I am glad to have the opportunity to raise an important issue—the state of farming in Norfolk. As hon. Members can see, the debate is genuinely an all-party occasion. I am delighted to see in their places Members from all parties who represent the county. I am sure, of course, that we are all happy to make an exception for the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the Minister without Portfolio; he is a Cabinet Minister and is extremely busy, and his wife is unwell, so we fully understand his absence. However, his very supportive attitude at meetings with the Norfolk chairman of the National Farmers Union, Tony Williams, led Mr. Williams to believe that he is pushing at an open door in his discussions with the right hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members from all parties have had the opportunity during the past year to discuss with farmers and others in rural Norfolk the current farming crisis and its effect on the county's economy. Our discussions with the farming community, including with the NFU, have majored on topics that will be dealt with by my hon. Friends. Those topics are economic issues, including world prices, modulation, and the United States farm Act; and biofuels, water matters, imports, genetically modified crops and planning and regulation.

I shall set the scene by describing farm incomes in Norfolk. For that purpose, I use the well-respected annual survey conducted by the accountancy firm of Larking Gowen, based in Norwich, a copy of which I shall hand a copy of the survey to the Clerk. The survey is based on 102 farms and involves a study of 60,000 acres. I believe that it is the largest farm survey undertaken. The 2001 harvest farm survey found that, during the past six years, farm turnover in Norfolk has fallen by 25 per cent., and farming incomes have declined by more than 75 per cent. The average farmer now earns about £3.60 an hour; the Minister will be aware that that is well below the minimum wage.

The survey points out that as a result of the halving of UK commodity prices during the past six years, the increase in bureaucracy and regulation imposed on the sector by the Government, the higher welfare costs and the increased pressure from retailers, farmers feel a growing sense of isolation. I feel sure that the Minister is aware of that, but he should be extremely anxious about it. This morning, we are talking about Norfolk; however, the 400,000 people who marched through London a few weeks ago did not do so because they were happy with their lot or with the Government's understanding of it.

What are we to infer from that survey? We cannot draw much comfort from it, certainly. Larking Gowen, whose clients farm about 300,000 acres in Norfolk and north Suffolk, predict that, for the foreseeable future, there will be low farm-gate prices, increased borrowing by farmers to stay in business and a further fall in the number of active farmers. It also suggests that there will be a further reduction in the number of farmers employed, increasing social isolation, older farmers delaying retirement because of low incomes and an increasing alienation of the agricultural and rural community from Government.

There are, however, glimmers of hope, because the survey reveals that Norfolk farmers are looking for ways to generate additional income to keep their farm businesses afloat. That can be done, given the right combination of location, capital and training. Indeed, off-farm income has risen from £72 to £100 an acre over the past five years—a clear improvement. That includes leasing land for vegetable production, rent from property, and contracting.

There is a keen interest in scientific advances among farmers in Norfolk. We are fortunate enough to have important scientific research institutes in the county and a lot of exchange of information between farm businesses and scientists. I know that the hon. Member for Norwich. North (Dr. Gibson), who is uniquely well placed to do so, will be talking about Norfolk farmers' enthusiasm for genetically modified crops.

The agriculture community in Norfolk is not backward-looking. One of the Larking Gowen partners, Mr. David Missen, was quoted in the Eastern Daily Press on 30 September as saying:

"It is clear from our survey that farmers are not merely sitting back and letting themselves be overtaken by events."

He also commented:

"We are heartened by the fact that farmers are not quitters … Many could probably sell up and get a better living from investments but this is just not in their blood. Many will come from generations of farmers and they will continue to adapt".

However, he said:

"It will be difficult to achieve this in a climate where there seems no interest in retaining national self-sufficiency in food production."

That is a nub of the matter and I would like the Minister to deal specifically with that aspect of the problem.

The survey is based on the 2001 harvest, but at the time of its publication it was possible to make predictions for this year, given that the corn harvest was complete and the prospects for the sugar beet harvest were becoming clear. Larking Gowen predicts low commodity prices; continued upward pressure on direct costs; problems arising from the ageing equipment base as machinery replacement continues to be deferred and cancelled; reductions in working capital and increased borrowing; and further alienation of agricultural and rural communities from Europe. Small wonder that the Eastern Daily Press headline, when it published the survey on 30 September, was "Farming Crisis Getting Worse".

The survey calculates the effect on the Norfolk economy of the fall in agriculture-related incomes at about £0.75 billion. The Minister will be aware of the national implications of such a figure. Certainly, the people of Norfolk are aware of it. This summer there was a threat of closure to Fisher Foods in King's Lynn. I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who plunged briskly into the issue. While Norfolk people could immediately understand the implications for the people directly employed at the King's Lynn plant and for the 600-plus employed at a factory in my constituency, they could also see that disaster faced pea and bean growers throughout the county, for whom, when the crisis arose, time was of the essence.

Disaster loomed, too, for hauliers, packagers and labelers—and ultimately for the environment. The retailers would, we think, certainly have imported replacement crops from Europe, or possibly from much further afield. However, thanks to the vigorous efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk and the hon. Member for North Norfolk—helped a little by me—the situation was saved. We were all somewhat amused by a letter from the East of England Development Agency, which told us that it was on the case—several days after the problem had been solved. That crisis was averted, but it illustrated beyond doubt that disaster in agriculture is not ring-fenced in rural areas. Norfolk people understand that the problem affects them all.

Earlier this month, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and myself, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs held a chairmen's seminar at Easton college, as part of its inquiry into the future of British agriculture. Again, it was an all-party occasion, although the timing was unfortunate. Labour colleagues would have been happy to attend, but the seminar coincided with the end of their conference, and one hon. Member was on a parliamentary visit. Nevertheless, the spirit of the occasion was entirely all party. The Minister may be impressed, as we were, by the fact that nearly 300 people attended the seminar, which will be part of the Select Committee's inquiry into the future of British agriculture.

Farmers and growers were of course present, but there were also major employers, councils, charities, the Broads Authority, the Country Landowners Association, the National Trust and the Norfolk Rural Community Council. Some of Norfolk's biggest employers were there, including Bernard Matthews, Bowes of Norfolk and British Sugar. Representatives of the Salvation Army, the Methodist Church, the health service, the Women's Institute and the Norfolk Association of Town and Parish Councils were also present. The seminar's findings will be annexed to the final Select Committee report in the form of evidence and they will present grassroots opinion. The Minister will be interested to hear that they also suggest solutions.

On 4 October, the Eastern Daily Press commented:

"Norfolk's farm and food industries must not be allowed to wither—if they do, the fabric of village and rural life will be unpicked … Norfolk's evidence to the Select Committee should help explain to No 10 what reforms must be made in the opinion of those who know the countryside best."

Obviously, the report, with all its evidence, will cross the Minister's desk, and he will be interested in its conclusions. I am trying to emphasise the problems facing agriculture, but also the fact that there is a positive attitude towards solving them where possible at the local level. Solutions include more flexible planning guidance, slashing bureaucracy and developing closer links between producers and their markets. They also include giving infrastructure, particularly in transport, a real boost—I cannot help but feel that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) will make a point or two about that—and, of course, promoting clear leadership on the future of farming. Norfolk people who took the trouble to attend the seminar and others who submitted evidence—it is still rolling in—expect Ministers to take note of and act on what has been said.

I began by saying that colleagues would cover some of the specific concerns that were raised in our meetings with the Norfolk National Farmers Union and others I shall touch briefly on three of them and conclude with a series of questions, which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer. First, there is the question of conservation. Those of us on the Select Committee are becoming over-used to the repetition of the meaningless term "the public good" in debates on the future of farming. I do not know who coined the phrase, but, like most jargon, it can be defined according to the interests of those who use it. That said, most people would agree that the population as a whole benefits from the fact that 80 per cent. of Britain is farmed.

So far, we have been spared most of the visible effects of the crisis in the agriculture sector. It is probably not possible to quantify the visual and conservation effects of the wholesale restructuring that is taking place in farming as a result of increased contracting, sharing of farming and so on. However, those effects will eventually become evident. A study that Strutt and Parker carried out for the university of Exeter in 2000 found that 92 per cent. of farmers carried out conservation work, to the value of £150 million a year. When farmers can no longer afford to do that—I think that that time is now—what will be the effects on the countryside and tourism? Will the Minister give his view on that?

Secondly, there needs to be some kind of settled view on planning issues. Local farmers are told by Ministers that they must diversify. They attempt to do so and are then frustrated by local planning authorities, who have views on the use of barns, infillings, redundant farm buildings and highways access. One of the conclusions at the Select Committee Chairmen's seminar was that it was time for joined-up thinking on rural issues. May we see some, please?

That is a crucial issue. I do not think that farmers are asking for help from the Government, yet they do not want them to make things any worse, as they often do. If one drives around my right hon. Friend's constituency or my constituency, one often sees extremely ugly 1960s barns, Dutch barns and large buildings that probably would not have got planning permission had they come under planning law. Yet it is ironic that when those same farmers try to convert, say, an 18th or 19th-century barn, every obstacle is put in their way.

I agree with my hon. Friend that there seem to be a lot of anomalies. Since we are looking at our county as a whole, none of us can fail to be struck by the different standards, views and regulations of the different planning authorities. That, of course, is an integral part of our planning system. There is definitely a problem. The Government have tried to move towards more standardised approaches for planning. We must never forget that members of planning authorities are elected like ourselves, and they come under great pressures. There is no doubt that the great saga of the touring caravan park in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Norfolk will be fixed in all our minds, and it is not over yet. The land is boggy and cannot be cultivated—I have known it all my life.

Who has overall responsibility for water use? Some 60 per cent. of the country's unsupported crops, such as vegetables, are grown in East Anglia, many of them in my constituency. Many farmers have switched or are switching to those crops, often investing in irrigation systems, reservoirs, piping and so on. In accordance with ministerial exhortation, they are diversifying and getting closer to the market.

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, as I have to attend a meeting shortly. There is another problem connected with diversification. Many of the farmers in my constituency—Richard Hirst from Hirst Farms in particular—have diversified into other crops that do not attract common agricultural policy area funding. There is a proposal that there should be an average area payment based on the previous three years. That would actually discourage some farmers from diversifying into other crops. Would she care to comment on that?

That excellent point illustrates the difficulty of achieving joined-up thinking when there are EU directives to reconcile with what is required from the market locally. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the most extraordinary disincentive to the kind of diversification investment that farmers might otherwise be considering. If he must leave soon, we can report back to him.

I am sure that the Minister knows that the necessary permissions for water abstraction must not only pass muster from a number of statutory agencies, but are commented on by quite a lot of non-governmental agencies, whose interpretation of, for example, the habitat directive, can be variable to say the least. Farmers think that they have leapt over one hurdle, only to find English Nature and a whole galère of organisations with whom they have to pass muster. Who is in charge? Does the Minister understand the frustrating and sometimes impossible position in which farmers find themselves?

In addition, there is the issue of bureaucracy. I know that others intend to deal with the late payments from the Rural Payments Agency, but I can give an especially gross example of failures in the slaughter premium scheme. As the Minister may know, that scheme requires applicants to return a postcard to the British Cattle Movement Service when an animal has been slaughtered. Does he know that the cards stick together? If the BCMS claims that they have not arrived, the applicant can do nothing about it even if a slaughterhouse has given a certificate to say that the animals have been killed.

I am sure that the Minister knows of a side irritation; one really could not make it up. The postcards bear the applicant's name and address on one side and the BCMS address on the other, and applicants often send the postcards only to find them returned to them. The problem is simple. The Minister may think that trivial, but it adds to farmers' frustrations as they try to make a decent living.

Farmers and rural communities have a right to know the answers to the following questions. What is the Government's vision for the future of agriculture, and of the countryside, which I have tried to explain are inextricably linked? Do Ministers believe that food production should continue in Britain? Was it a good idea for the Secretary of State to appear to shun British beef while in France?

If Ministers believe that food production should continue in Britain, how can they help to make the sector viable in an enlarging European Union and given the challenges of, for example, the United States farm Act? Do they believe that that combination of contemporary circumstances gives British farmers a fair chance? If most of Britain's food were imported, what would be the consequences for employment, and for the balance of payments if it is still a consideration?

If Ministers do not think that food production in Britain should continue, to what use would they put 80 per cent. of Britain's land? Do they think that if land is not farmed it will look good enough to encourage tourism? If not, how do they propose to make good the obvious shortfall? If they believe that alternative non-food crops should be encouraged, what incentives do they propose? Do they understand the impact on rural economies of the continuing downturn in agriculture? Is the proposed reduction of Government grant to rural councils in the support grant review merely an unhappy accident?

Farmers and rural communities can do a great deal for themselves. I hope that I have explained that Norfolk has a highly skilled farming and agriculture sector, highly developed science and plenty of get up and go. Strong as that combination is, it can do little against a Government who sometimes give the impression that they think it expendable. The Minister could do something to put that right this morning.

In the format to which we have become accustomed in these debates, Front-Bench speeches begin at 10.30 am. That leaves 37 minutes. I think that five hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, which, as a guide, gives a voluntary limit of about seven and a half minutes.

It is a pleasure to join colleagues in playing a part in the debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on obtaining it in the ballot.

People often tell me that I have little justification for talking about farmers, because there are not many in Norwich, North. There was one at the last count, however, and I must check whether his farm still exists. Nevertheless, I am a Norfolk man through and through. I find time to go out into the county and enjoy the pleasures of the countryside, and I am aware of the deep history of the agriculture industry in Norfolk, as well as the great part that its farmers and farm workers played during the agricultural revolution. I hope that we remember the work of the hundreds and hundreds of farm workers, many of whom have exhibited the achievements produced in their meadows at the Norfolk agricultural show every year during 30, 40 or 50 years of service. Their devotion to the countryside is deeply felt and as strong as that of farmers and others in the community. The agriculture industry extends from one end of Norfolk to the other, so many of my constituents work in it.

The Norfolk agricultural show is a highlight of Norfolk county life, and many people enjoy a day or two there to find out what is happening in the agriculture industry. It is part of the way of life, and long may it continue. Those who have lived in Norfolk as long as I have will be aware that many Norfolk MPs attained their positions as a result of the votes of thousands of agriculture workers who lived in that part of the country during the 1960s—Bert Hazell, George Edwards, Edward Gooch and, of course, great trade union leaders such as Wilf Page all fought hard to defeat the tied cottage and poor-wage system. We should pay tribute to them for establishing that great tradition in Norfolk agriculture. The rich history of struggle against poverty remains part of the culture, but enough of such nostalgia.

I welcome the work begun by the cross-party group in integrating the farming community and others so that they think about and prioritise issues and agitate determinedly at political level. No doubt others will talk about biofuels, the use of which is one of the ambitions of many Norfolk farmers, and we all support that. There is innovatory zeal in the Norfolk agriculture and farming community, and we must play on that strength.

The Norfolk farming community has always taken on board new technologies, as a result of which a lot of people have lost their jobs. Many left the land and went into the factories in King's Lynn when new technologies came along. It burns in my memory that jobs have often disappeared as part of the development of science and technology.

Let us consider the new technologies that will be taken on board. I make no apology for referring to GM technology, because the issue will be raised again and again—indeed, it has never really gone away. Sugar beet, peas, maize and oilseed rape are all common crops in Norfolk, and genetic modification of such crops is being considered to improve their herbicide tolerance and yield.

Scientific advances in plant breeding have been conventional—cross-breeding, back-crossing and in-breeding, for example—and we do not often hear about them in the way that we hear about Dolly the sheep, animal cloning and sex cell selection. However, they have all been introduced in the plant world, quietly and effectively, bringing us better crops and food. Norfolk was once regarded as the bread-basket of Great Britain, and I believe that it should still be regarded as such. Crops have been improved in respect of resistance to infection, better yield and growth parameters.

In the 1960s, the amazing political decision was made to bring the John Innes research institute from Hertfordshire to Norwich. That was a great move, promulgated by two or three people who thought that if good science and technology research were conducted in a county enriched with agricultural law and advance, we would become one of the world leaders. Soon, that institute was joined by the Institute of Food Research—those organisations grow in stature almost weekly with support from industry and the Government—and new technology is being developed there.

There are other centres of academic, scientific and technological progress, such as the Easton college of agriculture, the Maudley research institute and, indeed, the university of East Anglia, where research into the organisms that attack willow trees has saved the cricket bat industry. I see that we have a new Deputy Speaker in the Chair, but I am sure that Sir Alan would have welcomed that fact, as he is so endeared of the game and Essex county cricket club. Excellent work has been done in world-class institutes, which have developed many ideas that have benefited the food industry throughout the world.

Those institutes also produce the food and plant scientists of the future—the ones who go out into the world. The new vice-chancellor of Lancaster university, whose career began at the university of East Anglia and who has spent his life researching aphids, visited me recently. He was headhunted and went to Australia to solve the problems of aphid biology and aphid infestations. Through those institutions we produce brilliant people, who become part of Norfolk agricultural life. Norfolk agriculture has taken those institutes to its bosom, and they are very much part of the farming and agriculture community.

Norfolk has been in the spotlight over the GM crop trials. Norfolk farmers took the full blast of the Greenpeace onslaught, as its members trudged their way though the fields in their green welly boots, knocking out the crops. The farmers stood firm, in the belief that the trials would end in the development of better food crops. They still play a part in the Government field trials.

The Norfolk agriculture industry is huge and has expanded into other areas. On Sunday, I was looking at the Norwich "Yellow Pages". It is a big book, but on a quick flick through I noticed that it contains 10 full pages in small print of farmers and those who offer agricultural services. Thousands of people are involved in the industry and depend on farming, and not only farmers, although they often bear the brunt and take the lead. That is my answer to those who say, "Farming represents only 1 per cent. of gross domestic product, so it doesn't really matter. Tourism is what is important— there are many other important issues." That is true to a certain extent, but it is also true that farmers devote their lives to the countryside and to providing the food that we all eat.

The GM debate is returning to the fore, and the Government will conduct a public debate on the matter shortly. It is said that public confidence is low, but confidence is not low in the Norfolk agriculture community, although it was caught in the onslaught of the Greenpeace attacks. I predict that the east coast will be GM positive and the west coast GM free, and that that will create a new split in Britain for the press to talk about. The culture of science and technology has been incorporated in the Norfolk way of life, and it has huge support under the surface. I am sure that Government supporters of GM technology will tap into that support to ensure continued GM research, so that we can discover whether the new technology will affect the environment, people's health or the food itself.

Recently, I saw a letter to The Guardian from an old colleague, which surprised me, as I did not think that he knew anything about GM issues. He pointed out that, even with conventional breeding, a new crop that has been bred through in-breeding or by another means is put next to the wild species. Pollen moves across—it always has and it always will—but that does not mean that super-weeds are produced. The biology is well understood, because of the science and technology base in the farming community. That is probably why GM is accepted in our farming community: Norfolk farmers understand that the problems associated with GM, when GM crops are planted next to non-GM crops, are not new, and that those problems have been resolved.

A lot is being done. There are many other areas of GM, but I shall not go on about dwarf crops, malting quality, herbicide tolerance or starch quality. Through science and technology, all those things have improved our crops. I have a list from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission of the huge number of GM technology applications, even for such things as garden plants. That technology does not produce only crude herbicide tolerance, as is often asserted. Indeed, even such crops as plums and prunes can be improved through it. A huge industry is involved in improving resistance to viruses and bacteria, all of which will be to the advantage of the agriculture industry in the long run.

Incidentally, Norfolk farmers are not anti-organic. There are organic farmers in Norfolk who are as passionate about their work as those involved in other types of farming, such as conventional breeding, GM breeding and so forth.

Norfolk is at its best when at its boldest. Hon. Members may have heard that phrase before. I cannot remember when I first heard it, but I heard it recently at Blackpool and it is true: we in the Norfolk agriculture industry are best when at our boldest. At a recent meeting in the House of Commons, I was heartened to hear from Professor Julia Goodfellow, chief executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. In a recent article in the not-so-well-read but widely quoted Science in Parliament she states:

"Science can play an important role in the development of sustainable agriculture in the UK."

Norfolk agriculture workers and farmers know that. Sustainable agriculture ensures the continuing availability to the consumer of adequate supplies of wholesome, varied and reasonably priced food produced in accordance with generally accepted environmental and social standards, as well as, among other things, respect for a high level of animal welfare.

The Norfolk farming community understands and wants such sustainable agriculture, but, as Julia Goodfellow says, that

"has to be seen in terms of the willingness of industry and government departments to invest in the development of … research findings in areas of strategic importance and in the context of the social and political agenda surrounding UK agriculture."

The Norfolk farming community stands ready to serve.

Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that my predecessor in the Chair urged self-discipline to enable all hon. Members who wish to do so to participate in this important debate. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) stretched that advice, and I shall be grateful if the remaining speakers who wish to catch my eye show self-discipline so that we can fit everyone in. We must start the winding-up speeches at 10.30 am.

I shall bear in mind your very good point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about keeping speeches short. It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. embattled Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) who initiated this debate and the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), for his particular scientific contribution.

I reinforce the points made by both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman. This is a cross-party approach to solving problems that relate to the future of farming, the environment and rural affairs in Norfolk, and we have come to the debate in a positive rather than negative sense, which is important. The Norfolk farming community has highlighted five major areas of concern: biofuels, water issues, illegal meat imports, GM crops and planning and regulation. We could add half a dozen others such as the business of broadband, which is now a major problem in terms of finding alternative businesses within my constituency of Mid-Norfolk.

My first point is specific: I wish to take this opportunity to raise concern about the European Commission's decision to cut the sugar beet quota by 3.54 per cent. That is crucial to the 1,788 beet crop growers in Norfolk, including the 382 in my constituency. As the Minister knows, the quota cut was imposed for the current year only, to comply with European Union regulations and World Trade Organisation agreements. However, can he answer my constituent, Mr. James Keith, who grows 25 hectares of beet at Hoe near Swanton Morley? He asks:

" I was dismayed to receive my recent letter from British Sugar telling me that the EU had imposed a reduction of 3.54 per cent. onto the UK for the crop we are currently harvesting. I can understand some of the reasons for the cut, even if I do not agree with them. But how can we be expected to grow a crop to a quota scheme if the target is moved after the crop is planted and grown?"

Farmers and others find that type of goalpost moving frustrating.

On the future of biofuels, many Norfolk farmers, business men and members of the public believe that biofuels offer a great opportunity to farming and the community. As the Minister knows, biofuels can be divided into two groups: biodiesels, which are made from oilseed rape seed, or other vegetable oils—that industry is almost wholly exclusive to Europe—and bioethanol, which is presently made from the fermentation of wheat, potatoes and sugar beet and could be made from straw and wood. The Minister may not, however, know that at Shipdham in my constituency there is a small business called Global Commodities UK Ltd. That company is run by Mr. Dennis Thouless, a retired business man, who produces on a small scale an important amount of biodiesel, mainly from processed chip fat.

Presently, Mr.Thouless produces about 4.5 million litres, but he has the capacity to produce 10 million litres and he hopes to develop a factory at Lowestoft that could produce 60 million litres. Mr. Thouless has said that he welcomes the 20p cut in duty, but he does not think that that is sufficient. Nevertheless, he sees great potential in the development of biodiesel from rape seed oil. That is a very exciting development for Norfolk farmers, but we need more encouragement. I urge the Minister to go for a zero rating on bioethanol as well as biodiesel in his discussions with Treasury colleagues. There is a great opportunity for Norfolk farmers because sugar beet and other root crops will be a real alternative in the future, if bioethanol can be developed. That would be environmentally friendly.

I raise a slightly more negative point that is based on the concerns of Norfolk farmers about illegal meat imports. I was a member of the Sub-Committee that was appointed by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to consider illegal meat imports. The Minister has replied to the report that that Sub-Committee published. We are, however, still concerned that not enough is being done to prevent such imports. I know that the onus must also be on farmers at the farm gate, but I believe that there are still many other things that we could do. For example, I do not believe that enough joined-up agency work is being done to prevent the kinds of illegal meat import scandals that have occurred in the past. That matter has had a major impact on my constituency. In Norfolk in 2002 there was a swine fever outbreak, the origins of which were undoubtedly illegal meat imports.

I urge the Minister to consider whether there should be greater co-ordination between Departments, to consider the stop-and-search powers of environmental health officers and to employ a robust information campaign on inward flights at ports of entry. Such information is not presently as in-your-face as it is in New Zealand and America. I believe that there is a lack of resources with which to implement such measures.

I welcome the debate. We have heard some positive proposals for the development of farming in Norfolk. There are great opportunities for biofuel development, but there are still great concerns about illegal meat imports.

The hon. Gentleman has set a fine example.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing the debate and I welcome the all-party, cross-party approach that has been taken. This is just the latest example of hon. Members working together in order to promote the interests of the farming community in Norfolk.

In my time as the representative for North Norfolk, I have found that the farmers with whom I deal are an enlightened group of people who are willing to contemplate change and take new ideas on board. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has mentioned that tradition and we must do everything that we can to promote it. It is clearly in everyone's interest to map out a viable, economically and environmentally sustainable future for agriculture. Farm incomes are pretty bleak. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk has already made that clear in her remarks about the survey.

Two farmers—Mr.Roberson from Catfield and Mr. Almey from Antingham—have told me about their concerns and experiences. Mr. Roberson mentioned the suckler cow premium scheme, which relates to sales of cattle during the six-month retention period. He was concerned about the lack of clarity in the guidance notes provided by the Rural Payments Agency. The chief executive of the agency, in response, accepted that the reduction was "severe". He said that there had been no attempt at fraud, but that discretion could not be used. That system is crazy, and must be re-examined.

Mr. Almey had problems with four movement cards posted to the British Cattle Movement Service. He has been asked to prove that he sent them. Those who receive the cards have failed to record them properly, and that has resulted in him losing out financially. It is not acceptable that hard-pressed farmers should have to wait ages while they try to prove their case to the agency. Christopher Deane from the National Farmers Union in east Norfolk says that the examples that I have mentioned are:

"just the tip of the iceberg … I have received numerous calls from farmers with alleged discrepancies over claims … Lots of time and effort has to put in by applicants to then try and prove that it is not them that have made the errors."

He says that, to date, nearly all the errors that the NFU has come across have not been of the farmers' making. It is time that the Department got to grips with the agency's problems. I hope that the Minister will provide some reassurance on that.

Norfolk fruit-growers have concerns about the impact of changes to the Agricultural Wages Order 2001. I agree with what has been said about the history of low payment in rural areas, but the changes to the order present a problem. The casual worker's rate will effectively be scrapped; it will be limited to the first 12 weeks only, during which the rate will be £4.30. That is more than the national minimum wage.

Place UK, which is in my constituency and is one of the country's leading suppliers and processors of soft fruit and vegetables, has raised concerns about foreign students who arrive each summer to pick fruit. For such students, that is holiday work. However, after 12 weeks, they will receive the same rate as experienced Norfolk workers who operate machinery and who have a great degree of skill that has resulted from years of experience. To such experienced workers it must seem unfair to lose the wage differential between themselves and those doing holiday work. That will place an impossible burden on the farming community.

I understand that the change to the Agricultural Wages Order has come about because of the imminent implementation of the fixed term work directive. As an employment lawyer, I am sure that the directive was not intended to produce such a result, and I ask the Minister to consider the matter.

I strongly endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) about biofuels. Norfolk, as an arable county, could make a massive contribution environmentally and contribute to the fight against global warming. I was interested to hear the speech made last week by the Minister for Europe, in which he highlighted the importance of securing supplies of affordable energy. That is vital for Europe's security and competitiveness. He called for urgent action to reduce our long-run dependence on oil as our principle transport fuel. He referred to the need to develop renewable sources of energy, and said:

"We need to provoke an even stronger shift in innovation and in vestment than experienced after the seventies oil crisis—and make it stick in the long term. This requires tackling significant entrenched interests in the status quo, and shifting investment between different technologies."

Our greatest entrenched interest is probably that of the Treasury, which has so far refused to give the reductions in duty needed to pump-prime that potential new industry. Massive progress has been made across Europe in promoting bioethanol and biodiesel. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk mentioned, there has been a reduction of only 20p in biodiesel duty. It is not enough. There has been no reduction in duty for bioethanol; that must be introduced in the next Budget. It is time for DEFRA, the Department for Transport, the Treasury and the Foreign Office—now that it has accepted the need for fuel security—to get their act together; they should work together to come up with a sufficient duty reduction to pump-prime this new industry. If they were to do that, it would be good news for the farmers, and for the environment.

Trickle irrigation, which has been brought to my attention, yet again, by the fruit farmers, is an environmentally attractive means of irrigation, but the new licensing system means that there is a risk that their interests will not be protected. It is essential that DEFRA provides reassurance that they will get their licences on a level playing field. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.

I will speak for exactly five minutes, so that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) has a chance to contribute.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on her excellent speech. She mentioned Fisher Frozen Foods. When the Albert Fisher Group plc went into receivership, Fisher Frozen Foods closed, but the plant was taken over by Pinguin, a Belgian company. I am pleased to say that all of the staff who were taken on again by Pinguin have now received their full redundancy entitlement. That is very good news. Of course, the staff who were made redundant from Fisher Frozen Foods and left to get other jobs received their full redundancy package, but there was a big question-mark over whether those who were kept on by the successor company would get any redundancy payments. It has now been announced that they have received their entitlement. There is still a question-mark over 40 staff who stayed behind after the factory closed, to keep it going on a care and maintenance basis. They have received nothing. That is a deserving cadre of people, and if they do not receive any compensation there will be serious grievances in that plant.

There is also a question with regard to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The Department of Trade and Industry redundancy payments office has said that because the staff at Pinguin are getting their full redundancy entitlement there can be no entitlement under those regulations to, for example, various rights, holiday pay, bonuses, and so forth. I know that that matter is not this Minister's responsibility, but perhaps he could have a word with the Minister at the DTI who is dealing with this matter, so that we can resolve these few remaining outstanding issues. This is one way in which the agricultural sector has a profound impact on the wider rural economy; my right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that.

Unfortunately, in Norfolk, we are seeing the demise of the family-run farm. Many farmers are going out of farming: they are not selling their farms, but they are doing less farming. They are contracting out; they are getting farming companies such as Bookers to take over their farms. That contributes to the decline of the family-owned farm as we know it, and I am concerned about whether their sons and daughters will go into farming. I submit that they will not, unless the tide turns dramatically. We know that agriculture is cyclical, but I fear that it will take a long time for this decline to be turned around, and we do not want Government to make matters worse.

A Government can do various things to prevent the situation from getting worse. My right hon. Friend mentioned planning, red tape, bureaucracy, and the local government grant regime and the fear that money will be directed away from the shire counties to the inner cities. I would add the sugar beet regime to the list of things that the Government must not make worse. Fifty per cent. of the nation's sugar beet is grown in Norfolk; two out of the six factories are in Norfolk. The UK is only 52 per cent. self-sufficient in sugar production, whereas France is 76 per cent. more than self-sufficient—or 176 per cent. self-sufficient—Germany is 124 per cent. self-sufficient, and Denmark 176 per cent. self-sufficient. That means that the UK is importing the vast majority of the sugar that is coming into the EU—85 per cent. of it. The EU sugar regime is not part of the common agricultural policy mid-term review; it is part of the anything but arms initiative. When the regime is reviewed next year, it is vital that every conceivable effort is maintained to keep the status quo because, otherwise, there might be an effect on Norfolk farmers' one crop that is currently profitable. Grain is obviously giving most farmers a good yield but the price has gone right down. Potatoes are a disaster and every other crop is making a loss. Sugar beet is the one bright light on the horizon. I hope that the Minister will take that on board because if the sugar beet regime is changed, Norfolk farmers will suffer adversely.

I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) about biofuels. It is vital that the Government act. He and I visited Global Commodities UK last Friday. The potential of bioethanol is considerable but the potential of biodiesel is even more exciting. As Dennis Thouless pointed out, the oil fields of the future could be in Norfolk as fields of oil seed rape that would produce environmentally friendly biodiesel to power this country's diesel vehicles. The Government must get a grip of the situation and embark on joined-up government. They must act and seize the opportunity, which would give farming in Norfolk a slightly brighter future.

I join my hon. Friends and others in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate her and her colleagues on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on visiting Easton college in my constituency to listen to local people from Norfolk who are involved in the farming and food processing industries. The information is still coming in, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, and I shall refer to some of it, and especially to points about the pig farming industry, which is enormously important to my constituency.

I do not want to dwell on biofuels or sugar beet, which were mentioned extensively by my hon. Friends, but I endorse what they said. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government plan to do because biofuels and sugar beet are important to farmers throughout Norfolk.

When considering the regime for food imports to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) referred, few people have complete confidence that food imports meet the stringent requirements that are placed on our own producers. That applies especially to poultry and pig farming, which are not subsidised by the taxpayer. People in those sectors have no confidence that the Government have taken on board the need to ensure that food imports meet our standards.

We must do more about food labelling and labelling food with its country of origin. We are currently discussing cigarette advertising and it is worth noting that the size and shape of health warnings on cigarette packets are determined statutorily. There is no reason why simple labels giving a food's country of origin that allow the consumer to support the British farmer, if he or she wishes, should not be determined in a similar way. The fact that there is no such statutory labelling of a food's country of origin allows people to get away with what most people would regard as tricks— importing food from overseas, putting cellophane around it and calling it Norfolk sausages. Neither we, nor our constituents, want that. I want the Government to make progress.

I am not confident that supermarkets are doing sufficient to promote British produce. Although they occasionally have food campaigns for various countries, we are entitled to expect this country's supermarkets to support British agriculture. If we want a farmed landscape, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, it is up to us all in the community and in business to support that. The supermarkets do not do nearly enough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) mentioned illegal imports. The Government might have done something about that—I have been discussing it with the Minister for nearly a year since we both served on the Committee that considered the Animal Health Bill. It is perceived that not enough is being done, although every report from the Curry report to the report by Devon county council on foot and mouth has mentioned the problem. I recently made two flights from abroad to United Kingdom airports, and to use my hon. Friend's description, the information campaign was certainly not in-your-face. We need more action.

My final point relates to gold-plating regulations. At the meeting at Easton college, Mr. Philip Richardson, a distinguished and well-known pig farmer from my constituency, said that people in his industry had identified 20 areas in which the Government were gold-plating pig industry regulations. One example relates to the directive on the welfare of farm animals, which requires that sows and gilts shall have permanent access to manipulative material. The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs version is:

"All pigs must have permanent access to a sufficient quantity of material such as straw, hay, wood, sawdust, mushroom compost, peat or a mixture of such, to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities."

The Department should have asked a vet whether it is sensible to have peat anywhere near a pig. Peat is full of bugs, so are we seriously suggesting that the Government will require farmers to sterilise their peat before they make it available to their pigs? We can avoid such situations in 20 subject areas, and I will happily provide a full list to the Minister if he wishes.

I did not think that I would have time to mention planning, but it is worth stressing that vacant farm buildings—a main asset for farmers—need—close attention from central Government if planning authorities are not to get in the way of promoting our farming communities.

I join others in thanking the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) for securing the debate. I shall keep my remarks as short as possible, and I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will too, so that we can hear the Minister respond to the concerns raised by Norfolk Members.

I want to reiterate some concerns, in particular the removal of the casual workers category from the agricultural wages board. That will have a major impact, on fruit farming especially, and, as my ho n. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, I do not think that that was the European Union's intention in introducing the directive. We have been perhaps too keen to see its implementation, and we must consider its potential effects.

The Liberal Democrats support the overall move to decouple subsidy payments—from production base to land management—but as always in farming, the details are critical. We know that details matter in farming. As we heard from the hon. Member for Norwich, North (I)r. Gibson), one problem is that basing the decoupled payments on historical subsidy payments of the previous three years will discourage some moves into new crops. The Government must find a way that does not discourage initiative from farmers.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk mentioned trickle irrigation. There is evidence that the Government are not yet using fully joined-up thinking on that, and we must ensure that the licences for water are available to the farmers who need them. They should not be told that all licences have been taken up by conventional irrigation.

Biofuels have been mentioned a lot, and I do not want to add to what has been said other than to give support for more action and for further reducing the duty on them. We have also heard about problems in the pig industry, one of which is historic and derives from when the Government introduced early an EU directive that had a huge impact on the industry. There is a danger that the egg-laying hens directive could go the same way, so will the Minister confirm that the Government have no intention either to gold-plate or add to the directive?

Members have spoken about meat imports, and I welcome the fact that the EU is considering a ban on personal imports. We have already heard some concern about the lack of Government action to ensure adherence to any new regulations that may be introduced on meat imports. What checks and measures would be taken at airports and ports to enforce a personal import rule?

We have also heard about the rural payments scheme. The Rural Payments Agency has clearly examined the bovine schemes, and both the beef special and suckler cow premium schemes have had numerous problems, of which we have heard several examples. Overall, the Rural Payments Agency is slower in making payments now than it was last year. When agriculture incomes are falling and many farmers are in debt, payments that are two, three, four or five months behind the time that they came last year are having a major impact on the viability of farms as businesses. We want the Minister to make a commitment that the Government will enhance the Rural Payments Agency, which is understaffed and overworked and needs extra resources if it is to work properly. There are genuine anxieties that the BCMS data base is flawed and not fully operational. I seek reassurance from the Minister that anxieties about that data base are being investigated.

Something that is still floating around the agriculture industry, and about which the Government have not yet made a definitive statement, is the future of livestock markets, which affects agriculture throughout the country. I would like the Minister to make a definitive statement that the Government have no plans for the widespread closure of livestock markets.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for shortening his comments.

This has been a useful debate; I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing it. Her opening remarks displayed her typical combination of diligence and perspicacity; she speaks with enormous authority and experience about these matters. In the short time available to me—it is longer due to the generosity of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), for which I am grateful—I hope to cover about 10 points that have been raised in the debate. I cannot cover them all in detail, but I will end with a series of questions to the Minister by which I will reinforce some of the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

There is no point in understating the simple fact that agriculture in Norfolk, as in the whole of Britain, is in crisis. That has been reflected in all contributions to the debate, and I welcome the fact that it has been a cross-party effort. Many of the comments made have been non-partisan; we have not descended into party-political rancour because people's concerns, in this Chamber and in Norfolk, are cross-party concerns and not matters for party-political banter. They are of great significance to everyone who lives there, not just those directly involved in farming.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk has made it clear at the outset that the knock-on effects of the crisis in agriculture are felt throughout a rural county such as Norfolk. I speak with some experience in that respect, as Norfolk is the neighbour of my county, Lincolnshire, and many of the problems that farmers and rural communities face in Norfolk are shared by those in my constituency. The nature of farming in Norfolk is similar to that in south Lincolnshire; there is a heavy dependence on the arable sector, the topography is similar, and the knock-on effects of the crisis have created some of the same pressures on the delivery of local services and so on.

I shall deal with the points in the order in which they were raised, rather than in the order of priority, but it is appropriate to start with farm incomes. My right hon. Friend mentioned the 75 per cent. decline in incomes in Norfolk. The Minister's figures, which are reinforced by the Library, show a significant decline in farm incomes and suggest that in the arable sector that decline has been extraordinarily profound. The decline in arable sector incomes is sometimes understated because, due to foot and mouth and other problems that existed before the epidemic, much of the emphasis has been on the livestock sector and less favoured areas such as upland farms. In the large arable farms in the east of England, the decline in agriculture has had a real impact which should not be underestimated. According to DEFRA figures, incomes are as low as 10 per cent. of those in the early to mid-1990s. That decline is having a dreadful impact on farmers, their families and local communities, and it crosses all sectors.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) discussed sugar beet. Sugar beet is, in a sense, one of the few lights at the end of the tunnel—I will return to that issue later.

It is appropriate to emphasise that—again according to Library figures—average farm incomes are now around £7,500. If that is an average income, one can imagine the situation for farmers with the lowest returns—farmers on small farms and relatively difficult land, perhaps tenant farmers, could be earning £2,000 to £3,000 per year. That is nonsense, and anyone considering the matter objectively would say that that situation could not be allowed to continue. I am sure that the Minister is aware of those issues, but it is important to emphasise and amplify them and to ask him how he intends to respond.

In considering the economic state of farming, we must also examine product prices. We know that farmgate prices have declined across the industry, but it is important to emphasise the impact of that on arable farmers. The Minister will know the cereal price situation. Across the arable sector, farmgate prices have reached a point at which it is difficult for farmers to make money at all. A few days ago, a potato grower told me that current prices are equivalent to those when he entered the industry 30 years ago. Cereal prices, at just over £50 a tonne, are such that no one can make a profit. There is almost no product now that farmers can grow profitably and rely on as a steady source of income.

There are massive problems with product prices, with incomes and also with input costs, because the overheads for farmers are steadily increasing. That is not true across Europe—as I pointed out to the Minister last week in the debate on those issues. In Europe overheads, or input costs, are falling by approximately 1.2 per cent. a year. In Great Britain they are rising by about 0.6 per cent. a year. Thus this is not a European or worldwide phenomenon, but one specific to the United Kingdom.

What are the consequences of the decline in incomes for employment and for local communities? That fair and proper question was posed at the beginning of the debate. What are the implications for land use? The environment that we enjoy in the countryside is a manufactured one, made and serviced by farmers.

During this debate, a number of hon. Members have asked about the Government's approach to biocrops and biofuels. A confused picture emerges in relation to that issue. There is a very different regime of tax and regulation in the United Kingdom from that in France and Germany. Will the Minister address that issue in his remarks? He looks confused, but he should know the detail of that issue. I repeat that France and Germany have a different tax regime, and different restrictions on the production of those products. I would like the Minister to address that issue.

The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and by other hon. Members about the distortion of the food chain by supermarkets must be addressed. What is the Government's approach to the relationship between the retailer, the producer and the consumer, and to the need to examine seriously the distortion that supermarkets create in that relationship? We heard yesterday that some 30 per cent. of fruit production is wasted because of the facile concentration of major retailers on products being of the same size, the same shape and the same colour. That contribution came from the fruit industry itself. The point was not made today, but it demonstrates the difficulties faced by fruit farmers mentioned by the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and for Ludlow.

As to the Rural Payments Agency, we know about the beef Buckler scheme; the problems emerge from cross-checking with cattle movements, and from the new European direction in that respect. That has caused enormous confusion, inefficiency and delays, resulting in real problems for an industry that is already under pressure and that was expecting those payments as part of its budget.

The question of the availability of broadband must be addressed. If we are interested in diversification and the springing up of new small and medium-sized enterprises, we must make broadband available, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said. What incentives are there for diversification? As my right hon. Friend said, it is difficult for farmers to diversify and reinvest in their businesses if they do not have the money to do so. If they are not making money, they cannot spend it on diversification. The Government must address that serious problem. Fair food labelling is another critical issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk.

I emphasise two questions that emerged in our debate—one at the beginning and one near the end. The latter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, who said that any change to the EU sugar regime must protect the interests of those farmers for whom sugar beet is possibly the only profitable crop.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, morale in the industry is at an all-time low because farmers no longer believe that the Government are committed to food production in the United Kingdom. Farmers believe that the Government do not have a long-term vision for growers and farmers.

At the beginning of the debate, my right hon. Friend spoke about a long-term plan for agriculture. It should not be beyond the wit of man to produce a balance sheet showing the true value of growing and farming in the UK—one that takes account of its effect on employment and the wider rural economy, of the benefits of land use and conservation and of the proper stewardship and management of our countryside. However, that would require the Government to take a long-term view. They would have to say how many producers were needed over the next three, five and 10 years, how much production they envisaged and what sectors they believed we should be seriously involved in—even what sectors they thought should be reduced or run down, and how and when it should happen.

Such a long-term view, strategy and plan are essential to reinforce the morale of farmers and give them something to plan for and work to. That is missing at the moment; and while it is absent we will not regenerate farming and growing in Norfolk or the rest of Great Britain.

I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). Agriculture is as important a subject for Norfolk as it is for other parts of the country. This has been a good debate, and the right hon. Lady was right that it has involved Members representing Norfolk from all the main parties.

The Government recognise that times are tough for farmers, for which there is a range of reasons that I shall explore. I shall deal with all the pertinent points that have been raised, and the helpful and sensible suggestions that have been made in the context in which they were put.

I want to set the scene in relation to farming in Norfolk because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said, the county has much of which to be proud. It has innovation and drive, and it is currently recognised as one of the fastest growing and prosperous regions in the United Kingdom.

Unemployment in Norfolk is 2.3 per cent. and in the east of England, it is 2.2 per cent., and that is below the national average of 3.1 per cent. Unemployment in the constituency of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk fell by 54.1 per cent. between 1997 and 2002; in North-West Norfolk, it fell by 50.6 per cent.; in Norwich, North, it fell fallen by 51.6 per cent. Mid-Norfolk has had the highest fall of 58. 4 per cent.; North Norfolk has seen a fall of 52.4 per cent.; and South Norfolk a fall of 53.9 per cent. Most European countries would give their right arms for such economic figures. However, that is not to be complacent or to say that there are no issues of importance in the Norfolk economy in general or real problems in agriculture there.

I welcome the fact that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee visited Norfolk. It did a good job and I am sure that farmers appreciated the chance to put their problems to the Select Committee. We recognise that agriculture is an important part of the rural economy, although I remind the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) in particular that it is not the whole of the rural economy. I do not think that he would want to claim that.

To tackle a problem properly we need to know where and what the problem is and to put it in perspective. The Government want to do that, which is why we have obtained independent reports, such as that of the policy commission on the future of farming and food, chaired by Sir Don Curry, with a view to examining the long-term structural problems for agriculture. There are, of course, many. The work deals with the exchange rate, the increasing effect of global trade and the oversupply of world commodity markets.

In discussion, hon. Members have advanced sensible ideas about issues that need to be identified and addressed, including how to encourage diversification, questions of transport and infrastructure in the county, support for marketing and, of course, planning. Those can all contribute to the encouragement of agriculture.

The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk made some remarks about conservation, which has always been a matter of great interest to me. Agriculture and farmers have an important role in conservation. Farmers are land use managers with expertise and skills. Our approach to CAP reform is to move away from production subsidies to the so-called second pillar, which provides more money not only to help with conservation and agri-environment matters, but also to help with broader rural economic matters, such as marketing, processing and diversification. That is the way we want the CAP to evolve and we are pressing for such reform in the mid-term review.

Will the Minister give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make progress.

I accept that planning is important. Farmers often raise it with me and it was raised during the regional meetings to discuss the findings of the Curry report. The Government have studied the planning policy guidance in relation to rural areas. The item relevant to diversification is PPG7. As far as we can see, it gives quite adequate guidance to planning authorities on encouraging local businesses and farmers in diversification and conversion of buildings. Much of what happens comes down to local interpretation of the plans.

The right hon. Lady rightly said that the bodies concerned are elected. Of course, that is the idea. They must examine planning applications on their merits, and take into account matters such as vehicle movements and potential disturbance. We do not believe that there is necessarily an argument for new planning guidance. We believe that what is important is interpretation locally—working with and encouraging local businesses. However, I appreciate that people feel that that is not happening. We will continue to talk to our colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about how to encourage appropriate support for farming diversification. I do not think that we disagree with the right hon. Lady.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of water use. We accept that agriculture is a major user of water. I have responsibility for water policy in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has brought matters together. A new water Bill is proposed, to address many of the water usage problems that exist.

I understand the point that was made about trickle irrigation. It is an efficient and sustainable way of using water, and we want to encourage it, but we cannot ignore the fact that it is a water user, so that there is a strong argument for bringing it within the licensing regime, in relation to water management in its broadest sense. However, I can give an assurance that we recognise agriculture's legitimate role as a water user. That will be recognised in future measures and policies. As a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, I should mention that those authorities play an important role in impounding winter water for summer abstraction. Their valuable role, and the way in which they have changed, will be recognised.

On the slaughter premium, I recognise that the problem of the cards is important. It is a small, but practical issue, and I assure the right hon. Lady that it will be examined. It is a small irritation, but I do not underestimate such irritations, which I am sure that we can rectify.

When DEFRA was set up, its mission statement included a vision of a sustainable, diverse, modern and adaptable farming industry, and we must tackle issues such as the World Trade Organisation. Following on from the food and farming commission's response, we are introducing a strategy for agriculture. The commission was set up to address agriculture's long-standing structural problems, which must be resolved. The strategy will be produced before the end of the year, and there will be opportunity to comment on it and on the idea of giving agriculture a way forward.

Agriculture's role should not be underestimated. In 2000, the UK was 67 per cent. self-sufficient in all food and 80 per cent. self-sufficient in food that could be grown in the UK. That is not a bad record, although the figure dipped a bit in 2001, mainly because of the effects of foot and mouth on the livestock industry. None the less, we have a good record on food production and we want to promote farmers' role in that.

We recognise that the central tenet of the Curry commission is that farmers must move closer to the market, from which they have become disconnected. The Government want to encourage that and to assist farmers in addressing market needs, market changes and the structural changes that have taken place in recent years.

The Minister generously acknowledged that the strategy is an important part of Government policy. Will it, however, take account of the different needs of different parts of the country in a way that reflects the following issues? Modulation will affect the east of England quite differently from other parts of the country because of the concentration of arable farms and the difficulties that farmers will have in replacing production-led income with environmental income. That is as important for Norfolk as it is for Lincolnshire and other parts of the east of England, and the strategy must take account of those issues.

It will certainly recognise the issue of modulation. Modulation should be seen as a transition; it is being applied only because of the production-subsidy regime that we find ourselves with under the CAP, which, it is widely accepted, must be reformed. That is not a party-political point, but a cross-party issue, and the farming industry itself recognises the need for reform.

As a Lincolnshire MP, I know that the east of England has many profitable farms. The Government have introduced measures such as the arable stewardship programme, which is designed for large arable farms, with which it has proved popular. That is one way in which money comes back into the area through modulation. It is matched pound for pound, so it is a good deal for the agriculture industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North is an acknowledged expert on GM crops and he made some important points, which the Government accept. The approach to GM crops must be science based. We must be cautious, but we must not completely disown the science; we must have field-scale trials to examine some of the legitimate concerns that have been raised. We must go forward on the basis of science.

I was interested in my hon. Friend's comments about GM cricket bats. I do not know whether they would improve a team's playing, but that would be an important selling point.

I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) about sugar beet, and there is a problem because of the WTO challenge. The market is very protected, which is not popular with our food-processing industry because it must compete on world terms with sugar that is three to four times cheaper than in the UK. None the less, we are addressing the issue.

The same is true of biofuels. They are important, and we want to support them. According to the latest figures, the 20p cut has encouraged them.

On the Rural Payments Agency, we are introducing new IT systems to improve efficiency.

The Agricultural Wages Board is an important body. Its influence goes beyond agriculture, but it is due for review and modernisation.

The poultry and pig industries are important. We understand the role that they play and we are sensitive to the directives. I can assure the Chamber that the laying hens directive will not be gold-plated. We are consulting on the issue of enriched cages. The pig industry is encountering some problems, but we are working closely with the industry to see how we can assist it in future.

I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been raised. The issues are important and the Government take them seriously.

I am grateful to the Minister. We must now move on to the second debate in Westminster Hall, initiated by the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart).

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased finally to have secured this debate, which I first requested after the Whitsun recess in June. I was beginning to think that I had fallen foul of Mr. Speaker for some unknown misdemeanour.

I have a particular interest in transport and health and safety issues, which I shall concentrate on. Wider social and community issues are interrelated with the issue of violence on and the provision of public transport, but, with Mr. Speaker's permission, I intend to address that in future Adjournment debates.

I am a lifelong member of the Transport and General Workers Union and I spent 20 years working as a full-time official for it, so I have seen at first hand the devastating effect that violence at work can have on bus drivers and their families. I am, therefore, grateful for the opportunity to raise some issues that are of legitimate concern to TGWU members and other workers in the bus industry.

Two thirds of public transport journeys are made by bus, and the Government give £1 billion a year to the bus network. Increased investment in buses is vital to the promotion of social inclusion for groups such as the elderly, to which the Government and the Labour party are committed, and to achieving the environmental improvements that we all wish to see. The public rightly put reliability top of their list for bus services, but buses will not become more reliable if intimidation and violence against bus crew is not tackled and reduced.

I appreciate the fears that the travelling public, especially women, have about their safety when waiting for or using bus services, although travellers say that they feel safe when they are on the bus and their journey is under way. Others may address those issues today, and they are as important as the one that I am considering, but I want to focus my remarks narrowly on the effects of violence on public transport workers in the bus industry.

I fully support the recent Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee report on the bus industry, which concludes that attacks on public transport users and staff are as serious as any other form of antisocial behaviour. The effect on staff is insidious. Harassment and physical violence lead to sickness and absence for those employees affected. Common problems after an attack include nightmares, sleeping difficulties, lethargy and depression. Violence against bus workers also deters staff recruitment and retention. The Health and Safety Executive-Home Office report "Violence at Work" found that 45 per cent. of public transport workers are worried about threats or actual assaults at work, the highest reported level of any occupational group.

My hon. Friend talks about the great concern among bus drivers, but does he have any data on incidents? In Swindon, there is an increasing number of reports of incidents of violence towards bus drivers, which is a real cause for concern.

I hope to come on to that very point.

It is a sad truth that 44 per cent. of assaults on drivers are serious enough to result in days off work, and that a further 13 per cent. are unable to finish their shift. No wonder drivers' families are sometimes fearful when drivers are working weekend night shifts. A dossier produced by the TGWU documents a horrifying range of physical attacks against drivers and buses, involving knives, bricks, stones, syringes, beer bottles, baseball bats and air rifles. Mercifully, such attacks are rare, so, as the man from "Crimewatch" would say, "Please don't have nightmares."

There is an argument that one should not highlight isolated attacks for fear of copycat attacks. Many people's fear of crime is disproportionate to the likelihood that they will be a victim of crime, and I do not want to make people fearful of using public transport, which is generally safe. However, we cannot solve a problem by hiding it. Serious attacks are uncommon, but menacing comments, threats and spitting are more widespread. They are an affront to workers in our transport services and to our local communities, and they must not be tolerated.

The public has recently shown overwhelming support for a teacher who was threatened with violence by pupils at his school and who has been absent from work because of stress. The majority of the public think that the pupils should not be allowed to return to the school. Of course, individual transport operators can ban those convicted of violence from public transport and can prevent them from using public transport by civil injunction, but that affects only those who are caught and convicted. By the very nature of bus travel, it is easy for an assailant to make a quick escape, and I am sure that most cases of verbal abuse go unreported. Rightly, we condemn attacks on our teachers and health service workers, but we must show the same indignation and concern about our transport workers.

I welcome the new guidance issued in April by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as it was then called, on personal security and travel. It covers a broad range of issues from a call for better lighting at bus stops to effective surveillance systems, better procedures for reporting incidents and partnership initiatives with the police, schools and young people. We must have further investment in all those areas.

I also welcome the announcement, which the Minister for Transport made in August, on the safer travel on buses and coaches panel—it has the snappy acronym STOP. The panel brings together the unions, bus operators, local authorities, the police and others to discuss how best to consider assaults, antisocial behaviour and vandalism on vehicles and property, as well as spreading the word on good practices. I hope that the Minister can tell us something about the panel's work.

What are the flashpoints for conflict on our buses? An incident may start with a fares dispute, a driver telling passengers that a bus is full, a bus getting stuck in traffic or on a school run, or an opportunistic grab for cash. Those are different issues and there are several different solutions. We can get our buses moving more efficiently with dedicated bus lanes and bus priority schemes adequately enforced, such as we have in my area under the jurisdiction of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority. People have differing views over whether cash should be carried on buses, but I would like smart card technology to be phased in on all our buses. That will no doubt be the subject of continued discussions with interested parties.

I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for Transport say at Question Time last week that three pilots in England and Wales are trying out the yellow buses that are used in the United States to take children to school. The objective is to move children out of their parents' cars and into dedicated and safe buses. If such buses prove successful, they could play a role in improving congestion problems and freeing up regular, scheduled buses for other travellers.

How do we help the driver to prevent or deal with an incident on the bus?

Does my hon. Friend agree that an investigation of the possible benefits of a bus transport police might help to defend workers and the travelling public?

I have to say honestly that I have not considered that option, but I am sure that it is worth thinking about its wider implications. I am mindful of the fact that there is a transport police—a very small force that covers railways and other modes of transport. Nevertheless, I am sure that what my hon. Friend suggests could be a worthwhile facility.

I return to how we can help drivers to prevent or deal with incidents on buses. We can ensure that measures such as two-way radios, vandal alarms, digital video systems and optional screens are available. I must acknowledge that some bus operators have implemented some of those protections on some services, but it is clear that they should be implemented much more widely. That means increased investment in our bus stock.

Every incident should be logged rather than only those that require a driver to take time off work. That should include verbal abuse, threats and racial or sexual harassment. The TGWU is concerned that some bus companies consistently under-report the number of assaults, so I hope that reporting systems are improved. In addition, confidential freephone facilities and numbers should be established to encourage public reporting.

It is equally important to ensure that culprits are caught. Drivers are frustrated at what they see as the low priority that police appear to give to staff who have just been assaulted. When culprits are successfully prosecuted, we must ensure that they are punished with appropriate penalties, not just a derisory fine.

When a driver is attacked at work, he is a victim of crime. As such, the bus operating companies should ensure access to professional counselling, and there should be no loss of earnings for bus workers subjected to assault. That means guaranteed full earnings, not just sick pay.

The effects of an attack on an individual driver or his bus are deplorable, and they can also hurt communities if a service is reduced or withdrawn. That happened in my constituency, where persistent vandalism led to the withdrawal of services to a local estate. After discussion with local interested parties, a replacement night link service was introduced by Greater Manchester PTA and championed by its chairman. Councillor Roger Jones. It involves the passengers booking their journey on a "demand and response" minibus service, which is sometimes called a shared taxi service. Passengers are picked up at home or a place of their choice, and dropped anywhere on the scheduled route at a slightly higher fare than the equivalent bus fare.

I am concerned that all too many bus operators may run what I call a main road policy, under which they progressively tender only for profit-making routes. Indeed, during one of my regular round-table meetings on a local estate in Eccles, one bus manager admitted that he had recommended that his company withdraw from estates in general, not only because of isolated incidents of violence, but for financial reasons.

If that is the case and private operators do not want to provide the much-needed service to estates and remote areas, I call on the Government to allow local transport authorities such as Greater Manchester PTA to buy buses and provide a service to local residents when no private operator will do so.

Before I conclude, I want to pay tribute to a friend and former colleague, Mr. Fred Greer, who is the passenger transport regional trade group secretary for the TGWU in north-west England. He is without doubt one of the experts on criminal injuries compensation claims. Sadly, that expertise, which was gained over many years serving TGWU passenger transport members, has built up because of the attacks on bus drivers and crew. Such expertise results from a need—a need brought about by violence against bus crew. That violence must be stopped.

I welcome the Government's initiatives to improve the safety of buses, crew and passengers. Security measures do not come cheap, however. Investment in safety not only meets our moral obligation to safeguard the health and safety of transport workers, but plays a key role in securing the reliability of our transport services, which the public have a right to expect.

rose—

Order. There are a number of Members—I am not sure whether they are all standing—who want to catch my eye. I hope that a little self-discipline will be exercised.

I want to put it on record that I am also a lifelong member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and a vice-chair of the TGWU parliamentary group.

The group of workers that we are discussing are engaged in an important public service, which they perform while they are alone. Often they are alone in deserted areas at night in a confined space—a small cab—with cash. They are sitting targets for anyone who wants to attack them.

The attacks in my constituency have been cowardly and malicious. Sometimes robbery has been involved and sometimes gratuitous violence, such as that from drunken louts who, at night, refuse to pay their fares and attack the driver. On other occasions there have been examples of mindless hooliganism—such people think that there is sport to be had from throwing bricks and stones at a passing bus. On all occasions, however, there is a risk to the employees involved and to members of the public.

I supported the Home Secretary a few months ago when he called for tougher penalties against yobs who engage in mobile phone theft and assault people in doing so. There should be equally tough sanctions, penalties and action against the mindless yobs who carry out the violence that we are discussing against public servants who drive buses in our communities.

The issue does not solely concern employees, however, as passengers are affected too. Shortly, I will describe a particularly horrific incident in which one of my constituents was involved. Passengers can experience the full force of appalling attacks in which bricks and stones are thrown, and the community and the public are also affected when a service is withdrawn because it is under persistent threat. I am sure that we all support the promotion of public transport, though that is undermined and people are deterred once such violence is known to happen regularly.

I am reminded that I, too, should declare that I am a member of the T&G, though not a lifelong member. My hon. Friend mentions bricks and stones, and the danger to passengers and drivers. In Swindon there have been incidents in which airgun pellets have been fired at buses. Has he heard of such incidents? They would clearly he a danger not only to the passengers and the driver, but to everyone around the bus, should pellets hit the driver and send the bus out of control. That is a real concern for bus drivers in my constituency.

Absolutely. I mentioned bricks and stones because they were involved in some of the most recent incidents in my constituency, but a couple of years ago a driver in Sheffield was shot by an airgun pellet. That can have horrific consequences, and not only for the driver—if the driver is so affected that the vehicle goes out of control, all the passengers on the bus and other members of the public are put at risk.

Incidents in my constituency, which occurred earlier this year, involved me in the matter. Throughout, I have kept in close touch with the local bus branch and its secretary, Martin Mayer. I give the branch praise and credit for its positive and constructive response, working with the police, the local authority and the bus company owners to try to find ways forward that will cause the least inconvenience to the public. On at least one occasion, however, several services were withdrawn, as the union and the management recognised that some Saturday evening services could not continue due to vandalism.

One of the most horrific incidents earlier in the year involved a group of youths in Handsworth in my constituency, who switched the bus's engine off by hitting the outside control mechanism. When the driver got out to switch the engine on again, he was subjected to a barrage of stones. When one of the passengers went to assist him, he got a brick in the face, which caused him to lose an eye. That was an absolutely appalling incident and, fortunately, the culprit was swiftly apprehended by the police.

A short time after that, a driver at Halfway, which is also in my constituency, was slashed across the face with a Stanley knife. Fortunately, he was wearing glasses, which deflected the blow so that it caused cuts to his forehead, not the loss of sight that could easily have resulted. He was also slashed in the stomach. On the same night, a passenger punched a driver in the face. Two days later, two youths beat a driver with a baseball bat for the sake of trying to steal his £70 takings. All that happened in Sheffield in a week—an appalling number of incidents in a very short time.

The police say that, unfortunately—my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) mentioned this—copycat incidents happen. When some of the idiots in our communities see one incident such as a robbery, they spot an easy way to make gain, perhaps for drug expenditure, and go ahead and repeat it. We have not had as many such incidents recently, but the stoning of buses in my constituency and other parts of Sheffield has continued. Local TGWU officials tell me that they are due to meet the police and the local authority again in the next few days to try to find a way forward.

The problem is not only the physical damage to bus drivers that such incidents cause, but the long-term psychological impact on those drivers. Many will never return to work because they are simply too traumatised to go back and sit in that cab, facing the prospect of the same thing happening to them again. We are trying to widen bus driver recruitment and to encourage women to become bus drivers, but there is press publicity for such attacks and that simply will not happen. The approach that bus companies and the unions want to take is being damaged.

I note the comments of my hon. Friend on the increase in such incidents. We have certainly never seen anything like this before in Sheffield, although in the past few months there have been fewer very serious incidents. There have still been some, however, and mindless attacks on buses in which bottles, bricks and stones are thrown, have continued. Union members tell me that although the newer buses are better at attracting people—they have larger windows and are the sort of vehicle that passengers want to ride in—their design acts as an incentive to the mindless yobs who target them for brick throwing.

I listened with interest to the points made by my hon. Friend about how we could hope to deal with the problems. He is right that, although the most serious incidents are reported, many, such as verbal abuse and threats that do not lead to physical violence, are not. There should be a proper reporting system. Bus drivers are rightly trained in customer services, and today we accept that most are friendly, will pull up between stops, say "Hello" or "Good morning" and treat people civilly. However, they unfortunately need training to deal with difficult circumstances and aggressive people. That is also important.

A joint plan must be drawn up among police operators, trade unions and local authorities, and a risk assessment should be made of difficult situations and where they are likely to occur. We should consider the possibility of mandatory police response times to such incidents, bearing in mind that they are unlikely to catch people, or act as a deterrent, unless they are on the scene quickly. I am told that in Sheffield the police have not always arrived in time, but have reached a scene very quickly on other occasions. There must therefore be a plan with times set down.

Local authorities have a role. Some incidents have occurred at terminuses that are badly lit, so we need to improve lighting to make it more likely that people will be seen and to make them think twice before engaging in such incidents.

My hon. Friend referred to what can be provided on buses to improve safety: digital cameras, alarm systems, two-way radios and security arrangements for cash. Many of the best bus operators are already taking action, but we all know that in these days of free-for-all public transport some cheapskate operators try to put on poor-quality buses that have no such facilities; they are happy to send drivers out with no protection whatever. We must consider making some requirements mandatory. The Department for Transport has issued guidance on those matters, which perhaps it should now update and reinforce, as well as naming and shaming those operators that refuse to take proper actions to ensure the safety of their employees.

As my hon. Friend said, we also need other measures. From time to time, incidents will unfortunately occur. When they cause drivers to be off sick, those drivers must be on full earnings, not partial sick pay, and they must not be left to bear the consequences. We must ensure that proper counselling is available, because of the trauma involved in such incidents, and have far tougher sentences to punish those involved and to act as a deterrent to others.

The very nature of the job means that employees are vulnerable; they are extremely vulnerable public servants who provide a valuable public service. As representatives of the public, we must offer protection to drivers and to the public who travel on those vehicles, and ensure that services are not withdrawn because of mindless vandalism. We will then be able to promote public transport as the right way to travel in our towns and cities—this issue has consequences for the whole community as well as for individual employees.

It is time to act. The T&G nationally, and locally in Sheffield, has behaved extremely responsibly by making sensible and proper proposals. I hope that the Government support them and ensure that bus operators act on them.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate in the debate. I, too, am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and exceptionally proud of that fact.

My interest in transport began when I was an official of the National and Local Government Officers Association. The T&G allowed me to become joint secretary of the negotiating committees of the Scottish bus group in 1981, so I have a wealth of experience of the problems that drivers faced in that period.

My colleagues are right that the situation has clearly been worsening. At the centre of it all is the driver who has become a victim of a changing society. Examples that have been given by my colleagues are particularly worrying; attacks on transport workers in Scotland that have come to my notice are equally worrying. The bus of a female driver ran out of fuel in an isolated area at 11.30 pm. Youths broke every window of the bus while the driver was inside, leading to her being off work for more then eight weeks due to stress. Another driver was slashed in the arm for asking for the correct fare from passengers boarding his bus. Another was assaulted by an attacker who used a knife, and when the ambulance driver turned up he was bitten by that same attacker. What happened when the matter went to court? The attacker was fined £25 and required to pay the miserable sum of £250 as compensation to the driver.

Those are just a few examples of the attacks that happen regularly in Scotland. A recent TGWU survey north of the border shows that some 57 per cent. of drivers expect to be attacked in their career. That is a frightening statistic and a clear demonstration that the matter must be addressed more urgently. Staff believe that more effort should be made to apprehend and seriously punish attackers. Short-term measures such as safety screens, CCTV, personal alarms and two-way radios are all very well, but I must emphasise that they alone are not the answer to the problem. We must consider the underlying causes of attacks.

How can we address the situation? We must consider positively how to improve drivers' health and safety at work. Bus drivers face ongoing problems with long hours and poor cab design, leading to increased stress, fatigue and injuries. I participated in and, indeed, started the process of regular bus inspections in my constituency and the whole of the west of Scotland. Some horror stories of buses that drivers are expected to drive are immensely interesting. I shall give one example.

A bus in my constituency had an open gas fire for a heater. The same bus had its axle held on with one screw. The driver, who was paid £5 an hour, was expected to drive that bus. If he did not, he would not have been employed. That shows the appalling circumstances in which some cowboy employers ask their drivers to work. If such employers are asked to fit screens and so on to their buses, it will not happen.

There are many good employers—Stagecoach, the First Group and others operating in my constituency, such as Docherty Buses—that offer professional counselling facilities to their employees and, in conjunction with trade unions, assess progress on health and safety matters. They put quality partnerships in place and local authorities, such as Strathclyde passenger transport authority, demand quality contracts with bus operators that are legally enforceable. We must regulate and address health and safety matters for transport workers. We also need local authorities to address the problem of attacks on drivers when they draft agreements.

Drivers provide a vital public service, and they deserve to be able to do their jobs without fear of being attacked or assaulted. One of the main changes that I have seen during my 20-year involvement with the industry is the introduction of one-man-operated buses, or OMOs, which have dispensed with conductors. I was involved in the negotiations. However, when buses are operated outwith core hours, it would be sensible to have not just one person, but two on board. The Minister should consider that seriously.

My final and perhaps most important point, which is an example of what can be done, is that there is a responsibility on the public and the parents of the children and youths who go on the rampage. In my constituency, there was a threat to withdraw an important service to the main town. People relied on that service to travel to the shops and their entertainment, but it was withdrawn after hoodlums broke every pane of glass on the bus.

As in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), hoodlums used the emergency switch when the bus was at a stop and let down its tyres. That issue had to be addressed and, given the circumstances, the bus company had absolutely no option but to withdraw the service from that bus-only route.

When the company withdrew the service, the public rose up and complained. They blamed the bus company; they blamed the drivers; they blamed everybody but themselves. When they came to see me, I said, "It's your responsibility to make darn sure that those hoodlums are not anywhere near the bus route and that they do not interfere with the service." The situation was resolved only when that issue was addressed, and parents kept their children in and knew where they were. The bus service has been reintroduced and has been running for eight months, fortunately without incident.

We can consider other options such as new technology, but the public need to stand up and pay attention to what is going on in society. We will be in a position to safeguard such bus routes only when the public have made darn sure that they have changed the situation.

My hon. Friend will remember that I said that it would be appropriate to debate the other issues that affect communities. I instituted round-table meetings two years ago on a particular estate in my constituency because the bus company had withdrawn a service. Initially, we all thought that we were meeting to discuss a transport problem with social implications, but it became clear that we were discussing a social problem with transport implications. There should be a series of Adjournment debates on those issues.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is spot on. We should be discussing those issues, and my hon. Friends and I will help him to apply for a further Adjournment debate to consider social problems—we need to press the Minister to address the situation. Perhaps he will bring along a ministerial colleague from the Home Office who could introduce legislation.

I am glad to have taken part in the debate. I am also glad that at least some of my hon. Friends recognise that there is a need for further discussion, and I look forward to that with interest.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not sure whether I was going to speak in the debate, but I have been driven to do so.

First, I declare my interests: like my hon. Friends, I am member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and the law firm Thompson's, which works for the TGWU and for which I used to work, gives money to my constituency party. Hon. Members will perhaps be more interested to learn that I am in a unique position in the House, because although my curriculum vitae makes it appear that I should be an author—I am not an author—I have done many jobs, one of which was driving a bus. After doing that for several years, I became a trade union lawyer, and part of that work involved acting for bus drivers who had been assaulted, which means that I have an interest in and knowledge of the subject.

Earlier, some hon. Members referred to designing out problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) finished his speech by talking about social problems, which are important. I hope that they are the subject of another Adjournment debate. However, I want briefly to focus on designing out problems by, for example, introducing bus lanes, which can speed up services. On daytime services—this is obviously less of a problem at night—passengers can become frustrated by full vehicles, slow vehicles and services running late, and that can boil over into incidents that all too often are not only verbal but violent, which is unacceptable.

As regards night services, we must consider simple matters such as the location of bus stops, how well lit they are and the frequency of services. The problem often boils down to two factors: the frustration of passengers, which, of course, should never be expressed through verbal abuse, let alone physical action, and people who cause vandalism. Those are separate issues, although they can overlap when frustration leads to vandalism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) mentioned driver training in relation to customer service matters—charm school, as it used to be called. Drivers also need to be taught, as I was, how to try to defuse a situation. Social workers, who often face such circumstances, receive training in so-called breakaway techniques.

The perceived status of bus drivers can be a factor. Undeservedly, they are often regarded as having low status and as acceptable targets. Of course, they should not be accorded that low status and they are never acceptable targets, but that influences some of the little hellions who commit acts of vandalism or who physically or verbally abuse a driver.

We could address the problem by increasing bus drivers' pay and improving their training. As well as having been a driver, I am a regular bus user, so I know that some drivers—a minority—drive in a way that is not conducive to passenger comfort. That is not to say that it is acceptable for a passenger who has had an uncomfortable ride to take it out on the driver. Training is a management issue, and it can assist in designing out problems, as can CCTV, two-way radios and prompt police attendance when an incident is called in.

I hope that the Government are considering the role of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority scheme in cases where, sadly, a bus driver is off work owing to an incident of violence. Under the changes that have been introduced, that body does not reinstate sick pay unless a person has been off work for more than 28 weeks. Unless there is a full sick pay scheme at work—an employer matter—a bus driver who has been the victim of violence will not necessarily get their pay, let alone compensation for the physical or mental trauma that they have been through. A range of issues must be addressed, and I hope that the Minister takes them up.

The west midlands metro, some of which runs through my constituency, has been bedevilled by acts of vandalism that create huge problems. When a brick breaks the front windscreen of a metro tram, replacing it costs about £3,000. However, the question involves not only finance, but trauma to the driver and passengers and the impact on the transport network caused by suspended services and so on.

Travel West Midlands, which runs the west midlands metro, has taken the step of introducing clippies—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South—who provide a second person on the vehicle. That should be considered for buses, especially half-empty late-night services to estates with poor lighting, because such services are more likely to suffer acts of vandalism. Do the Government intend to consider changing how subsidies are offered to operators of routes that run infrequently and late at night to dark estates so that they can rejig them to provide a second member of staff?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing the debate and hope that we can hold another.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make a brief contribution. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing this worthwhile Adjournment debate. He is lucky to have done so this quickly, because many hon. Members have been trying for much longer to secure debates on other subjects. That shows how popular and worthwhile such debates are.

Like my hon. Friends, I must declare that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I have been a member since the age of 19, and a continuous member for the past 42 years. From 1960 to 1969, I worked for the Glasgow corporation transport department—two years as a tram car conductor and seven as a bus conductor when the trams were withdrawn from service. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I never reached the giddy heights of driver, as I could not pass the eye test, nor was I a clippie.

For the last five of those nine years, I was a shop steward in Partick bus garage, and tragically one of my members was stabbed to death while collecting fares on his bus on a Saturday night. For two successive weekends, we took every single corporation vehicle off the streets of Glasgow on Fridays and Saturdays at 7 pm. That resulted in the fitting of two-way radios and alarm systems to the vehicles in 1968. I think that we were the first city in the UK to get those, although that has become standard practice in most transport operations, as has the installation of protective shields for drivers, now that most vehicles are operated by one person. Those measures have made it somewhat safer for passengers and drivers to travel on buses.

Sadly, in recent years, threats of assault and actual assaults aboard vehicles have increased. Equally sad and worrying is the huge increase in off-vehicle incidents, and acts of vandalism and violence against public service vehicles and those travelling in them. That also applies to trains. Mindless thugs drop bricks and other missiles from overhead bridges and hooligans throw bottles, or whatever they can get their hands on, at windows. I think that we are seeing the tip of the iceberg. There are many more such incidents than we are aware of, and perhaps injuries. It is only a matter of time before there is a major tragedy involving several people being killed, losing eyes or being crippled. We must do something about that.

The public have been deprived of services in many areas, especially cities, and at times when they need them. Women, children and elderly, vulnerable people are put in danger if they have to wait at bus stops only for vehicles that normally come along at a particular time not to turn up because the driver has had to report sick, or the vehicle has been taken out of commission because of broken windows or some other damage. It is common in many cities—Glasgow is one of the worst at the moment—for 20 or 30 vehicles to be out of service on a particular night, usually at weekends. That does not give the public the service that they desire. It puts them at risk, and it deprives crews of many aspects of their life. It can deprive them of earnings, make them feel insecure and make them look for alternative employment.

The cost of training drivers and then losing them to other occupations must be quite substantial, and their quality of life has decreased in many ways, through fear and the loss of earnings. People stay at home because they are afraid to go out, and the loss to businesses and to the quality of life of many citizens is growing as a result of that ever-increasing spiral of vandalism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) mentioned poor working conditions for many drivers. He could have added antisocial hours, as well as the worry that they suffer. Many drivers have to start at four in the morning. They are up long before most other people, but sometimes are not finished until midnight. They also work when everyone else has gone home from work, or after they have been enjoying themselves. Many have to work seven days a week, or certainly six days spread over seven, to earn a decent living. They also have to work many hours of overtime, which is essential if they want a living wage.

The poor pay and poor working conditions result in high staff turnover. That results in stresses and strains for the drivers and their families. Drivers give an excellent service in all kinds of weather. In fact, they have to take people out in conditions when the AA may say, "Do not travel unless your journey is absolutely necessary. Leave your car at home." However, the buses and trains are expected to run, and we tend to take our public services for granted. We really should do more to help them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles referred to the practice of avoiding publicity and keeping quiet about problems because of the danger of copycats. Frankly, that method is just not working. The people who commit such acts are well aware of them and there is very little danger of others doing the same. Therefore, the strategy is a failure. Perhaps the opposite approach might be more effective. Why not begin a high-profile campaign that explains the harm and tragedy that may result from throwing missiles at buses and other vehicles? That might be more effective. However, such a campaign must be linked to an effort to catch the offenders and punish them severely, because their acts are not petty vandalism or the result of youngsters letting off steam, as some would have us believe, but serious criminal acts that should be treated as such.

My hon. Friends have made many good points, and I welcome the joint initiatives by trade unions, employers, police and the Government. I look forward to the Minister's response, but again I make the point that the courts must play the major role in dealing with the problem. Severe sentences for the thugs are the greatest deterrent regarding stamping out vandalism and acts of violence.

I thank the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) and congratulate him on introducing the debate. I am sorry that I missed the first five minutes of his contribution.

I am not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. My closest interest is a bus stop outside my house, which I regard as a bonus rather than anything else. I have some experience, however, to which I shall allude briefly. In discussing violence against drivers and bus crews, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) referred to their lack of status. I spent a large part of my life behind a shop counter, and I believe that shop workers also suffer from violence and abuse. In a way, they are seen not as human beings, but as part of a service. Frustration and all sorts of things may play a part, but it is totally unacceptable that public workers in nearly every sector suffer violence.

I am appalled to hear of some of the acts that have been committed. I thought that we had serious problems in parts of my Uxbridge constituency, but I am relieved that, although our problems are significant, they are not on the scale that we have heard about today. It is right to discuss such difficulties.

I know many bus drivers, and I asked one who had worked for a company for several years why he was leaving his job. He said that the conditions were driving him out. When I asked what was the worst aspect of the conditions, thinking that it would be the antisocial hours and late-night shifts, he said that it was working after school. Although the incredibly violent incidents that we have heard about are not mirrored after school, one wonders whether the children who are responsible for the mindless vandalism and aggressive behaviour that happens during that period will grow up to be ever more violent against bus crews.

Did the hon. Gentleman's discussion include the differences between single and double-decker buses? My local bus drivers worry about driving double-deckers with school children on board. That is regrettable, because it results in more buses on the roads, more congestion and pupils sometimes being unable to get on particular buses due to lack of capacity. That issue must also be addressed.

I thank the hon. Lady, who is absolutely right that that is a problem. We have single and double-deckers in my constituency. I am not sure whether the introduction of conductors would necessarily help greatly, however. The lack of respect shown by some kids towards adults of any status is such that I am not sure whether a conductor would achieve any improvement. Indeed, I have wondered whether Metropolitan police officers could sit on buses in uniform to get the message across.

At a presentation by our local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses, I saw a piece on covert surveillance and discovered that a small camera can be implanted in the strap of an ordinary-looking bag, such as a school bag. Sometimes when I visit schools and say that I have heard complaints about the pupils, they deny that it could possibly be theirs causing the problem and claim that people will have seen just a child in uniform. I would like to be able to present such head teachers with evidence of their pupils causing trouble. Brent has been quite successful with surveillance on the buses, and I shall recommend to my local authority that it take note of what is happening there.

Another important point, especially later at night, concerns bus shelters. Like the travelling public, we all welcome the arrival of more bus shelters, but in the evenings they tend to become a honey pot, especially in poor weather. Local youths gather around them and launch into abuse when a bus arrives. I am not sure what can be done about that, but, some years ago, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and I served on a Select Committee that examined the problems of parks and open spaces—the introduction of youth shelters elsewhere could help.

I found the comments of the hon. Member for Eccles on the minibus night link scheme, particularly interesting and relevant. Many universities including Brunel in my constituency, are examining a similar scheme, which is considering one because the buses normally stop too early for people coming out of clubs. Despite legislation, many people are wary of minicabs late at night. Local authorities, together with bus companies and universities, could consider such schemes, which should be extended not only to students but to law—abiding members of the public.

I echo what all Members have said about the need for tougher measures, as the authorities do not perhaps treat such incidences of violence with the severity that they deserve. The message must be sent out that they are totally unacceptable. We are trying to get more people to use public transport, so it is essential that the travelling public and all public transport services employees feel absolutely safe. I support any measures to stamp out violence, particularly on our public transport.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing this important debate. Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), I must admit that I am not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, although the hon. Gentleman should know that I was briefly a bus conductor once, and use the buses in my constituency and elsewhere, so I have at least some experience.

In the main part of his contribution, the hon. Member for Eccles rightly drew our attention to the violence suffered by public transport workers, especially bus drivers. He urged us, as other Members have done, to take the issue far more seriously, and I fully support his comments. It was frightening to hear other hon. Members' experiences of the violence suffered by drivers in their constituencies. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, that affects not only those drivers' lives, but the rest of us. If a driver is injured or suffers from stress as a result of an attack, or the threat of an attack, and cannot therefore provide a service, bus reliability declines and we all lose out.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly touched on several issues, from the potential use of smart cards to reduce cash carried on vehicles, to the yellow bus experiment, which I shall mention shortly. He spoke for all of us when he said that he wanted the use of public transport, not least the buses, to increase to reduce pollution and congestion—and, I would add, to reduce social exclusion.

I note with concern that, under Conservative Governments from 1979 to 1997, bus passenger journeys fell by one third and car traffic increased by 82 per cent. Although in the past few months there has been a welcome increase in bus ridership, nevertheless, under the new Labour Administration overall ridership remains lower than it was when the Government came to power, so there is an urgent need to take action.

If we are to get people back on to the buses we must ensure that they are safe, reliable and affordable. Those features are linked, as reliability can have an impact on safety. As the hon. Member for Eccles said, if a bus is late or does not turn up at all, the passenger waiting at the bus stop is potentially at risk. It is therefore crucial to improve buses' reliability. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that sadly, so far the targets set by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1999 for improving the reliability of buses, are not being met—and reliability is crucial to safety.

In their secure station initiative, the Government highlighted the importance of safety while people are waiting for a train. Although I was critical of the way in which that initiative was pursued, as far too few stations have so far been accredited, nevertheless it shows that the Government see the matter as crucial. I hope that the Minister will undertake to give safety while people are waiting at a bus stop or bus station an equally high priority, not least because more people use buses than use trains.

Safety when people are on buses is also important. However the statistics are analysed they show that buses and coaches are, on the whole, very safe forms of public transport. For example, bus passenger deaths are only 3 per cent. of all road casualties. None the less, a worrying number of people are injured while travelling by bus. Every year about 1,000 people are injured while seated on buses and a further 600 standing passengers are injured. Clearly, there is more to be done.

Hon. Members mentioned additional work; driver training was raised, not least by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). Improvements could be made to enhance vehicles' structural integrity—in the seat-to-floor mountings, for example. There is still a great deal more to be done with the interior design of buses; for example, the design should stop seated passengers falling to the floor when there is emergency braking, and the injury potential of vertical grab rails on some buses, seat backs and other interior features should be reduced. The average age of the bus fleet is eight and a half years, so many buses still in use do not benefit from recent research on interior design. We must find ways of modernising the fleet, especially older vehicles.

Many injuries occur when vehicles stop suddenly. which is often caused by pedestrians and other vehicles on the road. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton. South-West (Rob Marris) made an important reference to the great benefits of introducing more bus lanes, more priority left and right turns and other measures that give buses higher priority on our roads, for the sake not only of reliability but of safety.

The hon. Member for Eccles referred to the need for a wide range of different debates. He and the Minister will know about the continuing conflict between legislation to allow local authorities to introduce priority lanes and priority left and right turns through quality partnerships, and the competition legislation that tends to prohibit it. That would be an appropriate subject for a separate debate. The subject of improving bus ridership by giving the public more information about how to use buses and about the services that are available is relevant to this debate, but it would also be appropriate for a separate debate. In Perth, Australia, when a small amount was spent on promoting and explaining the bus service, bus ridership increased by 14 per cent.

Many other things can be done. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred not only to driver training, but to the way in which bus drivers sometimes drive. There is no doubt that several drivers could be given better advice about how to improve their driving, to make journeys safer and more comfortable for their passengers.

I pay tribute to First Group in my area. There were huge worries about drivers who set off quickly from bus stops when elderly and disabled passengers were not seated, causing several injuries. I discussed the matter with First Group, and Mr. Brian Noton, the managing director, agreed to put notices in all buses in my area to remind drivers of the importance of waiting for passengers to be seated to ensure that they were safe. The seated and safe campaign was a great success, for which I thank First Group.

Hon. Members have mentioned yellow buses, and I am sure that we are all aware of the benefits of those buses, which pick up school pupils at or near their homes, thus reducing safety problems. Hon. Members will also know about the benefits of specially designed ultra-safe vehicles. The hon. Member for Uxbridge spoke about the benefits of supervising passengers on the buses. I hope that the Government will take the experiments more seriously. The Deputy Prime Minister referred to three trials, but I understand that the Government have had little or no input into the trials; I hope that they soon will have.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Eccles has raised these important issues. The points that he has made, especially about violence toward bus drivers, deserve more attention.

I am delighted to participate in this excellent debate. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) in declaring that I am not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, but I admit to using buses frequently, especially in London. I declare a small interest in First Group. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I sat on that august body's Committee on Transport and Tourism from 1989 to 1999.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing this important and timely debate. I pay tribute to the huge contribution that bus transport makes to our way of life. It is a greatly appreciated and central public service, and the extent to which buses run later in this country than in many continental countries is often not recognised. My experiences in Strasbourg, and during a recent weekend in Cannes, demonstrate that it is easier to catch a bus at night in a British city than in a French city.

Many hon. Members have had the opportunity to describe their truly frightening experiences this morning. A recent edition of the Manchester Evening News said that in Manchester

"Yobs are running up a yearly bill of more than £4m which has to be picked up by fare-payers and some services are under threat."

The article goes on:

"Aside from suffering to drivers and passengers, major bus companies in Greater Manchester estimate they spend around £1.5m a year repairing damage caused by bricks, stones, graffiti and fire."

One of the main rail companies says its annual bill is about £2.5m."

The Conservative party puts road safety very high on the political agenda. I am disappointed that we have not had the opportunity today to mention the particular vulnerability of school buses. The Minister might like to talk about that when summing up. Our intention, as has been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), is to give a high priority to fitting seat belts on buses, especially those carrying children to school. I understand that under EU principles of subsidiarity, it is perfectly proper for us to take that action on road safety.

Before I list some truly shocking statistics from the Library about bus transport over the past five years, I should say, as background, that bus use since privatisation and deregulation has been a success. There have been more services, increased investment and much reduced subsidies. Privatisation slowed the decline in bus passenger usage—a remarkable fact, given the growth in car ownership and the hostility of several urban local authorities to the private bus industry. It is of concern that bus passenger usage is apparently declining in rural areas. What specific measures will the Government take to increase bus usage in rural areas? Other hon. Members have paid tribute to the bus companies operating in their constituencies, and I shall do the same for those in my constituency, which provide a remarkable service.

Between 1997 and 2001 there was a 19 per cent. increase in the number of bus drivers killed or injured, and the number of bus passengers killed or injured on Britain's roads rose by 3 per cent. in the same period. There was also a 27 per cent. increase in the number of fatal accidents involving buses or coaches, and a 43 per cent. increase in the number of fatal accidents involving collisions between buses or coaches and pedestrians. Those figures speak for themselves; they have the authority of the Library, and they are deeply disturbing.

Many hon. Members will have received briefings from local bus operators. Stagecoach says:

"It is worth pointing out that crime on buses is low, however we are very aware that even the fear of crime can act as a deterrent in terms of people choosing to travel by bus or any other form of public transport."

Arriva says:

"Incidents of vandalism and attacks on employees and customers are thankfully rare."

First Group says—this supports what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said—that most bus crime occurs between 3 pm and 7 pm and involves youths, presumably as they are coming out of school. First Group in central Manchester says that it is involved with Crucial Crew. I should like to pay tribute to Crucial Crew for the work that it does across the country. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been involved locally with informing youngsters.

First Group writes:

"In Central Manchester, First is fully involved with Crucial Crew, a multi-agency initiative designed to provide preventative education for nine and ten year olds in an entertaining, fun way."

That welcome measure helps youths to adopt a positive approach to buses—to see that they are to be used, not abused.

I have the distinction of having served, with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), among others, for a couple of years on the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and I pay tribute to its report published on 12 September. That report identified an increase in passengers travelling by bus in urban areas and recognised that there had been a slight decline in passenger numbers in rural areas. The Committee's analysis of safety and security in part 3 of the report says that

"Actual and perceived safety and security problems can be a significant barrier to people using public transport. Women and older people feel most vulnerable, particularly at night. The Department believes"—

these are the Department's own predictions—

"that safety concerns are deterring around 10 per cent of potential public transport use mainly at off-peak times".

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of bus transport, which the Minister might like to address in his summing up, is that the proportion of users who are deterred—10 per cent. —corresponds to the 10 per cent. growth target that the Government set out in their 10-year plan. The Government have a good opportunity to revise and review their targets. All hon. Members would like increased passenger usage and increased safety on public transport.

The Select Committee report continues:

"The police must give greater priority to reducing anti-social behaviour in and around public transport. Attacks on public transport users and staff are as serious as any other form of anti-social behaviour."

That issue has come through strongly in the tone of the debate.

That part of the report concludes:

"Bus companies must use the Department's guidance on improving security in partnership with local authorities and police authorities."

I commend the report, with its horrific statistics, to the House and the Minister. The cost of vandalism and attacks, both for those who work for bus companies and for the companies themselves, is unacceptable, as are the threats to passengers. We have heard in graphic detail about some ghastly experiences.

I recognise that the Government have taken some action by setting out their guidance on safety and by creating the safer travel on buses and coaches panel. Have they done enough? From what we have heard this morning, the answer is: probably not.

This is the first time that I have spoken under your watchful and careful eye, Mr. Griffiths, and I look forward to many more such occasions.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing the debate. He presented his well argued points powerfully, as is his custom. He speaks with considerable authority on several transport issues and we are always pleased to hear from him. Had you been in the Chamber earlier, Mr. Griffiths, you would have noticed that at times the debate began to resemble an address to the parliamentary branch of the Transport and General Workers Union. I have to declare that I am not a member of the TGWU—but after today's debate I will give it some careful consideration.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not give way. I am coming to the hon. Lady's point.

There is widespread agreement on both sides about the subject of this debate, despite the fact that the hon. Lady finished her speech on rather a sour note. She asked whether bus provision in rural areas would be increased, and I have to respond that, after many years of decline in bus services in rural areas before the present Government came into office, we have turned the situation round.

The hon. Lady might want to consider her own local authority area. The local transport plan funding has increased two and a half times in her area in the past two years. That is funding that the local authority can use to assist in bus planning for urban and rural areas. Other grants, such as the rural bus grants, are also available for her area. None of those funds were available five years ago.

The Government are concerned about the fear of crime; we do not want that to inhibit people from using public transport. I shall take this opportunity to endorse many of the comments that have been made in the debate, and to make it clear that criminal and antisocial behaviour against bus staff and passengers is unacceptable. We are committed to reducing crime and the fear of crime in our transport system. I pay tribute to the campaign to highlight the issue that the Transport and General Workers Union successfully conducted earlier this year, which led to some positive outcomes.

Antisocial behaviour directed against buses or the people on board them is at best unpleasant, and at worst deeply dangerous to the people who use and operate them. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) pointed out, some of those problems occur during school run time, which is disturbing. I reinforce the point that people who serve the public, such as teachers, nurses and bus drivers, have the right to carry out their work without suffering abuse, assault or violence. As a society. we should do everything to ensure that that right is upheld.

One good point was made by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). When such violence occurs it often leads to the buses being withdrawn, and the communities where it occurs are almost invariably those most in need of a bus service, the areas with the lowest car ownership statistics, where people are most vulnerable when buses are withdrawn. I liked the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), which I have not heard applied to this subject before. It is not only the bus operators, the police and others who have to deal with such violence; the communities that are affected must take responsibility, too. If they are losing their bus service, or its quality is deteriorating, because of the behaviour of some people, it is up to the community to take action and ensure that those people are reported.

I would say the same about the point that the hon. Member for Uxbridge made about schools. Where there is poor behaviour on buses, the bus companies should liaise with the schools and the local education authorities, and get the minority—it is often a tiny minority—of children who are causing problems off the buses, so that perhaps they have to walk in the rain.

Will the Minister see one of his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills and try to convince him or her that they could solve that problem by putting a teacher on the bus? I understand that teachers currently refuse to perform that duty.

Sadly, that would put more pressure on teachers, who will frequently have had to deal with the same children for six hours during the day; the further imposition of having to go on the bus could present them with yet another problem. However, there have been some innovative ideas, such as appointing a responsible older pupil—who may be granted free transport on the bus—to act as the eyes and ears, and report back any difficulties with specific children. That scheme has been working successfully in my area and in others. I take my hon. Friend's point on board, but I do not wish to put more pressure on teachers.

Today in particular, when the Government are stressing the benefits of classroom assistants, is not the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) right, in that it is possible to find responsible adults with additional training who could be brought in to supervise the buses? That is one of the key components of the yellow bus scheme.

That is correct.

What we must not do is examine such things in a unitary way. They are clearly all interrelated, which is why I have called for a series of Adjournment debates to try to link all the different aspects.

I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend wants a series of Adjournment debates, and I look forward to joining him here on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings. I liked his comments when, in an intervention, he described the difficulties that we have been discussing as "social problems with transport implications". That is a useful way of looking at them

Despite the low recorded crime on public transport, we recognise the fear of crime and the impact that that has on the lives of ordinary people. For example, 44 per cent. of women and 19 per cent. of men feel unsafe waiting at bus stops at night. In April, my predecessor launched fresh guidance to help tackle crime on buses. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will find the answers to some of his questions in that guidance, "Get on board: an agenda for improving personal security in bus travel". It set out safety measures that can be taken by bus companies working with local authorities to improve the personal safety of both bus staff and passengers. Better lighting at bus stops, effective surveillance and better procedures for reporting incidents were all recommended by the guidance, as well as sharing examples of good practice and partnership initiatives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles asked about STOP, the safer travel on buses and coaches panel. We have now launched that group at official level, which will deal specifically with security on buses and coaches, and will work to bring together those involved in dealing with safety. The STOP group is due to meet for the first time very soon, and is charged with the important task of facilitating the exchange of ideas and spreading best practice. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) asked about the quality of our statistics: the panel will also commission regular data collection so that we can determine the size of the problem and find a solution.

I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport met members and representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union earlier this year to discuss what could be done to reduce crime on buses. That meeting followed the highly successful campaign by the TGWU on behalf not only of its members but of bus passengers. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles has taken a great interest in the matter and is taking the issue forward.

My hon. Friend also asked about the possibility of local authorities buying buses. I believe that it would be perfectly possible using local transport plan money—my hon. Friend is smiling at me now; perhaps he is going to ask me to renationalise the whole system. Although one could go down that avenue and purchase buses, that would have to be consistent with the objectives and priorities in the local transport plan, and must also satisfy the district auditor and the best value appraisal. The service would also have to be contracted out in some way through competitive tendering. I hope that that explanation is helpful to my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe graphically described some of the appalling things that have happened on buses in his area, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South. I assure my hon. Friend that if he passes on to the vehicle inspectorate any reports of open gas fires on buses, or parts of buses being held on with one screw, it will take urgent action and ensure that those buses are taken off the road.

Some hon. Members asked about the possibility of having buses operated by more than one person. That is an attractive idea, and it is open to the operator to make such a decision. Again, however, there would be huge cost implications. Every pound spent on putting an extra person on the bus to inhibit crime is a pound not spent on delivering other services. We need to find the balance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made a studied and carefully argued contribution. I was interested in his valuable comments on designing out problems.

Time is against me, but this morning's debate has been most helpful, with some very good contributions. If my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, or anyone else, is successful in securing a future debate, there will be more time to discuss such matters further and more fully.

We now come to the debate on the closure of West Freugh airfield and bombing range.

Thank you for your introduction of the debate, Mr. Griffiths. I congratulate you on your pronunciation.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate the twin announcements made in March and July that have caused such despair and dismay in my constituency. The Government's review of evaluation and research requirements was announced by a planted parliamentary question on 24 July, with the result that public and parliamentary scrutiny of the decision has had to wait almost exactly three months. That is surely not acceptable. If ever there was an advertisement for modernisation proposals to include a resumption of parliamentary business during September, this is it. Communities that have served the Ministry of Defence and related bodies impeccably for more than 60 years deserve better than such cynical politics, seeking a carpet under which to sweep bad news.

The announcement in the House was followed by a degree of buck passing between QinetiQ representatives and the MOD over the origins of the review. I hope that the Minister can throw more light on the nature of the examination of test and evaluation facilities.

To say that the announcement on 24 July caused dismay in Galloway is no exaggeration. I want the Minister to be fully aware of the strength of public opinion in this remote corner of Scotland. The area has been extremely supportive of MOD testing and operations since the 1930s. I was amused and confused to hear the Minister say in this very Chamber only one week ago that if he were starting from scratch he would not be designating a range at Shoeburyness. That was the result of a number of complaints received from locals about military activity. It is truly extraordinary that, so soon after, we face the closure of facilities in a place, Wigtownshire, that the MOD, if it did start with a blank sheet of paper, would surely deduce was an excellent location for such a testing range.

Stranraer and its surrounding communities have been dealt some cruel blows in recent months. Last year's foot and mouth crisis left the area severely weakened through agricultural decline and the sudden fall in tourism, as Dumfries and Galloway bore the brunt of Scotland's battle with the disease. In an area with few significant employers, this year has been similarly devastating. Stena Line ferries, Grasshopper and Aprilia have all announced significant job losses. For those in employment, Wigtownshire is one of the three or four areas in the UK with the lowest average wage level. Through all that, West Freugh has been regarded as a centre of significant employment, mitigating our huge dependence on the continued ferry traffic with Northern Ireland.

It would be helpful to examine the review process that has resulted in the announcements. I understand that the Government gave QinetiQ what it described, in discussions with me, as "stringent cost-saving targets", which have resulted in job losses at West Freugh and other UK sites. However, when did that process start, and what local involvement in decision making was there? I understand that there was almost no local input into the review, with the result that West Freugh was a major loser in the proposals put to the Government by QinetiQ.

That cost-saving process now sees the creation of a roving skills base, making use of various range facilities throughout the UK. Members of QinetiQ staff based elsewhere will be brought in to run exercises at West Freugh on an as-and-when basis. There seems to have been no assessment of the potential for staff resident in Wigtownshire to fill that roving role. Can the Minister justify the decision to exclude the West Freugh staff from that opportunity? A strong perception remains that West Freugh has been a punch-bag for this announcement—an easy target. Let me reassure QinetiQ and the MOD that we will certainly not take the decision quietly.

It is fair to say, however, that the announcements of the closure of the airfield and the rundown of the range were not entirely unexpected. Many, including me in parliamentary debate with the Minister, had predicted that action would be required to halt the decline. The airfield closure announcement was made in March, as the MOD claimed that Civil Aviation Authority regulations had insisted that insufficient flights were being handled for air traffic controllers to maintain a safe flying environment. In parliamentary answers last year, I learned that air traffic movements had declined from more than 11,000 in 1997 to fewer than 4,000 in 2001. Military movements have played a significant part in that decline, falling by than more than 40 per cent. in the three years since 1999. There remains a deep suspicion at the airfield that the decline in numbers is more attributable to internal accounting procedures between QinetiQ and the MOD than to any lack of demand.

Surely one of the effects of externalising some airfields is that landing for refuelling, say, at West Freugh is a more costly process for the RAF than landing at one of their own bases. What had caused the reduction in RAF traffic? Where is the traffic going? We live in dangerous times, as the Minister will appreciate. We put a premium on RAF expertise. The evaporation of RAF demand for West Freugh, without an instruction to favour other airfields, is inexplicable. If there has been such an instruction, perhaps word has not yet got through. I understand that there are still daily telephone calls to the airfield from the crew of RAF jets seeking permission to land.

I visited Campbeltown on parliamentary duties this month and was fascinated by the contrast between the seeming sustainability of the airfield RAF Machrihanish and West Freugh. Will the Minister explain why one airfield remains viable on air traffic grounds, although the other, apparently, does not?

Exactly what incentives are made available to private sector operators of MOD assets to develop new income streams? That is a key point. Can the Minister confirm that the MOD allows only 10 per cent. of the first year's income to be retained by the operator? Surely that is a guarantee that little or no effort will go into developing new ideas and markets. If we are to empower agencies and the private sector to create added value, it has to be in their interests to do so. To date, their interest has been, I am afraid to say, half-hearted to say the least.

The employment and redundancy terms that are being offered to those expected to leave West Freugh are one of the major items that require the personal intervention of the Minister. I remind him of the exceptional service that has been given by the work force at the airfield and the range. That service and dedication to duty runs the risk of being tarnished by heavy-handed and iniquitous treatment by employers.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way briefly.

I intend to ask only a short question. Will the hon. Gentleman concede that had the facility not been effectively privatised by the Conservatives, workers would not be facing the iniquitous two-tier redundancy package that seems likely at West Freugh?

One reason I was reluctant to give way, and wanted to give way briefly, is that, ironically, under the Scottish National party's defence policy there would be no evaluation or research.

The iniquitous treatment of workers at West Freugh, which follows their service and dedication to duty, requires ministerial attention. Many of the employees have worked at the base for many years. They have endured several changes to their working conditions and terms of employment, as successive Governments have changed the balance of out-sourced and in-sourced employment. Many of those now facing redundancy have been employed by the MOD, Serco and QinetiQ, although, in simple terms, they have always had the same job. I seek the direct intervention of the Minister to ensure that all the employees— whoever they have been employed by—receive a standard redundancy package.

It is unacceptable that a worker who was employed by the MOD in 1969 as an apprentice from school could face redundancy from his post as a technician with a package of £8,000, while a colleague at the same level could be offered £60,000. That difference could arise simply because the two workers had differing journeys through the privatisation maze. Surely even though the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were predated by some of the changes that affected that loyal work force, the MOD must come forward with proposals to underwrite a common redundancy package for those who face an uncommonly bleak search for alternative employment. I seek an assurance that proposals will be forthcoming on that important point.

The closure announcement of 24 July referred to the downgrading of the range to campaign operation status. There has been much debate on the precise meaning of that term, particularly with regard to employment opportunities at the base. When we met the Minister in London on 7 August, I was keen to establish that the phrase did not mean that the site would be mothballed. The West Freugh range forms a significant part of the land area of that part of Wigtownshire. It is a valued resource and the MOD has regarded it as such for many years. It is also, however, valuable to the local community. Much of it is quality agricultural land; some of it is as well connected as any other area in Galloway. There is excellent potential for developing alternative employment, but that will be prevented if campaign operation status leads to the mothballing of the site. The mothballing of the site will not be deemed acceptable by the community if only 10 jobs are offered in potential recompense. I insist on an urgent, systematic and thoroughgoing appraisal of the estate at West Freugh in which a critical eye is cast over the assets that are no longer required for campaign operation status. Views are being sought from the armed forces on the continuing demand for the range for exercises.

We look to the Minister for leadership. The local communities will find it unacceptable to reserve the whole estate merely on the off chance that there will be a military requirement. If the Government are determined to press ahead with the downgrading of the site, with limited opportunities for significant employment—a policy that I deplore—there must be a presumption that the MOD will return assets to private ownership for development unless there is a pressing need for their retention. I understand that the Minister has experience of that kind of balance in respect of other ranges throughout the UK, but I ask him to insist on imagination and urgency from his Department.

After I expressed my fears that mothballing would constrain economic development, it was suggested that I was being overly dramatic, yet a memo from the Minister's office to mine, dated 3 September, explains "campaign status" as mothballing. Indeed, in this week's edition of the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press— I am sure that the Minister has it on his desk across the road-QinetiQ's director of ranges talks openly of

"the impact something like the mothballing of the range has on the local community"

The local enterprise company is desperately in need of development land and opportunities to market to inward investors. I ask the Minister to pull back from mothballing and to make a significant contribution to economic regeneration by releasing unneeded assets.

Over 60 years, Wigtownshire has earned the right to fair treatment by the MOD. The proposed downgrading of the site and retention of as few as 10 jobs will not be acceptable to the work force and the local communities. The Minister needs to think again.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the role of West Freugh airfield and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) pronounce it correctly, as I would expect. When I heard my officials talking about it, I thought that, like Kirkcudbright, it must have an odd pronunciation, of which, perhaps, I was unaware.

I shall do my best to respond to hon. Members' concerns about the role of West Freugh airfield and the adjacent Luce bay bombing range. Sadly, over the past three years I have had extensive experience of the downsizing of our range operations throughout the United Kingdom. I must say at the outset that it gives me no pleasure at all to have to deal with such situations involving rural areas that have loyally supported our activities—in this case, for several generations. At his request, I have already met the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, and at the end of September or beginning of October—I cannot remember the exact date— I had the opportunity to meet members of Dumfries and Galloway council and local trade unions.

West Freugh consists of the Torrs Warren area, the airfield with its surrounding agricultural land, and the Luce bay range. Torrs Warren covers some 5,900 acres in total and consists of about 2,600 acres of intertidal sand and mudflats, 3,000 acres of sand dunes and 300 acres of salt marsh. The whole of Torrs Warren is a site of special scientific interest. The airfield site covers about 650 acres. All but the 30 acres that are built on are covered by full agricultural tenancies.

There are two separate, but related, issues to address regarding West Freugh: the cessation of full-time operations at the airfield, and the campaigning of the bombing range.

Full-time operation of the airfield ceased in March as a direct consequence of the dwindling numbers of aircraft movements. They have declined on a steadily steepening curve over a five-year period. The number of aircraft movements, particularly fast jets, eventually reduced to levels below the safety minima set by the MOD regulatory authorities to keep air traffic controllers up to date with current practice. The statistics speak for themselves. The total number of air traffic movements handled at West Freugh reduced from 11,644 in 1997 to 3,861 in 2001. It was therefore decided to cease full-time operations and to put the airfield into care and maintenance for reactivation for limited periods as and when required. That decision means that the airfield is now closed for routine operations.

What assessment has the Minister made of the reason for that decline? There was a substantial reduction in civil movements when the British Airways flying school moved, but there has also been a decline in military movements. Why is that?

It is quite simple. There is a general reduction in requirement for the type of operations that we have been carrying out at West Freugh. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing sinister about the reduction. It is merely a reflection of the way in which we do our business nowadays. Sadly, some areas of that business may contract as others may expand. There has been a contraction in the requirement for that type of work. When we are testing certain weapons, for example, eventually the weapon is accepted into service, and further testing is no longer needed, or only minimal testing is needed. The overall volume of work will contract over time.

The site will continue to be used for military exercises on a regular basis and will remain available for urgent operational requirements. Those activities will be supported using RAF or QinetiQ assets and manpower, including military air traffic controllers, who will be temporarily relocated to the site from other locations.

There have been rumours in the West Freugh area that the decision to cease full-time operations was taken as an expedient to avoid the projected maintenance costs of resurfacing the runway and replacing or upgrading other airfield facilities to meet current standards. That was not the case.

On the campaigning of the bombing range, I announced on 24 July that as part of QinetiQ's rationalisation proposals for the air sector of the test and evaluation ranges, the West Freugh range is to be reduced to operate on a campaign basis from April 2003. I made the announcement as soon as I came to a considered view on the QinetiQ proposals, which were put to me by officials. I fully accept that the timing of the announcement— falling on the last sitting day before the summer recess— was not ideal. In the circumstances, however, it was the right thing to do. Had I delayed an announcement until the House resumed, it would have needlessly prolonged the uncertainty of the West Freugh employees who were well aware that something was afoot. Alternatively, if I had made the announcement while the House was in recess, I could have been accused of discourtesy to the House.

The Minister will be aware that QinetiQ has actually stated that trade unions could not be consulted until after that ministerial announcement. Is he able to confirm that such a protocol exists, and prevented early notification to the unions? After the meeting with local councillors, three Labour councillors from Stranraer contacted me to ask whether there was any further news for them on the points that they raised. Is the MOD committed to any further financial support for West Freugh, if the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister of the Scottish Executive offer support, in whatever form that may come?

I shall reply to the essential point about jobs retained, and what we are trying to do, as part of my speech. Consultation is now the subject of an employment tribunal, and unfortunately I cannot, therefore, give any comment today, but I will keep hon. Members informed, as I will inform them of any progress in the matter.

The West Freugh range is primarily a bombing range that supports development and in-service trials of weapons systems and their platforms. It also supports short-range missile firings, gun and rocket firings, explosive tests and other weapons systems trials and service exercises. The projected work load on the West Freugh range is mainly in support of two Ministry of Defence programmes, the BL755 trial and the batch acceptance testing of the high-velocity missile.

We accept that work on the HVM programme may last until 2014, generating up to 50 days a year of range activity including work-up and clear-up tasks. The BL755 trials work requires a further 12.5 days of activity per year on the range, again including work-up and clean tasks. There is also potential for a small number of one-off trials tasks that may be suitable for campaigning. QinetiQ's planning is therefore proceeding on the basis of an average annual requirement of some 65 to 70 days of range utilisation per year.

We also expect the site to host about three military exercises per year. Those, while making use of the estate and several buildings on site, will not make use of the range infrastructure, and will require only a modest input from QinetiQ through the provision of health, safety and environmental oversight, together with some logistical assistance.

I am grateful for the Minister's indulgence in giving way to me again. He cites the figure of 65 to 70 days of operations on the site. He will appreciate the concerns about outside labour undertaking work on the site that was previously done by Wigtownshire staff, so can he confirm how the 70-day figure compares with the ongoing situation? To what degree is it part of a rundown, or is it just a small decline, but a significant change in the sourcing of staff?

I shall answer that question later in my speech, and the hon. Gentleman is welcome to ask it again if I do not answer it satisfactorily.

There is no question of QinetiQ running down operations at the site prior to submitting rationalisation proposals. Over the years, significant reductions have occurred in the work load at ranges that support the air programme, particularly at West Freugh. The same applies in Wales, where I have been faced with the same type of problem, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon, who is here today, knows—

Order. I think that the Minister means the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).

Thank you, Mr. Griffiths. I am glad to have a Welshman in the Chair to help me in my embarrassing lack of memory.

QinetiQ's proposals have been based on an extensive review of the facilities that it operates on behalf of the MOD. The review confirms that the MOD owns a large number of diverse sites and capabilities, but that substantial surplus exists in the testing and evaluation environment. The MOD still needs the West Freugh range for large-scale and specialist training exercises, but those activities can, and economically should, be supported on a more ad hoc basis than has been required in the past.

It would be easy for me to reply to an Adjournment debate such as this by saying that I shall do everything I can to bring as much MOD work as possible to the range under discussion. Much though I should like to be able to say that, I have to recognise that if I did, it would have the opposite, negative effect on other remote ranges. I am therefore caught between a rock and hard place. Requirements change, and who can say what the requirements will be 10 years down the road? Who can say, indeed, what the requirements would be if the Scottish National party were to win control of Scotland? I suspect that they would be considerably less than the 70 days that I have talked about. [Interruption.] I was being ironic.

We still need the range for our requirements, although at a reduced level. The decision to reduce the operation of the range to campaign status is expected to save £28 million in the first five years, with a reduction in annual running costs of some £5.9 million thereafter. Those figures compare with the significant financial loss that the range has been accruing over recent years. Last year, the full cost to QinetiQ of the range and the airfield was £7.4 million. The total value of charges recovered from customers was £2.1 million. Facilities therefore made a loss of some £5.3 million in a single year, and future income predictions showed that that position would continue to worsen, and would in fact be compounded by costs incurred through site and airfield maintenance programmes. The position was therefore unsustainable.

QinetiQ is conducting a consultation exercise to determine exactly how many full-time jobs will need to be retained at the site to support campaign operations. We expect the number to be about 10, but it could be as many as 15. We are having discussions about that.

We are sensitive to the local impact of calling in staff from other locations for campaigns. Therefore, QinetiQ is examining the possibility of issuing call-in contracts for local people to be employed as and when required. I am sorry to say that it is just not viable to retain more permanent staff at West Freugh, because there simply is not enough work to employ them all full-time.

Equally, as I have said, it is not viable to consider the wholesale relocation of additional capabilities to West Freugh. The transfer costs would be significant and would bear down on other ranges. In the end, the taxpayer would be the loser. It would also be wholly inappropriate when suitable trial facilities already exist elsewhere.

I assure hon. Members that the decisions affecting West Freugh have not been taken lightly, and that I have carefully considered what the MOD can do to minimise the impact on QinetiQ staff and on the region in general. Shortly after the announcement, I asked officials from Defence Estates and the Defence Diversification Agency to meet senior QinetiQ staff, local MPs, MSPs, trade unions, local councillors and Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise in an effort to identify the potential for exploiting alternative commercial activity at the site. As a result of the meeting, Defence Estates is examining the effects of campaigning the site on the possible alternatives for use of the property, and I expect to receive its findings shortly. In the meantime, the MOD is considering the detailed operational plot of the site to determine which property or land assets can be sold off for possible public use or diversification.

Does the Minister not concede the clear injustice of a two-tier redundancy package? Does not he also concede that the so-called downsizing is the latest rundown, effectively, of the total number of MOD and defence-related staff in Scotland under a UK Government?

There are constant changes in MOD staffing. For example, we are planning to relocate a regiment to Scotland under our plans for the Department's footprint. Job requirements change all the time. One thing that I can say with absolute certainty is that the number of MOD—inspired jobs in Scotland, including those associated with the 60 fast jets based in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, is considerably greater than it would be were the country ever to become independent.

Under the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—the MOD agency that preceded QinetiQ—significant investment was made in the hope of bringing other activities to the site. Several opportunities were pursued, including a high-speed rail test track, aviation explosives training and vehicle storing. Sadly, they all proved unsuccessful. DERA incentivised its support contract with Serco to encourage Serco to generate commercial income. Unfortunately, only a few tens of thousands of pounds per annum were ever raised. I appreciate that such sums may seem substantial in isolation, but they are only a small fraction of the cost of maintaining the site and are certainly not on the scale required to reinvigorate the area.

The staff who are being made redundant at West Freugh fall into two main groups: those who were brought into QinetiQ from DERA in July 2001 and staff more recently in-sourced from Serco as part of an overall programme to reduce QinetiQ's dependence on third parties for core activities. The issue causing concern to some is that the staff who joined QinetiQ from DERA will receive substantially better terms than the ex-Serco employees.

The terms and conditions of employment, including redundancy terms and conditions, of all site staff were transferred under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 arrangements. That said, a range of conditions and entitlements will result in differing redundancy payments, according to the previous employment history of the affected staff.

The redundancy payments that will accrue to staff in-sourced from Serco are, however, greater than those due to the much smaller number of QinetiQ employees who joined the company after vesting. QinetiQ is acutely aware of the sometimes significant differences in redundancy benefit that that gives rise to, despite the fact that most of the former Serco staff can expect to receive a redundancy payment significantly above the statutory requirement.

It is imperative that we view the rationalisation plans in the correct context. The testing and evaluation environment is badly in need of radical restructuring if we are to ensure that it meets the MOD's current and future requirements. Furthermore, the MOD cannot be seen to be profligate with taxpayers' money, and we are bound by the regulations that govern us. Having said that, I shall look with others at any possible means of alleviating what, sadly, has to be done in that area, including how we transfer land or buildings to another enterprise.

I hope that this important debate will raise awareness of the serious medical condition of Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy is named after Dr. Duchenne de Boulogne, who worked in Paris in the mid-19th century and was one of the first people to study muscular dystrophy. The problem is known to result from a gene defect in a single important fibre in muscle fibres called dystrophin. Without dystrophin to strengthen them, the muscle cells become weaker and eventually waste away.

DMD is the most common, most progressive and most deadly type of muscular dystrophy. It is an X chromosome-linked disease, and as such predominantly affects boys; worldwide, it affects one in 3,500 boys. DMD is usually diagnosed when a child reaches two to three years of age and has not reached developmental milestones such as standing and walking. As such children progress through childhood they are often prone to falls and are eventually unable to walk— they usually need a wheelchair by the age of 11. Through their teen years, such children will become progressively disabled as their muscles seriously weaken and waste away. In the final years of their life, 24-hour care will be required including night-time ventilation and feeding support. A young adult with DMD is unlikely to live beyond their 21st birthday, and death is usually caused by heart or lung failure as the muscles supporting the vital organs finally become so weak that they are unable to maintain life.

DMD is sometimes called an equal opportunity condition. Although many cases of DMD are hereditary, an increasing number of cases seem to be caused by spontaneous mutations. As such, the condition could cast its shadow over anybody of any background or nationality. In more than one sense, it is a case of genetic roulette.

I was first alerted to DMD earlier this year when two of my constituents, Nick Catlin and Janet Hoskin. approached me for help. Nick and Janet have a two-year-old son called Saul, and, without breaching any parliamentary rules, I can say that I know that they are taking a close interest in today's proceedings. Saul was diagnosed as having DMD at the unusually young age of five months following a routine blood test for liver function. Saul is Nick and Janet's first child, and I am sure that you will allow me to take this opportunity, Mr. Griffiths, to congratulate them on the birth of their second child, a girl called Amelia, who was born last week. I wish them all the best for the future.

Saul was Nick and Janet's first child, and receiving and accepting Saul's diagnosis was devastating for the family. Writing in February, Nick told me:

"There is a death sentence on the head of my son …A cure is not an impossible dream. We need more resources and facilities."

In the same letter, Janet added that they wanted the Government

"to fund research into Duchenne muscular dystrophy so that our sons are given the chance to live full and happy lives."

At present, Saul is a healthy, busy toddler more concerned with cars and diggers than health matters. It is very hard for anyone to believe that such a vibrant little boy will be condemned to such a short life in which he will never be able to fulfil his potential. The plight of their son and the intense desire to find a cure for the condition led Nick and Janet to form their own charity, Parent Project UK, in February 2002. One of the main spurs behind the establishment of PPUK was the passing of the Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research and Education Act through the United States Congress on 21 December 2001, which effectively ring-fenced millions of dollars for research into DMD. The main aims of PPUK are to raise awareness of DMD, to raise money for research and, like any good lobbying group, to put pressure on the Government to release funds to find a cure. At present, only a limited amount of Government money is earmarked for research into this specific area and scientists are forced to compete for funds with research into other serious illnesses.

Since the charity was founded, Nick, Janet and the other helpers of PPUK have worked long and hard to raise awareness of Duchenne muscular dystrophy and campaign for funding for new research. Nick and Janet were lucky enough to receive a start-up grant of £5,000 from the National Lottery and on Saturday 27 July this year members of the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers field support squadron took part in a relay organised by PPUK between Swansea and Cardiff. To date, that run has raised another £2,000. I am also pleased and delighted to say that PPUK has successfully bid for a grant of £48,950 from the community fund, which, over the coming year, will cover the cost of a project co-ordinator and the general running costs of the new charity.

As a relative newcomer on the scene, PPUK is following in the footsteps of two other charitable and lobbying organisations— the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and the Duchenne Family Support Group. The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign is a national charity focusing on all the muscular dystrophies and allied disorders. It has pioneered the search for treatments and cures for more than 40 years and aims to provide medical and emotional support for sufferers and their families.

The Duchenne Family Support Group is a national charity. It was founded in 1987 and is run by and for families affected by DMD. The group strives to bring families together for mutual support, sharing of information and social activities. In recent months, the three charities have pooled their resources to coordinate a nationwide campaign called "The Right to Survive". The campaign aims to increase funding for research into finding a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy to give sufferers the right to survive into adulthood. Those charities are requesting that money be dedicated to research into treatments for this disease. Children born now with Duchenne muscular dystrophy could have the chance of a longer life. The UN convention on the rights of the child was adopted by the United Kingdom in 1991 and states that the Government are committed to children's right to life and to survival and development. The right to survive campaign calls in that pledge to give boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy the right to survive into adulthood. The campaign has operated a three-pronged approach in its attempt to raise awareness. Earlier this year, on 20 May, I tabled early-day motion 1341, which has so far attracted 85 signatures from hon. Members of all parties in the House. I hope that as a result of this debate that figure will rise. The right to survive campaign has also been gaining pledges of support from the public. I shall be taking members of that campaign to No. 10 Downing street this afternoon to hand in petitions of support.

Tonight my hon.Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and I will host a briefing in Committee Room 11, at which Members of both Houses of Parliament will be given the opportunity to hear some of the experiences of DMD sufferers' families and to discuss the issues surrounding DMD with campaigns from all three charities. I urge Members of this and the other place to spare time this evening to come to the briefing, for however short a time, and to find out more about Duchenne muscular dystrophy first hand.

The other main aim of the campaign is to try to persuade the Government, the Medical Research Council or anyone else to release more funding for research into a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. At present, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign is the only voluntary organisation in the United Kingdom funding scientific research into potential cures and treatments for all types of muscular dystrophy and related disorders. The charity supports a programme of around 30 research projects in the UK and Europe with an investment of £1.5 million in 2002. Those projects are working to characterise the genes and proteins responsible for different types of muscular dystrophy as well as investigating techniques for potential treatments and cures. Results from the projects are shared among the international science community to ensure that knowledge about the range of initiatives under investigation is pooled effectively.

The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body and it receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. As such, it operates under the auspices of the Department for Trade and Industry. MRC spending on muscular dystrophy research for 2001–02 is estimated at £950,000, or 0.24 per cent. of its £394 million gross expenditure. That proportion has been consistent over the past six years. In addition, the Department of Health funds the NHS research and development budget.

At current levels, the voluntary sector funds a third more research than the Government. Charities rightly find that unacceptable, and they are calling for increased ring-fenced funding for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. What plans, if any, do the Government have in that regard? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that.

Any change in Government funding will require a shift in strategy from the MRC. There is currently limited funding for projects associated with so-called rare conditions, and grant applications for research into muscular dystrophy often receive the highest technical ranking from the MRC only to be turned down on funding grounds. As part of the ongoing campaign, PPUK, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and the Duchenne Family Support Group intend to meet the MRC to discuss ways of overcoming the funding issue and to prepare the ground for potential clinical trials in the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend may be aware that the MRC now has a strategy of denying money to alpha-rated projects of great international prominence in the fields of brain function, leukaemia and asthma. It recently adopted a policy of funding only massive projects involving five or six groups. The chances of its funding what it may see as small problems, such as muscular dystrophy, seem remoter than ever. There must be pressure on the MRC to examine its funding strategy for research into rarer and more prominent diseases.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that; he obviously speaks with great expertise and knowledge. He emphasises my point that it is vital for the MRC to reconsider its approach.

Another aspect of DMD that I want to mention is the method of genetic research employed. Dystrophin's role in the cell is not fully understood, and scientists are trying to determine it. One of its roles is thought to be structural, due to its position in the muscle cell membrane where it forms part of the dystrophin-glycoprotein complex, or DGC. It forms a link between the outside and the inside of the muscle membrane. Without it, the membrane becomes weak and breaks down, and the muscle cell dies.

The main body of research aims to pinpoint why dystrophin is absent in certain cases, and there are three main avenues of research: muscle cell transfer, gene therapy and more general pharmacological research. Muscle cell transfer utilises genetically modified self cells, and research using experimental models has shown that skin cells that are grown outside the body in a liquid medium that previously contained muscle cells may convert into muscle cells. Research is under way to find the factor responsible for that conversion— a reaction referred to as galectin 1— and to gain a better understanding of the type of cell that is capable of it. Should there be therapeutic potential, skin cells from a person with DMD could be removed and a correct version of the dystrophin gene could be inserted. The cells could then be grown and reintroduced into the person, where they would help to repopulate the muscle and form functional muscle tissue.

Gene therapy— or gene repair technology, to use the more technically accurate description— examines ways of repairing the gene in situ or outside the body and then putting the cells back. This new technology can use repair mechanisms that cells normally use to target and correct specific mutations. It does not involve introducing a new gene into cells, but repairs the existing, faulty gene. It may benefit 15 to 30 per cent. of individuals with DMD.

Both those types of research depend on stem cell research, and it is important that we applaud the Government's decision to continue it. It is a notable, if gloomy, irony that the United States has ring-fenced money for DMD research but at the same time called a moratorium on stem cell research, which may have the most potential for finding a cure. It would be a tragedy if progress towards a cure were held up due to lack of resolve in the US Administration when funds were available, which is why it is important that funding be available in the United Kingdom for stem cell research.

Pharmacological approaches to DMD treatment could bring a more traditional range of approaches to alleviating some of the symptoms, if not to finding an eventual cure. Perhaps a combination of the three approaches might be the answer.

Every hon. Member is likely to have a child like Saul in their constituency. Every one of us bears a responsibility to do all in our power to find a cure for this dreadful disease. I hope that the Government will confirm that they support research for such so—called rare diseases, and will ensure that public policy supports the medical research most likely to produce a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) on securing this important debate, which I welcome. No one could fail to be moved by the plight of children who suffer from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I note the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who are at his side.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West mentioned Nick and Janet Catlin's charity, Parent Project UK. In preparing for the debate, I looked at the charity's website www.ppuk.org and read with great interest and humility about the plight of their son, Saul, and their work to raise awareness of the disease. There was a muscular dystrophy awareness week at the end of September, which I hope was successful in making the public more aware of these distressing diseases. I realise how serious the issue is for families whose children have the genetic defect that causes DMD. I admire Mark and Zoe Thein's effort to raise awareness of DMD by walking to Parliament from Peterborough.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there is a meeting on the subject later today in the House. I am sad to say that my commitments mean that I cannot attend, but my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), will attend to hear more about the condition first hand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West asked about some of the initiatives under way to help patients with this awful condition. They range from initiatives to look into the cause of the disease, through to the Department's providing much-needed assistance to those who suffer the condition so that they can maintain as good a quality of life as possible.

As my hon. Friend explained, DMD is an inherited, severe and progressive muscle—wasting disease that is estimated to affect around one in every 3,500 boys each year. It is caused by a genetic defect characterised by progressive weakness and degeneration of the skeletal or voluntary muscles that control movement. Most boys with the disease will be in a wheelchair by the age of 10.

Tragically, there is currently no effective cure or treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I therefore understand why the families of children with DMD call for a greater research effort to be applied. The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body that receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. However, it is a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments that they do not prescribe the detail of how individual research councils should distribute their resources between competing priorities. Researchers and research users should best decide that. I will, however, make sure that, through the offices of the chief medical officer, a copy of the report of the debate is placed before the Medical Research Council. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend seeks to discuss the condition further.

The Government are committed to investing in genetic research. In 2001–02, the MRC will spend about £2 million on research into Duchenne muscular dystrophy. That is higher than the figure that we gave in April. The MRC is now funding five projects on various aspects of DMD, and I can provide details of them separately if my hon. Friend wishes. Other research projects are being carried out on muscular dystrophy, and on basic underpinning work that could apply to all forms of the disease.

The MRC does not usually earmark funds for particular topics: proposals for research in all areas compete for the available funding. When appropriate, high-quality research in the areas that we are prompting may be given priority in the competition for funds, but research excellence and importance to health will continue to be the primary considerations in funding decisions. In addition, although prevalence of a particular condition is an important factor, the MRC's funding decisions are based largely on scientific opportunity and the likelihood of significant development.

The report from the chief medical officer's expert group, published in 2000, is entitled "Stem cell research: medical progress with responsibility". It recognises that early research on stem cells is exciting and that it provides a real hope of new treatments becoming available in a few years for people with chronic diseases. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments in that regard.

The Government welcome the publication of the report of the House of Lords Health Committee on stem cell research, which endorsed the importance of research using embryonic stem cells. That report also upheld the Government's position that research using cell nuclear replacement—herapeutic cloning—is justified under the existing strict controls operated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

In January, the Secretary of State announced plans for the first national network of genetic knowledge parks. The aim is to put Britain at the leading edge of advances in genetic technology, which could transform treatments and services for NHS patients. We are investing £10 million in the genetics knowledge challenge fund, and the Department of Trade and Industry will contribute a further £5 million. There will be six genetics knowledge parks and two new national genetics reference laboratories. The genetics revolution is already under way. It is changing the world in which we live; it holds out the potential for new drugs and therapies, for new means of preventing ill health and for new ways of treating illness.

In time, we should be able to assess an individual's risk of developing not only single-gene disorders such as DMD and cystic fibrosis, but our country's biggest killer diseases—cancer and coronary heart disease—as well as other diseases such as diabetes which limit people's lives.

The potential of genetic research is immense. Although genetics will never lead to a disease-free existence, greater understanding of genetics is one of our best allies in the war against disease. Advances in genetics will lead to a greater understanding of the causes of genetic defects and possible treatments to resolve them. I know that there are exciting developments in America and elsewhere using mice, and these advances have given hope to the parents of boys with DMD. We must recognise that genetic interventions are probably still some years away, although with the amount of research currently being funded worldwide, it is impossible to predict where and when breakthroughs will come. In the meantime, we must try to ensure that those children who suffer from the disease are supported and cared for by the health service to the best of its ability.

An important recent development in the management of long-term conditions has been the recognition that people who live with illnesses such as DMD have considerable knowledge of their condition. That means that NHS health care services need to be reorientated to ensure a more equal partnership between patients and health and social care professionals.

The 1999 document "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", a public health strategy White Paper, proposed a programme to provide NHS-based training in techniques of self—management, allowing people with chronic conditions to develop skills in partnership with their health and social care professionals to manage their condition from day to day. An expert task force with representatives from voluntary, professional and clinical organisations, health service users and carers was established. Its recommendations for an NHS expert patients programme formed the basis of the report "The Expert Patient: A New Approach to Chronic Disease Management for the 21st Century", published in September 2001. Where appropriate, it will also promote partnership between users, carers and care professionals in the development and delivery of training. It will feature a mix of generic and disease-specific training and be piloted between 2002 and 2004 in each primary care trust in England. We expect that it will become integral to the mainstream NHS health care provision between 2004 and 2007.

DMD does not only affect the patient; it has a major impact on the whole family. I do not underestimate the role played by carers and the difficulties that they face in trying to maintain a normal family life. During the past few years, our national carers strategy has achieved much in improving carers' access to breaks, information and support. The Government are increasing the amount of money put aside specifically to support carers in England through the carers grant. In 2002–03, the grant is worth £85 million. By 2005–06, it will more than double to £185 million. The increase in the carers grant will ensure that 130,000 more carers benefit from short-term breaks and the extended care that enables them to continue to care.

The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 came into force in April 2001. The Act strengthens the rights of carers to an assessment of their needs. It gives local councils more powers directly to support carers by making direct payments to them. It makes provision for carers' services through the carers grant, as well as for flexible breaks through the short-term break voucher scheme, which will be implemented later this year.

During the past decade, the Department of Health has also provided support to the umbrella charity, the Genetic Interest Group, a national alliance of organisations that support children, families and individuals affected by genetic disorders, of which the Duchenne Family Support Group is a member.

In February 2001, the Secretary of State for Health announced the development of a national service framework for long-term conditions. The NSF will focus particularly on the needs of people with neurological conditions and brain and spinal injury. However, the NSF must also tackle some of the generic issues affecting a wide range of people with long-term conditions, and their families and carers. We hope that work to establish standards for neurological conditions will provide patterns of service provision that have wider application and will benefit people with non-neurological conditions.

I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with me that the Government are sympathetic to the needs of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The initiatives that I described, such as the important research work that is being done, the expert patients programme, the carers' strategy and the national service framework, will help make life better for patients with DMD, and for their families and carers.

Mr. Griffiths, I hope that you will indulge me for a minute or two while I reminisce about my student days. As I prepared for this debate, I cast my mind back to the halcyon days at Aberdeen university when, as LLB undergraduates, we spent our time drinking coffee, putting the world to rights and occasionally speculating why we felt it was necessary or appropriate to study law. There were various reasons why we did so: some of my colleagues wanted to spend their days working in a family firm, while others felt it would be good to go into commercial practice and make a lot of money. Still others had their sights set for the stars and wanted to be High Court judges, sheriffs principal or something along those lines. I do not remember anyone saying that they were spending all that time studying delict contract, commercial contract, revenue law or criminal law so that they could become commissioners of the northern lighthouses. Likewise, I do not recall any of the many people who have carved out careers in local government in the fair cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness or even Argyll and Bute—where I was born and brought up—saying that their aim was to become a member of the northern lighthouse board.

In 2002, it is curious and anachronistic that we should constitute the general lighthouse authorities as we do. As I observed the manner in which the consultation on the proposed closure of the Stromness lighthouse depot took place, the words "curious" and "anachronistic" sprang to mind. In passing, I observe that there may be a case for examining the way in which we constitute those authorities, to bring them into the 19th or maybe even the 20th century, which would give them a springboard to join the rest of us in the 21st. I am not a supporter of change for change's sake, but the current set-up allows general lighthouse authorities to inhabit their own little dusty corner of the monolith of bureaucracy without the bright light of public accountability shining in on them. My personal feeling is that the jury is out on the constitution of general lighthouse authorities. I judge them on my own terms, and I hope that they and the Minister judge me in the same terms. I am not overly impressed by the way in which they have dealt with the concerns of my constituents or with their ability to engage with local communities over the closure of the Stromness base.

I have dealt with the lighthouse board on one other matter since I was elected—the withdrawal of attendants from several lighthouses. Having made local inquiries and taken advice from professional seafarers, I felt that the move was reasonable and justifiable and I decided not to go to the barricades to oppose it.

The consultation process for the proposed closure of the Stromness depot started on 28 August—at least, that is when it became a formal consultation process. A letter was sent to employees of the board and, on 30 August, a copy was sent to me with a covering letter similar to that sent to the employees. In the letter, the board advances three reasons for the closure, which seem to comprise the lighthouse board's case. There is no subsequent amplification of why it considers it necessary to close the depot.

We were first told that the Department for Transport had indicated that three general lighthouse authorities could justify the need for only one support facility each. We were told:

"This message was relayed to all 3 General Lighthouse Authorities in July, although even before that time we were looking closely at ways in which to rationalise our support structures."

The Minister has had sight of that letter-I have supplied him with copies. The letter also says:

"In order to realise fully the £4.2m investment made at Oban in 2001/2002, we should acknowledge the fact that the Board's base at Oban can now cope with all existing and planned work and likely spare capacity for commercial buoy work.…Internal Maintenance and Health and Safety Inspections have taken place and both have confirmed the need to invest heavily in NLB Stromness to ensure that it is safe, fit-for-purpose, and matches the workplace standards now achieved at NLB Oban."

I shall deal briefly with those points in turn, and then with the Department for Transport. Let us consider the money spent on Oban. That is undeniable, and I do not begrudge the Oban depot a penny. It sounds like it has been well spent. However, my constituents who were employed by NLB raised their concerns at the time. NLB management told them that the spending should not be considered a threat to the Stromness depot. Now that the management have turned round and cited the spending as justification for the closure, hon. Members can see why that leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

As for money that was to be spent on health and safety improvements and internal maintenance, I understand from subsequent correspondence that the board intends to retain ownership of the base, to retain a small staff— two technicians— and possibly to lease the pier or other facilities. I assume that at least some money would have to be spent in any event, so I am not sure why that is an argument for the site's closure. However, we are left in the dark because the NLB will not put information in the public domain.

I pursued the first point in the letter—the Department for Transport's role— with the chief executive of the NLB. By 20 September, the position appeared to have changed because he told me:

"Separate and individual circumstances have arisen in both England and Ireland where Trinity House and the Commissioners of Irish Lights have both come to the conclusion that a single base for each might be a way to achieve service improvements in the future … The Department for Transport has supported the aspiration of there being a single site for each Authority, but has not put any obligation or timescale on the Lighthouse Authorities to achieve it."

There might be a way in which a person who is cleverer than I could reconcile the two statements as mutually compatible, but I cannot understand how that can be the case. [Interruption.] The Minister says that that person is he, but I shall be interested to find out. Perhaps he sets himself up for a fall, but that is his choice.

Can the Minister tell me the stage at which the Department for Transport gave such an indication to the northern lighthouse board, and why it was given? That is an important question. What did the indication consist of, and what was the basis on which the assessment was reached? There is a clear implication in the first letter that it was done at the insistence of the Department for Transport, but that was later refuted.

I asked the northern lighthouse board the same question when the process began, although it has not yet properly answered me. It is not satisfactory that the chief executive of the board said in July that the plan had been considered by the board for some time when, in fact, on 20 March, he wrote to me, saying:

"The Board is not considering any job cuts at Stromness Depot."

The only answer that I have been able to get out of him came in a letter at the end of last week, when he wrote:

"The first date when the Commissioners formally considered withdrawal from the base at Stromness as an option was in August this year."

That did not answer my question. I knew that that was the first date on which board members had formally considered withdrawal, but I wanted to know when they had started planning it. If that was before they wrote to me in March, why did they tell me that they had no plans to make redundancies at the depot?

I apologise if I am labouring the issue, but I hope that hon. Members understand that we in the northern isles are not currently inclined to take on trust much that the board tells us.

The Minister will be aware that he has many powers. Section 194 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 gives him the power to ask the board for

"all such returns, explanations or information in relation to the lighthouses, buoys or beacons within their area and their management"

as he requires.On 16 September, I first sought the disclosure of information on the performance of the Stromness depot and on the board's reasons for wanting to close it. The chief executive has so far failed to provide that information and he has not even been able to give an indication of whether he intends to. When I ask a public body for information, I am generally naive enough to expect it to be provided. Since June last year, I have become accustomed to sometimes being told that there are good reasons why information will not be made available, but I have never become accustomed to being ignored in the way that I have been in this case. As Mr. Spock of the Starship Enterprise might have said, "It's public accountability, Jim, but not as we know it."

Will the Minister use the powers that Parliament has given him to bring the necessary information into the public domain? Is he content with the manner in which the board has conducted the consultation? Would he be content for officials in his Department—I give it credit for consulting often and comprehensively on a number of issues—to conduct a consultation in the same way? Would he be content for them to treat the Stromness community and local employees in the same way? Is it fair for the NLB to leave my constituents and their employees to second—guess the reasons for closure and to make the case for retention?

I have further concerns about the board's conduct. The local council in Orkney requested information so that it could compile an economic impact assessment. The chief' executive told it:

"The Northern Lighthouse Board advises on the appropriateness of the questions submitted to ensure that the information you request provides you with the fullest possible picture."

It sounds like the board is saying that it will answer questions only if they are the ones that it wants asked. That does not sound like an especially accountable or transparent way of doing business.

The other point that concerns me and many other people in Orkney is the length of the consultation. The chief executive consistently refers to a three-month consultation period. I may be a bit old-fashioned about these things, but I would never consider a consultation that starts on 30 August and concludes on 15 November to be three months long; at most, it will last for 11 weeks. I recently asked the chief executive to extend the consultation period because so many questions remained outstanding. He told me that he would not accede to the request because— this is the supreme irony— it would increase uncertainty among the employees of NLB Stromness. His concern is touching, if belated. A wee bit of uncertainty would be much appreciated by those employees, because they see the decision as a certainty. They see it as a done deal, cut and dried. They think that the board has decided to close the depot and the consultation is simply academic. I hope that that is not the case, but very little that I have seen of how the board has conducted itself would make me conclude otherwise.

Anyone who looks at a map can see the usefulness of a depot in Stromness. If the northern lighthouse board is to service lighthouses and buoys all the way down the east coast, in the northern isles, up to Shetland and down to the Isle of Man, it should maintain a facility there. This is not a question of some great contest between Oban and Stromness, as there is a good case for keeping both open. I want to know why the NLB think that it is necessary to close even one of them.

There is the possibility of bringing in extra commercial work that is compatible with the NLB functions in Stromness. Has that been explored? The NLB has what amounts to a commercial manager, but I understand that he has not brought in much work, although it is early days. If the board has been looking seriously at how to find extra work for such a facility, it should surely have considered the European marine energy test centre that is being established near Stromness, but I understand that there has been no consultation with any of the people involved. The base at Stromness has a high quality work force, who have many good ideas for improving the efficiency and operation of the depot. Have they ever been consulted? I do not know whether they have been now, but when I spoke to them on Friday morning, they had not.

Many people have noted, as I did, that although the basis for any change is supposed to be cost savings, no figures have ever been put in the public domain. We can see many ways in which it might end up costing more, but until we hear the board's case, we cannot judge that.

There is a feeling in the wider community that people in Orkney have been loyal to the NLB for many years. We are a seafaring and island community that appreciates the need for maritime safety. We know the pain caused to people when they lose a member of their family or friend at sea, especially as bodies are often not recovered. That is why we value the work of the NLB and others. The relationship is long and strong, but if the NLB has decided that it is to end that and turn its back on Orkney, we are at least entitled to an explanation as to why.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate. As always, he spoke powerfully on behalf of his constituents. He started by talking rather endearingly about his student days, which he said were spent drinking coffee and putting the world to rights. That may not have qualified him to become a member of the northern lighthouse board, but it certainly qualified him to become a Liberal Democrat MP. I appreciate his concerns, and I will attempt to answer at least some of his points. If I do not manage to answer them all, I will do so outside the scope of the sitting.

I should also like to say that I was delighted to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He had invited me in a previous debate, and I managed to visit the Shetland isles this summer with my son. It was a very pleasant experience, and I was delighted to enjoy the hospitality of the hon. Gentleman and many others.

The hon. Gentleman's concerns result from the decision by the commissioners of the NLB in August to conduct a consultation exercise on the possible closure of the board's facility in Stromness in Orkney. I should make it clear that the depot's future is primarily for the NLB commissioners to decide. My Department will need to be consulted about the financial implications for the board, as it is accountable for the general lighthouse fund. The hon. Gentleman asked about the consultation process. We expect any consultation to be full and fair; it should provide those consulted with the maximum amount of information so that they can take part properly in that consultation. We also expect that the views expressed, including those of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, will be fully considered. I do not know whether he has already done so, but I suggest that he seek a meeting with the chief executive. I understand that the chief executive may have written to him inviting him to a meeting and if that is so, I suggest that it take place.

My first letter to the chief executive stated that I was keen to meet him. I thought that it would be useful if he could provide me with information first. I have not received any information so there has not been a meeting yet.

I hope that in the light of the debate a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the chief executive of the NLB will take place at an early opportunity. It may be a proper place for the hon. Gentleman to talk about some of the matters that concern him. If he then wants to explore them further with me, I shall be happy to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about the Department's role in the matter, and I hope that I can clarify it for him. He may not yet have received my answer today to his written question about our advice to lighthouse authorities on the maintenance of their depots. The reply states:

"The Department discussed the overall requirements for aids to navigation support facilities with the lighthouse authorities in July. The Department has not given the authorities any specific advice on depot maintenance."

The original letter, dated 30 August, may have been slightly at variance with the advice that we gave. After the meeting, it was our view that possibly three depots would be appropriate for the United Kingdom, but not necessarily one for each of the areas. There may have been some misunderstanding of what we meant. We felt that three strategically placed depots might be sufficient to provide the coverage required.

The changes that have taken place in the use of lighthouses have substantially reduced the need for mainland support over the years, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. All three of the general lighthouse authorities are reviewing their support structures and all three recognise that they have spare capacity. All three authorities recognise the need to reduce overheads and their supporting structures so that they are more closely related to the statutory requirements. A useful side effect is likely to be that they will then be in a better position to compete for commercial work, especially the maintenance of aids to navigation that are the responsibility of other organisations. Success in that respect will further reduce costs to the authorities.

The GLAs have a good record of reducing operating costs. They are funded by the general lighthouse fund, which draws its income from the levy on light dues on commercial and fishing vessels using UK and Republic of Ireland ports. My Department is accountable for the fund and responsible for setting the light dues tariff. Rates rose rapidly during the time of automation in the 1990s, but the last increase was in 1993 and rates were reduced in 1997 and 2002. We have been able to fund major changes—new ships and improvements to depots—within the reduced rates. Even so, some shipping lines are paying more due to the increasing trade as more or bigger ships use our ports. Trinity House, the GLA for England, Wales and the Channel Islands, is also undertaking a depot review.

The northern lighthouse board, which is the GLA for the waters surrounding Scotland and the Isle of Man now operates from three locations: its headquarters in Edinburgh, and depots in Oban and Stromness, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. One depot —at Granton in Edinburgh—has already been closed. The Oban depot was almost 100 years old, and was not considered to be fit for purpose. The board considered that that site had the greatest development potential for a more efficient buoy-servicing facility, combined with the best access to support services— buoy storage potential, and helicopter handling capabilities.

The board therefore developed a detailed business case for updating the Oban depot. That case formed the basis for discussion with the officials in my Department who manage the general lighthouse fund. We were satisfied that a good case had been made for that investment, and, over the last three years, £4 million has been spent on creating that new facility, which was opened last year.

We understand that the commissioners now believe that the new depot at Oban has the capability to meet all of the board's requirements. The commissioners are therefore reviewing the future of their other depot facility at Stromness, because that depot, if it were to continue in its current use, is likely to require significant expenditure to update it to meet modern standards of health and safety. That expenditure might be difficult to justify if the facility was no longer required to meet the statutory obligations of the commissioners.

I know that the Minister will not be able to respond to this question at the moment, but perhaps he could do so in writing. When in consultation with the Department over the £4 million to be spent on Oban, did the lighthouse board give any indication of its intentions with regard to Stromness?

:It is my understanding— if I am incorrect, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman— that that indication was given after the July meeting. The indication came from the board itself, not from the Department. Our indication was that there needed to be a rationalisation, and that, possibly, three strategically placed depots might be appropriate. However, the northern lighthouse board came up with the proposal for Stromness.

The commissioners are currently consulting staff and the local community about the future use of the facility. That consultation is neither an exercise nor a procedural formality. It is about achieving the widest possible input of facts and understanding the feelings of those affected by the final decision. I should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman and from his constituents if they feel that that has not been the case. I should be interested to know how any improvements might have been made to that procedure, if needed.

I understand that the board's review should be completed within the next few weeks. The commissioners are expected to consider the conclusions at their meeting on 9 December. I also understand that the commissioners are very aware of the socio-economic impact that any decision on the future of the depot could have on the local community, and that that is being taken into consideration along with the business case. To that end, I understand that the northern lighthouse board is providing information to the Orkney Islands council, which is undertaking a socio-economic review, the results of which will be shared with the northern lighthouse board.

The United Kingdom has a marine navigation aid service of the highest quality. Sailors over many centuries have travelled in greater safety thanks to the lighthouse keepers, and to those who work in the depots and on board the ships that support the aids to navigation.

The three GLAs are facing change so as to meet the challenge of maintaining new types of aids to navigation. The way ahead is still under development, but in broad terms the authorities envisage a reduction in the requirement for traditional aids, and a greater

reliance on satellite navigation and new aids such as automatic identification systems. I know that the GLAs are concerned about the welfare of staff, and that they will deal with the management of change in a sensitive manner. They wish to reduce the period of worry and uncertainty to the absolute minimum. I am sure that that will be of some consolation to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. My officials will keep in close touch with the northern lighthouse board, and with the other lighthouse authorities about the strategic decisions on the future of support facilities and related matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will keep him, and the House, informed as those matters are taken forward.

This has been a short but helpful debate. As always, the hon. Gentleman has raised matters that are very pertinent to his constituency, and if he feels that any matter has not been considered properly in the debate, I will be happy to write to him. I urge him to seek a meeting with the chief executive, so that some of the issues that he has raised can be ironed out.