It is a matter of great sorrow, following the tragic loss of life in the air crash in Germany, that we should be debating aviation this morning. I am sure that we all deeply sympathise with the victims and their families.

Today's debate is about the role of the Scotland Office in promoting air services to and from Scotland. It should allow a meaningful exchange of views on a matter of great importance to the Scottish economy and to Scotland's future well-being. Furthermore, it comes at an appropriate time, as we await publication of the Government's consultation document, which I hope will set out options for the long-term development of Scotland's airports and, as a consequence, have a substantial effect on what services there will be and from where they will operate.

I welcome our new Minister to her first Adjournment debate and I look forward to her reply to the points that will be raised, although I realise that the imminent publication of the consultation document means that her comments may be somewhat limited.

I intend to concentrate on the three central Scotland airports. In alphabetical order, not in order of importance, they are Edinburgh, Glasgow and Prestwick. I also intend to consider where we are today, what may happen in the short term and what I believe should happen for the long-term benefit of Scotland as a whole. If we were to start again with a clean sheet, I have no doubt that there would be only one airport, not three, and that it would be located between Edinburgh and Glasgow, where it would be adjacent to the motorways and the main line railway links—but more about that later.

Why not have it at Stirling?

Well, why not have that airport at Stirling? The existing provision may serve local needs quite well, but does it do the nation a service or a disservice? Prestwick airport exists for historical and outdated technological reasons. Edinburgh and Glasgow, however, are there for reasons of municipal rivalry, parochialism and civic pride. There is nothing wrong with that.

It may surprise my hon. Friend to know that I am quite happy with Glasgow airport being where it is, but I remind him that it is in Glasgow in name only. It is sited at Paisley.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that correction. I remember when it was called Abbotsinch, but she may not, as she is younger than me.

We assume that those three airports are all competing with each other, but are they? If so, are they competing on a level playing field? In the 1979–83 Parliament, I served on the Scottish Affairs Committee, which in 1981–82 investigated the future of Prestwick airport. The inquiry's main recommendations were that high-speed railway links and motorways should be constructed between Prestwick and Glasgow, but the Government of the day chose to do nothing and Prestwick went into rapid decline.

In 1988–89, I was Chairman of the Transport Committee when it conducted an inquiry into air traffic control safety and runway capacity in the United Kingdom. One of the Committee's many recommendations, which I pushed strongly, was that transatlantic gateway status be extended to airports such as Birmingham and Glasgow. I campaigned for that with Alan Stewart, the then Member for Eastwood—happily, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) now holds the seat—and Glasgow achieved gateway status.

I became involved in that campaign because I sincerely believed that the airline that operated transatlantic services from Prestwick was on the verge of moving to Manchester, which was marketing itself aggressively as Scotland's gateway, as was Amsterdam's Schipol airport. Twelve years later, a similar situation is looming for transatlantic services from Glasgow. The transfer of transatlantic services to Glasagow was a blow to Prestwick, but it fought back well, although to be fair, BAA handed over more than £1 million of assets for a pittance when it sold the airport. Substantial sums of additional public money were invested in Prestwick, and I am sure that some of that money became part of the large profit that investors made when Prestwick was resold.

I am pleased to note that, at 36 per cent., Prestwick's growth last year was the largest of any regional airport, but it was from a low base. The trick is to sustain that growth, but that will be much more difficult this year and in future years.

Yet again, we are seeing an industry drift from west to east. In the tobacco, sugar and aviation industries, the emphasis has moved from trade with the Americas to trade with Europe, and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh has added to that trend. The west of Scotland needs compensatory action if the east-west divide is not to worsen and people are not to move east en masse in search of employment. Edinburgh could well become the London of Scotland.

When the British Airports Authority—now BAA plc—was privatised in the 1980s, I joined a delegation of Labour Members who went to see the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young. We argued that BAA should be privatised en bloc, and that Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Prestwick should all remain part of BAA. I now believe that that was a great mistake, because we simply exchanged a public monopoly for a private one.

It has been alleged, and denied, that BAA is pro or anti one or another airport.

I am sorry to keep intervening, but is my hon. Friend aware that Prestwick is no longer part of BAA?

I am sure that my hon. Friend heard me say that Prestwick has been sold and resold, and that BAA gave it away with more than £1 million of assets, so I am well aware of the position.

It has been alleged, and denied, that BAA is either pro or anti one or another of the airports in its ownership. It is possible to argue that BAA—perhaps in conjunction with some of the airlines—could control and manipulate the competition and where services at its six airports fly to or from. Has the Scotland Office considered the matter, and should it be referred to the Competition Commission? Would it be better for Edinburgh and Glasgow airports to have different owners?

Edinburgh airport has rapidly and substantially increased its passenger traffic over the past few years to approximately 6.3 million, although it is open to question whether that happened naturally or as a result of manipulation. In a short time, Edinburgh will probably overtake Glasgow's 7.3 million passengers to become Scotland's No. 1 airport. Some may say that that is fair enough, but where will that leave Glasgow and the west of Scotland?

The Minister is well aware of Glasgow airport's importance to the economy of the west of Scotland, and more than 5,000 jobs depend on it. Is she also aware of serious concerns that Glasgow is about to be downgraded, and transatlantic services moved to Edinburgh? There are fears that a second runway and a rail link will soon be announced for Edinburgh, while there will be nothing for Glasgow. Is she aware of concerns that more business class passengers will be encouraged, persuaded or forced to use Edinburgh, and that all European scheduled services will operate from that city, with only domestic feeder and charter flights from Glasgow?

The lessons of Prestwick's demise in the 1980s have not been learned, and we have delayed for years the completion of the M74 in my constituency. That project will relieve the pressure on the Kingston bridge and some gridlock in Glasgow. It will also allow much faster and better access to the airport, although it will be some years before it is completed. The Scottish Executive's decision to complete it is welcome, however.

We still have no decision on the airport rail link from Glasgow city centre. Strathclyde passenger transport authority has waged an excellent campaign in support of the link, and we must end the uncertainty as soon as possible. Has the Scotland Office discussed the issue with the Scottish Executive, who are responsible for making the decision? When do the Scottish Executive hope to make an announcement about their decision? Will the Minister seek a guarantee that Glasgow will not be downgraded and sacrificed for Edinburgh's benefit?

Will the Minister also consider the assessments that are being made of future trends in aviation, such as the possible construction of 600-seater aircraft? Will such planes, if they are ever built, be able to use Edinburgh and Glasgow airports? What terminal facilities will be needed to cope with a fleet of them, and how will they ever be filled with passengers from Scotland? Will such planes operate only from Manchester, London and the big European airports, relegating Scottish airports to providing only feeder services?

The substantial add-on costs of charter flights south from Scotland are a sore point with most Scots who go on holiday by air and yet another example of how consumers are ripped off in the UK. As far as I am aware, there is no corresponding reduction for Scots on the cost of charter flights going north, whether they originate in England or in Scotland. It is a case of win-win for the operators. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), in conjunction with the Daily Record,has waged a vigorous campaign to have action taken on the matter. Will the Minister raise the subject with her ministerial colleagues?

When the Minister does that, will she consider the high cost of business-class fares on Anglo-Scottish services, which must be a disincentive to business and jobs? Why should such fares cost approximately the same as some transatlantic flights? Where is the price competition between airlines in business-class fares? They all seem to charge the same. It is probably a coincidence, but those of us who do not believe in coincidences think otherwise.

There have been numerous suggestions and some attempts to make a success of air cargo operations, but again we have the problems of inadequate road and rail links and the lack of air services to further forwarding destinations, which prevent them from being a great success. Will the Minister say whether cargo will be included in the consultation document?

We could not have a full debate without referring to low-cost carriers, which are a mixed blessing. There is no doubt that the increased competition has forced some airlines to lower costs, but, again, is the competition on a level playing field? Do some airports not offer low-cost carriers substantially reduced landing fees, or even none at all? Surely there may be a case for charging identical landing charges for identical aircraft, or identical per-head landing charges throughout the United Kingdom.

I am also concerned at the misleading advertisements and hidden costs for passengers on some routes operated by low-cost carriers. It must come as quite a shock to many passengers to find that the airport at which they land is 25, 40 or even 60 miles from their destination—substantial additional expense and time are necessary before they get to where they want to be. Such information and costs should be made clear to prospective passengers before they book their tickets.

The growth in low-cost operators suggests that people are willing to accept a somewhat inconvenient destination if they get the price that they want to pay. Surely the issue is competition.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but people who feel conned have complained to me. A classic example is a friend of a friend who went from London to what they thought was Glasgow airport. Instead, they arrived at Prestwick, took a taxi and asked for the city centre only to find that taxis cost £40 each way. Many passengers who use low-cost airlines do not appreciate the additional costs that could be involved until it is too late. That is why it is a good idea that they be provided with such information before they book their tickets.

So far as I am aware, none of the low-cost carriers has much of an operating base in Scotland. We could have a case of here today, gone tomorrow, and that has already happened to some carriers. We do not know how long term the low-cost carriers are—they operate on extremely low overheads and hire space, and they do not have the overheads of regular scheduled multinational carriers. Time will tell who wins the battle between the types of carrier.

Bearing it in mind that Ryanair now has a higher market capitalisation than British Airways, will the hon. Gentleman concede that its long-term prospects are probably not bad?

We have seen a lot of allegedly global giant companies descend to the ashes as quickly as they rose. Who can tell what will happen? Some were of much greater value than the company that the hon. Gentleman refers to.

What efforts has the Scotland Office made to establish any maintenance and repair organisations or call-centre activities for low-cost airlines in Scotland? Has any assessment been made as to whether low-cost operations result in a net loss of inward investment? That is an important point. Do the carriers not take many more people out of Scotland, and bring them back, than they bring to Scotland from other destinations? The figure could be two or three times as many. People who might otherwise spend their money in the Scottish economy spend it abroad, because they are encouraged to take the low-cost fares.

Is it just a coincidence or is the increase in low-cost air travel linked to a substantial reduction in the number of tourists spending their holidays and their money in Scotland? Our tourist industry must draw up a strategy to combat that. Will the Minister say whether any studies have been carried out on that point? I believe that low-cost carriers' operations are causing a drain of money from Scotland, and I want people to spend their money in the beautiful parts of Scotland rather than on travelling to other European countries. I make no apologies for making that point.

I compliment my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for participating in the post-11 September aviation summit in Edinburgh with 14 different airlines. Will the Minister say what discussions took place with a view to encouraging more direct international flights to and from Scotland? A common complaint from airlines is that they cannot get business passengers to travel directly from Scotland, because most want to travel via London. Have any surveys been carried out to discover why that is so? Why go through a busy, overcrowded airport such as Heathrow when one can travel from Glasgow or Edinburgh? If no surveys have been carried out, will the Scotland Office consider whether one should be?

I must raise two important issues with the Minister. First, bilateral UK-US agreements, or the Bermuda 2 talks, as they are known, are important and they could affect services to and from Scotland. Has the Scotland Office been involved in those talks at any stage? As the Minister is aware, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has issued an opinion that such bilateral agreements are likely to be illegal. It is expected that the court will uphold that opinion later this year and that the European Union will then be involved in the process. Will the Scotland Office have an input to any such EU discussions?

Secondly, EU enlargement will cause eastern Europe—the east again—to open up, especially as a tourist destination. Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt and Schiphol airports may overtake Heathrow as destinations for Americans, with a consequential loss of tourists to Scotland. Will that be taken into account in future plans and policies?

Finally, as a Glasgow MP, I have been parochial and argued Glasgow's case. Having done so on the basis of having to work with what is, I would argue that to accept the long-term economic consequences of the existing situation is to sell Scotland short. I accept that we are a relatively small nation with a small population and that, as such, we will never be able to sustain a large airline hub, meaning an airport with hundreds of onward connections—

What about Copenhagen?

The hon. Gentleman could also cite Schiphol. Copenhagen is certainly doing very well. None the less, if we genuinely have Scotland's interests at heart, we should seriously consider investing no more in the status quo than is necessary to keep up standards in the short term.

The three existing airports could eventually fill a number of niche markets, enabling them to survive for a considerable time. Instead of continuing as at present, we should draw up a long-term airports plan for the rest of the century, encompassing Scotland's employment, export market, inward investment and tourism needs, and anything else that is relevant.

We should bite the bullet and go for a brand new central Scotland airport, located between Edinburgh and Glasgow and adjacent to motorway and rail links. Such an airport, according to present-day figures, could have 15 million passengers a year—the combined total for all three existing airports. If we allow for growth in air travel and new businesses as a result of having such an airport, by the time it is built it could have 20 million passengers a year. That would make a tremendous economic difference to our country, safeguarding existing aviation jobs that otherwise may wither away and creating many new ones. If such an airport should ever be built, please let the state operate and benefit from the car parks—they are licences to make money, with next to no liability to the customer.

I am grateful for the good attendance and interest in the debate, and I look forward to the other contributions.

I commend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) for his good judgment and good fortune in securing the debate. The subject is an important one, and it is ripe for discussion as the consultation gets under way.

Scotland faces challenges, because it is peripheral to the United Kingdom and to Europe, which makes air travel all the more appropriate for discussion. The world is becoming smaller and air travel is growing accordingly; passenger traffic throughout the United Kingdom is increasing annually by 5 per cent., with freight traffic growing at 7 per cent. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on freight traffic, which is often neglected in discussions on air travel. Freight provides a significant opportunity for Scotland, as we have learned from the experience of Prestwick.

This is a new era for air traffic. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has what he calls a parochial interest in Glasgow, but given that the city has two airports—Glasgow Prestwick and Glasgow Abbotsinch—some of his comments could have been better balanced. He would have done better to reflect the market as it is today, because air travel is fuelled by marketing demand, whereas a few years ago it was fuelled by manipulating supply.

No-frills operators are making air travel ever more accessible to people who, 10 years ago, would not have thought it to be in their reach. I commend those operators for their part in that. Some may question how substantial those companies are, but I would say that they are substantial, given the market capitalisation of Ryanair and the growth of easyJet. We may compare that with the relative instability of some major air traffic operators in the United Kingdom—British Airways' share price is not what it was a few years ago, for example.

There is more outgoing air traffic than incoming air traffic through those no-frills airlines, but that is a commercial matter. It is up to companies to make the most of the market opportunity, and they seem to be among the most dynamic, flexible and innovative operators in the travel industry. However, every time I arrive at airports in Glasgow, it strikes me that we do not make enough of arriving passengers. For example, there is little marketing for people who arrive at Prestwick who happen to have got on the plane at Frankfurt because the flight is cheap. When they arrive, they could be anywhere, but there is no marketing of the gem that is Galloway, which is only an hour's drive away, and only limited marketing of the fantastic golf courses within 10 miles of Prestwick. We do not make the most of the potential for incoming air travellers.

I must address accessibility. Air travel has become more accessible to a vast proportion of the population, but that should be matched by airport accessibility. That is a major lesson that Prestwick can teach other Scottish airports. Its rail-air link was opened in 1994 at a cost of £2.3 million, of which £1 million was given as Government support. That came about as a result of imaginative marketing by the Strathclyde passenger transport executive and ScotRail. An incredible 30 per cent. of those who arrive at or depart from Glasgow Prestwick do so by rail.

That is a significant lesson that other airports in Glasgow and Edinburgh could learn. Putting party politics to one side and irrespective of the history of the past 30 years, is it not a tragedy that Scotland's two major airports do not have a direct rail link? Whatever the rights and wrongs of that situation, it is a missed opportunity. As the statistics from Prestwick show, many people can be tempted into using public transport.

I was delighted to meet people from SPTE in Perth at one of the many packed fringe events at our Scottish party conference and delighted to hear of the executive's plans and of the excellent marketing of its proposals for the Glasgow rail-air link. I travelled on the sleeper last night, having left my car at Glasgow airport, as one has to take a bus to get from Glasgow airport to the city centre.

Did not a certain Mr. Beeching close some links to the airports that might have been used?

The hon. Lady's petty party politics never cease to amaze me, or to disappoint me at moments when we could rise above such argument. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston is correct: whatever the rights and wrongs, and however it has happened, we have reached a stage at which two of Scotland's major airports do not have direct rail-air links. That is a matter of considerable regret.

I should like to consider the part that the Scotland Office can play in adding to Scotland's infrastructure. Air travel is a matter not only for the central belt—it is of significant interest to the peripheral areas of Scotland, but by no means do I say that pejoratively. My constituency is an example, as it is in one of the parts of Scotland that is least accessible by air. Of all hon. Members present, I have one of the longest commutes, even though I do not travel as far north as some.

Although my constituency is an inaccessible corner, we have a significant air asset in our Ministry of Defence airfield. There have been proposals over many years to develop it for civilian air traffic, and those for another airstrip between Perth and Stirling are under consideration. We must soon reach the stage at which the procedure for opening up civilian airfields and MOD airstrips becomes much more straightforward—the rewards for doing so are much more significant.

I am one of the greatest supporters of the MOD, which serves us fantastically well, but it is sitting on a huge resource of airfields, airstrips and structural assets around the UK that could be used for commercial gain and to the great benefit of Scotland's peripheral communities. I urge the Scotland Office to consider carefully how it can work with the MOD to that end. Something is preventing operators from unlocking the potential as easily as they might, and the Scotland Office can help them to do so.

I hope that some productive long-term planning emerges from the consultation, but if air travel changes as much in the next 20 years as it has in the past 10, any planning must be done carefully.

First, I apologise for the fact that I have to leave early, having Chairman's duties in another part of the House. However, I look forward to reading colleagues' contributions and the Minister's reply.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on having secured the debate. He has always taken a keen interest in all transport matters and has a great knowledge of them. I add my sympathies to his for the overnight air crash. However, I cannot entirely agree with some of his comments, particularly those about one large airport for central Scotland. One of the joys of landing at and leaving from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick is the fact that there is not the hustle and bustle of Heathrow or Gatwick. That is a great attraction of Scottish airports.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne), who has played a great part in keeping Prestwick airport open. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston, I think that there is a place for Prestwick and Glasgow airports in the west of Scotland. I recently travelled from Prestwick, and it was a relaxing experience. The airport is quiet, and the flight departed and landed on time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr has played a great part in assisting that airport, but given that Glasgow international airport is entirely within the constituency of Paisley, North, and is arguably the biggest employer in my constituency, I hope that I will be forgiven if I confine my comments to that airport.

I cannot over-emphasise the importance of Glasgow airport to me and to the area that I am fortunate to represent. As I am in fairly regular contact with BAA management and workers' representatives at Glasgow airport, I have been taken aback by recent suggestions, albeit from an apparently anonymous source, that Glasgow airport is in decline. Reports of its decline are not only greatly exaggerated, but completely unfounded.

By way of background information, it might be helpful for hon. Members to know that, during the 1980s and early 1990s, the Paisley post code area lost more than 90 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs. Paisley was a mill town, where some 10,000 women were employed in the manufacture of thread. At the beginning of the 1980s, the mills closed and the jobs virtually disappeared overnight, taking with them the small to medium-sized light engineering factories that served the mills. Unfortunately, that was just the beginning of what almost became death by a thousand cuts as, over the ensuing decade, we lost the heavy engineering jobs that had, in some cases, been part of that constituency not only for decades, but for centuries. Some 7,000 jobs were lost at Babcock in Renfrew and 10,000 at Rolls-Royce in Hillington. All in all, by the mid-1990s, the Paisley area had lost 30,000 manufacturing jobs, which sent unemployment there to a high of 16.9 per cent., with pockets of 40 per cent. male unemployment.

During those dark days, we had a lifeline in Glasgow airport. In the early 1960s, it became apparent that Renfrew airport, which was also in the Paisley, North constituency, would no longer be able to cope with the growth in air traffic. As that site did not prove suitable for expansion, the move was made some three miles west to what was then the royal naval airbase HMS Sanderling at Abbotsinch in Paisley—incidentally, about half a mile from where I was born.

First, Glasgow airport emerged, and I could not know then how much time I would spend going through that airport. By the early 1990s, some 4 million passengers a year were passing through it. Today, that figure has risen to 7.3 million. In the year to May 2002, there was a 5.7 per cent. growth in traffic, and in May 2002 alone, the figure was 11 per cent. That is hardly the sign of an airport in decline. In fact, those figures come when there is a UK downturn in passenger traffic. Glasgow is outperforming England's key airports.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss or downgrading of such an airport would decimate not only her constituency, but the whole Greater Glasgow area?

I do indeed agree with that, but given the figures that I have just quoted and what I am about to say, I do not think that it will happen.

I sympathise with the hon. Lady's comments because I, too, was born close to what is now Paisley airport. I am aware, however, from flying up and down from London City airport, that the Glasgow service has been withdrawn. Given her comments about how busy Heathrow and Gatwick are, with which I completely agree, I wonder how often she and her colleagues from the west coast travelled through London City airport.

Indeed, I did travel through London City airport, and many of my colleagues joined me on those flights. Unfortunately, it is true that business flights to Glasgow are not as frequent as those to Edinburgh. Business accounts for some 80 per cent. of Edinburgh's traffic, whereas the figure is only 50 per cent. for Glasgow. The excuse given is that there are not enough daily travellers on such flights. Even if my colleagues travelled all or most of the time by air, flights on Monday afternoons and Thursday evenings would not be enough to maintain a link to Glasgow.

Regional airports such as Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle are being out-performed by Glasgow. I should like to thank everyone concerned with the operation in Glasgow, from BAA management to ancillary staff; they deserve a huge pat on the back for a job well done. In the past year, they have literally flown in the face of adversity, and won. I firmly believe that BAA has shown its commitment to Glasgow airport by investing some £200 million since 1990, and only two weeks ago, at a cost of £9 million, it opened a new car park, which arrives ahead of demand and shows great confidence in a secure future for the airport.

Glasgow is Scotland's biggest and busiest airport, with in excess of 200 flights every day to and from 80 destinations. It is Scotland's No. 1 charter airport with flights throughout the year. It is the only airport in Scotland to have direct transatlantic flights from Continental Airways, American Airlines and Air Canada; Icelandair has flights to the United States with a stop-over in Reykjavik. At the budget end of the market, 50 no-frills flights operate out of Glasgow daily. The Secretary of State has taken great interest in air traffic and has worked hard to attract direct flights into Glasgow and the rest of Scotland's airports.

The greatest boost to Glasgow airport will be the completion of the M74 motorway. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston that one of the biggest blights on Glasgow's horizon is the difficulty in getting through the city and over the Kingston bridge at peak hours. That has proved detrimental to Glasgow, so the completion of the road link will improve figures for the city.

The Government have supported airports and businesses in Scotland and employment for my constituents. The grim figure that I spoke of earlier has, I am glad to say, fallen to less than 4 per cent. My firm belief is that Glasgow airport is flourishing. Information, or misinformation, from anonymous sources must be consigned to the dustbin lest it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is always a danger. As long as we stick to the facts, the only way for air traffic in Glasgow to go is up.

The winding-up speeches will begin at 10.30 am. Three hon. Members still wish to speak and, if they keep their remarks to about seven minutes, they will all have time.

I begin by commending the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) for securing the debate, and I associate myself with his comments about the tragedy in Öberlingen. I also welcome the Minister to this, her first Adjournment debate in her new role. I wish her success.

It is clear to all observers that aviation is vital to Scotland. For a nation that is geographically distant from many of its markets, and which contains numerous communities that are distant and isolated from the country's social and economic centres, affordable and accessible air links are a necessity, not a luxury. Aviation is not a luxury for the rich but vital both domestically and internationally. It is the external method by which we can make our country easily and cheaply accessible to visiting tourists.

I shall give examples of conversations that I have recently had with travellers who share the regular flight that I take from Inverness airport to Gatwick. Other Members from the north of Scotland will be aware of such comments, which are oft repeated. One conversation that I had was with a regular business traveller who works in the fabrication industry. He is one of the many who, no longer able to work in fabrication in the north of Scotland, have to commute as far as Sakhalin island on the east coast of the Russian Federation. The frequency of flights from Inverness—and, I suspect, from other airports in Scotland—is not everything that he, or his many colleagues who take regular business flights, would wish.

A second group of travellers that I meet regularly in the lounge at Inverness airport is service men and women, thousands of whom serve in my constituency of Moray at RAF Lossiemouth or RAF Kinloss. The overwhelming majority come from England, and many need, in urgent circumstances, to fly down to be with family members. I mention that because some Members might be unaware of how much it costs to fly from Inverness to London. I checked this morning with the travel office how much my flight will cost this evening, as I have to return on urgent constituency business. A return flight costs £379. A return flight to New York with British Airways, the same airline, is £248. It is cheaper to fly to New York than to fly from one city in the UK to another.

Another example of the experience of someone in the north of Scotland is that of a local hotelier. He is very proactive, flying to the United States and other markets to try to bring people to Scotland. He quite rightly complains that the lack of direct international flights to the majority of our airports is a disincentive to tourists who would like to come and enjoy what Scotland has to offer. Those are the complaints of ordinary business people, travellers and people involved in tourism. They are not the complaints of one political party or another.

I should like to associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston on the monopoly status of the main airports in Scotland. That is an issue because 85 per cent. of flights within the UK go through BAA airports, and 87 per cent. of flights within Scotland go through BAA airports there. There is clearly an incentive for BAA, in conjunction with the airlines, to route flights through the major London airports. That is a disincentive to establishing direct flights to and from Scottish airports, which means that many people coming to our country or leaving it, for whatever reason, have to be funnelled through airports in and around London. That cannot be a good thing.

Other small countries do not find themselves in that situation. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we might never be able to compete with some other airports. I am not sure why we cannot compete, for example, with Denmark—an independent country with 5 million people, peripheral to the European continent, with a vastly larger choice of air links. Similarly, Finland, also a small independent country of 5 million people on the periphery of northern Europe, seems to do far better than Scotland. BAA has a budget of £12 million for route development at the moment. How will that help to attract people to Scotland, compared with the £3.8 billion investment that we are likely to see at Heathrow 5? The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to highlight the monopoly. It must be looked at. We need to examine imaginatively the idea of a route development fund for marketing.

I have a number of specific issues to raise. One, concerning the flight from Inverness to Gatwick and the application for a public service obligation, is particularly important to the north of Scotland. The application for a PSO was made last autumn. It has cross-party support and the support of the overwhelming majority of public bodies in the north of Scotland. Members representing all parties and I have repeatedly asked for information about when the announcement will be made. I note with interest that there is no mention of the PSO on the Scotland Office website. Will the Minister tell us in her winding-up speech when the announcement will be made, whether there have been objections from British Airways and the BAA to a PSO and what response the Government are making?

I should be interested to hear the Minister talk about the proposal that the Ministry of Defence should widen the inquiry by Strike Command into the use of RAF Kinross as an alternative to Inverness airport if the discussions between Ryanair and Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd. are successful. I wrote to Ryanair and the MOD at the same time, and I am glad that Ryanair was able to write back to me; unfortunately the MOD has been unable to do so. Will the Minister tell me the exact view of the Scotland Office and the MOD on the proposal?

Lastly, the long title of today's debate refers to the role of the Scotland Office, which is a mystery to me because I am unsure what role it plays. We have had no word on the PSO, which is probably the biggest current issue in Scottish aviation, and we have had no confirmation of the situation from the MOD. While we are on the subject of launching reviews and new papers, a press release on 12 December 2000 stated that the Government were to issue a consultation document on UK air services for the next 30 years, which is a subject that we discussed earlier. How many reviews will it take before the issue is taken as seriously as it should be? I should be interested to know what role the Scotland Office plays in aviation in Scotland.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on securing the debate. I add my condolences to those families who suffered a great loss earlier today.

It will be no surprise that I am going to concentrate on the Glasgow area and the central belt of Scotland. Nearly one quarter of Scotland's population lives in the Greater Glasgow area, and Glasgow is still the main employment area in Scotland. It has been said of Scotland's success, or failure, that if Glasgow fails, Scotland fails.

The world is getting smaller as transportation becomes quicker. A first-class gateway is essential to the future prosperity of not only Glasgow but the whole country. Airports are only as good as their accessibility, and concern has been voiced regularly, especially in the central belt, about accessibility to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. As roads become more congested, transport becomes more important for the continued survival of Scottish airports. Cost, which is the primary factor in choosing an airport, is another area that needs to be looked in relation to attracting passengers.

As my hon. Friend said, the M8 link has become congested particularly around the Kingston bridge, which is now one of the busiest bridges in the world. The M74 extension to the south side of the city was started late and is long overdue. Road access is not, however, the only transport that is needed. We need a rail link from the city centre to the airport not only in Glasgow but in Edinburgh if we are to compete with other main airports in Britain and to promote services in Scotland. There are problems because rivalry between Glasgow city council and Renfrewshire council over where the link should go has clouded the issue. One solution would be to put the councils in a padded room, throw away the key and not let them out until they reach a common-sense compromise.

There is some good news. I want to congratulate Strathclyde passenger transport authority's decision to commit £500,000 to preparatory work for those rail links, but that must be done in agreement with all those concerned. The controversy surrounding the rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports must be overcome to help both airports to realise their ambitions, which are to be the best in their field. There is room for both airports, and given a level playing field both will continue to grow. To that end, I welcome both the cross-party support and the cross-Parliament support that we are receiving for both airports. I also congratulate the Evening Timesand The Heraldon their help and support for Glasgow airport. They have both done excellent work in informing the public of the present situation and the need for a gateway airport in the west of Scotland, while still supporting Edinburgh in its aspirations for its airport.

I raised with BAA Scottish Airports and BAA plc the problems of pitting Glasgow airport against Edinburgh airport. Although I have been more than satisfied with the reply from Scottish Airports, I am somewhat disappointed by the refusal of BAA plc to speak to the Glasgow group of MPs of which I am secretary. Although I am happy with Scottish Airports' insistence that it supports both airports, I am unhappy that landing costs in Glasgow exceed those in English airports. I have not received a satisfactory answer as to why that is. I can understand why Scottish Airports may not want to answer the question, but the silence from BAA plc is deafening.

On 1 May I asked the Prime Minister whether he would ensure that airport costs were the same throughout the country, and for his assurance that the links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, which are vital to Scotland's growth, will be started and completed quickly. In his answer, he mentioned the aviation White Paper, which he said would be published shortly, and he went on to say:

"We are urgently looking at the matter with not just the British Airports Authority, but the Scottish Executive and the Strategic Rail Authority, and I hope that we will have some news to announce shortly."—[Official Report,1 May 2002; Vol. 384, c. 939.]

Will the Minister enlighten us as to when the White Paper will be published, and tell me when those announcements will take place?

I sent the letter to the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and in his reply he also mentioned the White Paper that was about to be published, and the work with the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office. However, there was nothing tangible about what was actually being done. Will the Minister tell us what consultation she has had with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Scottish Executive?

I feel that there is a great deal to discuss concerning air services for holidaymakers. Why should holidaymakers in Scotland pay more than those in England? In most cases, the difference in distance to the resort that they are going to is nil or less, so why the extra cost? The holiday firms are ripping off the people of Scotland. Their answer that the market can support the cost is no excuse for ripping people off and taking money from the holidaymakers of Scotland. What incentive is there for people south of the border to come to Glasgow or Edinburgh airports now that millions of pounds have been spent to upgrade transport to both airports if it costs more once they are there? There is no incentive for people from the north of England, who would probably find it a lot easier to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh than to airports in England.

We need the incentive of an even playing field for the people of Scotland, and not what we have at present. Scotland is one of the most beautiful countries in the world—in my opinion it is the most beautiful. It is certainly the best country in the world, but we need to improve our transport infrastructure to a level that others already have. We only want a fair deal. And if it could be arranged, could we also have some better weather?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on securing the debate, and the Minister on her new appointment, on what is a sad day for the airline industry.

Today's debate allows us to focus on two important issues: air services in Scotland and the role of the Scotland Office. I disagree with the plan of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston for one central Scotland airport. He did not explain fully whether that would involve the closure or reduction in importance of any of the other airports. With Edinburgh airport in my constituency, I should perhaps declare an interest—it is Scotland's fastest growing airport. In May, the number of passengers passing through Edinburgh soared by 16.2 per cent. to 6.42 million, just behind Glasgow at 7.4 million. In the same year, Heathrow increased its numbers by just 1.4 per cent. In what has been described as the toughest decade for the industry, it has had the toughest year following 11 September.

The Scotland Office could assist in a number of ways to promote air services from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom and abroad, and to restore confidence in the industry. It could promote Scotland so that visitors and businesses want to go to Scotland; it could ensure that the good track record of safety at Scottish airports and in the air is not compromised; and it could work with the Scottish Executive to ensure that links exist on the ground when passengers land in Scotland. Visitors to Edinburgh airport who experienced the taxi wars and the shambles of the system that followed did not receive the welcome that a capital city should provide.

Reference has been made to rapid links to city centres. They are vital and we must keep up the pressure to ensure that they are delivered. Whether that is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament or of local authorities, people must work together or there will be a price to pay. That price will be businesses choosing to go elsewhere or falling tourist numbers. Businesses and tourists have a choice. No one is forced to go to Scotland, although it is the most beautiful country and people should want to go to it. However, we must have the necessary links and we must compete and win.

Edinburgh provides an example of the potential close to airports—the Royal Bank of Scotland is considering building its new world headquarters there. It would employ 3,000 people, but the bank is being tempted by offers from elsewhere in the United Kingdom where the infrastructure is in place and offices are ready. It would be a disaster if Scotland did not see off threats from elsewhere, and the possibility of flying more often and more cheaply to Scotland would encourage others to join the Royal Bank and to succeed in Scotland.

One reason for the relatively good percentage increase in the figures for those flying in and out of Scotland is that we have relatively few transatlantic flights. Because of that, we have avoided the recent downturn, but we are not best placed to benefit from any recovery in international flight numbers. The Secretary of State has done good work to help to promote Scotland abroad. She has flown to Malaysia and to China, and the Advocate-General has flown to Canada, but where did they fly from? Probably the south of England.

Promoting flights from Scotland makes sense in several ways. It is quicker and, therefore, more attractive. It makes no sense to fly to the USA via Schiphol and to fly over Scotland twice. It would be more environmentally friendly, but, as the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said, it can be cheaper to fly to New York than to Inverness. It would take the pressure off the many over-heated airports in the south, which would be popular around airports that are bursting at the seams and with holidaymakers who must spend as much time on the ground travelling to airports such as Manchester as they do travelling to their two weeks in the sun.

I hope that the Minister comments on the concerns that I and other hon. Members have raised about the £7 security charge levied by many tour companies, as airport baggage handling companies charge about 20p a bag. Is the charge necessary, is it having an effect on the industry and where does the money go?

Reference has been made to surcharges on Scots flying abroad on holiday flights. Low-cost carriers advertise very cheap flights, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston said, but it costs more to get from the train station at Gatwick to central London, for example, than to fly from Edinburgh to Gatwick. That must be more fully explained so that customers are not left in the dark.

In December last year, the Secretary of State hosted an aviation summit in Edinburgh and we look forward to positive results from that. I also look forward to hearing from the Minister exactly what those results are. We have direct links to about 15 countries, and we must push for more. There is a demand for more direct flights in Scotland for tourists and the business sector, and we must compete with those who can provide the flights and quick links at the end of flights. We must compete globally and we must encourage inward investment. There have been some positive moves. BA is heading in the right direction with its discounts on landing charges, and its plans to reduce airport charges and to give marketing support to airlines using Scottish airports. That is welcome, but there has been criticism of landing charges in Scotland.

Another issue, which I understand the Scottish National party is also pursuing, is the cost to the public purse of the tartan day trip to New York. No doubt that visit, which included Members of the Scottish Parliament from all parties, would have cost less had there been more flights from Edinburgh to New York

I begin by echoing the sentiments expressed by many Members about the tragedy that occurred yesterday. I add my condolences to the bereaved.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on securing the debate. It has been stimulating and there has been a remarkable degree of cross-party consensus about the problems, even if there has been divergence as to what should be done about them. We await the forthcoming report, but I hope that the Minister ensures that remarks made in the debate are taken into account.

All transport is vital, particularly for business travel, and transport is the oil that makes the business engine turn, but transport issues are nowhere more important than in the outlying areas of the country. Some hon. Members have been somewhat parochial in their remarks, and I shall be exactly the same. I begin not quite in my constituency, but in Inverness.

It is interesting to note the improvements in the economy of the highlands—and particularly in the Inverness drive-to-work area—that have taken place in the past decade. Those improvements have been hugely facilitated by, and are mirrored in, the number of air passengers coming to Inverness airport. For example, in 1991, 199,000 air travellers came to Inverness, but that figure had risen to 332,000 by 1999. Those numbers mirror the expansion in business as well as the improvements in air links.

As the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said, there is considerable worry about the frequency and the availability of flights. We went through a period in the mid-1990s when flights were moved from the Inverness-Heathrow link to the Inverness-Gatwick link. There was a tremendous campaign to save the Heathrow link, but it is impossible to say how many more overseas visitors would have come north because of the simplicity of transit through Heathrow had it been maintained. They may have stayed in London and not bothered to come to Inverness, but it is certain that the removal or the substantial reduction of the Gatwick link would have a very negative effect on business and tourism in the highlands and the Inverness area.

In that regard, I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's questions on the public service obligation. It is incredible that the Government cannot secure such a vital link and ensure that it continues at least at the current level. Expansion may come as a result of market forces. On the public service obligation, I should also point out that the links from the islands to central Scotland are vital. The Government should properly consider all such issues.

Nowhere are air links more important than in the tourism industry. The United Kingdom tourism industry delivers about 7 per cent. of gross domestic product and is responsible for approximately 7 per cent. of jobs. The direct spend by overseas visitors only is estimated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to be about £13 billion. In 2000, there were 17,829,000 overseas visits by air to the United Kingdom.

Tourism is even more important for the highlands, as it accounts for about 20 per cent. of its GDP and about 25 per cent. of jobs. It is an absolutely critical industry and one that has been growing and enjoying considerable success. Against that, we must balance the fact that 75 per cent. of overseas visitors use Heathrow as their gateway airport. In 2000, all the Scottish airports that have been mentioned received only 2.6 per cent. of overseas visitors, which shows what a mountain that we have to climb.

VisitScotland and the British Tourist Authority have two sales to make when they market the UK to the overseas visitor: they must encourage people to come to the United Kingdom and then, having got here, to come up to Scotland. Therefore, the availability of flights is crucial in helping to drive the future of our tourism industry in Scotland.

In my career in the industry, I have met many visitors to the UK who simply never considered the possibility of visiting Scotland because they wanted to take one flight from America, the far east or Europe, arrive in the UK and then enjoy their holiday. They did not want to go through the difficulty of taking a second flight. For that reason, I was pleased when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston mentioned Prestwick. I had a small part to play in the current ownership of Prestwick airport. In 2000, I took part in a mission to Pierce airport, which is just outside Boston, in conjunction with the people who are now the owners to persuade them to allow an air link to operate from Prestwick to that airport. I hasten to add that I received no financial reward for that, but they did put me up in a very nice hotel.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the three main airports, and I fully understand why he chose Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick. However, if any of my hon. Friends from the Aberdeen area were here, they would want Aberdeen airport to be included, as it provides a growing and important air link with much of Europe. He mentioned how much we are beginning to look east rather than west, and the importance of Aberdeen airport's links with the continent will grow significantly in future years.

I shall now be completely parochial and mention one of the smallest airports in the United Kingdom—Wick, which is in my constituency. Unfortunately, the story at that airport has not been as good as elsewhere. In fact, over the past decade, the number of air passengers at Wick has dropped from some 32,000 to 22,000, not only because of the improvements at Inverness, but because of the many difficulties that Wick continues to face. However, there is a note of success in general aviation at Wick.

We should not forget the possibilities that general aviation offers. Mr. Andrew Bruce, who runs Far North Aviation in Wick, has had tremendous success in persuading people who want to fly to America in small planes to use Wick airport as the starting point for their voyage. As result, there were 600 air movements last year, and, according to him, 60 per cent. of those people stayed in Wick. However, that economic benefit is threatened by the fact that the cross runway, which is vital in our very windy climate, is no longer available to passenger aircraft other than those involved in general aviation, and £1 million is needed to repair it. Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. has provided only £300,000, and I hope that the Minister will bring some weight to bear so that the cross runway can be made available, as that would be a tremendous benefit to Wick.

Finally, I wish to make a rather larger point about integrated transport. Notwithstanding the comments made by other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston makes a valid point in saying that one airport in central Scotland, serviced by an extremely good rail link, is the ideal way forward. Of course, an extremely good rail link is the key. Looking 20, 30 or 40 years into the future, thinking strategically and considering the environmental damage done by air transport, we must reserve it for intercontinental and island-to-mainland flights. The UK mainland needs a good, fast bullet-type train, which is why I question the future of the budget airlines.

The best way to judge a company is not by its market capitalisation, but by its business model, especially if one considers Enron, WorldCom and various others. Given the way that environmental issues are going, I wonder whether the budget airline business model will be sustainable in 10 years. I believe that the people involved are great entrepreneurs, so they will surmount the problem and continue to offer us good value, but it will be a different value in future.

Many issues have been raised, and I hope that the Minister gives answers on some of them. Also, I hope that she takes away the excellent contributions and points that have been made, and sees that the proper authorities in Westminster and Holyrood understand them.

I add my condolences to the families of those who have been affected by the tragic crash in Germany. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on securing the debate. Although it is not the first time that we have crossed swords, I, too, welcome the new Scotland Office Minister to her first Adjournment debate.

I was interested to read the title of the debate in the Order Paper:

"Role of the Scotland Office in promoting air services to and from Scotland".

More than anything else, we have seen a concentration on a plea that goes back at least 40 years. When I worked in the Scottish Office, a major inquiry into the role of an airport in the central belt was defeated largely because of fog. I know that technology has moved on, but I have travelled from Heathrow, Gatwick and London City in the autumn, and on many occasions the flights were cancelled or delayed because of fog in Scotland. Those airports are relatively fog free, although the central belt is still as foggy as ever.

Despite improved technology, with the best will in the world, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston—that there should be a mega airport in the central belt—would probably not work on a technical basis. I am sorry if I have completely destroyed his argument, but even with global warming we have not seen significant changes in the fogginess of central Scotland.

I am most interested in the role of the Scotland Office. When I first read the title of the debate in the Order Paper, I thought that the hon. Gentleman would talk about the role of the Scottish Executive, although the role of the Scotland Office is much more intriguing Several contributors have asked questions of the Minister that I sincerely hope receive serious answers Most of us are fairly frustrated when we ask questions of Scotland Office Ministers, because the standard answer is that they have regular meetings with members of the Scottish Executive, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions or whichever Department is relevant to the subject under debate. We never receive information as to the content of the meetings, what the representations contain and how effective those consultations are. I hope that the Minister, in her first contribution to an Adjournment debate in this role, affords us some enlightenment on the role of the Scotland Office on the issue.

The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) first brought up, thank goodness, the issue of Inverness airport. At present, that airport is entirely subsidised. It is owned by Scottish Executive Ministers and it has put in a bid for a public service obligation order.

I believe that Inverness airport itself makes a profit. It is Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. that is subsidised.

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I apologise for that error. There is a need for a PSO because of the subsidies, and it is the existence of the subsidies that causes difficulties in negotiations with Ryanair. Having been briefed by the managing director of the company before the negotiations with Ryanair last week, I am glad to see that they are continuing, as that means that opportunities to travel will be afforded to people in the north of Scotland.

I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston said that people should stay in Scotland, implying that they should not take advantage of low-cost airlines and the expansion in air travel that people in the rest of the UK and throughout the world are enjoying. Although. I agree that Scotland is a beautiful country, there should be every opportunity for people to travel, and it would be advantageous to everyone in the north of Scotland to be able to avail themselves of the services of airlines such as Ryanair, so I welcome the fact that negotiations are continuing in Scotland. It would be helpful, however, if the Minister told us what representations she has made, if any, either to the Scottish Executive or to the Department of Trade and Industry, on the whole issue of the PSO and on trying to change the structure of HIAL, so that Ryanair can negotiate a sensible deal with the company.

It would also be useful if the Minister untangled the role of the Scotland Office for us and explained what contribution it will make to the Scottish air transport consultation paper to which hon. Members have referred and which is to be published this summer. How will the feedback from that exercise be fed into the UK air transport White Paper, which I understand is due at the end of the year, and what role will the Scotland Office have in ensuring that the DTI takes the results of that consultation into account? Queries often arise about the role of the Scotland Office, and this is an opportunity for her, in her first Adjournment debate, to enlighten us on the positive role that it could play.

The Minister could also clarify what role the Scotland Office has played in the debate on airport security charges. Apart from the fact that BAA or the security companies are benefiting from the income from all the pairs of nail and needlework scissors that they claim from me every time I go through the security system, it would be enlightening to know what discussions she has had with the DTI on the Scotland Office's role in ensuring that Scottish airports are as competitive as possible.

On BAA's alleged monopoly in Scotland, I understand that BAA spent about £500 million on the infrastructure of Scottish airports, which is more than the profits it gains from them, so it is committed to delivering good services to those who use Scottish airports. Does the Scotland Office have any input to any discussions that the DTI may be having with BAA about any monopoly issues raised by hon. Members?

This is an opportunity for the Minister to enlighten us on the practical work of the Scotland Office in representing the views of people in Scotland to UK Departments. It is also an opportunity for her to enlighten us on the role of the Scotland Office vis-a-vis the Scottish Executive, who have internal responsibilities for transport in Scotland.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston for giving us the opportunity to try to glean further information from the Minister on the role of the Scotland Office, because we are concerned that there is little evidence that it does anything at all.

First, I offer my congratulations on your new honour, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel as though I should curtsey, as well as showing you the usual due deference.

I associate myself with the comments made about yesterday's air crash. Those of us who remember Lockerbie feel for the inhabitants of that village in Germany, who did not know what was coming out of the sky. When such things happen, those of us who travel regularly by air say to ourselves, "There but for the grace of God go I.

" I should inform the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that I have made it my life's mission to enlighten the Conservative party on any subject.

Not on the Scotland Office.

Usually on everything. In a previous existence, the hon. Lady compiled a review on Scottish airports in the fog. I assure her that the fog lifted on 1 May 1997 and that the sky got even brighter on 7 June 2001.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on encouraging us all to be in the Chamber for half-past 9 to discuss this important issue. I congratulate, too, the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Remarkable woman though I am, I doubt that I shall be able to answer every question specifically, given that my hon. Friend asked at least 12 and other hon. Members added their tuppence-worth. If hon. Members will allow me to do a tour of the points that have been raised, I shall deal with anything left over outwith the confines of the debate.

There are areas of agreement and we all agree on the importance of air services, not only to the Scottish economy, but to the United Kingdom economy as a whole. It is hard for us to imagine life without air travel, but I should point out to my hon. Friend that when I first flew out of Abbotsinch airport in 1957 as a wee lassie, I was given a leather helmet and I was told that my parachute was under my seat. Even then, however, I was able to fly from Glasgow to Hamburg. I was fair taken with the idea of being away up a'ky in a plane—I shall translate that later for Hansard.

The 1998 White Papers, "A New Deal for Transport" and "Travel Choices for Scotland" emphasised our intention to develop a strategy for UK airports and air services by looking 30 years into the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) made a point about Beeching. Had we looked 30 years ahead in the 1960s, we might not have suffered such difficulties in our railway system, which we are now forced to review and redevelop.

Our strategy will be set out in a White Paper, which we hope to publish at the turn of the year. In that respect, the hon. Member for Beckenham is correct. The air transport White Paper will consider the effects of aviation, both on passengers and on those whose lives are affected by airports and aviation—the industry provides some 15,000 jobs in the Scottish economy. We must examine the effects of aviation on the economy, the environment and regional economic development, and consider how aviation can integrate with surface modes of transport. That process requires careful in-depth analysis.

In Scotland, the necessary work was undertaken jointly with the Scottish Office and, subsequently, with the Scottish Executive and their own agencies, including the Scotland Office. Discussions are also being held with airports, airlines and other key stakeholders. The intention is to look forward over 30 years as far as possible and to forecast air passenger and freight traffic in a wide range of different growth and policy scenarios. We must examine the infrastructure required to address those demand forecasts and assess the economic, environmental, social and safety implications of doing so. A UK consultation paper was published in December 2000, and its results have been fed into the development process for the White Paper.

As an aside, although the point is relevant, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston mentioned the ownership of Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. Glasgow city council has referred the matter to the Office of Fair Trading, and the Director General of Fair Trading will now deal with it. Furthermore, the consultation documents that are to be published later this year will examine all the issues relevant to the development of Scotland's airports, which obviously include ownership.

I hope that I can assist the hon. Member for Beckenham by saying that the regional consultation documents are the next stage in the process. A series of documents will shortly be published simultaneously for each of the UK's main nations and regions. That includes a separate Scottish document, which the Government and the Scottish Executive have jointly developed and will jointly publish. I hope that we all agree that that is a sensible approach, given that responsibility for aviation policy and security is a reserved function, while responsibility for planning and economic development is devolved under the Scotland Act 1998.

The consultation documents will examine several issues, including regional access in Scotland and to and from the main international and national hubs, the scope for developing more services from Scotland, how to manage and develop airport capacity and the impact of the growth in air travel on our economy. I can give the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) an assurance that they will also examine opening up military airfields—an issue that the MOD is seriously considering.

The development of air services is too important to leave it solely to the usual suspects—representative bodies and pressure groups—to comment on the issue. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to engage in serious debate on the development of a major economic, social and environmental factor for Scotland. The Scotland Office has been closely involved in the development of the Scottish consultation document and in formulating wider UK policy, and that involvement will carry on into the management of the consultation process. Working jointly with the Scottish Executive and the Department for Transport, we will hold consultation events in Scotland, including full conferences.

Let me deal quickly with direct flights and the Scotland Office's specific role in the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston and, I am pleased to say, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) noted, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been involved in promoting direct air services from Scotland. [Interruption.]It is nice to get a compliment from Opposition Members, and I want to pay true tribute to them.

They are not in the Opposition.

That is a cheap shot.

The period since the tragic events of 11 September in New York and Washington has been difficult for the airline industry, and some companies have undergone a retrenchment, which has obviously affected Scotland. Progress is still being made, however, and we should not underestimate the advances that Scottish air links have made.

Services, including charter services, now fly direct to 33 destinations. On indirect services, I often wonder why people complain about making a single stop, when such things are taken as a natural part of visiting foreign countries and moving around them. Scotland's airports run practical services, with a single stop, to more than 100 destinations in more than 25 countries.

At this point, I should mention the Friends of Scotland initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has promoted. People can fly from Scottish airports to Reykjavik, Toronto, New York, Paris, Copenhagen and Bergen. They can also fly to Brussels-Charleroi from Prestwick, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) in that regard. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston that more tourists use that route to come to Scotland than to leave it.

In my final 30 seconds or so, I shall deal with one or two other issues. I sometimes think that we talk down the advantages of Scotland. [Interruption.]I will deal with the PSO and the high cost. One of the SNP's great attributes is that it never compares like with like. Had the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) asked the travel office about the cost of a business-class ticket from Scotland to New York, he would have been told that it is £3,900, not £254. That is the figure that he should have compared with the Inverness fare.

There are issues related to Inverness that I do not have time to discuss, but I assure hon. Members that the Government and Scottish Executive Ministers are conferring on the matter as we speak. There are many opportunities out there, and the Scotland Office will continue to work in the Government and with others to ensure that they are seized for the benefit of the whole of Scotland.

It seems just hours—in fact it is a week—since we were all last gathered here for a debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) then observed was the first time that we had had an opportunity to discuss merchant shipping since 15 July 1998. It was therefore a particular pleasure for me to find that I had been successful in the ballot and secured this debate. I hope that a weekly debate on shipping matters will now be a feature of Westminster Hall. No doubt such debates will be answered by the Minister with special responsibility for Westminster Hall, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. I am pleased to see him in his place today.

This week's debate is something of a natural progression from last week's very useful debate. There is a close relationship between issues of safety and of pollution. Safe vessels that are well staffed with well-trained personnel never cause pollution; vessels that cut corners and do not adhere to proper standards tend to be responsible. We cannot ignore the fact that the bulk of such vessels are sailing under flags of convenience, so there is a great deal of overlap between last week's debate and this one.

It is my privilege to represent a constituency that relies greatly upon having, in reality and in perception, a very clean maritime environment. In Shetland in particular, the local economy relies tremendously on fishing and fish farming of all sorts. Increasingly, throughout Orkney and Shetland, there is a reliance on tourism, which includes marine tourism operations such as the excellent Bressaboats, and a number of diving companies in the Scapa Flow in Orkney.

One of the truly remarkable achievements of the oil and gas industry in Shetland and in Orkney is the way in which it has minimised its environmental impact on the region. There have been some significant departures from that in the past, but none of them have been related to the operation of Sullom Voe or Flotta or any related operations. Many of my constituents have a history of working in the merchant navy and some of the older ones worked in the south Atlantic whaling industry. They look with dismay at the state of the merchant fleet today.

Few constituencies know better than mine what can happen when it all goes wrong. It all went wrong for Shetland about nine and a half years ago, on 5 January 1993, when the motor tanker Braer ran aground off the south end of the island. It is a matter of record that the Braer was carrying 84,700 tonnes of Norwegian Gullfax crude oil. The tanker ran aground and all that oil was vented into the sea and blown on to the land. The extent of the devastation was unimaginable. Constituents described it to me as "apocalyptic". From all that I have heard and from the pictures that I have seen, that is no overstatement.

That is one of the most extreme examples of pollution from ships at sea in recent times, and, regrettably, a few issues arising from it still need to be resolved. The first will make the Minister's heart sink, and that is the position with asbestos roof claims in the south end of Shetland, which I last raised in the House on 24 May. The Minister was very kind and prompt in answering by letter the points that I raised during that debate. I shall not repeat all the details. In essence, claimants for damage to asbestos roofs in the south of Shetland took an unsuccessful action against the international oil pollution compensation fund. I have previously asked the Minister whether he will intervene with the IOPC to obtain a copy of a report that my constituents still believe was crucial to their claim, but which was denied to them in the course of litigation. They now feel that, the litigation having been dealt with, the report should be made available both on moral grounds and on those of openness and accountability. The Minister wrote to me on 19 June, stating:

"I do not think that it would reflect well on the UK if we sought to press the Fund Director, its Executive Committee or other Member States on this issue"—

that is, the release of the report. The Minister continued:

"We would be seeking to set a very poor precedent for the future administration of the Fund. It is not an approach we could support if the same circumstances applied elsewhere."

I find that response disappointing and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to revisit it. The question of compensation and litigation having been resolved, matters have moved on, and we are now considering rather more than asbestos roofs in the south end of Shetland. This is about how the international oil pollution compensation fund is seen to conduct its business, and the confidence that hon. Members can have about how their constituents would be treated if, heaven forbid, anything like this should happen in their constituencies. I would hope that hon. Members could feel that they would be treated fairly and openly, but that is not how my constituents feel that they have been treated. The IOPC might tell the Government that it will not release the report, but I ask the Minister to accept that there is a moral imperative involved. Even if his efforts are ultimately unsuccessful, we should press the IOPC, which is a quasi-public body with much appreciated Government input, to conduct its business in a way that is seen to be fair, open and transparent.

I am delighted that the Minister is to visit Shetland in August in response to a longstanding invitation. I have no doubt that he will enjoy a fine stay and what I have described in the past as notorious Shetland hospitality—with his Shetland roots, he has the genetics to survive it. Despite his busy schedule during that visit, will he consider meeting the asbestos roof claimants, even for half an hour? Such a gesture would be greatly appreciated by all in the islands.

The inquiry into the grounding of the Braer concluded that two factors were involved. The first was bad weather and the second poor seamanship. In the past year, evidence has been produced to suggest that that might not be the whole story. A constituent of mine, Dr. Jonathan Wills, who has not always been remarkable for his support of liberal democracy in the Northern Isles—in the past, he has been more associated with the Minister's party, although I am pleased to say that he has recently been cured of that—found in his boat a package that contained various papers. He refers to it as a whistleblower's package. It contained various pieces of evidence, including the logbook from the Braer. He examined it and concluded that it raised new evidence. He had previously written a definitive book on the Braer and its grounding.

The conclusion of Admiral Lang of the marine accident investigation branch was that the evidence disclosed to Dr. Wills was not new or important. With all due respect to Admiral Lang—I hold great respect for him—I find that difficult to understand. The MAIB inquiry into the loss of the Braer did not see the evidence, which consists of several pages of manuscript shift log at the Mongstad oil terminal in Norway, and Statoil's letter of protest, signed for by the master of the Braer. All that evidence showed that the Braer's main steam line had burst on arrival at Mongstad on new year's eve in 1992.

I do not understand how Admiral Lang can conclude that that evidence is not new. It is clear from the terms of the MAIB inquiry that the MAIB did not consider it. He may not have been aware of it—I do not see how that could have been the case—but as it was not considered it must surely be new.

The evidence is important. It is clear that there were significant problems with the Braer's engines. The bunker report on the Braer's arrival in Norway showed that, during the passage from New York to Mongstad, she used three times as much diesel as usual. It looks as if she had to burn diesel in the auxiliary boiler to make enough steam to heat the fuel oil. There was a leak in the water pipe feeding the boiler three days before arrival in Mongstad. There appears to have been some confusion in the mind of MAIB inspectors between that fault and another that occurred after the Braer docked at jetty one during the last hour of Hogmanay in 1992.

Thereafter, in the early hours of the new year, the Braer tried to use a steam-driven pump to empty her ballast water tanks. The main steam pipe between the boilers and the manifold burst at 16 times atmospheric pressure and at a temperature of 345 deg C. De-ballasting and loading were delayed 19 hours for repairs.

The Braer's owners and managers were in contact with the ship and must have known about that, because Statoil, the Mongstad terminal operators, launched a formal protest about the delays in loading. The repair was under the direction of the owner's shore-based superintendent engineer, who boarded the ship on new year's day with a riding crew of four Polish fitters. He wanted to familiarise himself with the vessel, tackle what was described then as a backlog of repairs and maintenance, and prepare the ship for five days in a repair yard.

Was the Braer in class? Was it unseaworthy, and as a result not covered by the terms of its insurance, when it sailed from Mongstad? That would have been determined by inspectors from Det Norske Veritas, but there is no record of anyone from it boarding the ship to supervise or certify that crucial operation. Significantly, the MAIB said in January 1994 that all the ship's certificates were in order and fully up to date. I understand that there is no record of such an inspection, so we cannot say whether the MAIB knows that Det Norske Veritas approved the repair. DNV's approach has been somewhat unhelpful. It believes that there is a continuing duty of confidentiality to the Braer Corporation of Monrovia, notwithstanding that it was a one-ship company and ceased to exist some eight years ago. It is questionable whether any duty is still owed or could be thought to outweigh the public interest in the case.

It is clear that the Braer steam boilers were badly corroded and that their water supply was dangerously contaminated. As a result, the engineers could not warm up heavy fuel oil to burn in the main engine and the auxiliary boiler as they usually did, and they used diesel. When the diesel became contaminated, the ship stopped and was blown ashore. Even if water had not got into the fuel tank, the Braer risked running out of diesel and steam long before she reached the refinery in Quebec where she was destined.

In the light of my comments this morning, will the Minister reconsider his assessment that the Braer was seaworthy when she left Mongstad and my request for an independent assessment of the evidence presented by Dr. Wills? One could ask whether the case still matters. It is tempting to say, "It happened nine and a half years ago, the bulk of the claims have been settled and most of the damage that was done to the south end of Shetland has been repaired." However, it is still important. The reputation of the master has continued to be impugned, perhaps unjustly, and the owners of the Braer have effectively been allowed to pull a fast one. It matters not only because of the question of right and wrong: if an accident happens and people get away with it, they and others like them sailing under flags of convenience will be tempted to try to get away with it again. That is why it is important. We are no longer dealing with questions of compensation or reputations within the MAIB; we are trying to get to the truth. If we genuinely know what happened, we may be able to prevent it from happening again.

I wanted to cover several other issues today, but time is against me so I will mention only a couple. The first is the green award incentive, which makes a considerable contribution to the standard of shipping. It is an international standard and if shipping can meet it, the ships are classified under the incentive and entitled to benefits such as discounts on harbour fees—a significant sum. Ports in Spain, South Africa, Rotterdam and northern Germany use the incentive, but only one in the United Kingdom—Sella Ness in the north of Shetland, which takes all the tanker traffic in and out of Sullom Voe. Carrot and stick approaches such as that one offer significant benefits to improve shipping standards and get to the root of difficulties such as pollution. They are a sensible means of proceeding. Will the Minister tell us what his Department is doing to encourage the adoption of standards such as the green award incentive?

The other matter that I want to bring to the attention of the House is the excellent report from the National Audit Office dealing with pollution from ships by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which was published on 12 June. I commend it to the House as a thoroughly comprehensive work on the subject that puts forward several proposals and deals carefully with the different issues that have arisen on a case study basis. I open it at random and it refers to the multitanker Ascania, which was a boat that threatened to blow away part of the Caithness coastline and possibly some of the southernmost parts of Orkney just a few years ago. The report makes several recommendations. I wonder if the Minister would tell us what consideration his Department has given to the report and when he might expect to have a response.

The Government have started to tackle several issues in the area of maritime shipping, and I give them credit for trying to improve standards in the shipping industry. However, a great deal more needs to be done. I hope that if the Government can improve the standard of our shipping, along with other countries in the International Maritime Organisation, no other Member of Parliament will ever have to stand here discussing such issues about nine and a half years after an incident like the grounding of the Braer. That surely is something on which all Members can agree.

First, I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for seeking the debate, and congratulate him on securing it and on the command of the subject that he demonstrated in his speech. I thought that it was an excellent summary of the issues involved and I look forward to the Minister's response to the points raised. I have a constituency interest of my own. I represent the western part of the New forest, which has the western Solent as its seafront: an environmentally sensitive area, which includes the Lymington marshes and Hurst spit. I also go to Pembrokeshire every year for my holidays and the Pembrokeshire national park coastline around Fishguard is close to Milford Haven, so I am concerned about the pollution issues raised by the debate.

I will begin by asking the Minister a question that I hope he will be able to answer. A satellite tracking system for identifying oil spills was trialled between August 2000 and August 2001 by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. It considered the trial to be a success and intended to let a contract for its implementation. Will the Minister tell us what has happened since August of last year concerning that trial?

Satellite tracking systems are one of several measures that could be used in the fight against oil pollution of maritime habitats and the consequent damage to biodiversity. That system has been developed over several years and is used successfully in other parts of the European Union—I understand that it is used by the Danish Admiralty. The Department of Trade and Industry and the MCA are aware of those developments. The company that provided that technology believes that as well as allowing for oil spills to be swiftly tracked and dealt with, there would also be a significant deterrent value, if it were combined with potential prosecution, in the maritime industries if we were prepared to use such technology quickly to punish culprits.

Oil pollution can have a very serious impact on marine biodiversity. After the oil spill from the motor tanker Braer, to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred, 1,538 corpses of 26 different species of bird were washed up in January alone, including 857 shags, 203 black guillemots arid 96 long-tailed ducks. Similarly, following the spill from the Sea Empress in mid-February 1996, 6,900 oiled birds of 28 species were collected up to 1 June that year, including approximately 3,495 that were dead or that subsequently died. Those included 1,818 dead common scoters and 1,416 dead auks, predominantly guillemots or razorbills.

The implementation of marine environmental high-risk areas would allow controls to be placed on tanker traffic. Routeing tankers and other vessels carrying dangerous cargoes away from those environmentally sensitive areas or treacherous shipping lanes can reduce the risk of chronic pollution from shipping and from major oil incidents. Approved shipping routes would make it less likely for ships to collide with each other, run aground or get into other difficulties. Environmental sensitivity in the classification of those marine environmental high-risk areas would be based on a number of criteria, including wildlife, landscape, geology, fishing and the economy.

It is worth bearing in mind that operational pollution—day-to-day operational incidents or illegal discharges—accounts for more than 73 per cent., almost three quarters, of incidents, compared with the large, headline-hitting oil spills. Most of those day-to-day incidents occur in harbour and estuarine areas, most of which are environmentally very sensitive. That more insidious form of pollution is in effect as damaging as, if not more damaging than, the large incidents that stick in the headlines.

The old Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions commissioned a report on the identification of marine environmental high-risk areas in December 1999. I understand that there was some controversy over the methodology used for identifying such areas and that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had some reservations about that, but I do not want to get into that controversy. What we need is significant action to expedite the implementation of such marine environmental high-risk areas. It is now eight years since Donaldson recommended the setting-up of those areas. How far along the time scale for their establishment are we? I understand that a new consultation is shortly to begin. Can the Minister say something about that and the methodology to be used in determining the areas concerned?

I conclude by putting in a plea for the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), which has completed its stages in this House but awaits consideration in the other place. The Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill would help to fill the gaps, which mean that nationally important wildlife sites in the marine environment in the territorial waters of England and Wales do not receive the protection that they need. At present, significant areas around the United Kingdom coast are not covered by the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996 because they lie within the baseline of our 12-nautical-mile territorial zone. If the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill were enacted, it would highlight marine areas of national importance and could help to deal with pollution issues. Perhaps the Minister will state his estimate of the likely progress in the other place of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing the debate.

It is certainly no surprise that the debate has revolved around the Braer disaster. Indeed, it would have been more of a surprise if it had not done so given his constituents' feelings about the matter. Spookily, when I came to London last night I switched on my television and watched an old episode of "Drop the Dead Donkey" that was originally shown at the time of the Braer disaster. The characters were debating whether to send a TV crew to Shetland to obtain film of double-headed lambs being born. Obviously, that is over-the-top satire, but it shows the real and potential impact on our environment and traditional industries of disasters around our coastline such as that involving the Braer.

Indeed, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made a point about Shetland salmon farmers. They enjoyed a premium for their product until the Braer disaster that they have been unable to reclaim since. That situation worries many in Scotland's traditional industries such as farming, fishing and tourism, which take place in rural areas such as Angus. In promoting those industries we rely heavily on Scotland's reputation for a clean natural environment. Every time that that is brought into doubt, it can impact heavily on those industries. To be fair, that effect is not confined to Scotland. In west Wales, for example, very similar concerns are felt in Ceredigion and other areas. Indeed, Alaska was badly damaged following the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Unfortunately, the potential for disaster is real, and the Braer was not a one-off. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) reminded us of the Sea Empress incident at Milford Haven and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland briefly referred to the multitanker Ascania incident. That incident, which took place in the Pentland Firth, was potentially extremely serious. A chemical tanker caught fire in its engine room, 200 people in Caithness had to be evacuated and a no-fly zone had to be established because of the danger of an explosion. The tanker was eventually towed to Scapa Flow—it is strange how everything ends up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. In that case, it was lucky that an environmental disaster did not occur, but it could have been catastrophic.

Given that 90 per cent. of the UK's overseas trade and 7 per cent. of our internal trade is carried by sea, a huge number of ships are plying our waters and it is not surprising that there is potential for a disaster. Add to that our position astride the world trade routes from America to Europe, and it is obvious that a huge amount of shipping passes through Scottish and UK waters.

Pollution in our waters has long been a problem. There was the notorious dumping of munitions at Beaufort's dyke off the south-west coast and the recent example of German nerve agents, which were dumped off the Danish coast after the last war, leaking into the sea. To be fair to the Government, action has been taken after incidents involving tankers such as the introduction of the port marine safety code after the Sea Empress incident. In the United States, the Oil Pollution Act 1990, which specifies that all oil tankers must have a double hull, was introduced following the Exxon Valdez disaster. In the European Union, single-hulled ships will be outlawed by 2015.

There is a problem with pollution once it reaches the coast. A key recommendation of both the Donaldson inquiry into the Braer and the inquiry into the Sea Empress was for local authorities to have a statutory duty to plan for and undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents. That was mentioned in the National Audit Office report to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred. It states that the Government

"should 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 Plans, so that the United Kingdom as a whole is properly prepared to deal with maritime pollution incidents in compliance with international conventions."

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities supported that recommendation. What thought has the Minister's Department given to it? What discussions have been held with the devolved authorities, which will obviously have a say in what happens in Wales and Scotland? A critical question relates to the likely resources that will be forthcoming to allow local authorities to develop contingency plans. It is no good putting an onus on local authorities without providing funding to take plans forward.

The problem is not only that oil is a potential pollutant to seas. Only this morning, there was a story on the radio about a dispute between Greenpeace and the Environment Agency about the categorisation of nuclear waste that is being transported by ship from Japan to Sellafield. Because the agency does not consider rejected MOX plutonium to be waste, fewer controls apply to it, even though it is the first time that such material has been shipped since 11 September.

In addition, there is concern about the state of the ships that transport waste to Sellafield. There are particular worries about corrosion on one of the ships of the Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd. fleet, which is largely owned by British Nuclear Fuels. That raises yet further concerns about accidents happening on our coastline. On Greenpeace's website, a copy of a letter sent to the Secretary of State for Transport refers to the alleged corrosion on ships:

"It is apparent that the cause of the corrosion was poor initial design of the refrigeration … and condensation removal systems. In house BNFL studies were subsequently initiated on the remaining Pacific Nuclear Fleet … and the European Shearwater … Surveys in particular of the Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal, according to the Lloyds Register Classification Survey Dates Supplement, took place in November 2001 after the steel plate corrosion problems in the Pacific Crane were identified. It is understood that initial results of these tests indicate similar corrosion problems on all vessels."

Clearly, serious concern exists about the seaworthiness of ships that carry very dangerous cargos around our coast.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the compelling evidence, to which he refers, on the state of ships that transport nuclear waste from Japan to Sellafield makes it all the more important that there should be no consideration of a northern passage, which was spoken of some time ago, to take nuclear waste from Japan around the north coast of Russia down the west coast of Norway to the United Kingdom? That would be particularly hazardous.

Order. Before the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) replies, I point out that he has not spoken for an hour and eight minutes—the digital clock is in error and I hope that it will be corrected.

If Mr. Deputy Speaker insists, I shall try to keep going for an hour and thirty minutes, but the Chamber might get a bit bored.

I totally agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. A northern route, going through the Arctic, Norway and the scenic parts of northern and western Scotland, would be disastrous. An accident on any part of that route would have catastrophic effects for the whole of the northern hemisphere.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the effects of oil pollution are a disaster for traditional industry, wildlife and the environment. However, what would be the effects of an accident with a ship carrying nuclear waste to Sellafield? They are too horrible to contemplate and would dwarf the effects of the Braer. I ask the Minister, what investigation has been made into the ships that will carry the nuclear waste from Japan to Sellafield? Can he confirm that corrosion has been found on those ships, and does he consider them suitable to carry such material? I urge him seriously to consider stopping those ships sailing into United Kingdom waters.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the northern route, but these ships would take the southern route and pass the coasts of west Wales and Cornwall, where there are many sites of special scientific interest. A disaster near either of those coasts would be a national and international disaster. The Government of Ireland have already expressed their opposition to the continuing operation of Sellafield. If ships carry nuclear waste up the Irish sea to Sellafield, that problem will get worse. Any disaster would affect Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England, as well as places further afield. I urge the Minister to take immediate action to stop the trade before there is a great disaster.

Will the Minister examine the powers that the authorities in port have if they consider that a ship is dangerous or unseaworthy? Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee noted that the number of ships' surveyors had fallen to just 159 from a figure of 194 in 1992, and that puts an extra burden on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The Committee also recommended that surveyors should carry out inspections at sea, so will the Minister tell us whether any thought has been given to strengthening the inspection regime either for ships that visits ports in the UK or for those at sea?

Given the prospect of ships carrying nuclear cargos, has the Minister given any thought to the information that should be provided to ports, coastguards and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in respect of ships carrying dangerous cargos through channels in UK waters? The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has already called for such information to be made available about the ships travelling through the Pentland Firth and Fair Isles channels, but it is important that information is available about the ships travelling through the channels off the coasts of Wales and between Scotland and Ireland. My main point, however—I stress it again—is that we should not allow ships carrying nuclear cargos to travel through UK waters to Sellafield.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part once again in our now regular Tuesday morning debate on shipping matters. Perhaps it should become as regular as the shipping forecast.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing the debate and on taking the opportunity to raise residual matters regarding the sinking of the Braer nine and a half years ago. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply to the important questions that have been asked.

The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) also raised some important issues. I am glad that he emphasised the importance of encouraging the Government to introduce proposals for marine environmental high-risk areas, MEHRAs. As he rightly said, they were recommended in the Donaldson report in 1994. I know that many of us are anxious for the Government to introduce such proposals.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) rightly emphasised the importance not only of the proper monitoring of the nuclear waste and materials that are taken by sea—we heard this morning of a potential new shipment coming to this country from Japan—but of protecting the coastline. Coastline protection is crucial, because pollution at sea too often washes up on the shore. I come from a part of the world that, arguably—perhaps not even arguably—has the most beautiful coastline in the country and includes the Isles of Scilly and the far west of Cornwall. I know from regular visits to the shoreline that the vast bulk of pollution comes from shipping and not from beach users. Only last year I joined volunteers at Praa Sands in my constituency who were collecting rubbish as part of the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign beach-clean week. The vast bulk of the rubbish collected on the beach came from the sea and not from beach users, which emphasises the importance of recognising that oil pollution is not the only issue. Many sea users use the sea as a rubbish ground and everything goes over the side. Spillage of oil, whether deliberate or accidental, is not the only hazard to wildlife because many other forms of pollution are a threat.

The hon. Member for Angus referred to one of the recommendations from the research into the foundering of the Erika on the Brittany coast in 1999 and the importance of introducing double-hull oil tankers. Many of us believe that the deadline, which has been put back to 2015, is worryingly far distant. What progress has the Minister and his Department made in ensuring that Britain takes a full and responsible role in meeting that deadline and working in the international sphere to ensure that the timetable is met?

As the hon. Member for New Forest, West rightly said, MEHRAs were recommended in the Donaldson report. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Government set up consultation on that in December 1999 and closed it in April 2000, but the result of that consultation has still not been published. We have been informed that there will be further consultation this summer, if we ever get a summer, and I should be grateful if the Minister would provide information in his reply on the timetable for implementation. Furthermore, in relation to MEHRAs, the hon. Member for New Forest, West gave the impression that he was sure that powers and sanctions would be attached to the designations. Many areas around the United Kingdom want powers and sanctions to go hand in hand with the designations and I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate what sanctions, regulations and powers there are likely to be. Many local authorities are anxious to ensure that MEHRAs are backed up with the sort of sanctions and powers that can ensure that the environment is not simply noted but properly protected.

On compensation, I acknowledge that both internationally and in the United Kingdom, compensation arrangements and safeguards have certainly been improved and increased for oil spillages. That subject has already been adequately covered, but not all noxious or hazardous pollution at sea comes within the orbit of regulations on oil spillage. For instance, on 26 March 1997, when the MV Cita sank on the east coast of St. Mary's on the Isles of Scilly, it was carrying 145 containers; it also had 95 tonnes of fuel oil on board. The ship was German owned, registered in Antigua and insured by a Hamburg company that was not a member of a shipping insurance protection and indemnity club. In fact many of the containers were owned and insured by various people in different countries.

The pollution effect on the Isles of Scilly was such that the Government Departments responsible had to bear a bill of at least £200,000. Five years later, the Isles of Scilly council still has to find in excess of £80,000, which it had to borrow from reserves. Given that the council has a turnover of £2.5 million per annum, that had a significant impact. Although we all support and wish to uphold the principle of the polluter pays, it is too often the case that ships are owned by one nation and registered in another and that responsibility for the cargo is spread among several. As a result of the grounding of the Cita, the Government and the Isles of Scilly council have been chasing compensation in the German courts for the past three years, but without success. Will the Minister say what action can be taken to ensure that such irresponsibility—it is effectively piracy at sea—is brought to book?

I draw the Minister's attention to a point raised last week—the mention in the Queen's Speech of May 2001 of a proposed safety Bill. The Government announced their intention to increase the number of parties who would be liable in the event of a marine pollution incident in order to improve claimants' access to compensation Since then, we have heard no more. Will the Minister say when the Government plan to introduce such legislation?

My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland drew attention to the National Audit Office report published last month. That report introduced a number of measures—I hope that the Minister will respond to them—including the establishment of appropriate contingency plans. I also raised another matter last week in relation to sea safety. It was the suggestion of sharing resources—in this case, surveillance aircraft—with other regulatory bodies; I am certain that the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have the opportunity to share resources in relation to fisheries protection. Another of the Committee's recommendations was to bring protocols on hazardous and noxious substances into UK law.

We should give the Minister ample opportunity to respond to the many matters that have been mentioned, so I shall not say much more except to give the House some good news. In my experience, it is not always necessary for the Government to introduce further regulation to drag a reluctant industry in the direction of taking more responsibility for the marine environment. I commend BRITMEPA, a voluntary organisation known as the British Marine Environment Protection Association, which is a division of the Sea Safety Group. I have been in touch with Captain A. P. Starling Lark, who is largely responsible for establishing that new, voluntary organisation and hopes that similar organisations will be established in other maritime countries. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that. It wants to work with the Government and throughout the industry by establishing the highest possible environmental standards in maritime industries.

First, I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your award of a knighthood—once a knight, and at your age.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is to be congratulated on having secured the debate. It follows very neatly last week's on maritime safety, because those who offend against maritime safety are usually the same people who offend in terms of pollution. Pollution at sea is no respecter of sovereign jurisdiction. It can affect some 950 million people who rely upon the marine environment for their primary source of protein. Half the UK's biodiversity may be found in our seas and the UK economy relies on shipping for 95 per cent. of its visible trade.

Shipping is an international industry requiring international regulation. Accidental or deliberate discharge can damage a local area both environmentally and economically. Therefore, the reconciliation of sustainable marine discipline with the market freedom of global trade is both a national and an international imperative. Ships can constitute an environmental hazard to the marine environment in three ways—through operational pollution, accidental pollution and physical damage.

Operational pollution can occur through oil and oil wastes, chemicals and noxious liquid substances, sewage, garbage, anti-fouling paints, foreign organisms and even engine transmissions and noise. The majority of those discharges are governed by the International Maritime Organisation's international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, which covers both accidental and operational pollution. It also provides for the designation of special areas where even tighter standards apply. All waters around the United Kingdom, including the North sea and the English channel are designated in that way.

Accidents such as collision and grounding can result in large quantities of pollutant being released into the marine environment. A vessel going aground, anchors and propellers, certain trawling activities and the operation of ships have the potential physically to damage and disturb reefs, banks, coastline, marine habitats and marine life.

The international convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and co-operation of 1990 provides a global framework for international co-operation in combating major incidents or threats of marine pollution. The international safety management code applies to most international shipping companies and trading vessels and obliges shipping companies to establish an environmental protection policy, which must be periodically audited both internally and externally. Both are useful and valuable measures, which must be made to work, but we should also remember that the IMO has no power to make Governments or industry take the necessary action. It operates by way of agreement and consensus, which gives rise to accusations of tardiness, but those accusations are misplaced.

The principal responsibility for enforcing regulations lies with flag states, whose efforts are supplemented by port state control. There are doubts about whether UK port state control inspections of foreign flagged vessels are adequately enforcing compliance with international standards, as well as doubts about whether we are doing enough to reduce operational discharges from ships by detecting and deterring through the prosecution and fining of those who continue to discharge illegally.

The evidence is clear. In 2000 alone, a total of 743 discharges from vessels and offshore installations were identified in the UK pollution control zone and national waters. In 2000, the annual total of 34 oil discharges from oil and chemical tankers was 89 per cent. greater than the 1996–99 mean annual figure of 18 discharges. I recognise that aircraft surveillance plays a significant role in spotting infringements, that we share satellite information with other states that are contracting parties to the Bonn agreement, and that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is also conducting research into the tagging of oil-contaminated discharges to help identify those responsible. I am sorry to say, however, that the figures clearly show that matters are getting worse, so I welcome the Government's declared commitment to reducing the risk of marine pollution by taking pre-emptive action through international and domestic forums, as well as the emphasis on an ecosystem-based approach and integrated stewardship. Those are grand words, but what, specifically, are the Government going to do?

Two national initiatives are especially positive. They arose from Lord Donaldson's recommendations in 1994, following the inquiry into the Braer oil tanker incident in 1993, about which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke knowledgably. The first is the computer assisted shipping traffic database, released in March 1996, on ship routeing in UK waters, and the second is identification of marine environmental high-risk areas, based on a dual assessment of shipping pollution risk and environmental sensitivity.

I urge the Government to expand the provision of year-round emergency tugging vessels for UK coasts. Although I acknowledge that things have improved, four emergency tugs for the whole of the UK, where some 300,000 major ship movements occur each year, is still too few. Will the Minister explain why the COAST database has not been expanded to include non-routine traffic, such as naval vessels, fishing vessels and offshore traffic to mobile drilling units?

The UK's national contingency plan, published in 2000, set out how the relevant local, national, harbour and offshore authorities in the UK will respond to marine incidents. I ask the Minister to comment, however, on the criticisms from the National Audit Office on 12th June 2002. The Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted structural flaws in the contingency planning of some coastal local authorities, in particular in Wales. There, local authorities struggled to deal with the aftermath of the release of 72,000 tonnes of oil from the grounded Sea Empress in February 1996. The NAO noted that no statutory duty is placed on local authorities to plan for and undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine incidents. May I suggest, perhaps oversuspiciously, that that may be because the Government would then have to fund an additional responsibility of local authorities?

Is the Minister aware that a gap is likely to ensue between provisions for contingency plans for oil pollution and the ever-increasing danger of chemical pollution? Have the National Audit Office's cost-saving recommendations for the sharing of counter-pollution equipment or the contracting out proposals been considered by Government? If so, what answers have the Government reached?

Turning to the harmonisation of international standards, will the Minister confirm that the anti-foulant organotin will not be used after 1 January 2008? If that is the case, why is it still being marketed as a biocide for ships? Will the convention for the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediment be adopted in 2003? Can the Minister explain why the international convention on civil liability for pollution damage caused by bunker oil, adopted in 2001, is still awaiting implementation? Is he confident that all single-hulled tankers will be eliminated completely by 2015, which is already an extended date?

The Exxon Valdez in Alaska and the devastation of the Galapagos Islands hit the headlines and caused a global environmental shockwave. However, it is the small daily incidents, minor accidents and regular discharges by those who flout the law that we need particularly to address and avoid. That is especially true in the UK, which is on some of the world's busiest waterways, the pollution of which would impact directly upon our biodiversity.

Accidents are a product of human fallibility and error and are not subject to absolute prediction or guaranteed prevention. Yet measures can be taken to limit the likelihood of occurrence and to mitigate the degrading environmental consequences. Preventive action is the only option for a disease that has no cure. It is all very well for a national authority to look outwards beyond its frontiers to international agreements, but such agreements will count for little unless local authorities are able to act effectively. Global thinking and effective local implementation are the key to safer seas and sustainable development.

First, I add my congratulations to the former occupant of the Chair, Sir Nicholas Winterton, on his knighthood. I look forward to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, receiving a similar award for the outstanding work that you, too, have done for this House.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) not only on raising the matter but on doing so in his usual well-studied and courteous manner, which always goes down well in the House and will probably guarantee him good, proper and fair answers to his questions. He referred to this being a weekly debate, although unlike the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) he did not propose that it should be as regular as the weather forecast. However, we seem to be covering some ground and I welcome that, because maritime-related issues have received little attention from the House during the past 10 years.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the importance of clean seas, particularly in his constituency. He mentioned fishing and tourism, diving and sea farming and the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) talked about sea birds in some depth and those are all very important matters. He also mentioned the two aspects of maritime pollution—chronic problems and acute problems. The acute problems, such as major sinkings and oil spillages, tend to attract most public attention, but it is perhaps the chronic problems that need the most careful attention. As the hon. Gentleman said, they play a greater role in the scheme of things over the longer term.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred in some detail to the Braer, which is important to his part of the country and his constituency. The Government have learned many lessons from that incident and the hon. Gentleman gave us credit for that. Much action is being undertaken and I shall run through some of our measures if I have time.

Some time ago, the hon. Gentleman kindly invited me to the Shetlands. I can now confirm that, all being well, it will be my considerable pleasure to enjoy the customary hospitality of the Shetland Isles in August. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's request for a meeting, and we shall see what we can do on that front.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Braer investigation and said that new evidence had come to light as regards the logbook. The marine accident investigation branch carefully examined the new allegations and drew two conclusions. It said that at least some of the new evidence presented by Dr. Wills was already known to it and that none of his evidence challenged the version of events that was revealed during the investigation.

The basis of Dr. Wills's argument was that he had obtained copies of the logbook that was kept by the loading terminal, not the ship, while the Braer was embarking her cargo of light crude oil. The logbook referred to steam line problems on board, and the marine accident investigation branch examined the issue carefully. It concluded, however, that despite that entry in the logbook ashore, the overwhelming evidence from other sources suggested that the problem lay with the feed water system. The difference between those two findings was crucial.

I shall now run through some of the questions that hon. Members have raised, and if I have time, I shall make some more general points about maritime pollution. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked the Government to reconsider pressing the international oil pollution compensation funds to release the Tulloch report, but it would not be wise to do so. We must remember that the UK is not only a claimant, but a contributor to the funds, and a precedent set in this case could have ongoing repercussions for future cases. In other words, I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said on the matter.

There is a distinction to be drawn Here. If this case sets a precedent, it might not be a bad one. All the litigation and claims have been dealt with, but there is still a lingering doubt about whether the IOPC acted properly. It is surely in everyone's interests—not least the IOPC's —that doubts about its conduct are removed and that can be done only by releasing the Tulloch report.

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman says, but we perhaps differ on the issue.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about a further Independent inquiry into the Braer incident. The MAIB is independent of my Department and the chief inspector reports directly to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman holds Admiral John Lang in high regard and I am satisfied that his advice to us is entirely independent, and I accept and very much appreciate it.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the green award and we are interested in any scheme that encourages higher environmental standards. The port waste reception directive, which we are in the process of implementing, enables ports to apply lower charges to ships on the grounds of good environmental management.

I started by talking about the difference between chronic and acute problems, and it as well to put the issue in context. The most up-to-date information that we have was published by the joint group of experts on the scientific aspects of marine environmental protection. That report gives the following figures for maritime pollution: land-based discharges plus atmospheric inputs from land industry sources contribute something like 77 per cent. of all pollution in the sea; dumping from land is responsible for another 10 per cent.; and 12 or 13 per cent. derives from maritime transport.

The hon. Member for St. Ives is pulling a quizzical face, as if he had actually learned something today. When he visited the beaches in his constituency, he may have seen fluttering copies of "Focus" rather than things coming in from the sea. He was talking not about pollution but flotsam; it may be that that flotsam was sea based, but there are more insidious things contained within the sea than on the surface. I hope that those statistics are of assistance.

The hon. Member for New Forest, West referred to the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill. The question of prosecution for oil pollution landward of the UNCLOS—United Nations convention on the law of the sea—baseline will be addressed through amendment of the legislation. The Bill is not relevant to the issue, as it is not designed to perform such a function—the solution lies with the relevant merchant legislation.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned satellite tracking. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency's trials of satellite monitoring have been successful and it intends to offer a contract for satellite sensing over key areas of the sea, both inside and outside the United Kingdom counter-pollution zone.

The hon. Gentleman made a further point about the areas in which prosecution could take place. There seems to be some misunderstanding of that matter. The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996 apply in areas seaward of the baseline out to the full extent of the United Kingdom pollution control zone, which is 200 miles beyond that baseline. Illegal discharges of oil in the internal waters landward of the baseline, including estuaries, can be prosecuted under section 131 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I hope that that clears up the confusion.

The Minister may remember that last week I asked him a question about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which he was unable or unwilling to answer. There is not a single master mariner in a senior position in the MCA, which is run by people whose expertise is shore based rather than former practitioners at sea. Does the Minister think that the MCA would be assisted if it employed people who had been master mariners and who know what happens at sea?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. In the debate last week, he cast doubt on the competence of the MCA. This House is the place in which to ask such questions and when we make a robust attack on any organisation, we must make an equally robust check of the facts.

The hon. Gentleman said that there was not one master mariner among the MCA senior management, but I am informed that one of the senior managers in that organisation is Captain John Garner, who holds a master mariner certificate. He has commanded container ships and ferries and has considerable experience at sea. In addition, Maurice Storey, the chief executive, has spent a total of 45 years in the industry, both landward and at sea. Alan Cubbin is a qualified naval architect and has been in charge of the safety operation and policy role for more than 20 years. John Astbury has been all the way through the shipping industry, from the very bottom to the very top. That shows that the MCA has within it enormous competence and experience, which is borne out by my day-to-day experience and contact with such an excellent organisation. The hon. Gentleman has clearly not done his homework and I now give him an opportunity to withdraw his comment that no master mariner is involved in the management of the MCA.

Although I had checked the details about Captain John Garner, I accept what the Minister has said and, on that basis, I withdraw my remarks. Mr Storey, however, worked for Stena for many years, but he was shore based.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his comment. He will be interested to know that Maurice Storey spent some time at sea, too I recommend that he visits the MCA, as I have done. I am sure that he will find Maurice Storey most welcoming and helpful. Such a visit would increase the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and experience substantially.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) drew attention to the transport of nuclear material around our coasts. It is most important that all such transportations comply with the International Maritime Organisation's requirements. We are sure that the joint IMO and International Atomic Energy Agency code for irradiated nuclear fuels is happening. It is a matter to which my Department attaches great importance.

The hon. Gentleman referred to local authority clean-ups. We have not had discussions with the devolved Administrations, but we have with local authorities in general, which already have the powers to prepare such plans. We know that, of the 170 coastal local authorities, all but one either have plans or are currently reviewing them.

The Minister referred to the transport of nuclear waste, but he did not answer my specific question—whether the Department is looking into the claims regarding the ships that will be travelling to Sellafield next month. Furthermore, has he held discussions with local authorities about the financing of such schemes?

Individual ships would be involved in any implementation of the regulations. A considerable amount of money goes to local authorities in respect of their civil contingency plans. Such planning matters are the responsibility of what is now another Department and that is probably discussing them as we speak.

The hon. Member for St. Ives has a nice chunk of coastline in his constituency. I have holidayed there regularly and it is a fine coastline—perhaps it compares fairly well with the coastline in Devon. He asked about double hulls. I am sure that he is relieved that the United Kingdom is doing its part in phasing out single hulls in line with the timetable set by the IMO. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the safety Bill. We are seeking parliamentary time in which to introduce it and we are currently bidding for the third Session. We welcomed the report of the National Audit Office. We considered it well founded and soundly thought through and we are now looking carefully at its recommendations.

Pollution from ships is another important matter.

The Minister is moving on from some of my questions. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and I referred to the timetable for MEHRAs and the likely plans for the powers and sanctions to support them, and I should be grateful to the Minister for any information that he could give about that.

Yes. Perhaps I can deal with that a little later, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we will issue a consultation paper this autumn on that matter to discuss potential protective measures, including the routeing measures that he mentions.

I should say again that the pollution that we suffer in the sea is, in fact, largely land based and not from ships. Nevertheless, when shipping causes pollution, the effects can be acute and absolutely devastating. The hon. Gentleman is probably too young to remember the Torrey Canyon incident. [Interruption.]He says that he does remember it; he is rather older than he looks. I certainly remember what happened in March 1967. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the Braer incident occurred in January 1993, and the Sea Empress incident took place in February 1996.

The United Kingdom has about 10,000 miles of coastline and we are adjacent to some of the world's busiest sea lanes, such as the English channel, which adjoins my constituency and that of the hon. Member for St. Ives. It is estimated that there are about 400 vessel movements a day through the Dover straits. Consequently, we have made preventing and deterring pollution one of our highest priorities.

I shall list some of the things that we are doing. First, we are very active internationally. Shipping, by its very nature, is an international industry and international controls are required to regulate it. That is best achieved through the International Maritime Organisation. We ensure that we play an active and influential role in the IMO. We work vigorously in the IMO to achieve tighter rules and standards that apply to discharges from ships under the major international convention controlling marine pollution—the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, which is commonly known as MARPOL.

We played a leading role in persuading the IMO to agree to designate the north-western European waters, including the North sea, English channel, the Irish sea and other UK waters, as a special area under the MARPOL annexe that covers the prevention of oil pollution. We also played a leading role in persuading the IMO to designate the North sea as a special area under the MARPOL annexe that covers the prevention of pollution by ship's garbage—an issue raised by several hon. Members. In that way, the disposal into the sea of oil and garbage is governed by much more stringent limits than those for other marine areas under international law. That recognises the fact that our waters deserve greater protection from pollution.

We are also a party to the international oil pollution compensation regime. It is worth remembering that, at the time of the Braer and Sea Empress incidents, the limit under that regime was approximately £51 million, which was increased to its present level of approximately £118 million in 1996. In October 2000, we secured a further rise to approximately £180 million from November 2003 and we are doing more. We are preparing a draft protocol that will provide states with the option to join an additional supplementary fund, with a view to reducing still further the likelihood of claims being deferred in part until it can be shown that the total claim is met in full.

The UK took a high profile during the 1996 IMO diplomatic conference, which successfully adopted the hazardous and noxious substances convention, under which a compensation fund similar to that applying to oil tanker pollution will be introduced.

rose—

I will not give way again. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I want to make some general remarks.

The hazardous and noxious substances convention will require compulsory insurance and provide a right to take direct action against the insurer, making it much easier for claimants to recover their losses.

On the domestic front, we have taken steps to deal with the risks of shipping polluting our seas and coasts on a statutory and a non-statutory basis. We know only too well from the Braer, Sea Empress and Erika incidents how much damage can be done to the marine environment in a major accident. In his review of salvage intervention held in the wake of the Sea Empress incident, Lord Donaldson recommended that ultimate control of any salvage operation involving a threat to the environment must be exercised by the Secretary of State's representative for maritime salvage and intervention.

This has been a very helpful debate with some excellent contributions. I hope that we will have further opportunities to unpick and unfold some of the very important issues concerned.

Can the Minister explain—

Order. The Minister has concluded. We will proceed with the next debate.

On 20 June the Leader of the House said, in response to my business question, that this matter was

"a very serious issue of principle … of immediate concern to his constituents."—[Official Report,20 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 429.]

I would add that the subject is of immediate concern to the constituents of MPs across Scotland—and, as the question asked last Thursday by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) so amply illustrated, across the United Kingdom. Equal rights for employees throughout the UK should be a concern of all Members of the British Parliament.

The company Argos is exploiting a loophole in the law whereby a protection afforded to shop workers in the rest of the UK does not at present apply to Scotland. That is the protection that makes Sunday working voluntary. Argos is offering staff the stark alternative of doing compulsory Sunday working or facing the sack. The anomaly in the law probably goes back to the time of Stanley Baldwin and the Shops Act 1936, which extended only to England and Wales, probably because Sabbatarianism was so strong in Scotland at the time that it was not felt that protection was needed there.

Whatever the reason, when the Shops Act 1950 went through, it too applied to England and Wales, and so did the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, although there was separate legislation that applied to Northern Ireland. In the mid-1990s, the Conservative Government had the support of Opposition parties in passing those two Acts. They intended to ensure that shops had the flexibility to trade on Sundays and shoppers had the flexibility to shop on Sundays, but that shop workers had protection so that those who objected in principle to working on Sunday would not be forced to do so.

I shall spell out the present legal protection. Shop workers employed on contracts that do not oblige them to work on a Sunday should be allowed to refuse to work on a Sunday without fear of dismissal, redundancy or any kind of detriment. Indeed, the law goes much further, and says that shop workers on a contract that expects them to work on a Sunday should be able at any time to give the firm three months' notice that they wish to opt out of that, and refuse to work on Sundays in future, without any detriment.

That is the legal situation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the Leader of the House said,

"Although that is not the law in Scotland"—[Official Report,20 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 429.],

trading companies have accepted that, as an "issue of principle", they should apply the spirit of that law to their employees in Scotland. Argos did precisely that in the mid-1990s, allowing its staff to sign an opt-out clause of the kind permitted under the 1994 and 1996 legislation.

Why, then, is Argos now rewarding staff who between them have given many years of loyal service to the company with an ultimatum of compulsory working or the sack? First, that is appalling staff relations. Secondly, it is an affront to freedom of religion at a time when, I am glad to say, we accept far more the right of people of non-Christian religions to have their religious observance recognised. Surely we should not be seeing people persecuted for Christian beliefs.

It is probably true to say that people's deep feelings about Sunday are best shown in films such as "Chariots of Fire", which represented the deep feelings that Eric Liddell had about running on Sunday. Although such feelings are less common in Scotland now than they used to be, they still exist and the rights of the people who hold them deserve to be respected.

However, even people with more liberal opinions object to the idea of being forced to work on Sundays, when that means days and times of the company's choosing. Other groups, too, have the right to enjoy Sunday in the way that they wish. For example, couples often find that it is the one day when they are both off work together. That is particularly true for families, as it is the day that children are most likely to be off school. In our society, carers and those with family responsibility tend to be women, so I would argue that the company's proposal is sexually discriminatory. Indeed, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers tells me that almost all, if not all, the staff who have made complaints about the move are female.

The company's proposal is discriminatory in another way. It clearly discriminates against people simply because they live in Scotland; it could not be introduced anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It is also a denial of human rights. The legislation was passed between 1994 and 1996 under a Conservative Government, with the support of other parties, and the company's proposal is surely against all this Government's core beliefs—our beliefs that we should support faith communities, be family-friendly, oppose discrimination and uphold human rights.

Not only I but many other Members of Parliament, Church leaders and people in the media have all contacted Argos, and I want to say something about its response. First, the company said that it had made the move because it needed more workers on Sundays. Internal monitoring and comments from customers had suggested that those working on Sundays were less experienced, and therefore gave a less good service than the Monday to Friday staff. Does that apply only in Scotland, or has the move been made just because of a legal loophole in Scotland?

My hon. Friend, like me, has been in contact with the company and with USDAW. Does he agree that the underlying fact is nothing more than a desire to cut costs for Sunday working? The company has not been short of staff in any of its 37 stores in Scotland, and it has always had quality staff. This move is penny pinching. By manipulating the contractual system, Argos will achieve small savings at the end of the day.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will expand on that point later. Is not the threat of the sack an extraordinary reward for the people whom the company says are its best staff?

Argos has also said that in some of its stores, people will be expected to work only one Sunday in nine. However, in another store, people will be expected to work one Sunday in two. If staff are confronted with a press-gang attitude and decide to leave the company—I am told that that could happen—what guarantees are there that there will not be a greater need to push other staff into working on Sunday more and more regularly? What protection will they have from a company that is prepared to alter their contracts arbitrarily? What will protect them from working more frequently on Sunday, or from alterations to the number of hours that they are expected to work?

Argos claims that other companies have introduced similar measures. USDAW says that it knows of no other company that has tried to force existing staff, on pain of dismissal, into compulsory Sunday working. Argos claims to respect the religious observances of its staff, but does not say how it proposes to do that.

Argos says that it has gone in for consultation but, contrary to its agreement with the union, it engaged in no prior consultation with USDAW. Argos claims that 97 per cent. of staff are accepting its proposal on a voluntary basis. That figure sounds rather like those votes that used to occur in communist dictatorships, does it not? Such dictatorships would claim that 97 per cent. voted yes, which was usually the result of a mixture of coercion and imagination. I suspect that is what applies in this case.

To use the word "voluntary", when one actually means compulsory Sunday working or the sack, is to use that word in a way that would fit fairly well into Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four". USDAW has a collective grievance from 69 of the staff who objected totally. If we work out the arithmetic based on that, the company would have to employ more than double the staff it actually has in Scotland for the 97 per cent. figure to be remotely possible. Leaving aside the fanciful arithmetic, and pretending that the 97 per cent. figure is not an arbitrary invention, we must ask why on earth, if 97 per cent. of the staff were prepared to work voluntarily, the company is threatening hundreds of their best and most experienced staff with the sack? Surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) suggested, a very slight increase in financial reward would resolve the problem immediately. I gather that Argos only offer time and a half, whereas the wages councils used to recommend double time for Sundays. Possibly a very slight adjustment to their additional payment might resolve the problem.

Mr. Terry Duddy, the chief executive of the company, wrote to me in moving terms:

"We pride ourselves on dealing with staff with fairness and respect, and believe our actions have shown this."

However, the company document that deals with this matter speaks of "week 22 to week 34", which refers to giving staff notice on week 22 and having all matters resolved by week 34. That makes precisely 12 weeks—a period that has been chosen for a reason. Under present contractual notice, staff who have worked for less than four years for the company can be dismissed in four weeks. Staff who have worked for over 14 years—who may have given decades of loyal service to the company—have to be given 12 weeks. The company is saying—in its caring fashion—that it wants to ensure that the staff who have worked longest for the company are out at the end of the 12 weeks, without further consideration.

Steve Farndale, the Scottish area manager, sent an intranet message to his store managers concerning the changeover:

"Bring your … problems in a big bag … and I'll bring a big "

Let us consider the treatment of individual staff. A mother who wanted to spend time with her daughter was told, "You can find someone else to watch over her." A daughter who wanted to give respite care to an aged and very infirm parent was told, "That can be done any day." Having read several such comments, I find the company's attitude callous and outrageous. The basic human decencies such as maternal affection, care for sick parents or personal convictions are treated as if they are sins against the corporate greed of the company. Although the company claims that in truly exceptional circumstances it may give a temporary stay of execution to staff not wanting to work compulsorily on Sundays, it makes it clear that such individuals should be brought back in every month so that their personal circumstances could be reviewed, to see whether the company finds them acceptable, and obviously it can continue to put pressure on them.

I find it appalling that staff who have given faithful Monday to Friday service for years should have that sort of intrusion into their personal lives. It is not really "Nineteen Eighty-Four"; it is a more a reminder of the 19th century. If not actually slavery, the atmosphere is similar to that of Victorian domestic service. I was going to say it was Dickensian, but that would be unfair. Even Scrooge at his worst allowed Bob Cratchit time off without making intrusive personal enquiries into his family circumstances and demanding a regular update on whether Tiny Tim was really all that ill.

Argos says:

"We pride ourselves on dealing with staff with fairness and respect",

but the message to the managers said:

"Bring your … problems in a big bag … and I'll bring a big bin."

Argos says that it prides itself on treating its staff with fairness and respect, yet it treats them worse than the firm of Scrooge and Marley.

If Argos persists, we will need to change the law. Perhaps we should change it in any case, to bring Scotland in line with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If the company does persist, we will not need to take retrospective action to resolve the problem because the law in England and Wales, if extended to Scotland, would give staff on Sunday contracts the right to opt out within three months. We may nevertheless want additional clauses stating that the right to opt out should be immediate where coercion has taken place, and that there should be a right to reinstatement. However, I hope that that will not be necessary.

Even at this late stage, I appeal to Terry Duddy to consider whether he really wants to nurture the public image of a cheating bully who has worse staff relations than Ebenezer Scrooge. I ask him and his senior management to listen to Church leaders, the Government, Parliament and all parties. Already, early-day motion 1498 has been signed by 150 hon. Members, and I suspect that it will receive the support of many more. I ask him to think about his staff, the level of morale that press-ganging creates and how many experienced staff may feel forced to leave. He must think of the good will of his customers and the public. The whole group of Great Universal Stores—which includes Kays, Marshall Ward, Choice, Innovations, Home Free and Burberry's—must ask itself whether it is worth losing public good will through being associated with discrimination against families, carers, women, Christians, Scots and those that work in Scotland, and through infringing human rights.

Compulsory Sunday working is objectionable to the British Parliament and the British people. It is illegal in the UK, except in Scotland. Perhaps we need to extend that legal protection to Scotland but, in the meantime, we urge and expect all companies throughout the United Kingdom to abide by the spirit of the law.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on securing the debate. It was also a great pleasure to arrive early enough to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Transport give an eloquent and clear exposition of Government policy in the previous debate.

I am a member of USDAW and I acknowledge and record the support that it gives to my constituency. I share the concern that the hon. Member for Aberdeen. North has for the interests of retail workers. We have introduced several measures to protect the rights of workers that were neglected in the past. We are a Government who always encourage employers to treat employees fairly and in a spirit of partnership. Indeed, we have made available £5 million to support projects that promote partnerships between employers and their employees.

Employers who fail to heed the needs and wishes of their employees are unlikely to be able to recruit and retain a committed work force, which is so essential in these days of fierce competition. I always deplore any attempt to coerce employees to adapt to unwelcome work practices and patterns, particularly when it involves Sunday working. We recognise that many people do not wish to work on Sundays, whether it be for religious reasons or so that they can spend time with family and friends. Good employers will always respect that.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North represents a part of the United Kingdom that has a tradition of respecting the Sabbath. When the Olympic committee ordered Eric Liddell to compete on a Sunday, he refused. What makes Argos think that it can compel his spiritual successors to work on a Sunday, against the Christian convictions that they hold so dear? Almost every other national chain of stores has avoided doing that and has secured the voluntary co-operation of workers who do not object to Sunday working. Why is Argos—a reputable company—acting in such an insensitive way?

Of course we recognise that many people want to go shopping on Sundays. Many people have such busy lives that Sunday may be the only day on which it is possible for them to shop. Employers want to cater for that, and the law does not stand in their way.

Sunday shop opening was deregulated in England and Wales in 1994. Parliament responded to the public's wish to shop on Sundays and the desire of employers to meet the public's needs, but declared that that should not be at the cost of the third group in the partnership, people who work in shops. The law is clear on Sunday work. Although there is no general protection against having to work on Sundays, as with other general terms and conditions of employment, whether employees can be asked to work on Sundays will depend in most cases on what has been negotiated in their contracts of employment by themselves or by their representatives. That is equally true whether employees work in England, Scotland or Wales, and is true in most sectors of the labour market.

The Government have done more in five years to protect workers' rights, through legislation and a 21st-century partnership with employers, than any previous Government. We restored trade union rights at GCHQ within 13 days of coming to power and we brought in statutory procedures for trade unions to obtain recognition in organisations with more than 20 employees.

The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) praised the quality of shop staff in his constituency and I join him in praising the dedicated work by shop workers throughout the United Kingdom. It may help hon. Members if I spell out the rights of workers in more detail and set them against any attempt to coerce them to work on Sundays. Our landmark national minimum wage, which is now supported by all parties, has benefited 1.5 million workers; the automatic entitlement to four weeks' paid annual leave under the working time regulations has transformed the rights of more than 3 million people; and 400,000 part-time workers now benefit directly from fair treatment for part-time work. I hate discrimination, and at a stroke we abolished discrimination against part-time workers. To support the weak against the strong, from September 2000 we have given a worker attending a grievance or disciplinary hearing the right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union official. Since 1 June 1999, the qualifying period for making a claim against an employer has been increased from one year to two.

Protection for whistleblowers came into force on 2 July 1999. Agreements to waive the right to claim unfair dismissal in fixed-term contracts were abolished on 25 October 1999. We increased maternity leave to 18 weeks on 15 December 1999, and next year we are taking that up to 26 weeks, when standard maternity pay will also go up to £100 a week. Fathers will also get an automatic right to two weeks' paid paternity leave at the same rate. Last year, we shortened the qualifying period from two years to one.

Sunday shop opening has been legal in Scotland for many years and is widely accepted. Sensitive employers have respected the diverse traditions of various Scottish communities and various religious beliefs. Such citizens do not expect to be asked to work on Sundays, and their contracts do not provide for Sunday work. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North explained that USDAW reached an understanding with a number of large retailers in Scotland, including Argos, when Sunday shop opening was legalised in England and Wales in 1994. The understanding was that those employers would honour the spirit of the special protection given to shop workers in England and Wales. It is greatly to be regretted that Argos appears to have changed its stance.

I warn any employer that seeks to change employees' contracts unilaterally that whether employees can be required to work on Sundays depends on what has been negotiated and agreed in their contracts of employment. Once those contracts have been agreed employers are not free to vary their terms whenever they feel like doing so. A contract is legally binding on both employer and employee. If an employer changes the terms and conditions of a contract without an employee's consent, that employee can consider making a breach of contract claim.

I appreciate what the Minister is saying. Does he realise that many Argos workers are simply not in a position to reject unilateral changes, because their stores are in areas in which it would be difficult to find alternative employment? They are in a weak economic position, so will he not consider legislation to solve the problem?

I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments and he is right. We must protect the weak against the strong, but there is not time to protect the Argos workers who are facing problems now with legislation, which, as he knows, takes months and sometimes years to take through Parliament. There is no tap to turn on legislation at a click of the fingers. We are discussing today the sensible proposals put forward to see whether that company, and any other company that is considering taking the same path—I know of none—will see sense and recognise that when workers are represented and have legal rights, which I have spelled out, it may face legal action on the contracts that it wants to vary. If employees are dismissed for refusing to accept a variation of contract or simply for refusing to work on Sundays if their existing contract does not require that, they can make a claim under our unfair dismissal legislation.

Because of my contacts with USDAW, I have been pressing that point. Employees will be able to make a claim for unfair dismissal, but it is strongly suspected that the company will merely give the excuse—it is an excuse and nothing more—of overriding business considerations or a changing business environment. Those considerations and that environment have not changed, and there is something more underlying the issue.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The evidence for a change has not convinced him, the non. Member for Aberdeen, North or USDAW. I would have thought that that would severely weaken the position of a company seeking to change the terms of contracts, and lead to a possible legal challenge. That is why I hope that it will be possible for Argos to sit down in a spirit of conciliation with representatives of its work force and hon. Members of all parties who are concerned for their constituents, and reach a sensible agreement.

Existing legislation provides an essential framework to ensure that employees are decently treated. Any shop worker in Scotland who is dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays, if they have worked for a year, can go straight to an employment tribunal under the unfair dismissal legislation, thus avoiding court action—although that door will not be closed. In addition, all employers would do well to note that the 1998 working time regulations provide for all employees to have a rest period of at least one day a week or two days a fortnight and limit the number of hours that they can require employees to work to an average of 48 in any week. That ensures that everyone can have the minimum break from working necessary to protect their health and safety, and enables them to spend time with their family.

I want to make it clear that the Government deplore my attempt to coerce employees into Sunday working. I hope that the employer whose actions prompted this debate will listen to the hon. Members who have spoken today, to Church leaders in Scotland, to the mood of local communities and to its work force. I warn the company that shop workers in Scotland are not defenceless or without possible redress if they are ill treated by employers for refusing to work on Sundays. I join the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North in asking Argos to seek an amicable solution and uphold the traditions of a company that was much respected hitherto.

I am pleased that time has been found for this debate, although I am sorry that no other Oxfordshire Members of Parliament have seen fit to attend the proceedings. Perhaps they will join us in due course.

Adjournment debates tend to begin with a whinge about health care, develop into a wail and wind up with a general howl of protest. Let me vary the routine and start with an unrivalled success story which I hope the Minister will appreciate. In about a month's time, the first brick will be laid of the new Watlington hospital in my constituency. It will be marvellous—the type of place in which all hon. Members might hope to wind up, spending our last days gently pottering around in its gardens, looking at the lovely flowers of south Oxfordshire.

There will be 60 beds—some national health service, some private. A quarter will be for the use of mental patients, a quarter for convalescence, a quarter for long stay elderly patients and a quarter for respite care—to give a break to disabled children's parents who are at the end of their tether. There will also be a brand new NHS GP surgery.

The whole project has NHS approval. I am sure that the Minister will be especially pleased to know that the project has so far been accomplished without spending' a penny of public money. Two and a half years ago, the Government closed the small cottage hospital in Watlington—a move bitterly resented by the local population. They have responded magnificently, thanks to the tireless work of Sir Charles Farrell and many others. Donations have been collected, both large and small, and the people of Oxfordshire have raised £1.5 million to reverse an ill-judged closure by the Government. I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in congratulating all those responsible for that achievement. At the risk of tempting him into a departure from Labour's approved ideology, I invite him to agree that it shows what private enterprise can do in the field of health care.

The real question is why the people of Oxfordshire felt so ill-served by their hospitals that they wanted to rebuild one at their own expense. I firmly believe that Westminster Hall debates are not a time for scoring party political points. I do not want to attack of undermine the many health care professionals in my constituency who do a fantastic job in difficult circumstances. However, one reason why it was necessary to build again at Watlington was the shortage of care home beds. We all know that care homes are closing throughout the country at a prodigious rate, thanks in large part to the detailed provisions of the Care Standards Act 2000. In Oxfordshire, half the care homes are predicted to close by 2007.

The closure of care homes is producing the phenomenon of bed blocking in our hospitals, when elderly patients cannot leave and impede the arrival of other patients. At the John Radcliffe hospital, the biggest and most important in Oxfordshire, 46 beds are currently blocked. A further 36 or so are blocked in Oxfordshire's various local hospitals.

There are currently 80 beds in the John Radcliffe that are closed altogether, making it difficult to get in. One GP in my constituency told me yesterday that she had a patient with jaundice whom she could not get into the John Radcliffe. Although he was not, as far as she could tell, in imminent danger, he was in pain and distress and she wanted him to be seen. She could have put him on the cancer list because, according to Government rules, people with cancer must be seen within two weeks—if not actually treated, because one might have to wait a lot longer for that. However, she was not sure that he had cancer, so he had to wait and wait.

Another Oxfordshire GP, Dr. Tony Vernon of Wallingford, recently revealed that he had been unable to get patients into the John Radcliffe because the ambulances meant to be taking them there were not available—they were queuing up outside the hospital supplying trolleys because there was a shortage at the accident and emergency department. From January to March, 84 patients had to wait more than 12 hours in A&E at the John Radcliffe. Sometimes that service is closed, and people cannot get into A&E at the hospital—the biggest hospital serving Oxfordshire—because it is on what is called a divert. People are diverted to as far away as Stoke Mandeville.

When people like me make such criticisms of dedicated health care professionals, it is important that we take account of the problems that they face. A single explanation for the problems of the John Radcliffe may tell us why beds are not only blocked, but closed. We talk about a shortage of beds; the bed is physically there, but it is unavailable for use. The explanation is a shortage of nurses.

There is a 13.6 per cent. shortfall in the nursing strength at the John Radcliffe hospital. That is about 300 nurses short in a crucial hospital that serves many people in my constituency. Of the 1,250 nursing posts in Oxfordshire, 377 are unfilled. That is why beds are not only blocked, but closed. That is why general practitioners find maddening delays in putting patients into secondary care, and broadly why one in 20 planned operations is cancelled on the day of the operation. It is why the A&E seems to be in such a crisis.

The problem of recruitment is at its worst in the south-east, and retention of nurses is also difficult. One in eight registered nurses left the national health service in the year to March 2001 in the south-east region, the area most badly afflicted by wastage. Why is it so difficult to recruit and retain nurses in the south-east? Why is it necessary to try to recruit nurses from the Philippines and other countries, as the Radcliffe has been forced to do? As the Minister will have seen, that has prompted protests from some third-world countries, which have said that they are being denuded of health care workers.

The pat answer is the cost of housing. It is certainly difficult to live on a nurse's wage in Oxfordshire. Does the Minister agree that there is not only too little pay, but too little flexibility in pay? The south-east region has a discretionary weighting of between £400 and £600. That hardly competes with the London weighting of £3,000 for a nurse.

Oxfordshire certainly needs more money. In 2001, the Department of Health instructed Oxfordshire to make cuts in its hospital budget of £7 million. The cuts that we are all aware of in Oxfordshire social services have a knock-on effect on our hospitals, as I have tried to explain. Is it not also true that the NHS trust could be given more freedom to recruit and reward nurses without having to use the "one size fits all" national pay scales?

Does the Minister agree that, in a diverse economy, with house prices fluctuating wildly between Oxfordshire and Renfrewshire, it does not make sense to give nurses the same basic pay across the board? Does he agree that it is time to start to move away from national pay scales? I hope so. It is unfair to impose consumerist disciplines on the NHS without giving it the freedom to respond. For instance, Tesco has answered the housing crisis in the south of England and Oxfordshire by building housing for its workers. Should the NHS also have such freedom?

Funding is a problem in Oxfordshire, but it is not the only problem. The John Radcliffe has been told by the Government that it is officially a failing hospital on their Egon Ronay or Michelin-style survey of performance indicators. It scored nul points—it got nought. That was demoralising for the people working in the hospital. Whatever the failings of the John Radcliffe, it does not make sense to stigmatise a hospital in that way and to blame its managers, unless they have the freedom to solve the problem. They should have more freedom to recruit nurses, and more flexibility in pay.

I conclude with an angry correspondence between a GP and a consultant. The consultant is a constituent of mine, the GP is not, and I shall keep their identities private. The GP has written a furious letter about a patient who suffers from osteoarthritis. I shall quote long extracts from the exchange, because they give a flavour of what is going on in the NHS in my constituency. The GP wrote:

"I would be grateful if you would urgently look into the case of this now 60 year old man, and explain to me why progress in his care has been so slow. I referred him to you on 10 April 2001. He had significant osteoarthritis affecting both hips, 'unusual for a man of this age'. He was offered his first appointment with you in March 2002. That is 11 months after the original referral and well outside I believe any reasonable guidelines. As I was so concerned by this I wrote to you on 15 June last year and he was seen by your physiotherapist in December. She confirmed my findings, noted his 'considerable disability', and agreed with me that he 'warrants surgical intervention'. He has heard nothing more. In summary therefore I have a relatively young man with major bilateral hip disease, barely able now to walk, and seen in the 13 months since I referred him by a person who, whilst extremely skilled in her field, was only able to confirm my initial view, that he requires surgery. Such patient management makes a mockery of NHS waiting list guidelines and I would be grateful if you and your Chief Executive could explain to me what has happened. For the sake of my patient, I would be grateful if he could be called in immediately for your assessment and that he waits no longer for his surgery than as if he had been seen in Outpatients after no more than the usual delay."

That is a stinging letter for a GP to write to a consultant, and the consultant was very wounded. He wrote a long reply, defending the delay and trying to explain what went wrong. It would be to our advantage to hear his concluding paragraph:

"I cannot tell you how depressing it is replying to letters such as yours. You state, 'Such patient management makes a mockery of NHS waiting list guidelines and I would be grateful if you and your chief executive could explain to me what has happened'. Surely you must realise that 'NHS waiting list guidelines' make a mockery of patient management. Ridiculous and unachievable 'targets' set for political gain place an unsustainable strain on everybody involved in patient care in this Trust. In that I include not only all those who interface directly with patients but also our excellent management team who have to produce figures showing that we have met the 'Targets', or face dismissal. You must appreciate that meeting 'Targets' diminishes clinical flexibility. The harder we are driven to meet 'Targets' the less able I am to treat someone such as your patient quickly because we cannot risk not treating someone else within a specified time."

There we have two angry health care professionals—a GP blaming the consultant for the delay in seeing his patient and the consultant blaming the system of targets and quotas that gets in his way and prevents him from dealing with patients according to need.

If we are to improve health care services in Oxfordshire, we cannot rely on the charity and beneficence shown by the people of Watlington in rebuilding their own hospital at their own expense. We also need a fairer spending assessment for south Oxfordshire and we should stop castigating health care professionals, such as those in the John Radcliffe, without giving them more freedom to run their own lives, to recruit nurses as they see fit and to treat patients according to need, not according to some Whitehall-imposed system of targets and quotas. I thank the Minister for listening to me so patiently and in such splendid isolation this afternoon. In the absence of any other Oxfordshire Members to make the case for health care in my constituency, I look forward to hearing his response.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on securing today's debate, during which he has brought his usual robust and avuncular style to the Chamber.

The issue of health provision in Oxfordshire is vital to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I am pleased to be here today to put on record the developments in the Oxfordshire health system and improvements that have been made since the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), last debated this subject in February, on which occasion I know that the hon. Gentleman also contributed to the debate.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, this Government introduced the NHS plan and the initiative "Shifting the Balance of Power". Our policy of devolution has positioned the NHS, for the first time since its inception, in such a way as to allow local service providers to meet local needs and demands without unnecessary interference from centralising agencies. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that initiative, as well as the fact that we are devolving power to local primary care trusts, as some of his comments give the impression that there is nothing but central diktat from Richmond house. That is not the case, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the documents, if he has not already done so.

PCT management teams have specific local knowledge and expertise, and are now responsible for improving health, securing the provision of all health services and integrating health and social care. They will become the cornerstone of the NHS—local organisations that are best placed to ensure that the local health service really reflects the needs of the local community. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that amounts to a considerable shift from the days when, if a bedpan fell on the floor in an NHS hospital, its echo could be heard in the corridors of Whitehall.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's eagerness to ensure that there is continued support for the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford, and I am keen to echo his sentiments. He raised the issue of spending, and one would have thought that he would have voted for increased investment in the NHS in Oxfordshire during the passage of the National Insurance Contributions Bill. However, when I checked this morning, I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman voted against extra investment for the NHS in Oxford.

Perhaps I should clarify my remarks on spending, because the Minister may not have been attending as closely as he should have been. My point is that Oxfordshire has been ill-served compared with other parts of the country. The spending on health in Scotland is about £1,100 a head, compared with £450 a head in Oxfordshire. That is gross discrimination against the people of south Oxfordshire. I am not necessarily calling for a vast increase in public spending. I am merely saying that there is bias against an area that is unjustly perceived as well-heeled. The area includes many pockets of deprivation, but the standard spending assessment is skewed against Oxfordshire.

The hon. Gentleman nevertheless raises the issue of investment and shows that he does not believe in extra spending on public services in his constituency. That is important, because when the Government came to power in 1997, spending in the Oxfordshire health authority was set at £236 million. The figure for 2002–03 was £445 million, which represents a massive estimated real-terms increase of 77 per cent. The per capita figure in 1997 was £449 Spending is now £805 per head of population in the area

I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about regional variations in funding, but it is important to the people of Oxfordshire that extra money should be made available year on year. Over time, and with the necessary reform, that will alleviate some of the problems that he mentioned.

I return to the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford. I appreciate that people living in Oxfordshire would have felt alarmed when they saw their local hospital receiving, a zero rating in September last year. I accept that in some cases that may have been demoralising for the staff. I understand why the hon. Gentleman raised that issue, but the Government feel that it is important that patients know the manner in which their local acute hospital is performing and where there is room for improvement. I do not believe that it is some form of Michelin or Ronay restaurant guide; it is much more important than that. I want to take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government an committed to supporting the Radcliffe through increased funding and with the advice and support of Government organisations such as the NHS Modernisation Agency in tackling the specific areas identified for improvement. This is not just rhetoric. We have backed our statements with real increases in funding specific to that hospital, which has seen an increase from £167 million to £312 million.

I am terribly grateful to the Minister for giving way, but since there is no one else to whom to give way I hope that he will not mind too much if I intervene. It is common ground that there is a case for more health care spending in Oxfordshire. Will he say whether he thinks it is a good idea to allow flexibility in nurses' pay and will he answer the consultant's complaint about targets and the unreasonable way in which his clinical priorities are being distorted?

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of targets, and I understand much of what was said in that letter, but I repeat that it is democratically important that the people of Oxfordshire should know about the state of local services and whether there is room for improvement. Establishing that a hospital has a zero rating can be done only by assessing the various services, and that sometimes includes setting targets. That assessment shows us where the hospital needs to go; it helps the Government, the local health authority and the primary care trust to assess need, and I therefore believe that it is democratically necessary.

It is important when talking about health provision in that area to mention the good things that are going on, and I know that the hon. Gentleman would have done so if he had had more time. For instance, the hospital's A&E department has been redeveloped at a cost of £9.5 million, and it is due to reopen in April 2003. The hospital has purchased a new magnetic resonance imaging scanner, which is due to be operational this summer. We have expanded the hospital's capacity. There is a new trauma unit, and £7.5 million has been invested to provide an extra eight beds for trauma services. Another £1.8 million has been spent on the intensive care and high dependency units. It is important to raise issues specific to that hospital.

We need also to mention the other things that are going on there, including the private finance initiatives. For instance, the Nuffield orthopaedic centre has a PFI of £23.6 million, and the Radcliffe infirmary another of £25 million. They should be on track by 2007, along with the £8.5 million physical disability unit at the Nuffield orthopaedic centre. That is happening in the area surrounding the hon. Gentleman's constituency in west Oxfordshire, alongside the problems that exist in the hospital.

My constituents in Watlington would be very cross with me if I did not extract some word of congratulation from the Minister. He spoke of the many wonderful scanners and the new A&E that were provided by the NHS. All hon. Members would support those. Might he not thank the people of Watlington for having overturned the Government's senseless decision to close its cottage hospital, and rebuilt it at their own expense?

The hon. Gentleman does that very convincingly. It supports the principle of shifting the balance, giving local people the freedom to make decisions. It is not for me, as a Minister in Whitehall, to—

Congratulate them?

To dabble too much in such decisions. If the local people have chosen to have a hospital in that area, I wish them the best of medical services in the years ahead.

The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of the recruitment and retention of nursing staff. I am aware of the challenges faced by local health systems and—ultimately—the Government in that regard, especially in the more prosperous south-east. It is not all doom and gloom. Between September 1999 and September 2001 there was a net increase of 20,740 nurses working in the NHS, which met the NHS plan target three years ahead of schedule.

The hon. Gentleman condemns targets. Only by introducing targets can we ensure that nurses are recruited and sent to places that need them. Between September 2000 and September 2001, the number of qualified nurses working in the NHS rose by 4.3 per cent., the biggest increase on record, and the number of qualified allied health professionals rose by 4 per cent., a higher increase than in the previous year. The number of NHS consultants has risen by 5.7 per cent., the largest increase on record.

Under the NHS plan every member of staff in the NHS is entitled to work for an organisation that can provide and demonstrate its commitment to a range of flexible working conditions, including flexible working patterns, team-based self-rostering, annual hours and flexitime. The "Improving Working Lives" standard, launched in October 2000, sets out a model of good human resource practice against which NHS employers will be kite-marked. The Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust is confident of reaching that standard within the next few months.

Working within departmental guidelines, steps have been taken by the trust to recruit nursing staff from the Philippines and other parts of south Asia. Since February 2001, 320 nurses have been recruited from overseas and a further 100 are expected from the Philippines later this year. Those nurses have needed time to adapt to life in this country and the trust rightly offers additional language support. The extra nurses will be an invaluable resource to help to reduce the pressures faced by the local health system. They have proved to be a huge success and many are progressing—

Will the Minister address the question of moving away from national pay scales, which are such a bar to flexibility?

I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that this is about local arrangements. It is about shifting the balance to local need and it is right that such decisions are made locally by primary care trusts and the strategic health authority, not by central diktat from Richmond house. That is the thrust of Government policy, and as the nurses come in and settle down, the hon. Gentleman will find that there are improvements in his constituency.

The Government recognise—in turn, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that we do so—that the high cost of living in the south impacts on the ability of NHS organisations to recruit and retain staff. That is why we introduced the "cost of living" supplement, which nurses in Oxfordshire have received since April 2001. Other innovative schemes are in place to give health professionals better access to housing, and a great deal of work has been done to support family-friendly policies and flexible working.

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship for the second day in a row. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that today I shall do so for slightly longer than yesterday, but only just.

I am delighted to have secured the debate—it looks as though it may not be much of a debate, however, as so few other Members are here—not least because I believe that modern foreign languages are essential to our economic and cultural future. The global economy in which we live requires global people who can speak foreign languages as well as their mother tongue. International trade provides 30 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom. If we are to be a successful economy, English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish people must be able to speak more than English alone. Of businesses in the UK, 44 per cent. say that the lack of the ability to speak a foreign language dramatically affects their chances of securing exports.

I also believe that a modern language can dramatically improve job prospects for young people. I am concerned that the job prospects of young people in my constituency who grow up unable to speak a foreign language will be affected by that. Learning a foreign language early in life gave my father and me opportunities, in Spain and Belgium as well as in the UK, that changed the fortunes of our family.

We need to get away from the myth that teacher and translator are the only jobs that speaking foreign languages enables people to get. The truth is that most hotels in Cardiff need people who speak the mother tongues of visitors to the city. We should be able to greet people who come to the UK even if they do not happen to speak English. Manufacturing, sales and marketing are affected as well. In a range of jobs, the ability to engage in a decent business conversation in a second language—the language of the host country that one is visiting—can only assist our economic chances.

Having spent two years working in Brussels, the European Union and the BBC, and having seen Members of the European Parliament at work, I believe that a political class that speaks a variety of modern languages can be far more effective in Europe than one that speaks only its mother tongue. In the past, the UK delegation has been able to say only "Kall ispera", or a couple of words of French or Spanish. That has meant that it has not been able to bat as well on behalf of Britain as it might have done had it had mastery of another language.

Lest we become too utilitarian in the analysis of the importance of modern foreign languages, it is important to remember that many world languages have come to the UK during the past 40 or 50 years. Our country now has many people who speak the languages of south Asia fluently as a second or even a first tongue, which has provided us with another economic advantage. Also, the exposure to other cultures that being able to speak a foreign language can bring can only enhance one's understanding and enjoyment of life. The ability to read "Don Quixote" in Spanish, "Madame Bovary" in French or great works in Arabic or Mandarin can only add to the rich tapestry of life.

We have a problem in the United Kingdom because not enough people learn modern foreign languages, and it is a crying shame that we come last in the European table of those who speak them. It is also a problem that only one in 10 people continues to study foreign languages after the age of 16, and that few 14-year-olds have the required ability in languages.

There are many reasons for those problems, not least the fact that English has become the world language and, in many cases, the language of business. There is undoubtedly a feeling around the world and in this country that English is enough. We are not exposed enough to foreign cultures, and we mainly encounter American culture—in English, even though Spanish is a significant language in large parts of the United States.

We have remarkably few role models who speak or make a point of speaking foreign languages. I know that Kylie Minogue is Australian, not British—

She is Welsh.

Her mother may be from Maesteg, but that does not quite make her Welsh. She was also nominated for Welsh woman of the year two years ago, but that was a bit of an overstatement. Kylie tried to speak French in one of her recent songs, but I do not think that the words "Votre disco a besoin de vous" will be enough to encourage young people in Britain to start studying a modern foreign language.

We need role models in the political class, and it would be interesting to know how many Cabinet Ministers and shadow Cabinet Ministers could engage in a full business meeting in a second or third language. We also need cultural leaders who can express themselves in foreign languages, and who make a point of doing so. They could give that expertise to schools and colleges throughout the country and increase the profile of modern foreign languages.

We have another problem in that historically, we have focused on French to the exclusion of all other languages. I have French friends who maintain that it is the most precise language in the world, which is why it is still the language of diplomacy. When one reminds them that the French words for "worms", "glass", "green" and "towards" all sound the same, however, their argument falls apart. Of course, French is still useful in some parts of the world, but we must surely diversify the modern foreign languages taught in the United Kingdom.

Spanish has become one of the great world languages, and it provides enormous opportunities in Latin America and other parts of the world. I suspect that one reason why British trade with Latin America over the past 50 years has not followed the same pattern as that of France, Italy and Spain is that remarkably few British people still speak Spanish. That is despite the fact that one in four Britons goes on holiday to Spain every year—although ordering fish and chips in Spanish is remarkably difficult. Surely, we should also pursue a deliberate strategy of ensuring that more of our young people learn Japanese, Arabic and German. We must make those languages common currency in the United Kingdom.

We also have a problem because there are not enough foreign language teachers at primary and secondary school level. That is particularly important at primary school level, because many teachers have a genuine interest in languages, and with a bit of work, could be brought on enough to start teaching Spanish, German or other languages. Historically, however, that work has not been done, and we have tended to start teaching languages quite late in children's school lives.

That brings me to another problem. Across the UK, the style of teaching modern languages is not quite right. When I was at school, we used "La Langue d'Aujourd'hui" to learn French—a very dull book that bore no resemblance to modern life. My French teacher had, I think, only just heard of Edith Piaf, and when he played Edith Piaf records to us, that was him exposing us to modern French culture. That was not the 1960s; I was at school in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when Edith Piaf was long dead. Similarly, in Spanish language teaching it sometimes seems that the teachers have heard of Julio Iglesias but not Enrique.

There is a task still to be done in changing the way in which we teach modern languages, so that learning them is about being able to communicate with people, not acquiring a set of statistics and learning a set of rules about the way in which another language works. Learning languages should be seen as having a use in life.

There are problems if we start language learning too late. It is clear that until the age of about seven or eight, we all have a remarkable ability to pick up language. We are then remarkably "sticky", and it will stick to us.

I agree entirely with the drift of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Does he agree that we do not have an inherent inability to learn language, and that the statement that we are bad at languages in Britain is entirely wrong? The case in point is the half a million people in Wales who speak Welsh and English, and live their daily lives through the medium of a second language.

Apart from the problems that the hon. Gentleman has already identified, such as role models and an emphasis on poor teaching methods, does he agree that there is a more fundamental issue concerning the power relationships between languages—power that is propped up by Governments, broadcasting, the media, business and so on? We need to be much more aware of such things.

The power of language is an issue, and a further issue is the complacency that we who speak English feel about the need to speak other languages because we see so many people, such as Dutch and German people, who seem to speak better English than we do. It is important for us to recognise that the future of the English language probably lies more in the hands of those who do not speak it as a first language than in our own hands. Americans have changed the English language far more than we have, and I suspect that Hispanics speaking English will dramatically change English, just as Chaucer changed it, and as the Normans who came to England before him dramatically changed it, when it was their second language.

A problem across the whole of the United Kingdom is that by the age of 14, many young people seem to see languages as a subject only for the most able students, or only for girls. That again involves issues of power. The Government have already looked at that problem in some depth, but I think that we need to focus on it in the future, too.

We have some specific problems in Wales, not least because the figures for the learning of modern foreign languages in Wales are even worse than those for England. During the past five years there has been a dramatic fall in the number of students in Wales studying modern foreign languages of any kind at GCSE—from 49 per cent. to 39 per cent. That is worse in Welsh-medium than in English-medium schools. In English-medium schools, 41 per cent. of pupils do such subjects at GCSE, but in Welsh-medium schools, the figure is only 33 per cent. If only one in three students at a Welsh-medium school is learning a modern language other than English and Welsh, we are providing ourselves with a long-term problem.

Furthermore, we should also think about languages outside the normal run of European languages: 11,600 people in the UK studied for a GCSE or an A-level in one of the four major south Asian languages last year, but of that 11,600, only 72 were in Wales. There may be all sorts of reasons for that, not least the ethnic diversity and make-up of communities elsewhere in the UK compared with those in Wales. None the less, in a global economy, that will give us a long-term problem.

The university of Glamorgan no longer has a modern languages department at all. We are now producing a vicious circle in Wales whereby fewer students do GCSEs, fewer do A-levels, fewer go on to universities because there are fewer opportunities to do so, and so fewer will become modern language teachers, which is a long-term problem in the making. A particular danger for Wales is that we may become a nation that is very good at speaking to itself, but not good at speaking to the rest of the world.

Although I wholeheartedly support the campaign to ensure that everybody has a choice of language in which to conduct their daily life and be educated, and I generally support the Welsh language, it is a worry to me that we are currently unable to capitalise on the natural benefit provided by bilingualism, and fewer of our bilingual students are learning a language that they can use outside Wales.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Gentleman is quick.

There might be a problem in terms of the percentage of people learning a foreign language, but the quality of that learning varies. It is undoubtedly the case that if one has two languages it is easier to acquire a third one. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

I am afraid that that flies in the face of the figures. Whereas people in England seem to have decided that English is enough, the figures show that many young people in Wales have decided, perhaps for economic reasons, that English and Welsh are enough. I am arguing that a nation that can speak only to itself is setting itself terrible economic problems for the future. I do not want to undermine the support for the Welsh language, but I do want to encourage greater support for other modern languages. If foreign languages become a poor relation in Wales, our economic future will be bleak.

I shall look at some of the solutions before the Minister replies. It is clear that we need to raise the profile of modern foreign languages. I know that the Government have worked to do that, but we have further to go. We need to get across the belief that English is not enough—and in Wales, that English and Welsh are not enough. One route that we could investigate is having a single figurehead to bring coherence to our strategy across the UK. Somebody in every local authority could back up such a UK languages tsar. No local authority in Wales has anybody dealing specifically and solely with modern foreign languages.

We need to build on initiatives such as the Spanish language officer who has been appointed in Wales to help schools, and is paid by the Spanish Government, as a means of increasing co-operation between countries. We need to increase the number of exchange programmes to allow young people to be exposed to other cultures. It is only by immersion in another language that one has an opportunity to acquire it as a working language.

Broadcasters have an important role to play. I remember trying, not very successfully, to learn Russian many years ago, thanks to the BBC programme "Dosvidanya Lyeta"—one can tell how poorly I got on.

Order. At this point I must remind the hon. Gentleman that foreign quotations should be translated into English. There may be people present who can translate, but others may not be able to do so.

"Dosvidanya Lyeta" means "Goodbye Summer", and it was the name of a series of programmes aimed at enabling people to learn Russian.

We have remarkably few foreign language films on television. It would be excellent if Welsh language films such as "Soloman and Gaynor'', which was part Yiddish, part English and part Welsh, were shown not only on S4C but to a wider market.

We need to start earlier. The recent experiments in Welsh primary schools were not all that successful, and they need to be followed up and examined to find ways of extending the diversity of the languages taught in primary schools to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to learn foreign languages by 2012—a goal to which the Government aspire.

Specifically, we need to capitalise on bilingualism in Wales. English and Welsh are not enough, and we need to ensure that more of our business leaders speak modern foreign languages in Wales. I wonder whether some objective 1 money should be specifically targeted at increasing the number of business leaders, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises, who have modern European languages.

My final point is a simple one. We need to capitalise on the resources that we have throughout the whole United Kingdom. Three institutions that have served us extremely well across the years in terms of modern foreign languages are under-utilised. First, the Defence School of Languages has an extremely strong record in giving defence personnel and others ability in foreign languages, which is vital in all the peacekeeping roles that we play throughout the world. Secondly, there is the diplomatic service's languages centre, and thirdly, there is the World Service. We could capitalise better on all three of those institutions, and give Britain a stronger future as a multilingual nation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) on securing time for a debate on language teaching and learning in the United Kingdom. I have to say that I am personally passionate about the importance of language learning. I was fortunate enough to have learned four languages by the time I was five years old. That has stood me in very good stead; one never forgets them, and can then build an ear for languages. I dare not try too much after what has been said, but I can even manage the odd Arabic sentence. One is something along the lines of, "Bukara ei mish mish", which means "Tomorrow we shall have apricots". That underpins the debate, in a sense, because one puts off all decisions until the next day.

I came to Britain with my family when I was young, so I know the importance of being able to communicate across linguistic and cultural barriers. That is not just about promoting economic prosperity, as my hon. Friend said, but also allows one to make oneself understood and promotes intercultural understanding, tolerance and international citizenship. I think that that is crucial.

We have made a lot of progress in Britain since the development of a national strategy for languages, which arose out of the Nuffield report and inquiry in May 2000. We have now set out some of our ambitions to improve this country's performance at languages over the next decade. Alongside our Green Paper on the agenda for 14 to 19-year-olds, we published a paper about language learning. Some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised related to higher education, but higher education and the training of teachers cannot lie in a vacuum; they have to be built from the blocks underneath. That means establishing, as he said, a culture and lifelong interest in language learning right through from primary school and into secondary school.

We have set out our ambitions in the pamphlet "Language Learning". At present, we estimate that something like one in five primary schools have some sort of language provision. We want all primary school children to be entitled to study a language by 2012. We have started putting the building blocks in place. The Teacher Training Agency is now funding specific places for primary French initial teacher training.

Will the Minister give way?

I will, but I am very short of time.

Would the Minister agree that having two languages is an aid to learning a third, or does she agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda that two at one time is quite enough?

My personal experience was that I was not muddled by having four. Very young children can adapt quickly to language learning, so I am keen that they do so as early as they can. I support the initiative of our Department to base it in the primary curriculum. There are also 141 specialist language secondary schools. Each secondary specialist school will be expected to link with another five schools as part of the functions for which it receives its additional resources.

We are developing virtual links with schools in other countries through the use of the information and communication technology to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda referred. In Europe we have signed an agreement with the Spanish to try to develop an internet link for schools and the teaching of language to facilitate some of the deficits in our ability to provide a cohort of language teachers. We are trying to address the issue of transition from primary to secondary. We want to increase the number of people studying languages in further and higher education and in work-based training, and we want to increase the number of people who teach languages.

I shall pick up one point made by my hon. Friend. He said that the university of Glamorgan had closed its modern foreign languages department—but it has adopted a new approach. My hon. Friend said that we should look at innovative ways in which languages can be taught. What the university has done is interesting. It has established a unilang centre in which it has invested substantially in a state-of-the-art, self-assessment, tutor-supported language-learning facility which is open to all students, whatever they are studying, to learn at their own pace and at a variety of levels. Students can have assessments and gain credits for language studies, but without the pressure of working to specific deadlines. I hope that my hon. Friend will support such initiatives.

My biggest worry about the unilang proposal and the general route of providing a little modern language teaching alongside another course, which many universities are taking, is that it will not provide teachers in the long term.

I accept that unilang will not provide teachers, but it will provide the facility for individuals to learn a language that they can use in their jobs and in the wider cultural community.

The difficulty that we face in the United Kingdom is that English is, to some extent, the lingua franca of the 21st century. My hon. Friend referred to that fact, and I accept that it is true. To give one instance, students from outside Europe who are studying in France may take their degrees in English. The purpose of that is to attract international students and compete with British universities. Although the French would not like to admit to that, it is the reality, and it shows the strength of English. That is why United Kingdom students are reluctant to study modern foreign languages at degree level. They simply do not need them to the same extent as in the past. It would be wonderful if more of our students could quote freely from Moliére to Goethe, and from Dante to Cervantes, but they must be convinced that it is important.

My hon. Friend referred to the research by the Languages National Training Organisation last year which revealed the important fact that 20 per cent. of employers said that they had lost business because of a deficit in language skills, and 45 per cent. reported that language or cultural issues were a barrier to international trade. We must build on that as we try to encourage more young British people to learn a whole range of modern foreign languages.

I have recently reviewed the Socrates Erasmus programme, and we import twice as many people to study here as we export to study in foreign universities. I hope that simplifying the fees and student support arrangements, talking to some of the agencies and so on will help to increase mobility.

There is a shortage of language teachers. In January 2002 there were 190 vacant modern language posts in secondary schools in England—about 1.2 per cent., down from 1.5 per cent. We are trying to tackle that with training bursaries and golden hellos, which have led to an increase, but we are also finding that students who undertake a modern languages degree, whether that is a single or joint honours degree or part of a joint degree with another subject, do not necessarily move into language teaching. We must be constantly vigilant and take whatever initiatives we can to encourage more and more people to do that.

I hope that in my very brief response I have demonstrated to my hon. Friend and to the Chamber the importance that we place on learning modern foreign languages. A huge range of challenges must be addressed. There are exemplars of good practice and achievement throughout the education system, but there is also evidence of pupils losing interest and dropping languages at key stage 4. We must work to keep young people engaged in language learning from an early age, and we must demonstrate the value of language competence, not least the future employability benefits that are open to language graduates. We must look at flexible and innovative ways of delivering language in the curriculum. That is the reason for the action we have taken to date—