I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, not least because it is in my name. The debate is on a matter that is crucial for the health of the nation, and I am delighted to see present not an Under-Secretary but the Minister of State, Department of Health. I pay that short compliment to him, because it is good to see him.

While preparing for this debate, I reflected on the fact that 25 years ago I was working in the House of Commons as a research assistant for the then Member for Hastings and Rye, Sir Kenneth Warren. I remember examining issues of police accountability and related matters, and going through Hansard and background papers trying to find definitive moments of change in the political process. It is my belief that, for complementary medicine, today is one of those moments.

There have been three defining moments for complementary medicine in recent years. The first was the publication of the King's fund report. Next was the Lords report. The latest is this morning's debate. It is a defining moment because this is the first time that the official Opposition have got behind this issue and started to consider it from the policy point of view. That should send warning signals to the Government, because it illustrates how the issue has moved up the agenda. I should declare an interest in the matter. Since the 1970s, when I was injured, I have been through the process of learning of just about all the therapies, some of which we shall debate today.

I believe that it is a Conservative issue as much as anything else. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that it is natural Conservative territory, and I am pleased that we have the party with us. It is about choice and self-improvement, as it is about the better use of resources in the national health service and better value for money for Her Majesty's Government. It is also about taking the pressure off doctors and surgeons. It is about using less invasive techniques when possible and about using less toxic treatment when appropriate. In addition, it is about giving doctors new means of treating patients. Further, it is about spreading the burden of health care.

The debate is also about highlighting Conservative achievements in the field and drawing the attention of the House to the woeful shortcomings of the Government's policies. The Conservative Government had three main achievements in this area. The first was in the 1987 Parliament, when a Standing Committee of which I was a member regulated to put osteopaths on a statutory footing, which was hugely beneficial. Secondly, we did the same for chiropractors in the 1992 Parliament; I was a member of that Committee also. Thirdly, it was decided to bring GP fundholders into being, which gave doctors new powers to decide how to spend their money, and many GP fundholding practices went on to employ complementary therapists, or to build a link. That came about because of the decision made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), then the Member for Loughborough, when he was Under-Secretary at the Dept of Health, that doctors could channel patients to complementary practitioners provided that they took clinical responsibility. That decision was supported by Tom Sackville, the then hon. Member for Bolton, West, who is sadly no longer in the House. It started the process of introducing complementary medicine into the health service.

I should say as an aside, however, that the person who really got the process going was Aneurin Bevan, who had a homeopathic doctor—the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) is looking quizzically at me, but that is true. Bevan said that homeopathy would be brought into the health service and made available through doctors, and qualified doctors can now prescribe homeopathic medicines on the health service. The only slight problem at the moment is that they cannot get those medicines up on their computers, and the Minister might want to examine that problem. None the less, that was the decision that Bevan made all those years ago.

Whatever shortcomings the Government claim the GP fundholding system had, it gave doctors a certain freedom to take on complementary practitioners in the health service. That was a valuable step in the right direction, which increased supply and choice. Regrettably, the availability of complementary therapies on the health service has declined since primary care groups and primary care trusts came into being. That is because they are under other pressures and do not see integrated health care, complementary therapies and the range of treatments that come under that heading as priorities. It is rare to find a primary care trust that gives priority to such issues, although the Hinckley and Bosworth primary care trust, which is in my constituency and which will cover west Leicestershire, is seriously considering providing acupuncture for pain relief, and a qualified doctor in the constituency wants to use that treatment. The Minister should take that on board, and if he can find a way of encouraging primary care trusts to increase the supply of services rather than reduce it, he will be doing us all a favour. I have written on numerous occasions about the way in which homeopathic services especially have been cut as a result of the introduction of primary care trusts, and we should study the issue.

It is a sad fact that the Government are generally reactive, not proactive, when it comes to complementary therapies, and there is plenty of evidence for that. When the Labour Government came to power, one of the first decisions of the then right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, now Lord Rooker, was to restrict the available dosage of vitamin B6. That was a catastrophic decision, which was blown away in the end. The limits that he wanted to impose were based on flawed research and never came into being. There was a huge wrangle over the issue: the industry mobilised, there was an enormous amount of activity, there were parliamentary motions and much energy was expended. It was important that doses were not limited to the lower level, because that would have discriminated against poorer people who would have had to buy more of the vitamins that they wanted. That was nonsensical and did the Government no credit.

Two years later, we had the ghastly MLX249 problems. It was proposed that the Medicines Control Agency should be able, on appeal, to redesignate a vitamin supplement compound as a medicine—I may not have the terminology quite right, but it is along those lines. That decision would have placed huge costs on the industry, because supplements that are reclassified as medicines must go through extensive trials, which can cost £100,000 a shot. To get rid of that ludicrous proposal, we had to march from Marble arch to Trafalgar square, where I spoke from between the lions. I heard a crowd of a thousand chanting, "Tony, we want the right to choose." That could be heard in Downing street, and I am told privately that it sent some tremors through the structure at No. 10. Action was soon taken and the proposal was knocked on the head. Now, in the year of our Lord 2002, we have a double threat—the threat to vitamin supplements and the threat to traditional remedies or medicines. The relevant European directive keeps changing its name so I might change my description of it.

I saw the Under-Secretary of State for Health in Committee the other day and I told her that I was grateful to her for having agreed to talk to me, as treasurer of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine, with an industry expert and a couple of other colleagues the day before. However, I had to warn her that if the issue was not taken seriously, there were people I did not use the term lightly, it just came out of my head who were tooling up for war. She looked at me as if to say, "I don't like the sound of that, and I don't like the way in which it has been put across," but when our eyes met, she knew that I was sincere. I was speaking for the vast number of people who see a serious threat to their well-being. Under this European directive, about 160 nutrients, supplements, medical treatments—call them what we might—will be removed once and for all.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire might want to develop the point further, so I shall just say to the Minister that he got it wrong on vitamin B6 and he got it wrong on MLX249. He should be careful this time: it is a big issue.

Does my hon. Friend take some heart from the fact that, about a week after the discussion in European Standing Committee C during which he made that last point, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the health Minister who deals with such issues, called for a further round of discussions and put back the consultation period on the traditional herbal medicinal products directive until the end of this month?

My hon. Friend, as ever, is right. The Government have recognised the seriousness of the situation and extended the consultation period. I shall say a word about the industry's view of the meeting that its representatives were granted with the Minister. Generally speaking, the Government are reactive and not proactive with regard to complementary medicine and integrated health care. They had to react to the Lords report. Fortunately, they took advice and the response was broadly right. The Secretary of State is very defensive on the issue. When he sees me and thinks that I am about to raise some of these points in the Chamber, I get the feeling that I should have no confidence that he is behind the idea of an integrated health service, which must have an effect on his Department and its officials.

The Lords report, the needling from His Royal Highness Prince Charles and some of the pressures in the Chamber have had an effect. I was touched, just before the last election. when the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is now the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, described me as the hon. Member for Holland and Barrett. It was fun for hon. Members in the Chamber, no doubt, but it played very well on the ground because what I am sure that he did not realise is that I have the headquarters of Holland and Barrett in my constituency. I do not say that the fact that my majority doubled at the last general election was all down to the right hon. Gentleman, but I could have called him a right hon. Friend as I watched the boxes at the count.

I shall move on to the promotion of good health. which is so important. Health care should really start with the promotion of good health. If people are encouraged to take responsibility for their own health, it will prevent many patients from needing access to the NHS. People must be persuaded to change their behaviour, and that cannot be done overnight, but 5 million people each year choose to use complementary therapies. That is a way of taking pressure off the health service and getting people to take responsibility for their own health. People usually have to seek those therapies because they are not widely available, although they are sometimes recommended. One of the great challenges for the Government is to move the focus for those 5 million people to within the remit of the NHS. Surely that would be a vote winner from a political point of view.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I shall not be able to stay for the whole debate. Does he agree that it is important that when people develop conditions such as MS, they should pay attention to their regime and diet, which, in some instances, may reduce the costs to the health service by keeping people healthy for longer?

An extremely brave woman suffering from MS came to see me at my constituency surgery. She wanted me to pass on to the Minister the regime and diet that she was following because she was convinced that, in addition to beta interferon, it was keeping her healthy. I hope to be able to pass on to the Minister the regime that my constituent is following because that sort of complementary approach could benefit many other people.

My hon. Friend is right. That brings into play another ball—the issue of diet and health. Last night, there was a meeting of the new obesity group in the House. The problems of people who are overweight largely result from the consumption of far too much fat and, secondly, from the consumption of E additives. There are far too many additives in food, many of which cause dysfunctional behaviour in school children. All the issues are interrelated, but if we are trying to reduce problems in schools, we should pay much more attention to diet and to the strange effects of additives, which can cause costly disruptive behaviour. So my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

One of the ways in which people can improve their well-being is through taking supplements. Two recent studies point to the need for something specific from the Government. The Oxford study purported to show that certain supplements had no effect on reducing the symptoms of patients with heart problems. It was a limited study and was properly carried out. It did not say that supplements did any harm, just that no benefit could be found. Contrast that with the other survey, which showed that vitamin supplements taken by prisoners were very effective, reduced dysfunctional behaviour and made them easier to manage.

The Minister must commission more research into that because there is surely some confusion there. I take supplements myself—I suppose that is no surprise—and I think that most people who take them believe, and have good reason to believe, that they help. The size of the demand and the size of the industry suggests that not everyone is an idiot, and when people have taken them, they perceive some difference. They understand that they have improved or feel better. That is why they continue buying them, but we need more research on that.

To go back to the traditional medicines directive, as I understand it, the Government's position has completely shifted. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, who was parachuted into the debate on the issue after the last reshuffle, has really tried to get a grip of the issue, but she was not well advised initially. The Department had not consulted the key people in the industry. The decision makers in the Department—the advisers—had not cast their net to ascertain what was happening. It was not until the meeting with the Department and the debate in the European Standing Committee that the Under-Secretary of State understood the sheer weight of opinion and the scale of the problem. That was when she decided to motor on the matter, and it is clear from yesterday's Hansard that things have moved on and that she is trying to get on top of the issue. The message that I got from the meeting with the officials of the Medicines Control Agency and the people who represent the consumer groups and manufacturers was that they feel that the Government have shifted substantially on the matter. The MCA has been pretty much instructed to work with the industry retailers and consumers over the next few weeks to quantify the problems and come up with solutions.

The future of health care is inextricably linked to the integration of complementary therapies in the health service. It is impossible for the Minister's Department to meet public demand and manifesto commitments unless it embraces more fully the integrated health care concept and draws on the 50,000 practitioners who largely practise in the private sector.

As politicians, we all look for a bit of luck. I believe that it was the Duke of Wellington who was once asked how he chose his generals. He said that he would prefer a lucky general to a good general. I had a bit of luck yesterday while wearing another hat. I am the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and I serve on the Liaison Committee. Colleagues may have noticed that yesterday the Liaison Committee met, and for the first time in 50 years the Prime Minister attended—not for 20 minutes or half an hour, but for two and a half hours. Luck again came to my aid, and I had the chance to ask him a question. I did not ask about statutory instruments, because I did not feel that the Committee needed to ask him about such matters. However, I asked him about complementary medicine.

The Prime Minister waxed lyrical at the meeting about how he personally—ipse, as they say in Latin—had had an influence on the primary care trust system. Yes, his hand had touched the reforms. He also admitted that there were too few doctors, nurses and ancillary nurses. I asked, "Prime Minister, in the course of your deliberations, did you consider making more effective use of the 50,000 complementary practitioners? We know that the Department has already decided to embrace—literally gobble up—all the beds in the private sector. If you are going to do that, why don't you take on the practitioners as well?" I shall be kind and say that I had a holding reply.

The Prime Minister had not been briefed on that issue, but he may want to be because in six months he will come back before the Liaison Committee. Aneurin Bevan said, "Why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book?" I cannot gaze into the crystal ball and say what will happen during that meeting. The Minister might want to tune into what I am saying because it might help his promotion. I may feel pressed to talk about the problems of statutory instruments, which is my right, but there is an outside chance that I will press him on the issue of complementary medicine.

The hon. Member for Watford is smiling again—she is always smiling, which is always good. I am trying to make a serious point in a flippant way, as it is important to try to lighten proceedings on occasions, especially in this area, which can be very entertaining and enjoyable.

I touched on the question of staff shortages, referring to the Prime Minister's comments in yesterday's sitting of the Liaison Committee. The figures involved are incredible. The Government are spending £300 million a year on agency staff to plug gaps in the health service. Hospital managers frequently tell me that the costs due to paying short-term rates for staff are huge. The Minister could make much better use of qualified herbalists and acupuncturists. He does not have to wait for statutory regulation, as many of them are regulated and properly trained. Not all complementary medicines are regulated, but he could bring some such practitioners into the health service now.

The right hon. Gentleman can help himself by proceeding with regulation at a faster pace. He might say something about that today. It is a key issue in the Lords report, and much good work has been done. Both the acupuncture and herbal medicine practitioners are in favour of such moves, although they are partly regulated under the old regime. The herbal medicine practitioners are starting on an ambitious route towards self-regulation. The new independent chairman of the regulatory working group is Professor Michael Pittilo. I had lunch with him, and I thank him for trying to put things in perspective. He is working on a detailed plan for herbal practitioners, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say something about that. The acupuncture profession is following closely behind.

My hon. Friend must not forget aromatherapists. The Aromatherapy Organisations Council has done a great deal of work to move towards regulation of the profession, and would be interested to hear the Minister's remarks on that.

I have Shirley Price's international college of aromatherapy in my constituency, which is one of the leading aromatherapy schools. Regulation has been an awful mess, with five or six different regulatory bodies, so I would welcome proper regulation. Aromatherapy is extremely valuable. I was not going to talk about it, but aromatherapists can be of particular help to people before operations. By gentle massage and use of oils, they can change people's moods and reassure them. They are also important in post-operative care.

I first consulted an osteopath in the 1970s, when that was seen as completely beyond the pale. People would never tell their doctor that they were seeing an osteopath, as they would pretty much be taken off the list. Since regulation, osteopaths have become much more involved in the health service, received much more respect and set up better links with surgeons. The process has worked well, although chiropractors are a little way behind.

I have no doubt, however, that if self-regulation can be speeded up—which perhaps means that the Government will have to spend more money on it—integration of the health service can be achieved in a painless way that meets everyone's requirements. Doctors are often nervous about referring, because they are not sure of the legal status. That is becoming more important because of the litigious nature of our nation. We seem to be following in the footsteps of the United States.

A word on cost-effectiveness will illustrate my point. About 5 million prescriptions are issued for painkillers each year, at a cost of £265 million. A further £370 million is spent on painkillers in pharmacies and supermarkets. Treatment of side effects arising from painkillers costs the NHS anything between £170 million and £350 million a year. Complementary therapies often remove the need for further medical investigation or surgical intervention.

According to the CBI, back pain is emerging as the greatest health concern for employers across all sectors, causing at least 5 million adults to consult their general practitioners annually. That costs a staggering £140 million in primary care. It is estimated that the Government spend more than £480 million a year on services used by sufferers of back pain alone. That includes about 14 million GP consultations, 7 million physical therapy sessions and the use of 800,000 inpatient beds. At any one time, 430,000 people in the UK are receiving social security payments primarily as a consequence of back pain. Industry pays the bill in lost work force days, then it pays again through the money needed to fund the health service to rectify the problem. Timely and appropriate preventive care could save Britain's economy millions.

That illustration could easily be applied to many of the other complementary therapies. The Public Accounts Committee ought to examine the relationship between the costs of complementary care and those of modern medicines. Complementary therapies are often much less expensive.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Public Accounts Committee. Would he be happy for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to investigate complementary therapies in the context of current technologies?

I would not disagree with the hon. Lady's point. NICE could examine the matter, but I was looking for a bigger weapon in the Public Accounts Committee, which is supposed to monitor the nation's books. It launches inquiries to establish whether the Government's spending is cost-effective. I was suggesting that that might be a way forward, but I do not disagree with what the hon. Lady said.

The health service performs more than 300,000 hip replacements each year, mainly on the elderly. Waiting times can be long, and I have received a number of complaints about waiting lists for that operation. Referral to an osteopath can help to keep patients active and mobile while they await the surgery and help to return them to health when they come out of the theatre. It takes the pressure off surgeons and the orthopaedic department. The Minister should consider the self-evident knock-on advantages in terms of reducing bed blocking in hospitals and care homes and for patients and their families.

My hon. Friend has secured a debate on an important matter on which I have received many letters, as no doubt many other hon. Members have. He mentioned osteopaths and back pain. Is he aware of the Alexander technique and the great benefits that that can bring in prevention and in giving relief, taking the burden off the osteopathic departments in our hospitals by teaching people to use posture and to use their bodies effectively so that they avoid back troubles or minimise their consequences if they already have them?

My hon. Friend raises a point that is valuable in two ways. First, he talks about a treatment and its effectiveness and secondly, he illustrates that in the complementary debate we have not really discussed many of the therapies, certainly not those in category 2 or 3 of the Lords report.

Alexander was a remarkable man. He was an opera singer who could not sing. He realised that he had a major problem and he developed a technique of breathing and relaxation particularly involving stretching the shoulders and the spine, which enables the lungs to open up. There is a fair number of Alexander technique practitioners in London and the home counties.

One of Alexander's discoveries was that, generally speaking, we do not stand properly. Most of us stand in such a way that our hips are dislocated from our back. He found that if one repositions oneself with a slight bend in the knees, one is better balanced. It takes the pressure off the spine and releases the muscles, which in turn releases the constriction across the chest and enables people to sing if they want to.

That technique, which I have studied and occasionally used, is very effective. Sometimes when I hear constriction in voices in the Chamber, I wonder whether some hon. Members would not benefit from the Alexander technique, which was intended as a solution for that specific problem. It can also release many tensions for those at work. A common problem is shoulder tension, which comes from modern working conditions and working long hours. Alexander's idea is suited to tackling that.

I cross-examined the Prime Minister yesterday—that sounds great, but is not entirely accurate. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I am a member of the Liaison Committee, and yesterday I had a chance to question the Prime Minister about health care. He told us that 75 per cent. of the health budget now goes through the primary care trusts. He also said that his hand had touched the decision-making process, so I was happy to ask him about that. As I said to him yesterday, if 75 per cent. of the budget is devolved to primary care trusts, surely advice should also be devolved and that advice should be to consider different therapies.

In the west country around Devon, many herbal practitioners are considering giving up because they cannot make ends meet in the private sector. I represent part of Leicestershire, but Ottery St. Mary has always been a centre for herbal practitioners, as hon. Members who represent constituencies down there know. Some practitioners are thinking of giving up because they cannot support themselves, yet they have had extensive training in herbal therapy. I can think of one practitioner whose is qualified in phytotherapy, English herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. It is a great tragedy. Those people are out there waiting to be taken on board and it would free up so many doctors and surgeons if complementary therapy was embraced more thoroughly.

Other groups have been working hard to bring complementary therapy online. The Prince of Wales set up the Foundation For Integrated Medicine and one of the programmes it set up is a primary care collaborative. The Government would do well to mark what has happened there. For some years, doctors and health care professionals have worked alongside complementary therapists and the scheme allows evaluation of the effectiveness of working together. The resultant savings shown by the survey prove my point. There are fewer demands on GP time and fewer referrals for secondary care. However, recent research shows that only one in 10 primary care trusts is seeking to establish PCT-wide complementary health care services. Many integrated services are also being established in health centres, and other initiatives are being set up to combat health inequalities. The message is twofold. First, valuable research has been carried out by the collaborative initiative, and secondly, not enough has been done to make use of that research in the health service.

The Government should introduce statutory regulation. Some work is taking place—I refer to Professor Michael Pitillo—and an easy bull for the Minister to hit is the one that moves statutory regulation along. The Foundation For Integrated Medicine has run seminars. I have attended some of them and they have been an effective force. More doctors must be trained, with courses for older doctors so that they at least know to whom to refer patients. They do not need to train in the discipline, but they should have better awareness of what is available and where to refer.

The Government must make it easier for complementary practitioners to practise in the NHS. Now that the primary care trust system is up and running, the very least the Minister should do is to send a memorandum to primary care trusts instructing them to look carefully at complementary therapies.

Finally, more research is necessary into complementary medicine generally. There was the Oxford survey on the use of vitamins and another conducted on prisoners, but if we are receiving conflicting messages, we need more research into how and where different supplements are effective. The Lords report came up with three categories, but we are really discussing only the first category here. There are many other disciplines. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred to the Alexander technique. I think that kinesiology, a form of muscle testing, is very valuable in establishing what the problems are. Another discipline that has not really been looked at seriously is iridology. That is about looking in the eyes in order to spot problems with various organs. I attended a demonstration at which 40 people were chosen to be studied. After a two-minute appraisal, about 70 per cent. of them said that the diagnosis was accurate.

We sometimes talk about loose cannons in the House. The origin of that phrase is 19th-century warships. A first-rate ship had 100 guns: on one side on the top deck were the 16-pounders, underneath were the 32-pounders and on the bottom deck were the 64-pounders, so called because they could throw a spherical ball of 64 lb in weight. The one thing that the ratings on those ships feared more than the French was a loose gun on the bottom deck. A gun that could fire 64 lb and that got loose—as you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the guns had to be run with ropes—was a terrifying thing, which could kill a lot of people. The directives that the Minister's Department are considering at the moment are 64-pounders. They are not secured on the bottom deck, and if he is not careful they will cause a lot of damage.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that I served in Nelson's day.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing this debate. When we saw his name, the subject was of no surprise, but I have to admire his tenacity on the topic. I want to talk about the place of complementary therapies in medicine and briefly mention the EU directives that are coming down the tracks.

We cannot get away from the fact that there has been a growing interest in the subject during recent years. Travel broadens the mind, but the biggest contributory factor has been the emerging mindset, which I welcome, that doctors are no longer regarded as gods. Patients have been helped by an explosion of lifestyle magazines, and there is also the internet, although that is a double-edged sword, because there is much rubbish on it. We question things much more nowadays and expect to have answers, and to have more involvement in our treatment.

I used to work as a community pharmacist. In the 20 or so years since I first qualified, there has been an absolute explosion of new products in the vitamins, minerals and herbal sector. I could be cynical and say that such things are sold not because they do any good but because people think that they do, but what is the harm in that? Pharmacists make a lot of money from those products. More and more, however, are also selling homeopathic products. I have taken some interest in complementary therapies, and it annoys me that homeopathic products are often sold completely wrongly in pharmacies. If one takes the time to study what homeopathy is about, one realises that it involves treating a person as an individual rather than as a case of indigestion, or whatever it might be. There must be training if those therapies are to be used properly.

If one walks into a pharmacy now, one finds aromatherapy oils and even devices based on the age-old practice of acupressure, to cure seasickness. I used to do a lot of work with pregnant women. One problem is that such women cannot take any drugs any more. Manufacturers have often not been able to trial their drugs, for very good reasons. That sector of the public increasingly looks to complementary therapies. Morning sickness is dreadful and many women try acupressure bands, ginger and raspberry leaf tea when they are approaching giving birth, and use homeopathy.

Many pregnant women enjoy aromatherapy. A good aromatherapist will not use certain oils on a pregnant woman, which is fundamental. Unfortunately, some people have the mindset that something natural must always be good and should not be questioned. The scientist in me says that if something can do good it also has the potential to do harm. In 1999, a survey of British adults showed that herbal medicines were the most commonly used form of complementary medicine. I am concerned that about one third of adults have accessed herbal medicines, because there is a large amount of ignorance. As a pharmacist, I know that herbal products can be of great benefit and much of the modern pharmacopoeia derives from them. I spent far too many hours during my three years at university doing strange things with bits of leaf.

Many members of the public are labouring under the mistaken belief that herbal medicines are safe and are without side effects. In many cases the effects of herbal medicines are more unpredictable because the amount of active ingredient in herbal material varies. Although there is some quality control, the amount of active ingredient in any particular product varies. Somebody taking herbal medicine does not always get a consistent effect and the pharmaceutical sector controls the amount of a drug more stringently than the herbal sector. That is bad enough, but there is also the mindset that natural products are without side effects, which is clearly rubbish. If a preparation has a physiological effect and has the power to cure, by definition there must be the potential for adverse effects. We have to get away from the idea that healthy products are natural. There is a huge place for complementary medicines, but we have to make sure that the public are protected.

The situation is changing. Over the past 20 years many therapies have gained a professional respect that was previously absent. Nowadays it is commonplace for pain clinics to use acupuncture whereas 20 years ago it was regarded as strange and quirky. Chiropractors now have a useful place and even homeopathy and osteopathy have gained a professional respect. That is acknowledged in the Lords Select Committee report, which is a good piece of work although some of my hon. Friends think that the Lords have been too kind in giving credence to some therapies.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bosworth that more research needs to be done. Much of the available research is conflicting and—we all do this; politicians love to do this so why should the complementary medicines lobby not do this?—people cherry pick the studies that prove their particular point. Many complementary medicines can be used as an adjunct to traditional therapy. The hon. Member for Bosworth mentioned aromatherapy, which I use. It can be used to relax patients and a strong case could be made that fewer drugs would be prescribed because if patients feel relaxed they may not need tranquillisers. There is no evidence to prove that that happens; it is just a gut feeling that I have. It would be nice to see someone carry out a trial to study the difference between two groups of people, one treated by aromatherapists and the other treated by conventional pharmaceuticals. If patients are terminally ill, why should they not be allowed to access the alternative treatment of their choice on the NHS, if they think that is going to help them? There is often little hope for some people. They may not want to go down the route of chemotherapy which, although useful, can be very traumatic. Some people do not want to do that, so the alternative route could be worth looking at.

I briefly want to consider the medicines directive. I was reassured by the approach of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), during yesterday's health questions. The directive as it stood was overbearing. There has been quite an effective lobbying campaign organised by Consumers for Health Choice. I was taken in by this group because I thought that it was a consumer organisation. However, close examination shows that it is largely a lobbying group on behalf of the health food industry. I am not sure whether many of my colleagues who have been lobbied are fully aware of that. Even bearing in mind the fact that there are quite significant vested interests involved, the directive is a classic example of a case where some compromise should be reached. We need good evidence that some of the larger doses of vitamins are safe.

The hon. Member for Bosworth mentioned vitamin B6. I agree that we did get it wrong on that, but many people were unaware that vitamin B6 has significant side effects in large doses. Often, women were taking quite hefty doses. They thought that because it was a vitamin, it must be safe and have no side effects. They could not understand why their pre-menstrual tension or postnatal depression had eased, but they were still feeling grotty for some other reason. We must not fall into the trap of believing that vitamins are safe at all doses, at all levels. Once we have an evidence base, it would be clearly ludicrous if every individual or small manufacturer had to go through the licensing procedure separately.

I now start to disagree with the hon. Member for Bosworth. He said that better use of resources for the NHS could be achieved by using such therapies. I would like to support him, but there is a limited pot of money in the NHS, and we have to have a firmer evidence base for some of the technologies. Where there is a proof that a technology is useful, it is already being used—for example, acupuncture.

A few years ago there was a growing use by GPs of acupuncture and other complementary therapies because they had the freedom to do so. It is a matter of concern that since we have had primary care groups, and now primary care trusts, that trend has reversed, so we are now losing the use of those therapies in the NHS, which doctors find useful.

I was coming on to primary care trusts. There is nothing to stop doctors using such therapies if they want to. A small group of local surgeries in my constituency took part in the total purchasing projects—a Conservative idea. That local group had won awards for the way in which they approached the matter. One of the innovative things that it did was to provide exercise on prescription. At the time, the group found that that led to real benefits. Having been given a free course, people very often completely changed their lifestyle and carried it on of their own volition because they realised the difference that it made to their lives. They were very upset when they were told that the TPPs were not to continue. They have been shackled in recent years, and have had to concentrate on what could be called core Government priorities. Recently, I spoke to some of those doctors and they were looking forward to 75 per cent. of the budget being devolved. They were keeping their fingers crossed that that money would not be earmarked. They want to return to having more freedom and to try prescribing some of these therapies.

We must not forget that the GP contract is being changed. It is likely that soon people will register with a surgery instead of an individual GP. That change could increase the use of complementary therapies. In the past, I worked alongside a surgery that had one doctor who was keen on homeopathy. Patients were queueing to see him because they wanted to access homeopathy first. They often found that the medicine was beneficial. I do not know whether those patients experienced a placebo effect, but they certainly did not return to that surgery for drugs of the traditional kind.

I welcome greater use of complementary therapies, but if primary care trusts and health professionals are to embrace them, it would be useful to establish a larger evidence base. I was disappointed after an earlier debate when I did not receive the evidence that the hon. Member for Bosworth promised to send me. I hope that he will put that right, because I have a genuine interest.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned supplements for prisoners. However, prisoners have an appalling diet, so perhaps it would be better to scrap supplements and ensure that they get enough fresh fruit and vegetables. There is more than one way to look at a problem. The hon. Gentleman may remember that a few years ago there was a survey of school children that showed that giving children certain blends of vitamins improved their IQ. I could say that giving them a proper diet, rather than Big Macs, would have achieved the same result. It will be difficult to find evidence, but if we want to offer choice to the public, it is well worth investing in research to establish the true place of such therapies in the NHS.

It is a pleasure to follow two hon. Members who spoke with great knowledge and fluidity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing the debate.

I apologise for starting on what may seem to be a discordant note, given that the two previous speakers dealt with the subject with a laudable lightness of touch. The debate is about choice and the freedom to act for one's individual needs and to make decisions about how one treats oneself, especially one's body. There is a growing and regrettable tendency for Governments to over-regulate every aspect of our lives; they want to control what people do, eat, where they go and whether they can sing in pubs. Generally, they want to dominate people's lives. The tendency is to swamp society with controls and over-burdensome bureaucracy. The present Government are one of the worst in history for doing that, and they are driven by the European Union to push forward directive after directive. They swallow them all whole. I would say, why fix it if it ain't broke? Complementary medicines and therapies are not broke. The Minister is scribbling, no doubt preparing his riposte to my attack, but I do not include him in my comments. I know him of old, and he is a good man. He is not an over-regulator by instinct, and I hope, therefore, that he will take the message to the Government.

Many doctors know how important complementary medicines can be in building a patient's confidence and self-esteem. Patients get not just choice but the important element of ownership of their treatment—they have a degree of control and choice. If such medicines are safe, use of them should not in any way be stymied, as they are very good and can help in many ways in building feelings of well-being in patients. There is much more to the treatment of disease and symptoms than any of us knows. At present, we do not understand the processes very well. Although we do not understand how, we know that the psychological effect is enormously important in the progress of disease and the effects of symptoms. If complementary medicines and therapies can help to alleviate and control the progress of disease, we should celebrate that and not seek in any way to control the process too much. All that matters is that it works.

Complementary medicines cover many areas of treatment. We have heard that aromatherapy can give relaxation and relief and help in many subtle ways in preoperative situations, in pregnancy and so on. I have never personally used aromatherapy. I do not know whether

other hon. Members have, but I have not had that pleasure. I was delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) is an expert in the area. I would subject myself to some hands-on experience to learn first-hand how important aromatherapy is, were she willing to introduce me to it. Putting humour aside, if people enjoy it and it gives self-esteem or relaxation before an operation, why not use it?

Food supplements can be helpful, providing they are safe. I do not believe that there is any great evidence that food substances are abused. Vitamins are essential. Some people like to use vitamins to supplement their diet or as an aid when they get older. For instance, older people need more calcium to keep the density of their bones intact, and I do not see anything wrong in that. Traditional eastern medicines and therapies have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. We do not know how they work, but we know that they have a significant effect and give great help and relief to patients. I do not understand why we should over-regulate them if it is not necessary. Acupuncture has been used for thousands of years. We do not know how or why it works, but we know that it can have an important effect on some patients. If it works, let it work.

There are several issues to be considered. If we can use medicines, including complementary medicines, in a preventive way, we should do so more. We should seek to prevent rather than to treat disease, and I hope that the health service will grow most in that area in the next 20 to 30 years. Otherwise, we will look back and realise that we did not get on with prevention soon enough or aggressively enough. Complementary medicines can be preventive. We should promote, not inhibit, the use of vitamin and diet supplements. We should also promote self-control and individual control where that is possible and safe.

We need the Government to give us advice and information, but not to over-regulate and control us. They could, for instance, give us more of a lead on diet. Hon. Members will know from my accent that I come from up north, so I feel able to say that diet is a particular problem there. The Government could give a lead on that, but I do not want them to regulate against fish-and-chip shops, or fried Mars bars in Glasgow. I am a great advocate and fan of fish-and-chip shops, although I cannot imagine why anyone would want a fried Mars bar. None the less, why should the Government regulate such things if people want them? Indeed, the Government are not rushing to regulate them, even though they probably damage the population's health much more than complementary medicines do. I do not see, therefore, why the Government should regulate complementary medicines, unless they want to develop a nanny state.

The bottom line is that patient choice should be welcomed and allowed where it is safe, because it will give patients control of their situation and self-esteem.

I take what you said about choice, but it was the Conservative Government who reduced the number of vitamin preparations available on prescription and who put some of them on the black list.

Order. We are getting a bit slack. When the hon. Lady says "you", she is referring to me, and I have not said a word.

Were you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to answer the hon. Lady, you would do so far more eloquently than I ever could. However, she makes a good point, and I do not seek to defend what previous Conservative Governments did. I would say, however, that we are listening to what the people say. We all know that our mailbags have been inundated with letters from people who want us not to stop or control complementary medicines and therapies, but to resist the European Union's rather silly directives, because they are unnecessary, smack of the nanny state, prevent choice and will, on balance, harm the health service. I rest my case, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for hearing me.

We have had an excellent and important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing it and on speaking so comprehensively.

My hon. Friend started—it is perhaps not a bad place for me to start—by noting that the period of Conservative government that started in 1979 was marked by important achievements in complementary medicine, and we do not need to apologise for what Conservative Governments did. As the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said, the acceptance of osteopaths and chiropractors was sealed by the Acts that were passed during those years. Equally, GP fundholding, whatever the Minister's criticisms of it, allowed GPs to use complementary therapies in a way that had not been seen before. That is one reason why we now see that wide range of treatments being used in practice.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said, it is vital to recognise that we are dealing with an important issue of individual choice. It was not by chance that 1,000 people marched to Trafalgar square shouting, "Tony, we want the right to choose." Those people felt strongly that they should be able to use certain therapies and that the Government should not interfere unnecessarily in a nanny-state way or in an orgy of regulation. My hon. Friend made a valid point when he said that the instincts of the Government are all too often to regulate rather than to allow individual freedom and choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Castle Point, also made the excellent point that there is a need to promote good health, and that diet and the way in which one approaches it are vital.

It is important to regulate professions so that they can be seen to be acceptable. That is how osteopaths and chiropractors were able to make progress. Can the Minister tell us what the proposals are for the other professions that have been mentioned during the course of the debate? I include aromatherapy, which I mentioned earlier. With regard to back pain and the Alexander technique, I know from meeting people who are involved in pain management that back pain is the largest problem of all. If research can help in that area by examining complementary therapies and providing them, that would be an economic use of resources.

The hon. Member for Romsey said that there has been an explosion in the use of complementary therapies and in the number of products that are available in pharmacies. We must not forget that we need to be careful about their use. I agree that safety is important; she made that point very fully. That does not mean that we should accept everything that is coming from Europe—the food supplements directive, the traditional herbal medicinal products directive and the European Commission's proposals to amend the EC medicines regulatory system. We have been concerned for a long time that the combination of those measures will lead to many products becoming unavailable, which will hit the retail sector. The Government have not yet given a solidly founded explanation of the dangers of these products. When we debated the matter in European Standing Committee C in June, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health whether she could point to solid scientific evidence that traditional herbal medicinal products were dangerous. We were given a few anecdotal examples about Aristolochia in Belgium, but that was not the sort of detailed, scientific report that one would expect from a Government who supported measures that could hugely limit consumer choice and put a number of firms out of business.

The Aristolochia case is often quoted, and it is misused. That was a case of the wrong drug being over-prescribed by the wrong people.

That is the point that my hon. Friend made very tellingly.

There are some welcome signs. As I mentioned earlier, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has called for a further round of discussions on the traditional herbal medicinal products directive, I understand that the Medicines Control Agency consultation has been extended and we hear that the Health Food Manufacturers Association is to meet the Minister on 24 July.

Can the Minister tell us what is really going on? What meetings have there been with interested groups, what meetings are planned, and is there emerging thinking from the Government that is more conciliatory on the issue? Will we see sound statistical medical evidence produced in this area? The principle should be that it is reasonable to request hard evidence if one is to outlaw products that are currently on sale; the burden should not be the other way. If something is being sold, and there is no evidence that it is doing harm, it is hard of a Government to say that they will introduce heavy-handed regulations without any sound basis. The Minister should be aware that a huge body of people are against the Government on these issues. They include the National Association of Health Stores, Consumers for Health Choice and people in the industry, as well as numerous consumers who write to Members of Parliament. The issue currently forms the largest postbag. One cannot merely say that those people have vested interests; they are the millions of people who use the products and who feel strongly about the issue. There is a burden on the Government to prove their case, which they have not yet done.

The European Commission proposes to amend the EC medicines regulatory system. The whole system seems to be becoming more centralised and the definition of a medicine is being expanded, so that it might include products from the arena of complementary medicines. I should be grateful if the Minister were to tell us whether the Government have made any progress in their opposition to the process. The Under-Secretary of State for Health told us that the Government had some concerns about the process, and I should like to know what progress has been made.

On the EU directive, will the Minister tell us the Government's view of the provisional findings of the European Union Scientific Committee on Food? The Government promised to tell us their view during the summer, once the expert group on vitamins and minerals had given its advice. We are getting into the dog days of summer in terms of parliamentary time, with only five days left, so we need to know the answer.

On the cosmetics directive, there are concerns about essential oils not being available because of new regulations on allergens. I wrote to the Secretary of State about that in June, but will the Minister tell us the Government's view of that directive?

Overall, will the Minister give us a commitment that the Government are reflecting on their strategy in this area, and will he commit himself to moving the Government's agenda towards choice and away from regulation? This is an important issue about choice and individual freedom, and unless the Government do something, they are likely to find more people marching through London shouting, "Tony, we want the choice." I am sure that the Prime Minister would not want that.

First, I join in the warm, generous and entirely appropriate remarks that have been made by hon. Members towards the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), not only for raising the debate today and on many previous occasions but, as the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said, for doing so with a tenacity and perseverance that is a credit to him. People often challenge the efficacy of Members and the contribution that individual Members play. The hon. Gentleman's campaign on complementary and alternative medicine provides evidence of how wrong those people are.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) drew attention to what they described as the achievements of the previous Conservative Administration in this area. I shall not quibble with the substance of that analysis, particularly in relation to the regulation of osteopathy and chiropractic. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, measures on both were introduced by private Member's Bills, so we need to proceed with some caution in claiming them as successes of the Conservative Administration. I am sure that they enjoyed the support of Ministers, but we need to put that on the record.

I take a slightly different view of the contribution of GP fundholding, which will not be a surprise either to the hon. Gentleman or to his hon. Friends. Rather than re-run the argument about fundholding and its merits or otherwise, I should put on the record that there were significant disagreements among general practitioners about the direction of that policy and whether it was beneficial to general practice or primary care. I shall touch on the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised on the accessibility and availability of complementary medicine within the NHS.

The hon. Gentleman referred to our approach to what he called integrated health care, and I agree with him in many respects on that. He will be aware that the Department now co-sponsors an award scheme on integrated health care. There have been a number of noticeable NHS achievements in that regard, of which the hon. Gentleman is perhaps unaware.

Last year, there were two winners of the award. One was the Blackthorn medical centre in Kent, which offers an anthroposophic approach to treatment, rehab and support employment for patients suffering from chronic illness. The other winner was the maternity acupuncture service provided at the maternity unit at Derriford hospital in Plymouth, where acupuncture was originally offered to provide greater choice of pain relief for women but was extended to a popular out and in-patient service for ante and post-natal problems. More than 4,000 women have been treated by that service, so there is evidence of progress.

The hon. Gentleman drew attention also to the need for more research, and I agree with him on that. I shall touch on what the Government are doing to encourage that. He stressed the importance of effective regulation, and I strongly agree with him on that.

I might have been a little unkind to the hon. Member for Romsey in our previous debate on the role of the private sector in the NHS. This time. I am happy to say that I agreed with almost all her comments. I hope that our relationship is now on a stronger footing, although if I were her I would be more worried about a relationship with the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).

The hon. Gentleman took a perfectly reasonable position on regulation. He is against it, almost as a matter of ideology. He prefers the freedom of the market and the freedom of consumers to choose. That is a perfectly defensible ideological position, but events over the past 200 years might have provided some evidence that that is not always the best way to proceed.

The hon. Member for Bosworth, in his support for statutory regulation of some of the key therapists, takes a very different view from that of the hon. Member for Castle Point, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bosworth. The important point is that if we are to regulate, we should always do so proportionately. We should always try strongly to support the basic principles of choice and consumer freedom. Everyone would want to sign up to those basic principles, whatever side of the House they sit on.

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Castle Point, but I do not think that the positions in this instance are absolutely fixed. We need to approach this subject with a degree of pragmatism. We should be clear about our overall objectives but be prepared to regulate, to intervene and to use our powers to establish proper minimum national standards, where that is in the interests of consumers and will support the exercise of effective choice rather than undermine it. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, however, that we have no plans to regulate the sale of fried Mars bars, if that was of concern to him.

The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred to several developments at European Union level, which I shall deal with in a few minutes. He was concerned about the Government's evidence on the safety of herbal medicines. He will remember, because he was present at the European Standing Committee debate, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health pledged to place a summary of safety information relating to herbal medicines in the Libraries of both Houses. The Medicines Control Agency intends to provide that information by the end of this month, so I hope that that will clear up some of his concerns.

I am not sure that I can be helpful to the hon. Gentleman today on cosmetics, as I know diddly squat about that subject.

Will the Minister inquire into what happened to the correspondence I had with the Secretary of State in June and give it a push, so that I get a quick reply?

I will certainly do that.

The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about the regulation of aromatherapists. They have set up a working group with an independent chairman. The first objective is to work together to create a system of voluntary regulation. If that can be done, we shall consider the case for any further form of regulation. Any scheme that they put in place themselves as an initial first step would form the basis of further progress.

Unfortunately, I have only five more minutes in which to respond to this important debate. First, I should say that there is no question in my mind but that evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine treatments provided by properly qualified and regulated practitioners can make a positive contribution to improving the health and well-being of people in this country. That is the Government's view. There is also no doubt that patients should always have the maximum possible choice of the range and types of treatments available; that is not only a Conservative set of principles but a Labour set of principles.

Our goal should be to support choice, diversity and safety in health care provision. As hon. Members know, primary care trusts have the primary responsibility for ensuring that that happens at a local level. It is widely accepted that people with cancer often find that complementary and alternative medicine treatments such as aromatherapy and reflexology, from which I have personally benefited and rate highly, help them to cope better with the trauma and anxiety that follow the diagnosis of that terrible disease, as well as easing the debilitating effect of the treatment that they undergo.

For that reason, the guidelines on supportive and palliative care for cancer patients that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will publish next year will include a section on complementary and alternative medicine. I hope that the guidelines will clarify the roles that various complementary and alternative medicine therapies can usefully play in the supportive and palliative care not only of cancer patients but of those afflicted by other chronic illnesses that are difficult to treat.

The hon. Member for Bosworth was concerned about the availability of complementary and alternative medicine provision throughout the NHS. He will be interested to know that we have commissioned research from Sheffield university on the subject that shows that a small increase has taken place in the provision of those therapies. It suggests that about half of general practitioners provide access to some form of complementary and alternative medicine. The hon. Gentleman will probably say that that is not enough, but I hope that he takes some reassurance that the indicators are pointing in a more favourable direction from his point of view. When the research information becomes available later in the summer, I shall ensure that he sees it.

It is not only what we are doing within the NHS that is important. The Department is working with the King's fund on a collaborative project led by Westminster university to create a network of primary care trusts that will identify and share good practice in the clinical governance of complementary and alternative medicine as a major contributor to NHS primary care. The two-year project began earlier this year and its results are expected next year. Other organisations such as the NHS Alliance and the Prince of Wales Foundation for Integrated Health are working in partnership on the project.

Much concern was expressed about the regulation of practitioners. No debate on the subject would be complete without a proper analysis of the pros and cons of that matter. We continue to regard regulation of complementary and alternative medicine professions as an important objective, so I am pleased to be able to describe the progress being made towards statutory regulation of herbalists and acupuncturists.

The independent herbal medicine regulatory working group has been in existence since January. There are important and sensitive issues to be resolved, especially in relation to relationships between the different traditions of herbal medicine. However, I hope that all traditions represented on the working group will continue to work together to achieve a sensible conclusion. If possible, the Government would like a statutory scheme to be established that encompasses and retains the unique characteristics of all traditions of herbal medicine, including the practice of traditional Chinese medicine. With good will and constructive participation all round, we can achieve something to provide much greater protection for patients and the public generally.

On the subject of acupuncture, a new regulatory working group is being assembled and will hold an initial meeting soon. I am pleased that both working groups are led by experienced independent chairmen, and I am confident that they will lead the professions involved to a position on which we can build. Once the working groups have made their recommendations, we will use them as a basis for wider consultation before preparing a suitable legislative vehicle to put before Parliament.

There is also the important subject of product regulation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health made it clear yesterday on the Floor of the House that our overall aim on herbal remedies is to achieve an effective balance between public health and consumer choice. They are not exclusive options, as the hon. Member for Castle Point tried to assert.

I accept that the balancing act is difficult. There are many effective advocates of consumer choice, and we acknowledge that many people have strong feelings on the issue.

Order.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise such an important issue. Why do I bring the subject to this forum at this time? Our debate is one of several that avowedly Christian Members of Parliament have brought before the House to highlight the persecution and other such treatment of Christians. I declare an interest as a Christian, and make no apology for raising the subject. I do not pretend to be an expert on Asia—I have taken a greater interest in Africa—but anyone who has seen the number of parliamentary questions on the subject and talked to any of the relevant organisations will know that the Christian community and those of other faiths have expressed concern about what is going on in Asia.

As I said, other hon. Members have secured debates on similar subjects. They include a debate on the Moluccas introduced by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in December 2000; and one on Sudan introduced by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in March 2002. I want to build on those debates about the way in which the Christian community is treated around the world, but I do not intend to blame other religious faiths or those of no religion. I shall talk about why Christians are under attack—and some of the figures that I shall give make the fact that they are under attack only too clear.

I give thanks to those who have helped me to ensure that the subject is brought to the attention of Parliament. It is good to see present several hon. Members whom I know will talk about different parts of Asia. I intend to speak generally, albeit with some specific references to North Korea, about which I am especially concerned. I thank Christian Solidarity Worldwide, especially Dr. Alan Hobson; he and I have discussed the repercussions of what has happened over several months.

It is opportune that we now have time to debate this important issue. I shall cast no aspersions, but instead explore ways in which the Government can by active involvement ensure that they protect the Christian faith and Christians., That is what we, as a Christian country, want to do. In addition, the issue is true to the spirit of the United Nations. We in this country try to be religiously tolerant, although perhaps less successfully than some of us want, and the same should happen in other parts of the world.

There are good reasons to consider the plight of Christian communities. A report written in America a few years ago concluded that Christians suffered more persecution than any other religious group. That view is echoed in another report published last year, which estimates that between 200 million and 250 million Christians worldwide are persecuted for their faith, with a further 400 million living under threat of persecution and non-trivial restrictions on their religious liberty.

Statistician David Barrett estimates in the World Christian Encyclopaedia, which was updated in 1996, that each year as many as 160,000 Christians are killed for their faith. Furthermore, more Christians were killed for their faith in the 20th century than in the previous 19 centuries. If we pause to consider that those centuries encompassed the frequent bouts of persecution that took place under the Roman empire, it helps to bring home the magnitude of what has happened in the past hundred years.

Although Christians are heavily persecuted in many parts of the world, a great deal of the persecution is taking place in Asia. Asia contains a wealth of cultures and histories; it has landscapes of spectacular beauty, and much else to admire. Many of the world's great inventions and advances in civilisation have emanated from that great continent, and it has been home to some of the greatest empires and civilisations that the world has ever seen. However, despite the vast differences between the cultures, languages, histories and systems of government of the different countries of Asia, it remains true today that Christians are severely persecuted in many of them. The problem covers a wide geographical area: even if we discount the persecution of Christians in the middle east, which is technically in western Asia, there is still a wide arc of persecution, stretching from the central Asian republics such as Turkmenistan, through the Indian sub-continent, and on to southeast Asia.

The position of Christians is precarious in most of the former Soviet republics of central Asia, where Governments tend to follow an aggressive form of Islam. The worst in terms of its treatment of Christians is Turkmenistan. Last year, for example, the Turkmen authorities badly mistreated Shageldy Atakov, an imprisoned Christian. He was tortured and physically abused and, in a sinister throwback to the worst excesses of the old communist era, he was forcibly injected with psychotropic drugs. Other Christians, especially Baptists, have been targeted; if they fled because they had found out that the authorities were about to swoop, they were subjected to a manhunt.

In India, although the Government profess their allegiance to religious tolerance, Hindu militant organisations have been targeting Christians for some years. According to the Indian Government's figures, Hindu militants killed 33 Christians in just two years—1999 and 2000. In Pakistan, it is Muslim extremists who target Christians. Their attacks last year on two churches in which more than twenty people were killed hit the headlines, but many other cases of Christians facing violence and discrimination in Pakistan are less well known. Several hon. Members, including myself, have raised individual cases, and I am sure that the Minister will refer to those cases and others to show that it is a matter of ongoing concern.

In Burma, the State Peace And Development Council regime is notorious for the vicious attacks it perpetrates upon its own ethnic minorities, who include Christians as well as many other religious groups. However, some Christian churches and pastors in the capital, Rangoon, are specifically targeted by the regime.

In south-east Asia, a number of different systems of government are engaged in the persecution of Christians. Those include atheist communist countries such as Laos, Vietnam and North Korea. In Laos, many churches have been closed down, many Christians have been imprisoned in the past few years, and Christians are killed from time to time. In November last year, a Christian pastor in northern Laos was shot dead. It was unclear whether the authorities were behind the killing or whether it was the work of a relative angry at the fact that the man was a Christian—both parties had made threats. Whatever the case, the man was killed because of his Christian faith.

In Vietnam, many Christians, especially Christian leaders, have been imprisoned, and a large number languish in prison today. While we debate the issue in the comfort of our liberal democracy, churches in Vietnam have been destroyed and a number of Christians are believed to have been killed.

Highlighting one country might help to illustrate the point. North Korea is a good example of wrong, and of why this country and the Government need to do something. North Korea operates a system of absolute and brutal control over its population; even the slightest aberration from the Government line is punished with severe, sometimes fatal, reprisal, and torture, imprisonment in conditions of severe deprivation and execution are routinely used to control the population. Political prison camps are one of the key means used to deal with dissent.

Christians in North Korea are specifically targeted. That can be traced back to the 1950s, when Kim II Sung implemented the juche philosophy in the country. The main purpose of that philosophy, which was designed to impact on every area of North Korean society and Government, was to cement the hold on absolute power of Kim II Sung, and, later, his son, Kim Jong II. The central teaching of juche is that there is no power greater than that of Kim II Sung, "the great leader", and Kim Jong II, "dear leader". Christians are a particular target of the regime because they believe in God and refuse to acknowledge that their country's leaders represent the ultimate power. Christians are the most targeted group in North Korea, apart from suspected South Korean spies, who occupy a place of comparable suspicion in the eyes of the regime.

For decades the rulers of North Korea have tried to eradicate Christianity from the country. If someone is suspected of being a Christian they are arrested, and possessing a Bible is an arrestable offence. Often when someone is arrested for being a Christian, three generations of the family are arrested at the same time, because the grandparents, parents and children within that family are just as liable as the original person. That is an attempt to prevent the spread of what is seen as the insidious influence of Christianity. Once Christians have been arrested, they are either executed immediately, or sent to political prison camps.

Those prison camps are often known—with good reason as concentration camps. The human rights non-governmental organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide has sent several fact-finding missions to the region in the past two years, and it has heard first-hand accounts of the treatment of Christian prisoners in the camps. The treatment of all prisoners in the camps is dire, but because Christians are seen as such a threat to the regime, they are singled out for particularly harsh treatment. Prison guards are rewarded if they manage to force a Christian to recant his or her faith, which gives them a particular incentive to target them for beatings, torture, harsh labour, rape and other such treatment. One former prisoner reported that she saw a guard pour molten iron over living Christians because they refused to renounce their faith.

Christians in the camps are also subject to a decree that their faces must permanently face the ground. Because they believe in God and would look to heaven, they are not allowed to look up. A former prisoner reports that after years of keeping that position, many Christian's necks are permanently deformed. When Christians die guards break their necks and bury them face down to prevent them from seeing heaven.

Many Christians in the camps are worked to death. According to reports from former prisoners, they are singled out for the worst and most dangerous jobs. Men are sent to work in iron foundries and other factories in which the mortality rate is high because of the dangerous conditions and exposure to extreme temperatures. Women are subjected to intense labour such as making shoes in primitive conditions, or are made to clean cesspits where they are often overcome by toxic fumes. Men and women work for 16 to 20 hours a day, seven days a week. It is not surprising that of all the prisoners in the camps, Christians tend to have the shortest life expectancy.

Much of that is not widely known because North Korea is one of the most closed countries in the world. Because the media are selective about which reports they present, we do not know as much as we could or should know. I hope that today's debate will redress the balance to some extent. Hon. Members will note that early-day motion 345 draws attention to the political prison camps in North Korea. I was happy to sign it, and was pleased to see the signatures of more than 100 other MPs. I hope that we will get further signatories as a result of today's debate.

Another aspect to the persecution of Christians in North Korea is the treatment of those who attempt to escape over the border into China. Some are captured and punished by the North Koreans. but even if they succeed in reaching China, that is far from the end of their troubles, because the Chinese do not recognise them as legitimate refugees and their position is therefore precarious. Although in the past China often turned a blind eye to such people's presence, a recent crackdown has led to many being repatriated to North Korea, where some have been executed and others brutally punished.

Even those who avoid detection are not always safe. Women are especially vulnerable to abuse. After fleeing from North Korea, women are often taken by men posing as guides to an area of supposed safety; once there, they find themselves escorted to a home where they find that unwittingly they have been sold to Chinese men as brides. Such a woman is viewed as a man's property: he can keep her locked up or even shackled, sexually abuse her, rent her out to other men as a prostitute, physically attack her, or even sell her on to another man. The woman is unable to take any action, because she can be threatened with being handed over to the authorities and repatriated. Such women often suffer enormous physical and emotional harm.

Many other North Koreans, driven either by hunger or by a desire to escape the repressive regime, attempt to flee their country, but Christians face special dangers if they are caught and repatriated, because not only have they committed the serious crime of escaping from the mother country, but they adhere to a detested and feared faith. Those are very serious issues.

I turn to what I believe the Government should be doing to highlight those issues and to promote religious tolerance. On 22 January 2002, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe declared in an answer to a written question:

"Promotion of human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is at the heart of our foreign policy…Our approach is to treat religious freedom as an integral part of our foreign policy"—[Official Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 770W.]

That echoes statements made by other Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) when he was at the Foreign Office. He said:

"Promotion of human rights is at the heart of our foreign policy and we regard religious freedom as a fundamental human right"—[Official Report, 27 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 422W.]

That is commendable, but it needs to be backed up with action. North Korea is a good example of a country in respect of which action could be taken.

It is possible to envisage links between our country and North Korea growing during the next decade or so. We should be careful not to let the matter rest, but instead to push for aspects of religious liberty to be upheld. The North Korean regime needs to be made aware that Governments, including ours, uphold and believe in human rights and religious tolerance. In particular, I ask the Government to press the North Korean regime to allow human rights monitors unrestricted access to political prison camps. I draw the Minister's attention to the Chongjin and Khechen camps, which are two of the most notorious.

Will the Government allow us to include details of religious persecution in the next annual human rights report? While there was much to commend in the most recent report, it was disappointing that it reflected no real awareness of the issue, which needs to be emphasised. We must also deal with organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which has produced accurate witness statements and a great deal of evidence to show what is going on.

I would argue that if we are to come to terms with regimes such as North Korea's and bring such countries back into the family of civilisations, we must ensure that that does not happen at any cost. We must make sure that people's human rights are defended, which involves dealing with the Chinese as well as with the North Koreans. Such regimes employ many tactics that must be highlighted. As the North Korean example shows, by holding up such regimes as examples to the world, we can do a great deal to shame them into behaving in a more reasonable way. North Korea ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights in 1981, yet among the many articles of that covenant that it blatantly ignores is article 18, which guarantees the right to choose one's religion or belief, the right to freedom of conscience in religion and the right to practise that religion in public and in private. It is about time that that issue is tackled in the North Koreas of this world.

I know that other hon. Members want to talk about similar abuses and use their chance to highlight some of the world's wrongs. I have focused on North Korea because to my mind it is the worst example of what is happening in Asia, but there are, unfortunately, many other places that could be used in evidence. I urge the Government to look for fresh ways to ensure that human rights become a reality.

I hope that the desk officers and heads of section in the Foreign Office and the ambassadors in the countries concerned make religious freedom a priority. I hope that they are aware of the mistreatment of Christians and other religious minorities in certain countries and regularly bring that to the attention of those regimes. I ask that the Government work actively to take up such issues. There are many ways in which that can be done, both bilaterally and through the multilateral agencies, specifically the UN. As I mentioned earlier, religious tolerance is a key element of the UN's charter, so will the Government raise the issue with the UN?

In conclusion, the Government should report on issues of religious persecution. Such issues are key to people who are avowedly Christian, and to all people who believe in the rights of which the House of Commons is proud and on which it has a strong record, past and present. The Government should consider regularly reporting back to Parliament, through parliamentary questions and debates such as this. That would show the Government's commitment to ensuring that religious freedom is a key element of an ethical foreign policy—something in which I hope we all believe—rather than just an idea to which lip service is paid.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—for the purposes of this debate, he is my hon. Friend—for raising the important issue of religious persecution, in particular persecution of Christians throughout the world.

I start with two preliminary points. First, I have been a member of Amnesty International for many years. I do not agree with everything that the organisation says—that would be too much—but I genuinely believe that it has provided a real light in the darkness and a voice for people in very difficult circumstances who have been unable to speak out. Its stance on human rights and religious freedoms is to be commended. There is sometimes a danger of commentators believing that Christian-based organisations have exaggerated circumstances and examples, so to have a secular-based organisation as a second reference point is often helpful.

Secondly, as an evangelical Christian, I believe that Christians frequently speak out on behalf of others, and many have given their lives for those of other faiths. I believe that religious freedom is absolutely indivisible from other human rights and freedoms. In many countries, laws that might be used to protect Christians are there to protect other minorities as well. That is something that really does bind us together.

I echo the hon. Gentleman's thanks to Christian Solidarity Worldwide and those who have helped us to prepare for the debate. I also commend various Christian organisations for the work that they do on behalf of Christians throughout the world. The statistics quoted by the hon. Gentleman on the persecution of Christians certainly make sober reading. They are a graphic reminder of why we are discussing the plight of Christians today. That in no way detracts from the suffering of many other religious groups in many parts of the world, and the policies that we pursue to address the plight of Christians will address their plight as well.

It is fair to say that religious liberty has not been given the same prominence as other basic freedoms that we hold dear. I make one example to illustrate that point. At the UN, a convention, a treaty body, a special rapporteur, a day, a week, three decades and a world conference have all been allocated to the important topic of racial discrimination. However, apart from a special rapporteur, the UN has no such mechanisms in place for the equally important topic of religious discrimination. Such examples help to show the extent of the problem.

Religious liberty is often marginalized in human rights discourses. That is worrying, because it is a vital issue that we need to address. I need not go into detail as to why that is so, as I am sure that hon. Members understand the reasons. As the hon. Member for Stroud has noted, the Government have publicly stated:

"Our approach is to treat religious freedom as an integral part of our foreign policy"—[Official Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 770W.]

I commend that statement.

In a western world seemingly slavishly devoted to the commercial and the material, understanding that religion and a spiritual dimension form a crucial part of an individual's—and a people's—sense of identity is exceptionally important. Any significant curbing of the freedom to practise religion can therefore have highly detrimental consequences for individuals and for society. If a state will not respect the most intimate beliefs of individuals, it is far less likely to respect other personal rights. Religious liberty can be seen as a benchmark for how well human rights in general are flourishing.

I shall focus my remarks on Asia and the treatment of Christians there. Many of the civilisations that have emanated from the continent of Asia over the centuries have a long and honourable history. It is therefore all the more sad that severe persecution of Christians is taking place in so many countries in that continent. Broadly speaking, three types of ideology are responsible for the persecution of Christians in Asia today. The first is atheistic communism. Despite the fact that the cold war has long since ended, several countries in Asia still cling to that ideology, and all of them actively persecute Christians and other religious minorities. The hon. Member for Stroud gave the example of North Korea. Another is China, where many Christians, as well as other groups such as Falun Gong, are persecuted. Other countries included in that group are Laos and Vietnam.

The second type of hostile ideology is militant Hinduism. In India and, to a lesser extent, Sri Lanka, militant Hindu groups—some of them closely connected to the authorities—actively persecute Christians and Muslims. Many Christians and Muslims have been attacked and several have been killed. Hon. Members will not need to be reminded of the recent slaughter of up to 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat.

The third type of ideology is Islamism, which can be distinguished from Islam. Such a distinction is helpful and necessary to avoid Islamophobia. Islamism is the aggressive propagation of Islamist ideology and the attempted vanquishing of other faiths, which are seen as incompatible with Islam. It is often associated with violence and terrorism. Examples of countries in Asia where Islamism is strong include Indonesia and Turkmenistan. Christians face severe persecution in parts of those countries.

It is crucial to distinguish the faith from those who prosecute it so actively that they bring it into disrepute. All too often, we tread on eggshells when discussing religious matters, but sometimes the facts have to be faced. The world is not as nice as we would like it to be, and people are not as tolerant as we want them to be, and nor are the countries from which they come. Unless we face facts honestly, we do the world a disservice.

Amnesty International's report on Pakistan for 2001 states:

"Despite the government's stated commitment to human rights protection, human rights violations including torture and deaths in custody increased during 2000. Minorities were not given adequate protection when religiously motivated violence flared up. Violence against women and children continued at a high level."

The background to the blasphemy law in Pakistan is, I suspect, reasonably well known, but it deserves a further hearing. The law is contained in section 295C of the Pakistan penal code and prescribes the mandatory death penalty for anyone found to have

"by words…or visible representation…or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiled the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad".

It neither defines the terms "defilement" nor looks into the criminal intent of the alleged offender. The law has frequently been abused to imprison people on grounds of religious enmity, but it has also proved to be an easy tool to imprison people when the real motives are business rivalry or land issues.

Local human rights groups, minority rights organisations and Amnesty International have called for the introduction of procedural safeguards to protect against abuse. President Musharraf said in April 2000 that procedural changes would be introduced to lessen the possibility of abuse of the blasphemy law. However, the amendment was withdrawn a month later on the grounds that the ulema—the Islamic scholars—and the people had "unanimously" demanded that it be withdrawn.

Violence against Christians in Pakistan is all too frequent, and some of the examples are graphic and not pleasant. One case arose last year. A 14-year-old Christian girl, Naira Nadia, spoke to her friends at school about her faith; as a result, an armed group of Muslim extremists kidnapped her and gang raped her. She is still missing. In an attempt to absolve themselves of their crime, the perpetrators forcibly converted the girl to Islam and sent her parents a certificate of conversion. She has not been returned to her family, who are under intense pressure from local Muslims to drop the case.

In February this year, 16-year-old Shakeela Siddique, a Christian girl, was reportedly raped by her Muslim landlord at gunpoint. Her father attempted to confront the landlord but was badly beaten up. He noted:

"No Christian in our village dares to raise his voice against the Muslim landlords."

To date, the police and the authorities have refused to investigate the crime properly. In May 2000, eight Christian girls were allegedly gang raped by six men on their way home from work. In spite of corroborating medical and police evidence, the attackers were acquitted. It is widely believed that the judgment was given under pressure and intimidation from militants who packed the courtroom at each stage of the proceedings.

Those are not isolated incidents. Crimes against women from religious minorities, especially Christians, continue to escalate. Many women who are raped are forcibly converted to Islam and married off to their rapists or sold into prostitution. In 1999 the organisation Human Rights Watch issued a report on violence against women in Pakistan, saying that there was a virtual epidemic of crimes of violence against women, with domestic violence and rape being used all too frequently in that society.

Many Christians and other minorities fall foul of the blasphemy laws. Four Christians charged with blasphemy have been killed by Islamic extremists since 1992, and attempts have been made on the lives of at least three others. In 1997, a judge who acquitted two Christians on blasphemy charges was murdered by extremists who were angry at his decision.

The case of Ayub Masih has been reported. In April 1998, he was sentenced to death for speaking favourably about Salman Rushdie during a dispute with a Muslim villager. During the hearing, a witness shot Mr. Masih in the courtroom, but no complaint was made against the assailant, and Mr. Masih was sentenced on 27 April. Protesting against the sentence, Bishop John Joseph of Faisalabad, a long-time activist for religious minorities shot himself—committed suicide—on 6 May. It was widely believed that Ayub Masih's accusers hoped to drive the Christian family from the village and gain control of their land. The Pakistan Minister for Law and Justice at the time, Khalid Anwar, acknowledged the possibility and is reported to have said:

"There is no doubt that for personal reasons people file false claims and judges are under great pressure not to acquit the accused, no progress has been made towards reforming the laws."

The problem in Pakistan remains acute because the state seems unwilling or unable to follow the instincts of some of its leaders to amend the law. My case on behalf of Christians who are being persecuted is that they are not the only ones who stand to gain from change; others, too, would gain. I appreciate that security measures recently implemented by President Musharraf have afforded some further protection for religious minorities, but I hope that the Chamber accepts that more can be done, in view of the cases I have described. To protect against obvious abuse, the blasphemy law needs to be reformed—and, preferably, abolished. Prisoners accused of blasphemy should be housed in separate cells from other inmates. More fundamentally, much greater protection should be afforded to religious minorities throughout Pakistan and, in particular, to women.

In closing, I want briefly to mention two further issues. First, the United States is occasionally vilified over human rights. However, it has both an Office Of International Religious Freedom and a Commission On International Religious Freedom, both of which produce regular reports and have a high reputation. It also has a specific religious liberty ambassador, and every United States embassy is required to produce human rights reports in respect of their respective country. We do not have anything comparable to that. Although the annual reports on human rights produced by the Foreign Office are welcome, they lack the thoroughness and systematic sweep of their American equivalents. Can the Minister assure us that our reports will become more detailed and wide-ranging, and will he take on board suggestions to appoint a commission for international religious liberty, or at least something resembling that model?

Secondly, although I gather that some training in human rights is given to staff at the Foreign Office, there is room for improvement. One prominent NGO with which I have some links reported that whereas many desk officers at the Foreign Office are very helpful, some do not appear to make human rights and religious liberties a priority. May I ask that a prominent place is given to both human rights and religious liberty in the training programme for staff? The Minister and his colleagues have asserted that religious liberty is an integral part of their foreign policy. I look forward to renewed initiatives along the lines suggested by myself and the other hon. Members who speak today.

I shall keep my comments brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I am grateful for your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to leave at 11.55. As vice-chair of the all-party textiles group, I have a longstanding commitment at the Department of Trade and Industry.

I declare my position as chair of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) declared his Christianity. I congratulate him on that. I declare also that I have formally been asked to join the board of Christian Solidarity Worldwide for some of the work that we have done with it over the years. I hope to promote its work, particularly during the few minutes I have this morning.

In general, I agree with the two previous speakers: religious freedom cannot be considered in isolation from everything else. We have to recognise that it is a fundamental human right, and it must be at the centre of everything that we do as a Government. When we, as Members of Parliament, look at other countries, we must consider what religious freedom means to individuals in those countries and how we can assist them. As the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, this subject is not about being anti-Islam or against any other religion; we are talking about religious freedom across the board. Anything that promotes Christian religious freedom in Asian countries will, rightly, have an impact on the human rights of minorities in those countries. Freedom of expression and association is fundamental to this debate.

Before it seems as though we are being negative, we should recognise that in some parts of Asia, Christianity is flourishing. Those of us who have seen what is happening in South Korea, for example, and the number of churches that are growing, do not want to take a blanket anti-Asia tack on the subject of religious freedoms. We must ensure that we speak positively about the many countries that promote Christian and religious freedom.

The opening up of China over the past two decades has resulted in a lot more freedom in many areas. However, the Chinese Government have cracked down heavily on the underground Church over the past few years. As a country, we must work out the best way to work with each of the Asian countries. With its entry into the World Trade Organisation and its opportunity to host the 2008 Olympics, China wants to be a central part of the world community. We therefore have a great opportunity to engage positively with the Chinese Government, to ensure that some of the things that concern us are rectified.

In the past few years, hundreds of pastors and other Christian leaders have been arrested and imprisoned, with some being given long sentences. Five Christian leaders of the South China Church have been sentenced to death, although, fortunately, their sentences have been suspended for two years to allow for appeals. That demonstrates what we are up against. A number of women from the South China Church were tortured and sexually assaulted by their interrogators in an attempt to force them to testify against the main leader, Pastor Gong. Early this year, more than 50 Catholic clerics were arrested or put under surveillance by their Government. Those people were targeted because of their religious beliefs. We should deplore all such actions.

Directives issued by the Chinese Government and other documents show a targeted campaign against a number of evangelical Christian movements and—as we all know—against the Falun Gong religion. Early-day motion 975. which deals with death sentences on Chinese Christians, covers some of those issues and has been signed by nearly 130 MPs. That shows the depth of feeling in the House, across the political divide.

In the past few years, several Christians have died after being tortured in police custody. The official state Churches, both Protestant and Catholic, are subject to heavy interference from the Government. Their doctrine is widely regarded as very liberal, putting loyalty to Government before loyalty to God. Hence, many believers prefer to attend the underground churches and house churches. That makes the state even more nervous about what is happening. There has to be a balance to ensure that the recognised Church is able to flourish so that it is more open and it is less difficult for the Chinese Government and others to understand what it is about.

China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and has ratified various UN conventions. Today, we call on the Government, through their agencies and the United Nations, to ensure that fundamental human rights—in particular, article 18 of the universal declaration on human rights—are observed in China. China's entry into the WTO and its hosting of the 2008 Olympics give us an ideal opportunity to engage positively with it and to demonstrate that Christians are no threat to the current status or the current state. We can demonstrate that permitting religious freedom and religious expression will allow problems to be worked out.

As for what our Government can do, I was heartened by the responses that I received to parliamentary questions that I tabled earlier this year. The Government are committed to ensuring that religious freedom is a fundamental part of human rights. However, religious freedom will not at present be included specifically or individually in human rights reports, as we want.

Strangely for me, I think that the Government should follow the United States' example and make religious freedom a specific part of the human rights report on each country. I know that that will entail a little more work, but it will ensure that desk officers and others who monitor what happens in other countries have a much broader understanding of why some freedoms are denied. It is important that they then see the issue in a human rights context, because once a country starts to chip away at the fundamental right of religious freedom, other freedoms will follow.

The plea from most hon. Members present will probably be that we should keep religious freedom as a fundamental right. We must keep it at the heart of our foreign policy, but we must follow up our fine words with a few actions to ensure that reports to Parliament are at the heart of the process. In that way, we will know what is going on not only in Asia, but throughout the world, and we will know where to apply extra pressure so that religious freedom remains genuinely at the heart of our foreign policy.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing this debate and on the detailed and highly competent manner in which he introduced it. It always strikes me as strange that we congratulate hon. Members who secure debates in Westminster Hall on winning the ballot—in effect, a raffle—but that we do not comment on what they say after achieving the magnificent feat of having their name pulled out of a hat.

Like other hon. Members, I have to declare an interest. Like the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), I am a member of Amnesty International, and, like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I am a practising Christian. The hon. Gentleman described himself as an evangelical Christian; I often wonder what a non-evangelical Christian is, but I am aware that I would risk your wrath if I explored that point at any length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall leave it hanging for another day.

Freedom of religious expression is a fundamental freedom. For a Christian, it must entail not only the freedom to worship, but the freedom to evangelise and proselytise. Without that second element, it is meaningless and sterile; indeed, it is no freedom at all.

Like the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), I shall confine my remarks largely to the Chinese Government's record. I shall be able to keep my speech short because he said much of what I had intended to say. The hon. Member for Stroud said that some Christians had fled from North Korea to China. That is ironic—indeed, the expression "out of the frying pan, into the fire" sprang to my mind.

The Chinese Government's record in respect of the Christian community's right to practise is of particular concern to me. It is especially ironic given that article 36 of the Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression. The manner in which that article is implemented and the restrictions that the hon. Member for Loughborough mentioned mean that the registered churches are unable to bear true witness. There is great dissatisfaction among many Chinese Christians because they are able to express their Christianity only in underground and house churches.

I understand that the vast majority of Protestant Christians in China have opted to join unregistered churches and that about half the Roman Catholics in China practise and worship in that way. Since 1996, that has led to a sometimes violent campaign to close down and destroy many unregistered house churches. In preparation for today's debate, I discovered that police had forced some 400 house churches to close in Shanghai alone. As a Christian, I almost envy them having 400 lively churches to suffer such persecution, but that is a side issue.

I shall not list all the persecutions that Christians, especially those who practise in house churches, have suffered, but I want to place a few on record. In May 1996, five house churches were demolished by public security bureau officials near the town of Wenzhou in the Zhejiang province. In the same month, three large churches in Yongjia county near Wenzhou city were dynamited to the ground. Two of the churches had congregations of more than 1,000 members. Another church in the suburb of Wenzhou was set upon by public security officials, who tried to dismantle it manually with axes; they gave up and instead posted a banned notice on the front of the church.

There have also been violent attacks on individuals. I think in particular of Zhang Xiuju, a 36-year-old woman from Xinhua county in Hunan and a leader of a Protestant house church, who was dragged from her home by the police during the night and beaten to death the following day. The litany goes on and on, but I do not intend to do so. It is all very well identifying the problem; the solution is inevitably a great deal more complex. To that extent, I do not envy the Minister his task.

There is impatience among Christians in this country who are aware of what is happening. We want more than fine words from the Government. We know that the Government regularly raise these matters—I know that because I have corresponded with the Minister about it. I ask the Government to use the time between now and the 2008 Olympic games to draw attention to the whole panoply of human rights abuses in China, especially the persecution of religious minorities such as the Falun Gong and the Christian community.

If we allow ourselves to be seen as tolerating such abuses, the danger is that the view from inside China will be that we are more than tolerating them—that we accept and agree with them. That would be entirely regrettable.

I feel quite humble standing to speak after such eloquent, well-informed and passionate speeches. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on bringing this important matter before the House.

Like all the other speakers, the hon. Gentleman called on the Government to promote religious freedom, tolerance and human rights. I accept the Government's sincerity in wishing to promote human rights, good governance and religious freedom, but when I raised the matter in the House on 23 January in proposing new clause 1 to the International Development Bill, the Government opposed linking non-humanitarian development aid to human rights, good governance, religious freedom and the development of democracy. That linkage defines so-called smart aid, which was promoted by the USA in the late 1990s and is now being considered in institutions as strange as the European Union. I hope that the Government will now reconsider those Conservative proposals.

On 23 January, I spoke about the fighters of Laskar Jihad, the militant Islamic group responsible for killing thousands of Christians in the Moluccas and Sulawesi in eastern Indonesia. The conservative estimate is that between 5,000 and 6,000 Christians have been killed so far during the current problems. Laskar Jihad has recently infiltrated the Indonesian province of West Papua. The militants are training local militia who support Indonesian control of that province. The West Papuan-based human rights group, El-sham, reports that currently at least 3,000 Laskar Jihad fighters are there.

The British human rights group, Jubilee Campaign, which I congratulate on its excellent work, has long warned that Laskar Jihad's objective is one of forced Islamicisation and that that strategy is not confined to the Moluccas. It has been implemented through Laskar Jihad's extensive and systematic use of forced conversions against Christians. The militants began by invading the Moluccas in 2000. They then moved to Sulawesi and have now moved to West Papua, where there is a large Christian community. There will be much bloodshed if they are allowed to operate freely there.

Laskar Jihad sent armed fighters into the West Papua district of Fakfak and they are operating military training camps there. Some of the Indonesian authorities support the training that Laskar Jihad has been giving the pro-Jakarta, east Merah Putih militia. Unrest and fear have spread through the Christian community in the Sarong district of West Papua following the recent arrival of Jihad fighters who have been trying to provoke religious tensions there.

In May 2000, Laskar Jihad invaded the Moluccas with about 7,000 fighters to wage a jihad or so-called holy war against the indigenous Christians. That invasion caused unprecedented levels of violence and resulted in the deaths of thousands. In December 2001, the head of Indonesia's national intelligence agency, Lieutenant General Hendropriyono publicly confirmed that members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network were joining Laskar Jihad in fighting against Christians in Sulawesi. Due to pressure from fundamentalist Indonesian politicians, General Hendropriyono later

retracted the statement. However, he did so only because of political pressure—the facts were totally accurate.

The Malino peace agreement, signed by Muslim and Christian leaders from Sulawesi and the Moluccas indicates that positive steps towards peace are being made. However, it is highly unlikely that there will be any long-term peace until Laskar Jihad is completely removed from that area. A massacre in Soya occurred just a few days after Laskar Jihad publicly rejected the Malino peace agreement. Jafar Umar Talib, the leader of Laskar Jihad, arrived in Ambon on 25 April and his presence added to the religious tensions in that area. During his sermon before a large crowd at the al-Fatah Mosque the next day, just two days before the massacre at Soya village, Jafar said:

"Muslims will destroy all Christians in Ambon."

That is a statement of unbridled hatred, bigotry and incitement. Shortly after the massacre, the Indonesian Government had Jafar arrested and I hope that they keep him arrested, so that no more such massacres take place.

In Central Sulawesi, about 20,000 Christians have fled from their torched villages to Tentena, a village of about 8,000 inhabitants. The Christians in Tentena are cut off and surrounded by thousands of Islamic fighters; if the Indonesian police and military fail to protect Tentena, there will be massive bloodshed. While President Sukarnoputri's dispatch of thousands of additional soldiers to central Sulawesi is welcome, it is deeply disturbing that those troops have already been reduced in number.

Jubilee Campaign reports that the tragic injustice remains of the desperate plight of 5,000 to 7,000 Christians who have been forced by Muslim militants to convert to Islam in the Moluccas—in the Bacan islands, Buru and Seram. However, the Indonesian Government have so far refused to evacuate the forced converts to a place of safety where they can revert to practising their Christian faith if they so wish.

To prevent further violence against Christian communities in the Moluccas, Sulawesi and West Papua, I urge the Government to put strong pressure on Indonesia to remove all Laskar Jihad members and all other non-local combatants from Sulawesi, the Moluccas and West Papua and to prosecute the Laskar Jihad leader, Jafar. The Indonesian Government should close down Laskar Jihad's head office and ban the organisation. That would offer a more permanent and thorough solution.

It is important to note that it is not only Christians who want Laskar Jihad removed from the Moluccas; many moderate Muslims, including the head of the council of Muslim religious teachers, Abdul Wahab Polpoke, have similar views. They do not agree with the violent and extreme interpretation of Islam that Laskar Jihad propagates through intimidation and violence, and they realise that the Jihad wants to restrict the freedom of moderate Muslims as well.

The British Government should pressure the Indonesian authorities to ensure that there are enough police and troops in the Moluccas and Sulawesi to enforce the peace and to ensure that the security forces act neutrally. Jubilee Campaign reports that on numerous occasions Indonesian police and troops have sided with Islamic fighters against Christians, causing much bloodshed. The Indonesian authorities should also be pressured to evacuate urgently to a place of safety all forced converts from Christianity. The Indonesian Government should provide adequate funds, military or police personnel and boats for the Moluccan Church to carry out such evacuations. Failure to evacuate the forced converts to Islam is to condemn them to a lifetime of captivity and intimidation, and to give succour to Islamic death squads.

While it is customary to congratulate hon. Members on securing a debate, I have wondered for most of the morning whether this sort of debate helps. I was comforted somewhat by the remarks of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who kept his remarks general and talked a lot about religious freedom generally, as did his colleague, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). However, I am uneasy about singling out a particular religion for protection, and some hon. Members have made reference to that.

We should defend the right of all human beings to religious freedom, as the Government's foreign policy states. Surely that is much more in line with the Christian teaching of loving our neighbour. [Interruption.] I am told that everyone has been saying that, but it would be nice if Christian Solidarity Worldwide protested against persecution of members of other religions, and not only Christians.

The hon. Member for Stroud commented on the numbers persecuted, saying that Christians are persecuted more than any other faith. I would like the Minister to comment on that, as I find it an extraordinary pronouncement. I do not think that it helps to do headcounts but, given the troubles in India between Hindus and Muslims, I wonder whether it is accurate. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about Amnesty International, which does an extraordinary job. I, too, am a lifelong member. Amnesty International does an extraordinary job because it does not adhere to a particular faith; it defends all faiths and all freedoms.

It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman, talking about those responsible for persecution, simplistically listed communism, militant Hindus and Islamism, without mentioning that throughout the centuries Christians themselves have persecuted other people viciously and subjected them to all sorts of horrors and tortures. While we hope that that is not going on now, history is there, and nations and groups remember it. We hope that we do much better now, but the debate calls to mind the recent case of the children going to Holy Cross school in Northern Ireland. People who were supposed to be from one religious group were persecuting little children and terrorising them because they were going to the school of another religious group, yet both groups were within Christianity. Let us not be holier than thou.

The hon. Member for Loughborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) spoke very knowledgeably about China and the Falun Gong, and about the terrible things that are going on. We also heard about North Korea. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) spoke about Indonesia, which in recent years has become the country about which I hear most and am lobbied most. Laskar Jihad has a lot to answer for, as the hon. Gentleman said. His call for the Indonesian Government to get rid of it is no doubt supported by everybody in the House. The trouble is that that is easier said than done.

In the past three years, there have been increasing reports of persecution and attacks on Christians. I have heard most about incidents in Indonesia, which is a secular country that prides itself on having a secular Government, even though 85 per cent. of the population are Muslim. As the hon. Gentleman said—I will not repeat it all—Indonesia is infested with Islamists and fundamentalists, Laskar Jihad, with its alleged connections with al-Qaeda, being the most troublesome. I must add that it is using the reaction of the United States to 11 September as an excuse to prosecute its war against Christians in Indonesia.

I hear stories of the chaos. I came across one in The Independent that that

"the security forces on Ambon are reported to have given up all pretence of neutrality".

Even when the security forces go in, they divide themselves into Christians and Muslims and start fighting each other, on the pretext that they are defending the population. President Sukarnoputri has been denounced in Indonesia for visiting Hindu temples, and for consorting with Christian America. She has a difficult task to keep her Government together and to do something about the fundamentalists and Islamists, but she is afraid to take a strong line because a terrible hatred of the west, and of America in particular, is strongly linked with Christianity. That is a sad reflection on what has happened in recent years.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that while there is profound hatred, and certainly distrust, of America in many eastern and middle eastern countries, that might have as much to do with America's foreign policy and that policy's double standards as with the fact that it is a majority Christian country?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He knows that I entirely agree with him. America has a lot to answer for. The ramifications of its foreign policies go much further than simple military action.

There are other factors in Indonesia, such as economic and educational differences, and we should not neglect them. I do not know enough about Indonesia, and I cannot go on the visit that is being arranged, but I wonder whether the Christian communities are perceived as superior or better off, with a better standard of living than the rest of the population. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Various independence movements have been dotted all over Indonesia since the independence of East Timor. Is that something to do with the movement? Is that yet another excuse for persecution? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on that.

Of course, it is not only Christians who are being persecuted. Indeed, I have heard reports of Christians destroying mosques. The International Crisis Group report said last year that the conflict can be understood only in the context of entrenched rivalries between two communities, in which both sides commit atrocities against the other. We need to take a balanced view. The problem is to know what to do about that persecution, both worldwide and, for me, especially in Indonesia. I wish that the European Union would intervene more often. We cannot expect America to help—on the diplomatic front, it would be an embarrassment to many Governments in the present circumstances—but the EU could do an awful lot more. In addition, United Nations human rights monitors need to be more widespread in China, Indonesia and North Korea. They need to get in there and see what is going on. Above all, they need to look for underlying causes other than religion that might be stirring up such hatred against Christians.

What are the churches doing about the problem? Where are the bishops and mullahs, and the leaders of the Hindu faiths? What about international, interfaith meetings? Cannot people of different faiths try to put pressure on their Governments to do something about this issue? It is not a matter for Governments alone; it is a matter also for the leaders of the faiths.

In conclusion, I still wish that the debate had been about the persecution of religious communities worldwide and not only Christian communities in Asia.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing the debate. The subject is on the mind of all of us and, judging from the many letters that we receive, it is also on the minds of our constituents.

We live in a fast-changing world, an ever more interconnected world in which the free movement of people and ideas is a fact of everyday life. In such a world, it is ever more important that tolerance and the rights of individuals are respected, including the right to freedom of religion. Although the debate concentrates on Christianity, I mean any religion. Not only is religious freedom a basic tenet of our way of life, it is necessary for interracial and interfaith harmony in the modern world.

We should be clear from the outset that violence against Christian communities in Asia is totally unacceptable. Indeed, all violence against any people on the basis of their religious faith should be utterly condemned. That is certainly what every speaker has said today. We fully support the right of individuals to enjoy life's freedoms without fear of persecution or violation of their most basic human rights.

Since September 11, we have witnessed an unprecedented degree of international co-operation. We should use that co-operation to condemn violations of human rights, and to raise the profile of issues such as religious freedom and put them firmly on the international agenda. It is worth noting that the terrorist attacks on 11 September cost the lives of peoples from every religion, and that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam but a war on those who would deny people not merely the right to practise their own religion, but the right to live in peace. It is important, in a debate on religious freedom, that we should reinforce the message that war on terrorism is not a war on a religion, but on terror.

In Asia, as across the world, there are far too many examples that I could choose to illustrate the points being discussed here, so I shall be selective. It is instructive that the hon. Member for Stroud said that according to a recent report Christians suffer more persecution than any other religious group. Much of that persecution occurs in Asia. He rightly pointed out the condition of Christian groups in the central Asian republics, but I shall focus briefly on Iran, Indonesia, Burma, North Korea and India and Pakistan.

Iran has not been mentioned this morning. We warmly welcome the moves towards reform and economic and political liberalisation being undertaken by President Khatami's Government, but we should not shirk from criticism where it is appropriate. The human rights record of the Iranian Government, including on religious freedom, is depressing. A recent petition circulated among MPs points out that vast numbers of executions and violent punishments have been meted out to Iranian citizens, and calls for an end to that situation. I hope that I will be forgiven for a brief digression into human rights in general, but religious freedom is one of those. The two issues are totally interlinked. We must be firm, but fair, in criticising a record that we believe to be unacceptable.

In Indonesia, there is widespread religious strife, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) illustrated in such detail. Lately, many had hoped that the different communities, especially those in the Moluccas, Maluku and Sulawesi, had tired of that violence and were prepared to live together. Recently, moderate groups on both sides sought to bring the communities together again to live in peace. We also hoped that the attacks—not only those by one side against the other, but those on all moderates who talked of reconciliation—would cease. However, the attacks did not simply involve Muslims attacking Christians; the Hindu community, too, was vulnerable to violence.

Laskar Jihad, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point has argued, is a group that is frequently mentioned in the context of interfaith violence in Indonesia. Although it has been suggested that that group has done some social good in some areas, perhaps improving the economic position of some impoverished groups, it has also been a driving force in communal violence, intent on carrying out jihad in a violent manner that is in no way consistent with authentic Islamic conduct. On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) drew the crucial distinction between Islam, which we defend, and Islamism, which he defined as the violent assertion of Islam, holding the objective of vanquishing other faiths. The latter we condemn.

In Burma, we welcome the release of Aung Sung Suu Kyi as a step towards democracy and greater freedom, but it is only a small step, and we should be clear about the deplorable human rights situation in that country today. A lack of basic human rights tends to be reflected in the treatment of and attitude toward religious freedoms. Will the Minister elaborate on his Government's policy towards Burma and say what further steps might be taken to put pressure on the military regime and leadership there, and whether some targeted sanctions might yet be implemented?

I pay tribute to the valuable work done by NGOs such as the Burma Campaign UK and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which has been mentioned this morning, in keeping the terrible situation in Burma and elsewhere in the public eye.

Will my hon. Friend please add Jubilee Campaign to his list?

I am very happy to add Jubilee Campaign, which does much good work, to my list. That was a grave omission on my part, for which I apologise.

As the hon. Member for Stroud said in his opening comments, it is in North Korea that we see some of the worst persecution of Christian groups. The system there is brutal and oppressive and violence is routinely used to enforce the Government line. As he pointed out, Kim II Sung established a cult of personality. He attempted to deify himself, so adherence to any religion, but in particular to Christianity, is viewed as an overt challenge to the regime. Arrest and execution or imprisonment await Christians when discovered. Christian Solidarity Worldwide, whose work I wholeheartedly commend to the House, has done a lot of work and research in North Korea.

The tales of camps are chillingly resonant of what happened in Europe in the late 1930s. Christians are incarcerated, routinely beaten or worked to death. Recantation of their Christian faith or death appear to be the only forms of release from the ordeal. I hope that today's debate will bring attention to bear on this oft-forgotten situation. I shall not dwell upon North Korea any longer, as the hon. Member for Stroud focused on it in detail and told us, and a wider audience, what is going on there.

The communal violence recently witnessed in India and Pakistan has been horrific. There has been appalling violence not only in Gujarat, but by Muslims against Christians in Pakistan, and by Hindus against Christians in India, but we should not forget that the worst violence has been between Hindus and Muslims. The crux of the issue is not simply violence against Christians, but interfaith violence of any sort. We welcome the assurances offered by President Musharraf of Pakistan last year: he said that Christians would receive state protection for themselves and their property. However, attacks such as that by extremists on the Christian community in Quetta remain a threat, and we hope that the President's offers are backed up with firm action.

In Tibet, the same basic principles apply. We believe that the people of Tibet have the right to live their lives in peace and to enjoy the freedom to practise their religion free from unwarranted persecution. We must be clear that violence against any group on the basis of their religion is unacceptable, as are blatant abuses of human rights.

We are not advocating a missionary approach: it is not our role to encourage those who attempt to convert people, or break laws on such matters in the countries in which they live. However, where violence is used or tolerated against people practising their beliefs peacefully, we will and must take a stand against it. We welcome the moves in countries such as Indonesia to clamp down on such violence and to promote better interfaith relations, and we hope that that course will be pursued with renewed vigour. We must make it clear to countries and regimes that are not prepared to clamp down on the oppression of or violence against Christians or any religious group on the basis of their faith that that is wholly unacceptable.

I have touched on a number of examples, and we could all produce many more. I will conclude however with a quote from Steven McFarland, Executive Director of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred. On 11 October last year, he said:

"When the world changed on September 11, the background against which we struggle for religious freedom changed with it. In a war on terrorism, many democratic governments may be tempted to forego the pursuit of human rights and religious freedom …Demoting human rights, especially religious freedom, from our foreign policy priorities would be a serious mistake, because religious freedom, tolerance, interfaith understanding, the rule of law, and due process aren't luxuries—they are absolutely necessary to combat terror and the conditions that incubate terrorism".

I wholeheartedly endorse that view.

We have had an excellent debate with some thoughtful, passionate and detailed speeches. I am conscious of the issue of religious persecution because the church in my Rotherham constituency that I attend for midnight mass is called the Forty Martyrs. Anybody who has been brought up as a Catholic is well aware of the assaults that one faith can bring to bear on another.

I welcomed the comment by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about Amnesty International. Religious freedom is one with and indivisible from other human freedoms. Therein lies the importance of today's debate, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in a powerful and convincing speech. I shall try to address all hon. Members' points, but if I do not cover everything, hon. Members are free to write to me and I shall go into further detail.

The 1948 universal declaration on human rights is our starting point. Article 18 is unambiguous:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observation."

That is at the heart of Government policy. However, article 18 is qualified by an appeal to all religions not to demand that their particular perspective dominates public policy to the exclusion of others. That relates to the positions taken by different religions on issues such as gay rights, women being allowed to control their own bodies, and even the demand that religious perspectives are put into governmental or international state policy. In that sense, my fundamental belief as a man of belief is that international relations must be secular. Religious freedom, like the freedom to say what one wants, to travel where one wants and to assemble and organise as one wants, is a common and fundamental human freedom.

The Government unreservedly condemn the persecution of individuals because of their faith, wherever they are and whatever religion they practise. Our EU partners, the United States and the UK urge states to pursue laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks. Wherever possible, we aim to work with officials, religious leaders and non-governmental organisations both internationally and locally to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. For example, we cosponsored a resolution at this year's meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva to work towards eliminating all forms of religious intolerance. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary travelled to Geneva to deliver the UK statement to the commission, which is the primary world forum for standard setting and discussion on human rights. He is the first Foreign Secretary to take the human rights work at the UN Commission so seriously that he went himself rather than dispatch one of his junior minion Ministers.

We work closely not only with fellow Governments, the EU and the UN, but with NGOs. The UK is home to some of the world's most renowned human rights NGOs such as Anti-Slavery International, Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, and Oxfam, and we have seen great movements such as the "drop the debt" campaign and the trade justice movement, which recently lobbied Parliament. Under the Labour Government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seeks to open its doors, share information and draw upon the expertise and commitment of NGOs in the policy-making process.

The FCO has a religious freedom panel that represents nearly all faiths. I had the honour of opening its last discussion, to which representatives of UK-based NGOs including Christian Solidarity Worldwide and representatives of different religions came to share information, discuss strategies and promote international religious freedom.

We support practical projects to promote human rights and religious freedom around the world. This year, for example, the FCO funded a project in west bank universities to incorporate human rights into religious education. We support the work of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe through its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which offers technical assistance on legislation to help guarantee freedom of religion. The OSCE's advisory panel of experts on freedom of religion helped to develop a package for Armenian schools on religious tolerance, to prepare a draft law on the status of religious associations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to expand a website to identify and gather examples of legislative best practice on freedom of religion.

Those are small, step-by-step practical bricks in constructing the edifice of human rights around the world, and they will be discussed in the next issue of the human rights report, which I have in draft form on my desk at the moment. For me, the US State Department's human rights report has long been a green bible—I refer to its covers, not its content—but I do not think that it makes sense for Britain to duplicate page by page what the United States, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch currently do so well.

Our ambassadors, I as a Minister, and other Ministers take up key cases. In particular, we have raised with the Chinese authorities the question of allowing their people the right to freedom of religious belief. We have raised individual cases, such as that of Su Zhimin, an unofficial Catholic bishop, Li Dexian, a Protestant house church leader, and Pastor Gong Shengliang, leader of the South China Church. This week in Beijing. my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised issues of religious freedom with the Chinese Foreign Minister. We have a similar perspective on the Philippines. We welcome the action taken by the Indonesian Government against Laskar Jihad, in particular, the arrest of its leader, Jafar Umar Talib.

On North Korea, which is of particular interest to me as the Minister responsible, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who spoke very eloquently about it, that that country will feature more prominently in this year's human rights report. The reason is that we now have an embassy in Pyongyang and can report directly from the country. Those who want to impose sanctions, or tie aid to particular conditions, must reflect that only through engagement can British Government officials. NGOs, British Council officials and others start to build networks to support human rights issues, in particular, religious freedom.

I can assure hon. Members that in all my meetings with North Korean officials and in written communications with the North Korean Government, it is made clear that we expect human rights issues to be addressed, as well as wider problems of terrorism, missile proliferation and the deployment of long-range ballistic missiles. Such matters are an essential part of our new dialogue with the North Korean Government. We will continue to ask the North Korean authorities to allow human rights monitors open access to different parts of the country so that they can seek out information on the camps to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred.

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to the use of the blasphemy law in Pakistan. We must examine that issue a little closer to home, because I do not see how any modern country can keep blasphemy legislation on its statute books. I completely agree with his point that crimes against women take place under the guise of asserting religious supremacy.

Is it now Government policy to wish to remove the blasphemy laws in Britain?

Lord Avebury has a Committee working on that matter. We need to look at it, because it is very hard to condemn one country for using or keeping on its statute book laws that allow the persecution or prosecution of any one religion, when we have not looked at the beams and motes in our own eye—as the hon. Gentleman could read in the Bible. There is no Government policy position on that matter as yet, but if it is our intention to be consistent, we should remember that consistency, like charity, begins at home.

My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) mentioned the need for more reporting back to Parliament. I agree with him. I think that I heard him describe Falun Gong as a religion, but my understanding is that Falun Gong explicitly says that it is not a religion. There is a very difficult question of interpretation for Governments to consider when getting into the field of Scientologists, Moonies and some of the odd cults in the United States.

I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) about the need to use the period between now and the 2008 Olympic games to raise these issues with China. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said that we should not be holier than thou. As a Liberal Democrat, she is an expert on that. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) talked about Iran and referred to Christians, but we should also remember the persecution of Jews and the Ba'hai faith in that country. He referred to Burma—or Myanmar, because Burma is part of Myanmar in the same way that Holland is part of the Netherlands—and we will take that matter up as well—

Order.

The Minister will be aware that I take a close interest in the fortunes of further education colleges in and around Eastleigh, my constituency. I am sure that his assiduous advisers will have briefed him that I have been a governor of Eastleigh college for about eight years. I have seen the college go through the trials and tribulations of incorporation, and pass through difficult times to achieve a much improved performance.

The Minister will know that the Further Education Funding Council 1997 inspection found that three aspects of provision were less than satisfactory, but by 1999 all had been brought up to a satisfactory standard. In May 2002, the provider performance review by the Learning and Skills Council rated the college as good. In that regard, we are almost looking forward to the imminent Ofsted inspection.

However, I want to use the debate to highlight issues throughout the sector, rather than in the particular college with which I am involved. Too often, the FE college sector has been overlooked—it has been treated as the poor relation in education—but more under-19s attend FE colleges than the combined total at sixth-form colleges and universities. FECs have traditionally been the training and education resource of the community, for the community. Traditionally, as many as 60 per cent. of students at an FE college are from the local area and remain settled in that community, becoming skilled craftsmen and technicians, who are essential to driving the local economy.

FECs often provide a second chance for mature students to gain skills that keep them off benefits and take them into work. FECs also provide opportunities for students from poorer backgrounds to gain the skills that will take them out of poverty and into well-paid jobs. More than a quarter of FE college students come from the 15 per cent. of local authority wards that are the most deprived. FECs provide opportunities for workers to update their skills and to gain new skills in our increasingly technology-driven commerce and industry.

Such colleges are the vital conduit through which the expression "learning is for life" can move from mere soundbite to approaching reality, so why is the sector in such disarray and all too often adrift and despondent? Why is it that, only last week, the chairman of the General Teaching Council, Lord Puttnam, wrote in The Guardian that further education

"is in a potentially catastrophic state. The present situation in FE is completely unsustainable"?

I put to the Minister some issues that he might dwell on in his response: staff pay and conditions, the inadequacy and uncertainty of core and standards funding, the impact of curriculum changes, lack of direction between local and national learning and skills councils, and student funding. First, pay and conditions. To quote Lord Puttnam, FE salaries are an "embarrassing joke". The facts are plain: some 80 per cent. of FECs were unable to fund at least one of the pay awards granted since 1993. The average salary of full-time FE lecturers is some £2,600 less than it would be had the national recommendations been implemented since 1993.

Since then, FE lecturers' pay has fallen by 7 per cent. compared with that of teachers, and by 20 per cent. compared with the equivalent private sector post. Teachers' starting salaries are some £1,600 higher than those of FE college lecturers. During that same period, more than 22,000 lecturers have been made redundant and today some 44 per cent. of lecturers are on temporary contracts. The college working year has increased by two weeks, and the working week by 20 per cent. No wonder staff turnover in FE colleges has risen to almost 20 per cent. per annum, and no wonder 60 per cent. of lecturers are over 45, compared with some 45 per cent. of secondary school teachers.

There is an urgent and desperate need for new initiatives to reverse the negative impact of insecurity and fragmentation that is putting the structure of further education at risk. Without new incentives to attract new recruits to replace an ageing staff, we shall face a growing deficit of skilled and committed FE lecturers in the very near future.

Turning to the inadequacy and uncertainty of FE funding, the Minister will be familiar with the Government's figures: FE funding increased by some 10 per cent. between 1996–67 and 2001–02, with further increases of some 2 per cent. per year planned to 2003–04. However, those figures are the total core funding and standards funding. Those are the funds that FE colleges must bid for at some expense, which is a bitter pill if the bid is unsuccessful. Core funding per student—the bread and butter for FE colleges—has fallen since 1997, and the add-on element, which is standards funding, will soon make up 12 per cent. of all FE college funding. However, as we all know, what the Government giveth, the Government taketh away.

I give just two examples for the Minister to contemplate. During this financial year, Amersham and Wycombe college in Buckinghamshire was awarded about £209,000 in standards fund allocation, but next year the LSC will award it just £32,000. During this financial year, Tower Hamlets college will receive some £500,000 in standards fund allocation, but next year that will fall to about £220,000.

That uncertainty and changes in funding will result in more staff redundancies, more short-term contracts and more uncertainty for colleges. No wonder there were some 6,000 unfilled staff vacancies in FE colleges last year. Added to the dilemma is the uncertainty and delay in core funding approval. The financial year for FE colleges starts on 1 August. Colleges are incorporated bodies and bound by law to operate responsible financial planning and budgeting procedures, which must be approved by their governors.

As late as the end of June 2002, the 2002–03 core funding allocation for Eastleigh FE college had not been confirmed and, today, it is still unclear precisely what standards fund allocation it can expect to receive. There has been dialogue between the college and the local LSC since March on the provisional allocation that the college can expect to receive next year. It needs to know that to prepare its budget. To be fair, it was never guaranteed that the figures would be finalised before June, but we understand that the provisional allocations that have been discussed and agreed for Eastleigh may not be met in full. Any significant deviation in allocation will invalidate the budgeting process and could even leave the college open to a charge of mismanagement. It cannot be right to expect FE colleges to fulfil their corporate responsibilities when financial planning data, which are essential to the process, are not available only five weeks before the start of their financial year.

Turning to curriculum changes, FE colleges have made a great success of the curriculum 2000 initiative and I am sure the Minister agrees that college staff have worked hard to deliver the model's broader curriculum. However, there are wide concerns that any backtracking from the model could be greatly detrimental to the 16 to 18-year-old students. Colleges are concerned that the new initiative might be abandoned or diluted, which will only further demoralise the hard-pressed staff who worked to make it a success.

There is a separate curriculum issue. Paragraph 23 on page 12 of the Government's discussion document "Success for All" is on meeting the skills need. It sets out the importance of recognising employers' needs, and I agree. Employers are stakeholders in the process, along with the taxpayer and the student, but the bodies charged with setting the national qualifications curriculum have been inflexible too often. They have failed to recognise changes in technology and skills, and changes in the marketplace involving employers' demands for new and different skills. That can be only to the detriment of student and employer alike. I would be grateful if the Minister were more specific, as "Success for All" refers to

"reforming the qualification system…exploring opportunities for opening up unit achievement, the feasibility of a credit based approach and the funding implications".

I do not see where the Government are going, and I would like that clarified.

Next, the lack of a single direction for both local and national LSCs. Most FE colleges are developing positive and constructive relationships with their local councils and there is high regard between them, but it remains unclear how much authority is exercised locally. Funding decisions in particular seem to be taken nationally, sometimes overturning previous local agreements. The one-size-fits-all approach in further education is clearly not working and the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education would surely agree that we need more local decisions on local funding issues.

There is general concern that the advent of LSCs has increased the scrutiny burden without increasing effectiveness, or adding any value to the student. Many are concerned at the lack of representation of people with FE knowledge on some local LSCs. The satisfaction rating of local LSCs is highest among colleges that feel that local learning and skills council staff understand the nature of further education.

A recent Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education survey found that two thirds of the colleges feel that there are clear tensions between local and national LSCs. As many as 90 per cent. feel that their LSCs have not reduced the burden of bureaucracy, and less than 3 per cent. think that they offer good value for money.

My final point is on student funding. There has been good news from the Chancellor, as education maintenance allowances are to be rolled out nationally. I welcome that, but why wait until 2004 and why set them at the reduced figure of £30 a week rather than the more attractive £40? We need to put in place initiatives to make young people stay in education now, rather than abandon a further two years' potential intakes while we wait for the scheme to be rolled out. We certainly must end the postcode lottery of allowances at the edges of the pilot areas, as is the case in the Southampton borders of my constituency.

Other funding issues for FE students are not addressed by the EMAs, and we must tackle them if we are to end FE's status as poor relation to HE. Funding for the over-19s in the system is discretionary—it is not guaranteed for the duration of the course, and two years is the maximum. When will that change? Real-terms expenditure on FE student support has hardly increased in more than a decade. In real terms, adult FE student support has almost halved during the past decade, and is little more than £82 million a year. No wonder the Library confirms that nearly a quarter of FE students are considering dropping out because of financial pressures and that three quarters of those who suffer financial hardships are single parents—the very group that we want to have more skills so that they are more employable and leave the benefits system.

If we compare the plight of FE students with the position of HE students, we see how unfair the situation is. However invidious comparisons may be, the £1.8 billion available in HE student loans, together with access funds of £91 million last year alone, show just how big the disparity is, although the HE student population is only slightly larger in full-time equivalent terms than that in FE. To underline the extent of the yawning funding gap, I might add that average funding per student taking three A-levels is £3,530 a year in a sixth-form school, but only £2,520 a year in an FE college—a difference of almost 40 per cent.

The increased education funding announced in the comprehensive spending review is welcome, but, depressingly, it serves only to reinforce the disparity between further education and education in general. Education spending is set to increase by 6 per cent., but FE is allocated a mere 1 per cent. the same old sad and sorry story. I look forward to the Minister's response.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on securing a debate on this important issue. To a tremendous extent, we make common cause on the direction that further education should take.

I should confirm that the local community regards Eastleigh college as an excellent institution that does incredibly well, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who serves as a governor. It is important for Members of Parliament to experience the real world from time to time, and close contact with our schools and colleges is an important way of doing that.

The Government are clear about the need to reassert the status and value of further education, which must be central to the lifelong learning opportunities that we seek to create. For many, further education is the bridge to higher education; for others, it is the bridge to skilled employment. For many adult learners, it is also a way back into learning, and it plays an important role in delivering access to basic skill opportunities. It is important, too, for work force development, and if we want our economy to be successful, competitive and productive, it is important that we ensure that colleges support employers and provide them with appropriately skilled and trained staff.

It is also important to put further education at the heart of the society that we seek to create—one that is fair and socially just as well as economically successful and prosperous. Further education has an impressive track record on encouraging and supporting access to learning among those who have been denied such opportunities. It gives them the chance to fulfil their potential, which may have been denied them because school was not a success or because they lived in communities with relatively low educational aspirations. Further education therefore plays an incredibly important role in the social justice agenda. It plays an equally important role in creating the strong and successful economy that we need by ensuring that employers have access to proper training that upskills their work forces.

Perhaps the only issue on which I differ from the hon. Gentleman is the Government's record on FE funding. It does not surprise me when Liberal Democrats ask for yet more money without referring to the taxation requirement or to the fact that all Governments have finite resources and must make difficult decisions about priorities. As politicians, we should not mislead any sector or the general public by suggesting that there is an infinite amount of money and that the Government do not need to make hard choices about their priorities.

Our investment record is quite good. By next year, total FE funding will have increased by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997 and funding for full-time equivalent students will have increased by 16 per cent. The teaching pay initiative is providing £110 million this year to reward high-quality teaching, which is £45 million more than last year. I believe that Eastleigh college will receive a 25 per cent. increase on last year's TPI allocation. During the four years before the general election—1993 to 1997—the previous Government cut FE unit funding by 12 per cent. in real terms, so we started from a very low base.

We have the opportunity to bring together an exciting and dynamic reform agenda with, for the first time, sustainable long-term investment. The sector is crying out for some sense of security about its status, value and worth in the world of education, as well as a strong sense of stability, viability and a long-term vision for institutions and area planning. The 1 per cent. real-terms core funding increase from the spending review settlement is good news for the FE sector. Along with the TPI, it will have implications for pay. It is too early to say what the outcome will be, but we will be in a much better position in the autumn to be clear about terms and conditions and plans for pay for people in the FE sector over the next three or four years.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the difficulties experienced by people in institutions who are expected to make decisions year by year when they are not sure what budget they will have at any time. That is one reason for us making it clear, as part of the spending review announcement, that we intend to move towards three-year budgetary planning cycles. That will provide clarity for the local LSCs and for each college on what the three-year programme entails.

In referring to investment, it is worth dwelling on the role of education maintenance allowances. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants them to start earlier and to be more generous. I would expect a Liberal Democrat to say that, but we must manage finite resources. The education maintenance allowance is universally popular, other than among Conservative Members, who, interestingly, have no FE representative present. For the first time, we will have a universal mechanism to support young people who stay in education post-16.

A major challenge facing the education system is that far too many young people drop out. Some drop out at 16 simply because they have a negative experience in the education system, but, traditionally, many have dropped out because of lack of financial support to enable them to continue. Therefore, the introduction of education maintenance allowances is an important step forward. Evidence from the pilots shows that it leads directly to improved participation. Equally important is the fact that the allowances are linked to individual student performance and attendance. There is no automatic payment. Students must be studying and cooperating to receive an allowance, so it is a good incentive for young people to stay in education. It is important, however, that they not only stay in education, but attain as a consequence of participating beyond 16 and progress to either a modern apprenticeship or higher education.

Alongside the new commitment to investment, within the past two or three weeks we have published the document "Success for All", which sets out our vision for the future of further education and the reform that must accompany the investment. We are consulting widely on the document. The consultation will conclude at the end of September, when we will be clear about our investment and reform agendas for FE in the medium and long terms. Having consulted people in the sector and others, we shall make clear statements in the autumn.

There are several elements to FE reform. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, although the social inclusion role of FE colleges is vital, we should focus on achievement and attainment as well. It is okay to say that it is good to get into education people who have been denied such opportunities, but it is equally important that we support them and enable them to succeed, achieve and attain when we hook them back in. There are real issues on achievement and attainment rates as opposed to participation rates.

Part of the reform and investment deal is that improvement targets will be negotiated between local LSCs and FE colleges. That should result in not only a three-year clarity on funding, but clear expectations on the quality and level of provision and the improvements expected.

As part of that programme, will the Minister recognise the difficulties that colleges have in recruiting and retaining well-qualified and able lecturers, who are obviously essential to the process, given the salary disparity between lecturers and schoolteachers?

We recognise that. I referred to the extra money that will be granted through the comprehensive spending review. Later this year, we shall announce what that means for investment in FE, including the implications for pay and conditions. We accept that recruitment and retention is a real issue, and there is a commitment to levelling the investment in FE and schools. However, there is no commitment to a time scale, so we must see what we can realistically achieve with the settlement we have been given.

We intend to create a situation involving minimum performance, such as applies to schools and LEAs, and we shall have floor targets for FE colleges. We must develop excellence in the approach to teaching and learning in further education, which we may not have focused on as clearly as we have in schools in recent years. As well as pay and conditions, we must be clear about our commitment to training and development for FE staff and ensure that the infrastructure is there to support that.

We must also ensure that what happens in FE colleges responds to the needs of local employers and the local labour market. The criticism is sometimes made that a disparity exists between what is happening in the classroom and the rapidly changing economic profile of an area or the skills shortages identified by business and employers. There must be a much closer synergy between the world of work and the world of education, and FE colleges are vital in that regard. There is a direct relationship.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of qualifications. The Government have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the LSC to work together to draw up plans to move towards a unitised qualification framework and to set out advice on a credits-based framework. We accept the need for change, but we believe that change must be managed carefully over time so that it does not simply reverse reforms that have been introduced only recently.

We also accept the need for well-designed vocational qualifications. Although vocational experiences must be as stretching for a student as other learning experiences and although vocational qualifications must have a similarly high status as other qualifications, the learning experience for vocational qualifications must not be the same as for the academic route. Otherwise, the object is defeated. We must ensure that the design, content and assessment of qualifications are right for the student.

We have introduced centres of vocational excellence in many colleges. That programme will accelerate, which feeds into the view that many more colleges should develop a specialist role in their communities. That again must be closely tied to the needs of the local economy and the labour market. However, there must also be far more institutional collaboration area by area. There has been a culture of competition in education over the years, but we are asking providers to come together and take a far more collaborative approach so that the learner has access to the full range of opportunities, recognising that individual institutions are not in a position to provide everything.

The relationship with the LSC is very important, and we are committed to a significant reduction in bureaucracy. The Sweeney taskforce is due to report soon. The LSC is committed to a 25 per cent. reduction in bureaucracy and we shall deliver on that in the months ahead. I accept that there needs to be an emphasis on the skills mix in local LSCs.

I begin by expressing my delight at securing this important debate, which touches every aspect of people's lives. The Labour Government should be congratulated on implementing the working time directive. Many of us will remember the previous, Conservative Government fighting tooth and nail against it, denying British workers the same rights and protection as those afforded to our colleagues throughout the rest of Europe.

However, having said that, I must add that a recent report by the TUC showed that there are still more people in Britain working for more than 48 hours a week than there were in 1992. Those figures show that 4 million people, representing 16 per cent. of the total UK work force, work for more than the 48-hour maximum. There can be little doubt that working excessive hours can lead to ill health, stress and strains on family relationships.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Confederation of British Industry still maintains that workers should have the right to exercise discretion in relation to their working hours. Although that so-called opt-out sounds fine, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that employees are being pressurised into signing the opt-out clause or risk the possibility of losing their jobs. The Minister will no doubt be aware that the UK is the only European country that has implemented an opt-out clause, and other member states restrict the hours of work even further.

Another area of concern to me is the ambiguity surrounding regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, which deals with the employee's right to paid holidays. Again, there is anecdotal evidence of bad practice by unscrupulous employers, who simply tell employees that part of their hourly rate should be used as holiday pay.

May I make some observations? The working time directive should not prevent flexible working arrangements from being drawn up in various industries. The industry that comes to mind is that of mining, which has used flexible working for many years. There are few pits left now and it is common practice, because of the sheer distance that the coal has to be moved, for the men to work longer hours but fewer days over the week. Therefore, flexible working arrangements

Order. This is a short debate and interventions should be very short and crisp.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In principle, flexible hours should be just that. However, my point is that there are occasions when employees are pressurised into working excessive hours. I am sure that that is the experience of my hon. Friend in his distinguished career in the mining industry.

On flexible hours, is my hon. Friend aware of the problem in the health service, where nurses work excessive hours. The trusts and private nursing homes get round the problem by ensuring that the nurses do their stint as full-time employees of the trusts and the boards and then do flexi-bank working on top of that. Those nurses can sometimes end up working an enormous number of shifts, creating unsafe situations.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. She has had a distinguished career in the health service. While agency workers in the health service are welcome, there is a problem in terms of how many hours they work, who monitors that, and who is accountable for it.

I return to regulation 16, and the matter of unscrupulous employers and holiday pay. I referred to the experience of my constituent, Mr. Jim Hart, of Erskine and the type of sharp practice that undermines the spirit and intent of the directive. I would ask the Minister to consider strengthening regulation 16. I am certain that there is much more anecdotal evidence about people who have been denied appropriate holiday pay entitlement. It is unfortunate that there are still employers who do not make provision for people's holiday pay.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this excellent debate. Is he aware of a recent court ruling to the effect that a worker with long-term sickness who, because an unscrupulous employer will not pay him off, is still on the payroll but not receiving pay, is entitled to statutory holiday of—I believe—20 days a year? That has to be paid, even though he is not receiving a wage.

I was unaware of that ruling, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. The Minister may also be aware of recent reports of the Spanish Government's having taken legal action over the implementation of the working time directive, with specific regard to the inclusion of owner-drivers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ridiculous to differentiate between owner-drivers and employee drivers? Surely a driver is a driver, regardless of his or her status, which is entirely irrelevant to the driving. What should be paramount is the safety of the public and of the drivers.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. My understanding is that owner-drivers are exempt until 2009. It is nonsensical for drivers, whether they are self-employed, owner-drivers or employed to be exempt from the regulations. If someone is driving a 20-tonne or 40-tonne lorry and it is involved in a serious accident on a motorway owing to stress or to people falling asleep at the wheel, the last question that we should be concerned about is whether he or she is an owner-driver, self-employed or employed. To leave that kind of risk until 2009 endangers a large number of people.

What concerns me and those who have supported me are reports that some member states, including this country, are sympathetic to the position of the Spanish Government. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the matter.

Obviously, the working time directive is vital to the protection of our workers. Does my hon. Friend believe that the application of the directive should be examined closely and, where breaches are taking place, the legislation should be strengthened in order to provide further protection for those who are being mistreated?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Legislation is fine, but it is making employers accountable for their actions that is important. If necessary, I would be in favour of stiffer penalties for those employers who knowingly disregard or misrepresent the regulations.

I wonder whether there might be something more fundamental in the Government's approach to the working time directive. For example, road hauliers, whether they are owners or work for a firm, are concerned that the cabotage rules now being used in countries outwith the EU allow drivers from non-EU countries to drive much longer hours than the EU directives would allow, which lets let them pick up loads in the UK and thus undercut firms in this country. The Government have given too much weight to the economic impact instead of health and safety. Although they have allowed owner-drivers to compete, in a sense they are inviting people in the UK to break the rules so that they can compete with drivers from non-EU countries.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. At the end of the day, if there is a major road accident, the last question that those concerned will ask is what nationality the driver is and what regulations he is working under. Again, I congratulate the Government on bringing in the working time directive, but it is irrelevant if we are going to allow foreign drivers who are subject to no legislation a free rein on our roads. We should be looking at legislation that covers the country not only the driver.

I began the debate by listing the genuine benefits of the working time directive for British workers. However, some workers are still exempt, and I hope that the Government will consider expediting legislation to include them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that offshore oil workers are presently exempt, at the Government's insistence, and that they are not due to be included until 2003? I feel that they should be brought in more quickly, along with drivers and the other groups of workers that he has mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I do not differentiate between workers; this should apply equally to the lorry driver, the oil rig worker and the agency nurse. I have never been on an oil rig, but I am told that they are extremely dangerous places to work. Accidents are caused by stress or lack of sleep—or lack of regulation—and that impacts on us all. If people's lives are being put in danger, something should be done. The Government should ensure that something is done by legislating sooner rather than later.

Following on from that, trade union recognition is a key element in how best to protect the interests of the workers. If we had trade union recognition, it would go a long way to dealing with many of the anomalies on oil rigs—and it would also apply to the protection of holiday and sick pay and so on.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I remind the House that the trade union movement was primarily active in making the legislation, and it had a pivotal role in promoting it. When there is trade union recognition, the working time directive is implemented, monitored and taken into account. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) may recall the tremendous resistance of the oil industry to recognising trade unions. The fact that the number of accidents in the oil industry has decreased, particularly in the North sea, is a direct result of trade union recognition. The recognition of health and safety matters in the oil industry was brought about by the introduction of the working time directive.

As I said earlier, there are genuine benefits from the working time directive for Britain's workers. However, we must never forget that should the unthinkable happen and a Conservative Government are returned—unfortunately, no Conservative Members are present at the moment—there is no doubt that they would take us back to the dark days of deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s, when Britain's workers had no protection. There is no doubt that they would be supported by that most pessimistic of organisations, the CBI, which has fought tooth and nail against any regulations for workers, whether the minimum wage, the working time directive, trade union recognition or whatever. It is happy to let market forces determine conditions. We should welcome the working time directive. It needs improvement, and I hope that the Government will make the improvements for which we have asked.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate. Working time, along with pay, is central to employment relationships. It is a crucial issue, and this is a timely opportunity to debate it.

How working time is organised and utilised is key to maximising how productive workers are and determining the time that they have available to follow their own aspirations outside the workplace. The Government have always been committed to the working time directive. It is right that all workers should expect certain minimum standards in their terms and conditions of employment. Similarly, business should be able to market its products effectively without fear of being undercut by unethical competitors.

Let me briefly review the history of the issue. Working time measures are nothing new in UK law. Statutory limits on working time were first established by the Factories Acts of the 19th century, which restricted the daily and weekly working hours of women and young workers in industrial employment. The limits—12, and later 10, hours a day for a six-day week for women, and six and a half hours for children under 13—seem high now, but they were fiercely opposed at the time by those who felt that the light work undertaken in, say, cotton mills could easily be done for 15 or 16 hours a day.

Before the end of the 19th century, proposals for general legislation to establish an eight-hour basic working day were rejected in favour of regulating working time through collective bargaining, supplemented by partial statutory regulation for particular sectors. In the 1920s and 1930s, further legislation prevented the employment of children under school leaving age, set a basic nine-hour day and 48-hour week for women and young workers and established minimum holiday rights. The legal framework was consolidated in the Factories Act 1961.

In 1918 the wages councils, which were introduced by Churchill in 1909 for sectors in which collective bargaining had not become well established, were given powers to regulate working hours. The Holidays with Pay Act 1938 gave wages councils the power to make provision for annual paid leave of up to one week. In 1945 they were empowered to regulate all aspects of wages, hours and holidays. It is important to remember that there has always been a need to regulate working hours, particularly for people who are vulnerable in the workplace.

As we seem to have a trade union meeting taking place here I think that most of us here have been through the same mill—may I take my colleagues back to the time when they wore flares and tank tops? They will remember that in the 1970s the British trade union movement opposed the establishment of minimum standards, apart from what the wages councils did, and the protections in the Factories Acts. We did not take the route that other European Union countries did, because the mantra of the 1970s was free collective bargaining, no interference by the state and civil rights at work coming with the union card. I was no different from anyone else.

After that, in the 1980s and most of the 1990s, there was absolutely no chance of any intervention on working time issues by the then Government. When the Labour party was last in government we had not introduced the full protection that existed in other European Union countries, and in the 1980s and 1990s even the minimal protection that I have just described was removed completely. By the time we came into office in 1997, there was no working time protection whatever in this country.

The working time directive as we know it was proposed by the European Commission in July 1990. The previous Government opposed it, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire said, on the basis that it was not justifiable on health and safety grounds. They got confused over whether the directive was really about the social chapter, but in fact it was always about health and safety. I am thankful to say that the European Court's view was that that opposition was unfounded. That Government lost their case hands down in Strasbourg, and the directive was finally adopted by the European Union on 23 November 1993. In this country, British workers had to wait until an incoming Labour Government implemented the directive through the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Workers now have a right to protection from being forced to work more than 48 hours a week on average. They also have a right to protections for night work, a minimum entitlement to four weeks' paid annual leave, and entitlements to daily, weekly and in-work rest. There are additional protections for adolescent workers. At the beginning of the 21st century, workers also achieved the right to a day off a week. Amazingly, 8,000 workers took advantage of that, because they had previously been working a seven-day week by compulsion.

We as a Government believe that those rights and entitlements are wholly appropriate and were long overdue. The regulations were amended in 1999, but the amendments represented a small refinement and did not weaken any of the original protections for workers. An additional amendment last year made the entitlement to paid annual leave available to all workers from their first day of service.

It is important that workers should not feel dissuaded from asserting the rights and entitlements that the regulations offer them. I noted the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire made about his constituent, Mr. Hart. There is every indication that the enforcement measures that we have in place have been successful in achieving that goal. The particular scam practised on that constituent was clearly in breach of the regulations. Of course we have to give people the confidence to know what those regulations are, especially when they are not represented by a trade union.

There is every indication that enforcement is being successfully achieved. Last year we ran a big national television advertising campaign to tell people that they had an entitlement to four weeks' paid holiday, and to promote the use of that. That put the message across effectively, and we followed it up with some user-friendly guidance, produced in consultation with representatives from both sides of industry. That generated a very positive response.

The Working Time Regulations 1998 will continue to evolve during the coming years to incorporate both our domestic requirements and European obligations. A point about the offshore oil industry was made in an intervention, and I can tell hon. Members that this country argued for that industry to be included. I personally argued that case in Europe. Workers in that industry will, as I think the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said in his intervention, be covered from 1 August 2003. That is in line with the requirement in the directive that we successfully secured to extend protections.

I thank the Minister for his reassurance, but my understanding is that offshore oil workers will still be exempted from the provisions on daily rest, respite, weekly rest and the night work limit, provided that compensatory rest is given. Is that altogether wise? They could still be under pressure offshore to work longer than may be safe.

I do not think so. There were problems in the fishing industry and with transport workers, which I will come on to in a second. There were various problems with specific sectors. Hon. Members will understand that trawlermen out on a fishing expedition can hardly exercise such rights. The same arguments were made for the oil industry, but we fought very hard to get a consensus that the European Union could sign up to. By 2003 the regulations must cover sectors such as offshore and road transport industries, which are currently excluded.

More immediately, this year we will introduce stricter working time and night work controls for adolescents. I support the view that the long-hours culture must be tackled. Some research was published earlier this week from Japan showing that men—for some reason it concentrated on men—who worked for more than 60 hours a week were twice as likely to have a heart attack as men who worked more than 40 hours a week. Perhaps we should take that lesson into account in this place next time we talk to the Whips. We must change the inherent overtime culture, which has not developed because employers have been bad—although in some instances they undoubtedly have—but because overtime has simply permeated certain industries. I speak as an ex-postman who grew up in a culture of overtime. We had a low basic wage, and every time the unions tried to cut hours and overtime, members would argue against it. I think that many hon. Members here have been through the same mill.

We cannot pretend that addressing the issue through a regulation, or stricture, that states that a person cannot work more than 48 hours will solve every problem. Research that we have recently commissioned clearly shows that in large industry sectors workers want to work long hours; they tell us so. We must change that, and stop using "part-time worker" as a term of abuse—someone is seen reading the newspaper and will be asked, "What are you, a part-timer?"

Such a culture is more of a problem in this country than in other European countries because of the way in which things have been tackled since the war. That problem must be addressed. We are especially aware that women will never receive the practical benefits of equal opportunities legislation if they are obliged to work hours that do not fit with their domestic circumstances. We seek to change that culture. The European Commission is due to review the voluntary working time opt-out by November 2003. Any proposed changes to the directive as a result of the review will require a specific proposal from the Commission.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire talked about ambiguity in the regulations on the entitlement to paid annual leave, which I have addressed. There is no legal guarantee of certainty in the UK's interpretation of a directive, and I think that the scam that he referred to is outside the regulations. To best serve the interests of workers and employers, we must ensure that there is no ambiguity in the regulations.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire referred to the Spanish Government's legal action relating to the separate road transport sector directive, which is required to be implemented in the UK by 2005. The directive temporarily excludes the self-employed, and is subject to review before 2007. Depending on the outcome of the review, the scope of the directive may be extended to include the self-employed by 2009. It is difficult to comment on the issue without details of the action being taken by the Spanish Government. However, unlike Spain, we voted in favour of the directive covering the self-employed. We are not surprised that Spain might be mounting a legal challenge in connection with the approach that it adopted during debates in Europe.

The working time regulations do not, of course, extend to the genuinely self-employed, but they do apply to workers rather than employees, and therefore to the vast majority of the work force. A review of the distinction between an employee and a worker was launched last week.

We want to tackle the long-hours culture in this country. Curiously, the biggest problem now involves not the kind of workers who have been referred to in today's debate, but middle-ranking managers. Trade unions have certainly done their job in reducing contracted hours, but there are still problems to address. I welcome the debate. Its importance is indicated by the fact that hon. Members from so many constituencies are present, such as my hon. Friends the Members for West Renfrewshire, for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), for Midlothian (David Hamilton), for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), and for East Lothian (Anne Picking), and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). There is obviously a concern about the issue, and it is one that we want to address, but perhaps we vary slightly about how we should do that.

I am delighted to have this short opportunity to raise an issue of huge importance to my constituents, which is causing them great worry. I am delighted to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who shares with me the periphery of Cambridge city, and therefore the green belt that surrounds it. If there is an opportunity for him to catch your eye, Mr. Cran, I am more than content for that to be the case—although we are both interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

What is the green belt? The phrase is often used, and it is clear from many previous debates that hon. Members from all parties have confused the green belt with green fields. Green fields are an essential part of the green belt, but not all green fields are in the green belt. I am specifically talking about the green belt, which is a designated area. In this case, we are considering the one around Cambridge, which was one of the first designated green belts.

I shall quote from planning policy guidance note land before the Minister chides me, I acknowledge that I know that that dates back to the previous Government. It says:

"The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness."

It then lists five purposes of including land in the green belt:

"to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;

to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns"—

obviously that applies particularly to Cambridge—

"and

to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land."

I would add another factor that is widely recognised. The green belt also protects city centres from becoming derelict as the sprawl spreads forever outwards.

If a green belt is to achieve all that, its integrity has to be largely sacrosanct. We hear a great deal from the Government about increasing the size of the green belt, but in this instance—if I can be forgiven for making this remark—size does not matter. It is not the size of the green belt that matters, but its location. If the inside of a green belt is constantly nibbled away at to allow more housing, but the outside is spread, one can brag about increasing the size of the green belt by so many per cent. or thousands of acres or whatever it may be. However, that protects nothing. The sprawl and the absorption of towns and villages into the city are not stopped, and none of the objectives laid out in PPG2 is achieved. I would contend that any concept of development on green belt land has to be the extreme last resort. Otherwise we might as well pack up, go home and forget the whole idea of green belts.

If we consider the regional planning guidance for east Anglia as it applies to Cambridgeshire, which was published by the Government 18 months ago, we see that they decided that some 4,000 houses per annum should be built in the county during the period of the structure plan to 2016. That is a rate roughly twice that put forward by the county council and other local authorities to the regional planning guidance review. Nevertheless, the Government made their decision. Of that 4,000, 2,800 per annum were to be built in the Cambridge sub-region.

The guidance under policy 2, "Meeting development needs", lists the

"effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure…sites within built up areas…development on previously developed sites…and development on previously undeveloped sites."

Policy 4 goes on to identify the location of housing in the cities, in other towns, in towns with good transport and

"exceptionally, and on a small scale, in villages",

but all that is qualified by the phrase:

"Apart from in the Cambridge sub-region".

In other words, all the grand ideas have to be put to one side for the Cambridge sub-region.

The RPG continues:

"Planning policies in the past have sought to restrain development with the objective of protecting Cambridge's historic character and to disperse both housing and employment development. While research and technology based firms have been resistant to locating far from Cambridge, housing development close to Cambridge has been constrained."

It then lists several effects of such policies and states:

"The approach adopted should take account of the strong likelihood of continued employment and population growth after 2016."

I shall return to that point in a moment. Paragraph 5.14 states:

"A sequential approach to the identification of sites is proposed starting with Cambridge's built up area"—

this is the critical point—

"and followed by urban extensions subject to a Green Belt review, a new settlement and development in market towns, larger villages and existing new settlements."

In publishing the RPG, the Government cast aside all the policies that apply everywhere else in the country, where building on the green belt is the last resort policies followed by successive Governments—and changed building on the green belt from the last resort to the second priority—second only to building in Cambridge's built-up area. That is a matter of huge concern to local people.

Policy 24 refers to the need for a green belt review and says that it

"should be carried out and any proposals for changes to its boundaries included in development plans."

As a result of the RPG, the county council set out on its own consultation as to how to meet the housing obligations imposed on it by the Government. It concluded that the housing distribution for Cambridge city would be 6,500 houses in the built-up part and 6,000 on the edge, subject to review of the green belt boundary. That is a very large number of houses.

For those who are not aware of the fact, I should explain that the area of South Cambridgeshire district council—as opposed to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, which is different —totally surrounds Cambridge city. That area is to receive 20,000 new houses, as opposed to 12,500 in the city. Of that 20,000, 6,000 will be in a new settlement, 5,500 will be in market towns and rural centres, 4,100 elsewhere in the sub-region, and 2,400—another indicative figure—will be within the built-up area of Cambridge. Over the years, some of what is actually in the district of South Cambridgeshire has come to be considered part of Cambridge city.

The county says that a

"Green Belt will be maintained around Cambridge"—

everyone would say, "Thank goodness for that"—and that

"Local plans will identify the boundaries of land to be released from the Green Belt to serve the long-term development needs of Cambridge".

That is the nub of the issue. It is a concern of local people and is exacerbated by policy P9/3c, which refers to the location and phasing of development land to be released from the green belt:

"The following locations should be considered for the early commencement of development:

North of Newmarket Road

North of Cherry Hinton

Cambridge Airport (subject to availability",

and two areas in my hon. Friend's constituency: near Addenbrooke's hospital, and Clay farm and Trumpington.

The policy goes on to state:

"Other locations should be reserved for development when required as follows…

Between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road",

which is in my hon. Friend's constituency,

"Between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road",

which we share. It also says:

"Land east of Cambridge Airport is to be safeguarded for development after 2016".

That is the area that is of most concern to me.

The document goes on to refer to preparing a master plan for the eastern sector as a whole,

"including land to the north of Newmarket Road, the north of Cherry Hinton, Cambridge Airport and land to its east."

The land to the east of Cambridge airport is agricultural. For the purposes of today's debate we can ignore its value in terms of the current industrial viability of agriculture. There are two villages, Teversham and Fulbourn, and further north the village of Fen Ditton, all of which are separated from Cambridge city by a very short distance. A single field is the green barrier between Teversham and what most people think of as Cambridge.

The eastern side of Cambridge is under a huge threat from the Liberal-controlled city council, which has clearly set out its stall to invade south-east Cambridgeshire with thousands of houses. It has produced a study of housing capacity that suggests 2,500 homes on the North Works, which is not highly controversial; 6,500 homes on the airport, which is certainly controversial; 2,000 homes in Teversham; 2,500 homes in north Fulbourn; and 750 homes in Fulbourn. Those are swingeing increases to relatively small villages.

More interestingly, because Cambridge airport is a highly commercial, viable business operation, it will be impossible for it to move, although its owners have said that they are prepared to move, for most of the planned period. A development of 6,500 homes on the airport cannot begin until the last two or three years of the structure plan period. In other words, to meet the targets that are being put forward, building in places such as Teversham, Fulbourn and Cherry Hinton will have to start very quickly. In a debate about a year ago, the now Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who was the Minister's predecessor in his present job, said:

"Allowing the potential for reviews of greenbelt boundaries does not in any way diminish our commitment to the principle and actuality of the current scale of greenbelt land."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 4 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 82WH.]

I strongly disagree, because once one starts making significant changes to greenbelt boundaries one has seriously impinged on their principal purpose.

The threats to my constituency are clear. They come both from the Liberal-controlled city council, which is determined to build all over land to the east of Cambridge city, and from the policies applied solely to Cambridge and Cambridgeshire by the present Government. Local Labour party members have now decided to oppose the eastward expansion of Cambridge city, but they have only the Government's regional planning guidance to blame.

I want to conclude by trying to be constructive. The numbers proposed for building on the North Works, which is part of the Marshall's airport infrastructure, are largely non-controversial. There is an element of green belt, but in general, that is not controversial. There is land on the northern fringe of Cambridge in my constituency that has already been removed from the green belt. I accept that, having been removed, it has to be built on. There is also a large swathe of land, some of which is in Cambridge city and some in South Cambridgeshire, on the southern side of the A14 Cambridge bypass, such as the largely redundant railway sidings at Chesterton, the sewage works and what was known as the machinery sale ground. Those are vast areas capable of taking many thousands of houses.

There are problems with land assembly when different owners are involved, but that should not be allowed to prevent its development from being given priority. There is outstanding land, but we have inexplicably been told that because land was allocated in the previous plan, it cannot be reallocated in the current plan, despite the fact that it has not been built on. That is absurd. We have been through the previous plan and have managed to survive, one way or another, without houses on the land allocated in that plan. We are planning not for the past, but for the future. I hope that the Government will allow any land that has been scheduled for development but has not yet been developed to be counted as part of the land that can fulfil future need for housing—those 2,800 extra houses a year to which I referred earlier.

I suspect that few people want the airport to be developed, but I believe that most would reluctantly accept that one day that will probably happen. It is one of the least worse options for development. However, that could happen only at the very end of the current structure plan period, so would make little or no contribution to satisfying housing need at that time. It would also require a review of the green belt, so I do not stand four-square against any review of the green belt.

However, that is where I part company with the draft structure plan. There should be no review of the green belt east of the airfield. I want to say loudly and clearly on behalf of my constituents that a line in the sand must be drawn on Airport way—the road that runs alongside Cambridge airport. If we can protect Fulbourn and Teversham—only a field protects them—that line in the sand must be drawn and adhered to. That part of the draft structure plan must be rejected. The only reason for that proposal in the plan is the Government's decision to make building on the green belt the second priority to building within the city, in contrast with its policies for the remainder of the country.

Today is not the time to address wider issues concerning the location of the new settlement, nor my belief that many smaller villages that have been excluded from the plan could have been allowed some growth—10 per cent., for example—over the period of the plan. That would have been absorbable and might have allowed some village facilities such as pubs or post offices to keep going. However, not a brick should be laid on the green belt until every piece of brownfield land in Cambridge has not only been allocated but has had houses built on it. It is no use having land effectively frozen out of the system because a developer or owner will not build on it, and then forcing people to accept houses on green fields.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the overall pressures on Cambridge. It is a huge privilege for me, and for my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, to represent an area as dynamic as the Cambridge sub-region. It is at the heart of so much of Britain's present and future enterprise, particularly biotechnology—but that brings infrastructure and development problems. Cambridge is a magnet, and there is a danger that it could destroy its own attraction. Many parts of the country would welcome a fraction of the development being attracted to Cambridge and the enterprises that spawn it. Successive Governments have tried financial measures to attract investment elsewhere, but that has been largely unsuccessful.

I shall finish with a suggestion. The principal magnet is Cambridge university, so the Government could encourage the university to develop satellite activities elsewhere in the United Kingdom and shift the magnet, or—to mix my metaphors—create an outer ring of satellite magnets. We know that the Minister for Science has close contacts with Cambridge university and I urge him and the Government to work with the university to try to find new ways of attracting some development away from Cambridge. I fear that if we do not do so, this debate will be repeated until Cambridgeshire is concreted over. None of us wants that.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on the timeliness of the debate, and on how he expressed his views. I would not depart from a word of what he said. I share completely the view that, by setting out a sequence in RPG6, the Government initiated a search for sites to develop in the green belt that went far beyond the purposes of the green belt. In Cambridge, green belts were primarily intended to preserve the special character of the city and its setting, and to prevent coalescence of settlements.

My hon. Friend and I could talk at length on this subject. He set out the position on Fulbourn and Teversham, and I could do the same in relation to Stapleford, the Shelfords and other villages. However, I want to ensure that the Minister refers not only to the RPG, but specifically to its policy 24 on the greenbelt review. I want him to make it clear that the purposes of the green belt include the special character of Cambridge city, and that the urban extensions and the amount of building proposed in the structure plan that followed the RPG—anything up to 16,000 homes in the green belt—is utterly inconsistent with the maintenance of the special character of Cambridge city.

On that basis, there is everything to be said for the Minister taking the opportunity to set out the Government's commitment to the purposes of the green belt, and especially to policy 24 in the RPG, before the structure plan inquiry in the autumn.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on securing the debate, and I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The green belt is an essential issue and planning tool, for all the reasons given by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, especially in areas as successful as Cambridge. The matter is clearly of concern to both of them.

I am slightly troubled as to why the hon. Gentleman did not afford himself the opportunity to comment on the structure plan at the draft stage. That means that he cannot attend the examination in public of the issues on the draft. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will attend in relation to new settlements, but I exhort the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to put a note in before 30 July so that he, too, can have a word about green belts.

The Minister will know that I made comments on the green belt, and that they were exactly the same as those made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. Therefore I wanted to be invited to the green belt discussion, and wrote to the county council asking to be invited.

I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had done that, so my exhortation was unnecessary. I knew that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was to attend in relation to new settlements, but clearly the examination in public is the next step in the process.

I take on board much of what both hon. Gentlemen said. The panel that considered the RPG for the plan in 1994 was concerned about the effect of the green belt on sustainable development patterns, and recommended that a review of the green belt should be initiated as a matter of urgency. From the outset, the essence of PPG2 has remained the same. I had all the relevant points nicely set out in my speech, but I shall not bother with them, given that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire cited them all. The structure plan and the RPG need to refer back to PPG2. The green belt is vital, not least in this case.

I half accept what the hon. Gentleman said about size not being everything. The green belt has increased since 1997 by about 30,000 hectares. In many cases, that has served to consolidate what is already there. We start from PPG2. It is not for me, a humble graduate of the university of Liverpool, to tell the university of Cambridge what to do in terms of satellites, magnets or anything else, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will pass on the hon. Gentleman's exhortations for the university to branch out further than the city itself.

The tension in a growing urban area, the maintenance of the urban fringe, sustainability, taking on growth and the consolidation of green belt are all part of the review process. Such reviews as are carried out deal in the main with that tension. I do not agree that any review is 100 per cent. bound to be detrimental to the green belt. A review may lead to some adjustment to its boundaries and even some additions—that possibility is not precluded during the process of the examination in public—and will consolidate the green belt around Cambridge for the immediate future and beyond.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is right about the sustainable pattern of development. RPG6 sets out a sequential approach to meet Cambridge's development plan, in which the first preference is for development in the built-up area of Cambridge and the second preference for development on the periphery, subject to a review of the green belt. I would not understand that sequential hierarchy so negatively; the urban fringe and the interface between the urban fringe and the green belt and the built-up area are naturally the areas for development.

We need a review so that any infringement beyond the fringe is as little detrimental as possible to the green belt around Cambridge. That is a necessary exercise, and does not question the notion of a green belt for Cambridge. It requires that the review of the green belt should start from a vision of the city and the qualities that need safeguarding and consider how far green belt purposes are being fulfilled. When land meets the purposes of the green belt, including the proposals for use of land consistent with PPG2, it should remain in that context. The review will consider the suitability of sites for development when they could be released without significant detriment to green belt purposes. That is a crucial factor. The aim is not to encroach on to the green belt simply because of Cambridge's glorious success; any encroachment will occur in the least detrimental way, or without significant detriment.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will not expect me to cover in detail the locations mentioned in P9/3c, or whatever the specific reference was. That is the purpose of the examination in public.

I know that the Minister is short of time, but I want to pick him up on the business of the examination in public. He chided me for not having objected to the draft structure plan. Does that mean that he is saying that remarks made in the House are less significant than those made during the examination in public? Most members of the public would be horrified to think that contributions made by their representatives in Parliament were less significant than something that takes place in a shire hall. I hope that what I have said will be taken into consideration by the inquiry.

I do not doubt that it will. If I chided the hon. Gentleman, I did so gently—no more than that. The EIP is the process through which the issues raised on the draft structure plan are to be discussed in detail. I am sure that those involved in the EIP will see the record of this debate, but it is disingenuous to suggest that anything that an hon. Member says in this Chamber is, all of a sudden, way above any public policy position already established. That thought was at the core of what the hon. Gentleman said.

I am sure that he and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will influence the course of debate at the EIP in whatever way they can, without necessarily being present at it. Given what they have said in today's debate, I do not doubt that they are both serious in their commitment to the green belt and to the development enhancement of south Cambridgeshire and the city of Cambridge.

By definition, a review of the green belt is controversial. However, if it is done in the context of a plans-led review, if an umbilical cord connects it to PPG2 and if it takes into account the statements with which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire began his speech, with which I entirely agreed, I believe that the outcome of the EIP will be beneficial to Cambridgeshire overall. I cannot prejudge that process, of course, but we hope that it will amount to a proper detailed review of the area. I endorse everything that both hon. Gentlemen said about the green belt around Cambridgeshire, except for the bits about specific sites, which I could not comment on even if I wanted to.

I shall write to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about what happens when land already designated has not been built on, because I was not clear about that point on myself, and it is an important issue. If any other issues arise when I read the hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard, I shall happily get back to him on them. The issue is important, and I congratulate both hon. Gentlemen on raising it.