I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me this opportunity to debate education, which is of the highest importance to pupils, parents, teachers, governors, local communities and the country at large. The title of the debate was chosen deliberately because the country and the Government must get education right in the cities, which contain most of the population and the greatest spread of economic and social living circumstances. If they do not, what hope is there for the education of children who live in all the constituencies?

Like all my hon. Friends who carry the education brief for the Conservative party, I am a parent. Since being elected, I have made education a priority, and I served on the Select Committee on Education and Skills—formerly the Select Committee on Education and Employment—and on its Education. Sub-Committee until assuming Whip responsibilities for the Opposition Front-Bench education team.

I welcome the Minister for School Standards to his new role, and I pay tribute to his predecessor, who is now the Minister with responsibilities for e-commerce and competitiveness. Despite our common and contemporaneous university college background, we had widely diverging political opinions. Those were displayed not least during consideration in Committee of the flawed and centralising Education Bill, in which the present Minister was also involved. The former Minister was well into his stride, but, somewhat extraordinarily, the Prime Minister peremptorily shuffled him off to look after e-commerce.

When last in power, the Conservatives introduced many excellent measures to improve education provision, but we did not get everything right. However, despite the Labour Government's electoral rhetoric and spin, the situation that they inherited was considerably better for children, families and teachers than what we have now, after they have been in power for more than five years. To substantiate that, let us consider the evidence.

On GCSEs, there is now a widening gap between the best and worst-performing local education authorities in England. The Department's figures are based on the GCSE achievements of 15-year-olds who gained five or more A^* to C grades in each English LEA by the end of 2000–01. All the worst-performing LEAs are city configured and, in terms of the number of children, the gap between the best and the worst increased significantly, from 25 per cent. to 26.3 per cent. between 1996–97 and 2000–01. That proves that the most deprived areas and the most vulnerable children are being left behind because of the Government's failure to deliver.

Taking those same measures, we find that all of England's cities fall far below the Government's 2002 national learning target of 50 per cent., and that excludes special schools. The figure was only 31 per cent. for Nottingham, 32 per cent. for Manchester and 35 per cent. for Liverpool. The last two cities are, of course, in the north-west, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and I have a direct interest. The figure was 34 per cent. for inner London's Hackney and 43 per cent. for Sheffield, and even the Secretary of State's own LEA, Birmingham, achieved only 42 per cent. Disturbingly, the average in her constituency of Yardley was a mere 29.5 per cent. At the end of 2001, the average in the Minister's constituency of South Shields was 35.4 per cent.—down from a seriously under-performing 37.6 per cent. in 1999. Labour has been in control of the LEA for 30 years, and the area has had a Labour Member of Parliament for 60 years.

In 1997, the Government relied heavily on their promise to reduce class sizes. On 1 May this year, however, the evidence that I have cited compelled even Matthew Taylor of the Institute for Public Policy and Research—a think tank that is not unknown to the Minister or for its new-Labour leanings—to tell the Press Association:

"I think the Government made a mistake in 1997 and that was the class size pledge. Reducing class sizes from 32 to 30 makes no difference at all. Nonetheless, I think the money should have gone to the schools with the worst problems and should have massively reduced class sizes to those of the independent sector. We know from US research that it would have made a difference."

That is the line that should be taken. In areas of worst under-performance, the Government should aim for class sizes in line with those in the independent sector; substance, not headlines, is needed in the worst-achieving areas of our cities.

Why am I, a Member with a predominantly rural constituency, taking such an interest? Apart from my broad concerns about education, in Eddisbury, the principal town of Winsford has some wards with the characteristics of an inner city. There is significant economic and social deprivation. I want cities to do better so that my three Winsford wards can be measured on the same basis, and can qualify for the support that is given to areas with the worst education problems in the country. They do not currently get that because of the sparsity factor—the relative prosperity and educational achievement of other areas of Cheshire counts unfairly against them. Winsford needs and deserves, but does not yet get, a sure start programme similar to that up the road in Warrington. Imagine how much worse the unfairness will be if county councils are killed off by the Government as they seek to make real the Deputy Prime Minister's ghastly dream of English regional government. If the north-east is the first area to be so established, South Shields will come off even worse than it does now, as will Eddisbury if the north-west, heaven forbid, follows suit.

For further evidence of the Government's failure to deliver—despite their much-trumpeted March 1999 excellence in cities programme, another headline initiative that has failed to deliver for children in England's cities—we need look no further than London. Inner London is undershooting the national targets for GCSE passes by 12 per cent. There is only 38 per cent. GCSE achievement, against the 2000 national target of 50 per cent., according to the Department's figures, research by the Institute of Education and other sources.

That is a scandal, and a cause for deep anxiety for all. I know, as a former employer in manufacturing, that if the current low GCSE pass rate goes unchecked, education under-performance will result in 219,000 unfilled skilled jobs by the end of the decade—and that is in new Labour's inner London. Demand for qualified labour will outstrip supply by more than 7 per cent., with profound effects on the capital's economy.

Despite Labour's rhetoric, average class sizes in London are higher than the national average in both primary and secondary schools. Since 1997, class sizes in London's secondary schools have risen from 21.7 to over 22.1 pupils and those in London's primary schools have remained static. So far as discipline is concerned, secondary school exclusions are higher in Conservative-run councils, showing that those councils take a firmer stance on discipline. On average, 4.8 per cent. of pupils were excluded by Conservative councils, compared with 3.15 per cent. by Labour and 2.13 per cent. by Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] I have also looked at special measures. Schools in Conservative-run councils are less likely to be put into special measures—only 1.1 per cent., compared with 2.5 per cent. under Liberal Democrats and 2.8 per cent. under Labour.

We should consider the evidence. It is no good trying to make the rhetoric work when the evidence does not support it. When all that data are coupled with the finding of the National Foundation for Educational Research, backed up by Ofsted, that 20 per cent. of children in London and the other cities of England achieve the standard assessment test targets in the last year of primary school, but get lower grades a year later, in the first year of secondary school, the evidence is overwhelming that education in our cities is in dire trouble. Standards have declined under the Labour Government.

The Minister appears unconvinced. Will he demonstrate, when he speaks at the end of the debate, that he is prepared to be accountable for his Government's actions, rather than for their relentless spin? Initial literacy and numeracy targets for 11-year-olds—80 per cent. of pupils reaching the standard for English and 75 per cent. reaching it for mathematics—were announced as part of the comprehensive spending review for the public service agreements 1999 to 2002, published in December 1998. However, the Government's figures show that last year only 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds reached the literacy standard—no change from the previous year—and 70 per cent. reached the numeracy target, which is a decrease from the previous year. The then Secretary of State for Education promised to resign if those targets were not met, but surprise, surprise, he was moved on ahead of his mistakes, and his successor has so far refused to meet his commitment.

The problem of truancy is most pronounced in cities. It is also a real problem in schools in Winsford in my constituency. Between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, in key inner-city areas, the number of half days lost through unauthorised absence rose by 16 times more than the national average. Yet in 1998, the Government announced that they planned to cut unauthorised absences from school by one third by this year. A written answer, however, reveals that truancy has risen by 12 per cent. under the Labour Government. We are told that the Secretary of State still regards benefit cuts to parents of truanting children as being on her agenda, despite reported Cabinet disunity. No wonder there is disunity, because the measure will hit the poorest parents hardest. I am not surprised that the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers has said that the idea is a disaster, especially for single parents, for whom it would be an injustice.

As if the Government's record on truancy were not bad enough, the tale of ill-discipline in city schools takes one's breath away. According to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, pupil and parent assaults on teachers rose fivefold between 1998 and 2001, and that is compounded by the Department's complacency. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West asked the Department for Education and Skills how many teachers had been the victims of serious assaults by pupils and parents in each year since 1997. In his reply, the then Minister for School Standards replied:

"My Department does not collect this information."—[Official Report, 10 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 195W.]

That is in sharp contrast to other Government-employed staff, such as those employed by the Benefits Agency, for whom data on both physical and verbal assaults are collected.

For too long, the Government have undermined discipline in schools by insisting on a reduced number of exclusions, regardless of the circumstances, and despite all the "tut-tutting" that we heard earlier from Labour and Liberal Democrat Members when the statistics comparing various local authorities were read out.

I apologise for tut-tutting earlier, but will the hon. Gent, explain to the House why he regards the number of exclusions as a measure of success?

I did not paint the number of exclusions as a measure of success. I know from my experience as a parent—I expect that the hon. Gentleman will know this both from his experience as a parent and as a teacher—that one of the greatest difficulties is having disruptive and unruly children in a class. Although, in an ideal world, it would be possible to help such children to feel included, there are cases where it is appropriate to consider exclusion and to make available special opportunities for those who are disrupting other children, who are willing to work, and distracting teachers. That is especially prevalent in our city schools. In my son's primary school, because of the Government's agenda, the teacher had to hold the hands of two of the most unruly children, who were not excluded, although everyone concerned thought that they should be. The teacher had to hold their hands because, as soon as those children were released, they wanted to put the fingers of all the other children into pencil sharpeners, so the education of the entire class was completely disrupted. Therefore, far from exclusions being a measure of success, we should properly evaluate all the issues to determine what is in the best interests of children and teachers.

As I was saying, for too long, the Government have undermined discipline in schools by insisting on a reduced number of exclusions regardless of the circumstances. Real powers should now be given to headteachers and governors to take decisions about discipline in their own schools. Then, there might be some improvement in the dire statistics that show us, for example, that permanent exclusions have declined by 51 per cent. in south Tyneside. There are similar figures for the surrounding areas, including a staggering 90 per cent. in Middlesbrough.

It is the teachers in inner-city areas and elsewhere who need more support from the Government, under whom it is pitifully clear that violence on teachers by some children and parents is greater in inner cities and is significantly on the increase. To take a favoured Government gimmick, how many parenting orders have been issued since the Government introduced them? Teachers need the Government to protect them: it is clear, from everything that I am being told both locally and throughout the country, particularly in the cities, that they do not feel that they are getting that protection.

It is no wonder that there is a teacher recruitment and retention crisis. Teachers in Lambeth schools, for example, have to cope with children arriving zonked out on drugs because of the softly, softly approach to certain drugs that is apparently being blessed by the Government. I pay tribute to my MP, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who so rightly and courageously spoke out recently against that policy at Prime Minister's questions. Teacher vacancies have doubled under Labour, which is not surprising given the terrible truancy discipline problems in the cities, the Government's gimmick-a-day announcements, the relatively high costs of housing and living in some cities and the fact that core funding is being seriously diminished and adversely affected by this centralising Government holding back money for their pet ring-fenced schemes. One need look no further than the Education Bill to see how obsessed the Government are with their centralising agenda, despite all the rhetoric of autonomy.

According to the National Union of Teachers, only 42 per cent. of final-year teacher trainees will still be in the profession three years after qualification. To emphasise that point, a class of GCSE pupils at Our Lady and St John RC high school in Blackburn have been taught by seven different teachers as reported in The Mirror on 8 February 2002.

On teacher retention and recruitment, is it not an additional problem that so many long-serving and experienced teachers in London are nearing retirement? The problem of replacing them with newly qualified teachers will be even more difficult in view of the cost of housing, administrative problems, discipline in schools and the entire package, which deters students at teacher training colleges from going into the profession. The problem will be exacerbated. We will also have an imbalance in schools with a lack of long-serving and experienced teachers and too many newly qualified teachers.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She makes a real and palpable point. Increasingly across many sectors, the transfer of functions to the younger, less experienced element is all too real. That is particularly serious in the teaching profession. Not only does one lose the experience, which is half the secret of motivating pupils and delivering education, but the Government's actions and the raising of false expectations have led to a serious crisis in morale, which is exacerbating the problem of the teacher demographic time bomb.

In our cities, as elsewhere, more and more teachers are being forced to teach subjects in which they are not trained in a desperate attempt to meet teacher shortage problems. That acts as a deterrent to those thinking of entering the profession and exacerbates the difficulty of attracting teachers, resulting in even higher percentages in city schools of teachers on supply teaching contracts, which eat away at the stability of a school. I hope that we can all agree that that is an essential element for raising pupil confidence and thus standards.

In addition, the Government have inundated schools with centrally produced paperwork. In the 12 months to March this year, the Government issued documents totalling 4,440 pages to primary and secondary schools. On average, that equates to 17 pages of Government documents for each working day. Many of these involve surveys that have to be completed by busy teachers. A recent report by the National Union of Teachers found that 57.8 per cent. of teachers leaving the profession said that one reason for doing so was the work load. There must be an immediate reduction in bureaucracy to ease the bureaucratic burden on heads and teaching staff, but with the current regime at the Department for Education and Skills, and the Government's obsession with centralisation and control, evidenced not least in their attitude to further education colleges, I am pessimistic that the desperately necessary shift in that direction will take place, to the huge detriment of teachers' morale, their recruitment and retention and the interests of children alike.

I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West to deal with the misery, stress and highly questionable educational efficacy of AS-levels, which are having such a negative drag on teacher and pupil morale and on our city schools—I hesitate to suggest that my hon. Friend or, indeed, anyone, can be called an expert on these embryonic and unproven exams—and the Government's failure to widen access to higher education, which the Minister responsible for higher education appears to have admitted.

I draw to a conclusion by saying to the Minister that there are only a very few simple answers that I and the teachers, pupils and parents of schools in cities and elsewhere are looking for. These are that the Government, despite their dangerously arrogant self-belief, admit that they do not have a monopoly of wisdom on education; that they admit also that they have failed to deliver for more than five years, despite their rhetoric, electoral and post-electoral spin and after raising so many hopes and false expectations; that they are now willing to think again and go back to the drawing board—not least as the Secretary of State is now saying she would not touch some schools with a bargepole, having sworn undying allegiance to the one-size-fits-all comprehensive system for the whole of her career—and recognise that the way forward is for the Government to back off setting more and more targets for a demoralised teaching work force, especially in cities, as that will not raise standards.

Above all, the Government must trust teachers with the resources to deliver what we all crave, for the sake of the children and the future of this country: an improving—not as it currently is, declining—education system in our cities, where the most vulnerable children in the country, on the whole, reside. The Government need to break their meddling, gimmicky habits, stop slagging off teachers and trust them to teach children in cities and elsewhere, and free the necessary resources from the centralised diktat of the Government so that they can run schools for the children of our cities, not for the daily diet of new Labour-spun headlines.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this important debate, which is on a matter of great interest to many of us in the Conservative party.

I welcome the Minister to his new post; he and I have known each for half our lives. We were together as undergraduates, when we were also on opposite sides of the political divide. At that time, the Oxford university students union was run by the Liberal Democrats—it was then the Alliance party—which provided an opportunity for us to co-operate. I hope that we can continue in a similar vein today, and beyond.

The issue is most important. Looking through the speeches that I have made in my first year in Parliament I see that this is the first time I have spoken on education, which is not to say that it is not an issue close to my heart—rather, it is the opposite. Many people of my age who have gone into Conservative politics, in particular, were scarred, having been at a grammar school, by worries about those schools being pushed into the comprehensive system during the 1970s. It was a central, defining totem of my political beliefs.

I am glad that there are several Conservative Members present. I do not wish to make a churlish point at this juncture, but it is sad, especially as there are 55 London Labour Members, that none of them is present. It looks as though no cities south of Nottingham are represented on the Government Benches in the debate. However, I appreciate that these are important issues that affect all of us.

As the product of a state school education—I was the first Member of Parliament to represent the historical constituency of Cities of London and Westminster who was not privately educated—I am proud to be able to say a few words about the matter. I will not introduce a blizzard of statistics; I left those to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. The Minister will no doubt digest them in full before his summing-up speech.

I want to say a few things about the local education authority in Westminster, and in Kensington and Chelsea where I served as a councillor for eight years until May this year. They are inner-city local authorities that traditionally have been run by Conservatives, and have surprisingly strong academic results, given the catchment area. More than 40 per cent. of Westminster's pupils live outside its boundaries. A significant number of relatively affluent parents opt out of the state sector and send their children to the private sector, which makes Westminster's results all the more admirable. It is to be regretted that the middle class has been determined to withdraw from the system to such a large extent.

As I said, as a grammar school boy it struck me that the grammar school system was the antidote to the thriving private school sector. I do not wish to make a narrow point about grammar schools—the Labour party has thankfully moved away from that campaign—but it is often articulate middle-class parents in areas with grammar schools who can make a real difference to parent-teacher associations as governors. There is no doubt that such schools begin to decline the moment those parents vote with their feet and get out of the public sector. Westminster's education system has been in place only for a dozen or so years since the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority. To its credit, it has strongly improved its standard assessment tests for seven to 1l-year-olds in recent years.

I want to say a few words about my own educational background. I was educated at Bishop Wood school—a Church of England school in Tring, Hertfordshire—before going to Reading grammar school. Bishop Wood was an excellent school with a positive aspirational ethos which has stuck with me throughout the years. I entered it at the age of seven, and it was a great guiding force for respect, honesty and security. It allowed pupils to flourish academically in a mixed area of middle class and council estates.

A fortnight ago, I was reminded of my experience there when I visited Hampden Gurney school, a local inner-city Church of England school off the Edgware road in the city of Westminster. The school was opening a brand new building, which took me back almost 30 years to the opening of the building of the school where I had been a young pupil. As an aside, Jarvis—the large construction concern—was responsible for the excellence of the building work on an entirely new site a stone's throw from Marble Arch. In recent weeks, that company has been in the headlines for perhaps the wrong reasons. However, it is fair to say that it had done an excellent job, which parents, governors and local residents widely praised. Much of its work is outside the railway sector, a fact that has been widely forgotten.

Mrs. Evelyn Chua, the headmistress of the school, leads from the front as one of the best head teachers in the Westminster area. As anyone who has been in education will know, and as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will confirm, the best schools are led by the best head teachers. That leadership is all important.

I was struck by a comment made by a member of the parent-teacher association, Mrs. Candida Coghlan, that the school was such a success because it maintained high behavioural expectations, acknowledged that all children had special learning needs and ensured that all children had the opportunity to fulfil their potential whatever their ability. Nothing is nearer the truth. The lack of aspiration and the low expectation in many inner-city schools are of great concern.

A minor criticism of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury is that there was a negativity about the statistics, especially in the London areas, which he brought to bear in his otherwise excellent speech. The central idea is that we must raise expectations. We should not have any excuse for failure and, above all, if we are to encourage middle-class parents to use the state sector again, we must impose on schools the view that special educational needs are not just for failing children but for all children. Each child must be treated as an individual.

I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall start to wind up. There are some specific problems for London schools, and I should like to address one or two. On pay and conditions, Unison and other specifically teaching unions have insisted on national pay bargaining, which undermines the interests of many London public sector workers. The cost of living and working in central London is much greater than in, for example, South Shields, Middlesbrough or Liverpool. A far more reasonable London weighting is needed to take account of the increased costs and greater inconvenience. Many teachers in my constituency have to live in the suburbs, or even outside Greater London, and have long commutes both to and from work. We all know about the difficulties with the transport system, which the Mayor of London confessed would remain scratchy for at least a decade to come.

I should like to praise Westminster city council's innovative policy of assisting teachers with lifestyle coaches. The idea made the press on Sunday and is designed to help to differentiate with a benefits package at a time when central Government have put ever more pressure on the funding settlement. If I may make one small point of special pleading for London as a whole, I hope that the Minister will work with the Chancellor to ensure that the area cost adjustment, which has previously been inadequate in taking account of the genuine cost of living in London, is enhanced as far as possible. There has been great speculation that London will suffer with the area cost adjustments for the employment of public sector staff. That would make unbearable what is, for many schools, a crisis situation.

I wish the Minister godspeed in his new post. I know that he will have an exciting time and that, like me, he is the product of a state education. We used to discuss that when we were at Oxford together. I hope that he can make an impact that will ensure that many other middle-class parents entrust their children to state schools so that we have a thriving sector that genuinely competes with what the private sector can offer.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this important debate. We all believe that education is vital to the success of children throughout the country especially in disadvantaged and economically deprived city areas.

One problem that the Government have encountered is that they have had high expectations and made great promises, but have failed to improve children's education, particularly in cities. Many failing schools are in city areas, and it is interesting that last year's Ofsted report, produced by Mike Tomlinson, notes that

"the gap between the highest and lowest attaining schools remains too large."

He points out:

"Although at primary level, the gap between the highest and lowest performing schools is narrowing, at secondary level, despite improvements within the lowest performing schools, the gap has widened."

That analysis of secondary school education is proved by statistics. In Sunderland, which is the adjacent local education authority to South Tyneside, although grades have improved, the relative gap between it and the rest of England has deteriorated since 1997, widening from 10.7 per cent. in 1997 to 10.8 per cent. in 2001. At A-level, the points increase in Sunderland between 1997 and 2001 was slower that in the rest of England. In Sunderland the average increase was 0.7 compared with 1.2 for England as a whole. The Government have yet to tackle that widening gap. A similar pattern emerges in South Tyneside. In 1997 the gap between that area and England as whole in respect of the number of 15-year-olds achieving five A to C grades at GCSE increased from 9.4 per cent. to 10.9 per cent. For AS and A-levels the improvement in South Tyneside between 1997 and 2000 was 0.7 compared with 1.2 for England as a whole.

That reveals a significant problem in those areas. Although the Government have improved results in absolute terms, the gap has widened relatively. The same Ofsted report affirms that education action zones made no difference between the best and the worst schools. Although improvement to zones was faster in key stage one than in schools nationally, the report states that

"the gap between schools in zones and schools nationally&has not reduced significantly"

in the other key stages. It is not surprising that education action zones collapsed into education excellence in cities. However, as Mike Tomlinson again points out in his Ofsted report:

"At this early stage, the initiatives had not yet resulted in rates of improvement in attainment, attendance or teaching quality significantly higher than schools nationally".

Even excellence in cities, which is supposed to be a better scheme, has yet to yield the results that the Government want and has yet to narrow the achievement gap between the best and the worst schools. Increasing centralisation under the Labour Government has failed to achieve a narrowing of the gap in educational attainment.

These problems are exacerbated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said, by further difficulties with bullying and with teacher recruitment and retention. All those problems are far worse in areas of socio-economic deprivation at the heart of our cities. If we are to improve the education of children in this country, we must tackle those problems.

When they talk about overcoming the barriers of social exclusion, the Government make great play of improving participation in higher education. Ministers regularly trot out the target of 50 per cent. participation in higher education for this age cohort. The Government have always managed studiously to avoid explaining what higher education means, but the aspiration remains. It is a pity that social inequality in universities has deteriorated rather than improved under the Labour Government. The Minister for Lifelong Learning acknowledged that fact at the weekend. Given that the gap between the best and the worst schools has widened, not narrowed, that deterioration is not surprising.

The answer is not to lower standards of admission to university for certain groups—a huge mistake because it amounts to recognition and toleration of under-achieving schools in cities. We should be raising educational standards in all inner-city schools to narrow the gap and ensure that children from those areas can gain access to university without the need for Government targets for greater social inclusion. We risk leaving a whole generation of inner-city children behind.

Education is an important issue in the north-east. I was born and brought up in the area. I do not share my university with the Minister for School Standards, but I did at least fight South Shields in the 1997 general election. I know the area well. The Minister will know that education is viewed as a ladder of opportunity to gain greater skills, improve access to higher education and escape low-paid industrial jobs in the region. That was the message of voters on the doorsteps in 1997. I suspect that the message was not dissimilar in 2001.

It is interesting that South Tyneside local education authority has been Labour controlled for nearly three decades, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said. Indeed, there has been continuing pressure from Labour-controlled LEAs across the north-east over decades, which has led to a decline in standards rather than an improvement. By embracing comprehensive schools and not encouraging a meritocracy and educational attainment, they have consigned vast numbers of people in the north-east to poor educational standards.

A flagship reform of the previous Conservative Government was grant-maintained schools, which gave schools in particular areas the opportunity to raise standards and develop their own ethos. However, attempts by schools in the north-east to attain grant-maintained status were very much stamped on by LEAs, which shows that Labour-controlled authorities want children and parents in their areas to be dependent on their education.

What happens in those areas? Parents, whether wealthy or on average incomes, try to send their children to the local private sector day schools, thereby removing articulate parents and bright children from the other schools. They do not believe that their children will receive the education that they deserve in those schools. However, the vast majority of pupils, whose parents cannot afford to take that decision, are left behind to suffer a substandard education.

If the Minister wants to achieve anything in office and show that he has changed the educational culture in the north-east, he must contribute to improving the life chances of children throughout that region, particularly in the cities of Newcastle and Sunderland.

We must create a new agenda for education in our cities. The Government's centralising tendencies have so far failed to produce the narrowing of standards that we want. Given that many Labour Members have served their time on education authorities throughout the country, it is not surprising that those same authorities have not backed children in their areas, in that they have abolished grammar schools and diminished academic values. It is therefore left to Conservative Members to try to create a new education system that encourages children and teachers to give of their best, and that encourages teachers to teach in schools in inner-city areas, which have the greatest problems.

Picking up on the work by Matthew Taylor of the Institute for Public Policy Research, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made a valuable suggestion about focusing more money on those schools and giving them the opportunity to set their own agenda and excel. Far too often, we hear about centralising diktats from Government and schools not having the opportunity to decide how to develop their own ethos and how the money should best be spent in the interests of their children.

That centralising tendency has been the downfall of education over the past five years, and I hope that the Minister has learnt from what has happened. I am sure that he has been sent to the Department for Education and Skills to look after it on the Prime Minister's behalf, so that we may see a change—I do not hold out much hope—for parents in the north-east and other city areas, and great improvements in educational standards. The Government seem bent on destroying academic excellence, lowering standards and removing parents' and teachers' ability to run schools as they want, but they have an opportunity to make changes. The past five years have seen a tendency towards greater centralisation; now it is time for that to change. I hope that the Minister will assure us today that that will happen.

As a Back Bencher on this subject, I am grateful to be able to say a few words on it, because it interests me greatly. I declare two interests: I am the chair of governors of St. James's Church of England primary school in Bermondsey, and a trustee of Bacon's city technology college. I take a close interest in both, as I do in education throughout the borough.

I welcome the Minister. My local authority has just changed hands for the first time and become a Liberal Democrat council, and I know that our new executive member with responsibility for education, Bob Skelly—a competent and experienced individual—is looking forward to working with the Government and the Minister. Given the Minister's past close links with Downing street and the Cabinet Office, and given that there has been great interest in both places in trying to move the educational agenda on, I look forward to seeing a constructive partnership.

It may surprise the Minister to hear that I will not say anything critical about Government policy. That is not because I have no criticism, but because it would be more useful to make constructive suggestions that I hope he will consider.

My constituency and borough contain a wonderful educational diversity, and there are some brilliant examples of good practice in nursery, primary and secondary schools and special schools, such as the Spa school, which greatly impressed a Conservative spokesperson during a visit this week. There is also good practice in further education colleges such as Southwark college and universities such as South Bank university, King's college and the London school of economics. We must not forget important places such as Morley college, which has provided excellent adult education for years. In that great diversity, there is evidence that often the leadership of an institution determines how well it does. Similar schools with the same numbers and mix can do very differently depending on how they are run, the impetus and enthusiasm of the head teacher and the contribution of the governing body.

There is a big issue in our community about faith schools. I repeat my view as a member of the Church and from experience: it is important for whomever runs the school to move away from faith-based admissions policies. I have seen them do no good, and although it is important to have a minimum number of pupils of the faith of the school's management, it does more harm than good to exclude people because they do not have a particular faith.

With an ever-changing school family—in inner cities, people come and go out of the school community every day, week and month—I am sure that the Minister understands that we must improve the way in which housing is allocated. That is a local authority matter, but if people are moved around from one community to the next, their children are moved too, which is not helpful in their community.

I want to put my community's shopping list. We have a great shortage of nursery places and schools, which is hugely important for inner-city development. The Government understand that, but the quicker we can move in that direction, the better start many children will get. We still have major problems with admissions at nursery, primary and secondary level. I urge the Minister to come with a fresh mind to the debate about the Greenwich judgment and re-examine whether local authorities can give the first opportunity to the children resident in that authority. There are many good community cohesion reasons for that. Will he be able to ensure, as we hope to do in a year's time in Southwark, that there is the same common admissions policy for schools that we have for universities? There is a terrible unfairness between those who know how to work the system to their advantage and those who do not. Every summer, many children in inner cities are left not knowing where they will go in September, which causes great pain and anxiety and often makes them feel undervalued.

One or two schools still do not have an independent appeals system like that of city technology colleges. I hope that the Government will review that and ensure that every state-funded educational institution has a system that allows appeals against a school's decision. Lastly in my shopping list for institutions, I hope that the Government will re-examine the funding formula for further education colleges. It is unfair that they get so much less per pupil than schools teaching sixth form pupils of the same age. FE colleges feel significantly disadvantaged.

As I have said before, to make the most of children we should provide mentors for final-year primary school pupils who share a strong interest in a subject such as cars, rockets, ballet, fishing and football. Those children would then be more likely to be motivated as they go into secondary school. If the mentor system can remain throughout secondary school, it will work best. Such role models are a valuable addition to those provided by teachers and parents.

In addition, we must maximise the opportunities for teachers. There is still a desperate shortage of male teachers in my local authority, and in many other places. If boys and young men are to have the role models that they need as they grow up, we need to ensure that we have a greater ethnic mix and a better gender balance in our teaching staff. That case was made strongly at the conference about excluded black teenagers, convened by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), which I attended and found impressive.

Perhaps we should insist that, in future, every time a school is extended or a new one is built, planning permission is given for housing and accommodation for every sort of staff. Schools have great difficulty in attracting staff, and one head teacher tells me that congestion charging may make the situation worse.

To ensure that more parents are involved, we can follow the example of the faith communities. Many of them run schools on Saturdays and Sundays and out of hours in school buildings. We have to get away from the idea of nine-to-four school buildings and consider what has been done for years in Cambridgeshire, where all schools are seen as community institutions that need to be open during daylight hours, seven days a week.

Buildings need to be well used, but we in inner cities have suffered badly from a lack of outside space where children can be energetic. Children must enjoy adequate play and sport—including competitive sport—from the beginning. Competitive sport is important; I have never understood the argument for non-competitive sport. We do not see children watching the World cup and not feeling competitive about it; they understand the idea that somebody wins and somebody loses—the chance of winning is an incentive to do better. There must also be adequate playing fields and swimming facilities, and the charges must make it possible for them to be accessed not just during school curriculum hours but outside them.

Finally—I know that the Government are reviewing the issue—unless we go back to a way of funding university places that does not put off people from lower-income families, we shall continue to distort the cohort of people who go on to the sort of further and higher education that many of us have enjoyed. We must ensure that, for those who want it, education at all ages is seen as an option, but we should not drive 16-year-olds who do not want it into further education.

I hope that we can have a more flexible attitude to work and work experience. I have seen brilliant examples in Leeds and elsewhere of work experience for kids aged 10 or 11 who have no working role model in the family. If they want to work, we should encourage them to go down that route; they can come back to education later when they are motivated and know what they want to do. I look forward to a dialogue occurring with the Minister, and hope that we can help by learning from the Southwark experience and sharing with the Government to mutual advantage.

I welcome the Minister to his place. He comes with an excellent pedigree, and I hope that the lessons that his father taught him on his knee are part and parcel of his psyche. I remember, as a young student, listening to his father and being inspired by his views on society—on education, in particular. There is a significant difference between what Professor Miliband said and what the Minister's mentor says at No. 10—perhaps that is a debate for another day. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on having secured the debate. It is an important one and he made a serious contribution. He put on record a series of facts that have been repeated at least 10 times, every time someone has spoken from the Conservative Front Bench.

It is a sad reflection on the present Conservative party that the hon. Gentleman failed to make any positive comments about the huge successes that many of our schools have achieved against great odds, particularly in the inner cities. He swept all that aside in his catalogue of moans and groans.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, on one fundamental issue. He enunciated the Dutch philosophy of funding students according to their needs, and I hope that the whole House can ultimately get behind him on that. The Liberal Democrats have adopted such a policy, and we commend it to the Minister. It would be useful to have his comments on it. The Dutch philosophy says that children in the education system have certain entitlements and that we should fund them according to their needs so that they can enjoy those entitlements. We should all be able to agree on that basic philosophy, which we could use to build a new school system. I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning it, and we will be pleased if his party moves in that direction.

I also agree with the hon. Gentleman on the Government's failure to make huge inroads into some of the core problems. I am saddened, however, that he does not accept that 18 years of Conservative rule led to 7 million adults being functionally illiterate and to one in four being functionally innumerate. It will take significantly longer than one Parliament to deal with those problems.

On that point, the figure of 7 million includes many adults who went through their education in the 1960s and 1970s, when the comprehensive school experiment was introduced. The hon. Gentleman's attempt to relate the figures to a particular Administration is somewhat tendentious.

The hon. Gentleman has made his comment, but he cannot simply ignore 18 years of Conservative control over education, or excuse the failure to tackle even the literacy and numeracy problems of older adults. That is quite sad.

As always, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made a telling contribution, on which I hope he will reflect. He referred to the flight of the middle classes from state education, and I agree that people in many of our communities see the private sector as their only salvation. That is incredibly depressing, but the fact that 10 out of 11 members of the Conservative shadow Cabinet send their children to private schools hardly puts them in a position to tell voters, "Follow our example." They live in some of the most privileged areas, with some of the most highly performing schools and local authorities, but that is still not good enough. They prefer to send their children to the private sector; the state sector is all right for somebody else.

I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the cost of living in London, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) returned. A policeman cannot get £6,000 in additional allowances for looking after unruly youngsters after 4 o'clock, when a teacher gets half that during the day. We must deal with that fundamental issue, but it is not the long-term solution. In the long term, we must do something about chronic housing problems for key professionals in London and other cities.

The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) made an important point about the gap between the highest and lowest achievers, and drew attention to issues relating to higher education. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey commented on the issues that the Government need to address, including the admissions policy. Unless the Minister is prepared to consider the admissions policy as a key tool for ensuring that children from the poorest homes get access to the best schools on an equitable basis, we will continue to fail many of them. In winding up the debate, I hope that the Minister will say something about the plethora of admission arrangements, especially in our big cities and in London, which are aggravated by the Greenwich and Kingston judgments.

I was appalled to hear the Secretary of State's astonishing comments about our comprehensive system. Of course the system is not perfect; it has never been allowed to work or flourish, because no Government of any political persuasion have ever had the courage to create a fully comprehensive system. However, to say that she would not touch many of our schools with a bargepole and to announce the end of comprehensive education is a most appalling thing for a Secretary of State to say. I hope that the Minister will condemn those comments and those of his former friend, the Prime Minister's press secretary, which go together. It is typical of the way in which the Government smooch up to the teaching profession and to state schools, but meanwhile have another agenda. The Government's real thinking was revealed in the comments that came out of the mouth of the Secretary of State yesterday. She has sold her soul to No. 10 Downing street in order to keep her job.

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for being critical of the Government, but I intend to continue on that theme. The failure of Conservative Members and an increasing number of Labour Members to understand how difficult things are for many schools and teachers in our inner cities beggars belief. The former Secretary of State was right to say that that is not an excuse for failure, but the social deprivation in many schools makes the mountains a little harder to climb.

The comprehensive system has been an enormous success, despite its critics. In 1970, 47 per cent. of our youngsters left school without a qualification. In 2001, that figure was 5.4 per cent. Between 1899 and 1999, the number of 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education rose from 37.5 per cent. to 75.5 per cent. That is not failure; it is success. In 1972, 14 per cent. of youngsters entered higher education under the age of 21. Last year, the figure was 34 per cent. That is success delivered by a comprehensive education system.

The accusation that we have a one-size-fits-all system is absolute nonsense. Anyone who goes into comprehensive schools, as I do, knows that each school is different. That myth exists because, since 1988, we have had a standardised curriculum and testing system, and we have introduced league tables and a standardised inspection system. What do the Government expect to happen if they move away from a one-size-fits-all system? Their notion of introducing specialist schools in the name of one-size-fits-all is appalling. The Government say that their ambition is for half the schools in Britain to be specialist and to get £500,000 extra—presumably the other half will be bog standard secondary moderns. How can they claim to want to give the poorest and most under-performing students, in the most under-performing areas, a better quality education when they are deliberately dividing them to ensure that those with more get more and those with less get less?

I would love another hour in which to attack the Government's philosophy and the demise of comprehensive education. I and my party are proud of what our schools have achieved. There is more to do, but the appalling divisions that the Conservative party envisaged and which the Minister and his hon. Friends now envisage are not the way forward.

We are all grateful to you, Mr. Pike, for your firmness in the Chair. I shall try to behave with forbearance in the few minutes that we have left.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate, which he introduced in a magisterial fashion. He referred to the comments of the Secretary of State about schools that he would not touch with a bargepole. The Minister must tell us whether a bargepole school is better or worse than a bog standard school. Perhaps he will indicate how the Government's thinking on that is developing. I understand that the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury yesterday that he was expecting considerable support from his hon. Friends this morning. I am sure that we are all disappointed that that support did not materialise. We would have loved to hear Labour Members speak about education in our cities. They obviously think it better to avoid the subject.

I welcome the Minister to his debut in his new role. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said that he was making his first speech in the House on education. The Minister is making his second speech on education, so this is an important opportunity for him to put his thoughts on record. Although he is a new Minister and new to the House, hon. Members will know that he does not come to the job with clean hands. He may talk now about the need to allow teachers the space to do their job and to be professionals with time to undertake what he yesterday called their core function, but he played a key role in the Government's education policy through the years when red tape and bureaucracy were piled on schools and teachers.

The Minister spoke yesterday to the Select Committee on the importance of the creative side of education—music, art and other cultural activities in schools. I agree with him strongly. However, he sat in the policy unit in Downing street while music was squeezed out of the school curriculum up and down the country and while all creativity was squashed by AS levels and Curriculum 2000 for vast numbers of our sixth formers. He may now champion discipline in schools, but he was in a key position when the Government introduced the now infamous circular 10/99, which did more than any other single factor to undermine discipline in our schools, especially in urban areas. That in turn had an appalling effect on recruitment and retention of teachers which, as my hon. Friends have said, is a particular problem in cities. In short, the Minister may be new to his role but he has form as long as one's arm. He has much to do if he is to absolve himself of blame for the Government's failures to date.

None of us would be here today, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Order. I am not a Deputy Speaker.

I am sorry that you are not a Deputy Speaker, Mr. Pike—I am sure that it is only a matter of time and that you will be one in short order.

None of us would be here if we did not care passionately about education, and especially about improving city schools whose achievements are all too often the worst—what the Minister calls the diversity of achievement, or the Secretary of State calls the schools that she would not touch with a bargepole. We wish him well in the challenges that he faces. The Government will have our support where they are right, for example in the specialist schools initiative or the expansion of city academies, but we will oppose them where they remain misguided. The debate gives the Minister the opportunity to engage in genuine debate about education in our cities.

I freely admit that Conservative Governments did not do enough for education in the past, although I am sure that the Minister will give us credit for establishing the city technology college movement, which is the precursor of the academy policy, and that improvements in test results began before 1997. However, he and I should accept that test results may be open to question. Performance indicators in primary schools—PIPS—results, and other measures of attainment, may have remained flat while standard assessment test results have generally improved, but there is real concern that improving SAT results may be the result of teaching to the test. Many experts in measuring educational attainment believe that that would have a stronger, sharper effect on improvement at the bottom end of the scale. Does the Minister accept that there is a pressing need for a full inquiry into the examination system, and a thorough investigation of how standards have changed over time?

With regard to the underperformance of schools in cities, the Minister was open enough yesterday to say that the Government were still at the point of pinpointing what holds us back. Hon. Members who are less charitable than me may say that, after five years, it is not good enough for the Government to be only at the point of pinpointing what holds them back. However, he will agree that discipline, truancy, and difficulties in recruiting and retaining good teachers are all important factors.

Does the Minister also agree that low expectations and poverty of ambition are the most important factors of all? His colleague, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, suggested that lower standards for university admission should be set for children from urban schools. Does he accept that that would set in stone a lower expectation for the schools that are performing worst? It would legislate for poverty of ambition, not seek to improve it, and would send a message from Government that schools in our most challenging inner-urban areas are not expected to provide the same standards of performance or levels of attainment as schools elsewhere.

Will the Minister also take the opportunity to disown the idea that he floated on 19 April in an article in The Times Educational Supplement that university places should be guaranteed for the top performing pupils in any school in an urban area, regardless of their ability or attainment? Does he accept that guaranteed university admission, which he suggested only a few weeks before he was appointed to his current post, would create an unfair system that penalised genuine achievement and operated against the interests of those from less-privileged backgrounds who have achieved? Such a system could operate unfairly across a spectrum of schools where low achievers are concentrated in one school, but where other schools in a similar area with similar challenges and levels of deprivation are succeeding and giving their pupils the ability to compete openly for places in universities. Will he instead bend himself to the urgent, harder and nobler task of raising standards in our worst-performing schools throughout the country?

Yesterday, the Minister used a telling phrase in front of the Select Committee. He said that if the Government believe something, they must try to put it into practice. Perhaps his appointment indicated the despair that is felt in Downing street at the Government's inability to put their education policies into practice over the past few years. We should all remember that the last agent of Downing street to be parachuted into the job of School Standards Minister was the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). We must all hope that the new Minister meets with more success both in his career and in his objective of putting the Government's policies into operation.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House must accept that the challenge of raising educational standards and levels of attainment in schools, particularly inner-city schools, is vital and urgent. We must all work together to address it. I have made it clear that we will oppose in the most responsible manner and will support the Government where they get things right. But if we are to do that and to move forward in a mood of consensus over some of the Government's thinking on specialist schools, greater diversity of provision and having freer schools by giving them greater autonomy, the Government must accept at the core of their policy that there must be no excuse for failure. That phrase was used tellingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster.

We expect our schools in the cities, as elsewhere, to perform at the highest level. They owe it to our children. It is for Ministers and for all of us in the House to give our support in the best and most effective way possible. I wish the Minister well in his new brief. It is vital. It cannot be neglected. We look forward to what he has to say. We all hope that he will be open and will make it clear where he has the courage to break with the failures of the last few years. I do not say that everything that the Government have done has been wrong, but he must have the courage to admit what has been wrong, to break with those failures and to show us how they intend to move forward.

It is an honour for me, Mr. Pike, that you are presiding over my first Adjournment debate. I want to address four sets of issues that have been underlined in this debate. The first is the challenges of education in cities; the second is the role of targeted programmes in meeting those challenges; thirdly, I want to pick up some of the other matters that have been raised in the debate; and, fourthly, I want to flag up some of the challenges ahead.

Before I do that, I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this important debate. He and I served on the Education Bill. He walked out only once. I hope that we manage to get through the next 13 minutes with a fair degree of harmony. I should also like to pick out two hon. Members. I hope that the wing of the Tory party that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) represents comes back into fashion so that his merits are finally recognised and he makes his way up within his party. I am always pleased to hear about people who have had experience of South Shields. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) fought the 1997 election. I think the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) also fought his first parliamentary election in South Shields. If we are nothing else, we are a breeding ground for Conservatives who later win other seats. Since 1882, South Shields has been the only constituency in the UK never to elect a Conservative.

I was genuinely disappointed by the tone and approach of the hon. Member for Eddisbury. He must be living on a different planet from the rest of us if all he can see in 24,000 schools up and down the country is failure—a word he used half a dozen times. The world that I see is confirmed by the international research conducted by the OECD, which says that England has the fastest improving education system in the industrialised world. That is a tribute to teachers, pupils, parents, classroom assistants and learning mentors all around the country. It would be a crying shame if the message that everyone in the House wants to pay tribute to those efforts did not go out loud and clear. I hope that every speech and intervention has made that clear.

The facts are important. In 1997, almost half of all 11-year-olds in primary schools were unable to read, write or do basic maths to an acceptable standard; today, 71 per cent. reach such a standard in maths and 75 per cent. in English. In addition, more than half of secondary school pupils now get five good GCSEs. Those are important steps in the right direction. In 1997, the Office for Standards in Education identified 1,336 schools as failing; between May 1997 and May 2002, 899 schools came out of special measures. Those are all indicators of growing success in our education system. It would be folly not to acknowledge that.

To what extent are those trends the result of introducing better inspection regimes through Ofsted and of better information and data preparation through league tables?

Those reforms are important underpinnings of the system, but anyone who considers primary schools, for example, will recognise that introducing the national literacy and numeracy scheme after 1997 contributed enormously to the step change in achievement.

I remember listening to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) debating pensions in the House when the issue of low interest rates and low inflation was raised in relation to Bank of England independence. He said that the Conservative party was thinking about that in 1997, and I get the feeling that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) might say that it was also thinking about many of the things that Labour has done in education. The truth is that his party did not do them in 18 years in government. Teachers and pupils should take the credit for those achievements; the Government contributed to making them possible.

Before proceeding to my four main themes, I must respond to the attempted character assassination of South Tyneside. I did not realise that this went with being a Minister, but given the remarks of Opposition Members, it is important that I say that, in all the schools that I have visited—32 primary schools and all five secondary schools in my constituency; I will have visited all 36 primary schools in the academic year—I have seen teachers of outstanding commitment and energy. It is a travesty to suggest that they are delivering a failing system. In a constituency with the fourth highest unemployment in the United Kingdom, we are achieving above average results in primary education, and we look forward to that being replicated in the secondary sector.

We must recognise, however, that there are particular challenges for teaching and learning in cities. Obviously, cities are characterised by dynamism and enterprise, but they are also characterised by poverty, generational unemployment, high levels of social exclusion, linguistic and cultural diversity, high mobility levels and transient populations. Those are all challenges for education.

When the excellence in cities programme started, only 33 per cent. of inner-city pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A to C; 13.5 per cent. of inner-city schools had been identified by Ofsted as failing or having serious weaknesses, compared with 5.4 per cent. nationally; and 38 per cent. of inner-city schools had excluded five or more pupils in the previous year, compared with 26 per cent. nationally. Those are challenges, not excuses for failure, and I have met no one teaching in a city who wants to use those challenges as an excuse for failure. A culture of high expectations has developed over the past five to 10 years, and those challenges are not a list of excuses, although they deserve recognition.

I am a great believer in the idea that we have to get the general conditions right for school improvement. It is not right to believe that there is a programme for every problem; there must be a general system that drives up standards overall. There is now increased investment and increased numbers of teachers. Increased support is going to all schools, including those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, where £550 more per pupil is spent now than in 1997, compared with a real-terms cut of £120 in the last Parliament during which his party was in office.

We must address the particular challenges of education in our cities on the basis of that rising investment. That was the purpose of the excellence in cities programme, which is designed to provide targeted support for city schools. It involves the extended use of learning mentors and the development of learning support units for pupils whose behaviour is causing problems, beacon and specialist schools, and—particularly noteworthy, given the hon. Gentleman's comments—a gifted and talented stream, which is designed to pick out the talents of pupils with particular gifts.

The evidence on the excellence in cities programme is interesting and I should like to go through it: 3,500 learning mentors, 105 city learning centres, 500 learning support units and 383 beacon schools. What standards have they achieved? I was impressed when I learned that in phase 1 local authorities, which have been going since 1999, the percentage of pupils gaining five A to C grades at GCSE rose from 34.1 to 37 per cent. Furthermore, the number of pupils gaining five or more good GCSEs improved particularly strongly in London, where the average increase over just two years was from 32.8 to 36.6 per cent. The rate of improvement in English of secondary school pupils was four times the national average, which shows that the programme should be supported, not condemned.

I shall now deal with specific points raised in the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will forgive me for not dealing with all his points. Some were particularly interesting. I could not agree with him more about extended hours of schooling. Any business using its plant for only 40 per cent. of the time would be viewed as a serious problem. We all know that provision for out-of-school activities has a powerful influence on performance in school. I therefore associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's wish to see school plant used more out of hours. I hope that we can improve after-hour schooling, weekend schooling and summer schools. A start has been made, but we have further to go.

Some hon. Members referred to the flight of the middle classes from the state sector. We should be careful about using that sort of language. There are serious issues about where people send their children to school. However, my figures suggest that over the past 15 years, the number of pupils in the private sector has risen from 540,000 to 560,000—an increase of only 20,000. No one should pretend that that is a perfect state of affairs, but it does not reflect any notion of a mass exodus from the state system.

The Minister is making a valid and important point. Does he agree that the true measure of the crisis in education in inner cities is the flight of middle-class people from those areas, which is largely a result of the quality of education available? Middle-class people have the wherewithal to make a change: they are voting with their feet and moving into areas with good schools. That is the flight of the middle classes—a problem that needs to be tackled.

That is a broad-brush statement. As someone who lives in an inner city, I know that many middle-class people still live in such areas. I am prepared to consider the data, but without any supporting evidence I would not associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's view. I have not heard him specify any particular data, so he should be careful about making such allegations.

The hon. Member for Fareham mentioned creativity and the importance of a broad and balanced curriculum. Significantly, schools doing best scholastically often do the most to develop creative talents. It is dangerous to counterpose academic achievement and broader activities. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the emphasis on literacy and numeracy was squeezing out kids' creative potential, but in my experience that is not the case.

In my remaining time I want to speak about the challenges ahead. The main difference between the Government side and the official Opposition is that we are pleased to have the fastest improving education system in the industrialised world, but without being complacent about it. We are proud of the achievements of parents and pupils in schools up and down the country, but we acknowledge that it is not enough. The Opposition say that everything is hopeless, which is a dangerous position to adopt.

The Government want to make further progress in four particular respects. First, primary schools have seen magnificent improvements in achievement, but we cannot be satisfied while a quarter of young people cannot read, write or count well when they leave them. Secondly, reform of the teaching profession is a legitimate issue, particularly regarding the time available to teach, the support that teachers receive and leadership. I shall be addressing those issues in half an hour in north London, if anyone wants to follow me up there.

The third issue is the step change in secondary schooling that is clearly necessary, and the fourth issue is the continued focus on schools in challenging circumstances. In 372 schools, less than 25 per cent. of pupils get five good GCSEs, and 199 of those schools are in inner-city areas. That is our agenda: it is about building on what we perceive to be success, but it is success with which we are not yet satisfied.

This debate is about the safety of ships and mariners at sea, which is a topic that the House has not debated for several years. In particular, my contribution will be about the sinking of the MV Derbyshire in 1980, with the loss of 44 lives, including the wives of two officers. The story of the Derbyshire is incredible, and I can only scratch the surface this morning.

Hon. Members may wonder why on earth a Member who represents an inland constituency should take such an interest in the sea. The truth is that I have been fascinated by the sea all my life. I was born close to it and went to secondary school in the seaside resort of Southport. My fascination with ships began on my many visits with my father to Liverpool in my formative years. I am old enough to remember the joy of riding on the overhead railway, long since demolished, along the dock road, to look at all the mighty ships that sailed the seven seas.

The Derbyshire sank during Typhoon Orchid. No SOS was received: only oil rising to the surface identified that the ship had sunk and located its approximate position at the time. The families heard about the loss mainly through media reports, which made their grief even worse. MV Derbyshire was a single screw ore-bulk-oil combination carrier, one of six sister ships. An OBO is a design of ship that was popular in the mid-1960s, because such ships were adaptable to carrying oil or bulk cargos such as iron ore, which the Derbyshire was carrying from Canada to Japan.

The MV Derbyshire was registered at Liverpool and, at the time, was the largest ship ever built: it was twice the size of the Titanic. In length she measured 294.1 metres and, in extreme breadth, 44.28 metres. If stood on end, the ship was 60 metres taller than Canary Wharf, and had nine holds or tanks and nine hatches. She was built by Swan Hunter on the River Tees, and handed over to Bibby Tankers in Hamburg on 10 June 1976. MV Derbyshire was managed from that point until her loss by Bibby's. She was classed by Lloyd's Register of Shipping in London as a

"+ 100 A1 strengthened for ore cargoes; holds 2 and 6 may be empty or oil cargoes".

Since the tragic loss of the MV Derbyshire, bulk carriers have been sinking at a rate of one a month. From the loss of the Derbyshire in 1980 to August 1998, 1,632 seafarers lost their lives in bulk carrier incidents alone. The MV Derbyshire Family Association was established following the loss of the ship and sought to persuade the then Government to investigate its loss and the loss of loved ones. The Government declined, citing the technological difficulties of examining the wreck at a depth of two and a half miles below sea level.

I want to pay tribute to the DFA and its members for their persistence. I have worked with them since my election to Parliament in 1997, and have been impressed by their work. Their primary aim has been to use the loss of the Derbyshire to improve the safety of all those who sail at sea in OBOs. Several right hon. and hon. Members have promoted their cause in this House, and I pay tribute to them. Some of them have been elevated to the other place. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) has been applying for this debate for several weeks, and last week I promised to give him assistance as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on the MV Derbyshire. Unfortunately, he is away in Strasbourg this week and is devastated that he cannot he with us today.

A draft Government report, published in 1985, concluded that the most likely cause of the loss of the Derbyshire was major cracking of frame 65. However, after consultations with Swan Hunter and Lloyd's Register of Shipping—and perhaps others—the draft report was substantially altered. The final version, published in March 1986, listed five possible causes for the loss: explosion, a shift of cargo, failure of the hatches, external hull damage and structural failure.

With the loss of a sister ship, the Kowloon Bridge, in November 1986, a finger of suspicion was again pointed at frame 65. Consequently, a formal investigation was appointed under Mr. Gerald Darling QC, as wreck commissioner, with three assessors. It considered the loss from October 1987 to March 1988. Its report concluded:

"For the reasons stated in this Report the Court finds that the Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid, possibly after getting beam on to wind and sea, off Okinawa, in darkness on the night of 9/10 September 1980, with the loss of 44 lives. The evidence available does not support any firmer conclusions".

The families of those who perished were extremely disappointed at such an inconclusive result, and at the allegations of bad seamanship made in the report. The report cast further suspicions on the design features of the Derbyshire, particularly the strength of frame 65, and it was promoted as a cause of the ship's loss in articles in learned journals, by lecturers and in a book on the sinking of the Derbyshire written by Dave Ramwell and Tim Madge, which was published in 1992. The MV Derbyshire Family Association continued to put pressure on the Government for a full inquiry, with support from the International Transport Workers Federation and the maritime unions. In March 1994, the ITF agreed to back a mission to locate the Derbyshire, raising the money independently of the Government. Its part in the story cannot be over-emphasised. It brought in Oceaneering Technologies, and the wreck was located on 8 June 1994.

In a joint UK-EC assessors' report, Lord Donaldson used the results provided by Oceaneering Technologies and recommended that a joint UK Government-EC investigation be carried out in the interests of international ship safety. The deep submergence laboratory of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution of the United States carried out an extensive groundbreaking survey, which at the time was the deepest underwater forensic examination of any wreck. It provided more than 200 hours of video and 135,774 photographs, which located the position of 98 per cent. of the wreckage in 2,500 separate pieces. Through pressure from the MV Derbyshire Family Association, the all-party parliamentary group on the Derbyshire and others, we persuaded the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), to reopen the formal inquiry under Mr. Justice Colman. The present Government's role in unearthing the truth surrounding the sinking of the Derbyshire cannot be underestimated.

The inquiry was unique in that it took place in the High Court and was presided over by a senior judge. Tribute must be paid to the inquiry team, who worked with all parties involved to arrive at a definitive conclusion on the loss. From evidence of the condition of the wreck and data derived from model tests, which were conducted by MARIN in the Netherlands, strong inferences were drawn about the cause of the loss. Ventilators and air pipes located on the foredeck and leading down to the bosun's store, machinery space and ballast tank were damaged before sinking commenced in such a way as to admit substantial volumes of seawater to those spaces; the hatch covers were damaged by impact from forward before they collapsed into the holds and before they were subjected to bending on a longitudinal axis; the hull girder had not lost its longitudinal integrity at any time until after sinking had commenced; the bosun's store hatch lid did not admit water to the bosun's store until it was destroyed by impact, probably by some part of the starboard windlass; and the starboard windlass broke loose by reason of hydrodynamic loading, probably after some or all of the ventilators and air pipes to the bosun's store and ballast tank and probably the No.1 hatch covers had already been destroyed and had started to admit seawater, thereby reducing the vessel's freeboard and increasing the exposure of the windlass to weld-cracking waves.

The initiating cause of the loss of the vessel appears to have been the destruction of some or all of the ventilators and air pipes that were located on the foredeck, which led down into the boatswain's store, machinery spaces and ballast tank, and the consequent loss of freeboard at the bow due to the gradual flooding of those forward spaces.

Professor Tawn concluded from that data that the flooding of both the stores and the ballast tank—even the stores alone—could have produced sufficient loss of freeboard to expose hatch cover No. 1 to at least one hatch-breaking wave during the typhoon on 9 September 1980. Therefore, hatch cover strength became crucial, not only to the safety of the Derbyshire, but to all similar vessels, many of which are still navigating the oceans today, thus putting hundreds more lives at risk.

The recommendations of the re-hearing of the formal investigation were significant, far-reaching and necessary to protect mariners' lives. Certain issues were highlighted as crucial to the achievement of increased safety at sea—hatch cover strength, permissible freeboard and navigational improvements.

Hatch cover strength applies equally to existing ships as to new ones. However, the problem with existing ships is whether shipowners would consider the fitting of stronger hatch covers to be economically viable. The underlying deck structure may not be strong enough to support heavier covers. That problem could be combated by an increase in either the minimum freeboard level or new covers, or a mixture of both for existing ships, which would allow heightened safety in dangerous waters. There is no excuse for building new ships without strengthening their hatch covers.

The international convention on load lines 1966 governs the weight of cargo stored in the holds of all bulk carriers worldwide. Justice Colman's inquiry concluded that:

"it provides for a level of protection substantially too low by reference to modern safety standards".

The RFI report recommends that that be changed and be

"applicable at least to all existing bulk carriers"

and that they should

"more than comply with the ILLC 66 regulations for minimum hatch cover strength".

An article in the T2 section of The Times on 22 April 2002 entitled "Coffins of the High Seas" focused on the Derbyshire and the general safety of bulk carriers. A spokesman for the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers was quoted as saying that the commercial life of those vessels is

"15 years maximum, but many of the vessels still working are more than 20 years old and the incidence of loss increases dramatically after 11 years."

That implies that many OBOs are death traps and unfit for service. That implication is reinforced by the sentiments expressed in the article's conclusion by Paul Lambert of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, whose brother Peter died on the Derbyshire. He suggests that the industry

"has known for 20 years what the problem is",

and that

"bulk carriers are not seaworthy."

Paul told me that some OBOs become rust buckets after 15 years, and that beyond that age they should be subjected to much more stringent inspections than younger ships.

The RFI report concludes that the International Maritime Organisation should require the

"compulsory daily reporting of all vessels".

The report also suggests that the mariner's handbook, NP100, should be amended as regards navigation in the dangerous semicircle of a tropical revolving storm, to include the possibility of running with the wind on the port quarter in certain circumstances. Masters should be made aware of the potential dangers of water entry into forward spaces and the resulting loss of freeboard.

According to the report, an increased participation by vessels in the World Meteorological Organisation's voluntary observing ships scheme should he encouraged by a British maritime notice and an IMO circular. Weather routing agencies should make clear to masters the precise circumstances in which positive routing advice will be given to vessels during voyages. Those navigational improvements will enable the safer passage of vessels through the most dangerous seas.

Many additional features in the report place obligations on the International Association of Classification Societies, the IMO and the Department for Transport, which should co-operate as necessary. Those features are aimed at ensuring the implementation of the improved safety standards set out in Mr. Justice Colman's report. The report recommends that IACS set up research programmes to investigate the establishment of a

"minimum strength requirement for and, if necessary, location and protection requirements for ventilators and air pipe fittings on deck".

It also recommends that chain locker access be through bolted manholes, not doors; that foredeck hatch cover displacements be monitored, preferably using camera surveillance on the foredeck; that deck fittings be secured; that as-built construction plans and plans showing alterations that have been in any dry dock worldwide be kept; and that powerful lighting and industrial video cameras be installed on the foredeck of all Capesize bulk carriers. It also contains recommendations on hatch-cover operating manuals, and recommends that the pumping system to deal with forward-space flooding be independent of the main pumps and be capable of running dry without damage and handling solid material.

Perhaps the two most important recommendations are that a marine accident database be established comprehensively to record storm damage incidents, and that all new ships be fitted with voyage data recorders, which are similar to the black box recorders that have always been fitted to aircraft. It is recommended that VDRs be retrofitted to existing ships, and the IMO is carrying out a feasibility study on retrofitting VDRs to existing bulk carriers, although it is not expected to report until January 2004.

In its 74th session last year, the IMO's maritime safety committee reported that some progress was being made. The committee was updated on the formal safety assessments that member organisations were carrying out on bulk carrier safety.

The hon. Gentleman rightly notes that action must be taken in the international context. Is he arguing that, given the IMO's record of reaching conclusions very slowly, the UK authorities should act unilaterally, rather than await the extremely sluggish development of new regulations?

Yes, I am. I believe that the authorities are already taking such steps, and I look forward to the Minister saying something about that in his response.

Mr. Justice Colman has expressed concern about the progress that is being made in implementing the recommendations in the report. He warned that the sinking of the Christopher last December was a red light to the industry, and that there may be bulk carriers afloat with hatch covers that comply with ILLC 66, but which are

"of the order of 50 per cent. of what they should be in terms of structural strength".

According to him, the IACS should get its act together on hatch cover safety and lead any change on the issue.

Clearly, there is concern, given that 1,634 seafarers were lost in bulk carrier incidents in the period between the loss of the Derbyshire in 1980 and August 1998. The Christopher managed to get out a message stating that she had suffered forward hatch cover damage and was Flooded—a fate similar to the Derbyshire's. It is clearly unacceptable for lives constantly to be lost when we have solutions to the problems within our grasp.

Does my hon. Friend agree that dealing with flags of convenience would be one way to tackle the poor safety records of some shipping companies? He mentioned the ITF, and I am sure that he will join me in congratulating it on its good work. Its inspectors examine ships to ensure that they are in good condition and use the right safety methods.

Reference has been made to solving the problem internationally, but we should surely tackle it on a European basis first. Every ship that enters European waters must comply with safety regulations, so that they are not unsafe or unseaworthy, and crews must be trained to a certain standard.

My hon. Friend is right. If I had more time, I would mention those matters. I accept that it is difficult to achieve international agreement, but there is no doubt that, in recent years, cost-cutting exercises have driven the shipping industry. I am pleased that the Government are considering flagging back ships in Britain, because one problem has been that ships have flagged out of countries that have more stringent safety requirements. Training crews is important, as is insurance to cover those staff. There are so many complex issues to deal with in shipping that it is not easy to reach international agreements.

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the modern day Samuel Plimsoll. What action has Lloyd's taken to secure improved design for new shipping, as well as for the existing fleet?

I am not an expert on shipping, but I understand that, for obvious reasons, Lloyd's Register of Shipping takes a great interest in the matter and is one of the leading promoters of safety for ships at sea.

Mr. Justice Colman is right to point out the dangerous delay in the implementation of his report. We should put pressure on all interested parties, including the Government, to speed up its implementation, so that we can offer a safe working environment for all those at sea, and provide justice for the families of the Derbyshire crew, who have fought for more than 22 years to improve safety at sea. I know that the Government are working actively to improve ship safety and that we are already well on our way to implementing many of Mr. Justice Colman's RFI report recommendations. I look forward to the Minister updating us on this important subject.

rose—

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should mention that five or six hon. Members wish to speak in addition to Front-Bench Members, so hon. Members must co-operate if everyone is to have a chance to contribute.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this important debate. I want to focus on another aspect of safety at sea, but I was interested to hear what he said about the lessons to he learned from the case of the MV Derbyshire. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, however, I have a coastal constituency, some 50 miles of glorious coastline, which hon. Members are welcome to visit at any time, as it includes some of the best features in the United Kingdom, including two special conservation areas—[Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members representing Cornwall will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Pike—and only the second breeding pod of the bottle-nosed dolphin in the United Kingdom, so it is an important and pristine area.

I want to concentrate on a report published by the National Audit Office on 12 June, which deals with pollution from ships and accidents at sea. The report focuses on the contingency planning and response activities of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I was interested to read the report because I have been campaigning on the issue for several months and corresponding with the Minister's Department and planning officers in Wales. The report noted a severe gap in the contingency planning of coastal local authorities in Wales to deal with maritime accidents. As hon. Members may recall, the last serious maritime accident off the coast was the Sea Empress disaster, which caused a huge environmental problem for the beaches and tourist areas of Pembrokeshire and signalled a disaster in terms of safety at sea. Prior to that there was the Braer disaster. The independent inquiries into both those disasters—Lord Donaldson's into the Braer oil spillage and that of the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee—one in 1994 and the other in 1996, made it clear that a key recommendation was for local authorities to have a statutory duty to plan for and undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents.

So far we have experienced oil pollution. The time will come when we see more serious pollution off our coasts. That call by the two inquiries was backed up by a report of the National Audit Office published a fortnight ago. It called for the Minister's Department to

"consider the case for taking powers to require all coastal local authorities to have up-to-date oil spill contingency plans consistent with the national contingency plan so that the United Kingdom as a whole is properly prepared to deal with marine pollution incidents in compliance with international convention."

The implication in that statement is that we are not properly prepared at the moment; we need those statutory duties. That call has been supported by my local authority, Ceredigion county council, by Pembrokeshire national park and Pembrokeshire county council as the main sufferers of the Sea Empress disaster, by the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities. It is also the subject of early-day motion 776, which has been signed by over 60 members of Parliament, including many—I am pleased to see—from the governing party but not, so far, by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. Perhaps he will consider whether he can support it; I would welcome that.

We need increased funding if we are to place a statutory duty on local authorities to deal with marine incidents. The three local authorities in Wales that were, unfortunately, identified by the NAO as not being sufficiently prepared for such disasters were Monmouthshire, Denbighshire and Newport. The BBC and the Western Mail report Denbighshire as having said simply that it could not do what was asked of it unless it had the resources to do so.

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, but it is not about safety at sea.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the debate is on safety of ships and seafarers at sea. I hope that he can bring his remarks back to that.

Thank you. Mr. Pike. I thought that the NAO report on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was pertinent to the debate. I shall move on to another aspect of the report, which I hope will please the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) more. The agency called for changes in merchant shipping legislation. Current legislation defines major areas of the UK coast, including mine in Cardigan bay, as internal waters. That means that those waters are insufficiently prepared for maritime accidents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, all hon. Members will recognise my final concern, which relates directly to shipping at sea and the safety of mariners. In August, two ships—I do not know whether they are of the type that has been referred to—will carry cargo for British Nuclear Fuels plc through the Irish sea, off the coast of my constituency. The Irish Government and Governments in the Caribbean and New Zealand have registered their protests. They see such shipping as a possible terrorist target. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to say how he is addressing the safety of that shipment, and how he will ensure that there are no detrimental effects from the shipping of nuclear waste through the Irish sea.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased—

Order. I have let you say it twice, but I am not a Deputy Speaker.

I apologise, Mr. Pike. You should be. I thought that all hon. Members who took the Chair in this Chamber were to be called Deputy Speakers.

The four most senior members of the Speaker's Panel are additional Deputy Speakers. Other hon. Members are known by their names. That is why we have them in front of us.

Thank you, Mr. Pike. I did not need to see your name to know it. I am sure that the fact that even I know your name means that you will soon be a Deputy Speaker.

I am pleased to have had an opportunity to outline some of the difficulties that I see affecting my constituency from marine pollution incidents; matters relating to the safety of shipping, particularly what will happen in August; and the history of some serious accidents that have been experienced off the coast of the United Kingdom, which affected both the lives of mariners and the pollution of our coast.

I will keep my remarks short, Mr. Pike. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the debate. The issue is important for my constituency.

I could take many tacks, but I would like to concentrate on safety in the Falmouth harbour area. Falmouth boasts one of the finest harbours in the world. For hundreds of years its mariners and fishermen have plied the seas, risking life and limb. Packet ships sailed to and from Falmouth with mail to and from the new world. Today it is home to a major ship repair yard and builds some of the great racing yachts of the world. The waters bustle and bubble with the activity of boats powered by both engines and sail. The shipyard has played host to many a ship needing repair. Disasters have long hit the Cornish coast; few hon. Members will need to be reminded of the tragedy of the Torrey Canyon.

I was delighted that the Government ensured a couple of years ago that a tug, the Far Sky, was based in Falmouth. Together with its successor, the Anglian Prince, which will be available for any future disaster, it has played a critical role in rescuing drifting vessels. A number of reports, including the Donaldson report, had recommended that we needed a western approaches guard ship on standby in Falmouth. I am pleased that the Government responded. The tug works locally with the internationally known Falmouth coastguard. The Deputy Prime Minister, a regular visitor and friend of the town, has seen its work. It oversees rescues around the globe—that of Pete Goss being just one relatively recent example. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the coastguard and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, to all at Culdrose and to those involved in sea rescues who, day and night, year in, year out, work for the good of all mariners. Hon. Members will remember the Kodima, which last winter foundered off the south Cornwall coast, providing endless decking for the gardens of Cornwall. The Far Sky was critical in rescuing the ship before it broke up on the rocks.

I do, however, have concerns. In Falmouth harbour, three different harbour authorities have jurisdiction over the Carrick roads. Pilots in Falmouth have argued long and hard that they need one authority. They are in no doubt that one authority would make for a safer harbour if a major catastrophe hit the area. I strongly support them. It seems that it is possible to reform local government and to create a Parliament in Scotland, but that to amalgamate three harbour authorities is beyond the wit of man and Government.

Twenty years ago, Falmouth was a relatively quiet harbour in terms of water sports. Now, hundreds of yachts mingle with ships weighing hundreds of thousands of tonnes. Safety measures for ships and seafarers within the harbour and local waters seem to involve many anomalies. My good friend the Minister introduced a private Member's Bill in 1996 to improve safety at activity centres. I congratulate him on that achievement. However, there are certain loopholes that I suggest, tentatively, he might address. Water sport companies training sailors need adventurous activities licences. They are happy to comply, but question why surfing is not included. Surf companies may have to obtain licences from the local authority, but those do not require the same standards as adventurous activity licences. I am sure that all current surf companies operate to the highest level in Cornwall, but that may be something to consider in the future. Powerboats, which are the equivalent of sports cars at sea, can be driven with no training at all. Would we allow untrained drivers on motorways? Of course not. We should, therefore, consider mandatory training for those who drive powerful powerboats.

On the wider issues, the mariners of Falmouth are keen for massive improvements to be made in safety at sea. The trade union NUMAST is clear that we need to attract many more young recruits to the sea, but flags of convenience will not do so, as hon. Members have said. Nationally, the industry fears that European expansion will lead to cheap labour, particularly on ferry routes.

Many people in Cornwall want on-board conditions to be checked during port state control inspections. In recent years, several ships have been stranded in Falmouth. The crews have been living among rats, and have been dependent on the charity of the people of Falmouth. The basic safety offered by such ships has been dreadful due to lack of investment and basic maintenance, and it has often been difficult even to identify the owners. In some cases, the crews have not been paid for months, and the ships have been taken into custody because of unpaid bills.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the article in The Guardian today, which refers to the Cambodian ship that was arrested by the French Navy and the Spanish and Greek authorities? The article states:

"Safety is also an issue: since 1995 at least 25 Cambodian ships have been wrecked or stranded. There have also been 41 collisions, nine fires and 45 arrests."

That is purely down to flags of convenience, and we should seriously consider tackling the issue.

I thank my hon. Friend. I have not seen that article, but I shall certainly review it. Flags of convenience are clearly a major issue, and I know that the Government have considered it. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in that regard.

Seafarers become the victims in the international game of pass the buck. Ships are often unsafe, and conditions are beyond the pale. It is vital that the Government take action internationally and in Britain to ensure that standards rise and conditions improve.

The fact that port state control in the EU has been toughened up has led to ships being arrested. Hitherto, they were not arrested, because port state control was ineffectively managed. The fact that they are now being arrested means that there are ships around with unpaid crews and poor conditions.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he can hardly think that the current situation is satisfactory; people in my constituency and in the wider Cornish area certainly would not. There have been small improvements, but we need greater regulation.

If young people are to be attracted into the industry in the future, they need to be reassured that there will be no more stories of unpaid crews with rats for companions. Higher safety standards will not encourage new recruits if the industry still plies the seas with ships that are in such poor condition.

I have raised small and large issues today, but safety at sea must be our number one priority, whether in international or in own waters.

The House should congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), and thank him for once again raising the issue of the MV Derbyshire. It is particularly important, given that other ships of that class have been lost at sea. That seems to suggest—I put it no more strongly than that—some form of structural failure with that class, which maritime organisations should examine.

I take issue with some of the points that have been raised, particularly by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). She did not recognise that some measures have already been taken.

Safety legislation can be considered on three levels: international, European and national. Internationally, the shipping industry is principally regulated by the International Maritime Organisation, which is a London-based United Nations agency. The IMO has no power to make Governments or industry take action, so the principal responsibility for enforcing IMO regulations on ship safety and environmental protection rests with flag states. Much of that work is delegated to bodies called classification societies. Flag state support and enforcement is supplemented by port state control, which means that officials can inspect foreign flagged ships to ensure that they comply with international requirements.

Through the years, the IMO has adopted much useful and important legislation. The first is the international convention for the safety of life at sea. The second is MARPOL, which deals with prevention of pollution. The third is the convention on the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, which lays down what is known in maritime circles as the rules of the road. The fourth, which has already been mentioned, is the international convention on load lines, which sets the minimum permissible freeboard according to the season of the year and the ship's trading pattern.

Shipping companies have the international safety management code, which requires them to have a licence to operate. For seafarers, there is the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers and ILO 147, which requires national Administrations to have effective legislation on labour issues such as hours of work, medical fitness and seafarers' working conditions.

The IMO is sometimes accused of being slow, but that accusation misunderstands how it operates. It must operate by agreement, which means that it must secure agreements from parties with many different interests. It is a slow process, and to circumvent it, port states, national Governments and the European Community have often implemented their own regulations.

European safety legislation has mainly concentrated on maritime cabotage, jobs and ensuring that internationally agreed rules, especially those of the IMO and the ILO, are strictly adhered to. The legislation has sometimes amplified those rules, particularly in relation to ferries. The EU has sought to improve the safety of navigation by developing two aids to navigation: vessel traffic management and information; and radio-navigation systems.

In the United Kingdom, the Government are advised by several organisations. The principal one is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which was formed by the merger of the Coastguard Agency and the Marine Safety Agency on 1 April 1998. There are many doubts about the agency, and as the Minister will know, the Transport Committee argued in 1999 that the two organisations should be demerged. The Government resisted, and have continued to resist, the proposal. The Comptroller and Auditor General has also been critical in his report "Ship Surveys and Inspections", much of which concerned safety. The Public Accounts Committee took up the cudgels and published a report on 6 February 2002. Three main conclusions emerged. First, the MCA needs to focus more of its work on the riskiest vessels, rather than taking the easiest targets. Secondly, it should give more attention to the human aspects of ship safety. Thirdly, it should take firmer action to uncover and pursue significant breaches of maritime legislation.

I have a further criticism. As far as I am aware there is not one master mariner in the MCA's senior management. It seems daft that the principal organisation chosen by the Government to advise them on safe, secure maritime operations has no senior practitioner of that art but relies on those whose experience is principally shore-side. It was announced in the Queen's Speech on 6 December 2000 that the Government were putting together a draft safety Bill to cover a wider range of different workplace and transport safety issues, including port and shipping safety. More details were in the press release of 3 May 2001. It is now a year on. Will the Minister tell us what has happened to that Bill?

One of the IMO's current concerns is safety from terrorism following 11 September. As that tragedy made painfully clear, economic globalisation and technological interdependence have brought unforeseen global security threats, which affect not only sovereign states but the vessels that constantly move between their legal jurisdictions. Shipping is now a direct component in a complex logistical chain that is an integral part of the world's manufacturing process. It has also become subject to that more notorious global force—international terrorism.

Thus, we cannot speak of shipping safety without also recognising the link with maritime security. Security measures, which at present cover only passenger ships and passenger ferries, need to be expanded to cover other potentially vulnerable ships, such as gas carriers, chemical and oil tankers, not to mention the safety of personnel who man the port areas. In view of that safety-security connection, I wish to highlight the potential implications of revising chapter V of the international convention for the safety of life at sea, which will come into force on 1 July and is at present being considered by the House.

The automatic identification system was developed to deliver digital information conveying a vessel's position, identity and other related information automatically from ship to ship and from ship to shore. The systems allow ships and coastal authorities to "see" the position of other ships, even in situations where physical obstructions would prevent radar detection. AIS also enables ships to identify other ships, assists in target tracking and simplifies information exchange by reducing verbal exchanges.

The principle of those regulations is admirable, yet the consequences of their implementation demand rather more thought and much less haste. There certainly needs to be much more provision for the training of seafarers and personnel at shore surveillance stations and ports in a number of new navigation technologies, including AIS. At the moment, that is merely being considered by the sub-committee on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping. Moreover, as a leading tanker owner and operator of large crude carriers warned, AIS

"may delay the adoption of an urgently needed holistic approach to shipping traffic safety".

It seems odd that we intend to pass a statutory instrument before 1 July, but according to its Assistant Secretary General, the IMO is now

"actively encouraging a more thorough consideration of AIS issues by means of a two-day seminar which will take place on July 15/16".

We are introducing a regulation that the IMO has not finished considering. Any seaman will tell the Government that the priority should be for multilateral arrangements that deal with collisions and groundings as prime threats to mariners and the environment. AIS may prove helpful in tracking vessels in the aftermath of an accident, but it may be less useful as a preventive measure. I hope the Minister will answer the loud call for a comprehensive international traffic control and routing system.

AIS also runs the risk of undermining the seaman's more safety-conscious reliance on the mark one eyeball, radar, proper passage planning, the rule of the road, separation zones, and a host of seaman-like actions that may be downgraded by an over-reliance on fallible VHF-AIS electronics.

I wanted to make points about flares and their disposal, but I shall write to the Minister instead. I shall also write to him about the suggestion that small boats should have to show that they have passage planning before they undertake any voyage.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who has become a veritable expert on all MV Derbyshire-related matters.

The Derbyshire story has run almost throughout my career as a merchant navy officer, which began in the 1960s. It has become almost an icon of the continuing campaign to improve safety at sea and better the lot of the seafarer. I spent some 30 years at sea with the Blue Funnel line out of Liverpool and the Glen line out of London, and sailed on some of the safest deep-sea vessels ever built. I also had the harrowing experience of sailing on some of the world's worst ships during my time as a globe-trotting, trouble-shooting chief engineer, so I have seen the best and the worst during my deep-sea days.

During the last 13 years of my seafaring career before I entered this place, I sailed as chief engineer on Dover's cross channel ferries, and was employed in that capacity on Friday 6 March 1987 when the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized off Zeebrugge on passage to Dover. It was carrying 430 passengers and 80 crewmen, and 193 lives were lost. Safety at sea has therefore been real and personal for me, and it continues to be so. My constituency of Dover has the busiest ferry port in the world, and overlooks one of the busiest seaways in the world. Thousands of my constituents are associated with the port of Dover, or sail on the ferries.

Safety at sea is a massive, international subject, as hon. Members have acknowledged. I want to confine my comments to working hours, tours of duty, fatigue and training. Although there is much to be done to improve ship design, stability and fire and flood prevention, it remains an uncomfortable fact that 70 per cent. of all accidents, incidents and losses at sea can be attributed to humans. Most incidents and founderings are the result of a combination of factors, but the human factor is present in almost all of them. The hours of work and the quality and quantity of work periods hugely influence the way in which people perform and behave. That is pertinent to cross-channel ferries as well as to deep-sea operations.

The National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers—I declare an interest as an affiliate member of that august organization—and the National Union of Seamen, now known as the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, have for many years campaigned for safer hours. Hon. Members will recall that the P & O ferry strike of 1989 was called by the National Union of Seamen to fight for safer working hours and to resist the swingeing changes enforced by the ferry company. It is tragic to recall that after many months of struggle and strife and difficult times in Dover—we still face them today—P & O's response was to sack the entire work force and bring in replacements over their heads. I want to put on record the fact that the sacked seafarers committee, led by one of my constituents, Steve Stevenson, is still campaigning for safety at sea and for justice for the sacked seafarers.

The working hours directive and its effect on seafarers' hours and our domestic trade union laws is an important issue. Every time we reflect on these matters, we realise that the seafarer is a second-class citizen who is squeezed out of the game and omitted from rules and regulations. Seafarers never receive the protection that they deserve.

The ferry industry has always been hugely competitive. The challenge of the channel tunnel increased competition. The recent removal of duty-free sales from the ferry services built up further pressure on owners and employees in respect of conditions and hours of work. When I represented merchant navy officers at the port of Dover for NUMAST, the issue of hours and fatigue dominated the negotiations. The battle for fair working conditions is, of course, continuing.

As to the effect of working hours and fatigue, my evidence is anecdotal. I have not carried out specific research for this important debate, because I did not receive early enough notice of it. I have a copy of the NUMAST Telegraph, a publication that I recommend to all. It tells of a shipping vessel running aground in the Shetland Isles after the skipper fell asleep while alone on the bridge:

"inspectors from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch found that the man had had only seven hours sleep in the previous three days."

It goes on to say that the skipper's lack of sleep was

"largely the result of the vessel having a crew of only three, one of whom was very inexperienced."

Another item is entitled, "Dozy officer is sentenced":

"A Russian officer was given a six month suspended prison sentence and fined £1,830 by a French court last month after his ship ran aground off the Brittany coast after he fell asleep while alone on the bridge."

They may not be headline incidents, but similar cases resulting from fatigue could be cited during any month of the year. They are mainly the result of the manning of the bridge and the navigation of the ship, but further areas of potential difficulty exist below that level: engine room watchkeepers, seafarers on deck and mechanics in the engine room can all have their attention spoiled by lack of sleep and rest.

Time is pressing and other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. Rather than recount further incidents, I would like to make a plea on behalf of seafarers—both officers and ratings—in respect of hours of duty, rest periods and size of crews. We cannot impose a minimum crew size on many small fishing vessels. Statutory guidance exists on minimum crew levels for larger ships, but the minimum has virtually become the norm. Instead of companies considering the most appropriate manning levels and listening to the people who run ships day in and day out—master mariners, chief engineers and ratings—they try to get away with the lowest levels. Many companies use the lowest common denominator, which results in overstretch. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) has experience in the area, but it is from afar. He painted a rosy picture, but the statistics and league tables on accidents, losses and flounderings at sea show that flag-of-convenience vessels are head and shoulders above British-staffed and British-manned vessels.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that I was unaware of, or unconcerned about, flags of convenience. I am not, as my remarks made clear.

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

When the problem of hours, fatigue, flags of convenience, lack of training and fraudulently gained qualifications are combined with, and superimposed on, the experience of areas such as my patch of the straits of Dover, which has fully-laden tankers, chemical Carriers—indeed, the whole list of carriers—and cross-channel ferries from Dover to Calais and Zeebrugge, we have a dangerous mixture.

My final plea is that the issue of hours is reconsidered, and an inquiry is held into working hours and crew sizes, so that rational decisions can be made that will improve safety for the seafarer and the owner.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for allowing me a few of the precious moments that he has been given. I offer my speech as a lesson to other hon. Members in how to tailor remarks to fit a time limit.

I had wanted to raise several issues but will consign myself to one: the standard of safety in the fishing industry, which is a matter of supreme concern in my constituency. It involves two issues. The first is the culture in the fishing industry that safety is not important and can be overlooked. I am mindful of my experience as a solicitor engaged in an inquiry into a fatal accident on the merchant fishing vessel Annandale. My client's son had gone over the side to fix a trawl door without a lifejacket or a safety line, and the boat was hit by a lump of water. The body was never found. During that fatal accident inquiry, one of the deck hands gave evidence that he had worn a lifejacket for two weeks afterwards but had eventually stopped doing so because he was being ribbed by his crew mates. I offer that as a mere illustration of the problem.

The second factor in the worsening situation is economics. As has been said, fishing boats operate with smaller crews and higher overheads, and spend much more time at sea and less money on maintenance. Those changes all cause decreased safety levels. However, it is clear that the problem will not be solved by regulation alone; regulation has been tried and has manifestly failed. The economic difficulties of the industry need to be resolved—that is not one of the Minister's extensive responsibilities—and a change of culture in the industry brought about.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this important debate. He was right that the subject is raised too infrequently in the House. According to my records, the last time that the issue of safety at sea was raised was in an Adjournment debate that I secured as long ago as 15 July 1998 on loss of lives at sea. It concentrated on the fishing industry, which concerns many hon. Members.

Several important issues were raised in the debate, and the Minister will want to respond to some of the points made about the integral role of the International Maritime Organisation. Many people are concerned that a body that can move forward only on the basis of consensus and agreement does not have sufficient teeth and cannot impose the necessary sanctions to be able to implement the regulations with which it agrees. Anything that the Government can do to rattle cages and encourage the IMO to establish the sanctions that we all want would be very much to the good.

Several projects have taken international safety standards forward, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed). I want to highlight the standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers. I have spoken to a number of senior and experienced mariners, and there is concern that much of the new training on the international stage that is being promoted at present is based too much on technology and not sufficiently on an understanding of manual navigation techniques. Master mariners are worried that navigation standards are deteriorating as a result of the new training programme. The Government should recognise the argument that it is affecting navigation and watchkeeping standards on UK-registered and overseas vessels.

It is argued that an incident 18 months ago in the Dover straits involving Ever Decent, a Taiwanese cargo vessel, and Norwegian Dream, a passenger ship, was caused by the over-dependence on technology and insufficient use of visual methods of watchkeeping. In March 1997, the loss of the MV Cita in my constituency was partly the result of insufficient crew members on board. The watchkeeper fell asleep and the vessel ran into the east coast of the Isles of Scilly. The vessel was registered in one country, owned in another and insured in another, and as a result it was impossible to make any compensation arrangements for the crew or for the people of the Isles of Scilly who were affected by the incident.

The IMO should have more teeth. It should have sanctions available to it so that, with the maritime Governments at the cutting edge of improvements in this regard, it can jump on the low standards of shipping, which several hon. Members have emphasised in the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly raised the issue of fishing. The Government can take the lead on that by showing that they live by the slogan of joined-up government, especially in the Department for Transport's relationship with the Ministry of Defence. When the MOD sends out reconnaissance aircraft to search for vessels, it does so as a favour, not under agreement between the Department for Transport and the MOD. In the past, I have appealed to the Ministry of Defence to scramble aircraft to go out and look for vessels, but it is under no obligation to do so, and there is no agreement between different Departments to employ the best resources for that purpose. Similarly, naval fishing protection vessels are used to inspect fisheries and to protect fish stocks. While inspectors are on board those vessels they could easily inspect safety aspects of fishing vessels. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to sort out those issues.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a number of important points. The introduction of the draft safety Bill announced in May 2001 certainly needs to be addressed, as do several other issues. The Minister must also take on board and investigate the often-repeated complaint that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency does not have sufficient advice from master mariners, either for its inspections or in its understanding of buoyancy. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on securing this important debate, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this important debate. Although he rightly concentrated on MV Derbyshire—we listened carefully to him—he also introduced various general issues relating to maritime safety.

On the issue of MV Derbyshire, the then Secretary of State for Transport, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, said in a written answer of November 2000 that Mr. Justice Colman had made

"a total of 24 recommendations to enhance bulk carrier safety and safety generally."

The Secretary of State then made four promises. He said that the Department—the then DETR—

"will prepare a response to each of the recommendations…This response will be presented to Parliament…the Department will give urgent consideration, in particular, to the recommendations that the IMO—"

the International Maritime Organisation—

"should revise the relevant provisions of the International Load Line Convention 1966 and that any enhanced requirements concerning hatch cover strength should also apply to existing ships."—[Official Report, 8 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 240W.]

It would be helpful if the Minister, some 18 months later, could confirm that all those commitment have been met.

Back in May 2001, the Department, through a Minister, announced new measures to improve maritime safety, an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) has raised. It talked about the intentions set out in the Queen's Speech the previous November to draft a safety Bill, and it promised to use that opportunity to introduce three groups of measures to improve the safety of merchant shipping in the United Kingdom and safety at ports and harbours.

Let us take a closer look at some of the proposals. The first group was to improve the way in which maritime safety incidents were dealt with and to give fire authorities powers to recover the costs of fighting fires at sea. Although they have powers, but not duties, to fight fires, no mechanism is available for them to recover their costs. The second group was to improve the enforcement of shipping safety law, and the third group was to make some improvements to the powers of harbour authorities to regulate marine safety, so as to help them to implement the port marine safety code. As we well know, that was developed after the grounding of the Sea Empress in Milford Haven in 1996.

All those proposals would find acceptance and support among Opposition Members, but 13 months later there is still no sign of the Bill. Notwithstanding the problems and pressures in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, what signal does that send to the shipping industry about the Government's priorities and their failure to regard safety at sea as a serious issue? Once again, the Government are keen to issue press releases promising action, but are apparently not so keen to deliver on their promises.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred to the revised chapter V of the international convention for the safety of life at sea, which is due to come into force through a statutory instrument on 1 July. I understand that the House of Lords is currently scrutinising it. Serious doubts and concerns have arisen, particularly from practitioners in the industry, about the universal ship-borne automatic identification system. Why, given that opposition, are the Government apparently charging ahead with the implementation of that statutory instrument? AIS is a new and untried system. What is the Government's estimate of the costs of evaluating not only the system but training shipmasters, officers and pilots in its operation and maintenance?

I have three short questions. The Minister may have time to respond to them today, but if he does not I should like him to write to me. First, is he aware that the chief inspector of marine accidents, Rear Admiral J. S. Lang, had no direct involvement in the development of AIS, nor did he contribute to the deliberations on SOLAS? Secondly, is he satisfied that the proposed statutory instrument is intra vires in committing the UK to adopt amendments to chapter V of SOLAS, which

"embrace modern and future technologies for navigational instruments"?

Finally, is he convinced that

"As a signatory of SOLAS, the UK Government is obliged to implement this revision of SOLAS",

and that

"as the UK took part in the negotiations at IMO that agreed the revision of Chapter V, the UK is content with the provisions as they stand"?

If so, what is the point of the consultation called for by merchant shipping legislation?

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on raising these important matters. I also congratulate him on the clarity with which he raised so many points. He listed a number of chilling statistics of loss at sea. He also gave an excellent summary of the events leading up to the sinking of MV Derbyshire and what has happened since. I associate myself with his words of congratulation to the MV Derbyshire Family Association on their relentless campaigning for improvements to safety at sea.

The debate has given us an interesting tour of the coasts of this country. We have been to Cornwall and to Wales, and we have been down to Dover. I am not sure how much coastline there is in Bolton.

We have a canal.

Notwithstanding that, I recognise my hon. Friend's enormous interest in these matters. One does not have to come from a seafaring constituency to have a profound interest in these important matters.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was very engaging and I will try to answer some of his points. Some of the issues regarding the environment perhaps went a little beyond the scope of my responsibilities and the debate. However, he raised the important issue of the shipments of materials from Japan. I can assure him that all the International Maritime Organisation requirements will be met on those shipments. They will be transported in packages that meet all the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I can assure him that the Government and my Department are taking a great interest in those matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) made an excellent contribution. As a slight diversion, I should like to congratulate her on her recent marriage. It is not true that the first 20 years are the worst. It is the first 25 years, and I have well surpassed that already. In the event of a major incident in Falmouth or anywhere else that exceeded the abilities of the harbour authorities, the Secretary of State's representative for salvage and intervention would take over the command and control. That was one of my hon. Friend's concerns. That is covered in the United Kingdom's national contingency plan, and it is supplemented by the port marine safety code.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of flags of convenience. Some flags of convenience give considerable cause for concern, but the main concern is substandard ships, not just the flag of convenience. It may be more meaningful to talk about substandard ships. The UK has been at the forefront of achieving international agreement to improve the safety and environmental performance of ships on whatever register they are placed. As several hon. Members mentioned, the port state control plays an important part in that.

Moving seamlessly to the criticism of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency that was made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), I daresay that any organisation could be criticised. However, Maurice Storey is an outstanding person, and his leadership of the new organisation has been exceptional. The agency is now organised and highly competent and has responded to many of the points that have been made. One of its tasks is the port state control. The hon. Gentleman said that the agency should focus on the riskiest vessels, which it is doing. Another criticism was that more attention should be paid to human factors. Everyone would agree with that, including the agency. If the hon. Gentleman visited the agency and availed himself of the relevant information, he might change some of the views that he expressed today.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has already taken too long, to judge by some faces. I may give way to him on another occasion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) made some important points about the working time directive and the fatigue experienced by people working at sea. He will know that the UK ratified the International Labour Organisation's convention 180 on limits on hours of work. We will shortly introduce the EC directive on the working hours of seafarers into UK law, and I assure him that the Government place great importance on safety and fatigue.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) made an engagingly short speech, on which I congratulate him. It was a model of how much one can say in a short period. It was so good that I will take up his kind offer of some time ago to visit the Shetland Isles and partake of some of the fine hospitality available in that part of the country. I may visit some time in August, and I should be delighted to see the hon. Gentleman if he is not holidaying in the Mediterranean. He raised the important issue of sea fishing safety. I agree that the problem is the lack of a safety culture. We support the call for fishermen to wear lifejackets, which can now be worn without hindering fishing and moving around on deck. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is working with the industry to change the culture, and we are grateful for the support of the national fishing federations in that work. There is much to he done. The record of safety in the fishing industry is appalling. It has got worse rather than better in recent years, and is of great concern to us.

In the few minutes that are available to me, I want to make some general points and move to some of the important points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. It goes without saying that shipping is vital to world trade. It is a growing global and highly competitive business. We should be on our guard to ensure that healthy competition thrives, but not at the expense of safety, which should be our paramount concern. As has been said, bulk carriers have an unfortunate safety record. The Government deplore the loss of life suffered by seafarers serving on them, and acknowledge the contribution made by the Derbyshire Family Association.

The association is now at last witnessing progress as the IMO takes decisions stemming from Mr. Justice Colman's recommendations that will make a real difference to the safety of seafarers serving on such ships. In May, the maritime safety committee of the IMO agreed two new regulations. The first was to install water ingress alarms that can be monitored from the bridge in holds and forward spaces. That issue was raised earlier. The second was to fit pump systems in forward spaces so that they can be operated without the need to traverse exposed and treacherous decks, such as those on the Derbyshire when it went down.

The new regulations could not be more pertinent to the loss of the Derbyshire, which sank rapidly, without warning and without a distress signal. The installation of alarms warning of bow flooding would have given Captain Underhill, the master of the Derbyshire, a chance to take early action to protect his ship. Had pumping systems been accessible, he might have been able to save his ship, issue a distress signal or, failing all else, given his crew a chance to abandon ship. By implementing the regulations, we will afford protection to the masters and crews of bulk carriers that was not available to those on the Derbyshire.

These achievements do not give us cause to relax our efforts. At an IMO meeting next month, the United Kingdom will introduce proposals to update the hatch cover design criteria in the current revision of the 1988 load line protocol, which was mentioned by several hon. Members. That work draws heavily upon the results of model tests that were initiated following the reopened formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire, which found that the collapse of hatch covers subsequent to bow flooding had led to the loss.

The Government know that their ability to improve bulk carrier safety lies in reaching international agreement at the IMO. Such agreement is most readily reached when proposed safety measures have passed the test of formal safety assessment to show that they are cost effective. The UK is leading an international collaborative formal safety assessment study on bulk carriers, which will submit its report to the maritime safety committee in December. The study considers an array of safety measures, many of which build on Mr. Justice Colman's recommendations, for both new and existing bulk carriers of different sizes. Many of the measures are passing the test, and I assure hon. Members that the UK will vigorously pursue their implementation aboard bulk carriers.

I should add that the European directive on the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers will he implemented shortly. It is relevant to my hon. Friends the Members for Dover and for Falmouth and Camborne, as it will ensure that bulk carriers calling at EU ports are loaded and unloaded correctly. That is vital, since stress and/or damage caused to the hull while the vessel is handled in port carries with it the risk of subsequent catastrophic failure at sea.

I should like to comment briefly on human factors, because they underlie much of what has been said today. The large majority of shipping accidents are caused by the human factor, not structural or equipment failures. That is not to say that seafarers should take the blame for the majority of shipping accidents. All too frequently accidents occur because the seafarers concerned are poorly trained or rewarded, badly motivated, or simply overworked with overlong shifts. Too much may have been expected from individual seafarers, and in such circumstances even the best-found ship in structural and equipment terms is a safety risk.

The need to improve the standards of training for seafarers has been recognised for some time. It might surprise many to learn that until fairly recently there was no international mandatory requirement for basic safety training, and nor were the necessary maritime skills specified. That has been addressed by the IMO in a revision of the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers, which is now in force internationally. I hope that that covers the points made about that matter.

The problem of seafarer fatigue through overwork, which is a frequent contributor to marine accidents, has also been addressed. A European directive placing limits on seafarers' hours of work will come into force shortly.

Will the Minister give way?

Several important matters were also raised in the debate, but little time—perhaps only 15 seconds—is available.

Will the Minister give way?

If any hon. Members want further to raise any of those matters with me, I shall endeavour to provide an effective response.

I have a quick question.

Order. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) should not heckle the Minister from a sedentary position.

It is a pleasure to initiate this short debate this morning and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. Only an hour and a half ago I sat down after winding up the debate on education in the cities, so I hope that the Minister will be generous if my thoughts are not quite as well collected as they should be.

This is an important subject, relating to an unintended consequence of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the work of hospital chaplains. My constituent, Rev. Graeme Skinner, the vicar of St. Mary Magdalene church in Sale, first raised the issue with me in March this year. He wrote to say that he was deeply concerned about the impact of the Data Protection Act on hospital chaplaincy. He described the Act as "a millstone" for the ministry and, since then, he has expressed the fear that hospital chaplaincy might be marginalized by the application of its provisions.

I should like to express my gratitude to several people in various churches who wrote to give me useful information and guidance in a complex area of law, especially Rev. Edward Lewis of the Hospital Chaplaincies Council.

In March this year I first raised my concerns on behalf of the Rev. Skinner with the Leader of the House, who kindly undertook to examine the matter further. He said that it was important that

"a law that was intended to protect our people benefits them rather than detracts from their quality of life."—[Official Report, 21 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 441.]

I wholeheartedly endorse that view which, if we can find our way through the current difficulties, should become part of the law.

I then pursued the matter with a letter to the Leader of the House, asking about the outcome of his further investigations. On Wednesday 24 April I received this response:

"Where a patient is incapable of providing consent, perhaps through serious or terminal illness, it is possible for hospital staff to disclose religious affiliation, as this may in the circumstances be in the best interests of the patient…The Department of Health is currently considering the need to issue guidance on this matter."—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 293W.]

As the Minister knows, I pursued the matter more recently with her through questions to the Lord Chancellor's Department. On 11 June she said:

"The Data Protection Act does not prevent hospitals from passing on information about a patient's religion, but it states that they can do so only with the patient's consent or, if the patient is unable to give that consent, if it is in their vital interest."—[Official Report, 11 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 713.]

The question whether the law applies to hospital trusts in respect of whether they are permitted to pass information on to chaplaincies is complex. It is now causing difficulties for several trusts and they want to find a way through them.

I received a letter from a hospital chaplain who told me that in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the Minister replied that

"the Department of Health's patient empowerment team is working on new guidance for chaplains with the multi-faith joint national working group"—[Official Report, 11 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 714.]

The letter continued that it was interesting to note that a member of the joint national working group knows nothing about such dialogue. There appears to be some confusion about the steps being taken, in good faith, by all parties to try to resolve the difficulties.

I hope that the debate will be an opportunity at least to begin to clear up the confusion that is impeding hospital chaplaincies in carrying out their ministry. I received a letter recently from the chairman of an NHS hospital trust in the north-west of England, which has encountered some difficulties in this regard, but has taken a clear stand that it will continue, as far as it is humanly possible, to pass on information about patients' religious affiliation or denomination to the hospital chaplaincies in whatever way it can. The letter states:

"One must wonder why legislation from the start of the NHS has demanded that the NHS employs chaplains of many faiths within hospitals. If they are not there to assist people in their mental or physical healing, and in their spiritual needs at the time of death, and if it had not been considered to be a vital part of support in hospitals then legislation would not have demanded their existence. The same of course applies to their role in prisons and other institutions."

The current legal situation appears to be that, in ordinary circumstances, personal information, of which the religious affiliation or denomination of a patient may be an example, cannot be passed on to a third party without consent. In some interpretations of some aspects of the legislation, that requirement is qualified further, stating that explicit consent must be given. However, I understand that schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998 provides the Secretary of State with powers to exclude the need for explicit consent which may, in itself, provide a way out of the problems that have arisen. The letter from the chairman of the NHS trust continued, compellingly:

"Our view is that we have a first priority to do whatever we can for our patients and of course for their carers and relatives. In our view we believe we should continue to assist the chaplains by providing information. I am taking advice from our lawyers on this matter and what steps we may need to take as a Board to record and minute this decision so that staff may act with proper authority and cover."

The Minister, having had experience in the Department of Health as well as in her current brief, will be aware that the need to clarify the situation could be an unwelcome and costly difficulty for NHS trusts. Hundreds of different bodies within the national health service may need to seek guidance and take legal advice on the circumstances in which prohibition from passing on the information might apply.

The picture so far appears to be patchy. It seems that some trusts are proceeding as if nothing had changed, some are taking guidance about the fact that the law has changed and now applies to their actions, and are taking it very seriously, and others are deeply concerned that they get it right, but do not yet know the answer and are in a state of confusion. One way of ensuring that proper legal permission is obtained for passing the information to chaplaincies is to seek consent when the patient arrives at the hospital and the information is logged in. Again, however, it appears that the technology has not facilitated that in some circumstances, especially where computer technology is involved. I have heard of at least one instance where the software for the patient administration system—I think it is called that, but the Minister will know better than I do—would need to be changed to accommodate this factor. There are clear cost and time implications for trusts if they want to take this action. It is important that the Government give clear guidance on whether they expect trusts to take this route.

Some trusts are being as co-operative as they can and are seeking to help the chaplains to fulfil what I am sure we would all agree is a vital function to support some of the most vulnerable people at a time of great need. However, other trusts are being less co-operative. A hospital chaplain who has been having considerable difficulties wrote to me:

"Before February 2001 I did not have to worry too much about the Data Protection Act 1998. Until that time I had worked in an NHS Trust where Chaplaincy was well integrated and had a long and valued history. It was seen to be an indispensable part of the overall care team. I was designated chaplain to the oncology wards and participated fully in the inter-professional team meetings. There were no impediments to the flow of appropriate information to Chaplaincy. Then last year everything changed and I have been on a very steep learning curve!"

He goes on to point out that there are some remarkable discrepancies between categories of employees who may have access to the information. In some circumstances, the ward clerk or a receptionist may have access to information about a patient's religious affiliation, but the chaplain does not.

A key point arises about exemptions that can be applied under the Data Protection Act 1998. Two exemptions under paragraph 8 of schedule 3 cover the circumstances where

"The processing is necessary for medical purposes and is undertaken by—

(a) a health professional, or

(b) a person who in the circumstances owes a duty of confidentiality which is equivalent to that which would arise if that person were a health professional."

One could argue that both limbs would allow exemption for information to be passed to hospital chaplaincies. It could also be argued that the first limb applies. In 1998, Lloyd determined that "medical purposes" could be defined broadly to include

"preventative medicine, medical diagnosis, medical research"

and "the provision of care". Clearly, the chaplaincy provides spiritual care as part of a multidisciplinary team for someone undergoing treatment, and we need to be clear whether the first limb applies. There is a strong argument that the second limb of exemption applies.

There is a further complication that the restrictions imposed by the Act may conflict with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives patients the right, as enshrined in article 9 of the European convention on human rights, to manifest his or her religion in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The regulations may be in conflict with that right and may have serious consequences for minority faith groups such as Jews, Muslims and Roman Catholics. Many of those groups have particularly high expectations of chaplaincy support, not least the Roman Catholic community, especially in circumstances of serious illness.

I want to make sure that the Minister has adequate time to respond so I shall draw my remarks to a close. It is increasingly clear from the many representations that I have received—the Minister knows of such representations because she has told me in the House that several hon. Members have been in touch with the Department of Health or the Lord Chancellor's Department about such concerns—that there is a problem for hospital chaplaincies seeking to fulfil their ministry. The problem may arise from confusion or from a lack of clear, robust guidance from the Department of Health, the Lord Chancellor's Department or the data protection registrar. There is urgent need for such guidance, from all three sources. If it fails to resolve what is a problem that affects many people in serious need, I seek an undertaking from the Minister that she and her Department will consider amending the law to make proper provision.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on securing the debate on an issue that he has raised several times in the House and about which he has considerable concerns. As he said, it covers the areas of responsibility of two Departments. The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for data protection and the Department of Health for many issues involving hospital chaplains. Health Ministers are aware of the concerns that some hospital chaplains have raised about the effect of the Data Protection Act 1998 and I will ensure that today's debate is drawn to their attention.

I shall set out the background principles behind the 1998 Act. An important principle of consent underlies that Act and the policies in the area. The Act gives effect to the 1995 EC data protection directive, which is binding on the United Kingdom. Although the United Kingdom has had data protection law since 1984, changes were necessary in order to comply with the directive. The 1998 Act requires organisations processing personal data to comply with an enforceable set of rules known as the data protection principles, which cover requirements on the fair and lawful processing of personal data and the processing of data for specific purposes. Many of those principles applied under the 1984 Act, but the directive added some requirements, in particular, broad, statutory conditions, one of which has to be met before personal data may be processed. Those requirements are set out in schedule 2 to the 1998 Act.

Under the directive, certain information, including that on an individual's religious beliefs and health, has to be treated as particularly sensitive. More detailed conditions govern the processing of such data which are, as the hon. Member said, set out in schedule 3 of the Act. Meeting one of the conditions does not remove the need to comply with the broader data protection principles but it is a necessary prior requirement. In some circumstances, the common law duty of confidence may also apply to the information about religion provided to hospitals by patients. That means that the information may not be disclosed under those circumstances by the hospital, including to a hospital chaplain, unless the individual has consented or there is an overriding public interest.

The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the work of the hospital chaplains. The service provided by hospital chaplains to patients who want spiritual care and support can have a greatly beneficial effect, and we should support them in their work. Hospitals routinely ask people who are admitted for treatment about their religion. Certainly, in the past, much of that information was made available to hospital chaplains, although it is interesting that certain issues surrounding the duty of confidence are unchanged because they were not changed by the 1998 Act, so there are some complicated legal issues in that area.

Does the Minister accept that the underlying purpose of the duty of confidence and the convention is to protect a person from discrimination and persecution? It is not to prevent someone from being put in touch with another person who can minister to their spiritual needs, where religious affiliation implies that such a person's assistance would be welcome.

I recognise that some people might welcome the support and care, but the issue is difficult because if people do not consent to information being passed on or explicitly withhold their consent, it is difficult to argue that their consent should be overridden, even for the sake of something that we would all consider to be worth while. Some people will not want to discuss their situation with the hospital chaplain and will not want information to be passed on, so we need to tread carefully around issues relating to consent and sensitive information.

Individuals should have some control over how their personal information is used. Although there may be circumstances in which information should be passed on, in that person's interest or the public interest, there may also be situations in which it is important to respect the principle of consent. Hospitals are permitted to disclose to hospital chaplains the religious affiliations of patients whose explicit consent has been obtained. Emergency cases, in which the patient is unconscious or unable to give explicit consent, are covered by the schedule 3 condition relating to an individual's vital interests.

Concern has been raised that, under the framework, with its explicit respect for consent, hospital chaplains may not be able to carry out their work. It is important that they should provide care for those who want it, and we must deal with the genuine concerns that have been raised and the confusion described by the hon. Gentleman. However, at this stage, I am not convinced that a case has been made for an additional condition to be laid down under the 1998 Act. The principle of consent is important, and a sufficiently strong case has not been made for why it should be overridden and why information should be passed on in normal circumstances where someone has not given, or has explicitly withheld, consent, particularly because it is possible for consent to be sought and given when the information is initially sought.

I have been told about trusts where consent is routinely sought and where hospital chaplains are working well, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern that, in some places, that is not happening and difficulties are being faced. The Department of Health recognises the need for guidance with regard to confidentiality and data protection.

The patient information advisory group has been asked to consider the matter. It will shortly provide Health Ministers with advice. In addition, my Department is drawing up a code of practice on confidentiality and consent for people working in the NHS. The multi-faith joint national working group is working with officials of the Department of Health on advice and information for hospital chaplains. The hon. Gentleman asked what work has been going on and who is involved. I shall pass the question to the Department, which will reply directly to him.

Considerable work is being done. Where there is evidence that it is possible to work within the existing framework without overriding the important principle of consent, our first task should be to see what works successfully in some parts of the NHS and replicate that across the service. The Information Commissioner has also considered the matter. In her view, an adequate case has not been made for an additional condition, and it should be possible for hospitals to seek consent at the same time as they give—

The Minister makes the case that it might not be necessary to change the law. I accept that. It might be possible to arrive at a sensible accommodation. Can she give me the Government's view on whether the two exemptions in schedule 3 apply?

I will come to that.

The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of whether chaplains are considered to be health professionals, or responsible for care. The interpretation of the Act is the responsibility of the Information Commissioner. She has set out her view that consent should be sought before information can be passed on to hospital chaplains, except in cases in which consent cannot be given.

Much wider questions about the definition of health professionals and the way in which they are classified arise. They cannot be answered purely in the context of data protection. In the first instance, they would have to be raised with the Department of Health and the Health Professions Council in terms of the nature of health professionals and the way in which hospital chaplains want to be regarded.

There are a number of ways in which the problem should be able to be addressed within the existing framework. I take the hon. Gentleman's concerns seriously and I shall follow the progress that is made in the development of the guidance. We want to ensure that people can conduct their work, which is beneficial to many patients. However, the case has not been made that that is not possible under the Act. Wherever possible, we must respect the important principle of consent, which the Government rightly placed at the core of the Data Protection Act, particularly where sensitive data is concerned. I hope that we shall be able to resolve people's concerns. Given that that has been achieved in many areas, I hope that it will also be possible right across the NHS.

Let me start by saying how much I welcome the opportunity to speak about the important subject of flight-related deep vein thrombosis. This is the first debate to be dedicated solely to the issue, although it follows on from an excellent debate in January 2001 on the health issues associated with flying. That debate was initiated by my hon. and distinguished Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and I am delighted that he is here today. Some considerable time has, however, elapsed since then.

My hon. Friend's debate followed on from a significant report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which drew attention to several flight-related health issues, including, for the first time, deep vein thrombosis. The Committee made several sensible and important recommendations, and I am glad to say that the Government have taken up many of them. The most important was that they should commission a major epidemiological study into the incidence, causes and extent of flight-related deep vein thrombosis. We do not know for definite the full scale of the problem, although my view is that it is potentially a major public health hazard.

Since that distinguished report was published nearly two years ago, several significant, albeit small, research studies have been carried out. The Committee did not have them at its disposal when it considered the issue, and I believe that they prove beyond all doubt that there is a theoretical link between air travel and deep vein thrombosis. Indeed, all serious scientists working in this area around the world accept that, although they are not sure about the extent of the relationship or the exact cause of the problem.

The other findings from the key bits of research that have been undertaken since the report was published suggest that the problem is much bigger than we first imagined. For example, research by Gianni Belcaro suggests that as many as 5 per cent. of those who fly long haul contract blood clots in their lower limbs simply because they are sitting in cramped spaces for long periods. Their blood pools and stagnates in their lower limbs, feet and ankles, which, in cabin conditions, causes clotting. In the last year for which records are available, 133 million passengers flew abroad from Britain alone, so an enormous number of people might be affected if the 5 per cent. figure is right. I am not saying that it is right, but as an indication of the proportion of those who might be affected, it suggests that we are talking about more than 6 million people.

Since the publication of the distinguished House of Lords report, our own leading expert in Britain, Professor John Scurr, whom the report mentioned, has carried out further research. Although he used a small sample of slightly more than 200 people, his research shows that as many as one in 10 passengers who fly long haul develop blood clots in their lower limbs. If that is right, huge numbers of people may be affected by deep vein thrombosis. Professor Scurr's report also noted that no less than 40 per cent. of the 10 per cent. of people who develop blood clots went on to develop a deep vein thrombosis, which could, without treatment, cause a pulmonary embolism and, in many cases, death. That is the major problem that we have with this public health issue: we are dealing with a stealth disease.

The vast majority of cases of flight-related deep vein thrombosis in this country go undiagnosed. because it can take from four to nine days for the blood clots, which are often without symptoms, to develop into a deep vein thrombosis and then up to several weeks before the thrombosis moves from the lower leg to the heart or lungs and kills the person. That is a major problem, and because we do not, and possibly cannot, record the incidents of DVT that are related to air travel, we do not know the full extent of the problem.

My interest in the subject is well established. A constituent of mine died in tragic circumstances two years ago yesterday. John Anthony Thomas, a 30-year-old policeman in the prime of his life, was not just fit and healthy, but athletic. He returned from a once-in-a-lifetime honeymoon holiday in Hawaii, and in a couple of weeks he was dead. He was buried in the same church as he had been married in several weeks earlier, which is a tragedy in anyone's imagination. I went to see the family, but I must admit that my initial reaction was that it was just one of those tragedies. It was a very sad event, but I saw it just as a one-off act of God.

Before speaking to the Thomas family I had no reason to believe anything else. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas told me that they only made the connection by accident after the consultant pathologist asked them whether their son had recently been on a long air journey. It did not appear on the death certificate, but it was almost certainly the preventable cause of that boy's death, which makes this a real tragedy. If he had been more aware of the condition, as many people in this country now are after the Government's good work of the past 18 months, his unnecessary death could have been avoided.

That is what created my interest in the issue, which was strengthened when we discovered that one of the clinicians involved in the case expressed the view that as many as one in five of all deep vein thromboses treated in the national health service could be related to air travel. That was qualified as a personal opinion based on anecdotal evidence, but 25,000 people are treated for DVTs by the national health service in England alone. If that physician is even remotely right, we are talking about large numbers of people. Incidentally, that view has been reinforced since the House of Lords report by research carried out by Emile Ferrari, which suggests that as many as 25 per cent. of all DVTs treated by health services, not only in the UK, could be directly attributable to travellers' thrombosis. We are talking about very big numbers, and it is a matter of great public concern. It is a stealth disease, because we do not see it coming. People are dying or being seriously injured, but we have no idea how many are affected.

I must place on record that the Government have done an enormous amount of work. Indeed, I believe that they lead the world in taking up the travelling health risks related to deep vein thrombosis. They are the leading player in the World Health Organisation research and are offering up to 2 million euros towards the research funding that was agreed last year and commenced last month. They are the first Government in the world to issue health warnings to certain passengers of the risk of DVT. Our airlines now offer advice and issue warnings, but two years ago, when I had never heard of the problem—I heard about it only when it affected my constituent—that was unheard of.

Many strides have been made but, as I said, the most important recommendation from the House of Lords report 18 months or so ago was that we should commission a major epidemiological study of DVT. My fear, which I place on the record, is that we are probably no nearer to achieving that most important goal than we were when the Lords first reported, despite all the good work that has been and is being done. For example, following a recent meeting with the Minister responsible for aviation, it was indicated that, in the aviation White Paper to be published later this year, a Minister in the Department for Transport may well be given a clear responsibility for air passengers' health.

For those who do not know, let me explain that there is no protection as regards health for passengers who fly anywhere in the world, because under the Warsaw convention, there is liability only for their safety, not their health. However, as a result of my meeting, I believe that the Minister is considering—and the Government support—the recommendations of the Joint Aviation Authority on increasing seat spacing, not only to provide greater comfort and safety of egress in an emergency, but to look after the health and well-being of passengers, albeit under the auspices of the JAA. That means that all our European neighbours will introduce the same standards.

According to the reply to a question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last November, it was decided to go for the World Health Organisation international research. That is perfectly understandable. I see where the Government are coming from in recommending that. The WHO is a distinguished body, and the world's leading experts will be involved. If the findings identify, as I am sure they will, the correlation between this condition and certain aspects of air travel, and discover its full extent, it will be much easier to make recommendations to the aviation industry worldwide, rather than perhaps penalising the British industry by introducing rules here alone.

That is all well and good, and I congratulate the Government on what they have done, but there is a problem. Sadly, the WHO has not raised adequate funding to carry out a major epidemiological study. Despite the support of the British Government and others, the study is likely to be quite limited. Indeed, just this week, one of the world's leading experts on air travel-related DVT, Professor Ross Baker of Griffith university in Australia, has said publicly that, although the limited studies to be carried out will be useful in their own right, we will be no nearer the truth at the end of them than we were at the beginning. The studies will be incomplete and inconclusive.

My concern is that, while we await the outcomes of the research, and the large randomised and epidemiological studies that we need to get to the bottom of the problem, people may die unnecessarily. That is the point. This public health issue is different from others that we have had to face, because we could take action now that might prevent those deaths. I am talking about action that is low-cost and, in some cases, involves no cost, but that would protect the British public while we wait to find out the definitive results on the full scale and nature of the problem.

In the past, we have failed to take such action. Going through the records recently, I noticed that the danger of BSE in cattle being transferred to humans and creating a major public health problem was flagged up in a debate in the House 10 years before any action was taken. Much of the argument at the time was that we should wait until we got the science right before we made any decisions.

Can my hon. Friend say something about suing the airlines? Have there been any successful cases, or are there many going through the courts now?

The only successful case had nothing to do with the health of passengers, but involved the comfort and well-being of someone who paid to go on a holiday and found themselves cramped in the most unfortunate conditions on an aircraft.

One of the reasons why many airlines in this country give warnings and advice to their passengers is not to protect their health and well-being, but in case they are sued for negligence at some future date. They have a vested interest in providing warnings and advice as it could be used in evidence to protect them. It is difficult to sue a company because of the protection of the Warsaw convention. It is an area that needs re-examination for two reasons. First, far more people fly now and, secondly, far more people fly longer journeys to places abroad where they did not fly to before.

What action can we take now? My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has a Bill before the House, which would place a legal requirement on all airlines to provide warnings and up-to-date and accurate information to passengers. Most importantly it would force them to co-operate with the sort of research that needs to be carried out to prevent any more injuries and deaths from this dreadful condition. I lay down a challenge to the UK-registered airlines. If they are so damn sure that there is no connection between air travel and deep vein thrombosis, let them sponsor the research to prove the case once and for all. That would be the end of the matter.

If the airlines are so confident that there is no problem, they should co-operate and provide the independent research that we need. They might perhaps make a contribution to the WHO to allow that to happen. I fear, however, that they will not. I fear that the airlines, not only in this country, but throughout the world, realise that there is far more to this than meets the eye. They have known about it for quite some time. My hon. Friend's Bill is before the House. The Government could look at it carefully and consider adopting it or introducing guidelines. They are looking at guidelines for the British airline carriers. They have set up a health committee with the airline carriers within the Department for Transport and it is working well. Again, those are great strides in the right direction.

When I met my constituents I gave them a solemn undertaking that I would do all in my power to prevent any other parent—I am the father of a child of a similar age—going through the same trauma as theirs. The debate today is part of meeting that commitment. I am doing what I can. Because of the progress that we have made over the past 18 months, I am convinced that the time will soon come when no air passenger will board a plane until they are satisfied that their health, welfare and well-being are the carriers' top priorities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has been a tireless campaigner on this issue. I congratulate him and all the members of the all-party group who have been campaigning on these issues for some time. They have helped to raise awareness of travel-related deep vein thrombosis. As my hon. Friend said, a couple of years ago the matter was not widely known. They have been instrumental in pushing the issue up the agenda quite dramatically.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments in support of the Government's work on this issue. In responding, it may be helpful if I set out some of the background and some of our thinking about how these issues will develop. Deep vein thrombosis occurs in about one in 1,000 of the general population, leading to around 25,000 NHS admissions each year. A small proportion may be related to air travel, but DVT is associated with a number of factors, such as immobility after surgery, being over 40 years of age, pregnancy, hormone treatments, inherited clotting factors, a family or history of DVT, and cancer, whether treated or not.

My hon. Friend rightly said that in November 2000 the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology published the findings of its inquiry into air travel and health. That comprehensive and, in many ways, ground-breaking work has set the agenda for aviation health, both here in the UK and internationally. My hon. Friend said that we are world leaders in this field. The inquiry paid particular attention to the issue of deep vein thrombosis. It identified the need to address the gaps in our scientific understanding and recommended that research be undertaken as a matter of priority.

In responding to the agenda established by the House of Lords inquiry, we recognised the need to have an integrated approach to the issue, so we set up the aviation health working group. The group is chaired by the Department for Transport, and the other permanent members include my Department, the Health and Safety Executive and the Civil Aviation Authority. In addition, industry, consumer and medical representatives are regularly invited to participate in the work of the group. It is a good example of joint working.

The Government's approach has been twofold. First, we have sought to ensure that passengers have access to the best available information to enable them to make an informed choice about air travel. Secondly, we have vigorously pursued the means to meet the gaps in our understanding of whether, and if so how, flying can increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis.

In November last year my Department issued information and advice to the airlines and the public on travel-related deep vein thrombosis. That included practical advice for passengers on long-haul flights on how to minimise the risk of DVT, including simple in- seat exercises. It also advised passengers, where it was safe to do so, to take regular walks out of their seats and to minimise their intake of alcohol, which can lead to immobility and dehydration. It also identified certain groups who may be at a higher risk and advised them to see their GPs before travelling so they could have a one-to-one consultation about the likely risks.

To maximise access for the public to that information it was distributed to health services and UK airlines, published on the internet and given to NHS Direct. Anyone seeking telephone advice from NHS Direct can be given that good, practical advice. Further information on travel-related health issues is available in two publications: the booklet T6, entitled "Health Advice to Travellers", is available free from the health literature line. It also contains form E111, which is helpful to passengers who might need to recover costs for treatment should anything go wrong when they are travelling in the European Union. The booklet "Health Information for Overseas Travellers" also offers practical advice. It is aimed mainly at providing travel information for doctors and health care workers so that they can advise their patients. It is important to ensure that the health service is fully up to date on the latest scientific developments in this area. The information is also available on Ceefax. People can get this information from many different outlets.

We have closely monitored the use the airlines have made of that material. It would be pointless for us to issue it if the airlines did nothing with it. The British Air Transport Association has made a statement that all UK long-haul airlines are providing health information on DVT. We want to monitor that to check that it is happening. In my limited experience it is. The information is provided in a number of ways including in-flight magazines, leaflets, videos and announcements. My hon. Friend said that there is much more widespread knowledge of these issues than there was just a couple of years ago.

As far as we know, the UK is the only country that has published this kind of advice. Despite that, we recognise that more research is needed. That is why the UK Government agreed to fund up to £1.2 million towards the World Health Organisation's research into air travel and DVT. The WHO announced the launch of the study, which is also receiving funding from the European Commission, just a few weeks ago on 14 May.

The research involves the collaboration of several European universities and will be the first large-scale study to focus on the issue. The proposals include research aiming to determine the frequency and causes of travellers' thrombosis, analysis to identify those at greatest risk and, most importantly, studies to examine the effectiveness of preventive strategies. The question is not only why it is caused and what happens, but what can be done to maximise prevention. As the lead funding body, the UK Government will closely monitor the work as it progresses.

As my hon. Friend suggested, it is disappointing that other countries have not committed resources to this valuable work, but with the UK and European Commission funding, at least the first phase of the research can now get under way. I am pleased to confirm that negotiations are continuing with other member states, Governments and the Commission to attempt to secure funding for the second phase. My hon. Friend is right to say that a wide-ranging epidemiological study is needed, as well as studies on preventive strategies and on what factors inside airline cabins might lead to increased risk of DVT. We intend to continue rigorous negotiations with other Governments to bring them on board for this research. Public awareness might well be greater in the UK than in other member states, but the research could act as a catalyst for raising awareness in other countries. I hope that that will put further pressure on Governments to participate in the studies in the second phase.

The first phase will address the critical issues, including the possible link to air travel and analysis of risk factors. As I said, we intend to use the launch to encourage others to participate. We will be actively involved in examining all phases of the research. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we must spread the knowledge that comes out of the research. I understand that the WRIGHT forum, dealing with World Health Organisation research into global hazards of travel, will be established. It will be an annual meeting at which the project's progress will be reported and new data emerging from the research will be discussed and disseminated across all member states. A scientific executive committee will attempt to assess information strategies and ensure that, as the research emerges, the widest possible group of people will gain knowledge and take practical steps to minimise the effects on families. My hon. Friend has described the tragic consequences of deep vein thrombosis and my sympathies go out to all families that have lost a loved one as a result of DVT. I know that my hon. Friend has maintained close contact with many of those affected.

In concluding this debate I would like to pay tribute to these families' hard work in campaigning on this issue. Families and parliamentarians have been equally active. Genuine progress has been made since the House of Lords inquiry. It is fair to point to the now widespread public awareness of the disease. The public now has much greater access to advice, which should enable them to make well-informed judgments about minimising risks. For the vast majority of passengers, travel by air has no effect on their health. Although no human activity can be made entirely risk free, by using easy-to-follow advice and taking sensible precautions, all passengers can minimise their level of risk.

Deep vein thrombosis is not just an issue for the UK. In taking forward the recommendations of the House of Lords inquiry, we can claim to be leading the way internationally. All involved, including my Department, the Department for Transport, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Health and Safety Executive, industry and groups such as the all-party committee, have come a long way. We must keep up the momentum, and the World Health Organisation's research will help to provide the impetus. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to press the Government to do even more to ensure that we avoid the sorts of tragedies that he highlighted today.

It is appropriate to offer my condolences to the families of all those who died in the tragic rail crash in Tanzania that was reported yesterday. That is the last thing the country needs.

I shall set out in detail the results of my research into the extraordinary story of how a British arms manufacturer came to sell a totally inappropriate military air traffic control system to Tanzania. I shall give the history of the scandal, before dealing with the role of Barclays bank in facilitating the deal, and with the case for reforming Government procedures, which is long overdue.

Tanzania is one of the world's poorest countries. In 1998, its per capita gross national product was $220. In the same year, its external debt was $7,603 million. It became eligible for, and received, debt relief amounting to some $3 billion under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. It first made enquiries about purchasing an air traffic control system in 1993, when it invited tenders, but it was not until 1997 that a part-owned subsidiary of BAE Systems made a slightly adjusted application through the preliminary advice process—the F680 procedure—for an export licence, to be agreed by the United Kingdom, for a military-capable system to be designed and manufactured by BAE Systems.

F680 is a preliminary advisory process for companies that want to export military equipment that requires an export licence. It is a Ministry of Defence procedure, despite the fact that a different Department—the Department of Trade and Industry—will consider the export licence application. According to the House of Commons Library, it seems that all sides consider a positive indication under this procedure to be "preliminary clearance". The Ministry of Defence gave advice and preliminary clearance on the BAE system in August 1997. The Department for International Development was not consulted, and did not even know about it. In effect, that gave the green light for the whole deal to proceed, despite the fact that the export licence application was not considered until December 2001. Tanzania and BAE Systems entered into a binding contract for the purchase of the military system, and the Tanzanian Government confirmed the financial package to the International Monetary Fund. In a communication to the IMF dated 18 July 2000, the Tanzanian Government claims that

"we were unable to finance it through bilateral or multilateral aid. We nonetheless were able to obtain bank and supplier financing of US $35 million on concessional terms that comply with the performance criterion on external borrowing".

I shall return to those criteria.

As we now know, a loan from Barclays bank facilitated the purchase. Despite the Tanzanian Government's claim in the letter of intent to the IMF that financing came from "bank and supplier", BAE Systems claimed to me that it was not party to the financing arrangements

"which were entered into between Barclays Bank and the Government of Tanzania."

However, it is worth noting that, as at 12 September last year, Barclays bank plc held an interest in 93,632,529 ordinary shares in BAE Systems.

In a letter to me, the IMF confirmed that the 1999 financing package

"yielded a weighted average grant element of 35.9%."

Barclays bank has not explained why, as a commercial lender, it has seen fit to subsidise heavily an arms sale to a highly indebted developing country. Tanzania accepts that the system is designed, in part, for military purposes. In their letter of intent to the IMF dated 18 July 2000, the Tanzanian Government state:

"For safety reasons, we have acquired a new radar system to strengthen air traffic control in Tanzania…the system will also be used for military purposes".

It is the military dimension of the air traffic control system that has been the cause of its considerable expense. David Rider of Jane's Air Traffic Control told the BBC that the BAE system was an air defence system under another name and was "far too expensive" for a civilian system. I have now been told that even the military capability of the system is inadequate. It covers only about one third of the country, and two more systems would be needed to cover the whole country. The civilian capability covers only the area around Dar Es Salaam and Mount Kilimanjaro airport.

In a preliminary report responding to questions from the World Bank dated 29 October 2001, the International Civil Aviation Organisation stated that

"these systems have been designed for military purposes…The high cost of these systems are related to the military components and sub-systems inherent in the design."

The report also indicated that the system used ageing technology and was

"not adequate and too expensive"

to be used primarily for civil air traffic control purposes. I understand that the further report prepared by ICAO following an in-depth study of the system will not contradict those conclusions. Indeed, it seems worse than that, as someone at the World Bank described it to me as a bombshell. It seems as if a modern civilian system could have been purchased for as little as $5 million, compared with the actual cost of this useless system of about $40 million. It is a white elephant, and there is no point attempting to adapt it because it would be cheaper to start again.

On the deal's finance, Barclays bank claimed in a letter to me on 8 April 2002 that

"Barclays support for defence related exports is dependent on the appropriate export licence being granted".

However, the Department of Trade and Industry Minister responsible for export control revealed that the Government only approved the export licences in December 2001, which was two years after Barclays had agreed subsidised financing, as reported to the IMF. In a further letter of 3 May 2002, the bank suggested that it had received "Government approval in principle" at an early stage, presumably under the F680 procedure. However, it refused to discuss details of the Tanzania deal.

Tanzania is part of the debt initiative for heavily indebted poor countries, so it had to satisfy the International Monetary Fund that the loan from Barclays was at concessional rates. A heavily indebted poor country that is receiving debt relief cannot secure a commercial loan for military equipment, so it had to show that the rates were concessional to fulfil its obligations under the HIPC initiative. The IMF confirms that it accepted that the loan was at concessional rather than commercial rates. It said that

"the terms of the financing package obtained by Tanzania in 1999 for its air traffic control system yielded a weighted average grant element of 35.9 per cent., which is consistent with the definition of concessionality under the terms of the IMF's concessional loan facility, the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility".

I have written to Barclays twice to find out why it got involved in the deal, but have so far received no explanation. Someone at the World Bank told me last week that he had never before come across a commercial organisation subsidising the purchase of military equipment by a heavily indebted poor country. It does not make sense. In the absence of a proper explanation from Barclays, others are inevitably trying to establish the truth. Various theories have been put forward. Barclays might simply have had a fit of generosity, but that seems unlikely. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that, on 11 October 2000, Barclays secured a banking licence to operate in Tanzania. Was that the payback for subsidising the deal? The other more sinister explanation is that the contract price was fiddled and artificially inflated so that it looked to the outside world as if Barclays was providing a concessional loan, which was necessary to get the deal past the IMF.

Perhaps Barclays provided a commercial loan on a lower sum, which seems to be the view of the Secretary of State for International Development. On 15 May, she said in Parliament:

"Somehow, a loan from Barclays bank, which is funding the project—there is no way that Barclays can provide concessional funding—has been reported to the IMF as being concessional, so the project squeaked through, which is very odd."—[Official Report, 15 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 763.]

If that is correct, then it seems that there has been fraud. When a Secretary of State alludes to corruption, surely it is time thoroughly to investigate the financing of the deal. I have also been told that bungs were paid to oil the wheels of the deal.

Did the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry know of those bizarre financing arrangements when she decided to grant the export licence in December last year? If so, what inquiries did she make, and what did she discover? Furthermore, did she know about the allegations that bungs or bribes were being paid? I challenge Barclays to clear the matter up once and for all. The longer that it remains silent, the more suspicion will grow about the propriety of the deal.

The latest development is that the full ICAO report on the system has been completed and sent to the Tanzanian and U K Governments. I understand that the World Bank wanted Tanzania to publish the report, but so far it has failed to do so. It now appears that BAE Systems has produced six pages of comment on the report. The Tanzanian President has also questioned some of the technical details. Apparently, nothing will be published until those issues have been considered. I also understand that the president of the World Bank will visit Tanzania soon to discuss the deal. Furthermore, the Tanzanian President has written to the Prime Minister to ask for help in extricating Tanzania from that disaster.

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Tanzania, I offer my sincere condolences to the Tanzanian people for the deaths of more than 200 people near Igandu.

We are aware of the privity of the contract between the Government and Barclays, and the procedures that the hon. Gentleman has so strenuously outlined. Given that, is he aware that a solution might have been for the Tanzanian Government to be responsible for, say, £9 million of the contract, which would have sorted out the Dar Es Salaam domestic air traffic control requirements, and on the back of the Dar Es Salaam bombing and particularly in the light of 11 September—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should only be making an intervention.

In response to what I understand the hon. Gentleman's question to be, the Tanzanian people must not be punished as a result of that disaster. The finger must be pointed at the Government and the role of Barclays bank and BAE Systems.

The Ministry of Defence's F680 application procedure must be re-examined. In response to every question that I put to the Ministry on the matter, I have been told that it provides guidance only at the marketing stage and that it in no way compromises the consideration by the Department of Trade and Industry of a subsequent application for an export licence. That is clearly not true in the BAE Systems case. The F680 clearance led to the signing of a binding contract, the finalising of a subsidised loan from Barclays, the building of most of the equipment and the payment of at least $15 million to BAE Systems before the application for an export licence was considered. Is that really how the system is supposed to work? Is the Secretary of State happy with being presented with a fait accompli in that way? If the F680 application process is not to undermine proper consideration of export licence applications, all relevant Departments must be consulted in such cases. Companies must surely be advised that, should they win the tender, they should apply for the export licence before entering a binding contract.

With regard to the rules on the granting of export licences, the Government's response to the Lords amendments to the Export Control Bill has weakened the sustainability test. Although the Bill is a step in the right direction, crucially, after its passage through Parliament, it will still be possible for that scandal to be repeated. The Secretary of State is supposed to have regard for the so-called consolidated criteria, no. 8 of which addresses development concerns. That criterion was clearly ignored in the case of BAE Systems. I understand that jobs and the interests of BAE Systems were the decisive factors. That means that we continue to have inconsistent Government policy across Departments. The International Development Act 2002 contains at its core the test of sustainable development. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has now built sustainability into its procedures.

In a speech made by the Chancellor in 1997 in Mauritius, he said:

"We need to make sure that poor countries never again become saddled with insupportable debt burdens. The UK will ensure that export credits for poor, highly-indebted countries will only support productive expenditure."

If only that were the case with this scandal. We have a much more relaxed approach to arms sales. The lobbying of the arms industry has presumably paid off. That needs to change.

It also worries me that there is such a close relationship between the Government and BAE Systems. First, we know that BAE provided £12 million in sponsorship for the mind zone at the dome, presumably not long after preliminary clearance was given by the Ministry of Defence. Secondly, on 16 May 2002, it was announced that Sir Richard Evans, chairman of BAE Systems, was to lead the new aerospace innovation and growth team, a joint Government-industry group, the purpose of which is to

"secure agreement between government and the industry on a shared vision and strategy."

Thirdly, I understand that BAE had eight staff working for free, on secondment, at the Ministry of Defence. Although I would not necessarily object to any of those initiatives on its own, a picture develops of an over-close, unhealthy relationship. I would like the Minister to respond to that concern.

I hope that the Minister will respond directly to the detailed points and questions that I have raised today. There is a real need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the whole saga, which, so far, we have not had. I hope that the Minister will, at least, provide straightforward answers, so that we can start to understand how that outrage occurred and find a way of preventing its repetition. I hope that he will not be tempted to suggest that my concerns about wrongdoing are in any way irresponsible. It is clear from several parliamentary exchanges that the Secretary of State for International Development shares our concerns, and I urge the Minister to accept that to give debt relief and millions of pounds in aid to Tanzania while foisting a useless military system on that country makes absolute nonsense of Government policy.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate, and I add my condolences to the families of those who died in yesterday's tragic rail crash in Tanzania.

The Foreign Secretary made it clear in his oral evidence to the Quadripartite Committee on 21 March that the Government's decision to issue two export licences in December 2001 in no way obliged the Tanzanian Government to proceed with the purchase of an air traffic control system. That decision has always been for the Tanzanian Government. The question for our Government was whether the licence applications contravened the consolidated criteria announced to Parliament in October 2000, and whether the proposed export would seriously undermine Tanzania's economy or seriously hamper its sustainable development, contrary to criterion 8 mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The decision to issue the licences stands, and the Government have no intention of revoking them.

I now turn to the issues raised in the recent International Civil Aviation Organisation report and the allegation that the system is a waste of money. I reiterate that our decision to issue the licences did not oblige the Tanzanian Government to proceed with the purchase of an air traffic control system. It is essentially a commercial transaction between Tanzania and a British company. The Tanzanian Government must decide which system best meets their needs, and the ICAO report raises several issues to be dealt with by them.

The UK Government have been at the forefront of international efforts to strengthen the regulation of the arms trade and to deal with proliferation. We were instrumental in obtaining agreement for an EU code of conduct on arms exports, including the sustainable development criterion, which is at the heart of this debate. As Ministers have made clear on numerous occasions, the Government will listen and respond to the concerns of the public and Parliament. With that in mind, the Government have put beyond doubt their continuing commitment to sustainable development by amending the Export Control Bill. During the recent debate on the Export Control Bill in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville announced that the Government had also recognised the need to consider how criterion 8 can most effectively be applied in assessing relevant export licence applications, and had agreed that there was a need for clearer procedures within Whitehall for reaching decisions when sustainable development is an issue.

The Cabinet Office was asked to facilitate an interdepartmental discussion of the issue, involving all Departments with an interest. That discussion is under way and a statement will be made to the House as soon as possible.

The Government have opposed damaging Opposition changes to our amendment. Those changes would impose an unnecessary straitjacket on the administrative regime, forcing consideration of issues that are of no relevance to an export. They would have significant resource implications, are completely unnecessary and mechanistic, and would destroy our targeted case-by-case approach to export licensing. They would risk distracting advisers away from consideration of issues that really matter.

I would like to deal with the issue of corruption raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, not just today but in the House on 19 June 2002. As there has been an allegation of wrongdoing and criminal activity on the part of BAE Systems and Barclays bank, I want to put it clearly on the record that the Government have no evidence that the deal was in any way corrupt. We are committed to combating bribery and corruption in whatever sector of the economy it may occur. This is why we are working with our international partners and the business community to ensure that there is effective action both here and abroad to tackle the problem of corruption across industry, as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 make clear.

I turn to development aid to Tanzania. Since 1997, no Government have done more to increase international aid or ensure that the debts of the poorest countries are cancelled. We increased overseas aid to £3.376 billion in 2001–02, and we are working with our partners to cancel £100 billion of debt of the world's 42 most heavily indebted poor countries. The Government remain committed to supporting Tanzania's poverty reduction strategy. Our bilateral development assistance stands at some £80 million a year. Such assistance goes towards strengthening economic and political governance; improving public services, including health and education; and helping to provide key infrastructure, such as water and roads, in rural areas. That said, we and other donors want to be satisfied that mechanisms are in place to ensure that the resources provided are used effectively for the purposes intended and that they produce results. Tanzania has made impressive progress in many areas, and we want to build on that. We urge the Government of Tanzania to engage fully with the international community on wider issues of policy, prioritisation and the efficient use of resources. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is going to Tanzania to discuss the way forward.

There has also been a suggestion that the Government's lack of objection to the marketing of the BAE Systems air traffic control system, recorded through the Ministry of Defence F680 process, in some way forced their hand to issue the export licences relating to the eventual supply of equipment. That is simply not the case. I shall quickly explain the process in the hope that that will address such concerns once and for all.

The Ministry of Defence F680 process gives exporters advice on their proposals to market goods overseas. It is made clear when F680 advice is given that it emphatically does not constitute an export licence, nor does it prejudge a decision on the eventual consideration of an export licence application. That is made clear to exporters because, as in the case of the Tanzanian deal, several years can pass between the marketing stage and receipt of application. Obviously, the circumstances can change radically during that period. It is entirely feasible that, even when the Government advise no objection to a company marketing its product, when the time comes to sign the contract, an export licence may not be granted.

I understand that the Ministry of Defence has arranged for a copy of the guidance provided to industry on the F680 process form to be placed in the Library. It has been remarked that the company's decision to start production before an export licence was issued had a bearing on the Government's decision. That is simply not the case. Whether the company had started production or the fact that equipment had been part-manufactured was not remotely relevant to the application that came before Ministers. The assessment was made on the basis of the criteria announced in Parliament, not on how close the company was to exporting the system. It is a company's commercial decision whether to start production without an export licence. However, the Department of Trade and Industry's export control organisation advises exporters against entering into special production or a binding contract until an export licence has been granted in case the Government decide against issuing a licence or there is a delay.

Many critics have insisted that the decision on BAE Systems highlights the need for prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licence applications. The Government take great care when making such licensing decisions in the full knowledge that those decisions will be examined closely and that Ministers will properly be held accountable for them by Parliament through the annual reports on strategic export controls.

Is it not true that, prior to the export licence being granted, BAE Systems made the case to the Government that there would be potential job losses if the licence were refused? Can the Minister categorically state that BAE Systems did not make that representation?

I have no knowledge of any such representation being made. However, I can respond to one of the hon. Member's earlier points about whether the Department was aware of the terms of the loan between Barclays bank and the Tanzanian Government. We seek all the information that we need from an applicant to enable us to take a reliable export licensing decision against the criteria. The details of the information sought and provided in that case, as in others, is commercially confidential.

Many critics have insisted that that decision highlights the need for prior parliamentary scrutiny. We are very careful. The Quadripartite Committee has acknowledged that few other EU member states approach the UK's level of transparency and that our annual reports are

"the most transparent reports of their sort in Europe".

In their response last July to the Quadripartite Committee report of 14 March 2001, the Government rejected prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licence applications on practical grounds and as a matter of principle. We believed that a system of prior scrutiny could not be made to work without having a materially adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the licensing process and without causing significant damage to the competitiveness of UK exports.

During the passage of the Export Control Bill in another place, Lord Campbell-Savours proposed a defence exports scrutiny committee to scrutinise export licence applications. On Third Reading of the Bill in the House of Lords on 20 May, my noble Friend, Lord Sainsbury made it clear that the Government were still concerned about several aspects of that proposal. However, Lord Sainsbury made it clear that Ministers intend for examination of the proposal to continue.

The hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in the matter for some time, and at no stage have I suggested that that is in any way irresponsible. I assure him that decisions on export licence applications continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria announced in Parliament.