Perhaps I should start with the Punjabi greeting "Sat Sri Akal". It is a great privilege to have been able to secure this debate in Westminster Hall. I should declare my interest as the vice-chairman of the all-party group on Punjabis in Britain.

This is the third Adjournment debate that the group has initiated and it is almost exactly a year since the last one. The previous two debates were initiated by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is an acknowledged expert in the subject. In introducing the debate, I pay tribute to him for setting up the group in the first place, and for his continuing hard work. We hope that an annual debate will be held to report on the state of play of the status of Punjabis and the problems affecting them in Britain. I also thank the researcher for the group, Iqbal Singh.

A month or so ago, we held an event next door in the Jubilee Room to celebrate Vaisakhi. Several hon. Members from both sides of the House attended. It was agreed that because so many people attended and it was such a crush, an alternative venue would have to be found in future years to cater for its popularity. It was a wonderful opportunity to discuss problems and reasons to celebrate. This year, we were privileged to see a memorable folk dance performed by some girls from the Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa college in Essex. We were also addressed by Inderjit Singh, who many people hear giving his thought for the day on the "Today" programme. When I drive in from Uxbridge and listen to his words, I find them inspirational as I set out for another day in this place.

A privilege and advantage of becoming a Member of Parliament is the opportunity to find out more about one's community. In Uxbridge and the London borough of Hillingdon, we have a large and diverse community. I find it instructional and enjoyable to find out about my area and the people who share my community. With particular reference to Punjabis and Sikhism, I have been able to learn out about my fascinating community under the tutelage of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—I very nearly said my hon. Friend, and I would certainly like to be considered a friend outside the immediate confines of the Chamber.

The Vaisakhi celebrations commemorate the event in 1699 when Guru Gobind Singh declared the Khalsa nation in the Punjab. The Sikhs have always managed to combine the spiritual and the political while living in harmony with the groups that surround them. The Indian sub-continent is as diverse an area as any in the world, so that has not always been easy. Sadly, to this day it is a very difficult and complicated situation, which is why it is important for anyone dealing with such matters to tread carefully and ensure that all sensibilities and sensitivities are understood.

It is not to be questioned that for many years Sikhs and Punjabis in general have played a leading role in the economic life of this country. I say rather flippantly that as someone who has been in a family business for a long time, and sports a beard—unusual in the Conservative ranks—I find myself greatly at ease in the Punjabi community. However, there are questions, and I am delighted to see other members of the all-party group present in the Chamber. I am sure that they will raise some of them if they can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are some pressing issues that need to be aired.

I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), is here to reply to the debate. This might be his initial debate in Westminster Hall, and I am delighted to be here. This debate is primarily about Sikhs in Britain, and I will not dwell on internal matters in the sub-continent. However, there is one issue. The British Government have arranged for a consular office to be opened in the Punjab, but we are still awaiting clearance from the Indian Government to go ahead with that. That move was widely welcomed by the Punjabi community in this country.

The principle concern of many people is that although Sikhs have been accepted as a religious group, they have not been granted the status of an ethnic grouping. That matter is beginning to cause a certain amount of irritation and anxiety—perhaps that is the fairest way to put it. One problem is that until that is recognised it is impossible to know how many Sikhs are living in the United Kingdom. In response to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said that there were no accurate data available. The Government can give estimates, but without a clearer picture it is difficult to find out how much—if any—discrimination is taking place, or how successful the community is in public life.

Since 11 September, sadly, attacks and hate crimes have been committed, not exclusively against Sikhs, but against Muslims and Hindus too. In fact, they have been committed against anyone who seems to look little different from those who committed those horrendous crimes, which we all condemn. I am not saying that any of those crimes are less or more terrible whether they are committed against Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs, but it would be useful to have some idea of the incidents to provide an estimate of the level of them. Various assurances have been given over time, but, unfortunately, it has not so far been possible to make progress.

There are sensitivities and there is a debate in the community, but the time has come to push the matter forward, notwithstanding the need for wide consultation within Sikh communities in Britain and elsewhere. We must not leave it in the long grass for ever.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the Palace of Westminster. It is long overdue and I welcome it. Perhaps because he did so, I received a letter today from the Commission for Racial Equality dated 2 July, which states that the

"CRE recognises Sikhs as an ethnic, as well as religious group and obviously so does the law".

Does my hon. Friend welcome that?

I certainly do. That is why we are trying to advance the case and to ensure that any muddied waters are cleared. However, as I said, we must be aware of the sensitivities.

The Sikh community, because of its nature, has always been able to assimilate easily and to merge into its community. I know, as do other hon. Members from their constituencies, that it is a positive force in this country and that it is asking only for a level playing field—a request that we often hear in this Chamber. It does not want positive discrimination or to be regarded as a special case. It wants equality and I hope that we can move towards that today.

There are three Sikh salutations. The first is "Sat Sri Akal". The second, which is usually used in the Gurdwara, is "Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa", to which the response is "Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh". The third is a cheer, "Bole So Nihal", which usually follows a speech—

Order. For interest, hon. Members should not quote in foreign languages unless a translation is given immediately afterwards.

Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is exactly what I was coming to.

"Bole So Nihal" is a cheer, which normally comes from the congregation, the Sangat, in support of the speech made by the previous speaker. It is a cheer with a sense of solidarity and a renewal of the congregation's commitment to the statements made by the previous speaker. I am sure that many Sikhs throughout the country who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will be saying, "Bole So Nihal" and will respond with "Sat Sri Akal".

It is a statement that was needed because each year we have sought a debate on the Sikh community—the Punjabi community—in Britain and each year we have been able to provide a progress report in that debate on the work of the all-party group on the Punjabi community in Britain. The first debate was on 7 March 2000, and we established the all-party group from that debate. That was on the advice of many organisations in the Sikh community that were seeking a clearer voice in Parliament, which they felt could work on their behalf.

I pay tribute to the many hon. Members in previous Parliaments who have spoken up on behalf of the Sikh community, in particular the current Minister for Transport and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) who continuously through previous Parliaments raised issues affecting the Sikh community and gained positive responses from Governments of both parties.

In July 2001, we secured the second Adjournment debate on the Punjabi community and took stock of the progress that we had made. At that point, we felt that, in general, there was still an outstanding issue of recognition. We raised the issue of status during that debate, and I echo the view expressed by the hon. Member for Uxbridge: there is a sense of frustration at the lack of movement on that subject. That is the issue that I should like to address.

Sikhs make up the largest section of the Punjabi community in Britain and we must clearly address the status of Sikhs in law and, more importantly, in the practice of government and public bodies. By status, I mean not just formal status but standing generally. The first issue to be addressed is identification, and what formal status is awarded Sikhs in the legal, governmental and administrative systems of this country. The path to the formal recognition of Sikhs in this country and internationally has been difficult and tortuous. Race legislation in this country and elsewhere has for a long time been fixated on a definition of race, racism and racial discrimination based predominantly on skin colour and descent.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that apart from skin colour and descent, when one actually looks at the categorisations used, they are almost an imperial relic in some cases, simply categorising individuals according to the geographical dominion or country from which they came during the time of the empire?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. The whole debate about racism and race definitions in this country is based around that colonial legacy.

Race and racism have become biological issues, rather than ones of cultural identity. In addition, there has been some confusion because the identity of many groups was often narrowly defined as based on religion rather than cultural identity. That has meant that legislation in Britain and internationally did not necessarily afford Sikhs the protection necessary to maintain their cultural identity and practices, free from discrimination. Sikhs have often remained invisible in law and therefore slipped between the cracks of legislation intended to protect people against racism and racial discrimination in this country.

In Britain, a House of Lords decision in the Mandla v. Dowell Lee case addressed how the term ethnic was to be interpreted in section 3 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The view of the noble Lords Fraser and Teampleman was to advocate a broad construction to include cultural and historical identity. Lord Fraser said,

"I recognise that 'ethnic' conveys a flavour of race but it cannot, in my opinion, have been used in the 1976 Act in a strict racial or biological sense. For one thing it would be absurd to suppose that Parliament can have intended that membership of a particular racial group should depend on scientific proof that a person possessed the relevant distinctive biological characteristic. For another thing, the briefest glance at evidence in this case is enough to show that, within the human race, there are very few, if any distinctions which are scientifically recognised as racial."

Lord Fraser and Lord Templeman went on to define an ethnic group as based on a range of references to cultural identity and, therefore, brought the Sikhs into the scope of the 1976 Act.

The problem so far has been the practical implementation of that interpretation of the 1976 Act. The issue causes frustration in the community and, I believe, in the House as well. I welcome the letter from the CRE that has been received today, which includes an explicit interpretation of the judgment, but we must move forward to practical implementation of the law.

We should congratulate the Sikh groups in this country and in Canada. They raised the question at international level and raised the status of Sikhs in the run-up to the United Nations world conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, which took place in Durban, South Africa last year. The conference was the culmination of two years of preparations, regional meetings, expert seminars, non-governmental organisation representations and conventions, which were held in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. Sikh groups in this country participated thoroughly in the preparatory work.

The concentration of the UN initiative on the sources, causes, forms and contemporary manifestations of racism gave the Sikh community the opportunity to challenge the narrowness of the traditional biological definition of racism—the post-colonial definition—and to try to gain an acceptance of their cultural identity. Many Sikh organisations from this country and elsewhere laid bare the forms of discrimination that Sikhs faced, especially in employment practices and partly in education. Article 67 of the final conference declaration sought to encompass Sikhs in the development of international and national anti-racist policies and programmes. It states:

"We recognize that members of certain groups with a distinct cultural identity face barriers arising from a complex interplay of ethnic, religious and other factors as well as their traditions and customs and call upon States to ensure that measures, policies and programmes aimed at eradicating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance address the barriers that this interplay of factors creates."

A breakthrough was made at international level to arrive at a definition that would include the Sikh community.

Obviously, it is important that the Sikh community should be treated equally with other racial and religious groups. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the UN decision means that that will happen?

A process of practical implementation at national and international levels is required. I want to make several recommendations on the sort of programme of practical implementation that the Government could assist in introducing.

Where do the developments in British law and in international discourse leave Sikhs in our community, and what are the next steps that we should take in this country to implement the general thrust of the decisions by the Law Lords and the UN? First, we should recognise that Britain has a real opportunity now to lead in the debate in the European Union on reviewing existing national and EU legislation, policies and practices to consider whether and to what extent they fail to provide adequate protection for the rights of Sikhs and to ensure their full and effective participation in all spheres of life. I would welcome the British Government's raising at the EU level how the UN article will be implemented, and I would welcome a joint ministerial initiative with the European Commission to prepare a report in response to the article in the UN declaration and then to consider what changes in international and national legislation may be required.

Secondly, following on from the point of the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the sensitivities of the issue, consultation must be undertaken in a prompt, effective and inclusive way with Sikh organisations in Britain to determine the development of the national action plan resulting from the UN conference. That would enable us not only to raise the profile and understanding of the issue, but to agree a detailed programme of action.

Thirdly, a key element of the action plan is the development of ethnic monitoring. We have learnt this morning from parliamentary questions about the inadequacy of existing monitoring systems. It is important that we monitor the policy programmes of central and local government and other public bodies in their relationships with the Sikh community. That includes employment, appointments to public bodies, the practices and policies of public bodies towards Sikhism and an understanding of Sikhism by public bodies in the interpretation of policies.

Fourthly, later this year the all-party group is planning to launch an annual consultative conference with the Sikh community in Britain. The aim is to bring together the widest range of Sikh community organisations in the history of this country to ask them what issues they want the all-party group, Parliament and the Government to address, and to work with them on a detailed programme. I ask the Government to lend their support to that initiative by providing Ministers to speak to the consultative conference and, maybe more importantly, sending their civil servants to listen to the debate in the conference.

Finally, the all-party group has an excellent track record of success on issues raised on behalf of the Sikh community. They have included, for example, the reintroduction of visa appeals, the establishment of visa facilities in the Punjab—there are some difficulties, but the matter has been agreed in principle and will come about—opposition to appeal charges and the development of the Guru Nanak Sikh school as the first state-funded Sikh school in the country. We have supported the campaign for the right to wear the kirpan—I thank the Minister for Transport for his help in overcoming the problems at airports—raised human rights issues in India, supported the protection of Sikh heritage and supported the work of Susan Strong at the Victoria and Albert museum. We have lobbied Governments on peace in the Punjab, the militarisation of the Punjab, the landmines issue and the nuclear threat. The group has had many successes and we aim to continue that work and to energise the debate on the future of the Sikh community in Britain. There is so much more for us to do, but there have been many Sikh successes to celebrate in politics, law, business, sport and the arts in this country.

I ask Members to go and see "Bend it Like Beckham", which was directed by Gurinder Chadha. It was filmed in my constituency at Yeading football club and celebrates both modernity and tradition in the Sikh community. Our role is to protect Sikhs against discrimination and unfair treatment, but it is also positively to celebrate the strength of a society in which cultural identity is protected, respected and celebrated.

It is a great privilege and pleasure to follow two speeches with which I agree completely. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on initiating the debate and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). This is one of those rare and happy occasions on which hon. Members can be in almost total harmony, which is good.

I must declare my interest as chairman of the Conservative parliamentary friends of India, a group that seeks to represent all the diverse groups from the sub-continent. In the middle of the jubilee year, it is worth recalling that one of the Queen's greatest treasures is the Koh-i-noor diamond, which is a Sikh artefact. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in his speech in July last year, but we do not want to get into an Elgin-like discussion about the diamond's future. He said last year that Punjabi is the second most widely spoken language in the United Kingdom, which indicates the scale of the presence of the Punjabi and Sikh community. I look forward to joining representatives of the Sikh community later today when they present a petition to Downing street about the issue that we are debating today.

I do not regard myself as an expert on Sikhism, which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington clearly are, and I do not know very much about the law, but I know something about natural justice. Given what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said about the 1983 judgment, the time has come for natural justice to take priority.

The 1983 judgment, about which I shall say more towards the end of my remarks if I have time, accepted that Sikhs are a definable ethnic group under the Race Relations Act 1976. That was the unanimous judgment of the five judges participating in the hearing. It is important to remember that we do not need a debate on that. British law has already been decided. The challenge nearly 20 years on is to make sure that it is fully implemented. In some ways, that is difficult because the actions of the British Government can be interpreted in different ways. I am in favour of proper recognition of Sikhs to enable such discrimination to be dealt with effectively by British society and its law.

There are separate states in India, but the Government's decisions do not apply across the board. If the Minister were told by his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be cautious on those grounds, I hope that he would dismiss such fears. We want to give effect to natural justice for British citizens. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, matters have become more acute since 11 September. Yesterday, a leading member of the Sikh community told me of the many upsetting and disturbing incidents that he has experienced since then.

We must face up to the fact that the British do not know a great deal about faith and religion these days. We are a secular society. The average British citizen does not know much about his historic Christian faith, never mind being able to distinguish between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. We face a challenge. People who have clearly defined visual characteristics—as practising Sikhs have—are likely to be a target for particular hostility. That is the experience of the Sikh community. In the post-11 September environment, we have to do even more to address its worries.

I welcome early-day motion 1464, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) who is to respond to the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. It wants British law to recognise Sikhs as a separate ethnic group. The best estimate of the number of Sikhs that their community can come up with is 700,000. Sadly, we do not have an accurate figure. The early-day motion urges the Government to give guidance so that public authorities are left in no doubt that Sikhs should be monitored separately to avoid unnecessary discrimination under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. I agree strongly with spirit of the early-day motion, which was why I was happy to add my signature to it.

The problem came to a head during the census last year, when Sikhs were not identified as a separate ethnic category on the form. To be fair to the Office for National Statistics, the pressure for the inclusion of Sikhs grew a little late in the day to enable them to be accommodated. However, the ONS ought to have realised that the 1983 judgment meant that Sikhs should have been defined separately. I hope that the next census form will do that, and that the ONS can make such a commitment early on.

The census form included a write-in campaign and respondents were allowed to identify separate categories. I believe that a significant number of members of the Sikh community took advantage of such an opportunity. I have been told that the Office for National Statistics may have to re-examine the forms with the possible view of listing the Sikh community separately after the event, because of the many write-in identifiers. If that takes place, it would be an interesting development. I hope that the Sikh community will be identified separately at the next census, as a result of which we shall have an accurate idea of the size of the community.

Given that other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not labour the House of Lords judgment, but it is tremendously important that people understand how clear cut it was. A headmaster refused to admit a Sikh boy to his school unless the boy removed his turban and cut his hair. Not surprisingly, that was unacceptable to the boy and his father. A court action failed, and an appeal failed. Rightly, the Commission for Racial Equality took the case to the House of Lords, and was, in effect, the appellant. The judgment of Lord Fraser of Tullybelton stands most careful reading today. I recommend it to hon. Members. I have the website address for the full judgment if they require it. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington highlighted, Lord Fraser said:

"I recognise that 'ethnic' conveys a flavour of race but it cannot in my opinion have been used in the 1976 Act in a strict racial or biological sense."

Lord Fraser then defined separate characteristics, and it is worth putting them on record:

"For a group to constitute an ethnic group in the sense of the 1976 Act, it must, in my opinion, regard itself, and be regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics."

He defined the characteristics of such a community as: a long shared history; a cultural tradition of its own; a common geographical origin or descent from a small number of common ancestors; a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group; a common literature peculiar to the group; or a common religion different to that of neighbouring groups. Interestingly, he includes

"being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community, for example a conquered people (say, the inhabitants of England shortly after the Norman conquest) and their conquerors might both be ethnic groups."

He drew heavily on British history, which is right and proper given the thorough integration of the Sikh community into British life.

Lord Fraser quoted the opinion of a county court judge, who said:

"The evidence in my judgment shows that Sikhs are a distinctive and self-conscious community. They have a history going back to the fifteenth century. They have a written language which a small proportion of Sikhs can read but which can be read by a much higher proportion of Sikhs than of Hindus. They were at one time politically supreme in the Punjab."

Lord Fraser then concluded, crucially:

"The result is, in my opinion, that Sikhs are a group defined by a reference to ethnic origins for the purpose of the 1976 Act, although they are not biologically distinguishable from the other peoples living in the Punjab. That is true whether one is considering the position before the partition of 1947, when the Sikhs lived mainly in that part of Punjab that is now Pakistan, or after 1947, since when most of them have moved into India."

That clear and categorical judgment was supported by Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon and Lord Templeman. The latter gave a thoughtful judgment of his own in response to the issues raised during the case. I hope that the Government will now move to ensure that Sikhs get the recognition and status that they deserve, and that any doubts that Sikhs may have are properly addressed. That is not a criticism of the Government, because my party was in power for a long period after that judgment.

I conclude by agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I am afraid that I have not yet seen "Bend it Like Beckham"; I was too busy to catch it at the cinema. However, my wife tells me it is an absolutely brilliant film—although she resented going to see it on her own—and I look forward to seeing it on video. The Sikh community has contributed so much to British life and society, and to the economy, law and industry. Wherever we look, there is huge success to celebrate. If Sikhs want legal recognition, we should give it to them.

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. Some of my constituents want to lobby me about the Sikh agenda this afternoon; I am disappointed that I will not be able to join them, as I have secured an important meeting with the Prime Minister about the lack of housing in south-east England. I am afraid that, on this occasion, he trumps them. I am therefore glad to put my views on record, and I hope that those colleagues who will be able to speak to my constituents can share those views with them. Many of our constituents will be here this afternoon to press the issue of the ethnic monitoring of the Sikh community and the effective representation of Sikhs in public life in Britain.

I shall address colleagues—I refer to all hon. Members who have spoken, even those who have not yet seen "Bend it Like Beckham", although they should—on three crucial issues, but there are many others that I could raise. Those issues are Sikh identity, the Punjabi language and the tension between India and Pakistan. The latter is having a dangerous impact on the Punjab, and is a real problem for that part of the world. It is incumbent on those of us who could do something to reduce tension between those countries to do our best to do so.

The Punjab is being littered with mines because of the tension between India and Pakistan, and that means that the lives of children and farmers who have nothing to do the conflict and are not engaged with either side are at risk. Although I do not believe that Britain can leave the 50-year conflict to reach a conclusion, we may be able to use our good offices to ensure that our old friends India and Pakistan work together, rather than against each other.

I have many Punjabis in my constituency. The majority are probably Sikh, but a substantial minority are Muslim. Both Sikhs and Muslims are concerned about the future of the Punjab. That is an issue for which we all have a particular responsibility, because of our particular responsibility for peace.

I shall discuss the issue of Sikh identity, because we have reached a good moment to make progress. As many hon. Members know, I have pressed for more effective legislation to deal with religious, as well as racial, discrimination. It is a failure of United Kingdom law that to date it has not dealt with religious discrimination. The consequence has been that various different forms of religious discrimination persist.

The Sikh community is in some ways uniquely privileged, because of the House of Lords judgment, to which many hon. Members referred, which recognises that Sikhs should be regarded as an ethnic group. They can therefore secure protection for religious practices under the Race Relations Act—although, as the debate has highlighted, sometimes the practice has not sufficiently underpinned proper protection from discrimination.

With the changes happening in Europe and the wider global community, now is the time to confront the range of discrimination more intelligently. I welcome the current consultation on new mechanisms for dealing with discrimination. Issues raised in the debate should feed into that. The forms of discrimination that the Sikh community faces include not only discrimination on the basis of race or issues such as we have heard about recently, relating to how Sikhs have been targeted for racial attack following 11 September for wearing turbans, for example. The discrimination also includes specific limitations on religious practices by employers who prohibit turbans or the wearing of a kirpan, and other institutions that do not allow faith practices that are essential for the Sikh community to operate properly. We need to recognise that, do the ethnic monitoring that all hon. Members who have spoken so far support, and work in a way that can more effectively challenge those forms of discrimination.

Racists understand the situation. I remember vividly a racial attack on a schoolboy in my constituency that consisted of having his hair cut off. The consequence of that for an adherent of the Sikh faith is much more significant than it would be for anyone else, and the racists who attacked him knew it. To date, we have muttered good-will noises but have not delivered. The time has come for us to do so.

I focus finally on the Punjabi language. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said that the Punjabi language is the second most spoken language in England. On Friday, just after I had cracked my elbow, which is now in a sling, I was privileged to attend a jubilee celebration in the Milan centre in my constituency. It was a day of music, dancing and poetry led by Sikh residents and other members of the community in Slough. I also had the privilege of making a speech although, because I had just cracked my elbow and had not been able to get to accident and emergency, it did not feel like a privilege at the time.

As I looked around the audience, I said, "I cannot do something that you can all do. I can only speak one language and all of you speak two, three or even four." When I heard all the languages that my constituents could speak, I realised some of the richness of the south Asian cultures that we celebrate today.

The Punjabi language has a wonderful tradition of poetry and communication that I am glad continues to be celebrated. There is an essential action that the Government should take to assist in that celebration—they should allow more community radio stations to broadcast in Punjabi. I want to use the platform offered by this debate to press the case for that language to be broadcast. Temporary licences are often granted to Apna Punjab radio to coincide with Vaisakhi in Slough. That is one example of how broadcasting in Punjabi can strengthen a community and grant access to vital cultural, health and other information to people who do not have fluent access to English. It can bring a community together.

Britain's great strength is its diversity. It is the joy of our country that we have learned to celebrate and include the diversity of other cultures. As hon. Members commented, during the recent sad events following the death of the Queen Mother, we saw the Koh-i-noor gleaming in the Hall next door. Although there are issues about where that diamond should rest, our national culture celebrates the cultures of many countries around the world. The Koh-i-noor is an example of how we do that. We must ensure that that continuing celebration includes reflecting those many cultures in our broadcast media as well as in events such as the jubilee celebration that I was able to attend in Slough.

I agree with much of what has been said by hon. Members this morning, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) who mentioned the Punjab and Punjabis in relation to the current tension between India and Pakistan.

As we all recognise and understand, Sikhs are predominantly a proud race and have been involved in the military for a long time. Their presence in the armed forces in India—they are also present in the British armed forces—means that they suffer in two ways in any dispute: because they serve in the front line as soldiers and, as my hon. Friend said, because of the way that the geographic area that crosses both countries is divided. It was divided when we drew the lines that separated the majority of the religious sites that are now in Pakistani Punjab away from more than 2.5 million people going back to India. Those are some of the issues that link us with the heritage and people of the Sikh community in this country that we must address.

The current conflict raises issues to do with the Sikh community in Kashmir, and they must also be addressed. President Clinton visited the region a few years ago; at that time more than 30 Sikhs were massacred. When such atrocities take place, independent human rights organisations must be allowed to go there and verify what has happened. It is important for the Sikh community that such things are addressed.

I turn to softer issues. Many hon. Members have looked clinically at matters such as law and the Sikh community, and its legal standing. There are 19 million Sikhs in the world, and more than 700,000 of them live in this country. The Sikh religion has existed for more than 700 years. It has a long heritage in the Indian sub-continent, and a unique tradition and culture. It also has its own language. Such facts must be recognised.

We are debating the recognition of the Sikh community. Unfortunately, I will not support early-day motion 1464; I will amend it slightly. It rightly calls for protection from discrimination, but the provision of services for the Sikh community must also be addressed. Discrimination is an important issue, but the idea behind monitoring by local authorities is that the communities that are being monitored are catered for. Certain things must be provided to the Sikh community, particularly with regard to Sikh men, elderly care homes and the religious needs of elderly people who reside in them, and education for young Sikhs. Therefore, although negative subjects such as discrimination must be addressed, a positive approach should also be adopted so that we can address how better to service the Sikh community. That is the agenda that should be promoted.

I support this debate because I want the Sikh community to be integrated into this society. If young Sikh men and women are to feel a part of society, it is important that they are first proud of their own heritage, culture and religion. Once they feel at ease with their own identity, it will be easier for them to play a role in the society that they live in, and are very much a part of. Sikhs play an important role in all walks of life; they work for local authorities, the police and the armed forces.

I rise to emphasise my hon. Friend's point. I assure him that the Sikh community is already playing an important role in this country. That is certainly the case in my city of Wolverhampton, where Sikhs play an important practical role in ensuring good cultural and race relations: they make a considerable contribution to the inter-faith group, and they work with the local authority and other organisations throughout the city. Therefore, we are already achieving my hon. Friend's objectives.

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention, and I acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that he has done in conjunction with the Sikh community in his constituency. He might also have wished to point out that Gurbux Singh, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, hails from Wolverhampton. I am sure that both of my hon. Friends from Wolverhampton will be proud of that fact.

The young in the Sikh community must be proud of who they are, what they are and how they exist. They have a visual presence—their religion and wearing of the turban and beard makes them easily identified—that has led to mistaken identification by several people who are illiterate about religion post-11 September. That has caused the Sikh community to be subjected to religious abuse, which is totally the wrong sentiment and demonstrates the ignorance of some people. We must clarify the issues.

If the young people understand their own heritage and culture, they may integrate further into society and play a better part in building up the multiracial and multi-religious country that the United Kingdom has become. I would support that.

It has been said—I go back to matters relating to the CRE—that the Sikh community has already been recognised as a visible community under race relations legislation. We must take forward recognition by national Government, local government and public bodies that deliver services for the Sikh community. Services must be delivered equally. Once it is defined that a community must be addressed through the census, we must find out how many Sikh people live in this country and decide how we can address their issues and fulfil their needs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need for language teaching in the Sikh community? It is important to foster that not only for that community, but for the country as a whole. People who speak two languages are often quicker at adapting to an additional language than people who speak only one. If we encouraged language teaching, it would help our society as well as Sikhs within it.

I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution. I agree that speaking mother-tongue languages is essential for allowing anyone in this country to grasp the context of their history, culture and identity, and to play a better role in the society that we have developed. We must take forward the positive aspects of the society, and the Sikh community has done that with regard to the Vaisakhi festivals. We have a fantastic Vaisakhi festival in Birmingham—

And Wolverhampton.

And Wolverhampton, of course. I am sure that there is such a festival in Slough.

The way in which the Sikh community has projected itself is of credit. I wish all those who worked hard to secure the debate and hon. Members who work together on the issue well. I hope that we can continue to move forward. I tabled the amendment to the early-day motion purely because it is important to recognise such issues as delivery of services to the community. We should look not only at the negatives of discrimination, although I agree that that needs to be addressed, but, more importantly, the delivery of services to the Sikh community as a whole.

I join other hon. Members in thanking the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for ensuring that we debate these matters at this time of year. Obviously, he and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) come to the debate with huge constituency experience for which we are very grateful. I also thank the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who has been persistent and insistent in ensuring that the agenda is pursued more widely. It has indeed been pursued very effectively.

All of us who have spoken acknowledge our gratitude to the Sikhs for their contribution over many years and at all levels of society and in the public and private sectors. They have made it in teaching and business, and, as was said earlier, in the armed forces. They have also contributed with huge distinction to the public service more widely, and to education and culture. I have shared in many Sikh cultural events. I have not yet made my visit to the cinema, but it is on my list, so I shall have to join the queue.

The Sikhs have contributed in another way as well. They have led much of the religious and moral debate recently. Sikhism has made a huge contribution in that respect. Those of us who turn on our radios at 7.50 am often hear Inderjit Singh, but the Sikh community has contributed more generally, both by putting its religious perspective in a multi-faith context and by organising its own events.

Let me also thank the community for all the hospitality it has offered my colleagues and me over the years. I was privileged to attend the great festival event that took place at the Albert hall a couple of years ago, and also the great festival event in Birmingham, so I have seen the community at its proudest and best.

The debate is particularly well timed because of the lobby organised by the Sikh community that will take place later today. Like others, I shall talk to friends, colleagues and constituents during the day. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who prepared for the debate by tabling a series of questions. I shall let him pursue them at greater length, as I expect he may wish to; but I hope that the Minister realises that the answers given so far have been inadequate and that following the change of personnel in the Department we shall hear better answers.

A statutory instrument has been tabled. My colleagues and I have prayed against it, and are hoping to debate it shortly. It concerns the implementation of the Commission for Racial Equality code of practice. I prayed against it not because I oppose it—indeed, I promoted it, and organised events in the House to ensure that the consultation worked well—but in order to secure a debate about its effective operation at local level. I hope that we can discuss it with various ethnic groups in the next few days, before Parliament rises for the summer recess.

A number of points have been made by members of other parties, including the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), some of which I do not disagree with. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that until peace and justice exist in the Punjab, there will not be happy Punjabi communities here or anywhere else. It makes me sad that, more than half a century after the partition of the Indian sub-continent, the international community has still not seen fit to use diplomatic and other pressures to resolve the problem. We seem to react only when tension mounts in India and Pakistan. The world gets excited then; but when the tension lessens, it seems to lose interest. I hope that we do much better in the near future, so that there can be a fair resolution.

I hope that the Minister will take seriously the criticism that at present we have no adequate information about the Sikh community here. The questions asked by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, among others, could be answered if the Government set their mind to it. It is not possible to plan services and respond to the needs of a community without knowing the facts and figures—not just how many people there are, but where they are in terms of, for instance, different areas of public services.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and I were involved—he more than I—in ensuring that the Irish were included in the last census as a separate ethnic category. Hon. Members may remember that under the categories of ethnic group, there were only three in the white section, of which Irish is one. In the Asian-British section at the moment one has to be Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or of any other Asian background in a generalised way, and people can write in their own descriptions. I do not think that the census is anything like adequate yet because, if we think about the situation in our cities and local authorities, it does not give us the authoritative breakdown that we need to be able to plan services and respond to communities. There is no other authoritative local government census. For a 10-year period that is the only census we have, and it does not suffice. Although I realise that it is not his Department, I hope that, when the last census figures are produced later this year, the Minister will work with other Departments in ensuring that the next time we plan the census we have a more comprehensive set of options, which would include Sikh as an option in the Asian community section.

The CRE is being helpful, and encouraging local authorities to conduct ethnic monitoring that goes beyond the census. I hope that all local authorities will sign up to that. I am sure that is the general wish. Of course, they can do that, but in the interim before the next census they may have to make their own calculation of the number of adults, retired people and young people, so that planning and provision can be arranged.

May I add to what the hon. Member for Slough said about the urgent need to get on with the second half of the equality agenda? We have at last updated the Race Relations Act 1976. I was privileged to be part of that process and to be involved in deliberations on the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. That is all good and proper, but we have not yet returned to the separate, but holistic consideration of religious discrimination. Some of us did not want that to be part of the anti-terrorism legislation. I think we were right to remove it from the legislation. Terrorism and discrimination should not be seen as related issues, but religious discrimination does need to return to the agenda. Guarantees against religious discrimination are hugely important.

It is very important that we allow people to learn and speak Punjabi when they want to. There is a big danger. We had a debate some years ago in Committee under the Conservative Government about second languages in schools. We must retain the view that was canvassed then that it is perfectly acceptable for one's second or third school language to be an Asian language rather than a European one. It is much more practically useful for many people—white people as well as those of Asian origin—for their immediate second language to be the one that many in their community use so that they can trade, work and have good community relations. I hope that we can look again at the way in which we increase language teaching and give that an equal priority.

I end with the point that my Sikh friends make to me most often. The importance of recognition is not just to end discrimination, but to ensure that there can be full participation of Sikhs in the community. Whether one keeps the five Ks; whether one wears a turban; whether one wears a kirpan; whether one wears a tunic; whether one wears a bangle; all those things may produce a difference of perception. At worst, they can produce overt racism and antagonism, but unless we allow people who are sometimes second or third generation, or mixed race by background, to have as strong a link with their cultural hinterland as they do with their adopted country, they will feel driven back into a cultural ghetto. We want to share the benefits of the Sikh faith and tradition. To do that, all Sikhs in this country have to participate fully and feel proud and able to do that. That is why the issue is important, and the demands of the community must be heeded. They are not unreasonable; the community makes them persistently, but with good cause.

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for having raised this matter. It will perhaps come as no surprise to note that, looking around the Chamber, there is a geographical concentration of Members of Parliament from the west of London. The hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) are here, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. Earlier, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was also present.

My constituency has a growing Sikh community, which is a reflection of Sikhs' economic success. They are now spread throughout the country and, through that, my interest in the matter has been awakened as I become aware of some of the issues that they face. I hope that today will provide an opportunity for the Minister to reply to some of the concerns that have been raised.

I am a lawyer and I started by looking at the Mandla case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) so rightly summarised—I shall not repeat his words—the Mandla case said in the clearest and most unequivocal terms not that the Sikhs are a religious group but that they are an ethnic minority. I take that, therefore, as my starting point, because it means that Sikhs should be the full beneficiaries of all the provisions of the 1976 Act. There is a separate issue about the extent to which religious discrimination should be tackled in this country and I endorse what the hon. Member for Slough said on that point. We are going to wish to tackle that subject, but I want for a moment to concentrate on the here and now—the extent to which that protection, which was perhaps not expected or anticipated when the Act was passed in 1976 but which the courts quite clearly spelled out, has been made use of in practice.

From looking at what the CRE and the Government have said—I make this point with no hostility to the Minister, because the subject goes back to long before the Labour Government came into office in 1997, although I think that it has continued since—it seems that although recognition of Sikhs as a distinct ethnic minority group has been granted, the issue has always been slightly brushed under the carpet. That has happened on the basis that people can avail themselves of that recognition if they wish, but the Government and those there to promote good race relations do not seem to be very concerned about looking at the issue in great detail.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was correct when he said that I was going to turn to my parliamentary questions. They were the next thing at which I looked. The answers that I have obtained during the past fortnight have been very illuminating—or not, as the case may be. First, although I acknowledge that a wide variety of people consider themselves to be Sikhs, some of them fulfilling all the criteria of the group and others not wishing to do so, which is one of the elements of diversity in our society, it is clear that the Sikh community in this country is very distinctive and has an ethnic and religious cohesion. Nevertheless, the Government have very little idea of how many Sikhs are in the United Kingdom. The Sikh community believes that there are about 700,000. If that is correct, it makes them one of the largest ethnic minority groups—not a group so small that it cannot be monitored adequately. Even if the Government are right with their figure of between 350,000 and 500,000 Sikhs, that still suggests a woolliness that will affect awareness of what the problems confronting them might be. That needs to be addressed.

Even more telling was the response to the question that I asked the Cabinet Office on how many public appointments are held by Sikhs. The answer, from the Minister in that Department, was:

"My Department does not collect data on the number of Sikhs appointed to public appointments. It collects diversity data for public appointments on the following criteria: Bangladeshi; Black-African; Black-Caribbean; Black-any other; Indian; Pakistani; Chinese; mixed ethnic background; any other Asian; White; or any other ethnic background."—[Official Report, 25 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 835W.]

I must say that when I read that, the point that the Sikh community is making immediately struck me. Looking back to my own past, I have Jewish forebears. The Jewish community in this country has never asked for monitoring, for reasons connected with their extraordinarily successful integration into this country's life. However, if my forebears who came to this country from eastern Europe in the 1830s had found a similar regime to help them as exists now, they might have been a little surprised if the then Government had decided to collect information on ethnic diversity on the basis of whether they were Ukrainian, Austro-Hungarian or from the Russian empire. That highlights the extent to which the Sikhs have been rather airbrushed out of existence by the Cabinet Office process. They see themselves as a distinctive community, and they are recognised as such under the race relations legislation. I believe that we could do better.

Many of the Sikhs whom I have met in the past few weeks have said that they sometimes feel that the categorisations derived from the colonial past mean that they do not enjoy the distinctive identity, monitoring and recognition that they merit. After all, they say, there are many hundreds of thousands of Sikhs, not just a few thousand, even if the Government do not have accurate statistical evidence. They say also that they are British Sikhs. One has only to meet members of the Sikh community to see the extent to which that is correct. Therefore, the classifications given by the Government—I am sure for the best historical reasons—no longer match the reality of the Sikhs' position in this country.

Hon. Members have made the point this morning, in their very helpful contributions, that the events of 11 September have meant that the Sikh community has been the target of acts of racial violence. I think that five gurdwaras were attacked, and there were other instances of violence against Sikhs and members of other ethnic minority communities in this country.

Clearly, that heightens the sense of concern. I do not want to be confrontational, because the Government's intentions are benevolent, but can we not move matters along a little? I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that the Government will look at the issue again, and get rid of the increasingly untenable definitions with which Departments are working with regard to ethnic minority issues.

I also hope that the CRE will show more flexibility. It also has been somewhat sclerotic and worried that greater concessions would open floodgates elsewhere. I do not understand that argument: in a pluralist society, communities that are large enough and have a separate identity ought to get the recognition and monitoring that they need, precisely because they need services.

I can tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) that I fully understand his criticism of the early-day motion, but I worded it very carefully. I wanted to concentrate on the legal issue that I believe to be untenable in terms of the race relations legislation. I share his desire that service provision should be better targeted.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but might it not be possible to table another early-day motion that we can both support?

I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman were to table another early-day motion, I should be happy to consider it.

I want to hear from the Minister, so I shall take up no more of the short time left. Will the Minister say when the Government will meet representatives of the Sikh community? We hoped that that would happen a week or two ago, but the meeting seems to have been put off until 31 July. Will the Minister assure us that the meeting will take place and that the needs and representations of Sikhs will be addressed properly?

I look forward to a positive response from the Minister.

First, I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on initiating the debate and on the thoughtful speech with which he kicked off the discussion this morning. I also wish to associate myself with the expressions of appreciation for the work of the all-party group on the Punjabi community in Britain, and for the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in establishing the group. He follows in a long tradition of hon. Members who have taken an interest in the position of the Sikh community, including someone whom I knew for many years, Sid Bidwell, the former hon. Member for Southall, who was especially distinguished in that regard.

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) described this debate as one of those all too rare occasions in Westminster Hall when there is a large degree of consensus. In my own relatively limited experience, that is not such a rare occurrence. I have often said that it is as if we enter a parallel universe when we come through the door of this Chamber.

No, it is normal.

Indeed. We enter a parallel universe in which reason, knowledge and understanding predominate, rather than struggle to make themselves heard, which is what tends to happen in the main Chamber. As this debate demonstrates, it is reason, knowledge and understanding that underpin the diversity mentioned by so many hon. Members, and are the best protection against the type of ignorance that led to the attacks on members of the Sikh community in the wake of 11 September and will help us to grapple with our attempt to understand the nature of our society.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a good point. We are struggling to make the categories that we use to try and understand more about the nature of our society match the reality of its increasing diversity. It goes to the heart of answering the question, "What is our identity?" and it becomes more difficult to answer that question as we become more diverse. We must recognise that we are developing a process.

The Sikhs are a people with a long and proud history. That history led them to fight against the British, to fight alongside us in two world wars, and to continue to serve in armed forces around the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) mentioned. I too have seen "Bend it Like Beckham" and it is wonderful, but, since we are in cultural mode, I would like to mention an interesting photographic exhibition currently run at Wellington Arch, on the history of service by the Sikh community in the armed forces.

The estimates of how many Sikhs are in Britain vary From 350,000 to 700,000, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield suggested. Their history has led a large number of Sikhs to make their home in Britain and become an established part of our increasingly diverse society. That history led the historian J.S. Grewal to say:

"The Sikh people subscribe to the idea of cultural coexistence. They can live in other cultures and don't really entertain hostility towards any people at all. This is the contribution they have made to world civilisation."

In every walk of life, Sikhs have contributed immensely to this country's social and economic well-being. It is especially appropriate that today we have an opportunity to celebrate and value that economic, cultural and social contribution to the stability and prosperity of British society as a whole.

Our relations—in the collective sense—with the Sikh community are extremely important, and all of us will continue to strive to improve them. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may have had the example of British Sikhs in mind in a recent speech when he spoke about

"providing a warm and lasting welcome to people who then become part of the country, have a sense of belonging, take on citizenship and work as we all should to ensure that that citizenship leads to mutuality and inter dependence."

All of us have a great deal to learn from the Sikh faith's teachings of the values of tolerance, equality and concern for others. Those are values that all hon. Members share.

I will now turn to specific points made in the course of the debate by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to previous debates acknowledging progress that is being made. Many of the questions legitimately asked in this debate about our lack of information about the nature, make-up and number of the Sikh community will shortly be answered when we get the results of the 2001 census because, as hon. Members will be aware, that census was the first to include a question on religion. The religious categories are as follows: "none"—interestingly—at the top; Christian; Buddhist; Jewish; Muslim; Sikh; and "others". Therefore, we will have the most complete data that there has ever been on the nature and make-up of the Sikh community.

That is the most significant single step that has been taken to learn more about the nature of that community. It will give us information about the size of the Sikh population—which will be measured by how many people identify themselves as Sikhs by ticking the appropriate box in answer to the religious question—as well as about household structure, type of accommodation, health, educational attainment, and employment. Those are the kinds of information that national Government and local government need to ensure that the services that are provided meet the needs of that community, in all its shape and forms.

As several hon. Members have said, there is also a write-in opportunity under the ethnic group category. I was lobbied by the substantial Kashmiri community in my constituency; it wanted to have separate recognition within the ethnic group classification. There was also a campaign to get a write-in in that section so that the word Sikh could be written under the Asian or Asian-British category. The ONS has said that it will look at all of the write-ins and endeavour to produce information based on what they provide. That will give us more of the sort of detailed information that we all want.

The listing of Sikh as a religion in the census will put the Sikh community in a very different position from all the other groups that were campaigning for separate recognition within the census, because it will provide us with many figures that we do not currently have. I hope that the next time we discuss this matter, I will be able to give the answers that are sought by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield—to whom I am about to give way.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to spare his blushes. Even at the Home Office, the ethnicity data currently use the 2001 categories of ethnic groups. As an effort should be made to keep one's one house in order, are steps going to be taken on that, so that Sikhs who are working in the Home Office can be identified properly?

That question points to an important issue that must be addressed by this society. The CRE code gives Sikhs the same status as other ethnic and racial groups. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)—who is no longer present—quoted from a letter from the CRE chairman. That letter confirms the legal recognition of Sikhs as both an ethnic and a religious group. Several hon. Members have referred to the Mandla v. Dowell Lee case. Therefore, Sikhs have the same status as all other ethnic and racial groups within the statutory code of practice, with regard to the duty to promote race equality under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 that came into force by order on 31 May.

The CRE produced the code and the related non-statutory guidance. It shares the view that the fact that case law has established Sikhs as an ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976 does not of itself justify it receiving different treatment from the many other ethnic and racial groups in the UK. However, the statutory code of practice encourages authorities, in using the same classification system as used in the 2001 census, to recognise, as the code does, that authorities may choose to collect more detailed information to reflect local circumstances. Indeed. I would expect them to do that.

I confirm that Lord Filkin will meet representatives of several Sikh organisations on 31 July to discuss these and other matters, and I hope that that will give an opportunity for people to respond to many of the other points that have been raised in the debate, including those that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on the UN declaration and the ways in which its principles can be taken forward. I will ensure that Lord Filkin has a chance to read the debate before he takes part in that important meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Cook, for the opportunity to begin this Adjournment debate on the relationship between the Government and trade unions. I have been a Member of this place for a little more than a year, Mr. Cook—

Order. I would be remiss in my duties were I not to remind hon. Members that the House, in its wisdom or otherwise, decided when establishing the parallel Chamber that the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel would be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker when they occupied the Chair.

Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not know that because I have been in this place for only a little more than a year and this is my first Adjournment debate. Whoever advised me on the issue will feel my wrath later.

My securing the debate is poetic justice, because I would not be here to represent the good people of East Lothian were it not for the trade union movement. I come from a solid, committed and staunch trade union background. My family is steeped in the history of the principles of trade unionism, and I come from the dynasty of Moffats who founded the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers. Before I started work, my dad's advice was to join the union. The importance of those words strikes me only now. Then, I simply did as I was told—people did what their dads told them—without realising the significance of the advice.

My dad knew, but I did not, that if I joined a union I would have protection, a safety net, pals, workmates and, most importantly, support. When someone becomes a worker, with no knowledge of the real world, they enter a new situation in life and become part of a new regime. They look for a friendly face and want to be part of something. They want to belong, so they join a club called a trade union. Then they learn about a collective voice and how it can influence change. All I want is a commitment from the Government to utilise the sheer effectiveness of that powerful and positive part of today's work force.

I dissociate myself from elements in the trade union movement, and the Labour movement as a whole, who choose to play games, refuse to move on and want to relinquish meaningful dialogue with the Government. However, I expect the Government to uphold the values of the trade union movement, the spirit in which it was formed and the fundamental role that it has achieved to influence society and government.

This place is the heartland of democracy, and it is bulging at the seams with the likes of lawyers and members of the intelligentsia. There is a place for such people here but, equally and arguably even more so, there should be a place for trade unionists such as me who have lived in the harsh front line. I was a nurse and I had to make decisions that affected people's lives. I have worked in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, the majority of those years during the Thatcher reign. I use that word because she reigned supreme, with contempt and no regard for the workers and their representatives, the trade unions.

I joined the Confederation of Health Service Employees as opposed to other unions because it represented all health workers, not only the supposed elite—the clinicians. All the workers were equally important in my union. I could not do my job effectively as a nurse if the wards were dirty or the patients were not fed, and the team element is crucial. We had to work collectively to succeed, and we did so during the dark days of Thatcher, who tried systematically to dismantle and destroy our movement.

It was divide and conquer, and Thatcher picked a few of us off, but she could never shut down the movement. The miners and steelworkers are almost gone, but their legacy remains intact. The workers still have rights, and employers and Governments must respect that. They should nurture and value the work force, who are their greatest commodity. It should not matter whether someone is a high flier with degrees and qualifications that they could paper the wall with; all members of working teams should be valued equally. It is unthinkable that workers under this Government should be treated differently or unfairly because of the job they do, and any two-tier work force scenario is unacceptable.

I applaud the concept of people being paid the right rate for the job, and it is just that they have the right to be rewarded for specialist knowledge, ability and skills. When workers' rights are determined by the job that they do, however, those responsible are guilty of gross discrimination. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will lay my concerns to rest in the interests of working together, true partnership and healthy relationships.

The trade union movement is at the core of this Government, and it founded the Labour party. As a member and past president of Unison, I ask the Government for fairness, not favours, and for an open door, and that they do not simply forget where they came from.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on securing the debate. This is a fortuitous time to discuss the partnership between Governments and trade unions, and I hope that few hon. Members think that there is no place for decent representation of the work force or for trade unions that look after their workers without becoming politically motivated. Similarly, I hope that we value everyone in the workplace. Whatever job they do—however menial or high-powered—everyone in society has a role, and I think that I speak for every member of my party when I say that.

There has been a long and fruitful partnership between the Government and the trade unions. Indeed, as hon. Members will know, yesterday's edition of The Times notes that

"it was in order to protect railway workers that the Labour Party had been established…It was the railwaymen of those days who took the lead at the Farringdon Hall meeting of February 1900"—

102 years ago—

"in the effort to set up a Labour Representation Committee".

Sadly, the long and fruitful partnership between the Government and the trade unions ended this week. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—the railway workers' heirs—broke its link with the Government, and I am sure that we all share the grief of those involved.

I want to focus on the links between the Deputy Prime Minister and the RMT, which go back 47 years—almost half the life of the Labour party. Sadly, he resigned from the RMT last week because he was furious that it had attempted to dictate how MPs voted. It is reasonable, however, to ask how long it has been attempting to do that.

Jimmy Knapp, now sadly deceased, was head of the RMT for 15 years, and was very vocal in leading strikes on the railways in the 1980s. He was also very politically motivated against the Thatcher Government. He once wrote to me—I do not know why, because I was not even a member of the Conservative party at the time—that it was important to have guards on trains. That was a union issue, and there are good reasons for having guards on trains. I had travelled to Kent the previous day, and the guard spent the entire journey with his feet up, reading the Beano. When I asked for his help, he looked at me as if I was mad, and went back to reading the Beano. Leaving that to one side, however—[Interruption.] Labour Members' mutterings perhaps reflect their sympathies for the people with their feet up reading the Beano, which I have not read for many years.

I return to the close relationship between the Government and the RMT. In 1970, the Deputy Prime Minister moved into his flat at Clapham common. Naturally, the union wanted to support its sponsored Members and gave them subsidised accommodation in what is now Maritime house—it was then National Union of Seaman house.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the relationship between the RMT and the Deputy Prime Minister and the question of who receives money and who does not has come to light only because of legislation introduced by this Government? Tory Governments never introduced legislation to bring transparency and show who influenced the Tory party.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point about legislation, because he is factually incorrect. The requirement for declarations under the Register of Members' Interests goes back long before 1997. That is one of the points that I wish to discuss.

On the subject of legislation, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to hear that newspaper reports say that the Deputy Prime Minister stands to benefit by some £15,000 under the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. That is not bad for a relationship between the Deputy Prime Minister and the union that is supposed to have ended.

In 1974, the Deputy Prime Minister moved from the flat that he took in 1970. He has a controlled tenancy that costs £220 a month. He does not use that flat, but he retains it. I wonder sometimes, when Labour Members go on about homelessness, whether they think that someone who has grace and favour homes in Admiralty arch and in Dorneywood in Buckinghamshire—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the normal practice of the House that a Member who raises another Member's personal circumstances or even mentions his name in the House gives notice to that Member so that he can respond. Will you clarify whether that practice has been followed in this case?

That practice is the normal courtesy, but there is no rule in Standing Orders or in "Erskine May" requiring a Member so to do. It would be most unusual for reference to be made without prior notice being given, but it is not necessary for the Member to be present to hear that reference.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your ruling is informative, but may we ascertain from the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) whether he took that step, which you describe as not obligatory, but usually followed as a matter of courtesy?

I must inform the House that it is not up to the Speaker or Deputy Speaker to tell Members what to say. However, I am sure that note has been taken of hon. Members' comments and that, if they are patient, they will hear something to that effect.

I am happy to answer. On many occasions, I have let the Deputy Prime Minister know that I am raising the issue, but he has not attended when I have done so. When I met him in a corridor recently and said, "Good morning, John," his only response was to say, "You—" I shall not say exactly what he said, because he was not particularly polite. In fact, I do not think that he is particularly interested in the fact that I have raised the issue. It is in the public domain, however, and it was in yesterday's newspapers—and, I suspect, today's. The person involved is not a menial Back Bencher, but the Deputy Prime Minister. The issue is one of national interest.

Are we to understand from what the hon. Gentleman says that he did not inform the Deputy Prime Minister that he would raise the issue in debate?

I do not have to answer that question, but the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that I have not done that. It is interesting that Labour Members are so sensitive to the issue. Perhaps they, too, feel extraordinary guilt—

rose—

Sit down. Perhaps Labour Members feel guilty that, while they rabbit on about homelessness, one among their number earns more than £100,000 a year, has two grace-and-favour residences and his own house in Hull, but still sees fit to accept a controlled tenancy from a trade union worth £15,000 a year.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Go on, I'll let you have a go as well.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his contribution, which, so far, has lasted eight minutes, is a personal attack on the Deputy Prime Minister and has nothing to do with trade unions?

I am sure that if I were out of order, the Deputy Speaker would have pulled me up. Labour Members keep raising points of order and I have given way to them. I have nothing against the Deputy Prime Minister. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but perhaps they should try to justify the situation in which house prices are rocketing because of shortages. Indeed, they have referred to that.

Is it a trade union matter?

I shall return to the matter in hand—the relationship between trade unions and the Government.

I am most grateful.

The Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and others have resigned from the RMT because, they say, they were put under pressure to abide by rules dictated by Mr. Crow, the new leader of that union. What did Mr. Crow expect, when he asked them to pledge support on four issues: renationalising the railways, repeal of anti-union laws, scrapping of the part-privatisation of the London underground and actions to halt job losses in the shipping industry? He said that he would support 14 left wingers who pledged support for the RMT's manifesto, although I do not know whether any are present. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is one.

If the hon. Gentleman is about to distort the process of the RMT's discussions with the Labour party and Labour MPs, I am happy to intervene and explain what went on. That might take a few minutes, if you are happy for me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The relationship is not one in which any Member of Parliament has been browbeaten, threatened or bribed in any way. I also suggest that, as a matter of courtesy, the hon. Gentleman should have informed the RMT members who are part of that group that he wanted to raise the matter, so that they could be present and respond.

I would have spent the past week writing to members of the Labour party. That is an absurd comment, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman telling us in his speech whether he has received RMT sponsorship.

In responding to interventions, I have made all my points except to say that it is extraordinary and bizarre that, under this particular Government, with their partnership with trade unions, a man who is paid well over £100,000 a year is able to accept such a benefit and that the Labour movement is not appalled by such behaviour.

I draw the analogy with the Conservative Government allowing people to buy council houses. What would have been the response if the Minister involved lived in a council house and was able to buy it at a knockdown price? Yet, the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister, has allowed him to benefit from the controlled tenancy of his flat to the tune of some £15,000 per year. One or two Labour Members look a little wry. Perhaps they are thinking about the Labour movement's long partnership, since 1900, with railway workers, trade unions and the Labour party—now the Government—and wondering whether that is what is was all set up for.

rose—

Order. I have no wish to restrict the tone or the extent of the debate, so long as comments are kept within its title. However, a number of hon. Members have written in about catching my eye. Time is limited. It is now 19 minutes after 11 o'clock and we normally allow the three Front Benchers 30 minutes before we conclude. I ask all hon. Members to restrict their comments and make them pertinent, and to resist the urge to allow meaningless interventions, although, as they will not know that an intervention is meaningless until they hear it, they should resist taking any.

I welcome this Adjournment debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) for introducing it. I want to focus on partnership working in the United Kingdom in the private and public sectors; it is more relevant to employees than the partnership between the leaders of the Labour party and of the trade unions. People are interested in what partnership means to them in their place of work and they want to know how effective it can be.

Partnership has brought positive achievements in industrial relations: it has been very successful in such a short time, its strength lies in the fact that it embraces employers and employees, it has mutuality at its centre, It relies on trust and it is embraced by employers' organisations as well as the Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Wales Trades Union Congress, so it has the broad support of trade unions and industry.

The objective of partnership working is to improve industrial relations, and we would all welcome that, irrespective of where it happened. Partnership is about trying to develop a workplace culture; it is about learning and about facing issues jointly rather than trade unions and employers working against each other. I compliment the Department for Trade and Industry on its efforts to encourage employers and trade unions to work together on the many issues faced by British workers in the private and public sectors. People want to discuss the issues that affect them—the balance between work and life, flexible working, hours of work, pay, and everything else that would normally be on the agenda for discussion between trade unions and employers. They welcome the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry is prepared to fund employer and trade union efforts to confront such issues.

Partnership working is a step change from the industrial relationships of the 1980s and 1990s, and it has allowed us to move away from the struggle and mayhem that characterised industrial relations in the 1980s. I welcome that change.

My hon. Friend refers to the difficult industrial relations climate of the 1980s, and he may be aware of a throwback to that time in a case that came before the European Court or Human Rights—a number of trade unionists claimed that their employers discriminated against them. Does he welcome the court's ruling, which was made yesterday, that they were discriminated against for refusing to sign individual contracts or to give up collective bargaining? Does he share my view that the Government must urgently consider what action needs to be taken to prevent further discrimination against trade unionists?

I welcome that decision, and I welcome the fact that trade unions can challenge such infringements throughout the UK, and not only legally Yesterday, in a debate in this Chamber, we heard about workers being forced against their religious or individual beliefs to work on Sundays. It is important that we counter that in parallel, both in legal terms and in the workplace.

I am interested in partnership working because it moves on from the jargon of human resource management and the agenda of the 1980s and 1990s. It secures mutuality between trade unions and employers—each should recognise the other, which is the key to partnership working. The evidence so far confirms that major benefits will be available in the private and public sectors for those who use partnership working. It can be used in the private sector, and a range of public sector employers are involved, such as local government, the health service and even the voluntary sector. That is to be encouraged.

I would never come to such a debate claiming that partnership working faces no problems. The opposite is true. A new system of industrial relations will of course have problems, but it should not be rejected because or them. The problems should be examined and investigated to clarify how systems can be improved.

A survey on partnership working in the health service was conducted in the Greater Glasgow area at a hospital in a constituency neighbouring my own. A lot of my constituents work there and it is probably typical or large acute hospitals in major UK towns and cities. The survey found several positive features: it confirmed that staff enjoy working in the health service, that they like the work that they do and that they enjoy the atmosphere of the hospital. It also confirmed that they are happy, overall, with communication, which is the key to partnership working.

We must not fall into the trap of working from the top down and saying to people, "That's your instruction, now get on with it." Managers must listen to employees—there needs to be a reverse system through which information can flow from the bottom to the top, so that managers can be told where things go right and where they go wrong. It is good that that has been highlighted and that there is a focus on it.

Staff referred to partnership working, as they do not just want memos every other day about what the employer would like to happen. They want face to face meetings with managers so that there can be a two-way process and genuine dialogue between employees and employers and between trade unions and employers Through such dialogue, managers can listen to the views of those who are to some extent the experts—the people who deliver the service or the product. That must be taken on board.

The health service is in good fettle, because partnership working is increasing every day, every week and every month and there is a secure work force situation. However, the survey points not just to successes, but to difficulties. Staff are critical, saying that there is not enough training and development in most hospitals, and that training and development seem to revolve around people's expertise and knowledge of a particular job. The survey confirms that people want a much broader approach to education in the work force. They believe that lifelong learning should be not just jargon for managers, but realistic for everyone in the health service.

Partnership working is being employed across the UK in every part of the health service and of local government and in major parts of the private sector. People want greater awareness of it. There is no point establishing forums in either the public or the private sector and expecting people to sign up to them. People have an expectation, which they want confirmed by their employer, that partnership is essentially about listening and mutuality between employer and employee.

Under partnership working, nothing is imposed—there is discussion and agreement. People will feel much safer in that situation. The fact that the TUC, the STUC and the WTUC have signed up to partnership working is its greatest strength, and I shall continue to support it. The DTI should come to the House and brief Members about partnership working so that they can tell their constituents how important and valuable it is.

rose—

At the risk of displaying my anxiety, I remind the House that there are only 32 minutes left before I must move to the Front-Bench winding-up speeches. Hon. Members should bear that in mind in determining the length of their contributions and the number of interventions that they permit.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try to be brief. I begin by declaring an interest, as a former member of the National and Local Government Officers Association, the National Union of Public Employees and Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru—I must make that clear for Hansard. My family has a tradition of union membership. My grandfather was a shop steward at the quarry of Chwarel Carregy Llam, and, in the way that we do such things in Wales, he was known not by his proper name of John Williams, but as John yr Undeb—John the Union. I take particular pride in that.

During this and other debates, we shall hear hon. Members sitting to my right say that new Labour is in hock to the unions. May I leap to new Labour's defence and make it completely clear that new Labour is in no way the unions' special friend? That was confirmed by no lesser a personage than the Chancellor, when he spoke about vested interests on the Today programme on 26 June. He said that he would take on

"vested interests…whether it's the unions themselves or the other restrictive practices that exist in our economy".

I find it odd that the Chancellor groups unions with other restrictive practices, but I am sure that he can explain himself. I hope that those few points have put an end to the reprehensible accusation that new Labour is the friend of the unions, and I now turn to more serious matters.

To illustrate my argument, I shall refer briefly to new Labour's Employment Relations Act 1999 and its operation in respect of an industrial dispute at Friction Dynamex in my constituency. I understand that this is the first time that new and welcome provisions in the Act relating to the protection of employees in a legitimate dispute have been put to a practical test. I say "welcome", and that is entirely the case in general, but the particular issue here, which the sacked workers have had to face, is the rule in the 1999 Act that allows an employer to sack workers in dispute after eight weeks—the so-called eight-week rule.

I do not intend to go into detail about the case, especially as it is the subject of investigation by an industrial tribunal, but after lengthy, fruitless and, some would say, pointless negotiation with the employer, the workers went on a legal strike—one week out, one week in. The workers are not hot-headed extremists. I know many of them personally and they are responsible people, some of whom have been employed at the factory for as long as 35 years. The union was always ready to negotiate seriously, but when the workers returned to work—I accompanied them early that morning when they decided to go back—the employer came to the gate to lock them out personally. The strike continued and the union continued to press the case and tried to negotiate, but got no serious response, and the workers were all sacked after eight weeks. That is how the situation stands after 63 weeks on the picket line.

The workers are out. They have the overwhelming support of the community and of others from trade unions and political parties far and wide. They are waiting for their case to be heard by the tribunal, but that will not happen until October, so the practical effect of the eight-week rule, introduced by new Labour, is 63 weeks on the picket line and a wait until October.

The question for us to consider is how the eight-week rule came about. The aim of the Act, according to the Secretary of State in the White Paper, is to

"promote the best of modern employment relationships in all our companies, encouraging a culture of fairness and trust in the workplace."

Like previous speakers, I commend that aim. According to the Prime Minister, the Act was introduced to

"replace the notion of conflict between employers and employees with the promotion of partnership—"

Another laudable aim. At paragraph 4.22, the White Paper states:

"Government believes that in general employees dismissed for taking part in lawful organised official industrial action should have the right to complain of unfair dismissal to a tribunal."

However, it contains no mention of a timeframe for dismissal.

The Government called for views to be expressed. The opinion of the Confederation of British Industry is direct, as it specifically suggested that

"any legislation in this area must specify that the fairness of dismissal should be assessed solely against established criteria, and not in light of whether the industrial action itself was justified."

In other words, the particular circumstances of the case should not be taken into account. The CBI proposed that employers should be able to put their employees on notice of, say, 28 days, but that further participation in the strike would lead to dismissal. That proposal is the first mention of a time limit in relation to industrial action. The TUC, however, argued that dismissing a striking employee should be automatically unfair. Which side prevailed?

In a letter to the CBI and the TUC, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:

"We will also provide protection for those engaged in lawfully organised official industrial action. It will be automatically unfair to dismiss employees for the first eight weeks of the action."

The period was not 28 days, but it certainly was not unlimited. The Secretary of State continued:

"Thereafter dismissal will be fair provided that the employer has taken all reasonable procedural steps to resolve the dispute."

That is how the situation lies for the Friction Dynamex workers.

The Secretary of State's statement is the first available confirmation that we have found that the Government have adopted the eight-week timetable for unfair dismissal. Although he gave no reasons for their decision, and although there was little debate in the Chamber or in the other place in 1998, the timetable is one component of the White Paper on which the Government requested views. As I have outlined, we knew who was in favour of a time limit, and it was certainly not the unions.

I should make it clear, however, that there has been much criticism of the eight-week rule from some Labour Members, and I commend them for their consistency and their commitment to a just system.

I end my brief contribution with a quote from Bill Morris, general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union:

"It is regrettable that the employers' amendments, clearly designed to wreck the principles of fairness and social justice in the workplace, have been accommodated."

They were accommodated by a new Labour Government and by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is the architect of the new Labour project.

I, too, shall be brief. I may be one of the 16 Labour Members mentioned by the RMT, but I still have not been informed about that and, like most people, I have only read about recent events in the papers. The differences between various trade unions and the leadership of the Labour party and the Government will continue, because that is how things will be. The unions are there to a do a job and to protect the interests of the people they represent, and that is as it should be. Let us go back a bit, however, and think about the trade union movement.

I come from a mining background, and I spent 20 years in the coal industry. I came through a national dispute and was sacked for my troubles. It is laughable for Opposition Members to talk about trade unions being political, because the Conservatives took political decisions to take out trade unions. When the Conservatives were in opposition in 1979, the Ridley report said that they would have to take one or two trade unions out to defeat the trade union movement, and they knew that opposition in the House would not be enough. They had to take the trade union and labour movements out because they saw them as the real offenders.

The Ridley report made it clear that the dockers' union posed a problem because it could stifle the country, and the Conservatives realised that legislation would have to be changed so that it could not do so. The miners were identified as the vanguard of the movement, and unfortunately for me—or perhaps not, given that I am here in this place—I was one of the casualties.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I might come back to the hon. Gentleman later.

In fact, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), or perhaps it is Blabby—[HON. MEMBERS: "Blaby."] Perhaps it is Blether, but never mind. The hon. Gentleman said that trade unions should deal with the workplace and nothing else. Let us consider four issues—health and safety, wages, better hours and better pensions, and workers' rights. With the exception of wages, every one has been and must be debated in the House. Indeed, some hon. Members used yesterday's pensions debate to focus on workers' rights, workplace pensions, wages and conditions. The House will always be inextricably linked with the rights of ordinary working people.

On health and safety, hon. Members may recall the Samuel commission of 1926. The House had to legislate for miners to work shifts of seven and a quarter hours, because employers were making them work much longer. Even in the 1970s, however, miners were killed at Markham Main colliery. They were not even being paid a penny some of the time, because their terms and conditions made it clear that the walking time and winding time involved in going down the pit belonged to the employer, not the employee.

Health and safety legislation must be passed by the House, and it exists to protect workers who are not protected by trade union rights.

I entirely agree that trade unions should have a role in representing their members on matters such as health and safety, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to defend a position in which dockers could stifle the country and override a democratically elected Government. That is a strange position to take.

It is not a strange position, and the matter is clear. Employees are entitled to be represented, and the people they elect represent their interests. If the conditions that they work under are so bad that they feel it necessary to go into dispute, that is their right. The hon. Gentleman and some Governments would have that right withdrawn, but this Government would not. Like many Labour Members, I would fight tenaciously against the imposition of any such changes.

I have mentioned better hours, conditions and pensions, but workers' rights are instrumental in establishing how fast the movement can work. The Government still have a long way to go, although they are showing signs that they will consider other necessary changes. The relationship between trade unions and the Government will survive, even though trade union leaders and Ministers come and go, as will politicians, sometimes quicker than they think. The 6 million trade unionists in the movement are what matter. We should never forget that Labour Members at least are here to represent those people's interests outside the workplace, which are as important as their rights in it.

I advise hon. Members to disregard the times on the Annunciator, which I understand are normally controlled by radio signals from Rugby. For some reason, those Rugby signals must be offside, so we should go by the times on the other clock.

I always assumed that the times were controlled by radio signals from the Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on initiating this important debate. Many issues in our society come down to the basic rights of individuals to be members of trade unions, and to work collectively with their fellow workers.

Before I come to the meat and drink of my speech, I want to say to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that his constituency has a rather appropriate name, as it could be pronounced "Blabby". I do not think that it would be out of order for me to say that his speech was contemptible—but that will be a matter of opinion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) referred to yesterday's decision of the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that judgment in his winding-up speech. The court held that it was an erosion and a breach of the human rights of individual workers for employers to insist on negotiating individually and buying out the right to collective bargaining.

That judgment is important, as it establishes at the highest legal level the legitimacy of collective bargaining as a way to promote the rights of individuals. They are better served not by negotiating on an individual basis, but by operating collectively. I hope that the Minister will suggest what the Government intend to do about that, as legislation is needed if we are to bring our law into shape to match the judgment.

I want to pick up part of the good speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton). It is absolutely legitimate for trade unions and trade unionists to campaign politically. It would be an outrageous abuse of their rights in a free society if that position were eroded. It is right and proper that everything that the trade union movement does that reflects on the needs of its members is translated, where necessary, through collective action that brings matters to the House of Commons, and a legislative conclusion.

Health and safety is a fundamental example of why that has to happen. A Labour Government introduced the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which was a pioneering piece of legislation. It established a basis for partnership and the roles of the safety representative and the safety committee. Where it has been put into operation, it has been possible to measure the reduction in accidents and injuries in the workplace as a result of that partnership working. In a company that has both safety representatives and a safety committee, the accident rate is something like half of that in equivalent organisations without such a system.

Partnership works. When trade unions are trusted and are seen as part of the process, not only health and safety but many other areas become manageable. Work-related injury and illness cost the country some £19 billion. We have a huge motivation to make sure that the health and safety partnership works not just well—as it does in many cases—but better, so that we can reduce both the human tragedy and the economic cost.

Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall curtail my remarks. The Government have introduced a statutory role for union learning representatives. That sensible decision was resisted by the official Opposition, which saw it as a terrible thing. The brutal truth is that unless trade unions are part of the process of upskilling the country, we shall suffer from the malaise of a low-skilled work force. One in five of the British work force have serious problems in that they lack basic educational skills. Previous Conservative Governments deserve a lot of condemnation for the way in which they eroded standards in our schools, and more for the fact that they are not prepared to support the role of the union learning representative in upskilling and building the educational skills base of the work force.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the intervention is very brief.

To be fair, the hon. Gentleman should remind the Chamber that the position of the official Opposition is that we acknowledge the value of union learning representatives where they are appointed by consensus between the employer and the unions. What we doubt is the efficacy of imposing them by legislation.

Those are weasel words. Opposition Members pretend to use the language of co-operation, but will do everything they can do to prevent it from operating in practice.

The Government still have a lot to do if they are to provide a level playing field for employers and employees. The review of the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the implementation of the draft directive on information and consultation must be meaningful and give real rights to people at work. If they do not, the Government will be failing people who deserve better from us—those who have supported us for many years through the trade union movement. They need our help and it is legitimate for us to give it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on having secured this important debate. We have a track record of representing workers in the workplace, particularly in difficult times. Trade unions are like democratically elected Governments—they are the legitimate voice of workers in Britain. If we did not have trade unions, we should be looking for a way of inventing them. I am proud to say, as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union—

Will the hon. Gentleman remind us what percentage of workers in Britain are members of trade unions?

I do not have those figures. [Interruption.] There are about 6.6 million people. I shall cover that point later in my contribution.

I am proud to say, as a member of the TGWU, that no organisation other than the trade union movement would have survived the pernicious attacks on it by the Conservative Government, which are the reason why there are only 6.6 million union members in Britain.

I, too, come from a manufacturing background, and I am proud of it. I was fortunate to work for a company that recognised the benefits of working with a responsible trade union. That company came through difficult times and worked along with the trade union to ensure its long-term security, and I am proud to say that it still exists and is growing.

The benefits of trade unions are collectiveness and, most importantly, unity in strength and numbers. After the pernicious attacks by Conservative Governments, even today there is anecdotal evidence of companies continuing to discourage people from joining a legitimate trade union. Current employment legislation is welcome, but it should be enhanced.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned the case of Friction Dynamex. That is a disgraceful dispute; what those workers have been put through should be highlighted at every opportunity, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that on board.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the situation on many merchant ships that are coming under the red ensign as a result of the tax benefits that the Government have introduced? Workers on merchant ships and ferries work under contracts that exclude the right to join a union. Does he not think it ironic that a Labour Government should give tax breaks to bring in shipping, but not protect workers' rights?

To be honest, I am not aware of that situation, but I am sure that the Minister will consider the question.

I return to the point about employers discouraging employees from joining trade unions. There is anecdotal evidence in my constituency of trade unionists handing out leaflets outside the factory gates, only for the director or supervisor to tell employees, when they go inside the factory gates, that if they want to join a particular union the management will help them fill in the forms—and then give them their jackets on their way out. That is why only 6.6 million people have joined trade unions in Great Britain—they are actively discouraged from joining a trade union because of the fear of being sacked.

The Government have created an environment in which people are happy to join a trade union provided that they do not get the sack for doing so, but it is still important that the Government give some thought to what the trade unions are saying. Trade unions should influence the Government by argument, not through how much money they give the Government, the party or individual Members of Parliament.

Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was beginning to think that I was going to miss the opportunity to say what a pleasure it was to participate in the debate. Now that I have that opportunity, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on securing this important debate, The Official Report record of the debate should be essential reading for every trade unionist in the country, because it puts into context the difference in viewpoint between the Opposition parties and the Labour party.

There is a need for partnership between the trade unions and the Government. I make no apologies for having been a member of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, as it then was—it is now Amicus—since 1964. During that time I have been a shop steward, a convenor of a large factory and a full-time union official. I know better than most the need for trade unionism for the people of this country. I was a full-time union official during the dark years of Thatcherism, and I welcome the fact that the Labour Government treat workers with fairness, after the vindictiveness with which Tory Governments treated them. Conservative Members may smirk, but I can give them an example.

I remember a small factory called Craven Tasker Trailers in Cumbernauld, in which the union had many members—I sympathise with the constituents of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) in this regard. Most employees in the plant had worked there for 30 to 35 years. They were affected by the legislation passed by the Tory Government. I do not blame Thatcher, I blame the Tory Government for the legislation, because it was very vindictive towards ordinary people—not the union leaders, as was alleged. It affected the conditions in which ordinary people worked. They often found themselves under pressure to accept a standstill in wages or a deterioration in conditions. They also had to accept, if they were trade union representatives, that they could be targeted by the Government or their employer. That was the tragedy and unfairness of that time.

The employees of that small company decided to go for a wage increase, and were put in a position where they had no alternative but to take strike action. We went through the tortuous process of giving the name of every individual employee, letting the company examine that list and then seeking agreement from the trade union executive for the strike to take place. That is what had to happen. The employees then decided to take strike action. Within two days, every one of them was dismissed—35 years of service down the tube. I was so upset as a union official that I asked to meet the managing director. I met him and his answer was, "They betrayed the company."

The employees were on strike for 12 months. I went to the picket line every day and I remember the despair in their faces. We should think about that when we consider the fairness of the relationship between work forces and the Government. I am delighted with what has been done, and with the progress that this Government have delivered; I have a list of 19 points, but I do not have time to go through them all. However, it is important to recognise what has been done. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian said that there was more to be done to ensure that the people of this country and their conditions of work are protected, and I think that we can do that.

However, I do not believe that any trade union has the right to dictate to Members of Parliament what they should support. Unions should have the right to campaign on their issues, on wages and conditions—but to tell an MP that he or she must support a particular line is the wrong way for a trade union to act, and I deplore it.

There is a need for partnership between the Government and trade unions, and in the workplace. That happens in many workplaces, but there are still bad employers who abuse their work forces. Those work forces need our support and our help. It is essential that we recognise that fact, and that trade unions are given an opportunity to defend their members and the weapons to do so, because they need weapons on occasion.

It is essential for those on the Front Bench to make it clear exactly where the Labour party stands on this issue. We need to go further with trade union legislation, but that should be done on a fair basis, recognising people's need for membership of trade unions and the potential for partnership.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), not merely on introducing an important subject but on the way in which she did so. I have sat through many debates in this Chamber in which the opening speaker has gone on for 35 or 40 minutes. She said what she had to say in six minutes, which is an example to us all.

There are two debates going on here. One is a practical debate about modern trade unionism and employment rights, which is where we should be concentrating our energy. The other is a separate, parallel debate about the politics of the matter, and what I think is still called the Labour movement. The British structure has been in place for a century, since the break up of the Liberal party in the first part of the 20th century. The unique link between the trade union movement and one political party is very odd. That is not how unions operate in the rest of Europe, where there is a multiplicity of political associations and links with the Church, or no links with any parties at all. It is an odd relationship, which, frankly, is becoming embarrassing and out of date on both sides. I shall leave that to Labour Members to resolve because I want to return to the essentially practical issues relating to modern trade unionism.

The trade union movement has changed out of all recognition during the past 20 years, for two basic reasons: first, as a result of a process of legislative reform, which started under the late Barbara Castle and was carried through by Conservative Governments. As in many other areas, the Conservatives went to excess, but many of the reforms had to happen—as most trade unionists privately acknowledge. Secondly, and probably more important than legislative reform, is the change in the economy. Less than 20 per cent of the labour force is now employed in manufacturing industry and mining, and most people now work in the service sector. There is hardly any manufacturing in my constituency. Everyone works in services, especially information-based services, so trade unions have had to come to terms with a very different environment and make themselves relevant in that environment. The more forward-looking trade unions and the TUC are doing that.

Trade unions now perform three key roles. The first, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), is the development of the concept of partnership working, initiated in the 1980s by the engineering unions, when they were trying to make sense of conflicts in the car industry and other engineering industries by trying to adopt a more positive approach to productivity improvements. That helped to turn round the car industry. It is the new philosophy on the manufacturing side of the trade union movement, and it is very welcome.

Trade unions are also beginning to realise that their real role is defending individuals in the workplace, because in most companies, even fairly well-managed companies, there will be unfair dismissal, abuse and discrimination. At my surgery last Friday I heard about a typical case, in which the employer at an American-owned factory in the nearby constituency of Brentford and Isleworth disowned its final salary pension scheme. It closed the scheme to existing members and then, when they retired, their entitlements were halved. That basically amounts to stealing, and it is an appalling situation, but the employees were not unionised. They were relying on their trustees, who were ineffective. That is precisely the sort of situation in which a trade union, with proper professional back-up, can help workers.

The third positive advance, which has been led by the TUC, is understanding—this was not understood 20 years ago—that economic stability and a low inflation environment are in the interests of trade unions. We now have lower unemployment than we have had for a generation, partly because we have low and predictable inflation. The trade unions have supported the policies that produced that situation. They have also supported the principle of Britain being part of an open economy within Europe and the rest of the world. That is very different from the attitude of many French or American trade unions, which have led the protest against international trade. In all those respects, the British trade union movement has played a constructive role, although often in very quiet ways.

In certain areas, trade unions have achieved significant advances in the past few years. The most important of those is the introduction of the minimum wage. I admit that I was critical of that concept, having seen how it operates in other countries, such as France, where a high minimum wage is applied rigidly, undoubtedly causing relatively high rates of unemployment, especially among younger workers. Many of us feared that if that system were transplanted to Britain, it would cause considerable damage, but the minimum wage has been introduced in a consensual way, taking into account the economic consequences, and has been positive. We want the minimum wage to be extended to younger workers, but the way in which it has been introduced is a credit to all the three partners involved.

There has also been a welcome advance in relation to parental leave and recognition of the need for flexibility for families. I welcome that change. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) emphasised, the trade unions have been increasingly involved in learning and skills activities, which is also welcome. Evidence shows that trade union officials are now much more actively involved in supporting individuals with grievance procedures. They now have that right, which is an important advance.

In several respects, the Liberal Democrats would like employment rights to be enhanced. The first, which the hon. Gentleman also touched on, is consultation. Many of us were shocked last year by how the Vauxhall redundancies were announced. There was no warning or consultation, and people heard about losing their jobs over the radio. That was unacceptable. Clearly, we have to fashion a British solution, not merely some Europe-imposed general practice. An entitlement to consultation seems an essential employment right, and we strongly support that principle.

Similarly, more can be done to enhance labour rights in connection with work flexibility. That may come through in statutory instruments following the Enterprise Bill, but the principle of workers being entitled to flexibility and being able to pursue through an arbitration procedure cases in which an employer is unreasonable seems a necessary extension of workers' rights.

The old unionism is still around, and it is a problem in two regards. We experienced the first last year—it has now died down—through the action taken in public services, especially on the railways. I do not apportion blame to Stagecoach or the RMT—they were probably both responsible—but the action almost brought the rail system to a halt. The fact that a relatively small group of people can bring the infrastructure of the country to a halt is wrong. I support the principle of legislation to deal with public sector strikes through compulsory arbitration. That would not lean to one side or the other, but would prevent such disruption on a large scale. On that issue, we disagree with some of the more militant trade unions.

My final point relates to the politics of the subject, and to what I said earlier about the trade union movement. A situation in which one political party relies on heavy funding from one interest group is becoming increasingly obsolete, just as it is wrong for a party to rely on big business donations. One of the reasons why the Government pursued business donations was that they did not want to become overdependent on the trade unions—and they had got themselves into bed with some questionable business people.

That is not in the interests of the Government or the public. We want comprehensive reform of the system of political donations, so that parties are state funded, topped up by small private donations without any vested interests involved. If that system was cleaned up, there would be an end to the acrimonious and unhelpful debate about political influence, and the trade unions could get on better with the job of defending their members, which they are increasingly showing that they can do in a modern economy.

I too congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on securing the debate—but I am not entirely sure that her success will have been greeted with such glee in the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and No. 10.

Some of the debate has struck me as taking place in a time warp. The hon. Lady spoke of the Government having the trade union movement at their very core, and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) regaled us with stories of picket lines. However, it has been an interesting debate. At first glance, there is a temptation for the Opposition to treat the debate as a bit of private grief between the Labour party and the trade unions—a lovers' tiff, as the Labour party tries to face both ways at once, with the Liberal Democrats snapping at its heels, hoping perhaps to pick up some titbits.

The Government have performed a rather cynical balancing act as they have attempted to extract money from both sides, but that has inevitably started to alienate both sides. The trade unions, unsurprisingly, feel that they have substantially funded the Labour party's remarkable electoral success, and they expect a commensurate influence on policy. Business people believe that they have bent over backwards to nurture a relationship with the Government over the past five years, but they have finally realised that there is nothing in it for them. That was illustrated by the Chancellor's lack of consultation with business before the Budget blow on national insurance contributions was announced.

We could treat this matter as a private grief, and I could recite the litany of embarrassments that the Government have suffered recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has already referred to the Deputy Prime Minister's problems, and to the RMT's blatant attempts to control the behaviour of Members whose constituency parties are receiving financial support. A few days ago, even the secretary general of the TUC described the Prime Minister as "bloody stupid"—a view that Conservative Members share. Something is afoot when even a moderate TUC secretary general makes such a comment about a Labour Prime Minister.

People who take £9 million of funding from an organisation to fight an election, and win it, should, if they are sensible, expect the organisation to come knocking at their door—and also expect that, whatever they do, it will be hard to satisfy entirely.

The relationship between the trade union movement and the Labour party has always been crystal clear, because it has always been published. The unions take part in Labour's conference and any money given is recorded. In the context of his example, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the Conservative Government gave to the foreign shipowners, or to others whose records have never been published, who contributed to the Tory party when it was in government? Does he agree that we should publish those records to answer that question?

I do not think that the fact that the situation is transparent and open makes it right—[Interruption.]. I shall deal with the issue of business contributions in a moment.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) is incorrect: agreements between constituency parties and trade unions do not have to be declared. That is how the Deputy Prime Minister managed not to declare his links with RMT even while he was Transport Secretary.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.

My point is that a party that takes £9 million from an organisation to win an election, which it then wins, should expect the organisation to have demands and to want to influence policy. One can also expect that one demand will lead to another. The Communication Workers Union forced the Government to back down on the threshold value for liberalisation of postal services after a confrontation at the 1999 Labour party conference. Earlier this year, a disenchanted CWU worker wrote to the The Guardian:

"I object to the claim that Tony Blair has done favours for anyone who makes a large donation…Our union, the CWU, has donated more than £1m in the last year and he has done sod all for us."

The Labour party has sought and procured donations from business, but they have come from individuals in business, not organisations; the party has not secured donations from representative business organisations. In scandal after scandal in recent years, we have seen how the Labour Government repay their debts to individual business donors—through specific favours to individual companies or entrepreneurs, such as through exemptions from legislation, clearance of takeovers, public sector contracts, peerages and jobs in public and quasi-public bodies.

Unfortunately, we cannot treat the matter simply as private grief because when the Labour party decides, for whatever reason, to bend to the demands of its trade union paymasters, British business and British working people will pay Labour's election debts. As the support for the Labour party from business and the middle England floating voter erodes, Labour will clearly be driven back into the arms of its traditional supporters in the trade unions.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address the problem that workers are concerned about in Britain. In the unlikely event of a Tory Government being re-elected, what changes would he make to current employment legislation? Would he change it or would he keep it?

That is an interesting point. If the hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Committee considering the Employment Bill and had listened to what employer and business organisations are saying, he would have a sense that the measures that have been introduced are just about tolerable for business to carry on functioning effectively and competitively with our European neighbours. We have reached the point at which the imposition of further inflexibilities in the labour market will take us down a route that leads to a substantial loss of competitiveness, which will ultimately lead to job losses. That would not do anybody in this country any good.

I want to step back and talk about the two distinct groups that I perceive in the trade union movement. We often talk about the unions, but it seems to me that there are two distinct groups. I am happy to agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who said that private sector unions have, for the most part, changed the way in which they operate. They engage constructively with employers in most cases, and play a constructive and important role in the workplace on issues such as education and health and safely. That part of the equation is generally working well. Nowadays, private sector unions seek to create, through pressure in Brussels and Westminster, a legislative and regulatory environment that moves the framework within which they negotiate at workplace level with employers further and further in their favour. That is a legitimate political objective for organised labour and that is the way in which they go about it. The problem, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, is that that movement is associated with a single political party in this country.

The Employment Relations Act 1999 has barely bedded in. The Employment Bill, which gives further concessions to the trade union agenda, has not even finished its passage through the House, yet the Government are trumpeting their review of workers' rights. We need to know whether that is simply a sham to silence dissent from the Government's trade union supporters, whether the Government are simply stalling for time, or whether their serious intention is to impose further burdens on business that will have long-term damaging effects on the UK economy. Given the Government's position, I was not surprised to hear John Monks saying that the unions were back in business.

I would never suggest that unions do not have a legitimate role to play, and I have had that debate with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, who is an expert on those matters, during the progress of the Employment Bill. I should also like to state, for the record, that abuse does go on in the workplace I have said to the hon. Gentleman before that where abuse is taking place we will support measures to deal with it. We are not in the business of defending abuse, but we are in the business of defending British business—and, ultimately, British workers' jobs—against the imposition of further inflexibility that will reduce competitiveness and our opportunity to compete in world markets.

It will be said, and has been said, that many of the measures that have been introduced are simply "catching us up" with the situation in our European competitor countries. Labour practices are quite different in many European countries, and Germany has 4 million people unemployed. The hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) spoke about miners and dockers, but where are those jobs now? They have gone, because they were priced out of the market by uncompetitive practices and labour inflexibility.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No I will not, because I only have one minute left and I want to give the Minister plenty of time.

By contrast, the public sector unions have a different agenda, of attempting direct control of Government policy. Having got the Government elected in 2001, while keeping very quiet during the election campaign, they immediately popped up demanding what was, effectively, a veto over Government policy. I do not know which is more serious, the threat to British business and jobs from the relentless pressure to pursue the unions' costly agenda of employment protection legislation, or the threat to British democracy posed by their demands to have a veto over the policy of an elected democratic Government. What is certainly true beyond doubt is that as the Government's honeymoon with the middle England floating voter and with the business community comes to an end, they will be driven increasingly back into the arms of their traditional paymasters in the trades unions.

I shall finish with a short quotation that I heard on Radio 4 last week. Mr. Crow of the RMT said of the Labour party:

"We set it up; we paid for it."

the trade union movement continues to pay for the Labour party. It paid for the election victory in 2001, and now British business, consumers, public service users—and, ultimately, workers—will pay Labour's election debts.

Does that speech not make you feel nostalgic, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) and pay tribute to her work in the public sector, which underpins so much of the quality of life that we enjoy in this country. She set a high standard with her contribution, which my hon. Friends followed. They spoke with deep knowledge, experience and conviction on this important issue. I am a lifelong trade unionist and a member of the T and G and of Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I welcome the many constructive comments made by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members.

The job of Government is to govern in the interests of the whole country, and to build a strong, stable economy and inclusive society that spreads prosperity and provides opportunities for all. Partnerships are vital to such work, in helping to make policy, deliver change and understand needs. By working together, we have proved that we can achieve more than we ever could have achieved by operating in isolation. By sharing work, ideas, responsibility, burdens and benefits, we can resolve difficulties and disagreements and strengthen and broaden relationships.

The Government need good, effective and mature partnerships. We must work effectively with all our stakeholders if we are to work effectively for them. The fruits of co-operation are the 1.5 million jobs that have been created since 1997. The casualties of conflict were the 3 million-plus people unemployed in the 1980s. As my hon. Friend pointed out in her opening remarks, partnerships are emphatically not about favours to friends or to any of the stakeholders, but about fairness; otherwise, partnerships will not work.

Our vision at the Department of Trade and Industry is prosperity for all through successful business, world-class science and innovation and labour markets that promote fairness and flexibility. Every month, I visit world-class UK firms. Last week I was at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers awards presentation. I gave a keynote speech and met the winners of the manufacturing excellence awards for 2002. We work in partnership with business, employees and consumers to make the UK the most prosperous place in the world.

We already have the fastest growing economy of the G8 countries. To achieve our economic prosperity, we must drive up UK productivity and competitiveness and close the gap with our international competitors. Only in that way can we create more of the high-wage, high-skill, value-added jobs that we want. We know that that is a big task, because we know that our competitors are not standing still.

There are ever more challenges in the world in which we work. It is changing faster and more, with new technologies, ways of working, competitors and ideas. I saw new exciting ideas at Elvingston science centre in East Lothian, which I visited with my hon. Friend a short time ago. It is a showcase science park for micro businesses.

If we are to succeed in our aim of improving prosperity for all, we must face the challenge in partnership with business, workers, trade unions, investors, educators and many others. In that way, the partnerships can benefit all of us. They all have a crucial role in raising productivity and competitiveness individually and collectively. As a Department, we must focus on areas where we can make the greatest difference.

My hon. Friend spoke of her concern about a two-tier work force, and I am informed that if staff must transfer, the national health service private finance initiative schemes will not be approved unless the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 are fully applied and staff are offered broadly comparable pension terms, which must be approved and certified by the Government Actuary's Department. The Department of Health is involved in discussions about the possible wider effects of contracting out, and a work programme to take that forward has been agreed by the Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and other colleagues referred to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The initial reading of the judgment suggests that it does little direct damage to the law on union recognition, but it strongly suggests that the law providing protection against detriment on grounds of trade union membership needs to be tightened. The Secretary of State will shortly launch a review of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which will allow us to consult on the appropriate response to that judgment.

We the DTI realise that we must ensure that there is fairness in the workplace. Trade unions, business and other stakeholders realise that we must raise our game. We must work harder at the key relationships, including those with trade unions, to deliver the increased productivity and competitiveness to which I referred earlier. That does not mean handing the DTI over to business interests. It means ensuring that everyone who can make a positive contribution is given the chance to do so.

Improvements in productivity and competitiveness are not an arid, mechanical exercise to raise industrial efficiency. We know that people's lives are improved by providing social and economic opportunities. For the Labour Government, the labour market is the point where our two overriding ambitions meet most starkly: our ambition for a dynamic, successful economy and our quest—indeed, our passion—for social justice.

The Government are often accused of being obsessed with the work ethic. As a Scot, I make no apology for that. The Labour party was created, with no small help from the trade union movement, to lift people out of poverty through the provision of work. I have seen at first hand in my constituency, as have other hon. Members, how unemployment destroys people's health, undermines their families and destroys community cohesion. I have no doubt that jobs are vital to social inclusion and social justice.

When we came into government, we were clear about our policy towards the unions. It was not to turn the clock back to the 1970s. We knew, and I believe that most unions knew, that some of the reforms of the 1980s were necessary. The unions had to modernise and reform to meet the challenges of a changing economic environment, just as individuals in business had to change. Some of the key reforms—for example, pre-strike ballots and the outlawing of secondary action—were supported in the trade union movement, and some unions had the option of a pre-strike ballot written into their rule books before legislation was introduced. However, we all know about aspects of the Conservatives' reforms that were vindictive and counter-productive. Some of my hon. Friends have spoken with deep and personal knowledge about them.

The Conservatives sought to marginalise the unions and to deny legitimate workplace representation. This Government recognise that unions have a valuable role to play in the economy and in society. That is why this Government have done more in five years to protect workers' rights through legislation than any other Government. We restored the right to join a trade union at GCHQ within 13 days of coming to office. We introduced statutory procedures enabling unions to obtain recognition in organisations with more than 20 employees. With measures such as our landmark minimum wage, which has helped 1.5 million people and is now supported by all parties, the automatic entitlement to four weeks' paid leave, and help for the 400,000 part-time workers who now directly benefit, we have shown that our commitment is to working people—

Order. We must now move to the next debate.

As a former Chairman of the Select Committee on Health—I chaired it for five years, during which time we undertook an inquiry into breast cancer services—and as a current chairman of the all-party group on breast cancer, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about the important subject of cancer prevention. It is an issue that is often neglected, and remains in the shadow of treatment and care for cancer patients. Unfortunately even the medical profession does not always give it much thought, yet it is probably the factor that could have the largest impact on the lives of the British public if more people knew how to reduce their risk of developing cancer.

People are increasingly concerned about cancer, taking a fatalistic "que sera sera" attitude. Recent press discussion about genetic links' making cancer more likely in some families than in others has added to the fear surrounding the disease. In fact, only about 2 per cent. of cancers have any genetic link. It is more likely that common lifestyles and diets in families lead to higher incidences in some families than in others.

Although it is true that cancer is the biggest cause of death in the world, with more than 10 million new cases and 6 million deaths every year, it is not as out of control as we think. According to the World Cancer Research Fund, up to 40 per cent. of cancers are preventable through diet and lifestyle alone, and the figure rises to 70 per cent. if giving up smoking is included. In global terms, that means that appropriate diets could prevent more than 4 million cases of cancer each year. Keeping alcoholic intake within the recommended limits would prevent up to 20 per cent. of cases of cancer of the aerodigestive tract, colon, rectum and breast. So this is by no means a disease to which we must resign ourselves, although currently many people do not have an opportunity to reduce their risk because they have no access to the relevant information.

An expert report called "Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a global perspective" reviewed more than 4,500 leading research studies from around the world in the field of diet, nutrition and cancer. It was commissioned by the World Cancer Research Fund to provide up-to-date, reliable advice for individuals on how to make the changes that can protect them from cancer. The report is currently being updated, and is an ideal source of information for policy makers and opinion formers. Unfortunately there is a surplus of inaccurate information all around us, from a variety of ill-informed sources, about healthy eating and eating for health. The public feel inundated with information but are unaware of the health benefits of eating a diet rich in vegetables and fruits and low in fat and salt.

Here is an example of good promotional practice. Cancer Research UK has teamed up with Tesco, the supermarket chain, whose headquarters are in my constituency, to promote the "five a day" campaign to the chain's 16 million customers. By actively promoting the "five a day" message, we can encourage people to improve their diet and protect the long-term health of their families. The Government and other organisations are also involved in major "five a day" initiatives. However, how often do we see people who have given up smoking because they are afraid that they may develop cancer, but who still pile salt on their food and eat a diet high in red meat and fat or low in fresh vegetables and fruit?

Prevention is the only sensible approach to cancer. It benefits not only individuals but families, communities and national economies. The nation's health needs to improve and we can improve only if everyone, including the Government, co-operates to broadcast information such as that in the expert report to as wide an audience as possible.

As a result of the report's conclusions, the World Cancer Research Fund drew up a set of recommendations for cancer prevention that are straightforward to understand and are used by people who are concerned to reduce their risk of cancer. Many health professionals also find the recommendations an invaluable guide for advising patients on cancer prevention.

Nurses' close relationship with communities and patients means that they are ideally placed to promote healthy living. Their work ranges from that of the school nurse who gives advice on healthy eating to that of the public health nurse who explains to men in pubs about testicular cancer. Nurses work with minority groups to raise awareness of specific cancers and practice nurses play an essential role in early detection by screening and monitoring.

The trouble is that although the World Cancer Research Fund runs an extensive education and communications programme, it cannot possibly provide information to the whole population. It needs Government support in the cancer prevention arena to make progress. Its recommendations are:

"Choose predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, pulses and minimally processed, starchy staple foods.

Avoid being underweight or overweight and limit weight gain during adulthood to less than 5 kg (11 pounds).

If occupational activity is low or moderate, take an hour's brisk walk or similar exercise daily, and also exercise vigorously for a total of at least one hour in a week.

Eat 400–800 grams (15–30 ounces) or five or more portions a day of a variety of vegetables and fruits, all year round.

Eat 600–800 grams (20–30 ounces) or seven or more portions a day of a variety of cereals, pulses, roots, tubers and plantains. Choose minimally processed foods and limit the amount of refined sugar you eat or drink.

Alcohol consumption is not recommended. If consumed at all, limit alcoholic drinks to less than two drinks a day for men and one for women.

If eaten at all, limit intake of red meat to less than 80 grams (3 ounces) daily. It is preferable to choose fish, poultry or meat from non-domesticated animals in place of red meat.

Limit consumption of fatty foods, particularly those of animal origin. Choose modest amounts of appropriate vegetable oils.

Limit consumption of salted foods and use of cooking and table salt. Use herbs and spices to season foods.

Do not eat food which, as a result of prolonged storage at ambient temperatures, is liable to contamination with mycotoxins.

Use refrigeration and other appropriate methods to preserve perishable food.

When levels of additives, contaminants and other residues are properly regulated, their presence in food and drink is not known to be harmful. However, unregulated or improper use can be a health hazard, and this applies particularly in economically developing countries.

Do not eat charred food. For meat and fish eaters, avoid burning of meat juices. Consume the following only occasionally: meat and fish grilled in direct flame, cured and smoked meats."

For those who follow the recommendations, dietary supplements are probably unnecessary and possibly unhelpful for reducing cancer risk. The recommendations are consistent with guidelines for preventing other major diseases such as heart disease and strokes, and if followed will provide a healthy diet and lifestyle that will not just prevent cancer, but make people feel much better.

There is a consistent pattern showing that diets high in fruit and vegetables decrease the risk of many cancers. There is also conclusive evidence showing a link between being being overweight and higher cancer risk. In particular kidney, endometrium, colon, prostate, gall bladder, and postmenopausal breast cancers are all linked to being overweight. More than 90 per cent. of cancers have a hormonal link, and levels of hormones are all affected by overeating and being overweight. Changes in diet could prevent up to half of all cases of breast cancer and three out of four cases of stomach cancer.

The European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition is the largest study of diet and health ever undertaken and is aimed at providing reliable information on dietary factors and cancer risk. Researchers in 10 European countries have together recruited a total of half a million men and women to the study. Cancer Research UK is providing core support for the UK arm of EPIC, which is being co-ordinated by two centres, located in Oxford and Cambridge.

In conclusion, my questions to the Minister are simple and straightforward. What are the Government's intentions with regard to cancer prevention education? Do the Government agree that cancer prevention is an important area to promote, and how do they plan to do that? How do the Government plan to make prevention of cancer a more integrated part of health service policy? I look forward to the Minister's reply.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for raising the extremely important issue of cancer prevention, and for focusing on the links between a healthy, nutritious diet and the cancers that she mentioned.

The area is very important and does not always receive the attention that it should, but I have a sense that it is becoming increasingly important and increasingly well known amongst the general public. We have an opportunity today to put some of those issues on the record and raise them even higher in the general consciousness.

As the hon. Lady said, cancer is clearly a major cause of mortality and morbidity in England. Every year, 200,000 people are diagnosed with cancer and 130,000 of those people lose their life to the disease. It is a major issue for us in this country, as it is internationally and globally. More than half of the deaths occur to people under the age of 75, so we are not just talking about elderly people approaching the end of their life. This is clearly an issue for many in the prime of life.

There are also very wide inequalities in who gets cancer. People from deprived and less affluent backgrounds are more likely to get some types of cancer, and are more likely to die from them once they have been diagnosed. It is a very important issue for all of us. Since 1997, the Government have pledged to cut the death rate from cancer in people under 75 by at least a fifth by 2010. That is a very challenging target for us to meet. For all the families concerned, it is an incredibly important priority. In particular, we are aiming to improve the health of the worst-off, because they are more likely to suffer.

In the NHS cancer plan, we set out a comprehensive strategy to bring together prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment, so that the whole service would be outlined within the plan. We shall try to set standards for each of those elements, because all parts of the process are equally important. It is pointless to have the most wonderful treatment in the world if we do not also focus on prevention and on getting to the causes of cancer, as the hon. Lady so ably outlined.

Preventing cancer is a key component of our approach to meeting the target for reductions. We recognise that unless we get prevention right we shall not reach the targets that we have set. Engaging the public and the professionals is absolutely key. I strongly feel that, in addition to getting the message across and dealing with health promotion, we must engage people in wanting to change their eating habits, in stopping smoking and in changing their whole lifestyle. Evidence has shown that it is not enough for Ministers to issue edicts and good advice. We need to engage people in realising why they need to change, and what they can achieve for themselves, so that they have a sense of being in control and taking responsibility for their health.

The hon. Lady rightly raised the role of smoking in causing cancer. That is pretty widely understood now. Smoking causes about a third of cancer deaths, and half of all lifelong smokers will die from their habit. Those are astounding figures. We have set tough targets on tackling smoking, and we have put a particular emphasis on trying to reduce smoking among the less affluent groups, and particularly among manual workers. Smoking has, in recent years, been more prevalent among such people than among professional groups, who have reduced smoking to a greater extent.

We have backed up the targets with pretty impressive investment. It is acknowledged in this country that we are world leaders in helping people to give up smoking. We do so through clinics, helplines, and one-to-one counselling sessions, which are incredibly popular across the country. Research shows that some 80 per cent. of smokers want to give up; only a small proportion of people want to continue. We therefore have a real responsibility to help people to give up.

We have put £46 million into public education about smoking to try to keep the message in the public consciousness. We also introduced a Bill to ban tobacco advertising, which is making its way through the House and the other place. The Bill will make good our manifesto commitment to ban tobacco advertising. Our action on tobacco is bringing about results. Between April and December last year, smoker services helped nearly 80,000 people give up smoking. That is a pretty impressive figure. Those people were followed up four weeks after they quit, and they were still not smoking then. Sometimes people relapse, and it is important that we give them a second, third and fourth chance to give up smoking, as that seems to be working.

The hon. Lady focused on the less-known relationship between cancer and diet. The link between cancer and smoking is now pretty well established in the public consciousness; another task is to get the link between cancer and diet equally well known in the wider community. There is good evidence to show that dietary factors account for about a quarter of all deaths from cancer. Dietary changes could prevent up to a third of cancers from occurring. Increasing consumption of fruit and vegetables is the most effective prevention strategy for cancer after reducing smoking. People who do not regularly eat fruit and vegetables are at greater risk of several common cancers, including colorectal and stomach cancers, as the hon. Lady said.

Eating at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day could lead to reductions of up to 20 per cent. in deaths from chronic diseases, including heart disease and strokes as well as cancer. That is good news all the way. If we can get people to have a much better diet, not only will we strike at cancer, but we will make big inroads into heart disease and strokes. There are also less tangible benefits, including the fact that people will feel better in themselves. We need to get that message across.

Consumption of fruit and vegetables in the United Kingdom is pretty low. It is among the lowest in Europe. Although we recommend that people eat five portions of fresh fruit and vegetables a day, average consumption is just three portions a day for adults and two for children. We therefore have a long way to go. One in five children—20 per cent.—eat no fruit at all in an average week. That is a pretty damning statistic, but we are doing something about it, and I am optimistic for the future.

As in the case of smoking, there are wide class differences in people's access to fresh fruit and vegetables. Better-off professional groups eat about 50 per cent. more fresh fruit and vegetables than those in unskilled social groups. A big inequality issue is involved in this case, too, but we are making progress.

We have set up the "five a day" programme to improve access to and consumption of fruit and vegetables. The programme has several different strands. Like the hon. Lady, I was recently in a supermarket and was pleased to see that supermarkets are beginning to market their goods in relation to "five a day", trying to connect fresh fruit with processed foods and trying to give the idea that people can make a healthier meal than they have in the past. Encouraging manufacturers to be imaginative in making the programme attractive to people is important. Simply giving worthy advice will not be effective, but it is possible to affect people's shopping habits.

The new opportunities fund has made available £10 million to build on the success of the pilots that we launched in disadvantaged communities. Primary care trusts have introduced 66 new programmes in local neighbourhoods to try to make it easier for people who live in poorer areas to access fresh fruit and vegetables. At one pilot site, in Sandwell, it was revealed that few shops in the area sold fruit and vegetables. A home delivery service was therefore set up. It attracted 200 regular customers and within about seven months average monthly household spending on fruit and vegetables more than doubled, to more than £10 a month. There was an increase in average daily consumption for everyone, from one and a half portions to three portions. That delivery service worked. People wanted to eat fresh fruit and veg, but had no shops in their local neighbourhood, and if they did not have a car, found it difficult to travel. We shall build on such pilots as we roll out the new opportunities fund resources.

We are also trying to introduce a good communications programme to spread the message and promote health. We have a "five a day" logo, which people can easily recognise when out shopping and making choices.

The big push is the free fruit in schools scheme. As I said, one in five children eat no fruit in a week, which is why we decided to concentrate on that. We started with pilots and are achieving incredibly good results. Teachers have said that the children talk about the fruit and look forward to it. There was some scepticism at first about whether children would want to eat fruit, but more than 80 per cent. are taking it up and enjoying it.

The scheme has challenged misconceptions about the way in which children view fruit. Given the opportunity, in an attractive setting, with good quality fruit, they want to take part. In virtually all the schools, teachers have welcomed the scheme as supporting their teaching and learning materials. Concerns were expressed about whether it would be an extra administrative burden on teachers, but teachers have welcomed it and incorporated it into much of their health education for children.

The national school fruit scheme is being expanded on a region-by-region basis. It has £42 million from the new opportunities fund. In the current school term, the entire west midlands region is coming on line, which will mean that about 250,000 children in almost 2,000 schools will have free fruit. From the autumn, the next regional push will be in London.

In a new innovation, we are testing the inclusion of vegetables in the scheme. From this week, 7,000 children in Sheffield and Merseyside will eat carrots or tomatoes—little cherry tomatoes, I believe, which are quite attractive—one day a week. If that goes down well, we shall consider whether vegetables can be introduced more widely. There is a widespread conception that children do not like vegetables, but if they are well presented and easy to eat, we have a real chance to change attitudes in the longer term.

The direct support of providing fruit is backed up with curriculum and teaching materials designed to encourage lifelong habits of eating fruit and vegetables in young children. It is not a one-off or just something that they do at school; they take it home with them and, I hope, influence the wider family.

The national healthy school scheme is a big programme. It is aimed at young people, in particular. It emphasises the need to consider a healthy lifestyle as a whole—not only diet, but smoking and the other issues raised by the hon. Lady, such as alcohol consumption. It is important to get across to adults the message about safe levels of alcohol consumption, too.

Regular physical activity is a key issue. It can reduce the risk of certain cancers, particularly colon cancer. We have recently announced that, with Sport England and the Countryside Agency, we shall be setting up nine physical activity community pilot schemes—one in each region—to test innovative ways to involve people in sport and active recreation, so that they can benefit from physical activity. One pilot scheme will focus on free swimming for young people. I am looking forward to when the bids come in and if hon. Members have imaginative ideas for their regions, I encourage them to ensure that they are submitted. Obesity can contribute to postmenopausal breast cancer, as the hon. Lady said, and endometrial cancer. A low-fat and low-energy diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables can lower the risk of such cancers and, together with physical activity, can make a major impact on obesity.

The hon. Lady mentioned alcohol. Its misuse is thought to be a major cause of about 3 per cent. of all cancers, especially cancer of the mouth, the larynx and the oesophagus. As the hon. Lady knows, our alcohol strategy is on track and it will be implemented by 2004. The cancer plan has brought our work together. It provided a commitment to ensure that we considered skin cancer, too, because that is all too common in the United Kingdom. Each year, there are 40,000 cases of skin cancer and about 2,500 people die from malignant melanomas. We must get the right message across to the community. Prevention is central to our strategy, in respect of not only cancer, but coronary heart disease and strokes—all those avoidable deaths, which are such a tragedy for the families involved.

It is difficult to persuade people to change the way that they live. We are all creatures of habit and, when we get into bad habits, it is difficult to get out of them. The public are well educated and they ask us for information. We must supply it. We must ensure that patients and young people—indeed, the whole community—feel that they are partners in their own care and share responsibility for it. They can make a difference to their health. That will have huge spin-offs; it will not only have a direct effect on diseases, but give people a sense of ownership of their own health condition. If people take control, that will provide health benefits. Such an agenda is becoming increasingly important to us all.

I encourage hon. Members to convey strong messages to their communities. We should take every opportunity to carry out health promotion work on public platforms and work with partners, in supermarkets, in manufacturing, or when we visit schools and talk to young people. The average daily consumption of fruit and vegetables in Greece is nine portions a day, yet our average is three portions for adults and two for children. The task before us is considerable. If the standard of our diet can reach some of the better standards of European countries, perhaps we shall experience their sunshine and that might do us some good, too. People in this country will benefit enormously from improving their diet. The Government are determined to do everything that we can to invest in such areas, and in exhortation and persuasion. I hope that it will make a significant difference in cancer cases and the whole range of avoidable diseases.

Before commencing the next debate, I should like to point out that the annunciators have broken down. Hon. Members should not rely on them for timings. The digital clock on the wall is still working.

Time may have stopped here, but the debate about road humps is only just beginning to gather pace. I note from Hansard that in the past 10 years there has been virtually no debate on the issue in the House of Commons or the other place. Road humps have spread like a plague across the estates and mining villages of Britain, and I assure the Minister that residents throughout the country are increasingly up in arms about that.

I tabled a parliamentary question yesterday and was referred to the "Road Safety Compendium" on the internet and in the Library. I am extremely familiar with every document in that compendium in relation to road humps—I have a copy of each document and have read and analysed them all. One interesting factor is how little research has been done on the issue over the years, in this country or abroad.

I wish to make it clear that I do not oppose traffic calming or the reduction of speeds—far from it. I have campaigned vigorously in my constituency for the introduction of speed cameras on the A361, for example, where, sadly, a significant number of people have died in car crashes. One irony is that the county council that introduced road humps in my area and other parts of Nottinghamshire is the one that refuses to bring in speed cameras because it does not believe in their effectiveness or that the case for them has been proven. I hope that the Government will make it impossible for local authorities to opt out. When the local community and the police want speed cameras, they should have them on death roads such as the A631. However, that is not the purpose of this debate.

The compendium to which I referred makes great play throughout of the requirement for consultation on the effectiveness of any traffic-calming method. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their home zones initiative, which takes the concept of consultation far further by involving the community in the design of road safety. It is noticeable that home zones are both popular and effective and I would welcome them in my area. Sadly, that is not what we have.

I did a poll of the residents of Manton village and 1,836 households responded. Of those, 97.7 per cent. were in favour of the removal of the road humps and 1.8 per cent. were against. Such majorities are unheard of these days, even in North Korea or Cuba. The view of the local people is clear and goes beyond the advice given to me by officials in the Department for Transport, who tell me that they would normally expect approximately a third of the population to be hostile to traffic calming. In my constituency, in essence, three thirds are opposed.

Road humps are not only a local problem. On 30 April, The Times reported on the front page that the social exclusion unit was going to introduce road humps specifically on council estates throughout Britain. Following that report, I invited the social exclusion unit to my constituency, and its members were in the Manton estate on Friday. They witnessed the problem. One hundred and twenty different sets of road humps were put into one mining village in 1995.

I have analysed the statistics on accidents, which show only that statistics can be used in many ways. More than a quarter of accidents happened not in the village but on the main road, which does not surprise me. I especially like to see road safety on main roads. More than a quarter of the accidents happened on one main road, not inside the village, but the statistics were used as the rationale for introducing road humps.

Sleeping policemen were used. The Royal Automobile Club wrote to me this morning and it is interesting that it does not differentiate between sleeping policemen and cushion humps, but I shall for the purpose of this debate because there is a crucial difference. People in Manton do not demand sleeping policemen everywhere, but they are comfortable enough with them. On one road with sleeping policemen, the number of accidents reduced from seven to one. That is the most effective reduction on any street in the entire village.

I oppose speed cushions rather than other forms of road hump. They were developed in Germany and introduced in 1992. They were meant to assist the emergency services while reducing vehicle speeds. In other words, they are especially designed to allow emergency service vehicles to pass down main roads quickly. Transport advisory leaflets Nos. 498 and 198 specifically relate to the fact that such vehicles can straddle the humps.

Let me outline my objections, the first of which is discomfort. In mining villages such as Manton, which has been plagued by road humps, a disproportionate number of people have back complaints because people who have worked down the pit are more likely to have a back complaint. The irony in Manton is that the pensioner bungalows are at the top end of the estate, and pensioners who do not drive and must use the bus are those who are most vigorous in leading the campaign against speed humps, rather than motorists. The question of discomfort is not to be taken lightly, especially in mining villages and estates throughout the country.

I have raised my second objection with the county council. Why do these humps get stuck in mining villages and estates? I do not find them in private housing estates in my area, which are the wealthier estates. My objection is precisely to the attempt to dump more of them in working-class areas, which the social exclusion unit allegedly—according to The Times—attempted to pursue. That exacerbates local opposition.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

May I make further progress?

My third objection relates to cars' ability to straddle speed humps. Not only emergency service vehicles straddle them; cars also do. Cars go to the centre of the road or drive around the humps. Bollards must be put on pavements and cyclists cannot get through. The plague on estates today is motor cycles. What do motor cycles do? They go through the middle of cushion humps or use them as take-off ramps. The key point is that the humps do not work.

The speed humps are not intended to be sited at pedestrian crossing points. However, their built-in design features mean that the most vulnerable pedestrians use them as crossing points because they often create a central reservation. Consequently, pensioners and young children use them as a halfway point when crossing the road. People not only go against the Government's advice to cross at the humps, but are attracted to crossing there. Indeed, the question whether pensioners could sue if they trip over the humps might be more important as they start to take action against the authorities that put the humps in.

All the guidance fails to incorporate the fact that there are fewer people with garages on these estates. Therefore, there is more on-street parking, but the guidance makes virtually no reference to that. Officials visit the Manton estate to make their reports on vehicle speed during the day when no cars are parked on the streets. They should see the streets in the evening when they are packed full of cars. Motorists cannot take the humps as they are meant to because of parked cars throughout the estate. That is a fundamental design flaw of the speed cushions. Owing to the guidelines, more speed cushions are required than other forms of traffic calming, such as chicanes or sleeping policemen.

I mentioned motor cycles because drivers of stolen vehicles are not keen to slow down for speed humps. Indeed, if such obstacles are in the way, they add to excitement, which has been a particular problem. The damage that the humps cause to cars is not high in terms of road safety considerations, but I tell hon. Members that many of the people who live on these estates cannot afford to repair broken exhausts, but they get two or three of them because they have to cross those humps. The speed at which they cross the humps does not alter the risk of their exhausts breaking. That is my contention—and that of many local people. Indeed, some people suggest that cars are more likely to be damaged if they go over them at slow speeds—for example, 10 mph. That is another design flaw. No research has been done on that, but it should be done.

My next objection is based on empirical evidence. It is more comfortable to drive over these cushion humps at a higher speed. I demonstrated that—although I did not drive faster than 30 mph, because I am an elected politician. I drove over the humps at 10, 15, 20 and 30 mph with people from the social exclusion unit. They may reach their own conclusions, but they, like me, were able to make comparisons, and it is more uncomfortable to drive over those humps at 15 than at 20 mph, and at 20 than at 30 mph: and yet they are meant to reduce speed. On Manton, there is no evidence that the speedsters slow down. It is the pensioners and other safer drivers who reduce their speed and get maximum discomfort, but they were going slowly in the first place.

I shall now discuss noise and emissions. Those are not major considerations, but the stop-go of traffic that is caused by the humps leads to people objecting to the noise, and to emissions, which is an important factor when we bear in mind the Kyoto emission targets. People ask, "Why should we have to put up with all this, when the wealthier private estates do not have any cushion humps?" Such factors reinforce local public opinion.

The humps were designed for the emergency services. In my area, those services—such as the ambulance service—submitted letters objecting to the scheme because it slows down emergency vehicles; it makes them travel at an average speed of about 15 mph. There are 17 road humps on the journey from the top of the estate to the bottom, where the pensioners are, and there are 17 of them on the journey back. That adds about eight and a half minutes to the journey time of emergency service vehicles. Some of my constituents are seriously affected by that—such as a woman with a broken back who has to go over those 17 road humps to get to hospital. In the light of such situations, it is hard for the authorities to win their case on this particular type of traffic-calming scheme.

Not only the ambulance service is hostile to that scheme. In Nottinghamshire, we have the absurdity that the wheel axis of the fire engines is too small for them to be able to straddle these road humps, so that, in our authority, the humps fail to do what they are designed to do. Therefore, the fire service is also delayed—and, consequently, it also objects. The police are hostile too, because of the effect of the humps on their response times.

Having driven the people from the social exclusion unit over 500 humps in a car, I thought I had better make sure that they fully appreciated the situation, so I took them on a bus. Therefore, they enjoyed the pleasures of travelling on the bus routes of Manton. It is not for me to speak on their behalf about whether they were convinced of my case, but they have a full picture of how uncomfortable it is to sit on the back seat of a Stagecoach Mini-hopper as it goes over the humps on that estate. Local people who have to use the buses because they do not have cars are particularly angry.

The people from the social exclusion unit also witnessed the beautiful irony that the buses could not pass along all the roads because cars park next to the road humps and use them as a safety protector, and because of the bollards that have been put up to stop people driving around them. Bus drivers have to knock on doors to ask the owners of cars to move them so that the buses can get through. That is not funny for someone who is driving an ambulance to an emergency.

The final indignity is the one that has got people going the most. There are 20 road humps on the journey from St. Paul's church to the cemetery in Worksop. I imagine that the person who is being carried in the hearse is no longer able to complain about that, but the families in the cortege also have to cross those humps. Some funeral directors are now refusing to allow their limousines to take people from Manton, because the vehicles suffer the same kind of damage that the ambulance and fire services have reported to me that their vehicles suffer. That makes the funeral directors the most hostile people to this scheme.

There are alternatives. I have proposed a 20 mph zone, I should like to see the use of sleeping policemen where necessary and I should be happy with chicanes, as used in Manchester and recommended in the United States by the emergency services. Crucially, I should like to see consultation on and expansion of the home zone concept, which is currently only an option for local authorities.

My recommendations are that 20 mph zones must be more easily available and that school governors should have the power to incorporate them into their school travel plans. That would be a major breakthrough. School travel plans are currently voluntary. Let us make them compulsory so that road safety is enforced on schools, not optional. It is often in schools on estates that school governors—some of whom might not be in place—have not had the time or the inclination to bring in school travel plans, unlike in more middle-class schools. Let us make those compulsory.

Let us have home zones as the recommended form of traffic calming. Let us have the powers of the emergency services strengthened in any consultation. Let us make funeral directors statutory consultees. Let us have the question of on-street parking re-examined and its impact reassessed in the departmental advice notes. That is a fundamental flaw in the current position. Finally, I suggest that the notorious and hated cushion hump be banned forthwith from every council estate and every mining village in Britain. That is what the people want, and if we have the people on our side, road safety will go forward.

rose—

Order. I can only call the hon. Gentleman if he has obtained the permission of the initiator of the debate.

Of course I have done that. It would be wrong of me to stand up without the normal courtesies. I am most grateful to you, Mr. Illsley, and to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I thought that he put his case brilliantly and I am delighted that he secured the debate. I support everything that he said, and have just one or two points to add.

My personal life is bedevilled by road humps, bumps, rumble strips, raised ribs in the road and signs in south Devon that say it is 300 yd before the 30 mph speed limit, then 200 yd before the 30 mph speed limit and then 100 yd before the 30 mph speed limit. Speed restrictions are increasingly encroaching into the countryside. There are mini-roundabouts, maxi-roundabouts, road widening schemes and road narrowing schemes. You name, Devon has it.

There are different types of hump, different sizes, different shapes, different angles, different widths and different elevations. Some are as steep as Everest, some deceptively slow in their angle. Cars can keel over like a boat in a force 8 gale, and being in a maritime constituency, one constantly thinks one is in a boat rather than a car when one hits traffic bumps.

There is an enormous cost to the council tax payer. Each hump or bump costs about £1,000—money that could be spent on social services. Instead of having hot meals on wheels, elderly people now have deep-frozen meals sent to them on one day of the month, which they have to store and go on eating for the whole month, to save money. What is that money being spent on? Traffic humps at £1,000 a time. I am totally opposed to the traffic hump. It is destructive to the vehicle, noisy for people living nearby and of no consequence in stopping traffic. The situation is like that of King Canute. We cannot hold back the traffic by putting in traffic humps or bumps.

I shall briefly mention Totnes, the central town in my constituency. Quite simply, our planners in Devon have too much money and too much time. They spend their time devising new planning schemes to slow down or reverse the traffic. At the moment, the traffic goes up Fore street, as it has for about 300 years. Now there is a plan to turn the traffic and have it going down the street with rumble strips, and little flower-beds in the middle of the main road. The planners want there to be various places for cars to park. They want to reverse traffic flows and hold exhibitions to explain matters to everyone. Very simply, market towns do not need traffic bumps. They need a hopper bus that goes round and round the town every five minutes and a big field to park cars in. Instead, there is an attempt to spend more and more public money on slowing down the traffic.

As the Minister comes from Devon, he will know that in Devon the planners are doing everything that they can to slow down traffic so that one day they will create one huge jam 100 miles long of solid metal overheating in the sun.

I look forward to the Minister's response to what has been an excellent debate. I have much more to say, but I will say it to him in private. In the meantime, will he please relieve constituents of these menacing humps? If they were in a piece of science fiction, they would not stop growing.

I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), not only on securing the debate but on the forceful way in which he made his points. I must say that I would not like to get on the wrong side of him.

You are.

Well, hon. Members have not yet heard what I have to say. Anyway, my hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for his constituents and, as always, proved it today on behalf of Manton.

My hon. Friend tabled a question for yesterday's Question Time, but unfortunately it was not reached. If it had been, we might have been able to rehearse some arguments for today. He says that in his area road humps have spread like a plague, but I think the biggest plague on the roads is death. Each day an average of nine people die on the roads, and about 10 times as many are seriously injured.

The debate eventually turned into what was almost an attack on local authorities, which are responsible for introducing traffic-calming measures. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said that his authority was getting too much money. I made a note of that: I am sure that members of all parties in his local authority will be interested to learn of his view, and we shall certainly take account of it in the next spending round relating to local transport plans. My Plymouth constituents will be very pleased to receive some of the money that the hon. Gentleman thinks should not be spent in his area.

My hon. Friend said that road humps got stuck on housing estates. The fact is that it is on such estates that most accidents occur, especially those involving young children. Analysis of road casualty figures shows that the poorer and more disadvantaged people are—especially elderly people and children—the more likely they are to be killed or seriously injured on the roads. I do not know my hon. Friend's constituency very well, but I have some knowledge of it, and I believe that it contains some very poor areas. Middle-class children are involved in such accidents less often than poorer children, who are injured in collisions while travelling to and from school.

I accept that road humps are sometimes inconvenient. My hon. Friend, who made some good points, says that the local authority has not taken proper cognisance of local people's wishes.

Will the Minister give way?

Certainly.

According to statistics, all child deaths in the area have occurred on major roads. The biggest irony is that on Retford road—the main road that runs alongside the Manton estate, the road on which the estate was built, the road to the pit—there is no traffic calming, but that is the road on which young people have died. There have been no child deaths on the estate. I have no objection to road-safety and traffic-calming measures on estates or main roads, but the main problem is the absence of local support—and that is partly because all the humps are dumped in the side streets rather than on the main roads.

My hon. Friend and I are in agreement: road-safety and traffic-calming measures should be introduced where there is a need for them. Where children and other vulnerable people are seen to be at risk, traffic-calming measures of whatever kind should be established. Speed safety cameras, for instance, should be installed in areas where there is excess speeding leading to casualties, rather than being put just anywhere on our roads. That too is a determined policy of this Government.

The experience of my hon. Friend is not shared across the country, although I am sure that it is the experience of people in his area. I can speak of my constituency and the many other areas that I have visited in my capacity as the Minister responsible for road safety. In my area, one of the worst roads through a council estate that was built in the post-war years, in the 1950s and 1960s, had a horrendous accident record. Again, mainly elderly people and youngsters were affected. Traffic-calming measures—humps and chicanes—have been installed on that road. If I proposed that they should be removed, there would be a riot in that area, because people know that there would be a return to the deaths and injuries of some eight or nine years ago, before the measures were put in place.

My hon. Friend also mentioned vehicle damage and discomfort. He said that claims had been made that road humps caused damage to vehicles and injury to vehicle occupants, especially professional drivers and the disabled. Complaints of that type have been made many times since road humps were first introduced, but no firm evidence has emerged. As a result, the Department has commissioned research by the Transport Research Laboratory into vehicle damage and the possible creation of physical problems. The project is due for completion in September 2003, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested in its outcome.

Combating excessive and inappropriate speed is a complex issue that does not have just one solution. I believe that my hon. Friend and I agree about that. The Department undertook and published a fundamental review of speed policy two years ago. Its recommendations were accepted by the Government and incorporated into the road safety strategy. The speed review concluded that speed limits should be set at levels that are safe, suitable for the road function and at levels most likely to be respected by drivers. Motorists are less willing to comply with limits set at inappropriate levels. We are working on improving information and guidance to local authorities on setting local speed limits.

Obviously, we would like drivers voluntarily to stick to the speed limit. Unfortunately, experience shows that the majority are reluctant to do so unless there are proven traffic-calming measures in place that persuade them that a lower speed is appropriate.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has had long enough, and I need time to respond.

We accept that traffic calming—road humps, speed cushions and speed tables—is not a panacea or the only answer to the problem. However, the clear evidence that we have from around the country, from people in local areas and on local councils, is that they are successful and effective safety measures for reducing vehicle speeds in some areas. Their effectiveness is more prevalent in the urban areas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw referred. However, I accept his point that it is not just a matter of setting a speed limit. Local authorities can bring in 20 mph zones, which may be humped or subject to other measures. Such zones may be far more acceptable to the people who live in the area.

My hon. Friend mentioned home zones. I am sorry that he does not have one in his area. I had the pleasure of opening one in my constituency on Friday that, I must admit, involved certain changes to the road surface. It is now extremely difficult to drive at more than 10 mph in that area, and the zone has the total, absolute support of the whole of that community, because they do not want their road used as a rat run, nor do they want people coming from outside using their roads and putting them and their children at risk and in danger.

The Government have operated several pilot projects. We have put £30 million into the home zone scheme for this year. I suggest that my hon. Friend do some lobbying to get one in his area. The beauty of the home zone concept is that it is very much led by the community. In my area, the people of the community decided what they wanted. The number of flower-beds has increased, and the improvements to the area are substantial. I remind my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Totnes that the local authority must decide on road humps, although I accept my hon. Friend's point that they can be inappropriate. If they are inappropriate, he needs to beat a path to the door of the local council in that area and make those points very forcefully. The good news is that his local authority has had a very substantial increase in funds through the local transport plan. It has received about £15.3 million in the year 2001–02, which is an increase of 120 per cent. That will give Nottinghamshire county council the opportunity to use some of that money to create the sort of zones that people want and accept.

We now come to the next debate.

May I start by thanking you, Mr. Illsley, for sparing the time to preside over the debate this afternoon, and through you, thank the Speaker's Office for granting me the debate? I also thank the Minister for taking the time this afternoon to respond on behalf of the Government.

I greatly regret that it was necessary to bring you here this afternoon, Mr. Illsley. The issues that will be raised were raised in a letter that I wrote to the relevant Secretary of State, enclosing the arguments from Maidstone borough council. One letter was sent on 30 April, and the second was sent on 19 June. I greatly regret that neither letter has been acknowledged or responded to. That is the reason why we are here this afternoon.

The aim of the debate is to correct an injustice, which has been caused by a change in the Planning Inspectorate's attitude to gypsies. It is important to start with one qualification. I am not in any way against gypsies, nor are the overwhelming majority of ordinary people. It is quite right that they should enjoy the same rights and protection under English law as anyone else. However, they now have a de facto range of rights under planning law that is simply denied to ordinary residents, which has been caused directly by the actions of the Planning Inspectorate.

I raise the matter as a constituency MP. I do so on behalf of the residents of Lenham road in Headcorn, the residents of Sutton Valence and Chart Sutton, and several councillors who have come to see me, deeply concerned about the issue. However, it is not simply a problem in Faversham and Mid-Kent. It is a problem throughout Kent, and is just rearing its head on the Isle of Sheppey in the northern part of my constituency. Since the debate has been tabled, several of my colleagues in the House have seen me about the issue to point out that it is a problem across large areas of the south-east. I have been asked to raise it by all levels of government in Kent.

The leader of Kent county council wrote to me last week and said:

"I am deeply aware of the public's growing concern about gypsies in Kent."

The director of development services and the deputy chief executive of Maidstone borough council—not a Conservative council—wrote to me and said:

"I can only presume that advice which the Inspectorate is now receiving from the Government is leading to the very lenient approach…Local residents are being severely disadvantaged."

A representative of the parish council in the area in my constituency most affected, Headcorn, wrote and said:

"My council"—

that is Headcorn—

"is very concerned that it is the Government Department which is causing the increasing problem of the concentration of gypsy sites. My council is dismayed at what appears to be a change in planning policies by the Inspectorate in favour of those with gypsy origins. There is clear discrimination against other residents."

So what is the background to the problem? Kent has traditionally been an area popular with gypsies. It is largely rural, or was in the past. It has beautiful Countryside—after all, it is the garden of England—and has plentiful casual labour, particularly in the seasonal fruit-picking industry. There has therefore always been enormous pressure for sites, particularly across the Weald. One can see that in areas like Yalding, Headcorn, Sutton Valence and Chart Sutton. As a result, Maidstone borough council, which only covers a small part of the Weald, has 44 per cent. of the private gypsy site provision in the county of Kent—a staggeringly large proportion.

These days Kent is, of course, no longer a predominantly rural county supported by an agricultural economy. Furthermore, Government policy is encouraging housebuilding across Kent. It is now less easy to support the lifestyles of the gypsy community and far less easy to explain to existing householders why gypsies should be a special case.

Maidstone borough council, which has 44 per cent. of the gypsy site provision across Kent, only covers a small part of the Weald. Its particular problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the whole of the northern part of the borough, in effect the north downs, is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Government policy specifically discourages the provision of gypsy sites in such areas, and there is enormous pressure on the very fragile environment on the Weald. Despite that, Maidstone borough council has fulfilled the requirements of Government circular No. 1/94. In the 1993 local plan and the December 2000 borough-wide local plan, it set out criteria-based policies to indicate how it would provide for gypsy sites.

The problems in the last couple of years are threefold. First, gypsies have started to buy land, move on to it illegally and gain planning permission. They have been able to do that because the Government planning inspector is now granting permission and overturning the borough council's decisions.

Secondly, a large number of gypsy caravans are moving on to land owned by a gypsy who has permission for only one caravan. One can see that problem at the moment in places such as Redhill stables on the Lenham road in Headcorn and Pear orchard in Yalding. The lives of residents in those areas are being made a misery.

Thirdly, large numbers of gypsy caravans, often numbering 30 or 40, are moving to Kent and camping illegally on private land. The High Court is not allocating enough time for urgent hearings to allow local borough councils to evict illegal occupiers of private land.

I want to focus on the first of those problems this afternoon, the consequences of which are obvious. The countryside where gypsies stay is ruined. Remember that that part of the country is well known as the garden of England. The quality of life for existing residents declines very quickly. I have constituents who are unable to open their windows during the summer because a gypsy site across the road burns tyres all day long. House prices in those areas suffer and fall very quickly, for the obvious reason that people do not want to buy houses with gypsy sites around them.

I regret to say this, but there has been a certain amount of low-level intimidation of residents. An old-age pensioner, who is just over 90, objected to a gypsy site next door to his house and found a knife on his doorstep the next morning. Two old-age pensioners live just off the Lenham road, opposite a gypsy site that allows two rottweilers to roam free. The rottweilers came across the road and through the hedge, and nearly killed the pensioners' pet terrier. The pensioners are now afraid to go out in their garden during the summer. Also, of course, the crime rate has risen.

The cause of those problems, which is very clear to me as the constituency MP and to local parish councillors, the borough council and Kent county council, is simply the actions of the Planning Inspectorate. We have reached a stage at which Maidstone borough council is unwilling to take any form of enforcement action against gypsies because it knows that it will lose on appeal.

The evidence for that is not only in the letters, about which I have talked this afternoon, that have been written to me, but in a parliamentary written answer from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which disclosed that in 1996 only 19 per cent. of appeals were allowed by the inspectorate. In 2001, that figure had risen to 57 per cent. The reason why the figure increased is clear: the inspectors are accepting planning policy arguments against the granting of permission, but are allowing planning appeals for reasons such as the Human Rights Act 1998 or personal circumstances relating to individual gypsies.

An extremely good example of that is the recent appeal decision in the case of Greengates, Lenham road, Headcorn, Kent. The inspector, Miss Katie Peerless, states:

"Therefore, I consider that, on balance, the proposed development conflicts both with Development Plan policies designed to protect the countryside and Special Landscape Area and also those aimed at providing suitable sites for gypsy caravans. If no other material consideration were found to outweigh the presumption against the proposals, then the appeal would be dismissed."

However, she goes on to allow the appeal.

That flies in the face of Government planning policy guidance notes, which indicate that personal circumstances will seldom be such as to set aside development plan policies. Furthermore, I very much doubt that the Human Rights Act was ever intended to set aside planning policies that have evolved through the full democratic process, or to provide for what amounts to positive discrimination in favour of an ethnic group.

I therefore ask the Minister to accept that the change in the actions of the Planning Inspectorate over the past three or four years has favoured gypsies. Evidence of that is in the findings of Kent county council, borough councils throughout the Weald, parish councils and in my observations as a constituency MP. If that is not enough, it has also been proved in a parliamentary written answer. I ask the Minister to accept that that situation is unfair to existing local residents. There can be no reason why gypsies should be allowed to develop housing in a manner denied to non-gypsy people. That must be unjust.

Has there been any change in the Government guidelines given to the Planning Inspectorate? If there has, when was it announced? If there has not, I ask the Minister to undertake to write to the inspectorate and ensure that the correct guidelines are properly interpreted in future. That will place both gypsies and local residents on an equal and fair footing under planning law.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) on securing the debate, and on raising some important issues about gypsies and the planning system, particularly in relation to Kent. I hope to deal with many of his points.

The Government recognise that gypsies have a right to pursue their lifestyle and are committed to ensuring that the planning system treats members of that community as fairly as everybody else. The notion, spurious or otherwise, that the planning system provides de facto rights to any particular group, or that such rights exist for the gypsy community, is a nonsense. At best, the hon. Gentleman has offered casual empiricism as evidence of that; at worst, he has provided one parliamentary answer, which I suspect has been taken wholly out of context. He would have been better served to have gone through each and every case covered by the parliamentary answer to find some substance to give me, but substance came there none.

I repeat that no de facto rights have emerged over recent years in relation to the treatment of gypsies or anybody else under the law. The hon. Gentleman himself alluded to the fact that the root of much of our current planning policy is in Government circular No. 1/94 on gypsy sites and planning, with the emphasis very much on the "94". The legal and statutory framework for dealing with gypsies in this country under the planning system has been, and remains, that outlined in the 1994 circular.

I am not disparaging of the experience faced by the hon. Gentleman's constituents—I have heard of similar cases on numerous occasions and have experienced them in my own constituency. However, I was almost waiting to hear mention of the lone gunman on the grassy knoll in what became a nasty, over-politicised conspiracy theory about everything shifting since Labour came to office. From what I know of the hon. Gentleman, that is utterly unworthy of him. If there are difficulties with the reaction of the communities in his area of Kent to what prevails under the planning system, there are better ways of raising them than the way in which he did so, which was wholly and utterly unworthy.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Once.

The Minister should accept—he almost said so, but not quite—that at no stage did I say that that had occurred as a result of the 1997 election. I merely gave the figures that the Minister's own Department had produced, showing that in 1996 19 per cent. of appeals were allowed and in 2001 that figure had risen to 57 per cent. I went on to say that I had been asked to raise the matter by parish councils, borough councils and Kent county council. If the Minister thinks that I dreamt it up last night as a clever political scam, he is simply mistaken.

I do not want to be overly contentious, but if that is the best the hon. Gentleman can do, he is, at best, naive and, at worst, duplicitous—

Order.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is, at worst, misguided. He cannot quote at length from Headcorn parish council saying that it is a huge conspiracy and has changed since Labour came to office, and then quote from Maidstone borough council, which said in a totally and utterly disreputable way—I shall check up on that when I leave the debate—that it is not bothering with enforcement any more. Is that supposed to be serving the community in the Maidstone borough? The council, not the Planning Inspectorate or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, should be ashamed of itself. It has fiduciary, public policy and other duties, and the letter of the law to carry out and should do so. I shall check in Hansard to see what the hon. Gentleman said. If Maidstone borough council's policy, explicit or otherwise, when it should be enforcing eviction powers is that it cannot be bothered because it might lose on appeal, that is to its shame. It is irrelevant to me what its political persuasion is.

Will the Minister give way?

No. I will not. It is common courtesy in this place when intervening during a 30-minute debate to give notice to both sides in advance. I have had no such notice from the hon. Gentleman, so I shall not give way.

Order. It is actually common courtesy to give notice to the hon. Member introducing the debate, the Minister and the Chair.

Absolutely, and that has not been forthcoming, so I will not give way.

The key point is that the regulatory framework remains as it always has been. There is no positive discrimination towards any group in the planning process and to say so with such flimsy and casually empirical evidence undermines not only the hon. Gentleman, but the Planning Inspectorate. I had the great pleasure, as one of my first duties only last week, of visiting the Planning Inspectorate and I looked deep into the bowels of the machine to see what it does. I have nothing but the highest regard for it.

There are three key elements in our policy on gypsies and travellers. All are about to come to fruition and one that has already done so is the announcement of this year's round of the three-year plan for gypsy site refurbishment grants, because we are keen to obviate the need for anyone to move on to unauthorised and illegal encampments. Secondly, because it has been less than clear what provision is required for the community, two bodies of research will probably be published before the summer, which we hope will inform not just local government but central Government. Thirdly, in the very near future, as part of the three prongs of policy on travellers, we shall issue renewed and updated guidance, which the hon. Gentleman should read at his leisure with great care and attention. I hope that within that new guidance the notion of rights and responsibilities for all parties will be clear and explicit.

Those three elements will not only inform how we go forward but enable us, working with responsible local government, to deal with the issue with a degree of parity all round. I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman started from the premise that he has no objection, violent or otherwise, to the gypsy community. Implicit in his remarks was the recognition that it has the same rights as every other community. However, the issues of illegal, unauthorised encampments and of where some members of the community buy land are very real.

The Planning Inspectorate's powers are determined in accordance with the requirements of section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, which states that applications and appeals should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

If planning permission is refused by the local planning authority or an enforcement notice is served in order to remedy a breach of planning control, there is a right of appeal to the First Secretary of State. That right of appeal is an integral and long-established part of the planning system. Given that, by definition, someone always has to lose an appeal, there will always be aggrieved parties. However, having had 11 years' experience on a planning committee, I would suggest that planning authorities and everyone involved would like the world to be as clear cut as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest it should be.

The vast majority of appeals are transferred to inspectors to determine on the First Secretary of State's behalf. When inspectors are instructed to hold inquiries on behalf of the First Secretary of State, or appointed to determine appeals, they stand in the shoes of the First Secretary of State and must have regard to his policies. Each inspector, in exercising the duty of making a recommendation or determining an appeal, is technically a tribunal.

It is a basic principle that in an appeal or other case in which an inspector is instructed or appointed, there should be no evidence or policy advice relevant to the case before the inspector that is not also available to all the parties.

The Planning Inspectorate has an impressive reputation in its handling of planning appeals. The integrity, impartiality and fairness with which each appeal is handled are widely acknowledged. Every issue that is a material consideration in assessing a proposal, whether of local or national importance, is taken into account by an inspector at appeal stage. As I said, the hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot refer specifically to any of the cases that he has outlined.

Through the inspectorate's work, disputes between individuals and public authorities are resolved taking into account the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, any other legislation relevant to the inspectorate's casework, the First Secretary of State's policies and, where relevant, the development plan.

Government policies on relevant areas of environmental concern—not just those directly related to town and country planning matters—may also be taken into account. It is for the inspector to weigh up often conflicting considerations and to make a decision. It is very much a balancing exercise and one that the Planning Inspectorate carries out in an extremely fair and robust fashion.

Inspectors bring their own experience, expertise and common sense to bear in interpreting and weighing the evidence before them. Like the decisions of judicial tribunals, inspectors' decisions or recommendations must flow from the evidence before them, not from any external source. In all cases planning inspectors are fully briefed on the circumstances of the appeal proposal and will visit the site to familiarise themselves with its location and surroundings. Each decision is reached, therefore, only after careful consideration of all the relevant planning issues, including the likely effect of the proposed development on the surrounding area, and taking into account the views of the local planning authority and local residents.

The Planning Inspectorate aims for the highest quality in the way that it handles casework and in the speed and quality of its decisions. The Franks principles of openness, fairness and impartiality continue to be the watchwords under which all decisions are taken. However, as nearly all decisions go against at least one of the parties involved in the appeal, the inspectorate knows that it will also receive complaints.

I have explained my absolute confidence in the integrity of the planning inspectors and the way in which the inspectorate handles planning cases. I do not feel, therefore, that there is any need to write to them in the terms suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I say that as someone who has been on the wrong end of what I considered to be perverse decisions during my 11 years as a councillor on a planning committee. I do not, even as a Minister, speak out of any great love for the inspectorate—I simply recognise its objectivity, integrity and, above all, professionalism.

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Advisory Panel on Standards in the Planning Inspectorate—APOS—is an independent body that advises the First Secretary of State on the maintenance and enhancement of professional standards in the Planning Inspectorate. Members are volunteers drawn from the legal, surveying, planning, architectural, engineering and other relevant professions.

In advising the First Secretary of State, the panel investigates issues that may impinge on the quality of Planning Inspectorate decisions, such as the number of planning inspectors and their training and administrative support. The latest annual report to the First Secretary of State confirmed that the ministerial target on quality for the year 2000–01 had been met. It concluded that the inspectorate

"demonstrated to us their commitment to maintaining, and where possible, improving their standard of service across the very wide range of activities—99 per cent. of their casework was free from justified complaint."

To answer the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, therefore, I do not believe that various de facto rights have been merged, and there is no legal context in which that could happen because of inspectorate decisions. The inspectorate does not exercise positive discrimination on behalf of the Government or of its own volition, and, given the flimsy evidence presented in the debate, I see no virtue in writing to it in any capacity.

As I said at the beginning, I fully recognise the gypsy community's concerns about site provision, with all that flows from that, and the real dislocation and hardship that illegal and unauthorised encampments can cause.

In conclusion, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks to his own lights and to the assorted authorities—from Headcorn and Maidstone to Kent county council—that serve the same area that he does. He should remonstrate with them, and get them to use their powers under the law as effectively as they can.