish Labour party conferences many years ago. The most recent Labour party policy document says that Labour will continue to be the party of strong defence by investing in our armed forces so that they are able to meet today's challenges and tomorrow's threats. It remains committed to strong security through NATO. That is clear and unambiguous. It is the Labour Government's policy to remain in NATO as part of the defence structure, and we are committed to participating in the nuclear umbrella that NATO affords. That has been demonstrated clearly over the past five years.

The hon. Gentleman declined to answer my question—perhaps if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will do so later. However, I want to pose questions that flow from any of the options that the SNP is juggling as its policy.

Only France is in NATO but outside its command structure, which is Mr. Campbell's preferred option—this gets confusing so I hope that hon. Members are following this strand of SNP policy. However, France has its own independent nuclear capability, which is more substantial than ours. Does Mr. Campbell seriously believe that other NATO members would be happy for Scotland to participate in NATO's political planning and decision making, but to make no contribution to the military effort? That is fantasy.

The other options are equally difficult. Setting aside the fact that countries are lining up to join NATO—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) said—at the exact time that the SNP wants out, important questions must be answered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) said that the SNP's policy is to have a phased withdrawal. Let us examine what phasing means. It would take time to close the nuclear base on the Clyde, and if the SNP was to be the good neighbour that it claims, presumably the rest of the United Kingdom would be given time to prepare alternative sites. The entire armed forces would have to be divvied up and personnel, property, hardware and material would have to be allocated between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK. That would take years to sort out and, in the meantime, the nuclear base would remain in Scotland. There would be the absurd position that Scotland would house England's nuclear capability but would have zero influence on how it would be used.

Perhaps my hon. Friend is being a little too charitable to the SNP. A few months ago, the leader of the SNP in Scotland, Mr. John Swinney, was at the gates of the Clyde submarine base at Faslane asking for the base to be closed not tomorrow, but now. That would destroy 6,000 to 7,000 jobs. The next time that we hear an SNP spokesperson talking on an economic platform, we should bear in mind that the hallmark of the SNP policy is job destruction, not job creation.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We both share a strong interest in the matter because many of our constituents are employed in the bases.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), I apologise that I cannot stay for the whole debate because I have to attend a Standing Committee. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) aware that in my constituency the SNP has opposed the removal of the anti-submarine warfare Pacility, HMS Gannet, which forms part of the nuclear capability at Faslane? Does he agree that that is rank hypocrisy?

My hon. Friend makes her point tellingly. She mentions another strand of SNP policy. The manifesto calls for a phased withdrawal, presumably over time, but there is now a commitment to immediate withdrawal. Which is it to be? If it is the first duty of Governments to defend their citizens, it must surely be the first duty of political parties to explain to those citizens how they propose to defend them. The SNP has a huge amount of explaining to do.

Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate should be based on the subject for which the Government have responsibility, not on other political parties.

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for that ruling.

As I have said over the past five years, it is clear that the Government are trusted on defence, and we must ensure that that remains. We are trusted because our policies are consistent, coherent and geared towards providing a strong defence of our country. I make this point for the last time, even though it is directly relevant—the current leadership of the SNP knows that, unlike the Government, its entire defence policy is a complete and utter shambles.

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's tirade against the SNP's defence policy. Will he comment in his closing remarks about the Government's privatisation agenda and the impact that it is having on defence jobs throughout Scotland?

I have already done so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I clearly asked my right hon. Friend the Minister a series of questions on the precise negotiations taking place in Faslane and Coulport. I asked for specific assurances and I expect to receive them. It is hardly my fault if the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I appear to be in a no-win situation—if I speak about Labour's defence policy, the hon. Gentleman does not listen, and if I speak about the SNP's, I stray beyond the bounds of good order.

The Labour Government—[Interruption.] This is my fourth attempt to conclude, but I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that one objective of the Government's defence policy is to be coherent. Will he explain where the coherence is in taking the Sea Harriers out of service and abolishing the air defence for the fleet at sea?

Those are questions that emerge from the aftermath of 11 September. We must deal with important questions—about the size of our aircraft carriers, for example. In a sense, this is a case of chicken and egg. If we go for Harriers based on aircraft carriers, we have shorter aircraft carriers. If we have shorter aircraft carriers, they cannot be used by our allies because they do not have Sea Harriers, which limits our ability to participate in global alliances and actions throughout the world. We must carefully consider all such issues in the light of 11 September and the pew dispensation that will result.

I hope that the signs given by the Secretary of State on Navy day recently when he spoke about increasing the envelope size for the new aircraft carriers are taken up, precisely because of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I hope that we build the largest possible aircraft carriers within the existing framework. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister may wish to comment on that in his winding-up speech.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I have already gone on far longer than I intended. I have given way many times and I am trying to conclude.

We are trusted on defence, and we must continue to ensure that that remains the position. People know that we have a Government and a Prime Minister with the courage and determination to stand up to tyrants and aggressors. They also know that the current leader of the SNP does not even have the courage to stand up to Margo MacDonald, although if he did, he would be able to stand up to tyrants and aggressors.

I urge the Government, especially the Chancellor, carefully to consider the funding of defence in the current comprehensive spending review. He has already allocated increased defence spending after several years of defence cuts by the previous Conservative Government, but more may be required if we are to rise to the ambitions set by the Prime Minister and fulfil our historic role as a leading international power—a country devoted to fighting for the principles of freedom, justice and democracy.

I am reminded of how I usually feel when I inadvertently stray into the Scottish Grand Committee: I feel as though I am impinging on private grief between the Government and the Scottish National party.

I wish to use the short time afforded to me to redirect the discussion to the topic in hand. I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing the debate. Since we last discussed the subject, in the recent Scottish Grand Committee, we have been reminded—if any reminder was needed—that this is a vital topic for Scots. As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir)—who, sadly, has just departed—knows, Arbroath's 45 Commando is in combat in Afghanistan. It offers an outstanding example of the selfless role of our forces in today's world, and we should focus on that at all times during the debate. As a part of the UK's and the international coalition's war on terrorism, 45 Commando plays a key role in the defence of Scotland. Its war is a just war, and it is conducted on behalf of all of us. I know that all of Scotland is proud of those troops.

However, the debate is about defence in Scotland, and that points me to address how the activities inherent in our nation's defence impact on Scotland itself—and, naturally, on my constituency. All too often, the debate on how Scotland's defence industry impacts on Scotland has degenerated into a sterile exchange—often, I hasten to add, between Ministers and the Scottish National party—about whether Scotland gets its fair share of defence expenditure.

I genuinely hope that we can move on from that futile argument, as I believe that we cannot split the UK's defence into neat compartments. Some political parties may seek advantage from suggesting otherwise, but the truth remains that all four parts of the UK benefit from the UK's defence, and that our security is non-divisible.

However, many people are concerned about the way in which the Government have run down the Scottish regiments. I am sorry to be non-consensual about this, but five of our regiments are currently significantly undermanned, as the Minister knows. Rightly or wrongly, in Scotland that is taken as showing that those historic Army battalions are no longer the priority that they once were.

If the hon. Gentleman's party was still in government, what would be the situation with regard to manning in those regiments?

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few seconds, I will come to that shortly.

Speaking to armed forces personnel from my constituency, it is clear that morale among officers and in the ranks is at an all-time low. Recruitment is perceived to be the problem, but difficulties with retention are the source of undermanning in those Scottish regiments. I know that search consultants have been retained to improve the recruitment process, but the greater problem is the increasing likelihood that highly trained and disciplined personnel will find the lure of private industry irresistible when resources in the forces are under such strain.

In addition to reducing armed forces numbers, there has been a similar reduction in our naval capability. The Minister's attention has rightly turned to maximising the value to the taxpayer with regard to refitting programmes. Regardless of whether the externalisation that is under way is "partnership"—as the Ministry of Defence would describe it—or privatisation, the concern remains that the transfer of refit activities in Scotland should not result in a situation that prejudices our naval capability through lack of emergency maintenance capacity. I would welcome any reassurance that the Minister can offer on that important matter.

The role of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the recent naval refit procurement crisis needs to be clarified. Scotland looks to that office for reassurance that Scotland's interests are being looked after. However, the manner of the release of some of the information concerning Faslane and Coalport again gives rise to the suggestion that the Secretary of State is currently the Cabinet's man in Scotland, rather than Scotland's man in the Cabinet.

Employment dependence on defence contracts is not limited to central Scotland, never mind Clydeside. Many communities that are miles from the M8 are heavily indebted to MOD activity. My constituency is home to some of the lowest average incomes in the UK, and one of our major assets is our landscape, which is valuable to armed forces for low-flying practice, firing range activities and an airfield.

I would like to explain the importance of how MOD activity, or inactivity, can hold back economic development in the rural communities of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde mentioned, there are 374 sites throughout the UK, but some are more significant to their immediate communities than others. In Wigtownshire, we have been served a huge blow since the Scottish Grand Committee debate by the MOD announcement that West Freugh airfield will close to full-time operations. That closure will lead to between 50 and 80 job losses in one of the most remote areas of southern Scotland. Compared with the potential losses through naval maintenance, that number may not seem huge to hon. Members who represent central belt constituencies, but it is a devastating blow to the local economy, and one from which we must learn.

The airfield was operated by a Government-owned plc called QinetiQ, which was given a lease on the airfield. It certainly had challenges, with the number of military aircraft movements steadily declining to the point at which the MOD airfield regulator deemed that there was insufficient traffic to ensure air safety. Several reasons can doubtless be cited for that decline, but one must be the confusion at the heart of the commercialisation of MOD activities in the sector. QinetiQ had been given the task of operating the airfield, but it showed little ambition in developing new and replacement business. It accepted the declining movements, and despite having the ability to investigate the alternatives, it regrettably chose not to.

I am extremely amused by the hon. Gentleman's synthetic concern about job losses in the defence industry. I stand here as a victim of his Government's defence review of the early 1990s, when I and thousands like me were made redundant. At that time, there was no concerted effort to help those people. This Government are investing, and encouraging companies such as BAE Systems and Thales to invest, in quality jobs, albeit in the central belt. That, coupled with the fact that Rolls-Royce has also decided to stay in Scotland, is tangible evidence that such companies have confidence in the Government in delivering the quality goods that the armed forces need.

I simply direct the hon. Gentleman to the Bishopton area, where he can hear how well the Government's policies are regarded.

Those who work at West Freugh, many of whom have been in touch with me since the closure announcement, speak plainly of how little business development work was undertaken, while any that was completed was ignored. The airfield represents one of the most significant structural assets of Galloway, but it was clearly more important to Galloway than it was to QinetiQ. The company is rightly focusing on developing its core businesses in holographic 3D imaging, fibre optics, and radar-avoidance and missile-tracking technology, but against that background, the importance of maximising the potential of remote airfields was regarded as trivial. To the local economy, however, it is far from trivial—it is crucial.

The MOD must introduce new and imaginative proposals for interacting with the private sector, enterprise agencies and others. Under-performing assets can sit on the MOD balance sheet with little or no consequence for the Ministry or, with respect, for Ministers. However, the effect on assets such as West Freugh can, if left to fester, be devastating for rural employment. From where will the impetus now come for investigating the use of the airfield for civil flights to supplement employment? Where is the drive to explore new uses for airfield buildings?

I was always highly dubious of the 1998 decision to involve the private sector in what was then the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, as the independent agency's major customers in the USA and elsewhere had every right to be sceptical of the security implications of that privatisation. However, the net effect of the process has been to put the precious infrastructure in the hands of an independent company with little likely reward for exploiting the potential. The Minister and his colleagues should think carefully about the current situation, and consider involving private companies in developing asset value where they have value to the communities in which they lie. West Freugh is typical of many locations throughout Scotland and the UK that would benefit from such an approach.

Great strides are possible so long as the private sector is given free rein and is allowed to reap the benefits of its ingenuity.

Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the problem that affects the site that he mentioned harks back to the fact that the Government have had four years to try to get DERA right? We are now on the third strategy for dealing with that. After four years, they still do not appear to have a coherent plan that commands support throughout industry, and people in Scotland are suffering as a result.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I said, there is confusion at the heart of the commercialisation policy. I am looking for a simple strategy that will benefit our rural communities.

Scotland's defence is rightly dependent on our key role in the UK, as we play our part in supplying troops, technology and training grounds Scotland's geography has much to offer our defence industry in the 21st century.

The hon. Gentleman's intonation suggests that he is about to conclude his remarks. I want to return to his point about manning levels in Scottish regiments. To jog his memory, the previous Conservative Government had such abysmal manning records that they disbanded regiments. Would he like to comment?

I admit that the MOD is addressing the recruitment problem. If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will find that I referred to the fact that the problem is now retention. I know that he has experience of his own. The Government's current policy is doing nothing to address that problem. I hope that the MOD will appreciate that open-mindedness in its evaluation and research procurement could result in retaining and returning wealth to those rural communities that have served the Ministry so well for so long.

I am delighted to contribute to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing it and on his excellent contribution.

We have had this discussion many times, so it will not surprise the Minister if I concentrate mainly on shipbuilding. The Scotstoun yard is in my constituency and it is dear to my heart. Shipbuilding remains a crucial industry to Anniesland and the Clyde, as well as to Scotland and the UK. Our standing in naval circles throughout the world has been second to none ever since the first coracle managed to sail up a short river, probably somewhere in the north of Scotland. We have been the envy of every country in the world, and we must retain that leadership.

Today, shipbuilding employs only 30,000 workers; in 1960, there were 200,000. Various problems have contributed to the decline of shipbuilding, but we are here to talk about defence. A large problem facing the warship yards in the early 1990s was the significant reduction in MOD orders—part of the peace dividend. I blame no Government for that—the world was grateful not to be under such strain. Now, however, we are under a different type of strain. The critical problem occurred prior to that, when shipbuilding was privatised. We privatised purely for money, and we forgot to modernise. Companies such as BAE Systems have said that extensive investment is needed and that they will supply that investment in the Clyde. I wait to see what investment they make. I hope that it will bring more work to the Clyde, but there are other issues to consider.

In October 2000, the MOD ordered six vessels worth £240 million. Two of the orders went to Harland and Wolff in Belfast, but the other four went to Germany. The Govan yard missed out and, as everyone knows, it was under threat of closure for quite a while. Although we are thankful for the MOD orders that saved the yard, they did so with reduced manpower. Our shipbuilding industry is heavily dependent on military shipbuilding, which sustains the Clyde in particular. The Clyde was once the foremost shipbuilding power in the world, but the number of jobs there is now down to 3,000. The loss of the ro-ro ships to German yards was a real body blow to the Clyde. EU rules lost us those ships because we had to tender outside Great Britain. The loss of those four ships almost led to Govan's demise.

My hon. Friend is commenting on the overdependence of the shipbuilding industry on defence orders. We must learn from what happened in the early 1990s, because the number of ships that the MOD can have built is finite. Does he agree that every effort should be made to encourage defence companies to diversify, to exploit commercial markets and to gain expertise from those workers who build frigates and other aircraft carriers on the Clyde?

My hon. Friend makes a good point and is absolutely right. Companies such as BAE Systems will have to invest in the yards that I have mentioned. If we do not get that investment, I have no doubt that the yards will close, even with Government orders.

As we know, the orders for the type 45 frigates have been given out. I was fortunate to be present at the signing of the contracts that, along with the ALSL—alternative landing ships logistic—orders, will keep the Clyde on the go for about 10 years. I congratulate the Government on showing their commitment to the Clyde and to shipbuilding throughout the country with those orders. I am sure that the Clyde will not let them down and will provide the usual high standard of workmanship. However, even though the Government have helped by placing those orders, the industry continues to shrink year by year. We need to consider the overall picture to ensure that subsidies and handouts are not needed in the long term. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) said, it is important that the industry diversifies.

If skilled labour is lost, it cannot be replaced. It takes more years than we care to mention to train someone, and in that time the industry might have gone out of business. Losing the shipbuilding industry would be like losing our heritage: the power of Britain in years gone by was based on shipbuilding. However, while other countries develop their shipbuilding industry, we, sadly, seem to be doing the opposite. We must try to regain our place in the world in that respect. The strategic review is helping in its own way by considering our defence requirements, an issue that I believe the Government have taken seriously.

In addition, a newspaper in Scotland, the Daily Record, is mounting a campaign to try to secure two aircraft carrier orders for Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde has a copy of that paper. I commend that newspaper for its campaign, which is important not only for the Clyde, but for competitors in Rosyth and Nigg. It is important that we get those orders for Scotland. We have shown in the past that we can handle large ships on the Clyde, and I have no doubt that the workers there would receive the work gratefully.

It is important that we are part of NATO. It is important that we show that not only Scotland, but Britain and Europe are part of NATO. It exists for a reason. Certain ships were used at the beginning of the confrontation with Afghanistan: without the American ships to help with the initial landings, take-offs and missile firings, the whole theatre of war would have been impossible. We would not be sitting here today talking about how well our troops are doing and how happy the people have been since their arrival.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if Scotland were to withdraw from NATO, it would, in the words of a leading Scottish National party thinker, George Kerevan, find itself committed to a Brigadoon republic?

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I did not know that there were any SNP thinkers.

I have said on several occasions that the MOD will need to consider our naval requirements. I have asked the Minister to ensure that during consideration of the new chapter attention is given to whether we have the necessary shipping to mount a campaign similar to the one in Afghanistan. If the Americans could not supply the necessary vessels, could anyone else do so? The Americans are an important part of NATO, but we cannot always rely on them to supply every ship that is needed. By examining the landing craft and other types of ship that would be required for such a theatre of war, we might stimulate our shipbuilding industry and other armaments businesses in the United Kingdom. Moreover, we would not be reliant on a friendly country to assist us if an operation had to be mounted within a short time.

I heard the hon. Gentleman's point about not always being able to rely on the Americans in all circumstances. If he believes that, will he have a quiet word with the Minister at the end of the debate about the fact that part of the rationale for getting rid of the Sea Harriers is that we will always be able to rely on American carriers for fleet air defence?

Harriers have some shortcomings in that they are not quite as speedy as some of the aircraft that they may come up against, and although they can take off vertically, they have many restrictions. We must look at what is best. We have always said that we want to give our troops and Air Force the best equipment, and I believe that the Harrier is not the best plane for the current job. I may be wrong—I am not a pilot—but that is how I see it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde on securing the debate. I ask the Minister to get the aircraft carriers up to the Clyde-I might get him a ticket for the cup final. If he cannot do that, I will not hold it against him, but Scotland must do the job that it has done in the past and be given the opportunity to show off its high standards of workmanship.

Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that five people want to speak in the 12 minutes remaining before I call the Front Bench spokesmen at 10.30.

In the time-honoured way, I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing the debate. I am not sure what more he hopes to learn about defence in Scotland, given that we debated that topic in the Scottish Grand Committee only a few weeks ago. There is a feeling of deja vu and "Groundhog Day" rolled into one, with the debate featuring the typical attacks on SNP defence policy that we have come to expect.

Our debate takes place at a time when many Scottish service personnel are serving abroad with great distinction. Hon. Members present here and all the political parties in Scotland support that. Unfortunately, conditions are not so rosy on the domestic front. Rarely have service personnel and defence support staff in Scotland been in such a state of flux. That is because of the Government's privatisation agenda: morale has been undermined at Navy and Air Force bases by plans to contract out the transferable skills and experience of committed workers to companies in the private sector.

Last week, union leaders representing naval workers in Scotland set the Ministry of Defence a seven-day deadline to avert industrial action. I am relieved and pleased that industrial action has been averted but, like Jack Dromey of the Transport and General Workers Union, the SNP believes that it is "bitter" that naval support jobs at Faslane and Coulport, and at Portsmouth and Plymouth in England are to be transferred to the private sector. Regrettably, it was not announced on the Floor of the House of Commons. Instead, Members of Parliament received letters while the Ministry of Defence was frantically briefing journalists in a damage-limitation exercise.

The Government's privatisation agenda is not restricted to Navy installations-it also affects air bases. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has consistently raised with the MOD the proposed privatisation of the Defence Fire Service. He is deeply concerned about the consequences and implications of that privatisation for RAF Lossiemouth, which is in his constituency. There is little support for the proposal from the DFS, from other support staff or from service personnel, regardless of rank.

Early-day motion 853, which was signed by members of all political parties, some of whom are present, calls on the Secretary of State for Defence to halt all consideration of proposals to put out to tender and to privatise the Defence Fire Service. The hon. Members for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) and for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), all of whom signed the motion, are as anxious as I am to ensure that the Government reverse their position on that daft privatisation proposal. I shall be interested to see whether the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde will join his hon. Friends in signing the motion, given his interest in defence in Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Moray asked a question about the DFS during Defence questions on Monday. Will the Minister answer that question, which on Monday he studiously deflected with a typical tirade against the SNP? I remind him of the question:

"Can he name one single neutral observer, trade union, political party or Back-Bench Member of Parliament…who supports the privatisation of the Defence Fire Service? "—[Official Report, 29 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 662.]

Will the hon. Gentleman briefly describe how he would configure the Defence Fire Service in an independent Scotland?

Along with everyone who is involved in the debate, the DFS opposes privatisation. The Minister knows that full well—it is why he could not reply on Monday. He could not name one person who supported the proposal.

An issue that concerns me, my party and the vast majority of public opinion in Scotland is the stationing of all the United Kingdom's nuclear defence weapons in Scotland. As this is a debate on defence policy in Scotland, it is worth examining the defence policy of Scottish new Labour, on which I congratulate the Scottish Labour party. It is a good, well thought out policy and—surprisingly for Scottish new Labour—it is in tune with Scottish public opinion. The policy states:

"Conference notes that Scotland now houses all of Britain's nuclear weapons and that the Russian Threat previously used to justify these weapons has disappeared."

It continues:

"Conference further notes that scrapping Trident would now save some £1.5 billion annually which could and should be constructively employed in areas of obvious need such as housing, education and the Health service as well as ensuring the creation of alternative employment and retraining of displaced defence workers."

That is a very good motion. I would sign up to it immediately, but it presents more of a problem to Labour Members.

I was impressed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) during the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee. I asked him whether he supported any part of the policy. He candidly replied that he now supports the Government policy, which presumably renders the policy that I quoted redundant and not worth the paper it is written on. I wonder what on earth the Labour party delegates were doing in Perth at the recent conference. Presumably, they were discussing motions to decide policy which, if the new Labour Government do not like it, will be rejected out of hand. I hope that hon. Members who support new Labour question party policy and the party's reaction to nuclear weapons, and that they will consider their position during the scramble for seats at the next general election. They must find out whether that policy is supported.

At least, the membership of Scottish new Labour recognises that nuclear weapons are a serious issue for Scotland. Scottish public opinion is opposed to the continued siting of nuclear weapons on Scotland's soil, as are the Churches and a vast array of civic groups. I am sure that, like me, they were chilled to the bone to hear the Secretary of State for Defence saying in Defence questions on Monday that he would still be willing to use such evil weapons of mass destruction in certain circumstances. No circumstances can justify the use of a weapon that, with a press of a button, would cause genocide on an unthinkable scale and exterminate society as we know and understand it.

It is curious that not one Scottish Labour MP here and present at the Scottish Grand Committee's debate has supported the Labour party's policy—but let us not be too unfair to them. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to the Scottish National party website, but I could not find a Scottish new Labour party website. I do not know what gems it is trying to hide, but I certainly could not access such a website yesterday.

I am not surprised that there is no mention by the Ministry of Defence of the lost economic impact of defence spending in Scotland. In January 2001, the Government were asked how much of the defence budget in actual terms was spent in Scotland. The reply was that the Defence Bills Agency had spent only 4.6 per cent. of its £15 billion budget in Scotland, representing a shortfall of £600 million for Scottish taxpayers. That is a massive reallocation of taxpayers' money away from our economy. I want to ensure that Scotland secures maximum taxpayer benefit through significant domestic procurement.

We remain dependent on Whitehall Departments' decisions to give contracts to Scottish manufacturers. We have seen countless examples of job cuts and uncertainty on the Clyde. That is not the case in neighbouring small, independent countries, whose support for shipbuilding and defence-related employment exceeds that seen in Scotland. I am particularly impressed by Finland, which supports 14,000 shipbuilding jobs, and Norway, which supports 10,000 such jobs. Sadly, the shipbuilding industry in Scotland has been in decline under both Conservative and new Labour stewardship. Meanwhile, small, independent countries are prospering.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned Finland, can he give us some idea of the future Finnish naval shipbuilding programme and say how many 50,000 tonne aircraft carriers the Finns intend to build?

I am impressed with what Finland has achieved. Compare its 14,000 shipbuilding jobs with what is happening on the Clyde. The Finnish example is a good one.

The Scottish National party fully supports the commitment and professionalism of our service personnel and wishes the members of 45 Commando some of whose families live in my constituency-a safe and speedy return after the completion of their crucial mission.

The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the service men and women in Scotland. Will he give them an idea of his party's policy on membership of NATO, and will he answer some of the earlier questions that he has so far failed to deal with?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to stand up and defend his Government's privatisation agenda, which is of genuine concern to service personnel throughout the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate that no Labour Member has tried to defend that policy.

We want an enhancement of our position within the emerging European defence architecture. Will the Minister say which Scottish regiments and what manpower from Scotland have been committed to the European rapid reaction force? Is the number close to the 2,000 people that Finland and Austria have each promised?

We should aspire to a normal democratic Scotland, where the Parliament in Edinburgh makes key decisions about defence priorities and ensures the maximum economic benefit from Scottish tax spending for the national economy. It is sad that the defence debate has been dominated by Labour's agenda of unnecessary privatisation. I urge the Government to rethink their unpopular and unjustified policy.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing this important debate. Like the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), I feel a degree of deja vu, having debated the subject in Scottish Grand Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) began the Liberal Democrat contribution in that debate by saying that he felt that there was some aggressive defence going on. I am delighted to see that that remains consistent, as there is some aggressive defence from the Scottish National party.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman considers there to be an element of deja vu. However, does he not agree that the question of the future security and defence of Scotland is so important that it is correct to try to ascertain the policies of the major opposition party in Scotland?

Indeed I do, but it is more important to concentrate on one of the parties that is more likely to form a Government in the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future.

I intended to confine myself entirely to asking the Minister questions. I was not going to talk about the SNP at all. However, I cannot resist making one small point. The hon. Member for North Tayside mentioned a scramble for seats. In view of yesterday's news that the SNP's defence spokesman, Mr. Colin Campbell MSP, failed to secure the nomination for a seat for the Scottish Parliament, the scramble for seats in Scotland probably affects his party more than any other.

I turn to the serious subject before us—defence policy in Scotland. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, who opened the debate, mentioned the consultation on the new chapter of the strategic defence review. That is extremely important. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who have responsibility for those subjects, will engage fully in that process, and we will play our part.

Defence policy will revolve round what the United Kingdom chooses to do with regard to foreign policy. Our foreign policy objectives will be crucial in determining the shape of defence policy and the sort of forces we need. It is clear that we must have a strong and solid national debate, so that we can clearly define our aims, what we are asking our men and women to do when we put them into theatres of conflict, and what kind of forces we need. The debate must begin with foreign policy.

Another aspect of the debate is the cost that we are prepared to bear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have a key role in ensuring that our troops and forces overseas are properly funded, so that they can undertake the role required of them. It seems to Opposition Members that that role can be played only from within a united kingdom. The United Kingdom is stronger for acting together on the issue. We must operate within NATO. Since the close of the second world war, NATO has developed in a way that has enabled it to show what it can do. Any suggestion that we should develop a policy without NATO is clearly unacceptable. We wholly support the Government in the prosecution of those strategies.

As has been mentioned, Scotland has a proud tradition of contributing to our military forces, on land, in sea and—most latterly—in the air. There is a strong link between regiments and particular parts of the country. Not long ago, I was reading a book called "The Sword of the North". It is worth remembering that in two major conflicts in the past century, my part of the world sent between eight and 10 battalions of Seaforth Highlanders to war. For a population of about 40,000, that is a significant contribution. Reading any war memorial in any small village in my constituency will clearly show the commitment of the north of Scotland, which the whole of Scotland shares, to our defence.

Those links continue to this day, with regimental associations and regiments that continue to serve proudly. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to the question about the shortfall in recruitment in Scottish regiments, which is running at about 10 per cent. below strength for the Scottish regiments, as opposed to about 6.5 per cent. for the rest of the Army, with the Royal Scots 17 per cent. undermanned, the Scots Dragoon Guards 15 per cent., and the Black Watch 13 per cent. Perhaps he would comment on the progress of the venture by SEARCH to recruit. I believe that it is up for review at the moment, and it would be helpful to hear about that.

Other links that have been referred to this morning are equally strong. The first is the jobs that come from defence procurement and all the equipment, which several hon. Members mentioned. There are also links with the bases. There are many bases in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife has RAF Leuchars in his constituency. With the forthcoming disbandment at RAF Coningsby, I believe that No. 5 Squadron may be going to RAF Leuchars. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister would comment on that.

About 15,100 personnel are deployed throughout Scotland. That obviously has a huge economic impact, as well as being a core part of what goes on in our community. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) mentioned 45 Commando, and I add my support. I am sure that we all send our best wishes to the men and women there. I recently read newspaper reports of thefts from the home barracks of 45 Commando, which has been upsetting for those serving in Afghanistan. What action has been taken? Are the reports true or false?

The third link affects my constituency in particular, in that we have many of the disadvantages of military activity without the benefit. We have two major bombing ranges—a live one at Cape Wrath, and Tain. I hasten to add that my constituents fully understand the need for such ranges, and there is no question of their asking for them to be taken away. However, I ask the Minister to accept that in this modern day the relationship between the forces that use such facilities and the civilians who live there is crucial. Perhaps as part of the current review we might consider how that relationship can best be taken forward and what, if any, financial compensation could be given, perhaps to community councils, in such areas for what they put up with.

We broadly and fully support the Government's defence strategy and welcome the current review. It must he based on our foreign policy objectives and where we are going to go and what we are going to do. Finally, it must surely be up to the Chancellor to ensure that proper resources are available so that the objectives that we set in foreign policy mean that we have the best equipment to undertake the task.

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). In a previous existence, I lived in the gardener's cottage at Skibo castle, and the bombers in the Tain run used my cottage as a turning point. He is right to say that the interrelationship between defence matters and local people is extremely important. In my constituency, where we have RAF Lyneham, which we intend to continue to have for a great many years to come, local people welcome the fact that the Harriers take off and land over their houses.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on delivering my party's opening contribution. It is an important debate.

As a lifelong unionist, I initially found the title of the debate—defence in Scotland—slightly galling; after all, defence is a national matter, and I am proud to he the shadow defence Minister for the United Kingdom. However, I am a Scot born, bred and educated, and, on second thoughts, it occurred to me that I am, of course, immensely proud of the contribution that my home nation—as it were—makes to the defence of the realm. I use the word "realm" to refer to the United Kingdom, not Scotland. We are not discussing the defence of Scotland; we are talking about the defence of the United Kingdom, and the contribution that Scotland makes to that.

It used to be said that the first great export from Scotland was whisky, and that its second great export is people. I am proud to be one of those exports but, with regard to defence, precisely the same thing is happening. The current figures on deployments of the Scottish infantry regiments are interesting; 3,074 Scottish infantry are deployed in England and overseas, compared with only 1,656 who are still in Scotland. About twice as many Scottish infantry are abroad or in England than are in Scotland. Among them is 45 Commando, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale memorably said— and other hon. Members also mentioned—and we think of its troops in particular, and of the contribution that they are currently making in Afghanistan.

It would be interesting to know how long they will remain on deployment in Afghanistan. It would be useful for people in Arbroath—wives, children and other family members of those troops—to know that. It would also be interesting to know which of the three infantry battalions that we believe are marked out to replace it, will do so. The Minister might like to comment on those matters.

Infantry is an area in which Scotland has made one of its greatest contributions to the defence of the realm. However, those of us who consider the matter on a national level are concerned about some of the plans that the Government might currently have with regard to the infantry battalions. As several hon. Members have mentioned, there is severe undermanning in some of the Scottish regiments. The Royal Scots are 17.4 per cent. undermanned; the Royal Highland Fusiliers are 12.3 per cent. down; the Black Watch are 13.6 per cent. down; the Highlanders are 17.9 per cent. down, and so forth. Interestingly, the Scots Guards is the only regiment that is currently overmanned—by 10.8 per cent.

When the Minister replies, it would be useful to know whether he has any plans with regard to the structure of the Scottish infantry regiments. At the sad time of the death of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, we were concerned about the amount of press speculation that her colonelcy of the Black Watch might have been one of the reasons why it had been preserved.

Oh, not again.

The Minister says, from a sedentary position, "Oh, not again," and raises his eyes heavenward. I would be more than satisfied if he were to give me a cast-iron, 100 per cent. guarantee that the Black Watch is safe in his hands now, and in future. Perhaps he would like to make an intervention on that now?

I did not intend to intervene. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is continuing to raise that point. It is a canard that has been put to bed time and again. There are no plans to disband the Black Watch. Will his party now accept that?

The Minister uses weasel words, to say the least. He says that there are no plans to disband the Black Watch. I am ready to accept that there are currently no plans to disband it; it would be surprising if there were. However, I ask him again for the guarantee that I have requested; will he take this opportunity to give me a cast-iron guarantee that the Black Watch will not be disbanded now, or in the future? [Interruption.]

Hon. Members find that amusing, but I do not, and neither does the Black Watch. I am asking the Minister to give me that guarantee.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this speaking time; it is obvious that he does not have much to say in this debate.

I have given the hon. Gentleman that guarantee. I would be interested to learn whether, if his party were ever to return to power, he would plan to reinstate all of the regiments that the Conservatives disbanded when they were in government.

The Minister has now given us the guarantee. That will be on the record, and we are grateful to him for it. The people in and round my home area in Perth will also be grateful for that. We are glad that he has finally been forced to give that guarantee in the House.

Those who talk about cuts when we were in power forget that the Labour party spent the entire time after the end of the cold war saying that our cuts were not nearly deep enough. Of course, it is true that we had the peace dividend—as it was called—at the time, and that it was necessary for us to cut the size of the Army, for example.

I was speaking to a general the other day, and he told me that when he joined the British Army it had 1 million soldiers. Today, under this Labour Government, there are 98,000. Of course, many of the cuts took place under the Conservative Government, but at the time, members of the Labour party said that the cuts were not deep enough and that they wanted to see more.

If we want to see evidence of defence cuts, we need look only at what the Labour Government are doing. They have cut the Territorial Army to shreds in Scotland, as elsewhere. We discussed defence manufacturing, but look at what they are doing to ammunition manufacturing. We can no longer make ammunition. We leave it to the Germans, Belgians and, amazingly, the South Africans. Bishopton closed as a result. Elsewhere, it looks as though their commitment to carriers seems firm, but look at the closure of 5 Squadron. It may go to RAF Leuchars—good luck to Leuchars. What about the people around 5 Squadron?

The mothballing of the Sea Harriers means that we could not now carry out a Falkland campaign even if we wished to do so. To suggest that that capability will be replaced by type 45s is nonsense, not least because type 45s will not be fully operational until 2015. There will be a big gap between the mothballing of the Sea Harriers and the introduction of the type 45s.

"Illustrious" is the latest example. It has been delayed for nine months until a refit starts in October. "Fearless" has been withdrawn from service 12 months early. There have been 700 jobs cut from the Army base repair organisation. That information was slipped out during a statutory instrument debate recently. The Minister says that that is all good stuff and marvellous and that it is all to do with a training fund, but the jobs of 700 car mechanics who work on army vehicles have been cut, thanks to the Government.

In the Conservative party, we are opposed to the privatisation of warship support that has been mentioned and the privatisation of airbase fire services at RAF Leuchars and elsewhere. The only point on which I agree with the SNP on this issue is that we are entirely opposed to the privatisation of defence fire services. It is astonishing to hear a Labour Government proposing such a thing. The Minister laughs and says that he is thinking about it. Let him tell us whether he intends to privatise the fire services.

Wherever we look at what Labour is doing to defence, we see cuts, cuts and more cuts, often for minute amounts of money. The Government may save a million here or a million there, but in the course of doing that, they make damaging cuts to defence capabilities throughout the nation. That becomes clear when we examine the Government's procurement programmes. As far as we can see, the procurement budgets in the Ministry of Defence are a shambles. For the past two years, the National Audit Office has refused to sign off the MOD budgets in a straightforward way. No commercial company would be allowed to continue to exist in the same circumstances. It is apparent that the MOD's procurement proposals cannot be implemented unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer provides more money.

One curious feature about last week's Budget is that no mention was made of defence. In an internet search of the Chancellor's speeches since 1997, he does not use the word "defence" once. It is impossible to discover the increase in defence spending from reading the Red Book after the Budget. It seems to be approximately £950 million, but it is hard to tell whether that is a straightforward increase.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. There is no time before the Minister replies. He can tell us how much extra the Chancellor has given him, but as far as we can make out from a detailed study of the Red Book, it ain't a lot. We find that procurement spending as well as everyday spending on defence is under severe pressure. That is why we see cuts across the board.

Of course, our defence forces will, as they say, turn to the right, salute, march off and do precisely whatever the Minister asks. They will not complain. Our Army, Air Force and Navy do what they are required to do. However, they are being asked to do more and more with less and less by this ever expansionist Prime Minister. The Government must not take advantage of their readiness to do whatever is asked of them, by demanding more and not providing the proper resources with which to carry out difficult tasks.

I echo the congratulations paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing this debate. He and other hon. Members have raised important issues. I do not share the view that this is deja vu and that we should not continue to examine and rerun these issues. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who made that comment, should reflect wisely on it. Our debates add to the overall assessment of what is happening on defence, which is a critical part of what happens to this country.

Scotland and its people play an important part in the defence of the United Kingdom. Although there have been many changes in defence policy over the years, the one constant has been the importance of Scotland in defending the United Kingdom's overall interests. Defence continues to play a vital role in Scotland.

Defence has a considerable footprint in Scotland. I contend that Scotland receives a good deal from defence and gives a good deal in return. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde rightly referred to the number of sites that the Ministry of Defence has in Scotland. There are 374 sites that extend over nearly 25,000 hectares. Our policy is to achieve a better balance of activity throughout the United Kingdom. All three services are well represented as part of the overall defence footprint throughout Scotland.

Hon. Members referred to 45 Royal Marine Commando, which is based in Arbroath. That represents a significant presence of about 1,000 Royal Marines, to whom I shall refer, if I have time. The Royal Navy submarine base at Faslane is one of the largest single-site employers in Scotland and employs more than 15 per cent. of the local economically active members of the population.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I must try to deal with all the points. I shall address warship support and modernisation and perhaps, at that point, I shall allow my hon. Friend to intervene.

Under the new arrangements of partnership with a commercial company at Faslane, the base will remain a significant employer, and I shall say more about that later. The naval reactor test establishment at Dounreay employs more than 300 people in one of the remoter parts of Scotland. That gives a flavour of the naval presence.

I shall touch on the presence of the Army. Several major Army units are based in Scotland: the 1st Battalion of the Royal Highland Fusiliers is based at Fort George in Inverness; the 1st Battalion of the Highlanders is based in Edinburgh; and the Royal Scots are based at Dreghorn barracks in Edinburgh. That represents the first incidence for a considerable time that three of the six Scottish regiments have been based in Scotland.

I take arguments about poor recruitment on board. Scotland has a proud record of providing recruits for the services. Last year, Scottish recruitment offices enlisted 2,5000 officers and other ranks, which is more than 15 per cent. of the total number. Nearly 12 per cent. of people in the Army classify themselves as being of Scottish nationality. A proud history and record has been maintained against difficult backdrops. Clearly, retention is important, and we recognise that we must do better and do more on retention. However, I will not accept criticism of what the Government have tried to do. We have innumerable initiatives to try to solve deep and entrenched problems, and I could set out all such initiatives in the remainder of my speech—they have all had measures of success.

A large aspect of retention relates to families, and not only to those who serve. That is why I head a cross-departmental committee of Ministers—the service families taskforce—that addresses ways in which we can drive forward initiatives from government.

I shall write to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to answer his specific question about SEARCH. We are still assessing the important initiative, and it is too early to say what its outplay will be.

I shall address the role of the Royal Air Force. RAF Kinloss is home to our Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. Leuchars and Lossiemouth are home to our Tornado F3 and Tornado GR4 aircraft. Under current plans, Typhoon will replace the Tornados at Leuchars. Royal Navy and RAF search-and-rescue helicopters are based at Prestwick and Lossiemouth. Those sites are important to our defence role and mission, and they play an important part in our local economies. RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss, for example, employ almost 10 per cent. of the working people in their areas.

I do not intend to spend any time addressing the comments of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), other than to make a passing reference. The Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy would not be that if we had an independent Scotland. The Royal Marines would not be in Arbroath if we had an independent Scotland. When the Scottish National party claims to support the action taken by our armed forces against international terrorism in Sierra Leone, Macedonia, Kosovo and elsewhere, we should bear in mind that they would not have that prominent role if Scotland were independent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that on board.

More than 23,000 MOD personnel work in Scotland in 27 of the 32 unitary authorities. That includes more than 14,400 military personnel from all three services and more than 8,800 civilians. Almost 10 per cent. of MOD personnel who work in the UK do so in Scotland. Approximately 6,000 Scottish jobs are directly dependent on defence equipment expenditure. Most of the jobs are skilled, with pay rates above the Scottish national average.

It has been said that defence cannot be divided, and that must be repeated. Defence does not benefit some members of the UK more than others. It is there to protect us and to provide us all with security wherever we may be. It is not like health or education, where spending on a hospital benefits one local community. Defence benefits the whole of the UK, wherever it occurs. The hon. Member for North Tayside repeated old arguments about the totality of defence expenditure in Scotland. I thought that I had laid that argument to rest at the last debate of the Scottish Grand Committee. His figures are wrong, and he should re-examine the information with which he was provided. The expenditure is much greater than the £600 million figure that he presented: a conservative estimate is £1.8 billion. Much of that is not captured because of the way in which the spend is allocated.

The shipbuilding industry is a key part of defence spend. The Government plan to build up to 30 warships in the UK over the next 15 to 20 years. That is the biggest shipbuilding programme since the second world war. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) declared his support for, and commitment to, the Clyde. I am reminded of a line from an old song, "It was tears that made the Clyde." It is almost as if the MOD is saving the Clyde. I know that my hon. Friend will support me when I say that the shipbuilding companies must also move into commercial shipbuilding initiatives.

Warship support and modernisation has attracted much debate outside the Chamber, but not inside it.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his involvement in negotiations over the past few days on the changing nature of the jobs at Faslane. On Monday morning, I had a meeting with John Howie, the managing director of Babcocks. It was made clear that there was a need to change the perception that there would be massive losses, as they could be accommodated over five years. Does the Minister agree that the Astute-class submarines berthing at Faslane would enhance its position and increase its capacity if we were to get the negotiations right with the trade unions?

Part of the tragedy of the debate is that people have taken the lurid newspaper headlines and tried to perceive them as reality. They should learn the lesson that newspapers do not necessarily speak the truth. We tried to explain what was happening at the dockyards. In the worst-case scenario, 750 jobs would go over five years. We concluded intensive discussions with the trade unions that will ensure a good future for all the dockyards including Rosyth, not just the three dockyards that will retain their partnership with the MOD. It is worth bearing in mind that Rosyth is a wholly privatised dockyard that provides a tremendous service to the MOD. There should be no fear. Jobs can be retained if there is a workflow, but we must address overcapacity in the yards.

The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale asked about naval support in an emergency, and I can give him an assurance. We have retained a four-yard strategy to ensure that we have that maximum surge capacity if it is required.

Finally, an examination of airfield support services is taking place. I accept that there is a united front against it, but it is a united front against something that has not yet been presented.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate such an important subject. I am also pleased to have the support of so many of my Conservative colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is sitting next to me. Many hon. Members from all parties want to speak, so I shall speak so far as it relates to Bournemouth for both of us. My hon. Friend wants to be firmly associated with my comments.

Tourism is very important to the economy of the United Kingdom and the south-west in particular. It is the country's fourth largest industry and earns about £75 billion a year for the UK economy. The south-west is one of the regions most dependent on tourism as a percentage of its overall economic activity. Bournemouth, part of which I have the honour to represent, earns £500 million a year from tourism. We welcome 5 million visitors a year and employ in tourism 20,000 people. That gives some background to the scale of our subject.

Much as I admire the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, the Government have not given the support to tourism that they promised. We have had constant platitudes but no delivery. For example, there has been no help with marketing. The Scottish tourist board spends £19.4 million on marketing, which is £3.77 per head. The Wales tourist board spends £15.5 million, which is £4.03 per head. The English tourist board and the regional tourist boards combined receive only £11.7 million from the Government; the actual spend is 20p per head. That gives us some idea of the scale of the problem for England and the south-west in particular.

We no longer have an English tourist board with the responsibility to promote tourism in England, and we should revert to that. We are told that the British Tourist Authority does a lot of work that benefits England. However, in its latest UKOK campaign, which was supposed to support the south-east and south-west of England, it managed to miss out any mention of Dorset, Bournemouth and the New forest, despite the fact that we have England's first world heritage coastline and that the New forest is a national park of outstanding importance. The New forest was the only national park not mentioned in the campaign. The Government's record on support for marketing is tragic.

We should also consider support for local authorities. Resorts should be able, and encouraged, to improve their visitor facilities. We should ensure that visitors to resorts in the south-west find the amenities that they are entitled to expect. They should be at least comparable with those of our major overseas competitors. What is the Government's record in relation to resort towns? I am a vice-president of the British Resorts Association, and we have repeatedly had to tell the Government that we are not receiving anything like adequate support. The way in which the Government's subvention to local authorities in general and resort towns in particular is organised, discriminates against resorts. More and more burdens have been imposed on tourist towns through increased regulations and requests to take more asylum seekers and to set up drug rehabilitation centres, which we in Bournemouth and other resorts have done.

The resorts and the south-west in general have a disproportionately high number of retired people. The problems of the elderly impact most severely on many resort towns, but the support that we receive for them is declining. Bournemouth has lost £3 million of support for rest homes every year since the Government came to power. Overall, Government support for Bournemouth has gone down from 73 per cent. in 1997 to 65.8 per cent. now. We have lost £13 million in Bournemouth alone. That is mirrored in resorts throughout the country and in the south-west in particular.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am that the seaside and market towns scheme, which looked like a good scheme, has run into the ground because it has been stop go, stop go. Bureaucracy has been added to it. Some towns that started out on the scheme with a lot of enthusiasm have now backed off. There does not seem to be any clarity about how the scheme works and how it can be taken forward. It has done more harm than good because of the way in which it has been administered.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She is absolutely right. Often, the Government have ideas that sound terribly good, but at the end of the day they do not deliver. How on earth are we supposed to support tourism facilities within our resorts if we are not given the financial support that increasing Government burdens demand?

My hon. Friend, in his inimitable way, puts forward a cogent and powerful case. The reduction in Government expenditure to Bournemouth is mirrored in Torbay, Torquay, Paignton and Brixham. Does he agree that the Government's insistence on audits means that, instead of going to seaside towns, money is being used on audits of every conceivable kind? There is more bureaucracy and more intervention from the centre.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the new stealth tax. There have been huge reductions in Government support for major towns, particularly resort towns, throughout the south-west. Because the Government are giving us less, we have to raise revenue through council tax to maintain anything like adequate support facilities. Expenditure in Bournemouth has increased by less than 2.3 per cent. a year in each of the years that the Government have been in power. That is less than the rate of inflation over the same period. However, we have had to increase our council tax by over 10 per cent. this year. That is an absolute disgrace. The Government hope that the electors will blame our councillors, who are doing a cracking job, but they may find in the local elections up and down the country that they have been rumbled on that new stealth tax.

One of the many other points that I wish to deal with is infrastructure and infrastructure investment. The south-west is suffering incredibly badly. We have heard what happens in Scotland. Other regions have had huge investment from the Government, but the south-west has had almost no serious infrastructure investment. That wonderful organisation Railtrack, for example, managed to close the Devon-Cornwall rail bridge at Easter, just when visitors were coming back after foot and mouth. There are no rail links from Dorset to Exeter, the supposed seat of the regional government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Devon to Cornwall line was closed over Easter and the Exeter to Plymouth line will be closed for four weeks in May, which is likely to cost the region up to £20 billion in lost revenue?

I was indeed aware of that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to our attention.

Anyone wanting to go from Bournemouth or any of the south-east Dorset conurbations to the putative seat of regional government, which the Government are so keen on, would have to go back on the railway line as far as Basingstoke, wait there for another train and go back in the other direction. It is complete and utter nonsense to say that it is part of the region. It takes one and a half hours to get to London and two and a half hours to get to Exeter. There are no railway lines at all to Bristol and the north.

As for roads, there is the main south-west spine, the A30-A303, which is supposed to bring tourists from London and the major conurbations, but it is still not dualled, despite protestations that that would be done. Anyone who wants to go from Bournemouth to Exeter by road must travel from Dorchester onwards on the mediaeval cart track that dignifies itself with the name the A31. The Highways Agency has just published a report about what it intends to do about the road.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) opposes trunk road status beyond Dorchester because he does not want the traffic rumbling through the villages in his constituency?

Nimbyism exists in every part of the House, especially among the Liberal Democrats.

I followed with interest the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the result of the privatisation of the rail industry, which he voted for. The dualling of the A30 in Cornwall, which is a serious issue, was delayed by the Government whom he supported. We are only now getting back to where we were 10 years ago.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we must move on. The Government have been in power since 1997 and they said that they would change all that. They have failed to do so and have often been supported by the Liberal Democrats.

There are no links to the north on the A350 from Dorset; to describe many parts of that road as a mediaeval cart track would be charitable. From Bournemouth and its conurbations, the only way to go north is on the M27 to the M3, then up the M3 to pick up the A34. Torbay still needs the Kingkerswell bypass and the new bridge crossing at Barnstaple is still outstanding—delays that are supported by the iberal Democrats.

The wonderful regional government based in Exeter is beloved of the Liberal Democrats, but the problem is that the boundaries do not relate to any form of economic activity or to the infrastructure. We are doing the best we can about that. We have good relations with the poor people who are charged with making progress. That is the only way to go forward, but what is needed is a properly defined role for the agencies and an interrelationship with Government Departments, which is still lacking.

Agriculture and tourism are the lynchpins of the south-west economy; they play a vital part in everything that goes on there. However, we have had no real Government initiatives to support or encourage rural tourism. I know that a number of my hon. Friends will speak much more lucidly on that issue than I can, because they represent rural constituencies.

With regard to our international competition, we have some of the best destinations in Europe. However, we often do not qualify for European aid or regeneration grants; Bournemouth is an example. Those grants go to other competitor resorts. In addition, VAT is higher in the UK than in many continental competitor countries, and the Government have now imposed on the industry the working time directive.

That is another wonderful European idea, which is supported of course by the Liberal Democrats, who love everything that comes from Brussels. Far more important, however, is the way in which the 48-hour restriction affects shift patterns. The hospitality industry, among others, has to operate 24 hours a day, a fact that the Government seem not to realise. We have to look after our visitors all day, every day—24 hours a day, seven days a week. That imposes shift patterns, but those are in no way recognised by the nonsense to which the Government have agreed.

My hon. Friend will have noted in the Budget the increase in national insurance contributions for employers. That will have a major impact on the tourism industry, which employs many people in the Bournemouth and Poole area, and will be detrimental to its business prospects.

The increase will be hugely damaging. The Government do not understand that national insurance increases impact particularly severely on industries and businesses that are already in great difficulty, on the margin, not making profits and struggling to stay alive. That applies throughout the south-west, particularly after foot and mouth. The increase is the equivalent of a 3 per cent. rise in corporation tax. Of course if it had been a tax increase, the businesses that are not making profits anyway would not have been affected. The increase in national insurance contributions, however, will probably ensure that some of them fail.

I do not wish to rehearse the whole Budget debate, but surely the hon. Gentleman welcomes the use of national insurance for the sake of the many pensioners whom he talked about earlier. They have already paid for the national health service during their working lives, and will reap the benefits of the extra investment without having to pay any extra: the increase is not in tax, but in national insurance.

The hon. Gentleman is right, but pensioners do not pay corporation tax either. My point is that the measure could have been targeted much more effectively to support the industries in his constituency that I am sure he, too, holds dear.

I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief. Throughout the south-west, language schools are a success story. Every year, 30,000 students come to Bournemouth alone to learn English as a foreign language. However, they have terrible problems with the Government when it comes to getting visas. People come to me repeatedly from the Association of Recognised English Language Services, saying that they cannot get their students into the country because of the enormous delays in Departments and at Lunar house—lunatic house, some people call it. The system is supposed to be administered there, but the delays run into months and months.

If students want to extend their stay so that they can take a further course, they cannot get permission to do so. They cannot go home for Christmas either, because if they do so, they will not be let back in. The situation is complete madness. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the problems, but more must be done. If we are to have joined-up government, we should be able to make better arrangements for such educational purposes, particularly for the people whom we have already let in.

One of the final indignities involves the British Council. It does a wonderful job in the countries where it operates, but it should not set up English language courses subsidised by the Government in those countries. Such courses take business away from language schools in this country. I hope that the Government will make that clear to the British Council.

There is a great tourist industry in the south-west. Bournemouth is a world-class resort, but we need a little more support and a little more joined-up government. I hope that the Minister can do something about that.

I should declare that I am a trustee of the Tank museum, an important tourist attraction in the south-west.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on securing this important debate, which gives us a valuable opportunity to discuss important issues for a crucial industry in our region. Her Majesty the Queen is in Falmouth today launching her golden jubilee tour of the country. That is one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) could not be here, although she would have liked to be.

Where are the rest of them?

I cannot account for everyone, but I was specifically asked to pass on apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. Many of the dynamic team of Labour Members in the south-west are Ministers, have other responsibilities and find it difficult to attend.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West talked about the importance of tourism to the country and the south-west. It accounts for 10 per cent. of that region's gross domestic product. The spending that tourism generates is equivalent to £1,150 per resident of the region, so it is clearly of huge significance. It is the same size as the tourist industries of Wales and Scotland combined. We in the south-west would be most grateful if we received the £34.8 million that their tourist boards received in subsidy from the Government, but I suspect that we are being a little optimistic in hoping to receive that.

I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says, but is he making a proposal for the Barnett formula to be revisited?

I am grateful for that most helpful contribution. I do not want to re-rehearse the Barnett formula. I hope that the formula is named after my predecessor, the only other Labour Member for South Dorset, Guy Barnett, although I should know whether that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Joel Barnett."] Never mind. At least I had a chance to plug Guy Barnett.

I am privileged to represent South Dorset. The traditional seaside tourism industry is crucial in Weymouth and Swanage, which is in my patch. We have heard how important it is to Bournemouth from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. Tourism is becoming much more important in the countryside, as is environmental tourism. The previous time I spoke in Westminster Hall we debated world heritage status. I talked at some length about the importance of world heritage coast status not only to South Dorset but to the whole area. I am sure that if the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) makes a contribution, he will mention its importance to Devon.

The tourism industry, important as it is, does not have a loud enough voice. That is one of the reasons why I welcome this debate. If tourism had the strength of voice that the farming industry has through the National Farmers Union, for example, some of the issues that we want to address today might be higher up the public agenda. Perhaps if we had the strength of such a lobby, there would be more support for the tourism industry, which is what I am sure most of us will be arguing for today. Given that the voice of the industry is not as loud as I would like it to be, this is an opportunity to question the Minister on its behalf.

Given the importance of the voice of tourism, will the hon. Gentleman recommend to his party that the seaside group of MPs should be broadened to become an all-party group and not be the exclusive domain of Labour MPs?

I am sure that it would be open to hon. Members to form an all-party group. I would be happy to support it. There is value in Labour Members holding private discussions, but I am sure that it would also be helpful to have discussions on an all-party basis. There is no doubt that the Labour group has done good work on behalf of seaside towns, and that such information has been passed on to the all-party tourism group.

Does the Department view tourism as a domestic industrial issue, which it is, or as an industry that is just about attracting inward visitors? The balance of payments deficit for tourism has now increased to £12 billion a year. That is a huge gap. Given the proposal for schools to have six terms, I wonder whether the Department has listened properly to the voice of our domestic tourism industry. For example, Monkey World is an excellent tourist attraction in my constituency. I have received faxes galore from it about the proposal. The weather in this country is neither reliable nor perfect and Monkey World is worried that restricting the summer holiday to five weeks could have a significant impact on its business. It could cope, because there are other aspects of the business, but it is concerned about some of the smaller outlets, such as Farmer Giles' farm, the family farm that people can visit to understand agriculture. If we contract the tourism season, smaller businesses could suffer.

Our traditional seaside tourism industry relies on good weather and a long summer holiday to make the vast bulk of its income. A contraction of the summer holiday may cause significant damage to some of its businesses. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has discussed such matters with his colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills and what the outcome was. Schools in other countries, such as France, for example, are out for specific winter weeks. The winter sports industry can benefit from that. If the Government have five or six school terms, surely holidays could be arranged to benefit the tourism industry. I should be interested to know whether that will happen.

Are the needs of the tourism industry dealt with by all the Departments? I know that the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and his Department focus well on the tourism industry and I am sure that they are doing their best to broaden that throughout the Government, but it important that other Departments pay due attention to it. I have spoken previously about the world heritage coast in the belief that that Minister had responsibility for that coast. To my embarrassment, I found out that the Minister with responsibility was my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs.

I am grateful to the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for visiting the area. He has walked along part of the coast in west Dorset, and I am sure that he will represent the interests of the world heritage coast well. However, only a few of the points that I raised in my contribution on world heritage status—such as improving the standard of accommodation and of access through better transport, and the things that must be dealt with to allow the world heritage coast to prosper—are necessarily issues for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Some of them would be better addressed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and others by a variety of other Departments.

I have mentioned the school term issue facing the Department for Education and Skills. It is also responsible for further education. Increasing the level of skill among workers in tourism is an important matter for the industry. The further education sector is somewhat undernourished at present. We are seeing some of the cost of that in my area. Weymouth college is suffering significant financial difficulties—I have been talking at length to lecturers there.

We need that sector to prosper. We need it to focus on making better links with the economic development strategies of our local authorities to deal with things such as skills gaps in our industries. I know some good work is being done: Bournemouth university has just started a degree course that includes sports management, particularly golf management. Work is being done in education, but that needs to be extended. In the local care sector in Dorset, excellent work is being done to deal with the skills gaps.

I turn to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The funding to local authorities has been mentioned. It is historically low in Dorset. It is too low; it is unfair. There is something wrong with the funding formula, and we are hopeful that that will be dealt with by the Department this year.

We need to ensure that our local authorities have a better settlement so that they can fully carry out those of their responsibilities that have an impact on our tourism industry. For example, we are trying to encourage some of our farmers to diversify into equestrian facilities. That should be developed, as it is an important element of the tourism industry in our countryside. However, our local authorities are struggling to ensure that our bridleways are properly maintained. My wife and daughter are regular horse riders. In the area where I live, it is a great problem for them properly to enjoy the Dorset coast on horseback, because bridleways are not properly maintained, and they are not connected to make decent routes. I would love the local authority to be given the funding to enable it to resolve that issue. That is just one example of the point that I am making.

Infrastructure is largely a responsibility of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I have talked about heritage coast access, and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West talked at length about the infrastructure problems in the southwest. I sympathise with what he said. That must be improved, and the Department must make it a priority.

I turn to the Department for Trade and Industry. Monkey World is keen to see an improvement in the appalling broadband access in our area. It is the only primate rescue centre in Europe, and there is considerable interest in it from educational establishments. They wish to be able to follow and monitor what is going on with the primates that it looks after. It is now working with the learning and skills council and others to get some broadband access.

South West Tourism agrees with me that it is important that we see an improvement in e-tourism, so that people can book online, and understand what the area has to offer online, prior to visiting the area.

The regional development agency is the responsibility of the Department for Trade and Industry, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister feels that it is properly addressing tourism. There is some evidence of that locally. The RDA is supporting Portland and understands that extending and improving the sailing facilities in the area is vital. That is contributing hugely to improvements in the number of visitors coming, and considerably extending the season.

The Government have made good progress on tourism as a whole, especially in improving the economy. The fact that we have such low unemployment and inflation and that economically we are doing well means that people have more money in their pockets to spend, are out visiting things and coming to our region. Tourism is doing reasonably well. The introduction of the minimum wage ensured that the lowest paid people, who are the most likely to want to enjoy our seaside tourism industry, had more money in their pockets, more disposable income and could come to enjoy bucket and spade holidays on Weymouth beach.

The "Your countryside, you're welcome" initiative has been a success, and my final plea is for more such initiatives. For every pound that the Government spent on it, £30 was generated in bookings in the region. The Treasury gains 30 per cent. of that income. For every pound that is put in, the Treasury gains many times over.

I wish the Minister every good fortune in the comprehensive spending review to ensure that he secures more money for tourism and that, instead of spending more in Wales and Scotland, which receive enough, we spend it in the south-west.

rose—

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that I intend to call the three Front-Bench spokesmen at 12 o'clock. Four people are standing. If they confine themselves to five or six minutes, we can fit everyone in.

Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for calling me to speak in this important debate for the economy of the south-west.

I shall first discuss the south-west as an artificial construct. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) mentioned that his constituency had few links with Exeter. Mine has a few more, but not many.

In a previous debate in this Chamber, the Liberal Democrat spokesman accused me of being a Wessex regionalist. I shall speak a little about Wessex, if only because I am terribly proud that my constituency contains the site of the battle of Ethandune, where King Alfred saw off the Vikings and where he established—[Interruption.] That may be disputed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), but we can safely say that the battle of Ethandune took place in my constituency, which is where Alfred established his kingdom, which became England. It is an extremely good tourist destination, and hon. Members who have not visited the site must do so, if only to improve the local economy.

Tourists do not visit regional tourist board areas. They may go on their holidays to the Chilterns, the Cotswolds or the highlands and islands, but they do not say to themselves, "Let's go to the English Tourism Council south-west region this year." Administrative boundaries are an irrelevance and a distraction in the context of today's debate. Last night, I asked the director of the fledgling Wessex Tourism Association to define his borders, but he was not much bothered. He said that, for the purposes of his business, he was dealing with Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Somerset, with a bit of Berkshire thrown in. What concerned him was establishing a sense of place, and what interested him as a business man was how to brand the area that he liked to call Wessex and how to sell it not only to the UK market, but, more importantly, to international tour operators. Selling holidays to one another is fine, but we need to attract foreign visitors to the country in the interests of the economy.

In the south-west, although the number of UK visitors has increased slightly, and the number of nights spent in the south-west has increased, by even less than that, the number of overseas visitors has declined over the past five years. That cannot be blamed only on foot and mouth and the tragic events of 11 September because the decline started well before that.

Structural arrangements to support tourism could be inadequate, and we have heard about arrangements for marketing. Local government's statutory tasks are underfunded, and funding for tourism will always be a low priority because it is difficult to define a return on the investment in a way that would satisfy elected local authorities. That is reflected right the way up, because tourism is only a small part of the remit of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is hardly a leviathan. That is a great shame because UK tourism generated £75 billion in 2000, which is about four times the amount of revenue generated by agriculture.

The tourism sector remains disproportionately significant in the south-west despite the ravages of foot and mouth. The sector is surprisingly hidden, partly because it is so disparate and fragmentary. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) commented on that and noted that no effective voice is heard from the industry.

A chief brake on the sector has undoubtedly been its skills base. Traditionally, it relied on low-skilled staff on low pay who probably had a fairly low status and did not mind working antisocial hours or putting up with poor career prospects. Although the inevitable service product may have been acceptable to the United Kingdom market at one time, it is no longer because people demand higher quality. The product is certainly not acceptable to our overseas visitors.

Many colleges have put on imaginative courses. However, we are dealing exclusively with small and medium enterprises that, in times of financial hardship, experience great difficulty investing in the skills of their staff because of the marginal nature of their business. When times get hard, such enterprises must inevitably make difficult choices, and one choice is how much to invest in staff.

I hope that the newly formed Sector Skills Council will deal with such issues. The SSC for travel, tourism and hospitality has an ambitious remit. We are told that it will reduce skills gaps and shortages, improve productivity and increase opportunities to boost the skills and productivity of everyone in the sector's work force. It will also improve the learning supply, which will include apprenticeships, further and higher education and national occupational standards. It will achieve that by assessing the labour and skills market, identifying strategies for action and working with all those involved in the fields of training and education in order to deliver solutions. That sounds grand, but it reminded me of the British Telecom business solutions advertisement that talks about "imagineering".

The project sounds very vague, and I was especially worried when I heard that the Government would pay up to £1 million of match funding to support it. The match funding will come from employers. Given the project's ambitious remit, I do not know how £2 million will cover the task. I am unclear how the money will be extracted from employers, and I shall welcome the Minister's comments

I am supporting the debate secured by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) because my south-west constituency is unusual. Most south-west Members present represent coastal towns, but my constituency contains a beautiful forest surrounded by beautiful rivers and has a landscape to die for. We have tourist attractions slightly different from piers and bucket-and-spade holidays.

The Government have recognised our landscape. We received £1 million from the Countryside Agency to secure environmental development that goes hand in hand with economic and social development. That has been successful in promoting our area and giving it a type of brand.

Along with most of the south-west, last year we suffered the devastating effects of the foot and mouth outbreak. The Forest of Dean had a difficult time, because there were 47 confirmed cases and the whole landscape was closed. That had a major impact. Our outdoor centres were closed, as was access to rivers for canoeing and other water sports. Our forest was closed, so school trips were cancelled because nobody could access the landscape to enjoy any activity. Our youth hostels and campsites were closed. Only this spring did we start to remarket our youth hostels, when the Minister visited and walked a little of Offa's Dyke as part of the "Your countryside, you're welcome" initiative, to advertise the fact that places had re-opened. We were devastated.

It was not until we experienced the closure of the countryside that we recognised the inextricable link between agriculture and tourism. We had thought that tourism was something that involved London, the coastal resorts or, possibly, walking in the Cotswolds, and that agriculture was something different. We had not realised how linked the two activities were.

We had not really noticed what tourism was. No Government—neither the previous Conservative Government nor the present Government—had bothered to support it in our area, because it had flourished. The number of jobs had increased—one in four new jobs since 1997 were in the tourism sector. Our tourism had done okay on its own. It was a patchwork of large and small businesses. Consequently, we had never really looked at the sector in detail, or at a strategy. There were no training initiatives for the industry, and we had not examined how we could develop and support it. That is what we must do now. The good thing that could come out of the foot and mouth outbreak would be taking forward the strategy and the training.

In a small way we have started to move forward in the Forest of Dean. We have been one of the most successful districts in the south-west in obtaining grants from the Government after foot and mouth to help us remarket the area. We have had a fantastic response. We set up a light show at Beechenhurst on the sculpture trail, and 45,000 people visited it. We were expecting 4,000 or 5,000 cars to come, but we had 10 times that number of people. A little marketing, advertising and promotion and we had a huge response. That is the way forward.

We also had a food fair in Speech house to promote local produce, reflecting the link between agriculture and tourism. We have given grants to individual companies such as canoe companies, to get them restarted. There are outdoor experiment companies such as Motiva, in which people climb ropes. Presumably Monkey World, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) could have something to do with that. With the little money that is coming through, we are starting to build and develop.

We have considered the problems sporadically. The Government have not completely ignored the sector. Hon. Members have mentioned the minimum wage, and we have talked about how the growth of the economy has meant that more people can use the tourism sector. The minimum wage was crucial in lifting wage levels in a sector in which pay was traditionally very low.

I am not aware that anyone else has mentioned the minimum wage today. We talked about national insurance, and the hon. Lady should be aware that an average firm employing 10 people, which in my part of the west country means an enormous number of firms, will have an increased NI bill of £2,361 as a result of the Budget. That is the problem that we were drawing attention to, not the minimum wage.

I am more concerned about the vast numbers of people who work in the sector. They had a rough time until the introduction of the minimum wage because they were poorly paid.

We have also developed training initiatives. The new targets are vocational training courses in colleges, and the ability to tell people that they should stay in either full-time training or education until the age of 19 will help develop that area of training for the sector.

As we have said this morning, the key issue is to promote and market the sector in the south-west if we want it to recover and develop. The Forest of Dean used to be covered by the Heart of England tourist board, but because of recent changes, we are being taken over by the South West Tourism. I am happy about that, because I was visited by the chair of the board, Cairns Boston, who I believe is in the Chamber today as an observer. He asked me how we could bring together local people and tell them about the SWT. We organised a conference at Speech house at which South West Tourism told many members of the sector about its services, including market research and advertising support. Most of us were impressed, although we found its budget laughable.

Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady drew her remarks to a close to allow other speakers to contribute.

Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

The marketing budget of South West Tourism and other tourist offices and local councils is too small. My only plea to the Minister is that more resources for specialised marketing should go into those areas of the south-west where tourism needs to recover from the devastation of last summer's foot and mouth.

We have developed a clear strategy for tourism in the far southwest in the past few years. We have tried to promote quality and professionalism and make the industry less seasonal so that it can provide us with full-time, well paid rather than part-time, seasonal jobs. We have also tried to create a targeted and co-ordinated marketing campaign to drive up the number of visitors who will spend money in and bring economic benefits to our region.

There are three aspects in which the Government can assist the process. First, planning guidance must move away from considering only land use to examining all resources, so that decisions can be taken in the context of an economic environment. Individual planning applications should not be accepted without considering the total economic context that we want. One simple but rather silly example concerns the use of brown signs to promote attractions and direct people to them. It is an absolute minefield of bureaucracy and stupidity. For a couple of hundred pounds' worth of signs, we must go through an amazing plethora of decision making.

Secondly, hon. Members have mentioned rail delays when talking about infrastructure. There will be delays on roads, too, and we all accept that, but timing is crucial. Is it not possible to involve elected representatives in ensuring that when programmes are made for rail or road infrastructure improvements, they take into account the needs of the tourism industry, including their possible economic benefits? Even if it will cost a bit more to repair a certain bit of railway or road in a slightly prolonged programme, it is vital that we get the voice of tourism into the decision making. People will be turned off from coming down to the far southwest if they have to wait in long traffic jams or get off the train and on to a bus for an unplanned 20-mile bus ride.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

My third point concerns grants. I ask the Minister to examine diversification versus upgrading and the way in which grants are applied post-foot and mouth. A lot of money is going into diversification, but some of it is merely working against the strategy. We do not want a large number of extra farm tourism projects that might lower the overall quality. We have been driving up the quality to get the experience right. Upgrading is sometimes a better way of using that money. We want diversification in some, but not all, projects. Money invested in genuine upgrading is an essential part of trying to support the overall strategy. Some people have explained to me the tortuous process of trying to receive grant assistance. They produced huge business plans, only to be told that their project did not meet the criteria six months before. It is ludicrous to have objective 1, the Government office for the south west, tourism boards and everything else. The process must be more streamlined so that grants can be given quickly where they are needed.

Objective 1 covers Cornwall, and objective 2 covers part of Somerset. Our problem in Somerset is that we cannot match the necessary funding in order to take up the difference. Councils want to be able to market directly and to take steps to encourage tourism, but they cannot as they cannot match the funding. Will the Minister consider that problem in the light of foot and mouth disease? There could be more direct marketing under objective 2 if the funding could be matched.

It was obvious at a meeting with the regional development agency that it wanted to be the prime producer of marketing for tourism in the south-west. It cannot be, as the south-west is a diversified area. I admit that my constituency has little in common with Cornwall, Weymouth or anywhere else. It is unique. I hope that the Minister will continue to pressurise bodies such as the regional development agencies to target their money where it is required. Exmoor encourages many people to come to it, as do the Quantocks and the Levels. I will not even talk about the battle of Sedgemoor. We will encourage people to come much more if we can target the resources through the RDAs and keep out the regional assemblies.

It is a question not only of investing the money, but of the speed at which the response is required. During the foot and mouth crisis last year, organisations did not help people on Exmoor quickly enough.

I agree. I will excite the Minister even more, and I know that he will approve, as I will talk about Butlins. It is a tremendous place, and he should go there. Some 9,000 people a week gather in one place, and the repeat rate is almost 66 per cent. a year. Last year, Butlins had to produce videos and brochures, as the local council could not produce them during the foot and mouth crisis. It was let down by the people who said that they would promote tourism in the south-west, but did not. It was left to a major employer of 750 people—hon. Members may like to imagine what their national insurance bill will be this year—to make its own video for the council. Butlins is vital to areas such as mine. It is the largest employer by far, yet it receives almost no help to encourage people to come.

I also wonder about Taste of the West, which was trumpeted as an opportunity for producers to promote their food and drink products in an organisation that could foster the best of the west. What has happened to it? Where has it gone? Why are the regional development agencies not using it as a marketing tool to increase productivity and provide genuine reasons for people to come? Cream teas are synonymous with the south-west. What has happened to them? Why is there no marketing budget? Why are the Government not promoting schemes such as Taste of the West as a tool to encourage people to come to the south-west?

Direct marketing is the way forward. If we want to encourage people to come, we must target them specifically. We have 20p per head, unlike the Welsh and the Scots. There is palpable jealousy towards Wales, which my constituency overlooks, because of the money that is available to it, but not to us. Why cannot the Minister target that money through counties, if necessary, so that they can raise the profile of their areas and promote good tourist attractions, such as the battle of Sedgemoor or Monkey World? That would avoid having to go through the plethora of organisations. I suspect that the money will go where it is easier, such as to objective 1 areas such as Cornwall, and not to areas like ours which are rather unsexy because they are out on a limb in the middle of Somerset. Will the Minister think about it?

In view of the pressure of time, I will concentrate on the issues on which there has been broad agreement this morning. I should first like to take up the point that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) just made. The proportion per capita that is being invested in promoting this extremely important industry in England is a disgrace, but there is nothing new in that. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will recall that in the 1992–97 Parliament I tried to persuade the then Conservative Government to recognise that inequality. The discrepancy worsened during the course of that Parliament and is now, frankly, deplorable.

I agree with what has been said about the need to ensure that we get a quality product. I was at the Eden project this Monday and there were thousands of visitors. Although a great many of the projects that came out of the millennium have been far from satisfactory and disappointing—the dome was obviously at the forefront of that—the Eden project has been a triumphant success. It is firmly based on a good-quality product that is already in Cornwall. People do not come to Cornwall just for that project; they come for the whole Cornish experience. We have a brand in Cornwall that is saleable all over the world. If we can achieve that in other parts of the United Kingdom, we could make huge progress.

Order. I will let the hon. Member continue, but the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman will need to finish at ten minutes past 12.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), for co-operating on that.

I wanted to mention two other issues that have not attracted much attention this morning. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West mentioned VAT in passing, but the discrepancy between the cost of a holiday in the United Kingdom and the cost of a comparable holiday in continental Europe acts as a disincentive to people, not only to come to Britain, but to keep coming here. I, too, am a vice-president of the British Resorts Association. The work that was done for the industry to identify the effect of that discrepancy—again it was under the previous Tory Government—has never been properly addressed by the Treasury. It must be.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I do not have time.

It is a major problem and I hope that the Government will look at that issue again. It arises every time we have a discussion in my constituency.

The other issue, perhaps the word that dare not speak its name, is the euro. Every holiday business in my constituency, in the rest of Cornwall and throughout the south-west is suffering from the overvalued, uncompetitive pound. That problem must be addressed. Those who argue that it is giving way to the euro and that Britain should never enter the euro, should recognise that the euro has already entered Britain. It is part of our national economy now. It is a major factor. It affects this industry and the farming and fishing industries to an extent that is almost impossible to calculate. It is the biggest single problem that the industry now faces.

Something has to be done, both to enable the industry to compete more effectively—that means that the value of the pound must be addressed—and to prepare it if, in due course, we find ourselves going into the eurozone. Already the enterprising businesses in this industry are catering for the euro, but they are not best helped by the way in which the Government drag their heels on the wider issue. I am grateful for the brief opportunity to contribute to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me that time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on securing this debate on an important subject at a crucial time for the industry. The season has begun and we can see whether tourism across the whole of the south-west will improve, following the difficulties that it faced last year.

I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman gave a number of reasons not to visit Bournemouth—its mediaeval cart tracks and other problems.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I am sure that representatives of the tourism industry will want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his efforts in that respect. Had he chosen a less combative approach he might have—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Yes.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned me, and my constituency. I did not say that Bournemouth had cart tracks; I said that the roads that went from Bournemouth to the north and to the west were no better than cart tracks and I asked for them to be improved.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to put the record straight as far as he is concerned. In advancing his arguments, he must be careful not to dissuade people from going to Bournemouth. His approach to the issue should be less combative.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not give way. I will make some headway. I have little time left.

We need to identify the many shared interests in planning for a more effective tourism industry in the south-west. People have been talking about the foot and mouth disease that has affected the region; humans are suffering from benefit of hindsight disease, the symptoms of which are a brass neck and short-term memory loss. We heard a litany of failure on the subject of Railtrack, VAT on accommodation, lack of investment in roads and the funding formula for tourism authorities, but the seeds of those problems were sewn by the previous Conservative Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) as he has not spoken.

The Kingkerswell bypass—the essential link between Torbay, the third largest tourist resort in the country, and the rest of the UK—would have been built by now if the previous Government had not detrunked it in 1996.

My hon. Friend is right. In view of earlier comments, it is fair that he should have the opportunity to put the record straight.

The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) made some helpful points. He said that he was hurt to be described as a Wessex regionalist, but he should not be worried about that. I agree with his fundamental point: as far as marketing is concerned, the south-west is an artificial administrative construct. In tourism terms, places, not artificial constructs, should have a brand. Any additional funding to tourism outside Scotland and Wales should be directed to places that have a clear identity, whether they be in Wessex, Cornwall or elsewhere, and should be used to market those places effectively. Opportunities for joint marketing in a wider area should, of course, be encouraged but such opportunities should enable places to become involved; they should not be cajoled or forced into joint marketing.

Branding will provide a good opportunity to integrate tourism and other sectors, which the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) wanted to encourage. Objective 1 in Cornwall will provide an opportunity to establish a clear Cornish brand. People who have enjoyed their holidays in Cornwall will after returning home be able to find products from Cornwall on their supermarket shelves.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall rightly said that we should be careful that public funds do not result simply in more diversification and thereby saturate the market. The Government cannot simply shift the problems of farming on to tourism; they must be addressed in farming.

My hon. Friend also referred to infrastructure. In a debate in January, I took up the prospective closure of the Albert bridge at Easter. At that stage, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), said that it was wrong that Railtrack had consulted only within the industry and not with tourism agencies and commercial and other passenger users. We were told that something would be done about that, but now we face the closure of the rail service between Exeter and Plymouth every weekend in May. There will be further road closures throughout and beyond May. The Minister must take on board the need for Government agencies to consult more widely.

I remind colleagues of my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on securing this debate on tourism. I look forward to visiting Bournemouth in September and October.

We last debated tourism in Westminster Hall in November, when coincidentally we also focused on tourism in the south-west. Perhaps it is not entirely coincidental that we are concentrating on south-west England again, because tourism is a major industry in that region and its tourism businesses were badly hit by the foot and mouth crisis. Geographically, the southwest is one of England's largest regions. A huge diversity of potentially enjoyable visitor experiences is on offer in Britain as a whole.

As my hon. Friend said, the south-west enjoys a long and scenically beautiful coastline, as a result of which many tourism businesses depend on the seaside resorts and visits to the seaside for their prosperity. Those seaside resorts face some of the greatest difficulties in attracting and retaining long-stay visitors and in adapting to the changing pattern of leisure and holidays in recent times. As my hon. Friend reminded us, the future success of the tourism industry in many seaside resorts such as Bournemouth depends on the support given to tourism by local authorities and the ability of local government and other agencies, including the RDAs, local tourist associations and chambers of commerce, to attract and secure funding for regeneration, to improve the infrastructure, such as transport and the provision of car parking, and to provide better facilities and enhanced amenities.

My hon. Friend rightly said that this year's local government settlement for seaside resorts has been disgraceful. I can report that Scarborough, which is partly in my constituency—part of the borough includes the seaside resort of Filey—has had a desperately poor settlement. The Government must address that issue if they are serious about wanting to support tourism in seaside resorts.

I visited Bournemouth in autumn 2000 and I commend the efforts of the local council to boost tourism in the area. We cannot assume that even a resort such as Bournemouth, which is one of the most popular and prestigious, will for ever retain its leading position. It is essential to continue new investment to make the town and surrounding area more attractive and to help businesses modernise and improve accommodation facilities. This is as much an issue for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and the support that it gives to local authorities, as it is for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with its responsibility as the sponsoring Department for the tourism and leisure industry as a whole.

Since last November's debate, I have also had the chance to spend time visiting many other parts of the south-west, where I have met people from businesses large and small: from small farm guest houses through seaside and historic city centre hotels to major theme parks. I was in Devon in March, visiting Dartmouth, Totnes and Exeter. I also spent an enjoyable morning on Dartmoor, for which I am grateful to Mr. Malcolm Bell, the chief executive of South West Tourism. I commend him and his staff for all that they have done to promote tourism in the south-west during the difficulties of recent times.

Several issues emerged during my visits, some of which I shall raise with the Minister. I was struck by the tremendous resilience of the people working in the tourism industry, especially those running their own businesses. The year 2001 was not a good year, but they are keen to make progress in 2002. They do not ask for favours, although they think that the Government could do more to help. National insurance contribution increases will not do that, as the chairman of Tourism Alliance said in a letter to hon. Members dated 26 April. It was suggested that the NIC increase will cost £250 million to tourism businesses throughout Britain next year.

The tourism industry is worried that the Government have no apparent strategy to deal with a further outbreak of foot and mouth. It is keen to promote self-help and to do the best for itself. I commend the Dartmoor Tourist Association and others in south Hampshire for their work to improve the quality of destinations, hotels, guest houses and other attractions and for their promotion of literature. The association is keen to improve quality. One of the paradoxes of the money that got through to tourism businesses following the outbreak of the foot and mouth crisis was that they were able to improve facilities. As one guest house proprietor in Dartmoor said, "We have this wonderful new facility. We are all up to date. We have refurbished, but we have no customers." That is the key issue.

The tourism industry is keen to invest in training, and it would like more money to be made available for training. It wants to ensure that some of the attractions that have been supported and created by the private sector do not lose their customers to the many other attractions that have received substantial public subsidy through the lottery, such as the Eden project to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred. I hope that, in the years ahead, we can help businesses throughout the sector with lottery money, especially for heritage.

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of training, I hope that he shares my hope that the Government will, in future schemes, do better than they did with individual learning accounts, which have been so comprehensively criticised.

My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. The tourism industry wants more patronage, and that brings me to marketing. Last November when we discussed such matters in Westminster Hall, the Minister had the courage to admit that the Government had not taken the industry seriously enough and were wrong to remove the marketing role from the English Tourism Council. I remind the hon. Members for North Cornwall and for St. Ives (Andrew George) that, under the Conservatives, the old English Tourist Board had a marketing function. This Government removed it from the English Tourism Council.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I do not have time.

But the hon. Gentleman named me by constituency.

I know, but I am only reacting to what has been said. I am slightly surprised that the Liberal Democrat spokesman has not restated what I understood was Liberal Democrat policy, which was to call for the English Tourism Council to be given a marketing function. Over the past six months, there have been encouraging suggestions. I believe that the Minister and the Secretary of State are trying hard to convince colleagues in the Government that that is the way forward. I hope that the Minister will have something more to say about it today. Everyone in tourism believes that we need a national marketing strategy for England—even in remote parts, such as Dartmoor. Regional promotion has its place. It is important, but regional government is not the answer.

It was suggested in the Financial Times today that the Government may be publishing a White Paper about regionalism this Friday, when the House is not sitting. It is a serious matter and the Government must recognise that what is needed is not a competition between different regions of Britain for the same customers, but a strategic marketing strategy to persuade more domestic tourists to take holidays, short breaks, leisure breaks and so on in this country. Since last November's debate, Tourism Alliance, which the Minister can take some pride in having launched, has published its report, and I welcome it. One of the key conclusions is that we must give the English Tourism Council a strategic marketing role.

The vast majority of tourism businesses in south-west England, and the rest of the country, depend on the domestic market for most of their visitors. As Tourism Alliance said, £4 of every £5 spent in our tourism businesses comes from the domestic market. The alliance suggests that we increase the value of domestic tourism by at least 1 per cent. above the rate of growth in consumer expenditure. That is a challenging objective, and it will not be achieved unless the English Tourism Council has a marketing function. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on inspiring an interesting debate. It is great to see half the Conservative party on either side of him. I have never seen such enthusiasm for a debate of this sort. That is good news. We have little time, but I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been asked.

I agree with almost every word that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said. The lack of a marketing role was a mistake, and that was exposed when there was a downturn in the American economy, then foot and mouth, and then the events of 11 September. We have got to sort out the marketing role, and some interesting suggestions have been made about how we might take marketing forward.

We must not forget that Bournemouth is a great success story for tourism. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said, it generates an enormous amount of revenue and employs many people. I think that I am right in saying that tourism brings £500 million to Bournemouth—a tremendous amount—and employs some 20,000. He is right to point out that Bournemouth is peculiar in terms of its geography. I hope that he does not mind me saying so. Several hon. Members pointed out that people go to a place to visit attractions, or perhaps because they want to explore it. They do not go because it lies within an artificial administrative configuration, but for lots of other reasons, and the hon. Gentleman's colleagues have made some of them obvious.

Many of those attractions are signposted by brown tourism signs. I have already raised with other Ministers my concern that the Highways Agency has said that it would like fewer such signs. I thoroughly disapprove of that, and hope that the Minister will use his influence with the Highways Agency to ensure that it does not take action on the matter, because many small rural businesses and attractions will lose out if it does.

I assure the hon. Lady that we are trying to punch our weight in such debates. I think that there is too much road signage, but that is not a matter for this debate. We must be rational on the matter, but we must not lose the benefit that brown signs can bring to tourist attractions, especially in areas where there are no other industries, or in rural areas with no obvious tourist attractions. We need to be guided to hidden attractions. The hon. Lady is right, and we shall certainly play our part in the debate.

The hon. Member for Ryedale will be interested to hear me admit that I have taken my model for how to take tourism forwards from the south-west. There were shortcomings in every part of the country in the way that help was given during and after the foot and mouth scourge. Despite those shortcomings, the south-west acted well. South West Tourism, with John Boston and Martin Bell, has provided us with a working model, along with the regional development agency and all the private practitioners in tourism in that area. We must look hard at that, because it points the way forward.

I have travelled all around this country looking at tourism projects and the way in which public funding tries to help them, and I think that the most successful area is the south-west.

The Minister has visited Percy's hotel at Virginstow in my constituency, and he has seen the importance of training for excellence. We would benefit from seeing more of that help—training for excellence—throughout the far south-west.

Indeed.

The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) raised the important issue of training. I am sure that he did not mean to give the impression that it is all right to carry on using people who do not mind having low wages and unsocial hours—I think that that was the way that he put it. I do not know anyone who does not mind having a low wage.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not give way. If the hon. Gentleman will sit down, he will find out that I am just about to praise him.

It is important that we understand what makes a success story such as Percy's hotel. It is a magnificent hotel: it is in the middle of countryside; it is a great project altogether, and there are great plans for it. Such a success story depends on notions of quality. That point has been highlighted by hon. Members of all parties. It is important that we increase skills and quality, and we cannot do that on the cheap.

I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger). As I understood it, he suggested that the money should be targeted at people who know the attractions of their areas, so that they can market them better. I have a lot of sympathy for that view. However, as the hon. Member for Ryedale pointed out, there is also a vital need for generic marketing, for the marketing of England, and that must be on a par with the way in which the Scots and the Welsh market their countries. What is interesting about the examples of Scotland and Wales is that those devolved Administrations have understood the enormous economic driving power of tourism, so they have put it right in the middle of economic development—not on the periphery, but in the middle of it.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not give way at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as I must continue.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) was right to draw hon. Members' attention to the attraction of the Jurassic coast. It is a world heritage site. That is a tremendous achievement.

My hon. Friend also talked about quality—that point was made by hon. Members of all parties. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West knows better than I do that we may attract 5 million visitors to Bournemouth, but if the quality of the product is not good enough, they will not return, because this is one of the most competitive industries. However, I must tell him that every time I have visited Bournemouth, I have had a good holiday. Generally, it offers high quality, but that is not the case with regard to a lot of resorts.

I commend those who have made the point that we must take resorts far more seriously than we have done. We should take a look at the success story that is Bournemouth. I think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West will admit that it has been a great partnership venture: all sorts of people have been involved in it. They have had to overcome difficulties, but they have been very good at marketing the wonderful spot that Bournemouth occupies, its visual beauty, its nearness to the New forest and to a wonderful heritage coastline

Will the Minister give way?

I am sorry, but I will not.

We can learn from Bournemouth, because it is realising that it has a symbiotic relationship with the New forest, and it is marketing itself not simply as a tourist resort, but as a gateway to a very beautiful hinterland. That is the way forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) talked about the almost hybrid situation that her constituency finds itself in with the tourism industry. It is realising that it has some tremendous niche markets to exploit. It was a joy to stay at the St. Briavel's youth hostel. I could not believe that it was a youth hostel when I walked in and discovered that there were carpets on the floor. That was completely alien to my experience, but it was very nice to be there.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West on drawing attention to this major issue. Any industry that generates £75 billion of revenue for this country every year is important. We have managed to get £20 million out of the Treasury to market Britain this year. We have never had such sums for marketing and that is cause for celebration.

Order. Time is up.

Obviously, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the future of sub-post offices in Birkenhead. As the Minister knows, I want to look to the future rather than dwelling in the past. No sub-post offices in urban areas will be saved by looking to the past.

I shall make three comments about how the debate has shaped up in the past to allow us to begin to understand why there is real concern in Birkenhead about the future of our dozen or so sub-post offices. My first comment is about the quality of the Post Office Board in the past. The Government have started to get a grip on that, but I placed it on the record that during the short period when I was the Minister responsible for the benefit card, I was so appalled by the quality of the Post Office Board that I asked officials whether the whole board could be sacked. Sadly, that advice was not followed: consequently, taxpayers are contributing considerable sums and much of our post office network is under threat.

I am pleased to place it on the record that the Government are acting decisively on the quality of the Post Office Board and the business plans that it proposes. The previous business plan was a suicide note for sub-post offices throughout urban areas of the country.

My second point of concern is that prior to the 1997 election, all Labour Members rightly hammered the Tory Government on the rate of closures of sub-post offices. I know that the Government must be enormously worried that the rate of closure is now greater than under that Conservative Administration.

indicated dissent.

The Minister shakes his head and I am sure that he will come back to me on that. We can put his figures to the Library—it provided me with the data.

My third reason for concern, but also for hope, relates to the Prime Minister's comments during a speech in Croydon prior to last year's election. He tried to establish the idea of liveability for the spaces in which we and our constituents live. I shall cite a paragraph of that speech because it sets the tone of our debate. The Prime Minister said:

"We also need stronger local communities and an improved local quality of life. Streets where parents feel safe to let their children walk to school. Where people want to use the parks. Where graffiti, vandalism, litter and dereliction are not tolerated. Where the environment in which we live fosters rather than alienates a sense of local community and mutual responsibility."

The point is that in Birkenhead, as in many of our urban areas, the Prime Minister's objective will not be achievable if there is a further round of massive closures of sub-post offices.

At the end of the debate, it will give me pleasure to present the Minister with a petition signed by 3,000 people who use a sub-post office in the Oxton area of Birkenhead. The petition was organised at almost the drop of a hat by Mary Powell, who is the sub- postmistress of that area. My guess is that when I am in Birkenhead tomorrow she will give me another pile of signatures, so strong is local feeling in the town about the potential loss of any of our dozen or so sub-post offices. I hope that the Minister will accept the petition as a sign of the genuine anxiety that our local voters have about the provision of post office services.

That anxiety is also noticeable in the polls. I am grateful to Living Streets for drawing my attention to the flipside of the data. If people are asked, "What are the big issues facing the country?" they talk about the national health service, schools and—perhaps less, because of our success—the economy. However, if they are asked the similar question, "What are the big issues that affect you?" they talk about their local community and what affects it, whether it is safe and the importance of local services. When asked about local services, they cite whether it is easy to get to, or possible to walk to, the local doctor's surgery or library and, above all, whether the post office, which they believe to be a crucial part of a viable living space, is in walking distance.

I hope that an objective of the debate is to push up the Government's agenda the findings from such polls. Although it is important to ask about the big national issues that affect voters, in the age of, sadly, the alienation of voters we need to pay a great deal of attention to what they regard as the big issues that they face locally.

My third point in explaining why sub-post offices are so important to viable local communities is that, just as Governments are, I think, realising that it is not possible to have happy families if the economy does not pay family wages that support a family with children, so it is not possible to have safe and strong communities if the essential services of those communities are ripped out. I do not believe that the Government's entirely genuine commitment to building up strong communities is consistent with what I fear might be the policy of another wave a significant wave—of the closure of sub-post offices.

This debate looks to the future. In a moment, I shall ask for the Minister's help in looking to the future and making it more secure for our sub-post offices, thereby making our local communities stronger. The debate has centred on Birkenhead but my guess is that we could talk about any of our inner-city areas. What I say about Birkenhead is true of them, too.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on raising the issue of Birkenhead in particular. Does he agree that this is a serious problem for all our urban areas and that all our communities, as represented in the House, are affected by closures? Is he worried about the important role that post offices play in the lives of our pensioners? Is he worried about how the Government are increasingly moving towards making—although they say that there will be a choice—pensioners not use the post office to collect their pension? Does he agree that many pensioners will be extremely worried if they have to deal with a bank?

Those comments are so relevant to what I want to say that innocent passers-by might even believe that there was collusion between the two of us. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is an issue for pensioners, as I shall emphasise in a moment. However, it was noticeable when Mary Powell brought people together to greet me to present the petition for the Minister that not only local businesses, such as the barber, the chemist and the charity shop, but a huge number of mothers were present. I had to comment that, sadly, if the Labour party had called that meeting, very few people would have been there. The sub-post office called the meeting, and the street was full of people who were interested in the issue.

I shall pose two questions to the Minister. First, can he recall whether progress has been made on the introduction of the universal bank? Yesterday, I saw in the press that the person brought into the Post Office to spearhead the introduction of the universal bank was leaving. Is that good or bad news? Secondly, the Government—quite rightly—know that some sub-post offices will have to close; it would be foolish to think that we can keep every one open. However, the network reinvention programme is key to the survival of more, rather than fewer, of those sub-post offices. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister, either in debate or in correspondence, could report progress on that programme.

I ask the Minister for help on four matters. The first touches on an issue raised by my right hon. Friend—I am sorry, my hon. Friend; she should be right hon., and will be soon no doubt—the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). She mentioned the changeover from books to automated credit transfer payments. My worry is that the Department for Work and Pensions will consider the changeover an opportunity to make massive savings in its budget. Pensioners and others who draw their income over the counter in cash may be pushed into using a bank account.

I fear that when the changeover comes people will be asked about their banking arrangements, and that if they wish to continue to draw cash over the post office counter they will have to ask for an interview to explain and justify that choice. Will the Minister give an assurance that those who currently draw cash will be encouraged to continue that practice?

Secondly, will the Minister take up my comments about the fear that the Department for Work and Pensions may try to push people into the banking system when they would prefer arrangements similar to those that they already have? Thirdly—this was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall—will the Government ask the National Audit Office to undertake a study on the real total costs to local communities of closures of sub-post offices? What are the extra costs in fares and in home helps, who have to cover greater distances to post offices to draw money for some of their customers? Who looks after the children when those journeys are being made, and what is the cost of that?

What is the cost to the national health service of people feeling more isolated and depressed and going to the doctor's to get anti-depressants? That clearly relates to the point that my hon. Friend made about post offices playing a social role. People turn up and meet one another, and so become the eyes and ears of the local police force. They help to police an area. Also, where there are viable local sub-post offices there are other viable local shops, and where there are such shops there are people shopping, watching and listening. That is the basis for a proper community.

If we remove the sub-post office, we make other businesses vulnerable. We all know the problems caused by vandals when businesses close and shops become derelict. Will the Government consider being the first Government to ask the National Audit Office to do a proper costing of the closure of a sub-post office to a local community?

Fourthly, will the Minister refer this debate to Lord Falconer, who co-ordinates the group on liveability, which the Prime Minister established? Will he also forward a request for the National Audit Office to carry out a proper, comprehensive costing of what losing a sub-post office means to a community?

Those are the points that I wanted to make. While sounding a note of caution, I wanted to look to the future. The dozen or so sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in Birkenhead do not believe that they will secure their futures merely by looking to the past. In looking to the future, however, they recall the clear statements that we made before we were elected in 1997 about the importance of sub-post offices to the viability and life of local communities. In the quarter of an hour that remains, I hope that the Minister will look to the future in a positive way. What he says will be followed closely not only by sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in Birkenhead, but by those elsewhere, who know that his words affect their futures, too.

I am immensely grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, for allowing me to introduce this debate.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing this debate and on the courteous and coherent way in which he presented his arguments. I believe that his strong support for the post office network and his concerns for its future are shared by the whole House.

My right hon. Friend has taken a particular interest in this subject because of the social role that sub-post offices play in the communities that they serve. As a distinguished former Social Security Minister and an author, he knows better than anyone the issues that affect poorer claimants in deprived communities and the vital need for such people to have local resources such as sub-post offices.

I have just returned from a ministerial visit to the north-west, during which I toured small businesses and came close to my right hon. Friend's constituency. I have been greatly heartened over the past two days to see a revitalised economy and low rates of unemployment. Those developments will allow us to concentrate our energies on areas that have not quite caught up and to which we need to devote resources.

My right hon. Friend made several thoughtful points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and I shall respond in some detail. I wholly endorse my right hon. Friend's view that we need a viable network of post offices to serve the needs of every community. I applaud his efforts and those of his constituents in collecting 19,000 signatures in support of Oxton village post office, and I am sure that such customer loyalty will guarantee its commercial success. I hope that the same is true of other post offices, whose customers are rallying behind them. I also endorse my right hon. Friend's stress on the need to maintain a network of sub-post offices to meet the needs of customers who depend on them for ease of access to their pensions, benefits and many other services.

I agree that post offices provide a focal point for their communities: indeed, the sub-post office network plays a vital role in society. Many of the vulnerable and the elderly rely on the sub-post office to deliver services to them, and it is a convenient place for the community to access Government services, financial products and, of course, postal services. It is much more than just a retail outlet, particularly in rural areas, although it also plays a vital role in urban areas. I should also stress that it is a public service.

Local sub-post offices provide vital human contact for many of their customers, serving 28 million people every week. They are a trusted point of contact with government services and a wide range of other services, and I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in placing on the record our thanks to the dedicated service that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses perform. As hon. Members know, sub post offices are a vital part of the social and financial fabric of the country. I know that everyone—Post Office Ltd., sub postmasters and sub-postmistresses and post office customers wants the post office network to survive and, better than that, to thrive in the 21st century.

My right hon. Friend focused on two areas and asked me to consider four other important matters. In particular, he asked about the network urban reinvention programme. This debate is about urban post offices in particular, and I know that my right hon. Friend will share my pleasure that there have been only five net closures in the north-west in the year to March, leaving 1,848 local post offices and sub-post offices delivering an excellent service. Although I do not want to trade figures—and I know that my right hon. Friend will diligently check the figures with the Library—the latest figures for the country as a whole show that his area heads the league tables for the number of post offices retained. That is important, but in the past year the number of closures totalled 262. That is all very regrettable, but in 1991–92, 478 post offices closed, and I was shaking my head because there has been a decline, rather than an acceleration, in closures. We need to take on board my right hon. Friend's comments, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and other hon. Members, to ensure that post offices have a viable future.

In respect of urban reinvention, in the year 2000 the Cabinet Office carried out a detailed study of the future of the post office network and made 24 recommendations. In the subsequent comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor allocated £270 million to start implementing the key recommendations. That has been the subject of extensive consultation with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. Following that consultation, letters were sent out last month, inviting the views of every urban sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress. Detailed discussions with each one of them are now being held, which will be followed by a public consultation. There will also be detailed public consultations on each restructuring proposal. I can confirm to the House that that will involve hon. Members, local authorities, Postwatch, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and other relevant bodies. The objective of Post Office Ltd. for the urban network is clear. It is tasked with establishing better, brighter post offices as viable businesses that deliver adequate returns to sub-postmasters and a full service in their communities. Extensive work is being undertaken to determine how best the urban network should adapt to commercial changes in the marketplace and how funding should be structured to assist in that. In some areas there are up to 10 post offices in a square mile, often located within a few hundred yards of one another. Nationally, some two thirds of the urban population, perhaps some 30 million people, live within half a mile of two or more sub-post offices. I welcome the realistic note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead injected into the debate when he said that it would be foolish to think that we could keep every post office open.

It is important to recognise that the programme on which we are embarking has the full support of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. I am grateful to Colin Baker, its general secretary, for regarding the talk of mass closures as scaremongering and wide of the mark. Regarding his criticisms of those who criticise the industry for being out of date and in decline, I take to heart the advice that my right hon. Friend gave some years ago about the quality of management in the Post Office. However, I am delighted by the quality of the managers whom we have brought in. These include David Mills, who has great plc expertise gained at HSBC, and Alan Leighton, who is one of the most successful retail entrepreneurs ever seen in this country and has the practical background and great leadership qualities that are needed to enable the Post Office to turn the corner.

On universal banking, I welcome the support that my right hon. Friend has given to the general principle of the automation of benefit payments to tackle fraud and reduce unnecessary administrative costs. Some of that money has probably found its way, although not hypothecated, to the good things that have been done for claimants, such as the minimum income guarantee for senior citizens and the rises in child benefit—but we could have a separate debate on that.

Hon. Members do not need to be reminded that the number of people choosing to have their pensions and allowances paid into their bank account has risen from 23 per cent. to 41 per cent. in the seven years since 1994. More than 80 per cent. of recipients have bank accounts. However, we must ensure that the remaining recipients are not penalised because of the measure. That must be taken into account in the move to paying all benefits direct into bank accounts via the existing automated credit transfer system, which is due to start in 2003 and be completed in 2005.

The Department for Work and Pensions' agencies will continue, up to that time, to provide customers with the information that they need on benefit payment options. On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I assure right hon. and hon. Members that there can be no compulsion—no one can be called in to be bullied. That would cause great resentment and would not go unnoticed in the House.

The Post Office Ltd. is rightly seeking to extend its existing network banking arrangements to more high street banks and to offer a wider range of services to customers. I hope that that will allow as many people as wish to to take advantage of that, and that the transitional and other arrangements will be adequate. I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead if he would like more detail on that, but time is too short to cover it in more detail now.

My right hon. Friend also asked about the possibility of the National Audit Office's undertaking a study of the impact of closures on local communities. As a recently discharged member of the Public Accounts Committee, I support and endorse the excellent work done at the National Audit Office by Sir John Bourn and his team. He is always keen to receive the views of right hon. and hon. Members on possible future National Audit Office investigations and I know that he will pay close attention to any representations from such a distinguished, honourable colleague.

However, my right hon. Friend will know that Sir John acts independently of Ministers. He does not take instruction from us about topics that may be suitable for further investigation, but he is always willing to give the closest consideration to suggestions such as those made by my right hon. Friend.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing Members' attention to the Prime Minister's excellent speech in Croydon. The Prime Minister spoke for us all when he stressed the need for stronger local communities and an improved local quality of life. My right hon. Friend quoted line 6 of that speech. I shall quote line 18:

"Indeed, one of the failings of Thatcherism was to misunderstand how 'public goods' such as clean, safe and attractive streets and public spaces need investment alongside growing private affluence."

Perhaps we can add post offices to that list.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), reported the most recent developments to the House last week. I shall ensure that she and Lord Falconer are aware of the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. I commend him again for raising this important subject, which is of interest to every hon. Member.

This is a welcome opportunity to discuss endangered species. That the Minister for the Environment is replying to the debate is especially welcome, as, judging by his utterances in this House and elsewhere, he may agree with much of what I say. I hope that he will communicate his enthusiasm to other Ministers who may be more reticent about the subject.

There is no more heinous crime than to stand by and watch the extinction of a species. It is estimated that species are disappearing at 1,000 times the background rate. That is a terrible indictment of the human race: we are in the dock, and any court would find us guilty of causing that massive increase in the disappearance rate. It has been said that forests precede man and deserts follow him. That is a sad truth, as we can see when we look around the world. Bearing in mind how long the planet has existed, we must accept that in the past 200 years, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we have done untold damage to our natural environment. That damage is occurring at a rate that cannot be sustained; it must be halted and, if possible, reversed.

The Born Free Foundation, an organisation for which I have tremendous admiration, states that there are 2,155 critically endangered species in the world. Cautious estimates from other sources suggest that 20,000 species a year are disappearing—about two an hour, which means that, by the time that the Minister and I have finished speaking, another species will have become extinct.

Among the species at risk are Californian condors, of which there are only 120 left in the world, and Cross River gorillas, of which there are 200. The Majorcan midwife toad is Europe's most endangered species. The Minister may have seen articles in the press about the potential disappearance of the lynx from Portugal and Spain; there is a real prospect of that happening in the next three or four years. Species such as the black-footed ferret are alive only in captivity. Of cuddly animals—although tigers may not count as such—it is estimated that there are only around 400 Siberian tigers left, 40 to 50 of the South China tiger and 400 of the Sumatran tiger. The Caspian, Java and Bali tigers are all thought to be extinct.

That is a terrible indictment of the human race. If any hon. Member feels that the problem exists only in other parts of the world, let us reflect that in the United Kingdom alone, 134 species became extinct during the last century. We have our own work to do in our country. I find appalling the way in which the human race acts towards other species and the environment as a whole. When I lived in Beddingham in Sussex opposite the Mount Caburn national nature reserve, it was a delight to see a carpet of trumpet daffodils and other species of daffodil covering the hillside each spring. One day—literally one day—someone came and cleared the whole lot off, and they have not been seen since. The activities of one person can have a dramatic effect on our environment and on species propagation.

Why does it matter? A Christian would say that we have stewardship of the planet and therefore a duty to look after it. Those of a more Gaian propensity would say that we must coexist in harmony with all species, and that what happens to one species affects another. Everything is connected to everything else—I think that Lenin said that, and in an earlier incarnation the Minister may have been familiar with the quote. I do not think that Lenin was thinking about the environment, but it is an appropriate saying to introduce into the debate. Respect for humans and for animals is interlinked. A person who does not respect animal life probably does not respect human life. The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals has done some interesting work to demonstrate that those who are cavalier with animals tend to be cavalier towards children—and with human life in general.

Respect for the environment matters from a selfish point of view, because untold benefits that could help mankind can be derived from the natural world, and we are in danger of losing them if the loss of species continues at the current rate. How many medical benefits could be obtained from rain forests in Brazil and elsewhere? Many have already been identified, but many others will be lost as species become extinct. It is a crime that, for profit and gain and regardless of the consequences, some people are destroying everything in their sight in the tropical rain forests, simply to reach two or three trees many miles inside the forest. They want only to realise the value of a few trees, but we lose everything else in the process. We all have a duty to do what we can to bring a more responsible attitude to bear among human beings and improve the way in which we human beings deal with our environment and other species.

I have identified a number of problems. Ministers are well aware of the issue of climate change and carbon dioxide emissions, and I pay tribute to the Government for the work that they have done in that respect, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister and others for identifying the problem and for committing themselves to achieving significant and real carbon dioxide reductions. The attitude of the Government and of the European Union generally contrasts markedly with that of the United States of America. Like most hon. Members, I am appalled that the USA has repeatedly repudiated the Kyoto protocol on climate change and given in to the big guns of the US oil industry. That short-term political gain will cause long-term human loss. The USA should be ashamed of itself.

I understand that by 2010, global carbon dioxide levels are expected to have risen by 31 per cent. since 1990, which contrasts with the 7 per cent. drop that we envisage. Will the Minister confirm that figure? I hope that he will tell me that it is wrong, because such a figure, if correct, would be horrendous. Other statistics make it clear that global warming is happening and that it is affecting species. The world was warmer in the first three months of this year than at any time in the past 1,000 years. The 1990s were the hottest decade of the last millennium. One consequence of that is that species are having to adapt to fast-changing temperatures—a rise in temperature far beyond what nature would normally generate, and way beyond what species can necessarily cope with.

Climate change on its own could lead to the extinction of certain species. Some countries such as Russia, Canada, Norway, Sweden and the Arctic countries are likely to lose as much as 45 per cent. of their habitat. As many as 20 per cent. of species could be lost in the most vulnerable Arctic ecosystems: for example, it is expected that snowy owls in Canada will lose up to 60 per cent. of their habitat. In Russia, spoonbilled sandpipers, the red-breasted goose, the emperor goose, the tundra goose, the bean goose and others are under threat for the same reasons. Other natural organisms, such as coral reefs, will also be affected. Warming oceans are killing sources of food from plankton to the polar bear. We may not be terribly familiar with it, but the humble plankton is a key to the whole ecosystem and we disregard what is happening to it.

The problem is global and it can be dealt with only globally. I recognise the efforts that the Government are making, but they need to find a way with other partners to do more. It is not sufficient for one country—or even half a dozen—to pound the drum. We need to deal with the matter internationally, and if countries such as the United States opt out of key protocols, we are in difficulties.

The second issue that concerns me is the trade in endangered species in the United Kingdom. For example, 88 per cent. of parrots imported into the country are caught in the wild. That is improper and unsustainable. We have a recognised problem, in that UK Customs dealt with 570 wildlife items every day last year. That is a huge number. We hear all the stories in the newspapers about bushmeat coming in. Few planes are checked, yet illegally imported meat is found nearly every time a check takes place. We need to increase the number of customs officers who deal with checks on the trade in endangered species.

Wildlife smuggling is thought to be worth £3.7 billion a year, which makes it second to only the drugs trade in terms of profitability. Between 1996 and 2000, more than 1 million wildlife items were seized in the UK by Customs and Excise. The trade is gigantic and unethical and we must deal with it. I understand that under UK law criminals can be arrested for importing or exporting illegal wildlife products, but not for trading in them. If that is true—the Minister will correct me if it is not—that loophole needs to be closed.

On 10 April, I asked a parliamentary question about prosecutions since 1997 under legislation on the control of trade in endangered species. In 1997, there were 495 seizures but no one was successfully prosecuted. In 1998, there were 498 seizures and no one successfully prosecuted. In 1999, 336 seizures took place, but no one was successfully prosecuted. In 2000, there were 441 seizures and only one person was successfully prosecuted. In 2001, 434 seizures were made, and two people were successfully prosecuted. I hope that the Minister will not say that those figures, having gone from nought to two over that period, are improving. Something- is wrong with a system in which so many seizures can be made and so few people successfully prosecuted.

Under the legislation, although the maximum prison sentence is two years, offences are non-arrestable. The police therefore cannot caution people involved in such crimes. Suspects can be invited for questioning at a police station, but they can refuse, and the police have no power of entry without a warrant. When offenders are caught, they are given minimal fines and rarely sentenced to any terms in prison. For example, a company was fined only £1,500 for possessing 138 shawls made from the fleeces of slaughtered Tibetan antelope, which the Minister will recognise is a highly endangered species. The shawls were worth more than £350,000 and estimated to represent 2 per cent. of the entire species. Although more than 1,000 antelope were killed to make the shawls, the result was fines equivalent to only £10.87 a shawl, despite the fact that each shawl would sell for between £3,000 and £12,000. What incentive is there in that for people to abandon the trade? They are unlikely to be stopped or caught and, even if they are prosecuted successfully, they are unlikely to be fined significantly.

I refer the Minister to David Cowdrey, the WWF campaign director on wildlife trade, who said:

"We are losing the fight against wildlife crime in the UK. The unfortunate reality is that low penalties and lack of resources for detection mean that most criminals get away scot-free. Prosecutions are infrequent, court fines are low, this has to change."

The Government can do something about that, so I look to the Minister for an assurance that he will take action.

We must also consider inappropriate use of natural resources such as overfishing and whaling. Stocks of once popular North sea species such as cod have plummeted, and fishing for them is subject to strict controls. Overfishing is a misuse of our environment. Our approach to fisheries is not sustainable, and is symptomatic of how we deal with our natural resources generally. After decades of protection, seven of the 13 great whale species are still endangered or vulnerable, yet thanks to the exploits of Japan and Norway, more than 1,000 whales are killed each year for the commercial market.

I do not have time to go into that subject in great detail, but I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Japan clearly seems to be spending its way into legalised whaling. It is known to have spent $275.7 million on support for countries that will vote with it in the International Whaling Commission. Japan's fisheries aid grants to five Caribbean countries—Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines—between 1987 and 1999 totalled $100 million. The Solomon Islands got £10 million from Japan over a six year period. Morocco received $45 million from Japan: as the Minister may know, Morocco was an observer at the IWC between 1994 and 2000; it joined in 2001 and voted with Japan. Japan gave $7.5 million aid to Guinea in 1998: Guinea joined the IWC in 2000 and voted with Japan. This is about vote buying by the Japanese in order to legalise whaling. The Minister and his colleagues have been resolute in their opposition to whaling and the Minister with responsibility for fisheries has done a splendid job, but we have to deal with a situation in which Japan is buying votes in order to bring back whaling.

We need to deal with sustainable development on a broad basis. We will not be able to protect our endangered species unless we take the view in the round that people across the planet should have access to clean water, food and decent shelter and should not feel obliged—as many do in order to survive—to destroy the very resources that should provide them with sustainable living for many generations. We need to deal with the fact that such people destroy their resources in one generation to stay alive. We must deal with the inequalities in the world. I recognise that that is a big agenda, but 82 per cent. of the world's wealth is held by 20 per cent. of its population, whereas the poorest 20 per cent. have only 1.4 per cent. One billion people live on less than $1.50 per day—while each person in the US generates three quarters of a ton of waste each year to go into landfill sites or to be burnt. We must deal with that nationally and internationally.

My last point is about international agreements. We have the convention on biological diversity and the climate change convention, but they are not legally binding, as the Minister knows. However, in parallel we have the World Trade Organisation, which is legally binding. I recognise the danger, but without being protectionist we must change the rules of the WTO to enable countries to resist imports from countries where the natural environment has been degraded unsustainably and animals have been treated in a way that is not acceptable—either species have been eliminated, or their treatment in welfare terms is unacceptable. The WTO agreement needs to be changed to achieve that.

I want the Minister to have plenty of time to respond to the big agenda that I have laid out. Without wanting to overplay the matter, respect for the environment is one of the most important issues faced by the human race; we are not doing very well with it so far.

I have rarely listened to a more passionate or better documented speech of just 15 minutes. It contained an enormous amount of detail and a very compelling argument, put forward persuasively. It will not surprise the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that I agree with virtually everything that he said. He was generous enough to say that the Government have made serious efforts in many areas—I shall try to detail some of my own issues in a moment—but he is right that a great deal more has to be done. We have scarcely scratched the surface if we really are to arrest serious trends.

The hon. Gentleman started with a point that I reiterate. The rate of biodiversity loss is so huge that experts say that it can almost be regarded as the sixth extinction in the history of the earth. There have been five major extinctions, the last of which eliminated the dinosaur 65 million years ago. However, the rate of loss is so extensive—and accelerating—that it can be considered on that scale. He is also right that people who are cavalier with other living creatures are also cavalier with human life. We are the dominant species on the planet—at the moment. The idea that because of our dominance we can disregard the right of other species and other creatures to have their share of life on this diverse and bountiful earth is important: no one has a right, particularly not an enthusiastic Gaian, which I am, to believe that one race can dominate all the others without serious long-term consequences that, in the end, may rebound on our survival.

The hon. Gentleman said a great deal about climate change. I do not have much time to talk about that, but it will unquestionably affect habitats. It has already begun to affect them. We have all read press articles about the rapid decline in the number of polar bears in the arctic, which is due simply to the decline in phytoplankton and krill on which they depend. The Larsen iceberg is breaking away, which is having a drastic effect on the capacity to survive of creatures such as the polar bear. The United States is responsible for a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, although it has only 4 per cent. of the world's population. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is essential that it returns to the Kyoto protocol or takes equivalent measures. The United States has an important role, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are maintaining the pressure to make it recognise its responsibilities.

We are making progress. I shall concentrate on the loss of global biodiversity and combating illegal trade in endangered species. I have just returned from the sixth meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity in the Hague, where some useful conclusions were drawn. For the first time there is a strategic plan, which aims to achieve globally, regionally and nationally a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Guiding principles were proposed that aim to reverse the expansion of alien invasive species—the second greatest threat to biodiversity after loss of habitat.

There is an action-oriented work programme on forestry, which includes action against the loss of forest biodiversity. There are also guidelines on access to and benefit sharing of genetic resources—the so-called Bonn guidelines. I take the hon. Gentleman's entirely correct point that they are voluntary guidelines. All I will say is that there are 182 countries, and it is difficult to get their agreement. An agreed framework and guidelines may not be adequate. We intend to monitor them. If there are significant breaches of the guidelines, or if countries fall significantly short of them, we will have to demand at future meetings that the guidelines are made mandatory. It took seven years to negotiate the Food and Agriculture Organisation proposals that form an international undertaking on access to and benefit sharing of plant genetic sources. I accept that mandatory regulations may be the only way to ensure that action is effective.

The British Government are taking several initiatives. The Darwin initiative is a collaborative grant programme that uses British expertise to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in less developed countries. Since 1993, the Government have also provided £27 million to more than 230 Darwin projects with links to some 80 developing countries. That is a relatively small, but not insignificant, sum. If other countries did the same, it would have a serious impact.

We are also one of the first to signal support for the new great apes survival project—otherwise known as Grasp—that was launched by the United Nations Environment Programme last year. The project seeks to raise funds for great ape conservation, and to develop a global conservation strateg3, for that species. This year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office contributed £175,000, which is a substantial proportion of the $2.9 million sought by UNEP. I hope that other countries will follow that example in order to strengthen and extend that sort of work.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need more checks on aeroplanes. It is true that food such as bushmeat is confiscated even today. The problem lies with the number of Customs officers and the fact that they must deal with drug smuggling, arms dealing, tobacco fraud, and preventing the spread of animal diseases such as foot and mouth. I take the point that it is vital to protect species as well as people in this country. The trade in illegal species and illegal meat must be stopped.

The Government are fully committed to the fight against wildlife crime. It is the second largest form of illegal trading in the world after drugs. One informed reckoning states that it accounts for $20 billion a year, of which a quarter is illegal. We are trying to raise awareness of the controls on the import of wildlife to the UK as tourist souvenirs or through the pet trade. Unfortunately, too many tourists return from their travels, often unwittingly, with souvenirs made from endangered species.

Extensive powers are already available to deal with illegal imports or exports of species listed under the convention on international trade in endangered species. I agree that we need more prosecutions and higher penalties. We must also ensure that potential criminals understand that there will be deterrent fines and that they are likely to be apprehended. That is not the case at the moment, but I met representatives of the World Wildlife Fund and other Departments, including Customs, this morning and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am determined to increase the numbers of prosecutions and the level of fines or introduce imprisonment.

Under the provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, people found guilty of smuggling endangered species face up to seven years in jail. Unfortunately, there are not many examples of when that ceiling has been used. I want it to be used more often. Earlier this year, a person found guilty of illegally importing birds of prey into the UK from Thailand was jailed for six and a half years. That is a significant penalty, which sent shockwaves through some parts of the criminal community, and I would like to see many more such examples. In June 2001, two London shopkeepers were sentenced to four months in prison for smuggling and selling illegally imported bush meat. That is a low penalty, but it is imprisonment, not a fine, which is significant. In March 2000, a parrot breeder was sentenced to two and a half years and fined £5,000 for smuggling rare parrots, including three Lear's macaw, of which fewer than 150 pairs remain in the wild. The penalties are beginning to be increased, but we still have a long way to go to dissuade the criminal fraternity.

We are about to begin a review of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, and as part of that we will consider whether the current maximum penalty of two years for such offences remains appropriate. In my view, it is not. Although it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the penalties attached to offences are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and compatible with the general sentencing framework, we must seriously consider increasing the penalties for COTES offences and making them arrestable. At the moment, people cannot be arrested once they are through customs, which is a clear loophole.

As part of the work to take forward the recommendations of the Halliday report on the review of the sentencing framework, we are also examining the scope for a new set of sentencing guidelines under the auspices of a statutory body. I am keen to pursue that, and we will publish a White Paper this year. We are also working hard through the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime, which is sometimes known as PAW, to find further opportunities to increase awareness of wildlife crime and its implications among the judiciary.

Finally, our work to combat illegal wildlife trade took a significant step forward when I announced the establishment of the national wildlife criminal intelligence unit. The Government are committed to ensuring that the unit will be a success. I was very impressed by the police officers whom I met on that day, and we are providing some £440,000 to support the unit until March 2004. Together with the £100,000 provided by the police chief constables, which is a lot of money out of their constrained budgets and shows their commitment, our investment will get the unit up and running. It will work at national, international and strategic levels to collect and analyse intelligence from a wide variety of sources. It will then refine that information into operational and manageable packages to be passed to the appropriate police or Customs officers to investigate jointly with the unit. It will not take over from the police and Customs officers in the field: they do a great job and need more support. It will not carry out investigations and prosecutions in its right but it will work at the strategic level.

I thank the hon. Gentleman very warmly for his outstanding speech that was delivered with real passion. There is a case to answer. I am determined to ensure that we answer it.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this matter before the House. Before I go any further I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members Interests as a partner in a firm of solicitors in Essex, practising in the magistrates courts.

The Minister and, I suspect, his predecessors are well versed in responding to these debates as a result of the number of times that they appear here in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber. As recently as 17 April the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) secured an Adjournment debate to oppose the closure of Lame magistrates court. To research the debate I could have gone back through Hansard to see how many times the closure of magistrates courts appeared. While it is not the most frequent topic, it appears very regularly.

My reason for raising the matter at this time is the remorseless advance of the private finance initiative in Essex. Private finance offers the opportunity for the magistrates courts committee to seek private capital and private funding for the restructuring or rebuilding of courthouses in the county. I do not propose to debate whether the PFI is the right or the wrong approach; that is a debate for another day. But it is the impetus for the prospective closure of a number of courts in Essex, and a scheme was approved by the Essex magistrates courts committee at its meeting on 25 February 2002.

If the PFI goes ahead it will result in the closure of the court at Witham, in my constituency, following the closure of the court at Braintree some four years ago. In addition courts at Harwich, Epping and Grays are scheduled for closure. As a result, Essex, one of the larger and most populous counties, will have only five courthouses. I have practised in the magistrates courts in Essex for more than a quarter of a century. Over that time courts have been closed in all parts of the county. In the last 20 years we have lost courts at Halstead, Maldon, Brentwood, Billericay, Southminster, Castle Hedingham, Braintree, Saffron Walden, Clacton and Dunmow. That is before we reach the latest round of court closure.

Soon after my election to this House in 1997, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), a near neighbour of mine, initiated a debate on the then most recent round of closures. Notwithstanding the united opposition of the county council, the district council, the town councils for neighbouring and potentially benefiting towns and the police, three further magistrates courts were closed, including Braintree. In that debate, the hon. Gentleman proved himself to be an adept soothsayer. He said:

"In the fulness of time, we in Essex will be left with five super-courts and a pick-and-mix magistrates bench."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 686.]

Unfortunately, time has not proved to be very full. In less than five years the five courts that he predicted are now envisaged.

My concerns as to the intentions of the magistrates courts committee were alerted in 1997–98. As a result of my fear about its intentions regarding the courthouse at Witham, I wrote in early 1999 to the then and present chief executive of the magistrates courts committee, Mr. Peter McGuirk. I shall quote his reply at some length or I may seem to be unfair. In 1999, he told me:

"I must first go straight to the heart of your concern and assure you that the MCC"—

the magistrates courts committee—

"has no plans in the medium term to close Witham Courthouse. The background to the MCC decision to close three courthouses"—

in 1997–98—

"was the need to reduce excess courtroom provision. With those closures the MCC now has the number of courtrooms it needs in the medium term and has no plans for further reductions. As we made clear to all interested parties in 1997 when we consulted on the courthouse closures, our next step would be a private finance initiative project to secure accommodation for a proper modern standard for the long term. It is by no means certain that such a deal would result in the closure of Witham courthouse but there is in any case no prospect at present of the MCC being allowed in to begin the PFI procedures for several years".

The medium term was referred to only three years ago, but the current proposals were made at least by last summer.

The arguments against courthouse closures have been advanced in the House certainly during the whole time that I have been here and, I suspect, for the previous 20 years as well. However, Governments of both political persuasions have thus far appeared deaf to those arguments. I have yet to see a study that shows the savings that can be found by closing courthouses matched with the increased expenditure that results to other services. One does not have to be a high-ranking chartered accountant to understand that, if a courthouse is closed in one town, there will be additional expenditure for the police, the legal aid fund, social services, local councils and the probation service.

In 1997, my own council, Braintree district, which fully supported keeping local courthouses open, estimated that transferring its prosecution work to other courts would cost it some £10,000 to £12,000 per year. That was just one element in the additional cost equation, which always seems to be put to one side when the matter of balancing the finances is raised.

Also in 1997, the then chief constable of Essex, and my constituent, John Burrow, wrote about the closures at that time:

"This is not only a case where saving in one area of the criminal justice system will result in significantly increased expenditure in other areas, but also there is a very real issue of the loss of local justice across large swathes of the County".

Ultimately, the loss of local justice is at the heart of the objection to closing courthouses. That concept is lost as one ploughs through the jargon-ridden apology for the private finance initiative in Essex and the consequent closures of courthouses.

I should like to refer to a consultation document, although I suspect that hon. Members have almost no greater fear than the word "consultation". As one often fears, consultation takes place, but listening does not result. Objective No. 2 in that document refers to "reasonable accessibility" to courthouses. Then, of course, as is the trick of the trade, that phrase is defined so as to produce the desired result.

In the county of Essex, it has been estimated that it is reasonable for witnesses, defendants and others to be able to reach a courthouse after a journey of one and a half hours by public transport, plus a further 15-minute walk from the bus stop or railway station. Of course, that takes no account of the bus being cancelled, the train being late or someone having to walk down to catch the train at a suitable time. It takes no account of someone thereafter leaving the courthouse to return home. However, that is the definition, and a formula is then constructed whereby the closures will not be adverse to the benefit of the public.

A travel survey has also been commissioned, which seeks to show that most people who attend courts do not necessarily come from the district where the court is. However, one must go beyond the travel survey to discover the true position. Already, the magistrates courts in the county of Essex are allocated different kinds of cases; thus there are trials in one court and pleas in another court in another district. It is in the nature of that system that already people are being moved around the county.

I have been worried for several years about the diminution of local justice, which reduces the position of the magistrate in the legal system and in counties and boroughs. The essence of a magistrate is their familiarity with the locality in which they serve. Magistrates have an interest and a pride in their township or rural district and sit on the bench to serve local people by using their local knowledge. A magistrate from Chelmsford who sat in Basildon would probably not have an exhaustive knowledge of the street systems of Basildon; that would be difficult even if one lived in Basildon. In a road traffic case or a case involving a public disturbance in the street, it is most useful to know exactly how the streets lie in order to judge whether witness A's statement is believable, for example.

The local element is crucial to a magistrate's ability to serve, but it is not just a matter of knowledge but of pride in the position. People who serve on the magistrates' bench in their own locality know that they are carrying out a community function by serving their neighbours, friends and others who live there. The defendants who appear before them are usually based locally and might have some remorse or concern about their actions knowing that they are appearing in the midst of their own community.

In the mid 1970s, I frequently appeared at Southminster magistrates court—long since gone—which was out on the marshes on the Dengie peninsula. That tiny courthouse would not fulfil any of the criteria for a modern and convenient courthouse. It was next to the police station in a village on a railway line that, remarkably, escaped Dr. Beeching's axe in the 1960s. Most people involved in that little court knew each other and at the end of the proceedings on a Friday morning, which is when it sat, the prosecutor, the defence advocate, the magistrates, the clerk and the defendants would adjourn to a nearby pub for lunch. That gave one a real sense of what community was, and justice, too.

I was especially impressed by one of the magistrates, a kindly man who owned a local works, when a young man appeared before him who was, I suspect, not inherently bad, but in endless mischief. The magistrates were usually indulgent with him, but eventually they had no choice but to send him to prison. What may not happen today is that when the young man came out of prison that same magistrate, who was chairman of the bench, offered the young man a job in his works. That shows the sense of community that is now being lost.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. My constituency, too, is in Essex. The hon. Gentleman will share my wish to pay tribute to the lay people who serve on magistrates' benches throughout the country. They do an excellent job and give their time selflessly.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of the closures and to quality. Will he reinforce what he said about the impact of the closures on the quality and speedy administration of justice? They are essential not just to the witnesses and the community but to the defendants. Court closures tend to make justice seem more remote to those communities and, in some cases, have delayed the administration of justice. They have not served justice well. I entirely support the hon. Gentleman's theme.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I have described a courthouse in the country that I visited regularly in the 1970s. Within the past two or three weeks, I visited Southend magistrates court. I went into the main remand court and was faced with a dock that was made from reinforced glass to the ceiling. It had slits in it for the defendant to whisper through to his advocate or to the magistrates. I was put in mind of the trial of Adolf Eichmann and the special booth that was constructed for his trial in 1960–61, as those of my generation and older will remember. The appearance of the reinforced dock in Southend was more reminiscent of a war crimes tribunal than a magistrates court. Indeed, the only hearing at which I was present was in respect of a defendant who had pleaded guilty within that dock to not wearing a seat belt.

We must try to refresh ourselves with the spirit of what local justice is about. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to speak to his colleagues to see whether we can stop going down the road that we have been going down for the past 25 years. Mr. O'Brien, you heard an earlier debate in which the Prime Minister was quoted, referring to the importance of strengthening local communities. Here is an opportunity to think again about how justice can become local justice and, thus, real justice.

I start by extending my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing the debate. The issue of magistrates courts is emotive and I well understand how important it is to his constituents and to those of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). The debate comes at a time when magistrates courts are undergoing a huge change. More change is likely to come. Sir Robin Auld published his report at the end of last year; the Government will be announcing their conclusions and how they intend to proceed on the basis of that report imminently. Undoubtedly, there will be implications for the future of magistrates courts in that process.

Before I deal with the specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree, it may help if I clarify the basis on which we proceed in such matters. Magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees, as set out under the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Each committee is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in their areas. It is for the MCCs, in consultation with their relevant paying authorities, to determine how many courthouses—whether urban or rural—and what other accommodation is needed locally. In discharging their statutory responsibilities, we expect MCCs to undertake regular reviews of their accommodation requirements. That may account for the timing of the MCC in Essex, to which my hon. Friend referred earlier.

The strategic aims of the MCC, the facilities that are needed and the results of user surveys are only some of the factors that the committees take into consideration when undertaking such reviews. They have to achieve a balance between providing an efficient and effective service to their users, while maintaining secure, well-equipped court accommodation, and ensuring, when reasonably possible, full utilisation of court facilities. All magistrates court users, whether victims, witnesses, defendants or professional people, deserve an efficient service that is delivered in well-equipped and secure buildings, in accordance with basic standards of accommodation that people would expect today.

My hon. Friend gave a powerful and evocative description of the early 1970s and local justice as it was delivered then. Sadly in many ways, the world has moved on in the past 30 years. To pick up on one of his points, security is a real issue in our courts, and it would be remiss of both magistrates courts committees and the Government if we assumed that the world had not changed and that the same security provisions were appropriate. Sadly, they are not. Security is a concern for the Government, and we expect magistrates courts committees to consider that.

Most of the magistrates courts that have been closed—my hon. Friend referred to some—are those that magistrates courts committees could no longer justify keeping open, because they lacked the necessary facilities. Improvements in accommodation must be balanced against other factors, and local transport difficulties are important. My hon. Friend cited telling examples of the problems that concerned him and his constituents; we expect magistrates courts committees to take those into account.

As a Government, we are particularly concerned that courtrooms are provided that are best suited to enable cases to be listed and heard in a manner that will achieve our core aim of reducing delays in the criminal justice system. Court users want and expect their cases to be heard on the day that they are listed. Transferring work load to better equipped centres is one way of modernising and improving the overall service. The magistrates courts committees have the local knowledge and are best placed to make the judgments about how to use their resources—finance, staff and buildings. The Lord Chancellor becomes involved only in the event that a decision is challenged by the paying authority.

This is not a court closure programme, but where, for example, two courthouses are close together and the work can be accommodated in one, it makes sense to have only one. In that way, we can maintain access to justice and release funds to improve the facilities and efficient use of our estate assets. The Lord Chancellor is committed to making better use of the court estate, which includes magistrates, Crown and county courts, and there is considerable scope for greater joint use of courthouses to create more justice centres.

Inevitably, some hard decisions will have to be taken, and we appreciate how difficult it can be for local communities to confront them. However, we also know that the public expect well-equipped and secure courthouses, and we are determined to deliver them. In the year 2000 spending review, additional money was made available to address security, health and safety, the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the maintenance backlog that many magistrates courts were experiencing. Those areas have been, and will continue to be, treated as priorities.

In 2001–02, the Department spent £25.5 million on improving magistrates courts. Interview rooms and custody areas were fitted at seven courthouses, some 10 courthouses were made compliant with the 1995 Act and custody areas in 19 courts were refurbished. We intend to spend a further £40.5 million in 2002–03. So far this year, we have provided funding to undertake extensive refurbishment of two courts, improving access to 28 courthouses for the disabled, and improving or installing closed circuit television provision in 16 courthouses. In 2001–02, some £137,458 was allocated to Essex magistrates courts committee to undertake work such as the installation of secure docks at Basildon and Southend, the removal of ligature points and cells at Colchester, and the replacement of air conditioning in the information technology room at Southend. One bid has been approved for Chelmsford in this financial year to secure a dock.

We are investing real money to improve facilities, and I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the Government's commitment. That is in addition to the continuing court-building programme, which is procured through the public-private partnership. My hon. Friend referred to the "onward march" of the private finance initiative in Essex, but we must accept that it is a way in which Government can provide more modern courtrooms. We have £70 million of credits allocated in each of the next three years, and we can now build new courthouses for the first time for many years. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service are committed to using public-private partnerships as a main element of our investment plans to improve court facilities and services. However, that approach will be adopted only where it offers the prospect of better value for money, and more effective management of risk than other methods of procurement.

Will the Minister give way?

I should point out that I have little time left to make my remarks.

I will be quick. On value for money, would it be better to apply the money to small, local, less formal courts that could deal with appropriate cases more quickly and efficiently, so that justice appears to be less remote?

That may always be more appropriate in certain circumstances, but not as a point of principle, which I believe was the hon. Gentleman's point. Public-private partnerships are the way forward if they offer a more effective management of risk and real value for money. The form that they will take is largely a matter for the magistrates courts committee to decide, as it has knowledge of local circumstances.

In February 2001, the Essex magistrates courts committee secured a place in the public-private partnership scheme. In July 2001, there was consultation on its proposals, and in January 2002, a second consultation exercise was undertaken on its preferred option. A package of court and office accommodation was then identified that would be provided under the scheme. During that period, the magistrates courts committee gathered information by means of feasibility studies, travel surveys and so on.

On 8 April 2002, the Essex magistrates courts committee made a final determination, under section 56(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, that its paying authorities should provide new magistrates' courthouses, in accordance with section 55(1) of the Act, in Colchester in north-east Essex, Basildon or Grays in mid-south and south-east Essex, Southend in south-east Essex, and Chelmsford in mid-north Essex. It is anticipated that the new accommodation will be available in 2006–07. The programme could include court closures, and I am sure that we are all aware that the magistrates courts committee's determination includes a new courthouse in Chelmsford to replace the Chelmsford and Witham courthouses.

The three paying authorities in Essex have until 10 May to appeal against the determination. If appeals are lodged, I will be asked to take a decision that will be final and binding on all parties. I am happy to meet all interested parties if an appeal is lodged, and to discuss points that have been raised in debate in more detail than I have time to supply today. If no appeal is submitted to the Court Service, the outline business case can be submitted to the Court Service. Once an agreement has been reached between the Court Service, the magistrates courts committee and local paying authorities on where the courts and offices should be located, the outline business case will be submitted to the project review group for formal endorsement. Once endorsed, the project will be put to the market.

Critically, the outline business case cannot be submitted to the project review group for endorsement without the full support of each of the three paying authorities that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree knows are involved. The magistrates courts committee is endeavouring to secure agreement on a positive way forward, but with full local involvement. I cannot confirm at this stage where new courts will be located and which courts may close.

I hope that I have outlined the processes involved in the weeks ahead to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Castle Point. They will see that there is time and scope for further representations to be made about points that they raised. Whatever happens during the process, I hope that we shall be able to reassure them about the provision of local justice in Essex. Above all, I hope that in turn they will recognise the requirement on Government to provide an effective and modern system of justice that is delivered locally, but with full account taken of the expectations of those who use the courts. People who use courts expect modern facilities, secure accommodation, and facilities for victims and witnesses that are segregated from those for defendants wherever possible. People expect and deserve that sort of justice, and I hope that hon. Members will understand that that must be our main concern if progress is to be made in Essex.